Not strange to me...
The media wants the video for the 6:00 news shows. People won't read the transcript but they'll listen to outtakes and the talking heads yapping over it. Sad... very sad state this country is in.
Apple's lawyers are trying to suppress video footage of Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, shown as evidence in an ongoing iTunes antitrust battle. Bloomberg, CNN and the Associated Press have asked a court in Oakland, California, to publicly release the deposition, which was recorded six months before the iThing supremo lost his …
This was apparently the same reason that the media showed us so many 9/11 videos because they stick in your mind. There are several videos on the web that disprove 9/11 from an engineers point of view, it was structually impossible to fly a plane "through" a building. There is only 1, yes only 1, actual eye witness, who states that he "might" have seen what "might" have been a plane. Everyone else remembers/saw the exploisions but not the actual planes.. (In the following amateur footage it is very interesting to hear what they people said at 12:15 "Oh my god it was a military plane", they dont actually film the planes/missiles/whatevers) .
So in order to convince the public that it was normal planes and not missiles,the news agencies played time and time again the videos. We do not really know who really made the films that we saw. And these are the images/thoughts/ideas that stick in peoples minds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8739384/911-anniversary-in-pictures-the-attack-on-the-World-Trade-Center-in-New-York.html - and there is plenty of video of this on YouTube.
Looks like a plane, smells like a plane, feels like a plane. Could it be faked? Possibly. But then so could the "oh my god it was a military plane" recording. Actually, dubbing in an extra voice would be simpler than convincingly faking a jumbo of some sort flying into the building instead of, you know, that military plane wot did it......
>Looks like a plane, smells like a plane, feels like a plane
Some very experienced engineers,architects and pilots have proven/shown that it is simply impossible to fly a plane into a building and leave a hole such as was made. The wings would have collapsed, the tail would have fallen of, An aluminium bodied aircraft cannot physically fly through concrete and steel, it's just structually impossible. Pure physics nothing else, unless of course "Al Queda" have the power to defy the laws of Physics but somehow I doubt that very much.
Don't you find it rather "coincidental" that no aircraft wreckage was to be seen on any of the 4 sites..
Obviously you want to believe the media/govt, it makes you feel better about the whole event. Now you see why the lawyers don't want to Steve Jobs video, it is indeed a very powerfull medium.
The real devilry afoot here is that the World Govt gets to perpetrate the biggest lie of all, that New York is some kind of city, and not just the studio backlot used because filming in actual Gotham is so expensive these days. Never wondered why New York "city" is named after the state? Sloppy scripting by the Illuminati, my friend!
We can argue all day about planes, missiles, demolition charges but do know that while we worry about the set dressing the puppet-masters laugh!
@Khapitan - "Don't you find it rather "coincidental" that no aircraft wreckage was to be seen on any of the 4 sites.."
FFS. No, we find it amazing that you so desperately believe no wreakage was found as somehow evidence. This page has a picture of that wreckage and some reasoning why you are a complete buffoon - www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes Had it occurred to you that the public weren't really that bothered with specific recovery of the aircraft wreakage, when there was also two buildings of wreckage that had collapsed. It happened, it just wasn't worth reporting.
"Obviously you want to believe the media/govt, it makes you feel better about the whole event."
Obviously you want to believe a couple of crazy deniers rather than everyone else, because presumably you'd rather think of the government/media as some evil being rather than a collection of disparate human run organisations with differing objectives. If you believe that everyone (gov/media/the non-returning passengers/families of people on the planes/the perpetrators) has fabricated their evidence, then why do you believe that your few sources the only ones that haven't fabricated their evidence?
Occam's razor - 9/11 did happen, with planes and thousands of people died, it would have been more difficult to fake.
Insanity could be defined as not being able to tell obvious fact from fiction, stupidity is not being able to evaluate sources of information, you need to get a psychological test or go to school.
That is the ONLY picture of any wreckage and it has been proven that it is impossible for the wreckage to be lying in that state. All of the pieces are "sitting in top" of all other matter, which implies that they were put there after the fact. They found an engine, and showed the images of this engine, but the engine was "not" a Pratt and Whitney which is the "only" type of engine used by American Airlines. Again planted evidence.
We have huge resources documenting aircraft which have crashed into the ground or hitting building etc. and there is always huge amounts of wreckage. Why then in these incidents were no parts found.. ....... How the fuck do you make Titanium built engine parts simply "disintegrate".... Can you imagine the physics involved in such an event.
Oh and building WTC 7 just fell down....because of a fire.... pull the other one...
Statistically what are the chances of BOTH of the world trade towers collapsing after being hit by "aircraft"? I believe that statistically the chances would be 0....
Those that want to believe that these incidents were not planned will always call the others conspiracy theorists. Do you also call the scientists, engineers and architects that prove the physics as being liars and theorists...
Even those that wrote that 911 report admit that they were underfunded, pressurized and did not answer many of the questions that were asked.
Someone needed the event to happen, I do not know if the reasons were purely financial but it certainly seems that way.
Did you ever consider what Al Qaeda gained from this, absolutely nothing? On the other hand several people/entities had a lot to gain. The following article summarises some of them
The article was written by an American just as many of the other articles of "conspiracy theorists", What possible reasons would Americans have for conspiracy theories about their own damned government other than the fact that the realise that something smells very badly in this whole affair.......
@Khapitan - Sorry for getting personal but you are a complete cretin, I'm going to have to take this into account whenever I see your posts.
"Do you also call the scientists, engineers and architects that prove the physics as being liars and theorists.."
YES, I DO. Because there are almost none of these people and they have provided no proof. Has Cambridge University or a top Parisien university (for a less possibly biased view), proved, or at least provided any evidence, to dispute the official record. No. Has Iran or Russia, who would have a great deal of motiviation to prove The West wrong, no. Because what happened, happened exactly the way it was demonstrated and exactly the way we all saw it happen, most of us on TV.
"What possible reasons would Americans have for conspiracy theories about their own damned government other than the fact that the realise that something smells very badly in this whole affair......"
Presumably for the same reasons you do - either madness, stupidity, attention whoring or the strange desire by some in the US to see the entire government as some sort of single lucifer-like sentient enemy.
You tell everyone there was no wreckage, you are shown a picture of the wreckage and then respond that it couldn't possibly have fallen there. So presumably the firefighters, police, and everyone filming the disaster and aftermath didn't notice when someone brought in an airframe wreckage to the crash site. The more evidence supporting the established truth you see the more you think that proves a conspiracy - utter madness.
Just stop and ask yourself what is MORE LIKELY, that the events didn't happen as portrayed and a massive conspiracy has been cast that only requires hundreds of thousands of people across in several nations to keep the secret OR the events did happen as shown and a few people harbour doubts that reflect their predisposed bias/madness/stupidity/desire for attention.
No one is capable of such a conspiracy. Just grow up.
>Statistically what are the chances of BOTH of the world trade towers collapsing after being hit by "aircraft"? I believe that statistically the chances would be 0....
Maybe you need to look at other buildings, such as the empire state building that also was hit by a plane, had a fire, and stayed standing. If the older building can stay up to an airplane, and everything happened like the US gov says, then it really must be shoddy construction.
>9/11 did happen, with planes and thousands of people died, it would have been more difficult to fake.
Yes, I agree that 9/11 did happen, real people did die, I do not dispuite this fact. The difference being I do not for a moment beleive that it happened the way that media/govt portrayed it to happen..
