More 9/11 mysteries.

[dj_stouty 0]

So 9-11 happened because it would cost too much to clean up all the asbestos? ROFLMAO

 

This is Garbage...

[TK0001 99]

There were also two buildings between the 3rd tower and WTC1 and 2. They were taller, shielded WTC7 from collapse, and took more damage, yet they remained standing.

 

What nutter site told you that? WTC7 was the third tallest building in the WTC complex. Only WTC6 stood between the North Tower and WTC7. WTC6 was only 8 stories.

 

check it out

 

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes this conspiracy is letting themselves believe it, most likely because they hate Bush. Anyone with Google can figure out it's complete garbage. An even more useful tool is common sense.

 

If there were explosives in the towers, explain how they got there, and how they weren't damaged by the impact of two 767s or the ensuing fires. Explain how workers secretly planted the explosives, when it would've taken months and months to do so. Explain why there weren't any wires found at the scene. Explain how these explosives eluded dectection from bomb-sniffing dogs. In a controlled demolition, support beams are cut up to 90%, and C-4 does the rest of the job. They obviously couldn't do that to the towers, so imagine how much explosive would need to be used. Try to actually calculate it - it's an astronomical number. Do you realize the towers were each three times the size of the tallest building ever brought down by CD? Do you honestly believe that the world record for CD (6 times over) was done completely secretively? Explain who would do such a thing? Who would the government hire that would be willing to kill thousands of Americans?

 

Last, but not least, explain why no structural engineer or controlled demolition expert on earth agrees with this theory.

[TK0001 99]

1. Of course there's going to be speculation. Key evidence is classified. Obviously the government isn't going to come forward and say how it happened. They have nothing to do but speculate, based on what evidence they have to work with.

 

The government did come forward and said how it happened. Ever heard of the 9/11 Commission? How about you go ahead and put together a timeline of events as you see them happening on 9/11. Make sure you encompass all 4 planes. If you do this, you will see how idiotic the 9/11 conspiracy is, guaranteed.

 

2. I'll submit this link for your review. It was written by Steven Jones, an engineering prof at BYU.

 

He's a Physics professor, not an engineering professor - and he's full of sh!t. His own university has recently suspended him because he maintains this wacky conspiracy. The structural engineering department of his own school has made sure that the public is aware they do not agree with his findings.

 

where six weeks later works uncover yet another piece of molten iron. That alone contradicts the report, as the only thing that can do that is a thermite reaction.

 

Prove that it was iron. It's a picture of a glowing piece of metal - why can't it be painted aluminum (like a filing cabinet)?

 

"Only" thermate can do this? Nothing else on earth can melt iron? Learn something new every day.

 

It was mostly iron, with sulfur mixed in (sulfur is an ingrediant to thermate, btw, and it is not found in steel)

 

Uh-huh. Guess where else sulfur is found? IN DRYWALL!!! Think there was much drywall in the towers?

 

Thermate is roughly 5% sulfur. Was Jones able to find any other thermate ingredients in this picture?

 

And, guess what! THERMATE IS A NON-EXPLOSIVE!!! It slowly burns through steel, it doesn't go boom. So, if you're willing to believe thermate brought the buildings down, you have to dismiss all the "evidence" of explosions, such as squibs and survivor ear-witness testimony. Whoops, looks like you got yourself in a pickle there, huh?

 

On a separate note, keeping quiet is easier than you think. It probably took less than two dozen people to pull this off.

 

Of all your previous ridiculous statements, this one takes the cake. President Clinton couldn't get a blow job without the entire nation finding out, and there were three people who originally knew about that.

 

What, you think the government has no problem killing 3,000 of its own citizens, yet people like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Steven Jones, and James Fetzer are able to blow the story wide open?

 

Like I said, common sense. Use it.

[De Novo 0]

I'll submit this link for your review.

 

You're beating your head against a wall. He's already made up his mind. It's so easy to insult people who ask questions about terrible things that happened, and then if ever proven wrong, he'll most likely say, "Well are you happy now!? You're pathetic."

