I'd like to think he was stoned..
.. when he did that interview. As proof positive that overuse of pot causes paranoia.
9/11 conspiracy theorists will be delighted to learn that they've gained some poptastic backing from Corrs guitar-botherer Jim Corr, who's declared that there's "overwhelming evidence" the Twin Towers attack was perpetrated by "rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration". His comments came during an interview with Today …
Only noticed Andrea, Sharon and Caroline... ;-p
Seems that James Ignatius Stephen Corr MBE, known as Jim, is the band’s guitarist. He was born on July 31, 1964 making him the oldest member of the group. Besides playing guitar, keyboard and accordion, Jim holds a license to fly helicopters. Jim has one son from a relationship with the former Miss Northern Ireland, Gayle Williamson (or so she told him anyway).
Mines the one with "Talk On Corners" on the back
I hope he can take time to look into the 22/5 incident, when Al Queda brought terror to the heart of Exeter. Could that have been a joint MI6-CIA plot authorised at the highest level? I demand an inquiry. Pregferably one that takes several years and costs many millions but doesn't really decide anything.
Look forward to the health IT contract for that!
Just because JC is an Irish singer doesn't make him wrong about 9/11 (or 11/9 as I prefer to think of it) though. Less well known is that the Oklahoma bombing (chief stooge, T.McVeigh) was an inside job too - you can't focus the blast from a truck bomb, which would have done relatively little structural damage on its own.
I was confused there. How could there be so many comments, and not one "Truther" in the mix? But at last we got one.
It's clear to me that the medical fraternity is failing a large number of people. There are so many therapies for psychotic paranoia these days, that it's disgraceful that we still have so many Truthers. Come on, WHO, get your act together!
you are joking that he's got an MBE, right?
come on, really, you are joking me, aren't you?
no really, he's in the corrs and he's got an MBE and has another 'blame our government not old psycho fuckwit bin laden'' conspiracy theory...
is he also one that believes the titanic was switched as the last moment?
no, come on, he's in the corrs and he's got A FUCKING MBE????
One US conspiracy theorist said that the US invasion of Iran was imminent. This was about 6 months ago - still hasn't happened. Try listening to Alex Jones on shortwave radio. According to him the US government is planning to wipe out 2/3 of the american population, they are going to rescind the right to bear arms (no bad thing, in my view) and the CIA planted explosives to bring down the Twin Towers (of couse they did, but it's amazing how several tons of burning aviation fuel didn't pre-detonate it).
He is about as nutty as the "Jesus is coming" freaks.
1) Sections of the US intelligence agency already had plenty of information to see an attack coming.
2) Temperatures jet fuel burned at should not have been enough to melt the superstructure
3) The superstructure was cleared away VERY quickly and nobody apart from intelligence services have gotten hold of the debris
4) Getting al Qaida meant going into afghanistan, which was undertaken with FAR too few troops and little support. Iraq was led on from there with far too many troops and lots of support (some troops coming out of Afghanistan, causing the taliban to get back off their knees and make trouble again)
1 is either incompetence or deliberate, neither of which are warranted or wanted in a secret organisation operating on behalf but outside government
2 is either incompetence on the engineering company or the story is incomplete, neither are wanted here either
3 could be protecting the incompetent in #2 or to hid whatever is hidden, neither good
4 is incompetence or taking advantage of the tragedy, again, neither good.
11/9 has a lot of CAPABILITY to be a cover up and there's plenty of evidence of *something* being covered up. It isn't necessarily a conspiracy, except in the way of stopping those people responsible for complete and malignant incompetency from reaching their just desserts. Then again, that's no good either.
PS: decades of attacks by the irish in the UK. US: let's pay the boys back in the auld country. one pissant attack in the US and "international terrorism in the US will not be tolerated". Thanks, you arrogant fucks. At least you had the honesty to say that it's only terrorism against the US that is unacceptable.
"tip-toe totalitarianism in the West"
Baaahahahaha, tip-toe? I guess all those stage monitors make you a bit... deaf over time. It's rather a stampede. All in the name of something even more bogus than the red scare and the concerns of McCarthyism. At least those Evil Russians at some point had nukes for sure. Fear is the ultimate weapon.
@ The new journalism:
Yeah, building seven... it boggles the mind, doesn't it? Watching those countless docu-tainments about planned demolitions on other steel buildings doesn't help either. Hmmm, WTCs folding neatly in place, now where did we see this before...
Wouldn't it be more unbelievable if nobody had ever tried to get their thieving little mits on it, by Oh lets say supplying a restricted commodity such as weapons to a government that would need a really good reason to justify paying loads of money for such a comodity.
Strange that no one has ever been cought trying to do something like that isn't it? Almost seems like a conspiracy that no one should ever have tried.
Although some sort of plan to invade Cuba from back in the day that the present American administration where making such plans rather then implementing them was released to the public as a result of the thirty year rule....... something about staging attacks on an American army base to provide the public support needed for an invasion or something.... I suppose it would be ridiculous to speculate that when given the opportunity they might try and do something like that, after all they where only making detailed plans about how to carry it out.
Silly to think that really.
"the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union", and the treaty will bring "a scientific technocracy to Europe which will erode national sovereignty".
A truly scientific technocracy? Really? No room for Gordon, George, Tony or any of the current politicos with their populist, superstitious nonsense?
Mine's the lab-coat with "SAVE CHEMISTRY!" written on the back in permanent ink.
Right or wrong, stoned or not
Why the hell
1) Do media personalitys think they know what the hell they are talking about
2) Do the same fuckwits then feel the need to tell us?
3) Do the various news agencys then give them credence by reporting on this shit
Its depressing that their views are even given the time of day, since the only people allowed to talk out loud with no knowledge of the subject in question is our corrupt government.
Any "Pop" star who opens his/her mouth to give any political/religious views should be shot, sparing our stupid gullable youth the pain of having to rethink thier world view when the "star" in question gets a new partner/releases a shit song/gets arrested for kiddy worrying
They arrest people for reading the "wrong books" yet allow tossers to lecture us?
We need a civil war asap!!
Mines the coat with the scaffold and noose in the pocket
You forgot the "builders" who were carrying out structural works on the towers prior to 9/11.
Yet no one has ever said what they were doing and why it took months and was on the top floors only.
Or why the whole thing came down in a controlled manner, similar to blocks of flats being demolished.
And the CCTV footage of the plane / missile that hit the pentagon, the one the size of a car and flying ten feet off the ground over the car park.
The list goes on and on, but the media reports what it's told to report and we believe what they say.
Being paranoid means you have a much more exciting life. Instead of being a boring git that no one wants to sleep with, you are incredibly important and insightful You understand how things REALLY work, and Who really runs the world.. Of course, wearing tin foil caps to stop Their satellites from controlling with your brain is uncomfortable, but so it goes. Every word in the Illuminatus trilogy is true of course. You know They just pretend it's a joke to fool us.
There is a newspaper distributed in Washington, DC, called something like "The Rock Creek Independent". When I notice it the upper right of the first page usually seems to be given to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The first I saw weighing in was Willie Nelson. The second was a popular entertainer also.
Washingtonian readers: this is at the McPherson Square Metro entrance by the Veterans Adminstration building.
I mean geez! A little respect here. They spend months in a dirty cave, planning something terrible, and then everyone goes around just saying it was Jews, or the CIA, or Bush himself flying the planes.
I mean really, how far to these jerks have to go before someone pays them a bit of credit for being the evil morons they are?
And to all you 9/11 "truthers" out there: LEARN SOME PHYSICS!
You guys are the most credulous bunch of true believers out there. I bet you even practice homeopathy.
"1) Sections of the US intelligence agency already had plenty of information to see an attack coming."
never ascribe to conspricy what can be explaned by incompance
"2) Temperatures jet fuel burned at should not have been enough to melt the superstructure"
yes but at burring jet fule temps steel loses 90% of it's strenght it dose not need ot melt just bend a lot
"3) The superstructure was cleared away VERY quickly and nobody apart from intelligence services have gotten hold of the debrie" complete fiction about the speed and I beleve there where sevral investagitions
"4) Getting al Qaida meant going into afghanistan, which was undertaken with FAR too few troops and little support. Iraq was led on from there with far too many troops and lots of support (some troops coming out of Afghanistan, causing the taliban to get back off their knees and make trouble again)"
see my comment form point 1 with the added fact of a son trying to finish his farthers war
"11/9 has a lot of CAPABILITY to be a cover up and there's plenty of evidence of *something* being covered up. It isn't necessarily a conspiracy, except in the way of stopping those people responsible for complete and malignant incompetency from reaching their just desserts. Then again, that's no good either."
the only thing being covered up is the reasioning behing the actions AFTER 11/9
...a deadly and insidious one concocted by crackpot theorists who work together behind the scenes to disseminate hearsay, specious logic and half-baked evidence they saw on TV and label it as fact. They will overthrow our rational thought with overwhelming evidence that they have never seen but they know exists because a Professor of Brainology from the (highly accredited) University of Some-very-small-town told them so on a documentary hosted by a highly credible actor who once played a superintelligent scientist on a sci-fi show in the 70s. I for one welcome our mighty new Irratonal and Extremely Suggestible Overlords.
...had some pretty smart-arse comments to make about Adolph Hitlers intentions and those `Concentration Camps` that the `Tin-Foil Hat` donners had been burbling on about for months leading up to them being rounded up themselves and gassed. Everyone for themselves, just make up your mind which side you are on - feel free to make as many ignorant, naive, ad-hominem `tin hat` type comments as you like, you people clearly lack the intelligence, ability and inclination to ever consider `evidence` for yourselves in a rational way, or to go to more than ONE or two media outlets for your information. I bet you watch things like Star Trek and Lost too, you poor childlike creatures, suckling on your governments vaccuous words. No wonder 419 scams work so well on so many people, if most people are as gullible as the likes of you (Stuart Van Onselen, Richard, Alyn, et al) - Best of luck to you all. I'm sure you will be rewarded for your unquestioning loyalty to these zealots who care nothing for you or your family.
@Gerard Krupa: You missed "meaningless analogies", see AC@14:15
By the way, AC, I used my real name here. Where is yours, chickenshit? Oh yes, I am a shill for the American govt, so I can use my own name with impunity, whereas you, great knower of The Truth, are a Threat to the Powers That Be, and must hide lest they find you.
Just a pity I've never in my life even visited the US. And the cheques Uncle Sam sends me to shill for him are pure rubber...
You made a lot of utterly baseless assumptions about the actions and motivations of those who dare to use logic, physics, and common sense w.r.t. the 9/11 tragedy.
Our assumptions about your paranoia and credulity are based on the evidence of your own words.
You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake.
Get over it.
..why have we not had full disclosure from the US government?
Whilst there will always be plenty of ignorant "bury my head in the sand" types that will believe anything their government tell them, the more intellegent among us will always question the validity of government claims that are either ludicrus (finding Mohmmed Atta's passport at ground zero) or at best questionable (the amazing vanishing plane that hit the Pentagon completely out of sight of all the Media cameras that were trained on the building at the time).
If it all happened just like the goverment said it did, give us the evidence and put an end to all the endless conspiarcy theories.
I have to stop typing now, aliens are invading my bedroom.
"never ascribe to conspricy what can be explaned by incompance"
And this is good HOW?