Do you also believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, eye witness reports confirm beyond doubt that he did.
>In amongst the mass of human debris and carnage, the last thing on anyone's mind was "hmm, where's the bits of plane gone?"
Let's surmize that it was a missile. Wouldn't you like to know if that was an American, Russian, Chinese or Iranian etc missile. If that missile was American would you not want to know why.....
The details of a crime help to understand who was responsable for the crime. When vital pieces are removed quickly then a lot of doubt can be cast, hence the reason for the conspiracy theories.
To this day, I believe that there is no formal proof that Al Qaeda ( Osama Bin Laden) had anything to do with those acts.. Care to provide proof of the contrary.
...but, unlike Moses' ocean-splitting escapades, there was no *live footage of the fucking planes hitting the buildings within MINUTES of the events*.
This is 2001 we're talking about. Nobody could have rendered the footage that quickly to match the real-world visuals. Remember, people had cam-corders too back then, and they did use them. How easy do you think all that footage would have been to fake as well?
As for "The WTC shouldn't have fallen down": the Twin Towers had an unusual design whereby *all* the structural strength of the buildings was in the outer skin. This allowed the rentable office space to be much, much bigger and less cluttered with structural elements.
Boeings jet airliners fly at close to the speed of sound. That's a lot of kinetic energy. No building would be able to keep the plane out.
Once a plane had passed through that crispy outer shell, there was only the soft centre in the middle to plough through and destroy. (The poor fireproofing didn't help either. This is why the buildings actually collapsed: the explosions and burning fuel softened the floor structures until they gave way.)
That there was so little *obvious* aircraft wreckage is trivially explained by that outer skin, which effectively shredded the planes as they passed through, rather like a cheese grater.
The Twin Towers collapsed because their design had fundamental flaws. Contrary to popular belief, architects and engineers are not infallible. Even Isambard Kingdom Brunel made plenty of mistakes.
"The Twin Towers collapsed because their design had fundamental flaws. Contrary to popular belief, architects and engineers are not infallible. Even Isambard Kingdom Brunel made plenty of mistakes."
As much as I concur that 1 or 2 architects and engineers might make mistakes, I very much doubt that 2300 architects and engineers made the same mistake.
Since this is going to be my ultimate donwvoting day....here is a little piece of widsom for all the DVers..
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860)
It might be worth asking that same question to the people that created the event whereby Lee Harvey Oswald was made responsable for the shooting of a certain JFK. Absolutely amazing what some people are capable of, shooting the president of the United States, only conspiracy theorists would believe that anyone in power had anything to do with that.....
Or maybe ask this guy, he doesn't torture people, again it's a conspiracy theory, dont worry it doesn't really happen.. We dont torture poeple
( Oops I forgot to mention yesterdays news
What about these conspiracy theories, it so happens that what started out as conspiracy theories actually were true.....
* Operation Northwood. - Conspiracy theory stated that plans had been drawn up to create acts of terrorism on US soil in order to gain public support for a war against Cuba.
Conspiracy Theory , certainely not , proof is here "http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf".
*Operaton Cointelpro : Program to disceredit Martin Luther King
Proof : http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-2d.html
*TPPA - just another Conspiracy Theory.....
*The US Govt spies on it's people. Again just another Conspiracy Theory. ( Chelsea Manning and Snowden were just puppets, n'est-ce pas).
So what actually makes 911 any different. All of the above require lots of manpower, people in powerfull positions, carefull use of the media. Amazing the similarity with the Cuban incident.
I can't prove who organised 9/11 but then again who can.....
The official 9/11 report is full of holes, that's public knowledge not speculation. There are several generals and ex-cia who have testified but are being bullied into remaining quiet, why...
Why has the FBI never found any evidence linking the terrorists to 9/11 ?
Unbelievable Quote :
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
I believe that had this been a true terrorist threat the USA would have dropped the bomb on someone but they didn't, they killed OBL and went to afghanistan to fight a war that no-one understands...Wtf and people think that I am a fool. ( Sorry, I should say "cretin" in accordance with Dan. apology accepted by the way)..
Are we supposed to believe that something good has come of all this....If so what ?
@Khapitan you're missing the the biggest conspiracy ever: the bumblebee hoax.
Scientists proved that bumblebees could not fly, but the Illuminati kept showing people pictures of bumblebees in flight, even releasing fake bumblebees that looked like they could fly, and now the whole world is convinced that bumblebees can actually fly.
If you go back though all of the DVers comments you will notice that no-one has actually provided any links or proof as to who actually did do this ! All I have been shown is a photograph of a piece of fuselage, which after viewing the video that they screend could not have been left so fully intact. What happend to the Black Box
I have made my point, I stand by my convinction, I understand that the majority do not agree and yet all of you just blindly accept what you have been told.
It reminds me very much of the the Bible believers being told that a Deity exists and then blindly believing that that is the given truth.
Rather than tell me I'm a fool, prove your own standpoints, you never know it might actually make me change my mind.
Simple request to all the DVers: We have been told time and time again that it was OBL and yet he denied the fact but why would a terrorist deny his crowing act. The "FBI" said that they can't prove it was OBL.
Can someone please point me to some straighforward, indisputable evidence proving who really pulled of this attack.
Let me try to put this a simply as possible: the government of the United States of America is not as stupid as you portray them to be.
Look, anyone who reads these forums as much as you knows that I am no fan of the US government. So please, take what I have to say here with careful consideration, instead of dismissing me out of hand for disagreeing with you.
I know that no matter how much physical evidence, video evidence or so forth is presented to you, you will not believe it, because there is always a way to fake it. You know it, I know it; if the United States government wished to fake something like 9/11 in the manner you described, they probably could have.
There's only one problem: I don't believe they're that stupid. Here's why:
By 2001 the United States has had well over 50 years of having the best black ops intelligence community on the planet. They are the smartest, they are the best, they are the most well resourced and by far the most experienced. The whole crux of your belief in their ability to pull of such a conspiracy rests on that fulcrum, and I cannot deny the truth of it.
But in being so experienced they would never - I repeat never - be so careless as to use missiles on those towers, then claim it was planes.
I fully believe that there are people in the US government callous enough to destroy those towers in order to start a war so they can go club some brown people over the head and steal their oil. Dick Cheney alone is the fucking dark lord of the Sith, and he's far from the only one. But I need you to understand this:
If the United States government wished to start a war by getting everyone all riled up about bad guys crashing planed into the twin towers, then they would hijack the fucking planes themselves and crash them into those towers.
The risk of something going wrong, of things not looking right, of some foreign nation having a spy satellite in the right place at the wrong time...there is no black ops department anywhere in the US of A that is stupid enough to use missiles and claim it was planes. Even the fucking janitors can plan a better op than that.
I don't know who crashed those planes into the towers. There certainly seem to be enough crazy fundamentalist Muslims that it's perfectly plausible that exactly who everyone claims was behind it actually was behind it. I could also believe that any of several dozen complete psychopaths in the US government ordered the hit.
But they would absolutely have used real planes full of real people to do it.
And that - that right there - is why your conspiracy theory falls apart. If you wanted to hold up evidence that said "here is why I think the hijackers were actually black ops fanatics hired by Blackwater and in service to Dick Cheney" I might well be inclined to review your evidence and give it honest consideration.