[TK0001 99]

You're beating your head against a wall. He's already made up his mind. It's so easy to insult people who ask questions about terrible things that happened, and then if ever proven wrong, he'll most likely say, "Well are you happy now!? You're pathetic."

 

You know why you get that response? Because to us, it's not an expression of dislike of the government, it shows a lack of respect for the dead. You're treating those who died like some game to play around with, and that is wrong.

 

Answer any of my questions from above, if you're serious about this ridiculous theory.

[Sho Nuff 720]

If only it were that simple. Even with the floors pancaking, there's no way it comes down at freefall speeds.

There were also two buildings between the 3rd tower and WTC1 and 2. They were taller, shielded WTC7 from collapse, and took more damage, yet they remained standing.

 

Except it did not come down at free fall speeds (we have been over this already)...

There was one building in between the towers adn WTC 7...and it was heavily damaged as well.

 

Bring some facts to the table, and maybe it would be worth discussing with you again.

 

 

 

1. Of course there's going to be speculation. Key evidence is classified. Obviously the government isn't going to come forward and say how it happened. They have nothing to do but speculate, based on what evidence they have to work with.

 

2. I'll submit this link for your review. It was written by Steven Jones, an engineering prof at BYU. Please watch the first video, which is footage of the cleanup process, where six weeks later works uncover yet another piece of molten iron. That alone contradicts the report, as the only thing that can do that is a thermite reaction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do that, neither would anything in a typical office. If the floors pancaked, you shouldn't find large pieces of molten iron anywhere. That right there is enough evidence explosives were used. Unfortunately, this isn't the same paper originally hosted at BYU. That paper went into a bit more detail on the material found, which included some analysis of the material once it cooled. It was mostly iron, with sulfur mixed in (sulfur is an ingrediant to thermate, btw, and it is not found in steel)

 

3. The terrorists wouldn't need the planes if they had the thermite. Plus, they could detonate without the need for an evacuation, thereby killing a lot more. The explosives serve two purposes. 1) psychological. 2) cover up the evidence. On a separate note, keeping quiet is easier than you think. It probably took less than two dozen people to pull this off. Might I also add that secrets are kept in this government all the time. Black ops are just that. Leaks are often very intentional. And just because some are not doesn't mean that no one can keep a secret in the government.

 

 

1. Yes...but it is all speculation...No facts, no evidence...all speculation and what ifs. While all the sites and idiots like you. Yes, you deserve to be called an idiot for even trying to discuss this because you do not have the intelligence to actually discuss this topic at all.

 

2. Funny, Mr Jones is a conspiracy theorist who has been placed on leave while people examine the scientific basis for his work in that area. Now why would they question that? Perhaps because it is BS?

 

3. If they would not need the planes, why did it happen? Keeping quiet is easier than I think? Yeah...ok...cause it is easy to keep hundreds of people (necessary to really pull this off with planes, explosives and so on) all quiet.

 

Really...get a freakin clue...everything you have ever posted on this topic has been debunked in one way or another...this crap will be no different.

 

 

 

You're beating your head against a wall. He's already made up his mind. It's so easy to insult people who ask questions about terrible things that happened, and then if ever proven wrong, he'll most likely say, "Well are you happy now!? You're pathetic."

 

He is beating his head against the wall because he...and now you are morons.

 

You say we have made up our mind...yet you both have done exactly that.

 

Actually, its easy to insult people who cannot grasp facts, evidence, and reality and like to live their lives by a what if (a what if that has been shot down every single time it has been asked).

 

If ever proven wrong? You mean like you? You all have been proven wrong, time and time again by mounds of evidence...yet guys like VikesFan keep coming back with another quack website that has most likely already been debunked somewhere.

 

Pathetic is you two...

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Well, you see.......the bullet actually knocked off governor Connolly's glasses......hit Sol Rosenberg in NYC, knocking off his shoes.......and his glasses.......and then briefly lodged in Teddy Kennedy's liver on Martha's Vineyard, before deflecting back to Dallas and striking the President in the head......in a fashion of Gallagher destroying a watermelon....