Do we allow government to be incompetent and just let them continue to BE incompetent? As I said (maybe you weren't reading, just copy n paste) NEITHER a conspiracy nor incompetence (sic) are wanted or desired.
And we haven't heard the government SAY they were incompetent. So there's at least a conspiracy to cover up incompetence.
"yes but at burring jet fule temps steel loses 90% of it's strenght it dose not need ot melt just bend a lot"
the engineers designed the building to
a) withstand such melting
b) withstand bending elements
so the building failed its' design goals. Which begs the question: why aren't the original designers allowed to find out what went wrong before designing another resilient building based on faulty design knowledge? Even if it IS legitimate and not a conspiracy, this gives plenty of scope for making a conspiracy.
And how can you tell when there IS a conspiracy (or do you maintain there's NEVER a conspiracy [in which case you'd better talk to the AGW deniers]) if every time someone discovers it, it's pooh pooh'd?
And we all know what happens when you pooh pooh pooh pooh, don't we?
I'm looking forward to a regular series of articles from Jim, including:
* Moon landings? All a hoax
* Elvis? Living on the moon
* Alien abductions and how to avoid them
* Dominate the stock market with astrology
* Evolution? Just a theory
* Goat sacrifice? It works, bitches
Jim Corr: pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge.
The MBE's are plastic ones, as they are not from round here...
"The Corrs’ philanthropy did not go unnoticed by Queen Elizabeth II. Each member of the band was made an Honorary Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), in recognition of their charity fundraising. It just goes to show that people really can make a difference."
Though I think the girls got them for being easy on the eye....
Paris, cos she is easy...
...similar to blocks of flats being demolished."
Amazing that no one noticed the pre-tensioned cables that were there to make it collapse inwards. Take a lot of drilling and stretching across rooms, they do. I've seen the demolitions programs.
Your views are stupid and pernicious.
"you people clearly lack the intelligence, ability and inclination to ever consider `evidence` for yourselves in a rational way"
I have and it seems that most of the "evidence" is just "ignorance" with spooky background music.
It's like people who say the moon landings were fake because there aren't any stars in the background; it's only suspicious if you don't know how a camera works.
Appeals to ignorance are not evidence.
I find it highly interesting that so many of us will happily suggest their/some government killed 3k people so a bunch of Northrop (etc.) shareholders—which happen to form major parts of said government—can rake in the dough by the truckload and while doing so, in order to cover up, install a new world order that disposes unwanted elements to gitmo; some thinking this to be more believable than that some radicals with carpet knives not only demolished more buildings than they had planes (look at building 7, everything else might come down to "bad luck", but building 7...?), but also managed to pull a complete Copperfield on a third plane. The first thing defines a level of ruthlessness simply beyond what people WANT to believe to exist, while the other is just a little bit too dodgy to be fully convincing. Combined though, the whole thing ends up with regular people detained for "reading the wrong books", thousands of soldiers and countless civilians dead or maimed, billions in tax down the pockets of few.
Tin foil conspiracy or not, ever since, things are going _wrong_ on a level that is off the scale, and it is getting worse each and every day. I wish people would be more serious about that instead of accusing each other of either blindness or paranoia. Say what you will about the futility of democracy: this is about freedom, and we're running low on it. I fear that at some point, the masses will notice, beyond the well-off frequent travellers annoyed with border control these days (ie mostly the folks rambling here). Someone will take the chance to use the momentum of that situation. I would rather be elsewhere then.
Quoth from Scientific American. Hardly a shill for the USA.
<quote>One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing. </quote>
Regarding the tracking of pieces of the superstructure? Most of it was sold as scrap or memorials. One example of which can be found here in Oklahoma.
Regarding the building of such structures in the future... Mostly it just isn't done that way anymore in the US. Companies are beyond the "build it tall" to impress people, they've migrated to a more artsy "campus" style of impressing their clients, their competition, and the plebes.
Please refer to the article referenced above wherein people with degrees in the necessary fields to interpret the data correctly, do so and refute your wacktardedness.
I am sad for your friends.
I wish he'd shut up and keep playing guitar with his sisters. Musos should never try to jump out of the box. He is showing an incredible level of political ingnorance re the Lisbon treaty. Ireland will get so much business from this it could slam our economy back up to the top. As you 9/11 i wouldnt be surpised but its not his place to speculate. Maybe hes been watching the lone gunmen or something. But ahh i dunno. I wouldnt mind his job though cracking burds. Europe will rule the 21st century by much more effective means then smart weapons and space blasters. That can only be a good thing. a unified world is the best way forward for humanity to grow. Borders and soverienty (cant spell it) create much of the problems in our world today. they are just lines on a map. Its all a pile of old pants. bring onthe NWO but minus the far right neocon control freaks.
If he had read the Treay info he would relaise that it will in effect effect SFA of Ireland right to decide its own future. We have one of the most truely democratic socieities in the 1st world. That why we are having the refferendum.
Re sting your guitars Jim dont give up the day job.
He has an MBE and hes boggin on about Irish Sovereignty some nationalist.
Thaking the queens shillin and all that 800 years. i remember.... I ws there you know 1916 i remember. MBE my arse. though so do Bob bono and a few others,,, I want shane mcgown to get one. Can you image the Queens face.
Are the Bushies behind all these conspiracy theories? They certainly divert attention away from the reality which is that Duh-bya ignored warnings from his anti-terror plods- just as he ignored warnings about New Orleans from his weather boffins.
George and his farrago of fiascos. Must bring his father to tears.
I'll get the original design statements (they were a big part of the marketing blurb when the WTC was built. People asked at the time "what if a plane flies into it by accident?" and they stated then that it could survive a Jumbo crashing and exploding into it because of it's revolutionary new design.
That was when the WTC was being built.
That link was written after to explain the tragedy and show that this was really quiet hot.
The design of the building as a concrete skirt meant that the iron skeleton wasn't structurally *necessary*, though its loss would mean that the buildings were then vulnerable.
Belt and braces. But if your braces break, it's now just standard belt.
The US government has killed umpty thousand (4?) US citizens in Iraq.
They also didn't kill (even if it was a conspiracy), they just didn't save them. Why?
Well any of
a) ends justify the means
b) we'll get the people out (the important ones)
c) WE aren't killing them
d) acceptable casualties in the WoT (Our London Met Police Chief said this!!!)
e) self delusion
f) anything else
and if it was incompetence, how is that any better? We still have the same incompetence in positions of power. And that cost 3000 american lives. Are we willing to risk some more?
Right. Steel hawsers survived heat that apparently melted properly strengthened steel girders much thicker...
The ones who cry "conspiracy" may be wrong, but those crying about the conspiracy theorists are just as blinkered. You daren't even CONSIDER they may be right, 'cos you might have to DO something about it.
You may be right.
They may be right.
Both may be wrong.
Denying by knee-jerk isn't going to find the truth, though.
Except he is right! Amazing that a pothead can see things clearer than most.
Hani Hanjour could not fly even a Cessna 172 (1 proppeller, 2 seats, it would fit in your driveway) and yet the US government says he flew a 80 ton 757 into the Pentagon? Not only that but from 8,000 feet to 2,200 feet doing a 330 degree spiral decent then from 2,200 feet to ground through a massive pressure wave in a perfect flight path.
Not bad flying except that Hani couldn't fly! These 2 quotes are from the owner of the flight school Hani attended:
"a complete waste of time", "he could not fly at all".
These 2 quotes are from the certified flight instructors who checked him out when he tried to rent a Cessna 172 a month before 9/11:
"had trouble controlling the plane", "could not keep it level".
Those are all about Hani's lack of ability in a little Cessna that 10-12 year olds have successfully flown!
How about Commander Kolstad? He could fly a Cessna in his sleep. Top Gun navy pilot, adversary instructor at the top guy school, 23,000 hours as a pilot, 6,000 hours pilot in a 757/767. Cmdr Kolstad says he personally would have a hard time doing the maneuver at the Pentagon.
Do some reading folks and you will see it isn't just artists who have questions. Try patriotsquestion911.org for starters and ae911truth.org
>>> so the building failed its' design goals
This is true. At least you got something right in your idiotic rant Mark. The architects and structural engineers did not design the twin towers to survive the consequences of thousands of tons of aviation fuel catching fire in the top floors of the building. To be fair, they didn't design the buildings to withstand a thermonuclear explosion either. Or a Vogon starcruiser landing on top of them.
is the reaction you get from deniers when you put forward a conspiracy theory or as I like to call it in 9/11's case a conspiracy FACT!
It's almost like you've called their mother a slut.
Seriously if the serial deniers pulled their head out of the sand long enough to actually see what is going on around them they would most likely quickly put it back in again and say la la la I'm not listening.
WTC 1&2 hit by planes and collapse ok possible despite most of the fuel going up in a large fireball upon impact. But then we have WTC7 not hit by any plane that comes down symmetrical in pretty much its own footprint.
No NO NO I'm the nut really don't listen to me you continue believing what makes you comfortable but don't blame the tin foilers when you wake up in a world you don't recognise.
Mark, you really have no understanding of science or engineering, don't you?
>>>> they stated then that it could survive a Jumbo crashing and exploding into it because of it's revolutionary new design.
I doubt any professional engineer/architect would ever give an unqualified statement that a building could survive an explosion without knowing more about the nature of the explosion: what sort of explosive, how much, where it was detonated, etc, etc. Of course a clueless PR or marketing fuckwit (as if there was any other kind of this pond life) would say that sort of thing. Fortunately they don't get to design buildings or do anything that really matters.
FYI, the force and kinetic energy of a big plane hitting a skyscraper is nothing compared to the force exerted on them by the wind. Think about it. You've probably experienced the force of a light wind on an umbrella. Now imagine how much force would be exerted by a strong wind on the surface area of a skyscraper which would be of the order of thousands of square metres. Each tower barely moved when it was hit by a couple of hundreds of tons of aeroplane going at 500mph. BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED TO COPE WITH MUCH GREATER STRUCTURAL LOADS THAN THAT. If the towers hadn't been designed to handle that load/force, they would have fallen over in the same way as you would if someone pushed you.
>>>> The design of the building as a concrete skirt meant that the iron skeleton wasn't structurally *necessary*, though its loss would mean that the buildings were then vulnerable.
This is profoundly stupid and has no basis in fact. Concrete is not a viable material for tall office buildings or apartment blocks. A tower block using concrete for its structural strength would need to have walls many metres thick. Iron's not suitable either, it's too brittle. The only way to construct large buildings is to use a steel structure and then use something like glass or brick for exterior cladding. This cladding carries no structural load. The weight of the building and the things inside it are carried by the steel frame. Which also explains why the steel goes up before anything else when the buildings are constructed.
Oh and the WTC did not have a "concrete skirt". It had a steel frame that had glass panels and concrete cladding. As you can see by studying photos of the towers when they were being constructed. Unless of course there's been a global conspiracy to doctor these in all of the world's picture libraries since the towers collapsed.
I have just given up.
A says it might be a plot.
B says but we have disproven rockets.
(pulled rockets out of ass.)
A says building 7 should not have collapsed.
B says the insulation fell off of the towers when the plane hit.
(got the wrong building.)
A says look at this evidence.
B says the guy writing for (fill in your magazine) gives us a really dumb-sh*t opinion and every ditto head out there believes.
We should have attacked Iceland.
It would have made a hell of a lot more sense,.
F*ck oil; we could have had ice cubes for our drinks.