But starting this out with "it wasn't planes, it couldn't have been planes, it had to be missiles" is just lunacy. Sheer lunacy. At the end of the day bra, no black ops team is that sloppy.
First off, thanks for taking the time to write something lucid rather than the ranting that I sat through up above. Initially all that I wished was to highlight was the power of the media, I had no intention to enter into yet another debate about 9/11 but as the internet/forums go that’s unfortunately how these things often string out.
Some of your remarks, most notably concerning Black Ops experience I can only agree with. Are Dick Cheney and his cronies capable of pulling off some nasty stunts, definitely. Do we have the technology available to fake the videos, data and coerce the media, of course we do, and we have had it for a long time already. So we definitely agree on all those points.
I will give you 1 point for your theory on foreign satellites; this is a subject that I have never seen mentioned anywhere. I presume that foreign governments are not likely to admit spying in the states though, so they have to remain quiet.
You are right, I cannot prove or disprove what was actually flown into the buildings or Shanksvilel, nor how it was done but I am convinced that it was certainly not done using the means that were publicised.
Here are some points that I will never understand that will eternally leave doubts in my mind.
• The manner in which the 2 towers and the WTC 7 fell, the statistics of this happening defy all probability. All three building fell “perfectly” to the ground….
• 7 of the hijackers are alive and well, the BBC found them and interviewed them. So ban goes the theory about 19 hijackers.
• Both “planes” hit their targets perfectly, this is a task that is apparently “extremely, read almost impossible” for a very seasoned 767 pilot and yet they would have us believe that people barely capable of flying a Cesna managed to do it with complete control. ( I have been in and tried a real flight simulator, a C-130 and learned first hand that yes it is difficult to fly a plane. I cant even begin to imagine what it means to fly a 767.... )
• Why was a 747 engine found on Murray street. AA and their 767s do not use these kinds of engines.
• When Convar recovered data some of the mainframe hard drives there was proof that more than a 100 Million dollars was illegally moved on the morning of the attack. This leads to believe that someone was aware of something was going to happen.
• Stock markets - 600% increase in “Put Options” on American Airlines on Sept 10….. No one has yet claimed the money that was maid on these transactions...
• WTC7 – Not a controlled demolition, very hard to believe. Coincidently it is well known that is was an FBI/CIA/NSA building.
• WTC6 Core – Wtf happened t here..
• The Pentagon – Why do so many pilots and even Gen. Stubblebine refuse to accept that an aircraft hit that building? There are far too many credible people refuting the facts, these are people with nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose. This doesn’t make sense.
• The Pentagon’s defense sensors were switched off except for the one that captued the incoming aircraft? Now this really is hard to believe...
• Flight 93 – Shanksville – Absolutley nothing to show that an aircraft hit the ground except for a hole. No parts, no engine, no bodies, no luggage, nothing… A 100 tonnes of Airfcraft + passengers etc just “disintegrated”.
• It would be easy to add many, many more but there is no point…
Please do not respond to the above points, we would be at it for weeks and neither of us would advance. I just want to convey some of the issues for which I do not see, nor have read any truly rational solution that outweighs the pro-conspiracy theory solutions thesis.
As I mentioned above, my initial goal was simply to demonstrate the power that the media have, especially with narrated video. We were immediately told that is was Al Qaeda and a terrorist attackbefore anything at all could have been established. I think this thread is a perfect example of just how powerful imagery can be. It can sway opinions very strongly, regardless of the direction.
For a long time I have read many of your comments/articles and I have some insight into your professional capacities, Cartesian spirit, capacity for rational thought and even your “aspie” view of the world. Mix all of the aforementioned traits together and it is obvious that you must be in a position to also doubt many of the “facts” of 9/11.
But I digress, this thread needs to die and as much as I would truly like to know the truth about 9/11 I am confident of one thing, we will never be allowed to learn the complete story.
"I will give you 1 point for your theory on foreign satellites; this is a subject that I have never seen mentioned anywhere. I presume that foreign governments are not likely to admit spying in the states though, so they have to remain quiet."
Foreign governments spy on America openly all the time. Many - including Canada - have released images from their spy satellites at various times. (For example, I believe we released imagery of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.) Why would any nation with spy satellites be worried about revealing that they spy on the USA? Everyone does it, and everyone openly talks about it.
"You are right, I cannot prove or disprove what was actually flown into the buildings or Shanksvilel, nor how it was done but I am convinced that it was certainly not done using the means that were publicized."
Why are you convinced of this? The evidence that we, the public, have to hand actually supports the official story perfectly. The only item that I can see which might be conspiratorial is that those who hijacked the plane may not have been in the employ of those we are told they worked for. But there is no way to prove that one way or the other.
"The manner in which the 2 towers and the WTC 7 fell, the statistics of this happening defy all probability. All three building fell “perfectly” to the ground"
Actually, that's incorrect. In buildings where the exterior structure is load bearing, this is how they fall, especially when it's due to thermal stress. I can demonstrate this using ice forts that are commonly built by Canadian children. Also: if you don't believe me, try talking to demolitions experts who are familiar with the design and construction of the towers in question. They'll confirm. Making buildings collapse in that exact manner is their job. There are really neat videos all over youtube of them doing that. They can tell you why and how that amount of jet fuel will cause that exact collapse pattern.
"7 of the hijackers are alive and well, the BBC found them and interviewed them. So ban goes the theory about 19 hijackers."
Why would all members of a hijacking team need to be on the planes? You send the minimum force required so that some can stay behind and train new radicals. For that matter, how do you know they aren't simply mentally ill individuals seeking glory/to be copycats/whatever? There are lots of disturbed people that "attach" themselves to the horrible crimes of others.
"Both “planes” hit their targets perfectly, this is a task that is apparently “extremely, read almost impossible” for a very seasoned 767 pilot and yet they would have us believe that people barely capable of flying a Cesna managed to do it with complete control. ( I have been in and tried a real flight simulator, a C-130 and learned first hand that yes it is difficult to fly a plane. I cant even begin to imagine what it means to fly a 767.... )"
They're actually pretty easy. I've flown several planes, and I'd have no trouble hitting those towers with far more finicky aircraft. Remember that a modern 767 is essentially "fly by wire". Unless you've taken all three computers offline, they will compensate for pretty much everything (including the weird drafts and gusts you get trying to fly that low over a bunch of highrises) and allow you to hit a great big fat target like the twin towers.
Trust me when I say that it is way harder to put one of those planes down on a standard runway in the middle of an Albertan snowstorm (where the winds go 100 kph and shift directions suddenly and randomly). Especially when there's been a local power outage and the IVR is down. Yet I've been on one while it was done, and the pilot absolutely managed to land it on the button.
"Why was a 747 engine found on Murray street. AA and their 767s do not use these kinds of engines."
It was not. I know what you're referring to, and the individuals in question got it wrong, but this has been perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists ever since, regardless.
"When Convar recovered data some of the mainframe hard drives there was proof that more than a 100 Million dollars was illegally moved on the morning of the attack. This leads to believe that someone was aware of something was going to happen."
And? That doesn't mean that people didn't crash planes into it. A does not connect to B in any way.
"TC7 – Not a controlled demolition, very hard to believe. Coincidently it is well known that is was an FBI/CIA/NSA building."
You belief isn't really relevant. People that know more than you are convinced that it happened as described. The overwhelming majority of experts are. Until you have some pretty massive expertise in this area, your opinion is invalid.