 

[joneo 562]

This is what kills me. People keep bringing crap about a conspiracy and demanding answers. Fine, I have no problem with people questioning something that doesn't make sense to them. However, what I find ludicris is when answers ARE supplied to them, they disregard them as lies. They already have their minds made up and no proof will satisfy them and change their minds. So, I vow never to get invovled talking with someone about the conspiracy crap anymore. It will do no one any good. Like my grandfather used to say, "You can't argue with an idiot."

 

Anyone wishing to know the answers can go here. They are based on scientific FACT and not rumors.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[De Novo 0]

You know why you get that response? Because to us, it's not an expression of dislike of the government, it shows a lack of respect for the dead. You're treating those who died like some game to play around with, and that is wrong.

 

Answer any of my questions from above, if you're serious about this ridiculous theory.

I lack respect for the dead? Don't take that high-road bullsh1t with me? I simply want to know how they died. The gov't has disrespected the families of the dead by not providing sufficient answers to burning questions.

 

To answer your questions from above, and I don't feel like quoting them... explosives could have got there in any fashion. Maybe it was when security was disabled a couple weeks before. Seems like a convenient enough to me. I don't know how they weren't damaged by 2 767s. Who says some of them weren't damaged? Wires wouldn't be found out at the scene for the same reason over 1,000 bodies weren't. Because they were melted to oblivion. If it was an inside job, it's easy to keep the bomb-sniffing dogs away from explosives. That's just a silly question... If you think it would require so much C4 to bring down the towers, how the hell do you think small isolated fires brought down the building? You just made an argument against your "fire" theory. I suppose the world's largest controlled demolition could have been conducted. If you don't think the United States Government has the resources to get this done, you probably underestimate our capability. I'm not saying they did; I'm saying that I am suspicious. I'll admit that it's possible just planes brought it down. You're not even willing to admit it's possible there was a 2nd factor. When the government declares war, they're killing thousands of Americans. As part of this new war on terror and as part of a broader metawar, I think somebody who's delusional/obsessed could justify this plan to themselves. They could sell those involved on the idea that, "well, we think the Twin Towers may be targets... if they're hit, so that they don't fall sideways, we're going to plant explosives just in case we have to bring them down." Those involved could have thought they were doing the right thing, and maybe they do to this day.

 

You say we have made up our mind...yet you both have done exactly that.

I've said multiple times, "I'm not saying there were explosives planted. I'm saying I'd like convincing answers.

 

Actually, its easy to insult people who cannot grasp facts, evidence, and reality and like to live their lives by a what if

I grasp facts, evidence, and reality pretty easily. I suspect that you're too simple-minded to imagine how easily a scenario like this could have been pulled off w/o hearing anything of it. Until I hear of a comprehensive report that addresses my concerns. Despite your visions of me wearing tin foil on my head, living in my mom's basement, and spending all day thinking of ways to blame Bush, I actually have better things to do. Come to think of it, since you're such an expert, I would hope you've spent hundreds of hours reading about this. That makes YOU kind of obsessed and unwilling to drop it, doesn't it? And if you barely spend any time reading/discussing it, well, that hardly makes you an expert.

[wil_d_thril 0]

I've avoided personal attacks this entire thread. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I'll take your bet. I'll give you my address so you can mail me a check.

 

I, for one, appreciate your civility up to the above post in the thread, but the second part of this post makes me question your mental stability. 1) Offering to give a stranger on the internet your address and 2) Thinking that anyone here would be able to fund that check

 

[MLCKAA 586]

I didn't forget to answer. The question was directed at people who don't think planes hit the Pentagon and WTC, so I didn't respond. I have seen video upon video of a plane hitting the WTC, and I trust that enough people saw a plane hit the Pentagon (and why the fock use a missile when a plane does the job) that a plane actually did.

 

I'm not a nutjob conspiracy theorist... I just think there are far too many holes and far too many situations like "while theoretically possible, fire has never crushed buildings into fine powder"

 

Tell me why the antenna with negligible weight atop it falls first

 

If the ever-increasing weight explains the near free-fall descent and pulverization of reinforced concrete, why aren't these bottom floors obliterated?

 

If the flames were so devastating, what the fock is this guy doing alive?

 

Where are the Arab hijackers on this manifesto?

 

What about this one?

 

What the fock is this?