Yes, there is a large force exerted on skyscrapers by the wind. However, it is spread over the entire side of the building, which is (rough calculation, probably underestimate) on the order of 40,000 square meters. A plane would impact perhaps 100 square meters. It's the pressure that matters, not overall force. Compare slapping a balloon with your hand to pricking it with a pin. Much more force in the former, but far less effect.
I find it curious that we regularly criticize governments for being too incompetent to tie their own shoelaces, yet believe in a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people that has gone on for many years without a single leak. If the towers were rigged with cables and explosives, how come there was no evidence found in the wreckage, and why have none of the survivors sand anything about it?
Actually, not bad at physics. Never did engineering.
If you doubt, please check your calculations for the impulse imparted by a 30knot wind against the tower and a 737 collapsing into it at 500mph (taking about its full length to stop).
You're right about the skirt (JonB's tackle would migrate if he'd said that...) but that's because the info I had remembered was from when the towers were BUILT. They were a new and unique (at the time) design which is why I bothered reading about it at all.
How long ago was that? 20 years?
Have a look here:
Doesn't seem to think there was any funny business going on, but then the shite you and the others have said (melting steel/bending by the impact) is equal shite.
Are you willing to say mea culpa? And then having found you yourself are fallible and do not know what you think you do, go and THINK about not kneejerking your way to denying any possiblity of conspiracy?
Or is that too adult for you?
It may be that if there WERE issues that the funny business that DID go on was a conspiracy then
a) the US government warred on their own people. GWB supporters can't have that.
b) the taliban were no worse than the US in their actions. *American's can't have that
c) invading other countries was wrong (how many still believe Saddam had something to do with 11/9?)
d) they now have to take arms against the US government (rather than have the poorest put far away to take up arms against distant governments)
They can't afford (morally or emotionally) to find out anything that may point to US culpability (however slight) in the deaths in 11/9. So they must attack the ideas that tell of inconsistencies. "Conspiracy!" is the simplest.
Humans. How dumb you are...
* as a nation. Individuals are often OK, it's just when you get them in a group the one fuckwit seems to have replicated...
WTC7 was "pulled" by the owner as the advice of NYFD chief. That was a controled demolition. I have been in those buildings many times for many hours and i can tell you on the top floor on a windy day you could feel the sway. Staff got used to it. A bit like a big ferry on a swell. If you lay down at the corner of the building on the sidewalk and looked up you could see it move sometimes.
There is simply no way anyone could have engineered a demolition without many people noticing. Over 50,000 people were in those building on average per day not to mention the ground floor and subway stations there is no way people could have done the work needed to make it happen. A plane hit it simple as that. Sure there were many coincidences but that's life. If you look for things you will find them. I think it was simply an inept and careless admin that failed to LISTEN to the warnings.
Mark get some books on engineering and or physics. Learn a bit about kinetics and some chemistry also. Research the actual facts not bile and crap from headbangers like Alex Jones and his ilk.
Like the lunar landing, If the people who dont belive it just read a bit about Optics, astronomy, telemetery and basic maths they might understand why the "facts" presented by the conspiracy hawkers are spurious and to be honest pure shite. The guts of 100,000 people worked on Apollo some of whom ive met and worked with. I have also know Soviet cosmonauts who have told me for sure the americans were there. But these people wont listen to reason or fact.
It's like god, You can never prove he doesnt exist. So an atheist can never win an argument with a person of faith. See babel fish info. this underinformed over opinionated conspiracy seekers and just the same. Get some factual information first.
Also jet fuel mixed with oxygen and oxides, plus other gases burning off buns at a crazy rate. Dip a brillo pad in some petrol and light it see what happens.
Do you have a job Mark or any mates?
OK here we go
A quick whirlwind tour of 9/11
We'll start with the pentagon
A 757 hit the pentagon... How do I know this?
because it flew over a friends office building while they were watching TV coverage from New York, it then dropped down and disappeared only to be followed by a huge ass black firey cloud coming up.
And besides a piece of one of the engines along with undercarridge was found 60 feet inside the building (as seen on the loose change vid)
Moving onto WTC
The steel did not melt from a 800C jet fuel fire in fact I doubt if the fire got over 1100C even in the hottest areas
However when you heat steel to 800C it loses 75% of its tensile strength, ok lets see what that means for WTC
Imagine a steel floor beam, it has a tensile strength of 50 tons, by the building and contents its loaded to 25 tons.. well within the safety margin
Heat this steel to 800C and its tensile strength drops to 12.5 tons... oops we've now got twice the load it can cope with, couple that with the design of the building itself and when the aircraft crash into it they cut the exterior supports and some of the internal supports...
The surprise is'nt that the buildings came down, its that they stayed up for nearly 60 and 90 minutes with that amount of damage
Next the controlled demolition theory .
each wall of the WTC had something like 90 columns, the interior support had something like 120 columns, in order to cut these you need 2 charges per column in order to cut each one so that at a bare minimum is 800-1000 charges that also need to go off in sequence after the plane has hit the building.
Are you saying no one in the building noticed the concrete cladding knocked of each column and the suspicious wires coming from them?
and the whole lot installed in both towers over the previous weekend when they had a security exercise?
And then not only that they survived the planes inpact intact and the wires/ remnents were not found in the debris?
And finally the number of people need for the conspiracy to work
the guys in charge
the guys who fired a missile at the pentagon
the guys who diverted , then got rid of the passangers and crew of the plane that hit the pentagon.
the guys who laid the demolition charges in WTC1, 2 and 7
The guys who rigged the remote control for the 2 aircraft that hit the WTC
The number of people in the NTSC/CIA/FBI/ NY police who covered it up
And then finally the fact that if any 1 of them blew the whistle, he'd get immunity , millions of dollars and most of the rest would goto the electric chair.........
Problem here: I've never said there was a controlled explosion.
ALL I've said is that there are a LOT of stupid odd and crazy things hppening that have no rational explanation from official sources. This opens up both the opportunity for false conspiracy theories and the valid suspicion there IS a conspiracy.
Some lies are promulgated by the idiocy of your government "it melted" forgetting max temps of jet fuel burning is less than 360C and treated steel doesn't melt until 1500C beyond that (IIRC). So the melting idea is DEFINITELY wrong. Structural steel != reinforcing rods.
The rubble was taken away VERY quickly. WTC7 was taken down despite it not being damaged much at all and taken down VERY quickly.
Experts told to find out why this building lost so many lives were told not to look into why the building collapsed but why the escape routes didn't work.
Pilots who are PROFESSIONAL have said they would have had to be a bit lucky to manage to make the hit. The instructor of the putative bomber said he was a crap pilot and would have trouble hitting the ground.
Despite heat sufficient to melt treated steel, the passport of one of the bombers was found. This may be just a lie, but why the feck lie?
7/7 had security team trials cancelled a couple of days before they were supposed to start (on 7/7)
The footage of one of the putative bombers had one frame with his hood hiding his face and a wet ground, next frame hood opened so you can see his face but the ground dry and then the next frame passing so you can't see his face and the ground is wet again. This may be just a lie again (we aren't lying, we're enhancing the truth!) because they didn't have footage from that day where they can tell his face, so they took some footage where he was wearing the same stuff and you can see his face. A lie they can justify because of the ends.
And when it comes to conspiracy, the german government had death camps burning jews and other unwelcomes just a few miles outside towns. The townspeople didn't know. Not because the camp and the actions were hidden well but because these people didn't WANT to know.
The whole thing has a lot of strange shit going on with at least a big cover up on why they did things this way. We can SEE the cover up (irreconcilable statements, odd actions, missing evidence, etc) but we can't see WHAT is covered (incompetent, malicious, serendipity seeking). And denying these by yelling "Batshit conspiracy nut" when someone points out there are oddities is clear evidence that you don't want to know if there's something else to know there.
That's not rational.
PS Boris, 60 minutes between the crash and the collapse. No need for precise timing. What you've done is make up a strawman conspiracy so you can deny ANY conspiracy without even reading or thinking. Make up a really STUPID theory and make up that this is what anyone is saying when "there's something odd being covered up here" is a strawman plain and simple.
"the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union", and the treaty will bring "a scientific technocracy to Europe which will erode national sovereignty".
Straight out of William Gibson, hardly original.
It's not often I get to rattle my conspiracy sabre at 9/11 these days - thanks Reg!
A bunch of blokes like you and I fly a few light aircraft, play Microsoft Flight-Simulator and are able to pull a stunning 90-degree turn at high speed into a building with that experience.
On that basis I should be able, with the driving lessons I've had (not managed to pass a test yet) and a few goes on a formula one racing simulator be able to get an F1 car around a track in record speed. I doubt I could even pull away let alone get to 30mph.
There was already an attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993 that everyone forgets. Especially when it comes to politicians saying that they could never have imagined a group trying to destroy the WTC! They already did you morons.
Nobody would kill 3,000 people. Any ideas on how many would die if there was no oil available? Erm, I mean will die when.
Besides that, whoever did plan it would only have to be told that there would be an effective evacuation or that the planes would never reach the target and it would just create the necessary panic. After it happened nobody involved (who hadn't died or disappeared) is going to own up to it. Maybe they did plan for no fatalities - all but one or two people? Maybe it was a rogue member of the team in Dr Strangelove style?
They said they found a burnt passport in the wreckage for fuck's sake. I saw it on the news. Surely that should get the alarm bells ringing. They 'found' it within hours! What the fuck was that all about?
Anyone with half a brain can tell that something's not right when that happens. Surely it's obvious there was prior knowledge or an existing plan to pin the blame where it needed to be pinned. That in itself is evidence enough of a cosnpiracy isn't it?
I'll repeat again - someone claimed to have found one of the attacker's passports in the rubble within hours of the planes hitting.
Just to pull a random quote from above the comment box:
> And finally the number of people need for the conspiracy to work
Apparently a dozen students can pull it off.
> the guys in charge
They aren't going to own up to it.
> the guys who fired a missile at the pentagon
They might not be alive now. They aren't going to own up if they are. They wouldn't have done it if they didn't believe it was for the "greater good". (Consider how many men were ordered to walk to their deaths across no man's land in WWI. Perhaps it was necessary to destroy the evidence of what they'd done?
> the guys who diverted , then got rid of the passangers and crew of the plane that hit the pentagon.
Just insert some fake records into the systems and fly the planes from elsewhere. Fuck it, just fly the plane in with all the people on it. Or use a cruise missile and tell everyone it was a plane. Much easier for the fragile human mind to believe.
> the guys who laid the demolition charges in WTC1, 2 and 7
I'm guessing these weren't from an average demo-firm. Think black-ops. Think about whether they're still alive or whether there was actually any need for charges?
> The guys who rigged the remote control for the 2 aircraft that hit the WTC
Who says they knew what they were doing at the time. Who says they know now. Not that you have to tell them anything, but it's just as easy a year or two before to tell them they were rigging up target practice for some experimental missile in the desert. Get a couple of teams far apart to do it on two sets of planes and let them both think it was theirs that were destroyed in the test while the other set sits in a hanger somewhere.
> The number of people in the NTSC/CIA/FBI/ NY police who covered it up
I think the idea is to fool those lot in the first place. You can't cover up something that you don't think happened. Again, apparently it only takes a dozen students to do it.
> And then finally the fact that if any 1 of them blew the whistle, he'd get immunity , millions of dollars and most of the rest would goto the electric chair........."