"WTC6 Core – Wtf happened t here.."
That's not even a claim of anything.
"The Pentagon – Why do so many pilots and even Gen. Stubblebine refuse to accept that an aircraft hit that building? There are far too many credible people refuting the facts, these are people with nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose. This doesn’t make sense."
Why do so many people believe in a deity when none exists, nor there is any proof of it. Most have nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose. It doesn't make sense. Yet they continue to believe in a deity that doesn't exist. You are starting from a false premise: that all human being act logically, consistently and rationally. They don't. People do stupid, harmful things based on false evidence all the time.
"Stock markets - 600% increase in “Put Options” on American Airlines on Sept 10….. No one has yet claimed the money that was maid on these transactions..."
And? A does not connect to B. It doesn't remotely indicate that it wasn't planes used to crash into those towers.
"The Pentagon’s defense sensors were switched off except for the one that captued the incoming aircraft? Now this really is hard to believe..."
Those same sensors detect cruise missiles. Which, being honest, is the only thing the pentagon would have had to worry about in a time of peace with no known hostiles anywhere near their location. It's perfectly rational.
"Flight 93 – Shanksville – Absolutley nothing to show that an aircraft hit the ground except for a hole. No parts, no engine, no bodies, no luggage, nothing… A 100 tonnes of Airfcraft + passengers etc just “disintegrated”."
Plenty of wreckage was recovered. You are proceeding from false information and accepting it as truth.
"Please do not respond to the above points, we would be at it for weeks and neither of us would advance. I just want to convey some of the issues for which I do not see, nor have read any truly rational solution that outweighs the pro-conspiracy theory solutions thesis."
Oh, no, I feel I absolutely had to reply to the points. Because what it points out is a pattern of broken logic on your behalf. You are making completely irrational judgements over and over and in many cases clinging to outright false claims that were later clearly and publicly refuted. You have lost any and all objectivity.
You have decided that what occurred was that planes were not crashed into those towers and you are actively altering your perception of reality to fit this. You reject anything that doesn't fit your theory and accept anything - no matter how thoroughly debunked, no matter how irrational - that might support it.
I largely share your distrust of the American government and I am telling you that this instance your objectivity, logic and rationality has been compromised. You have read The Register's forums for enough years to know that I am not someone who would blindly accept anything told to them - especially if it was told to them by supporters of the American government - and I am telling you sir that you have gone to a really dark place here.
I do believe there is lots about 9/11 that we'll never know the 100% truth of. That's perfectly rational to believe, as the US government loves to classify everything, and only release as much information as the law forces them to. I can even buy that it is possible the whole thing was done by some sociopath war profiteer. That's possible.
But it is categorically not possible that those towers were taken down by anything other than a pair of passenger liners. That you insist on claiming this indicates a very severe mental disorder on your part. Please, sir, I beg of you: seek help. You're not well, and the truth of it shows in shattered "logic" and thoroughly refuted evidence that even someone as prejudiced against the American government as I simply cannot accept might be true.
Let me resume very, quickly my stand on things and why would I be sway towards the Pro-Conspiracy side of things.
It's very simple really, I do not for a moment believe that what was told is true. I do not believe that 19 Al Qaeda terrorists managed to fool the entire US Secret Service, that they managed to hijack 4 aircraft, whilst leaving no trace of how they managed to execute what can only be considerd as a perfectly executed scenario. I cannot believe that these attacks were not pre-planned by someone on the American side of the fence, it's just not feasible. I cannot believe that there was not a political motivation behind these attacks.
When I use the word believe, I mean "blind belief", the kind of belief that states that no matter what stange anamolies exist, that we continue to believe in the given story.
You mention yourself on several occasions that some things just do not seem quite kosher. You too realise that there is an underlying dilemma and I am sure .that you too would like to understand the full scenario.
By trying to sift throught the ProConspiracy theorists theorems I hope to catch a glimpse of something that can help understand what truly happened.
I am not per se a Pro-Conspiracy theorists, what I am is someone that will not accept that the given events of 9/11 are the whole truth.
"I do not believe that 19 Al Qaeda terrorists managed to fool the entire US Secret Service, that they managed to hijack 4 aircraft, whilst leaving no trace of how they managed to execute what can only be considerd as a perfectly executed scenario."
Then you lack imagination. I can personally think of about six different ways this could be pulled off today with the existing security at airports. To say nothing of pre-9/11 security. And I'm not a black ops mastermind. Lots of people have rightly pointed out that much of existing airport security is security theater, not actual security. Imagine how much worse it was "back in the day"?
Also: ECHELON wasn't exactly PRISM, ya know? It was easier to organize bad guys to do bad things back then. I don't see why it's so hard to believe this was doable. It's far harder to defend a fixed point (or a whole crazy metric shitload of fixed points) against a mobile attacker, let alone one that is willing to die to see their mission accomplished.
"I cannot believe that these attacks were not pre-planned by someone on the American side of the fence, it's just not feasible."
Why not? Also: why couldn't Al Qaeda just get some Americans to help them out? Or just bribe the right people? Or infiltrate agents into the government agencies so they had people in the right low level positions to look the other way? Virtually every nation on this planet has spies and saboteurs deep into every other nation...why wouldn't transnational radical movements?
"I cannot believe that there was not a political motivation behind these attacks."
There was. You don't do something like that without a political motive. But why does it have to be an American political motive? And how does "there was a political motive" translate into "it wasn't planes?"
You are just asserting, asserting and asserting. But you aren't joining any of these dots - half of which are provably false - into anything that logically or rationally explains why planes weren't used..
No, what rational person would?
1) Many media outlets have agendas. Look at FOX News. They wouldn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth even if they knew it. Niether would CNN. That doesn't make their agendas orchestrated by the government.
Mr. Burns Murdock is quite capable of being a fucksack all on his own.
2) Nobody knows 100% of the truth. A lot of it is reconstruction of events and consultations with various experts. I believe that many of the experts on reputable media outlets were telling what they believed to be the truth, given the evidence they had.
3) I also believe that investigations were undertaken by the government agencies involved to get to the bottom of it and that those investigations were undertaken in good faith. This is because they relied on so many individual from so many (often competing) agencies, at so many levels of government, civilian agencies, independent experts, industry experts, contractors, etc. that to mislead or brianwash all of them would have been an undertaking more outrageously expensive than the entire shuttle program.
Did these guys figure every last thing out? Nope. That's not possible. Humans are fallible. But I absolutely do believe they gave it an honest try.
4) Do I believe the spooks were up front and honest with anyone about what they knew, and when they knew it? Hell no. I am convinced their culture of secrecy is so fucked up beyond repair that they don't even know what they knew and when they knew it, or would be allowed to talk to themselves about it if they did!
5) Foreigners were involved. Specifically people from Canada and the UK. I know people who went over to help, in a professional capacity. Forensics experts. Pilots. Engineers. Medics. These are not people that were convinced to lie to the world about what they saw, I guarantee you that. I'd by my life on it. You don't grow up in a family full of shrinks and be unable to spot someone who is blanking something that big.
I don't trust those in charge of the US government. I certainly don't trust the spooks. But I just don't buy that every single foreigner, every civilian, every contractor, every civil servant, every agent, every officer, every investigator, every engineer, etc...