 

Can't explain this

 

Not saying everything listed here is 100% correct but if only a couple of them are (I think it's pretty certain they are), that's enough for me to raise an eyebrow

 

A 10 or 15 minute search yielded that, and there a million more things to scratch your head at.

12 million people died in the holocaust. Do people internalized that it's 400,000 PERCENT worse than this attack? Hell no.

 

Suicide bomber kills 23. Suicide bomber kills 49... you don't read the latter and feel like it's twice as bad. It's worse, but not nearly twice as bad.

 

The antenna falling first? I think that was the roof caving in due to the fire raging inside the building.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I grasp facts, evidence, and reality pretty easily. I suspect that you're too simple-minded to imagine how easily a scenario like this could have been pulled off w/o hearing anything of it. Until I hear of a comprehensive report that addresses my concerns. Despite your visions of me wearing tin foil on my head, living in my mom's basement, and spending all day thinking of ways to blame Bush, I actually have better things to do. Come to think of it, since you're such an expert, I would hope you've spent hundreds of hours reading about this. That makes YOU kind of obsessed and unwilling to drop it, doesn't it? And if you barely spend any time reading/discussing it, well, that hardly makes you an expert.

 

No...its quite obvious you do not grasp facts, evidence or reality very easily. Because it has been presented to you...and you still deny it.

 

Too simple minded? Says the guy that when shown evidence to the contrary of his points still denies it.

 

So much for your big high road of not slinging insults huh.

 

I see how it could have been pulled off...but I see how it would have been found out quite easily.

 

Now you want a comprehensive report debunking all of what you say? Many reports in different places are not good enough?

 

I see the visions of you wearing a tin foil hat, because that is all you have provided us with.

 

I have spent lots of time reading about this...because it is a fascinating topic. Though, it has been a while since I read most of it. Unwilling to drop it? Funny...considering how many threads are started by those who believe in the conspiracy theory, and the lack of any threads (until just yesterday or today) from those who do not calling out the other side.

 

So...now that you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite with all the insults you have slung...its time to just say.

 

Fock off, seriously.

[swirvenirvin 25]

[VikesFan 1]

1. The government did come forward and said how it happened. Ever heard of the 9/11 Commission? How about you go ahead and put together a timeline of events as you see them happening on 9/11. Make sure you encompass all 4 planes. If you do this, you will see how idiotic the 9/11 conspiracy is, guaranteed.

 

2. He's a Physics professor, not an engineering professor - and he's full of sh!t. His own university has recently suspended him because he maintains this wacky conspiracy. The structural engineering department of his own school has made sure that the public is aware they do not agree with his findings.

 

3. Prove that it was iron. It's a picture of a glowing piece of metal - why can't it be painted aluminum (like a filing cabinet)?

 

4. "Only" thermate can do this? Nothing else on earth can melt iron? Learn something new every day.

Uh-huh. Guess where else sulfur is found? IN DRYWALL!!! Think there was much drywall in the towers?

 

Thermate is roughly 5% sulfur. Was Jones able to find any other thermate ingredients in this picture?

 

5. And, guess what! THERMATE IS A NON-EXPLOSIVE!!! It slowly burns through steel, it doesn't go boom. So, if you're willing to believe thermate brought the buildings down, you have to dismiss all the "evidence" of explosions, such as squibs and survivor ear-witness testimony. Whoops, looks like you got yourself in a pickle there, huh?

Of all your previous ridiculous statements, this one takes the cake. President Clinton couldn't get a blow job without the entire nation finding out, and there were three people who originally knew about that.

 

1. Look, I've heard of the 9/11 commission. I've read parts of the report. It's full of holes. The gov couldn't even get its own story straight, not to mention that so much of what went into that report is still classified today. Why is that? What purpose is served by classifying materials that went into the commission? Also, do some checking into the conflicts of interests of the leaders of the commission. Just about everyone had conflicts. That's why people don't buy into the commission. It was a hatchet job from the start.