Firstly, the likes of you would call the crack-pots. Secondly, I know if I was doing something like this I'd destroy all the evidence as I went along for the very reasons you've cited - everyone involved would donchafink? Thirdly, the whistleblower would get the covert electric chair - all the others involved would make sure of it.
Come on folks, pull your heads out of your arses. Just because you can't imagine doing something doesn't mean someone else can't and won't and just because someone does something it doesn't mean what they did was what they thought they did.
Well obviously it doesn't take 1000 charges to bring down WTC 1, 2 or 7 for that matter. As according to the offical pile of crock all it takes is 2 planes flying into corners of two building to bring down all 3 buildings. As for the fuel heating the steel to 800c that is pretty amazing seeing as most of it flew out of the building in a gigantic fireball. Also you are using the maximum temperature that the fuel could reach what you are missing is the fact it requires some work to maintain that temperature for any length of time.
So the reality of the situation is plane crashed into building you had a fireball that hit 800c or so that then quick drops in temperature as their is no continued source of airplane fuel. This is confirmed by the fact the people were able to to stand next to the damage without bursting into flames.
As for the number of people required to carry out the conspiracy well I doubt it's as many as you think.
"And then finally the fact that if any 1 of them blew the whistle, he'd get immunity , millions of dollars and most of the rest would goto the electric chair."
That's a joke someone is going to trust their goverment to protect them from something they know high up elements in the government organised. If one did come out they wouldn't be around very long and I'm pretty sure they'd work their way through their family tree too.
So you keep up giving away your freedom for a lie oh and don't forget that CO2 is bad for the enviroment too those damn plants use it to turn into oxygen don't you know.
* The Times has proved that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
were a forgery in the 1920s, but the 9/11 troofers will have none
* The synarchy conspiracy theory was invented by Pétain's Vichy
State in 1941 as an excuse to clamp down on Freemasonry and
similar societies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synarchism for
some background) but is still popular today with Larouchites...
we can reasonably surmise that 9/11 conspiracy theory
will still be around by 2070. Although it will be totally discredited by
then, there will always be enough fools to believe in it and keep it
alive. Just like the Church of Scientology or the Raelians.
Given that these people are guaranteed freedom of speech as citizens
of a republic or subjects of a constitutional monarchy, it is better to let
them talk as much as they like but pay no attention. Do you really care
for the opinions of a singer/guitarist/actor/writer/film director ?
And why am I writing all this anyway ?
Y'know, it's VERY plausible that 9/11 was a conspiracy the the VERY evil, amoral members of that administration.
COULD they do something that evil? Yes, not a doubt in my mind. They've killed thousands aside from 9/11 ... the true story of the Bush Administration is going to be classified top secret for years.
I have read the conspiracy theories about how it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Prior to that, everything else I was reading - hell, it's all quite plausible! However, when the missile hit the Pentagon it hit it, not on remote military base so they have 100% control of the "story" - it hit along the 495 beltway in front of thousands of witnesses.
So am I to believe that the government then co-opted all those thousands of people and paid them off to say, no it was really an American Airlines jet?
Actually I WOULD believe the current super-corrupt and morally-bankrupt administration would do this. However, I know one of those witnesses - since childhood. She never was likely to lie before and since seeing that horrific accident she's not only been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but (and this is a sad risk of living in the US culture, but hey whatever floats yer boat) she also became one of those holy roller born again christians.
This woman would go back into a store to give a dime back to a cashier if she found after getting out to her car that she got too much change. Ok, maybe I am exaggerating - but to see me this whole bill of goods that 9/11 was faked with the Pentagon hit by a missile... it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe. Simply IMPOSSIBLE!
Where the Bush cabal went full well off the rails and showed its true colors were in two forms: telling this HUGE LIE to the American poeple that Al Qaida was connected to Iraq so we could send troops in. A member of the Bush family got back into office and found a way to do daddy's unfinished business. Doesn't matter that thousands of young American (and yes Iraqi) men have been unnecessarily killed or maimed. That's indication number one of their moral bankruptcy.
Indication number to that FIRMLY cemented my opinion was the lack-of-response from FEMA in the days after Katrina. I don't care that Condoleeza (or whatever it's spelled - just O-R-E-O for short will do fine thanks) Rice is the token black in that aministration, when a disaster like that hits poor whites and a heavily black population - nothing really happens in response. Had a tornado hit Crawford Texas, Houston taking a Katrina-sized hit or Kennebunkport having ANY kind of problem - man, you bet your ASS there will be federal aid all over that.
9/11 is not the big lie. It's the big pile of stinking lies AFTER 9/11.
TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN IS TO ORDAIN BUSH FOR A 3RD TERM!
You see this is the kind of nonsense that allows the lack of a math model to be ignored.
Please please go find out how much a plane weighs and how much fuel a plane contains.
So say you had 20 tons of aviation fuel, which burns at quite a low temperature. (this is paraffin). (757-222 carries 50,000 litres on takeoff = 40 tons)
by the time it made it to the trade centre, this is going to be more like 30 tons.
(much used on takeoff).
Girders of the type used in bridge construction (0.14M square) and building construction are about 7.5 tons per metre.
Steel melts at 1400 degrees celsius. Aviation fuel burning in a non-optimal environment will burn at 800 degrees celsius perhaps. But for how long.
I'd expect most of the fuel would have burnt in the explosion (remember the explosion as the plane hit).
So where is the energy that caused the building to fall down.
Now I can point you to a physics paper proving there is not enough energy in the system for this to be plausible. But why not go find it yourself.
Basically the math just doesn't add up. The dust pattern, white hot steel and so on just doesn't add up. The building probably had thermite lining the girders.
(and a vast amount of it). Note: the fuel burning couldn't set off thermite either. It requires something like Magnesium burning at 2200 degreesC to set off.
Also, the first 3 sky scapers to fall down from fire fell down on 911. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
This includes a skyscraper that was hit by a fully fuelled B17 bomber just after WW2. A few floors went on fire, and that was that.
This had 8000 litres of aviation fuel (about 7 tons).
Here's something to try at home. Get a butane torch with 500ml butane container as used by many DIYers for home plumbing. The butane burns at 1300 degreesC far far higher than paraffin, but not enough to melt steel.
Now spend 30 minutes heating a 6mm thick steel bolt. You'll empty the canister while you're doing it. You can try the same with a paraffin lamp if you want to. (this is much lower temperature).
Think about the quantities of material involved. Now revisit the assertion that 30 tons of paraffin melted not one but many girders. Does not compute.
And interceptors didn't intercept *any* of the seized planes, despite this having been a working system in place for many years. Again, doesn't compute.
It is amazing to me that the ignorant say things like "they wouldn't kill their own people". Please read about the start of the Spanish American war where US agents blew up their own ship killing 40 in order to start the war, and get the public on side, so that Spanish territory could be annexed and money made.
This is regarded as a lesson in "how to do it" in hawk circles in the US, and they frequently use this tactic. No-one even during the war suspected that Hitler had actually burnt down the Reichstag, but after the war, documents proved that this had in fact happened. By doing this, Hitler was able to justify emergency powers politically, and suspend the Reichstag.
A tour of history books will uncover this gambit over and over again.
GWB said prior to 911 "we need a new pearl harbour", and after it, he said "this is our new pearl harbour".
Interesting since the Neocon "Project For A New American Century" published prior to GWB becoming president uses exactly this term.
try walking around new york and finding a building using a map.
Not *that* easy. There's a lot of buildings.
Try a flight sim, and try putting the plane into some feature on the landscape.
Again not easy.
Then couple this with the slightly complex controls of your average airliner.
The 911 terrorists must have been supermen.
Someone claimed this was done at 500mph? Really?
Personally, if trying to line up with a static target, i'd put the flaps down, and throttle up (or putting the flaps down would cause such drag that you'd stall and drop out of the sky).
You'd be lucky to be doing 200mph at impact.
Did anyone measure it from the video?
Michael, maybe the conspiracy with 11/9 is merely that the company with contacts in government cut corners and didn't create a building as strong as they said they did.
Covering up by removing the evidence ("hey, I thought you said you put fire retardant on this", "Shouldn't there be a treated steel grommet here, not mild steel?" et al). And you know what, THAT'S STILL A FUCKING CONSPIRACY!!!!
It doesn't have to mean that it was taken down by government planted explosives.
The information recieved about the putative attack may have gotten to the chief of defence who, despite having been told "this is solid evidence and I think we can stop it" said "bollocks. they'll never do that, it would be stupid!!" and then, when proven wrong, hides the few people who know it was him. "After all he didn't ARRANGE the attack and if we bring him down, we may not be able to get the bastards that did this". Guess what? STILL A CONSPIRACY.
But, with your help, the government can keep themselves and their friends safe from the consequences because you automatically assume that conspiracy == nutjob.
And when we find out more (if you get out the fucking way), maybe we'll find that there was a letter that said "if we let this go ahead, we can do ...". It isn't impossible. It is unlikely. Then again, how likely was it to have a plane flown into a skyscraper untill we found proof (the video of planes doing exactly that).
Until the oddities in the scenario we CAN see have been cleared up, we don't have a sensible explanation of what went on. And so if all we have are non-sensical ones, why not go hog wild and pick ones that are extreme?
The details need to be known because we don't have any sensible story.
"I have read the conspiracy theories about how it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Prior to that, everything else I was reading - hell, it's all quite plausible! However, when the missile hit the Pentagon it hit it, not on remote military base so they have 100% control of the "story" - it hit along the 495 beltway in front of thousands of witnesses.
So am I to believe that the government then co-opted all those thousands of people and paid them off to say, no it was really an American Airlines jet?"
I've read ones that said their were no planes however there is such a thing as disinformation which is most likely released by those wanting to hide the truth. As in doing so you can create a situation where a perfect logical theory is swamped with crazy conspiracy theories thus leading the general herd to bundle them all into the same category.
I believe it was a plane that hit the pentagon just not the plane we were led to believe. As for the 1000's of witnesses well that sounding like a strawman argument. Where is your source for that as I've looked at this for a long time and all i've seen are a few people. The majority of these people stated nothing more that they saw a plane of various descriptions. The vids released clearly show no large plane which again kind of rules out the offical story and what about the rest of the vids, sorry they are not for public consumption!!!
Y'know, all those complaining about conspiracy theories believe that a small group of very recent terrorists based in Iraq^WAfghanistan successfully conspired to setal several jetliners and plough them into buildings, possibly killing tens of thousands.
You complain that our government doesn't have entities that are that venal, corrupt or evil enough to desire the death of thousands of civilians just to gain power. But you believe that the governments of small pissant little countries trying desperately to get back to the middle ages is completely rife with such people.
They are human too.
As Sting once sang, "Russians love their children too".
So if you believe that a country would kill thousands just to get more power, why does it HAVE to be someone not in power over you?
If we have a good explanation and some proof to back it up, we could discount some scenarios. I would prefer to be able to prove GWB's or his cronies innocent of charges. Life becomes simpler then. Then again, we may find them guilty of endangering, skimming or just plain institutional ignorance, all of which could have seen the government go down in the outrage at the aftermath of 11/9, which is a damn good reason to sit on anything that could show this up.
however, both sides seem to have credible experts. The fact is that it could have been an inside job, it could have been a third party or it could have been Al Qaeda. I wouldn't dismiss anyone as an idiot for having any of those beliefs.