I don't buy that they were all duped. They saw plane wreckage. They analyzed the debris, the treated the wounded, bagged and tagged the dead. What was left of those people wasn't due to a missile impact, Khaptain. They burned by being exposed to a fiery inferno that only a plane full of jet fuel could have produced.
I could go on with evidence that I know of personally that goes beyond what's in the news stories. All of it correlates pretty well. Something that big doesn't just happen and not touch the lives of nearly everyone on the continent in some way. We all have stories about it, mate.
So, is the news coverage or the official reports or so forth all 100% true? Probably not. But how much of that is honest inaccuracy and how much is coverup and how much is attempting to use a tragedy for political gain (or ratings)?
Nuance. It's a required component of critical thinking. The world is not binary.
"If we don't have the 100% truth accurate down to the position of each electron on each atom then it was all a conspiracy and they used missiles, not planes" is outright lunacy. That's a false dichotomy so broad that it is indicative of a mental illness. Specifically something on the shizophrenia spectrum where paranoid delusion and related illnesses live.
We'll never know 100% for sure every last detail of what happened. But nothing supports your hypothesis about the events, and there's a lot that says that the official story is probably at least mostly true.
The physical evidence tells us how the event happened. The bit that needs to be taken on faith - or with a bowl of skepticism - is "what were the motivations of the hijackers." But in all honesty, sir, that's the only major place where there's any real room for debate at this point. Everything else has been tested, retested, modeled, remodelled, analyzed and checked to death.
Again Trevor, thank for your reply, I find that what you say is honest and feasible.. I will not try to dispute what you are saying. I won't deny that I may have been swayed by some, what I intially thought to be genuine theories, especially the technical theories,a t face value some of them sound very plausible.
Something that disturbs me though is the following, why are there so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 ? There are people devoting their lives to uncovering the truth. Books have been written, films have been shot, documentaires are 10 a penny. Intelligent and educated people collaborating on technical aspects ( AE911truth.org) Ex-CIA agents ( Susan Lindauer) coming out with their versions of the truths, ex-vets (http://www.mo911truth.org/) getting together and requesting futher investigations etc etc etc .
Is it feasibly possible that they are all wrong, I am not advocating that they are right, just that it seems improbable that they are all wrong. What are the chances that there is Smoke without Fire.
Is it just a general consensus that the governements (those in control) are no longer to be trusted ? Is there a reason for someone wanting to create this kind of psychological chaos within society or has society simpy lots its marbles. Is this the precursor of what's likely to increasingly happen in the near/immediate future.
At the end of the day the same question will always arise : Who stands or stood to gain from this ? or is it just the kickback from prior errors.
"Something that disturbs me though is the following, why are there so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11"
Short version? There are two categories of people who make up conspiracy theorists in instances like this:
1) Those who have an issue with the group in question and basically mistrust them so much that see conspiracy even when it isn't there. Their hatred runs so deep that they are unable to accept that the group in question may in fact be doing exactly what they appear to be doing, even when every element of evidence says they are. This is conspiracy through hatred.
2) The second (wildly more popular) group are those with unchecked schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Understand that schizophrenia and autism are two ends of a spectrum, with "normal" in the middle. On the Autism side you have OCD, Depression, ADHD, Aspergers and other Autism Spectrum Disorders. Here you have issues with inadequate serotonin, dopamine, etc.
Autism Spectrum Disorders as usually comorbid to a greater or lesser degree. I.E. an Aspie might have OCD, or an ADHD individual like myself might have Depression as well. The Autism Spectrum is a cluster of issues caused by inability to adequately produce or reuptakr certain neurotransmitters; so it makes sense that few individuals suffer from any one illness.
Autism Spectrum Disorders are typically pervasive developmental disorders and/or mood disorders. They tend to be about "issues getting adequate sensory information into the brain to feed a very fast working brain" combined with "issues with impulse control, focus and ability to make decisions."
On the exact other side of that spectrum, you have Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders. Here you would have paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, multiple personality disorder, paranoia, delusions, thought disorder, etc.
Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders occur usually because of too much serotonin, dopamine, etc. The exact same chemicals that, without enough of them - or an error in reuptaking them - cause Autism Spectrum Disorders will cause Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders when there are too many of them in the brain.
Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders are about reality distortion.
You would be shocked how many people walk around undiagnosed on both ends of the spectrum. Also, how many people are improperly medicated. For example: give an amphetamine to someone with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and it will (likely) help them. Give that same drug to someone with a Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder and they'll freak the fuck out. What helps one group harms the other and vice the versa.
There are a lot of people with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders walking around unmedicated. Just like a lot of aspies don't have formal diagnoses and we're only just beginning to identify and help all the people with depression, ADHD, OCD, etc. In a lot of ways, we understand Autism Spectrum Disorders better than Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, and thus we more readily identify them and are better equipped to help them.
"Is it feasibly possible that they are all wrong, I am not advocating that they are right, just that it seems improbable that they are all wrong. What are the chances that there is Smoke without Fire."
Pretty good, actually. Conspiracy theorists can be pretty damned convincing. They certainly are passionate. When you combine this with someone who knows that not everything is told to the public and who have - for whatever reason - an innate distrust/hatred of an entity (the government, for example), then you end up with people who want to believe.
If you are honestly open to the "why" of this, I could give a freaking seminar. The reasons, techniques and so forth are actually really well studied. It's the same way people get sucked into cults. Especially Scientology.
"Is it just a general consensus that the governements (those in control) are no longer to be trusted ?"
Yes, the evidence does suggest this to be the most likely scenario.
"Is there a reason for someone wanting to create this kind of psychological chaos within society or has society simpy lots its marbles. Is this the precursor of what's likely to increasingly happen in the near/immediate future."
This sort of "chaos" has always existed, in all societies, throughout recorded history. It is human nature to never be satisfied with what we have.
When dissatisfaction becomes too great, social upheaval follows. Old power groups are overthrown. New ones take their place and the cycle begins again. This flows from the fact that humans simultaneously react very badly to being treated "unfairly" or "unequally", yet are only ever truly happy if we have more than the next guy.
There's an old social experiment that basically goes like this; take two people who both make the same amount of money. One of them moved into the smallest house in a richer neighborhood. The other buys the biggest house in a poorer neighborhood. Without fail (once clinical depression has been accounted for), the guy with the bigger house than his neighbors is the happier one.
Is society at it's breaking point? No. The impotency of the Occupy and Ferguson protests demonstrated that. We are several generations away yet.
"At the end of the day the same question will always arise : Who stands or stood to gain from this ? or is it just the kickback from prior errors."
Um, at the end of hte day, Al Qaeda stood to gain from it. Face it: they put a minimal amount of money and manpower into an operation and it was successful beyond anyone's wildest imaginings. In just 13 years they've caused us to become simpering cowards willing do give up our civil liberties at the drop of a hat.
The goal was to make the west look foolish, petty, weak, fallible and corrupt. We played right into that. As a result, Al Qaeda was able to drive recruitment through the roof and solidify their power base: which was the point of the exercise. Al Qaeda accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish, and then some.
So successful were they, in fact, that other radical groups were able to capitalize on the aftermath and this is where you get the rapid rise of organizations like ISIS.
Others within the American government profiteered off the events. Some may even have collaborated. But the groups that benefited the most absolutely were the radical Islamics. They wanted to raise an army, build nations and establish a theocracy. They got exactly that.