 

2. Last I checked, one of the biggest disputes to 9/11 has everything to do with the laws of physics. What we all saw on Sept 11 was physically impossible. Tall skyscrapers don't fall at nearly free fall speeds from any process other than demolition. Buildings that collapse due to losing supports collapse in the direction of the supports that broke. They fall into their own footprints, ONLY when all supports break simultaneously. There's no way, given what we have been told happened that all supports could have broken simultaneuosly. It just doesn't work that way. One of the towers wasn't even hit dead center, yet both towers fell into their own footprints.

 

3. This is where you get loony. You obviously don't know much about materials. The color of the material alone indicates that it was well above 1500 degrees F, and aluminum melts at 1200. You wouldn't have alumninum there because it would have liquified and and dispersed into the ground. The question was whether there was evidence that demolitions explosives were used. That is evidence. When buildings are demolished, that is precisely the type of thing you expect to dig up. Not to also mention, but that would also be the remains of a rather large filing cabinet. This is information that you would learn in any basic matierals management class. That's why people like Steven Jones are questioning what we've been told. It flys straight in the face of modern physics.

 

4. I'll give you this point, b/c I have no knowledge if that is the case. I was, however, under the impression that drywall was made of gypsum, not sulfer. Of course, you don't put drywall on steel supports either.

 

5. There is nothing slow about a thermate/thermite reaction with steel. It heats up so rapidly that it cuts through steel like butter. Look it up, that's the material used in demolitions. It has a known side affect of doing precisely what you see in that video.

 

The question was posed as to whether or not there is evidence that demolitions explosives were used. I submit to you that this is precisely the problem with the investigation. That is evidence. The use of thermite yields a result that is exactly consistent with the findings from that video alone. That evidence ought to be enough to at least probe deeper. Jet fuel could not do something like that. It doesn't burn hot enough. Not to mention,that the supports are going to give first in areas where they are weekend by the crash. That's also a fact. The building should buckle toward the breaks in the supports. The result of which would be that many of the lower floors would have remained largely in tact, and some of the surrounding buildings would have been crushed. That's basic physics. Add to it that the buildings remained standing for over an hour and did not waver much at all after the initial impact. That information tells you that the supports held fine. Support failures would have been slow and very visible. The building would have started to oscilate much more and buckle towards the impact site. As it buckles, weaker supports will fail, if enough fail, the top of the building would fall off (literally). As well, pancaking would have exposed the steel columns. You should have been able to see that if that is what happened.

 

You wonder why it is that we conspiracy theorists question what is going on. This is some basic stuff that the 9/11 commission ignored. If they truly wanted to find out what happened, they should open a comprehensive investigation on the subject, one done through an independent source, and one that allows prominent dissenters access to all the data. Instead, data still to this day remains classified and the commission is closed--despite the requests of over 30% of this nation along with many of victims families. Given that two countries have now been invaded, and two more (Iran and Syria) seem to be more and more likely to be invaded (which could kick off a world war if Russia and China choose not to ignore this), that over 2000 American soldiers are now dead (and many more wounded), that over 100,000 Arab civilians and military are also dead, and that many of our basic rights are being stripped away for the war on terror, I think the government owes it to us to make all the evidence available and make everything as clear as possible so as to justify what is going on.

 

That is not an unreasonable request.

[Sho Nuff 720]

1. Look, I've heard of the 9/11 commission. I've read parts of the report. It's full of holes. The gov couldn't even get its own story straight, not to mention that so much of what went into that report is still classified today. Why is that? What purpose is served by classifying materials that went into the commission? Also, do some checking into the conflicts of interests of the leaders of the commission. Just about everyone had conflicts. That's why people don't buy into the commission. It was a hatchet job from the start.

 

So you admit you have only read parts of it? Nice.

 

2. Last I checked, one of the biggest disputes to 9/11 has everything to do with the laws of physics. What we all saw on Sept 11 was physically impossible. Tall skyscrapers don't fall at nearly free fall speeds from any process other than demolition. Buildings that collapse due to losing supports collapse in the direction of the supports that broke. They fall into their own footprints, ONLY when all supports break simultaneously. There's no way, given what we have been told happened that all supports could have broken simultaneuosly. It just doesn't work that way. One of the towers wasn't even hit dead center, yet both towers fell into their own footprints.