When I look at it in the context of the Bush administration and their actions since 11/9 it does start to sound plausible if not likely. I found the way that they identified the hijackers as just a ridiculous lie. (they found a passport underneath one of the towers, below burning wreckage of the aircraft). It seems clear that the government who should have still been trying to work out what was going on had made their minds up who was going to take the wrap for this, within an hour of the first plane hitting.
I also find it difficult to swallow that the billion dollar air defence network that protects US airspace wasn't working that day because they'd been sent off on a training exercise. Why was nobody ever roasted for letting this happen?
For me it boils down to Dubya and Cheney and whether I think that they're capable of lying, and taking innocent lives to further their own agendas.Well they certainly had no issues doing this when it came to Iraq and more than enough US troops have died in Iraq to show that they don't even have much regard for the lives of their own countrymen.
There's more than enough motive there as the US economy is being raped to pay Haliburton for their "logistical support" services in war zones. A few poeple are getting very rich out of all this, and I don't doubt for a second that Dubya is one of them.
I don't see anything to support all this New World Order claptrap though. But the best way to discredit a conspiracy theory is to link it to nutjobs like David Icke.
Overall I'd say that the evidence for an inside job is compelling enough to at least make it a possibility for anyone with an open mind.
"Concrete is not a viable material for tall office buildings ...The only way to construct large buildings is to use a steel structure."
The Petronas Towers are a reinforced concrete structure - not a steel frame. I believe they are quite tall. If you want to know about how tough reinforced concrete can be, investigate the Berlin Flak Towers constructed during WWII.
"Come on folks, pull your heads out of your arses."
I really hate the attitude of "Truthers". It's not possible that anybody could have looked at what you think passes for evidence and found it wanting. It's not possible that we could listen to your theories and conclude they're a load of cobblers. No, the only way to disagree with you is if we're being willfully ignorant. Sounds suspiciously like religious fundamentalists and their view of the bible.
There is no way on earth that the CD hypothesis is viable.
Keep in mind that if you're believing the crap pimped in Loose Change, or by Alex Jones, you're buying into theories promoted by people who hold no degrees, who have no engineering experience, and no architectural experience. The creator of Loose Change and Alex Jones are also both devout Christians, which means they already have a gift for believing in and proselytizing for evidence-free arguments.
Paris, because nutters make her sad.
"Y'know, all those complaining about conspiracy theories believe that a small group of very recent terrorists based in Iraq/Afghanistan successfully conspired to setal several jetliners and plough them into buildings, possibly killing tens of thousands."
And what's irksome to me about "Truthers" is their inability to draw a distinction between the two scenarios. You disingenuously argue that somehow this terror plot is equally as implausible as the "Truther" hypothesis, when in reality the two explanations are hugely different.
The terror plot explanation has very few points of failure. All the hijackers had to do was hijack planes, and fly them into their targets. That's it. And one of them failed to do even that, crashing the plane into a field.
They needed to find 4 flights departing about the same time, know enough about piloting to steer a jet already in flight, and smuggle weapons on the plane with which to subdue the crew members. They took advantage of our policies on hijackings, which were written for the scenario where a hijacker has demands to be met and isn't looking to die a martyr.
Now, the "Truther" explanation?
It requires two massive structures to somehow be outfitted with sufficient explosives to be brought down, with not one of the thousands of people in the building noticing them, which would be difficult given the open floor plan of the WTC.
It requires all the people who outfitted the structures with these explosives to keep mum about it.
It requires the planes hit the buildings in very precise locations, otherwise you'd have a problem with severed wires from the detonators to the explosives.
It requires some way of controlling where the fires happen, lest the explosives be triggered at the wrong time, or out of sequence.
Occam's Razor is useful.
My tuppence worth… Whether the conspiracy theories about what happened on 11/9 are true or not is pretty much irrelevant here, because it has already happened and you can’t turn back the clock.
The Lisbon treaty, on the other hand, is a very real conspiracy yet to be effected.
The conspirators (most European politicians and Journos), are very pissed off that the Irish are holding up the show by having something known as a referendum, which is a sort of democratic thingy.
This is the total antithesis of what the Eurocracy wants to see, and if the Irish vote “no”, they will have to go back to the drawing board to find some other way of sliding their “post democratic era” crap under the door.
As for Jim Corr, I don’t know him, but I would say he has been duped into talking bollocks by an interviewer, who is obviously pro-EU. After all, it’s not difficult to loosen a non politician’s tongue, if you know which buttons to press, and popsters are not known for being the brightest of sparks… are they?
the point is there plan was not realy very complex it was just "we sneek knifes on board we hijack the planes we fly them into buildings" it was feindishley simple what hearts is they COULD do that it would not have required much planning or much back up only a few pepol willing to martor them self and there are enought of them
Many people want to believe. To them, believing in what you are told by "credible sources"(=officials) is essential in keeping them happy. Once they notice they've been lied to on grander scales, they just go blank or disoriented, as any logical reactions (like any form of aggression against, or just plain questioning the system) have been conditioned out of their heads starting in kindergarten. The system makes anything but conformity hell of an endeavour. We're told we're living in an individualist's society, yet guess what, that's a lie. Being able to choose from 298 tasty variants of cereal is not individualism, or freedom of choice. Look around. You can choose to conform or to rot in the gutter. People all do the same, say the same, think the same, and they sanction deviation on every scale. Assuming you mentioned the 9/11 thing and expressed that it is all pretty fishy depending on point of view, how do they react? Do they look at you like you were a nutjob? Because you dare to care? Care on a somewhat grander scale than just your personal bellybutton? Sure, they will be happy. Happy being employees, happily paying off their loans for the next 20 years, happily choosing their cereal, happily being cogwheels used and abused at random by people with more lust for power. They would not want to know even if the truth was in an unlocked box planted on their doormat. That is why - with the right kinds of friends and a few pennies to spare - you can pull off anything you want, the worse the better, and not only get away with it but have the people who actually noticed effectively silenced.
Approximates to: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
Guys flew planes into buildings (that collapsed subsequently) as a simple way of killing people.
Guys flew planes into buildings that collapsed.
Buildings had been wired and cabled for demolition
Such wiring had been hidden
Missile (not plane) attack on Pentagon
Murder of plane passengers on "Pentagon flight"
All evidence of such plan kept secret by the hundreds of people involved
Etc, etc with all the embellishments of the theorists.
No doubt I'm wrong, but at the highest level that looks OK to me. But the joy of conspiracy theories is that they can NEVER, EVER be disproven. Even if 100% positive evidence could be produced, say a verifiable video of one of the perpetrators saying he was going to do it and explaining every detail with perfect accuracy, all the theorists would need to say is "it's fake" and the theories could carry on.
PS, Mine's the one with the so-called "lunar module" in the pocket
that because the claims are outragious and they come from a pop singer that you would have to be mad to believe them.
However it is overwhelmingly obvious that the buildings were brought down under demolition charges. Hard to believe perhaps when you have the BBC telling you some utter rubbish whilst you are watching it.
Just go to YouTube and watch the footage of the colapse. If you find the mention of YouTube blows any credibility, think again. Re-examine your reasons for dismissing it.
You don't have to swallow the full Alex Jones extermination of 2/3 of the world population to have a look at the twin towers destruction. Simple physics and readily available video (which you saw live on 11th Spet 2001) shows 400 meter tall buildings collapsing in 10 seconds.
Think about this, if you dropped a brick off the top it would take 10 seconds to hit the ground. A really huge brick would not fall any faster. If you dropped the top 10 floors onto the rest of the building, do you think it would fall through the rest of the floors just as fast as falling through air?
Ignorance means to IGNORE. If you don't know that the WTC was detonated by demolition explosives then you have ignored the quite obvious evedence. Instead you have chosen to believe in Father Christmas because it feels better. (Father Christmas gives you presents provided you believe)
The reaslisation that Father Christmas does not come down the chimney and 9/11 was an inside job will strike you pretty hard. What you believe after that is anyones guess, that's why we need a real enquiry.
If you have time watch Loose Change Final Cut at
Conspiricy Theorys tend to all get lumped together. If you believe the world trade center was brought down with explosives you are expected to believe that Elvis works down the chip shop and underneth his rubber mask the prime minister is a green lizard. These things may or may not be true but are not relevant to 9/11
Fear of being lumped in with nutcases should not make you reject evidence. Neither should the fear of what might turn out to be true.
There is a fine line in the 9/11 thing. Planes or No Planes. I believe that planes hit the twin towers but a missile hit the pentagon. There is a whole spectrum of theory backed with 'evidence'. It's very important that you can establish some actual facts. You can easily prove to yourself the FACT the each building fell in 10 seconds. That is not disputed, no one is trying to claim otherwise. The official reason for the collapse is rather contrived. The fact that the collapse happened tends to support the official reason in a circular argument. The claim that the buildings were wired for demolition is totally outrageious. But if they were you would get the effect seen on the day.
If demolition experts wanted the buildings to come down from the top rather than the bottom, they could do so. Yes they would have to get rid of the supporting steel structure. Quite possibly it would require thousands of degrees to melt it. Quite possibly you might notice some explosions.
Is there any evedence that steel melted. Yes, that's not in despute.
What about explosions. Yes plenty of witnesses report them and evedence also.
What about the planing of the explosives that would have taken a lot of work. Well there are people who say a lot of work was happening in the buildings for weeks before hand.
The only real thing stopping this theory from being accepted is how bad it would be if it were true. Things can't possibly be that bad without us knowing. So many people would have to be in on it that it would be impossible. In fact you can get people to go along with things on a need to know basis. The terrorists dutyfully fly the planes. The demolition people are told that the buildings will be evacuated, they don't know about the terror plot. Plus they have broken a few laws and if they don't want to get arrested they had better play along. The airforce are diverted on a training excercise very similar to what actually took place.
You see, very few people needed to know that people would die. The terrorists would have known. They would have been congratulating themselves on having fooled the USA and having people on the inside. They would not have know that they were being used.
Sure looks like American Airlines to me."
Oh a few unburnt scraps of an AA plane pretty amazing seeing as the fire was so hot it melted the rest of it according to the official story.
"I thought IT people were smart? WTF?"
So being smart in your opinion is taking things at face value, I see why you selected that name it suits you.
Firstly, I hate the term conspiracy theorist. The correct term should probably be historian. What I want to know is why so many of you seem to think they're can never be conspiracies. I suppose the lot of you blame Brutus solely for Caesar's death too, eh? Secondly, why are so many of you mainstreamers out there having to resort to attack by proxy. Several of you have brought up the moon landing and how dumb it is to doubt that. But last I checked 9/11 and the moon landing were not the same event. All you're doing is criticizing one set of beliefs by assuming we share both sets of beliefs because YOU have applied a label on us.
And finally. To all you 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda (an orginzation which even the Pentagon has admitted doesn't really exist as an actual organization, per se), answer me these questions:
1) How come several of the "hijackers" have been found alive, because they weren't the hijackers?
2) How were we able to know who the hijackers were by the passports that fell out of the plane, when everything else (including the nearly indestructible "black boxes") was destroyed?
3) Why did the pilots of the intercept jets claim to fly "full throttle" all the way to New York when a simple distance to time calculation reveals they flew at about half throttle?
4) Are you seriously going to tell me that the Pentagon (head of military operations for a country that spends more on military tech. than all other nations combined) has no system to shoot down a plane headed right for it that has been flying off course in restricted Air Space at several points in its flight, which lasted hours?