With the added bonus that they set off every whacko christian in America and thus got their enemy to spend the past 13 years fighting itself while they seized power. Worked rather well, all things considered.
@Khapitan Get angry at real stuff: the CIA paid two people $81m to advise them on torture techniques.
Some very experienced engineers,architects and pilots have proven/shown that it is simply impossible to fly a plane into a building and leave a hole such as was made. The wings would have collapsed, the tail would have fallen of, An aluminium bodied aircraft cannot physically fly through concrete and steel, it's just structually impossible.
These the same guys who find faces on Mars?
Must have been tough distributing all those plane pieces over lower Manhattan. It's also weird that a couple of planes went missing with passengers on board.
@Wade Burchette - "I know someone who actually saw the planes fly into the twin towers. Saw with his own two eyes."
So they got to him too.
I must say that having read the The Physcopath Test by Jon Ronson, I now find this conspiracy nonsense quite objectionable, I imagine your friend would probably agree. The book features an account of a 7/7 London Tube bombing survior and her distressing harrassment by deniers, ironically including an actual conspiracy whistleblower, David Shayler. The account shows just how vile this can get. Imagine having to go through the experience of thinking you had died underground in a bombing only to be told later by people who weren't there that it couldn't possibly have happened and you must be lying about the whole thing.
Do you also believe that Snowden is telling lies, is he also part of the Conspiracy Theorists.
Why did we never find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I suppose that that was also a conspiracy theorists plot to discredit the USA/UK
If I am wrong about my understanding of the affair, then nothing changes, however if you are wrong what then, Business as Usual, somehow I don't think so..
I fail to believe that so many architects and engineers are wrong. I really can't believe that so many Americans, and some very prominent ones at that, would discredit their own country without reason.
This is the World Stage of Politics/Finance where no holds barred has a completely different set of rules.
"An aluminium bodied aircraft cannot physically fly through concrete and steel, it's just structually impossible."
You could break a window with a pot of yogurt if you put enough force behind it. Same thing here, a plane would touch the building and crumple if you drove it into the building. Now, put it in the air, move it at flight speeds, throw in a shitload of fuel for a big bang and...different story.
But, hey, keep on collecting the downvotes. If you get enough, maybe you'll get a stuffed toy...
You mean like Mike Walters who saw an American Airlines jet coming in very low and he watched it fly into the Pentagon, no might, no maybe. I realise that's not the WTC, but as you twoofers think the Pentagon was also part of the conspiracy it doesn't matter. It's time you let it go.... Charlie Veitch did and he was one of your main go to gurus. Regardless, I think you clicked the wrong link, you should have hit the one that says infowars, they'll love to hear what you have to say because twoofers are only interested in hearing from other twoofers who share their idiotic opinions.
I want to hire the attorney's wife to throw the family's next Bar Mitzvah. I imagine it'd be great!
This William Isaacson lawyer, and other attorneys at this firm seem to drink a lot of hard liquor during their days off.
It appears this very lawfirm is also representing a former CEO of Blackwater. Blackwater is the outsourced Apple Factory... err.. outsourced assassination company formed during the Bush Years.
Class-action suits aren't about getting the plaintiffs rich, they're about punishing corporate activity which illegally harms the consumer. Of course lawyers get rich in the process, but they do that whatever the case, so that's neither here nor there.
The interesting (and often most questionable) part IMO is what will become of the portion of the inevitable settlement which remains unclaimed by class members (which is usually most of it).
I wonder if anyone has studied the research of Dr. Judie Woods into the 9/11 disaster available on her web site (terribly designed) at drjudywood.com. It felt strongly believable to me, even though I had never once considered a conspiracy angle to the disaster: Her research is available as a book too:
Of particular interest is the fact that she was so confident in her research that she filed a Qui Tam suit against a host of agencies:
Re - Sean Timarco Baggaley
My flabber has never been so gasted as reading the ignorant drivel you put forward!
"As for "The WTC shouldn't have fallen down": the Twin Towers had an unusual design whereby *all* the structural strength of the buildings was in the outer skin. This allowed the rentable office space to be much, much bigger and less cluttered with structural elements."
Did you ever think to read the specification of the building? have you even LOOKED at a photograph of the Twin Towers being built in the 70's? It was a CENTRAL core made up of gigantic steel beams holding everything on one side while the outer columns held the other side.
The central core was therefore immensely strong but you obviously believe that, like most unquestioning dummies who have fallen for the media and government repetitions, that all the undamaged floors and steel beams under the crash areas would simultaneously give way all the way to the ground, taking the route of most resistance, straight down at the speed of gravity, and throwing huge girders several hundred yards outwards whilst converting 100% of the concrete in the buildings to tiny grains of powder.
The towers were designed to withstand multiple hits from aircraft the size and weight of the aircraft that were flown into them, otherwise they would not have been built! Thankfully a terrorists passport made it all the way out of the aircraft, through the flames and falling debris to enlighten suckers like you about who was responsible.
And was building seven made to the same design hmmm? Nope, that just had the sort of fire that steel framed buildings have always withstood for over a century of building around the world until one day when the first three ever to collapse due to 'fire' came down in the same small area.
No evidence a plane hit the Pentagon, unless you think a hole 12ft smaller than the fuselage with no additional damage from the wings and titanium engines (which apparently 'vaporised' in the heat from the burning aviation fuel), of which there are dozens of photos before the roof collapsed. That plane wandered around North America for well over an hour and a half. North America where the day before 911 and the day after 911 the AVERAGE time an aircraft could fly with its transponder turned off without being intercepted by armed fighters was 10 minutes. It wasn't the 'usual screw-ups', the CAA and military are in the same room and don't need to phone each other sounding surprised!
Wherever a plane crashes there is a tailplane. It ALWAYS survives because it is incredibly strong, and that's why they put the black boxes there. No tailplane at the Pentagon or Shanksville, the latter just a rather rudimentary hole in the ground with a few pieces of paper and a terrorist's bandana scattered about.
Trevor! Americans are Ninja's who get everything right? Seriously?
Branding everyone who looks at the evidence of their own eyes and finds unanswered questions a 'Conspiracy Nut' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' is lazy and cowardly. Do your OWN research, look at photos of the construction of the twin towers, the state of the sites afterwards with no concrete chunks, just powder, and the hugely strong core of the buildings which included the lift shafts completely gone. Be sceptical of other opinions, even ones you agree with. Don't just parrot the insulting and ignorant garbage you've been taught over and over again.
"Trevor! Americans are Ninja's who get everything right? Seriously?"
Where did I say that? Hmm? Provide the exact quote and context, then please provide a logical and rational reason you interpreted what I wrote to be what you said I wrote.
What I said was two things:
1) Americans have the power, technology, access to skills, resources, manpower and even advanced group manipulation techniques to have pulled off a conspiracy of the scale suggested. If there was a damned good reason to do so. It would take years of planning. It would be a massive undertaking, and it would be the largest, most complex conspiracy of all time...but they absolutely, 100% could do it.
There is, however, no rational reason for them to have done so. If they had wanted to start a war against some brown people so they could steal some oil it is a hell of a lot easier and more efficient to just select a few ultra-loyal troops and send them on a mission to hijack some planes and actually crash those planes into things.
Why, why, why in all the worlds that spin would they waste time and money using missiles against the towers (or demolitions, or what-have-you) when it is cheaper and easier to just actually hijack the fucking planes? Bonus: you don't have to spend the next decade covering it up, because you did what it said on the tin!