5) Why do you assume it's hard to fool the American people when we were duped into believing that Bush was a legitimate President in the first place. I hypothesize that we've had too much BS crammed down our throats and that GW himself could have detonated bombs himself live on Fox News, and later that evening Bill O'Reilly would be talking about how the "The President's fireworks show was interupted, by liberal Al Qaeda terrorist wannabes." Well, actually that sounds more like Glenn Beck.
-Paris cause she's no doubt the average intelligence of someone who buys the party line
"However it is overwhelmingly obvious that the buildings were brought down under demolition charges."
Only if you know nothing about CD. Wiring a conventional building for CD takes approximately three weeks. The WTC towers were massive structures that would have taken considerably longer, and would have required the thousands of people in the building to ignore the packs of explosives strapped to the support columns and the thousands of feet of wire for the detonators. The only thing overwhelmingly obvious is that there's no way this scenario is plausible. Just because something bears a resemblance to CD doesn't make it CD. If you ever watch an actual CD video, you'll notice a number of significant differences between those and the WTC towers' collapse.
"Oh a few unburnt scraps of an AA plane pretty amazing seeing as the fire was so hot it melted the rest of it according to the official story."
Typical conspiracy nutter - cherry pick the evidence that supports your views, and come up with excuses for ignoring anything that doesn't fit. The lawn outside the Pentagon was littered with plane debris. If you look at photos taken close to the building, focusing on the lawn, you can see this.
It's amazing to me you can look at these pieces of fuselage and blithely dismiss them. Yeah, a few scraps of the fuselage with AA livery on them, found at the scene of the crash. Pretty bleedin' obvious that they're from an AA jet.
Or maybe secret government elves managed to sneak them on the scene, in front of all the rescue workers, fire personnel, cleanup crew, and the traffic jam in front of the Pentagon!
You "Truthers" are as bad as ID proponents. Logic-free fantasies are what you have in common.
Quote: "Only if you know nothing about CD. Wiring a conventional building for CD takes approximately three weeks. The WTC towers were massive structures that would have taken considerably longer, and would have required the thousands of people in the building to ignore the packs of explosives strapped to the support columns and the thousands of feet of wire for the detonators. The only thing overwhelmingly obvious is that there's no way this scenario is plausible. Just because something bears a resemblance to CD doesn't make it CD. If you ever watch an actual CD video, you'll notice a number of significant differences between those and the WTC towers' collapse."
I think it's pretty obvious you know nothing about CD, as if you did you'd know their are multiple ways of taking down a building and they are different for each pull.
However 10 seconds is 10 seconds and the official story that says their was a pancake collapse in this time does not compute!!! This doesn't even tackle WTC 7 the building that was hit by no plane.
On that day the official story is that 3 buildings collapsed from fire first time ever recorded that a modern steel structured building has done so and it happens 3 times on the same day.
Quote: "Typical conspiracy nutter - cherry pick the evidence that supports your views. The lawn outside the Pentagon was littered with plane debris. If you look at photos taken close to the building, focusing on the lawn, you can see this.
I don't see what your getting at with that picture are you an airplane specialist do you know that those parts came from the plane you think?
You speak of cherry picking yet you are doing exactly whilst at the same time trying to pidgeon hole truthers (ppl that seek the truth about 9/11).
Explain in your own words the following.
1. Collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in about 10 seconds?
2. Where the fuel came from to heat the steel to 800C for 60 odd minutes when the majority blew up in a giant fireball upon impact?
3. Why WTC7 collapsed at again near free fall speed and had been reported by the BBC as having collapse about 20 mins before it actually did.
4. Why their was multiple reports of explosions in the basement of both the towers from multiple witnesses at various points in time prior to collapse.
5. Why the FBI won't release at least 1 video that actually shows a plane impacting the building when they confiscated all videos that had a view on that area of impact.
Concrete not good for high tower blocks? Let the MIT experts quoted in the Scientific American article speak:
"One audience member asked the assembled experts whether a reinforced concrete skyscraper such as the current height record-holder, the 452-meter Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, would have better resisted a collision with a fuel-filled airliner. Their response indicated that a concrete structure would have probably lasted for a couple of more hours than did the steel World Trade Center towers."
Possibly discredits Morrow? A very interesting article it is, although to my mind strong on theorising and short on fact. Nevertheless recommended reading. Let's look at the main facts that do emerge:
'The huge inner and outer rectangular tubes "needed to be protected to maintain their structural integrity, so the floors acted as reinforcing diaphragms or bulkheads [the term used in shipbuilding]," said panel member Jerome Connor, professor of civil and environmental engineering at M.I.T. The office floors, which each comprised a 35- to 60-foot clear span from the core to the exterior grid, were panelized structural members supported by open web joists with steel decks above them, he said. The horizontal truss struts, bolted and welded to the exterior grid and the core column structures, included viscoelastic stringers that provided increased damping to help make the structure less lively in the wind, according to Connor. Each steel floor deck was covered with four inches of concrete. "With almost an acre of area for each floor and figuring about 100 pounds per square foot of area," he estimated that "each floor system weighed about 3,200,000 pounds."'
If 1sq ft of deck N+1 weighing 100lbs lands flat on 1sq ft of deck N from a height of 10 ft, does it punch its way through deck N? Not likely.
If 1600 tons of deck N+1 lands flat, more or less equally distributed, on deck N from a height of 10 feet, does it punch its way through deck N? No, hardly. Will it break the joints of the open web truss struts of deck N to the exterior grid and the core column structures, so that decks N+1, N, N-1,... slide acceleratingly down the core and inside the exterior grid? Maybe, but then one expects to see the main vertical core members and perhaps the exterior grid too left stark and forlorn against the skyline, but substantially intact, with a large pile of rubble largely contained at the bottom of the box. Not what I remember seeing!
Of course, the sudden arrival of 150 000 tons of soon-to-be-rubble at the bottom of the rectangular pipe could force the outer grid apart near its base precipitating the collapse of the frame, but that would have been awesomely Titanic-like (in reverse, of course). Again not what I remember seeing!
One wonders whether those bracing wires needed for the demolition experts weren't adequately proxied by the panelized structural members and the visco-elastic stringers.
Disingenuously, one expert, Eduardo Kausel, 'addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." ' (Anyone hear anything about the position of the centre of gravity here? Turning moments? Would you be persuaded by this argument that an open-mesh waste bin cannot tip over? Perhaps it's only true if the air is hot air.) Think about how much air and 'empty space' there is within the envelope of a tree!
But it makes for an interesting thought-experiment. Imagine a gent with chainsaw climbing up the tree and on his way sawing each branch nearly through at the joint with the trunk, so it can still carry the branch's own weight but not much more. Now imagine a lot of branches tearing free from near the top, maybe the gent cut a little too deep when he got up there, and cascading down, taking the lower branches, twigs and leaves with them. Given initial bilateral symmetry, why should the tree (=stem) tip over anyway? It would remain, standing forth proud and free from the pile of firewood at its roots. Oops, apart from the braches above the decisive level at which the branches were cut too far through. Now it's looking like a coconut palm or a prehistoric gingko. Darn, how do we get rid of that topknot?!? Aah, how about a few strategically-placed explosive charges down the length of the stem to make sure the whole lot collapses and gets turned into matchwood?
Clearly the MIT "have-a guess" session wasn't the final report, but it supplied enough material to fuel more doubt rather than douse what already was glowing.
And the 757 that hit the Pentagon must have been one of the rare swing-wing models; you know, the ones where the kamikaze pilot presses a button and then they don't damage the building left and right of the fuselage's entrance hole, nor leave their wings behind on the lawn. Much neater that way. Considerate.
Oh yes, the Pentagon. How many days did it take between impact and letting of the contract to repair? How many weeks, more likely months, does it take to prepare contract documents for a job like that? How do the two timescales compare? Having answered that, you would find it easy to state how long BEFORE impact the contract documents had to start being prepared...
Look, wherever there is politics, from the village level to the global village, there is a nasty smell. We're all used to that. This smells just the same, only more so. Much, much more.
Way ahead of you. Yes of course it took weeks to plant the charges. Yes ofcourse there would have been massive disruption in the buildings. You would not expect them to sneek in unnoticed. There was noise, dust, disruption. The conditions were bearly tollerable for the tennants. The cleaning staff had been withdrawn, the tennants were doing their own dusting. Some were moved to different floors. There were powercuts at short notice. Security staff were changed. But then you seem pretty well informed so you probably know all this.
The buildings were being rewired for better networking. Many floors were unocupied. Plenty of opportunity to use lots of wire.
Yes there were some significant differences between a standard demolition and the twin towers. Standard starts at the bottom and the solid part of the building falls down into it. The twin towers distructed from the top, probably a much less efficent method but more convincing since the top was where the damage was.
Oh and the Pentagon. There should have been a bigger hole and some video of a plane. This is the Pentagon not my house, there would have been some decent pictures, Oh and a plane.
Black Helecopter because Ign T Amis might possibly be a spook.
All the conspiracy nuts miss a huge hole in their arguments. WHY? What possible reason would the gov't have to conspire to murder thousands of its own citizens? An act which, if discovered, would have them go down in history as possibly the most cold-blooded, calculating, evil-doers ever? Anyone who would do such a thing is worthy of James Bond movie-style villianhood. I'm no fan of Bush. I think he is dangerous, and he scares me. But he is not that evil. No one in the history of civilization has EVER been that evil. Not Hitler, not Idi Amin, not Pol Pot. They, at least were all doing it on idealistic grounds. Doing it purely so one's cronies could make a buck? Not a chance.
Then, let's suppose they DID do it for the reasons stated by the 9/11 conspiracy nuts - to manufacture an excuse to invade Iraq. Uh, what was that about WMD? So they murdered 1000's of people and still needed to make up ANOTHER flimsy excuse that didn't hold water. Sounds pretty incompetent for such master conspirators.
Then a couple of years later, these same officials couldn't plan well enough to evacuate the population of New Orleans after Katrina. Lost their super conspiracy (i.e. co-operation) powers overnight?
Folks, I work in the US government. They couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag. If it isn't petty bickering, back-stabbing, and squabbling over jurisdiction, it's budget restrictions and red tape. Any idea how much of a paper trail there would be for requistioning all the explosives, wiring, and overtime for the demolitions teams? The way this administration operates, it's a wonder anything gets done at all, other than paper shuffling.
What are you on about? 3000 or so dead is fairly evil but not the most evil thing. Pretty evil for one event, but wars rage for years and more people are killed. Bush is not particulaly evil and should not scare you that much. He is not the master criminal, he is just the friendly face of a bigger plan. I see what you are doing, saying that Bush could not do it so it did not happen. Ofcourse Bush could not do it. All that was required is that he allowed others to get on with it.
Dismissing the fact that it happened based on lack of motive is pretty lame. The WMD was required because 9/11 did not link that well to Iraq. The buildings were detonated, now figure out what happened.
By the way, it has been discovered, dummy. It's just too unbelievable due to it's scale and implications.
So you bring in New Orleans Katrina as if this was a big cock up. If 9/11 happened the way I am saying then you would expect New Orleans to happen the way it did. If on the other hand 9/11 was a cockup then New Orleans was a cockup. The comparison proves nothig except that you would bring this in as if it means something.
I admit I am fairly well versed in this stuff, as it seems are you. The difference is that I believe what I am saying where as you are simply trying to debunk me.