2) "Branding everyone who looks at the evidence of their own eyes and finds unanswered questions a 'Conspiracy Nut' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' is lazy and cowardly."
There are unanswered questions. There are also a lot of answered questions that the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept. I call people "Conspiracy nuts" and "conspiracy theorists" not because they question what's in front of them, but because they
A) refuse to believe solid, verifiable evidence that the overwhelming majority of experts vouch for
B) cannot provide a logical, rational reason for why all the various points of data (most of which are provably false) sum up to their claims.
C) they can't answer the most basic questions about flaws in their logic. For example "why would anyone destroy the towers and claim it was planes, but not just actually use planes?" Especially since there is all sorts of evidence and testimony from a huge number of experts that verify that planes could (and did, thank you very much) cause the level of devastation under discussion? Are you really going to tell me that people setting about to start a war that will kill millions are squeamish about a few hundred people on some planes? When they blow up towers with thousands in them? Really?
"Do your OWN research, look at photos of the construction of the twin towers, the state of the sites afterwards with no concrete chunks, just powder, and the hugely strong core of the buildings which included the lift shafts completely gone."
I have. I was once very interested in the design of those buildings because they used a non-standard design for sky rises. I got into studying them as an adjunct to some really neat stuff I had learned about Bamboo skyrises in China. I then learned all sorts about how they collapsed, which lead me to study a massive amount about demolitions (both of skyscrapers and underwater demos of things like oil platforms).
I learned enough about these topics that I would feel perfectly comfortable sitting down to discuss any aspect of thing with someone who legally qualifies as an expert. You know what I learned? There is nothing about the collapse of the towers, the dispersal of the debris or the type of trauma received (point impact + massive thermal disturbance) that is untowards. It all makes perfect sense, given the materials in play, the construction used and the temperatures involved.
I even built models. We used them in an attempt to design a server enclosure that would withstand an oil pipeline incident in which the bitumen caught fire. Could we keep the equipment inside collecting sensor data the whole time, and relaying signals down the line from sensor webs further up? What sorts of impacts could it withstand, and what temperatures? Etc.
So, I've done my homework. Are you now going to tell me I'm just a sheep because, having done my homework on this subject, I came to the same rational, logical conclusion as the majority instead of the uninformed and irrational conclusion held by the unmediated and unwell minority?
"Be sceptical of other opinions, even ones you agree with."
You really don't know me, do you? I rarely agree with anyone, and I'm skeptical of everything.
"Don't just parrot the insulting and ignorant garbage you've been taught over and over again."
When I want to insult someone, I don't do it by parroting what I've learned from others. I come up with my own, completely novel ways of doing it, and I do so because I have done the fucking legwork to be confident in my position.
Seek professional help. Your quality of life will improve.
Ok Trevor - I'm genuinely happy to look at other evidence. I've formed my opinion based on the things I can check myself and published articles, including among many Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/ and Popular Mechanics http://tinyurl.com/6snvnbu
By the way, I never claimed it was missiles. That was Khaptian. I'm convinced two aircraft hit the towers. My years in air-accident photography help here. I suppose you might therefore consider me highly experienced, possibly even a real expert in this area.
Could you please provide links to the theories regarding your comments above and the reason why the twin towers came down. Purely for the sake of brevity I'll refer to it as 'your' theory.
I'm looking forward to learning how these items in particular can be explained.
1) The steel structure of the buildings acted like a giant heat-sink, so how did localised heat sources cause the floors to start collapsing symmetrically?
2) How did an oxygen-deprived fire (black smoke) of mainly office furniture in both towers create the heat to damage supporting beams made of heat resistant steel? The fuel carried by the airliners was mostly burnt off in the initial explosions. A fire chief who made it to the damaged floors of the North Tower thought it could easily be brought under control by no more than two or three hoses (verbal recording).
3) Both towers took roughly 10 seconds to fall and effectively disintegrate. Official 911 commission Report and the NIST Report say so. Will your link explain how this free-fall speed was achieved?
4) If you study this scientific but perfectly readable report http://tinyurl.com/y99nkux on the speed of collapse using irrefutable schoolbook physics, does your theory answer the question of why the floors underneath the damaged areas offered zero resistance to the weight from above. If the floors below had offered just 0.25 seconds of resistance per floor, the collapse would have taken significantly longer, but that would still not have taken into account the fact that the floor collapsing would have had to start accelerating from zero.
5) How does your theory explain how ALL the floors from the crash levels proceeded to fail completely symmetrically? In other words, why did thousands of different types of connections and supports fail at exactly the same moment on the same floor?
6) Both towers went straight down (as did Building Seven). Can you offer any explanation as to why this happened, as you would expect large chunks of the top part of the buildings to fall sideways due to the larger amount of damage on one side of the building?
7) If the building 'pancaked' as most official reports conclude, why has all the concrete turned to very fine dust and not large chunks?
8) If the building 'pancaked' why did the workers removing the wreckage only find tiny fragments of items, like half a phone dialling pad, that would have remained squashed but possibly recognisable like safes, kitchen equipment like industrial ovens, computer racking filled with densely packed servers, UPS's and RAID units?
9) Given that bottled gas was forbidden in the towers due to strict fire regulations, can your theory explain the very many recorded reports from firemen in the building, policeman and reporters (including quite a few sound recordings), of loud explosions in the time after the aircraft hit up to the collapses?
10) How does your theory explain the collapse, straight down into its own footprint again, of Building Seven? Damaged in a small area on one side only by fire, and consisting of very different floor strengths across its length due to an electrical substation underneath it, it too fell symmetrically with all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. There are videos available of police and helmeted workers moving people back in a non-panicked fashion say the building was going to come down.
I'm really not interested in explaining the physics of the WTC collapse to someone who by all indications is probably crazy. That said, a few things jump out.
1) All your wanking about the design of the building fails to take into the account the types and amounts of stress it was designed for. Shearing stress, sudden shock, even the momentary difference in weight supported by the floor below before the rubble impacts it (and the recreates the stress, with the added kinetic momentum of having fallen a floor) all play their part. There are some truly great simulations of the collapse done by computer science nerds.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh3qUmNxC6E for one example.
This is a great look at the design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1WZ9g1IJ4
Here's a computer science rendering of the impact, also well done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
2) It was not "office furniture" burning, it was jet fuel. From a 767 fueled for a transcontinental flight. Oxygen was continually supplied to the burn because the core of the building was severely damaged on impact, ripping the elevator shafts open and sucking in oxygen from below through the chimney effect.
Take a good look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA <-- you'll see a good example of a bright orange fire (the fuel) burning on the floor below the impact point, and you can even watch the tower deform and shake before collapse. It doesn't blow out, it doesn't suddenly collapse, it's gives way through means of structural collapse.
Is Jet Fuel enough to melt steel? Well, it's not exactly going to turn it into a river of lava. But it will make it soft, pliable...fuel that gets aerosolised for any reason (and considering the complex microenvironments inside those buildings, there would have been pockets of periodic aerosolisation) absolutely would get hotter than a puddle o the stuff burning on the ground.
So you don't have to melt everything completely to do stupid amounts of damage, and you everything doesn't burn equally. There's enough complexity there to account for all sorts of weridness witnessed, but also to fundementally weaken the structure and cause the collapse.