We get into circular arguments. Each point of view can be justified. It's important to start with some facts. The falling buildings could not have fallen like that without carefully placed explosive charges. That is what I regard as FACT. Everything else is subordinate to that. Saying that no one could be that evil does not explain the fall of the buildings. Saying it takes weeks to lay charges, so what, is that not the main point?
Saying that there would have been a huge paper trail assumes that it was done by the book.
Like I say, start with the destruction of the buildings. It's very simple, they were detonated. Now look for the paper trails, the workers wiring the building, the security guards, the explosions that would have been heard, signs of explosions, how the steel melted etc.
But then you know the truth, you just try to debunk as your duty.
I respect the fact you work in the US government however like all government employees you are compartmentalised. Do you really believe that those involved in black ops have to deal with the crap you do?
As for motive I'll name three but could name more however they are mostly covered by these three.
Oil, Money and Control!
Oil's pricey these days isn't it and soon to be $200 a barrel I hear. How are our freedoms these days I see torture is legal just by changing the definition and then we have detention without charge. Fascist state here we go......
Now tell me the motivation for a bunch of Muslims in a cave to organise the destruction of their beloved Islamic state Afghanistan, without quoting the usual they hate us for our freedoms bollocks!
As pointed out here, it doesn't really matter what the 9/11 conspiracy was, look at the blatantly illegal shit they did out in the open, starting on 9/12. It's all documented fact, no need for spurious backofanenvelope calculations about jet fuel and bending.
Every argument put forward by the conspiracy nuts has been debunked, numerous times, by people with many years of experience and training. It takes literally 2 minutes with Google to find this information, *if you want to*.
Many of the claims made in Loose Change were debunked by the BBC too, in an episode of "The Conspiracy Files". They made the director of Loose Change look very foolish by confronting him with the facts that he glossed over, and the out-of-context quotes from investigators he used to bolster his arguments.
Getting into minutiae with you is pointless, it dignifies your crackpot ideas in a way they shouldn't be dignified. It's like debating the finer points of Intelligent Design, or the accuracy of passages in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
If you want to find explanations based on actual science, actual math, and actual engineering knowledge of how the towers could have collapsed without the involvement of explosives, the information is out there and easy to find.
But that's not what you want. The uncomfortable truth for conspiracy nuts is that they *want* to believe this stuff.
I invite any of you who believe in these theories to read through the contents of 911myths.com with an open mind. Every one of the arguments made here is refuted thoroughly.
And for the guy who thinks I might be a CIA agent, you're Exhibit A proving that conspiracy nutters are totally batshit.
"Now tell me the motivation for a bunch of Muslims in a cave to organise the destruction of their beloved Islamic state Afghanistan, without quoting the usual they hate us for our freedoms bollocks!"
of they do not h8t us for our freedom they h8 us (and buy us I mean usa) because they see us as a big judao/cristan monstor intent on ouciping and enslaveing them and stealing alll there oil corupting there young and all that and they belve that any action taken agaent the "grate satain" is justfied in fact they beleve that there is all ready a east west war and that 9/11 atacks where an ongoing act in that
But that doesn't work.
I could easily say:
A team of black ops demolitions engineers blew the building up.
Pretty simple explanation, isn't it?
Problem is, like your "summation" there's an awful lot more that needs to be explained.
Jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel. The temperatures aren't enough to even severely weaken steel. So then you have to posit that enough of the floor above was brought down to take this floor out and it then chain reacted. That's an awful lot of presupposing.
"When I look at it in the context of the Bush administration and their actions since 11/9 it does start to sound plausible if not likely."
That's all I want to say, really. These theories are plausible. As in there's an explanation, reason and/or evidence for them.
May not be good evidence, may not be enough of a reason (though that has to be based on what YOU think is reasonable: ask the mullah's exhorting their youth to blow themselves up what counts as "reasonable").
"If you want to find explanations based on actual science, actual math, and actual engineering knowledge of how the towers could have collapsed without the involvement of explosives, the information is out there and easy to find.
But that's not what you want. The uncomfortable truth for conspiracy nuts is that they *want* to believe this stuff."
I already knew all the anti-terror bulshite would happen. It's just an extension of all the nanny Health and Safety. However I was not expecting what happened to my opinions in January this year.
Frankly I was looking for porn on YouTube, girls with big girl attributes. I saw one of the most watched videos was a 9/11 thing with the twin towers, so without knowing what I was letting my self in for I clicked it. I had a eurika moment, no I did not run down the street naked. It was not a joyous moment, it was an "Oh hell, now it all makes horrible sense" monent. Suddenly it was exposed, staring me in the face. I felt the floor had just dropped out from beneeth my feet.
It was not like believing in Spooks or Dr Who. This was real all the way through. It left me with two choices, Red Pill, Blue Pill type of thing. I could take the blue pill and believe that the buildings pancaked or the red pill and go and find out what really happened and what it all means.
I obviously would not want to go back to believing the 9/11 lie we are told but then learning the truth is much harder and quite frightening.
It really really is a big deal. I really do appreciate the magnatude of what I am saying is true. It's no small thing like did someone take a bribe or not. This affects pretty much everything we do about terrorizum, freedom, media, the future.... Everything.
Red heart because it looks like a red pill.
Wayland - I'm sure no amount of searching by me could possibly lead me to your conclusions, as I retain at least a semblance of rationality in my life.
As for the pseudonym, I use it for all posts, not just ones in response to psycho-babble conspiracy nutters. That'll be because I have a very identifiable real name and I'm scared the lizards who run the New World Order will get me.
Anyway, 'nuff said. I understand they will get you if you even hint as to their plan. Keep shtum.
"Dismissing the fact that it happened based on lack of motive is pretty lame. The WMD was required because 9/11 did not link that well to Iraq."
Exactly my point. If they were competent enough to pull off the greatest conspiracy .
"We get into circular arguments. Each point of view can be justified. It's important to start with some facts. The falling buildings could not have fallen like that without carefully placed explosive charges. That is what I regard as FACT. "
Well you go right ahead and regard it that way. I require some proof. The FACT is, your point of view can NOT be justified. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I find it easier to believe that a handful of dedicated extremists hijacked some planes and crashed them into a couple of buildings, and then some unexpected things happened that probably surprised even bin Laden, rather than thousands of people planned in complete and total secrecy for years on end, and spent billions on implementation, and not one of them has come forward and admitted it either out of greed or guilt. Unless and until you can provide absolute, incontrovertible proof that there WERE explosive charges, then simply asserting it is unlikely so it must have been a conspiracy is just so much hot air.
Again, there was no reason to do it. The WMD excuse worked fine by itself. Why complicate things further?
"I guess that the government is blameless and isn't hiding ANYTHING is a matter of faith to you."
I don't recall writing that either. But it's silly to say "the government", considering that an entity the size of the US Government is comprised of many thousands of people. If you were to ask me if I think it's possible that certain people in the government deliberately sat on intelligence that had to do with this attack, or removed certain names from watch lists to ensure the attack took place, then my answer might surprise you.
I know enough history about the US that I am not naive enough to think that there might not have been some level of complicity or willful ignorance. But there's a huge difference between allowing something to happen, and actively participating in it to the scale that would be required to match what the "Truthers" promote, and I just can't make that leap. It's illogical, and the evidence doesn't support it.
Fishy things about the hijackers, their origins, their planning, etc. are one thing, active involvement in demolitions quite another.
Dead vulture, because there's no dead horse icon.
I know exactly where your coming from. It took a lot for me to accept the reality that was laid out before me. I would say I've spent a good year in denial, looking at alternative theories double checking official stories, debunking sites and scientific papers. However the inconvenient truth of all this is that the only rational explanation for the way 9/11 happened and everything that has happened since is that it was an inside job.
Quote "Wayland - I'm sure no amount of searching by me could possibly lead me to your conclusions, as I retain at least a semblance of rationality in my life."
That is because you are not open to the possibility it might be true like most deniers I'd add.
"We get into circular arguments. Each point of view can be justified. It's important to start with some facts. The falling buildings could not have fallen like that without carefully placed explosive charges. That is what I regard as FACT. "
just because you think it is FACT dose not make it so
"Exactly my point. If they were competent enough to pull off the greatest conspiracy ."
Sorry, but I don't see incompetence of this magnitude as being a good thing.
Why do you?
Would you be OK if the biggest boy in class beat you up accidentally frequently (because they're a klutz) but not if they did it deliberately (because they're a bully)? Or would they both be the same amount of "wrong"?
If they are incompetent with WMD's, why are they not incompetent enough to allow many more 11/9's and were a principal actor in allowing the WTC's to be crashed into JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE INCOMPETENT. If you'd had someone competent then the planes would have not caused the thousands of deaths but instead you had this bunch of clowns incapable of finding their arse with both hands, a map and a team of sherpa's to help.
If that's the sort of incompetent you have, why do you deem it OK? Why were these boobs allowed to continue in power (and worse, increase it)?
If they were competent enough to keep in power, then maybe they conspired to allow the attacks to happen so that they could make a grab for power and get their mates in corporations loadsamoney?
Somehow, part of my original comment didn't get posted. I meant to say If they were competent enough to pull off the greatest conspiracy in history in absolute secrecy, why weren't they competent enough to link it indisputably to Iraq, so they didn't need the WMD excuse?
"Sorry, but I don't see incompetence of this magnitude as being a good thing.
Why do you?"
Where did I ever say I found it good? I already said Bush scares me. I do not think policy decisions should be made on the basis of religious ideology instead of rational deliberation. However, I don't think he, or anyone else in his administration, is actually evil. And venality of a magnitude never before seen would be required for the conspiracy theories to be true. I'm just not buying it.
Besides, it wasn't necessary. The WMD explanation was perfectly adequate. Why go to all that trouble and then not even use the excuse? That would be stupid, as well as evil. So they are both evil geniuses and bumbling incompetents at the same time? Not a chance.
As Robert J. Hanlon supposedly said, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (or incompetence).
Why is it so unbelievable that a skyscraper would collapse as a result of being hit by a jumbo jet fully loaded with fuel? I bet that is something that even Al Quaeda didn't expect.
Please remember that the UK government kept secret the fact that Enigma had been hacked. Sold the device.
When was that found out?
The US kept backdoors in their pipeline control sold to the Russians.
Kept that secret.
The power of a secret lies in how few know. There's no need even for Shrub to know what Black Ops are going on. When only a dozen know, it's easy to keep it secret.
Please also note that the fifty thousand scientists showing proof of AGW are supposed to be able to keep it secret, even from people who are in the same business. They must be wiping the memory of people they ask to get in on the scam...
PS: please try to show where the US government (and UK) have been incompetent. Guess what? A conspiracy to keep it quiet (Not In The Public Interest).
That am a conspiracy, son.
I thought you said they didn't happen...
PPS: if there are so many people saying what the conspiracy is, they haven't really managed to keep it secret. They've just managed to get these people assigned the label of "conspiracy nut", which is kind of the balloon I want to pop.
"The power of a secret lies in how few know. There's no need even for Shrub to know what Black Ops are going on. When only a dozen know, it's easy to keep it secret."
Yes, but this "conspiracy" would involve thousands, perhaps millions, not a dozen. Nearly every structural engineer and architect in the world. Numerous other scientists and people who actually can reason. The 9/11 commission and all their staff. The vast majority of the NYPD and FDNY, the passengers on the planes, witnesses in the streets, the demolition teams, their suppliers, and many, many more. The members of Al Quaeda and their relatives would all have to be in on it too.
"I thought you said they didn't happen..."
Sorry, What are you talking about? What did I say didn't happen? All I said is that it is much easier to believe that airplanes crashed into the buildings, causing them to fall down, than that there was some shadowy black ops team that demolished them for flimsy reasons. If that happened, I want to see indisputable proof, not some wild speculation that "jet fuel doesn't burn that hot, so it must have been explosives planted by goverment operatives".
I bet the demolition teams were led by Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain, because they're not really dead, right?
Well, how about this way of wording it:
The towers fell down from an event the designers had designed this building to withstand.
Then of course, the conspiracy starts when you ask
So why were the pieces of the building that did not act according to specs get carried away without investigation of what the engineers evidently got wrong?
Why would this secret require thousands or millions?
You need a few people to rubbish the report, but this could be done by one admin burying the report under other seemingly as important ones.
You need a crew of one or two in each plane if the planes were flown by professionals (nil if they were really the terrorists and you just used their work).
You need a couple of people (tops) telling the engineers to cut up the wreckage and take it off somewhere. At this other place, all they know is they've got some steel to melt.
If you planted bombs, all you need is one team who knows what they did.
I could see this one being just a half-dozen people in the know. Compartmentalised information means that only those coordinating the various groups need to know what is going on. And that's one of the major reasons for the "need to know" dogma that you get in any sensitive government action, be it army, millitary intel, civil intel, espionage or just operational work.
Quote "Yes, but this "conspiracy" would involve thousands, perhaps millions, not a dozen."
Eh no you are very much mistaken their is no reason for it to involve thousands or millions as you suggest. The building could be brought down very easily by a small team and the rest can be organized by having your people in the right place.
"Nearly every structural engineer and architect in the world. Numerous other scientists and people who actually can reason. The 9/11 commission and all their staff."
Just like you people tend not to think their government or elements within it would do this to their own people. Before I woke up I never even doubted the official story and when I did start to wake up I spent a lot of time looking into it and various aspects of it as I just couldn't believe it but the facts are their.
"The vast majority of the NYPD and FDNY"
Not at all and look at how many of those first responders where killed by Rudy sending them into an area they knew had asbestos without proper kit.
"the passengers on the planes, witnesses in the streets"
Your getting silly now.
"the demolition teams, their suppliers"
Government supplied black ops unit plausible deniability!
"and many, many more. The members of Al Quaeda and their relatives would all have to be in on it too."
Getting silly again however the supposed head of said group Mr Osama did state it was nothing to do with him unless of course you believe the video supposedly found of him admitting it. A video that show someone that looked and acted nothing like him. A Fat, jewelry wearing right handed osama mmmmmmm not quite his profile and certainly jewelry is against his version of islam.
All the people who offer part of the proof that it happened like the official story says would have to be in on the conspiracy. That is a lot more than "a few dozen".
Let's put it this way: Suppose everything else happened the way it did, but the towers didn't collapse, they just sustained massive damage. How would anything that came out of the attack be different? Tightened security? Check. War on Terror? Check. Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Check. High oil prices? Check. All of it is due to the identities of the hijackers, NOT the collapse of the towers. That added essentially nothing other than possibly more people being killed. But if there were "only" 500-1000 deaths, instead of 3000+ do you think Americans would have been any less pissed off?
So I ask again, Why risk everything in a masive conspiracy where any number of thing might have gone wrong, been discovered, etc. when the official story would have accomplised the same thing?
There's nothing silly. Because merely damaged towers have to be repaired, and they supposedly were no longer profitable anyway. Towers destroyed by acts of terrorism are not only gone for good, you also get much more money from the insurance. 2 billion to Silverstein.
Also, I think the "iconic value"—if you excuse such language under the circumstances—of towers FALLING from attack is much higher than of towers taking a big hit but standing STRONG. It is a matter of symbolism and has strong influence on the level of support you get for your "countermeasures" ie all the WOT bull we're experiencing.
Do you know what REALLY happened? If not, you aren't in the conspiracy.
There are people who don't believe that the Jews were gassed in their millions by the German army. Some don't WANT to believe. Some believe that the "evidence" is made up.
Or do we insinuate that the millions who know there's been a cover up all part of a conspiracy against the government?
And again, the ones giving proof are, almost without exception saying "well, it's possible I suppose that the floors concertina's down".
a) they don't know because they didn't get access to the rubble
b) they don't think it likely that it happened any other way
c) they just assume
NOTE: with (c) there were EYE WITNESSES in the Stockwell shooting that the Brazillian did, as the police said he did, wear a big bulky coat, vault the barrier and run away. Afterwards, in the investigation with the photographic evidence, the footage showed he did none of them.
Did the police make these witnesses lie? Possibly. Did the witnesses not see much and just assumed that "our gallant boys in blue" wouldn't fib so "remembered" it like that? More likely. See "12 angry men" about that.
Or do you really believe that these people who told these lies were conspiring to protect the police by lying for them? We KNOW they didn't tell the truth 'cos it was on camera.
b) they don't think it likely that it happened any other way
Uh no. They know it is not reasonable for it to happen any other way.
c) they just assume
It is you who are doing the assuming. Were you there? Then you don't know what really happened. They have analyzed the evidence presented to them, including video footage that we all saw. They are experts in structural engineering with access to the building plans, etc. They say it happened the way the same ones among us all know it did. IF (and this is a big IF), there was demolition, then they are either part of the conspiracy, or they were bribed, or coerced to lie. Either way, it is more than a dozen.
"There are people who don't believe that the Jews were gassed in their millions by the German army."
This is close enough to Nazis. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose.
"The towers fell down from an event the designers had designed this building to withstand."
This is one of my favorite conspiracy nut arguments, because it's quite possibly the dumbest.
Since the designers of the Titanic claimed it was unsinkable, does that mean it was brought down by controlled demolitions as well?
You're also conveniently ignoring the differences between a 737 and a 767. Further, you're also ignoring that the buildings *DID* withstand the impacts of the jet liners, but that the damage done to them was simply too great for them to remain structurally intact.
Black helicopter because there's no foil hat icon.
"The towers fell down from an event the designers had designed this building to withstand."
1.where is your evedance they where build to with stand the impact of jets they did not have when they where build
2.and even if they where build to with stand the impact (they where not I have talked to civle engerniers) dose not mean they where build well
3. not forgetting the fact they DID suvive the impact and they would have withstood the fire as well but what they did not forsee was what happens when you get inpact of that magnetude to the fireproofing on the colomes(the impact blew away all the fireproof fome afround the suports) and that sort of knolage is the sort of thing you only get from real experance witch as I said befor we did not have till sep11
"The towers fell down from an event the designers had designed this building to withstand"
Now I'm going to make an unsupportable claim, and I'm sorry to have to do so. You'll have to trust my memory of this.
About a year after the attacks, one of the senior architects of the WTC was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph. He said that from their offices they had a view of the WTC and saw the second hit. He immediately tried to call the Fire Department to tell them to evacuate the buildings rather than trying to put out the fires, as he knew 100% that they would collapse. He couldn't get through as the lines were jammed. He's suffered terrible guilt ever since. The unsupportable bit is that I can't remember his name.
The buildings had been designed with a plane hit in mind, true. But the engineering was based upon an aircraft low on fuel blundering at low speed into the building, not one nearly full of fuel hitting at full speed.
Anyway, I suspect this is all academic to you. You are, quite literally unpersuadable. Me too. So I'll leave it there, with a man who would know what he is talking about suffering terrible guilt because he knew the impacts would cause a collapse and couldn't do a thing. Meanwhile, you can carry on spouting whatever nonsense comes to your mind about how the buildings MUST have been demolished without feeling any twinge of guilt.
Keep up the good work.
Well, one of the engineers from the company that built the building has the list of documents showing that the CEO of the company changed their story without any evidence (this engineer would have been the one to view the evidence). When he asked how the CEO knew, he was sacked.
There are news cuttings verifying this change of heart.
The engineer who designed the building said (someone had ASKED) that it would withstand a jumbo jet flying into it. Remember, people are easily frightened and when you've made the worlds tallest building and want people to walk in it, they're going to wonder about looking down on a pilot flying in the fog...
Engineering reports state categorically that supestructure should easily have withstood the impact and the heat and damage was minimal. They then say "well, it's possible that there was a concertina effect that took it down" but they can't tell because they've never been able to get the rubble and analyse whether there was a fault in it. This would, I suggest, be a DEMAND from the engineers. Not to prove the engineering was sound and so it wasn't a bomb but so that the next tall building wouldn't concertina if a plane crashes into it.
Very little demand. Probably because by the time anything was sorted out, the rubble had been destroyed.
Now when you destroy evidence, what does a court do to you? They assume the evidence would have proven guilt and so tend to find against you.
Well, you're assuming that the pilots who'd have little training managed to ace this one flight.
You're assuming that although there have been proven lies about what happened, that they now are telling the truth.
You're assuming that the assumptions made were wrong without evidence (because they destroyed it).
You're assuming that NONE of the government could keep a secret because you're assuming that millions of people would have to be in on it.
And to the lot of you, I'm not saying that this was a deliberate killing on the same lines as the Reightstaag (spelling?) fire that Hitler used to get emergency powers (however, since it has been done before, why is it impossible to do so now? You still reelected GWB despite then KNOWING he'd lied about WMD's). I'm saying that there are many things wrong with the official explanation.
The conspiracy could just be covering up how incompetent the government were. The conspiracy could be covering up how the company building the WTC cut corners and put people at risk to make a little short term profit. The conspiracy could be covering up how much they knew but discounted.
You all seem to be as nutty as the worst "conspiracy nut" (see David Ike), it's just your insanity is that there CANNOT BE any conspiracy.
Why are you so certain NO CONSPIRACY? We now know (50 year rule and all) how many secrets were kept safe and only released because there was no reason to keep it secret any more. How come people then were so gullible and you are so uniquely not?
That, my friends, is insanity.
Well my last post didn't get through it dealt with the MO for false flag ops and how 9/11 has all the hallmarks. However rather than repost I thought I'd comment on the Architect side with
All those having a pop at Mark please elaborate on WTC7 and its classic demo job centre crimp and drop in its footprint, no plane hit that!
Black helicopter as my last post obviously got picked up and I've been marked domestic terrorist. Not long now and I get to go on my free CIA backed waterboarding holiday I hear you get to visit lots of exotic locations :)
... that keeps them entertained. No matter what info you get you will only make up your own mind and stick to it. After all, regardless of source, only a select few will know what is true. The rest of us have to base our decisions on second hand information and we can't be certain wether the source is genuine.
All we can do is go with our gut. My gut tells me I'm hungry.
No, but it proves that governments WILL fake a terrorist attack to pass laws to get more power to themselves.
War On Terror ring any bells?
It also proves that "conspiracy" has happened and it wasn't until the Neuremberg trials that any proof was brought forward and there was little enough of that by then available.
So conspiracy is not impossible.
That's what that example shows.
Nobody from here demanding that a conspiracy requiring many people in one government is impossible is over on the AGW denialist rag-piece on the register telling the kooks over there that AGW isn't a conspiracy amongst several people in many governments.
Neither has anyone over there come here to say that conspiracies amongst thousands of scientists publishing papers and the collusion of multiple governments is extremely likely to have taken place.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019