Ultimately, the problem with trying to answer any and ever question you come up with is that you can always find some minor point that you don't understand and claim that proves the towers were demolished. It's the "god of the gaps" argument, but applied to a conspiracy instead of religion.
What I will say, however, is that there are some pretty fundamental - and overarching - issues with your line of questioning. They point to a lack of understanding of the finer physics of the event, as well as a disregard of the cascade effects of the plane impacts (such as what really happens when that much jet fuel goes up. How goddamned hot it gets, and what that does to things.)
You would do well also to research the concept of "shock compression". Towers are build for and rated to handle only so much shock compression. They are primarily designed for continuous compression. A single shock impulse beyond capacity can doom the whole structure. If you want to study that in more detail, don't study the 9/11 collapses. The best research on that comes out of studies on the plasma shockwave effects of nuclear blasts or fuel air bombs.
Just watch what a daisy cutter can do and you'll understand the effects of shock compression.
Last, but not least, http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html is a great start along your journey towards understanding the science of the event.
Additional resources: http://www.debunking911.com/ - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
I've already viewed most of those links you gave a long time ago, and in fact two of them were instrumental in convincing me that someone was trying very hard to convince non-technical people of a particular scenario, in that there was some massive 'progressive collapse' or pancake of the building after the top floors failed. Just to be sure I had not missed anything I viewed or read all the links you gave for their entire length.
No, I didn't think you would be interested in explaining the physics of a free fall collapse, funny that.
But you found the time in trying to insult me by mocking my mental health. Insulting people by calling them crazy for asking difficult questions. Very interesting.
No-one will know exactly what happened to the floors that got hit, as the evidence of the scene was carted off to china far too quickly, but photographs of someone standing in the gap that the second airliner caused suggests the heat wasn't that high.
Basically the one thing I asked you to do was provide an explanation of how the towers fell down so quickly. For all I know there might be a plausible, believable and accurate explanation that adheres to common physics. Believe it or not my past career taught me to look at images with no pre-conceived ideas of how those images came about, even images I'd seen many times before. It takes practice but it can be done.
You have not provided any evidence apart from some very old links (one take you a 404 page BTW) and not very good ones at that. The ones that show CG and wooden models of what happens to a building when support is remove both show that the building twists and falls to the side, not straight down. None of the evidence you have given even mentions the fact that the towers fell at free-fall speed with no resistance from all the floors below, let alone offer an explanation. 100 plus floors that have held up a huge building for decades don't just disappear.
Given all your statements about having some expert knowledge about the exact reason they fell, I expected you to give it to me, and I would have genuinely looked at it and formed an opinion.
In the end, as I've long suspected, you are just a sanctimonious, big-headed priggish gas bag.
There's nothing crazy about asking hard questions, mate. There's lots crazy about denying the answers when those answers come in the form of informed opinions from the overwhelming number of experts involved.
There's lots crazy about asking questions that have already been debunked, and of then returning to those questions after having had things explained to you as though by re-asking those same questions you are somehow proving something.
Look: long story short? The official explanations for how the thing came down make sense. A combination of warm (and hence deformable) truss joints, damage to the core supports and impulse shock absolutely could (and evidently did) cause those towers to collapse.
As for the lady in the hole, that's one I actually can explain. Here goes: if you look at all the simulations, the very bottom of that hole (where the lady is) is on a floor that was only barely damaged by the plane impact. A part of a wingtip hit it. A goodly chunk of one side (I can't remember which) was left undamaged by the impact and likely still had most of a roof over it.
Now, that roof would have been crumbling and deforming and the core of the building where the stairs were would have been a hellish inferno. Smoke and heat would drive what few survivors there were to the edges where, presto, a hole in the building appears.
That isn't magic. Studying the images of where the lady is as well as the simulations of the impact can show you a viable path for her to have made her way there, even as her world literally burned around her.
But that right there is my point. That's one little thing amongst hundreds that the truthers hold up as each somehow independently proving that the whole thing was a lie. You could spend a lifetime whacking those moles but not only will they only find new ones to feed their paranoia...they'll go back to the ones you've already debunked and claim that you were lying/it was somehow impossible/minor tidbit #58709438 means that your debunking is false thus the original assumption must be true...
...it doesn't end. The fact that you keep returning to these items and that you are basically repeating the truther dialogue item for item, rejecting any and all formal debunking work done by experts means that I could waste my life on this and never get anywhere.
It has become more than simply a matter of intellectual curiosity. It has become religion. It is part of your core identity and how you relate to the world.
I could no more convince you of the truth of what occurred to those towers than you could convince me that we should tear up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For me, the UDHR is a foundational belief item from which all other things I hold to be true - the structure of my ethics and how I judge right and wrong - flow.
For you, the idea of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11 has become the exact same thing. A foundational element of your personality. You can't accept that the truth of the physical events are more or less as told to us because that would tear up your entire world view. It would utterly shatter your belief system to accept such a thing.
Now the problem is that between the two items, we call one normal and the other crazy.
A human without an ethical center inevitably succumbs to an ever greater spiral of existential despair. So most people cling to religion. Others find their ethical center in various other documents, like the UDHR, law, the Hippocratic oath, etc.
But we need something upon which to build a framework of reference by which to judge the world around us. Our minds aren't evolved to function in a world lacking ethical referents. If I didn't believe in something like the UDHR as a foundation for right and wrong, I would be mad.
But believing in a conspiracy, against all evidence and expert opinion...that is mad. Am I peckerheaded asshole for actually having the gall to say so? You know what...I probably am. I was raised by shrinks, so talking about mental health issues openly and publicly and is a pretty normal part of my childhood. I realize it violates social conventions.
But I also know that mild paranoid schizophrenia is treatable. What's more, it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just a state of being. I have ADHD. It's on the autism spectrum, basically the exact opposite of mild paranoid schizophrenia. The primary ailment is massively poor impulse control.
But here's the thing, sir. You can prove me wrong. Sit down with a qualified psychiatrist and discuss all this with them. If they prescribe you some drugs, take them for the full length of the dosage period. If they prescribe CBT (or a combination of CBT and drugs) go to all the sessions.
If I'm wrong, then a full course of treatment won't affect the steadfastness of your beliefs at all. If, however, I am right, then getting help will cause the importance of those beliefs to your identity to evaporate, and you'll be able to consider the incident as the rest of us are able to.
And then you know. You have a condition. You were born that way. There are drugs and/or CBT that can level it out..cool. It's just a state of being. There is no dishonour in it any more than being born blind...or "normal".
But by refusing to believe that we might have a problem...that's where we move into shameful choices. We shame ourselves and those around us by having the arrogance to presume that we are somehow able to see things that much clearer than everyone else. That we are somehow "normal" while everyone else is crazy.
Statistically, that's really, really unlikely.
So yeah, I'm not going to argue each and every little point until the end of time. I probably could, but to be perfectly honest with you, I would go stark raving looney-toons from the repetition long before you conceded even a single point.
If I'm particularly lucky, however, I will have planted a seed of doubt in your mind that maybe - just maybe - your quality of life could improve if you sought psychiatric help. And maybe - just maybe - one day you will. I honestly believe that if you did so, your life would improve. And even if you (and others) hate me for being an arrogant asshat, if one day I can make your life (or the life of someone else who reads this) better by convincing them to seek help...it's all been worth it.
Never stop asking hard questions. But also don't fear the the answers may be mundane.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019