 

You can repeat it over and over and over again....ummm....it did not fall at free fall speeds, or near free fall speeds. And the buildings did not fall in their own footprints....there was debris everywhere...large chunks that did not just fall straight down...like where WTC7 was hit by alot of it. You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you keep trying to spread complete and utter lies.

 

3. This is where you get loony. You obviously don't know much about materials. The color of the material alone indicates that it was well above 1500 degrees F, and aluminum melts at 1200. You wouldn't have alumninum there because it would have liquified and and dispersed into the ground. The question was whether there was evidence that demolitions explosives were used. That is evidence. When buildings are demolished, that is precisely the type of thing you expect to dig up. Not to also mention, but that would also be the remains of a rather large filing cabinet. This is information that you would learn in any basic matierals management class. That's why people like Steven Jones are questioning what we've been told. It flys straight in the face of modern physics.

 

You calling anyone else loony is hysterical given the stance you have taken here.

And you are going off a picture...has that picture been even verified as authentic?

It was not a question whether they were used...its a statement of fact, that there is no credible evidence that explosives were used. hot metal is not evidence of explosives there chief.

 

Thats why Steven Jones has been dismissed from his job...because his own department disagrees with him and they are checking on the scientific basis for his conclusions.

 

4. I'll give you this point, b/c I have no knowledge if that is the case. I was, however, under the impression that drywall was made of gypsum, not sulfer. Of course, you don't put drywall on steel supports either.

 

You have shown to have no real knowledge of anything that actually happened on that day.

 

 

5. There is nothing slow about a thermate/thermite reaction with steel. It heats up so rapidly that it cuts through steel like butter. Look it up, that's the material used in demolitions. It has a known side affect of doing precisely what you see in that video.

 

It has a known side effect of doing things when explosives were not even involved? Hmmm.

 

The question was posed as to whether or not there is evidence that demolitions explosives were used.

 

Actually a statement of fact was made that there is no evidence of explosives being used. Something which you cannot disprove by looking at a picture.

 

 

I submit to you that this is precisely the problem with the investigation. That is evidence. The use of thermite yields a result that is exactly consistent with the findings from that video alone. That evidence ought to be enough to at least probe deeper. Jet fuel could not do something like that. It doesn't burn hot enough. Not to mention,that the supports are going to give first in areas where they are weekend by the crash. That's also a fact. The building should buckle toward the breaks in the supports. The result of which would be that many of the lower floors would have remained largely in tact, and some of the surrounding buildings would have been crushed. That's basic physics. Add to it that the buildings remained standing for over an hour and did not waver much at all after the initial impact. That information tells you that the supports held fine. Support failures would have been slow and very visible. The building would have started to oscilate much more and buckle towards the impact site. As it buckles, weaker supports will fail, if enough fail, the top of the building would fall off (literally). As well, pancaking would have exposed the steel columns. You should have been able to see that if that is what happened.

 

Speculation is not evidence.the lower floors would have remained largely intact? Ummm...how with all of the weight above would you believe the remaining floors would have remained intact? And you call other people loony?

 

Many of the surrounding buildings did sustain heavy damage or a partial collapses. That is a fact.

 

Yes, they remained standing for a long time...that given the strength of the building was there for the impact...but weakened by both the impact and the ensuing fires.

 

You wonder why it is that we conspiracy theorists question what is going on.

 

We wonder why you quacks grasp at straws and cannot understand what actual facts and evidence are.

[TeNt 0]

www.debunking911.com

 

that site is full of stuff that completley destroys the retared consiracy arguments, and shows it to be what it is... a bunch of facts that are hard to prove either way, being spun to go their way, and reling on easily influenced people to belive everything they say is fact without question

[jerryskids 7,251]

Meh, kinda a shotgun approach with a bunch of unrelated or conflicting ideas. The Forbes part is interesting though. Here is a more likely conspiracy theory: the govt. had strong evidence that something was going to go down soon at the WTC. The "secret" wiring/shutdown was a series of video cameras or other security devices. That also explains the increased evacuations.

 

[TK0001 99]

I lack respect for the dead? Don't take that high-road bullsh1t with me? I simply want to know how they died. The gov't has disrespected the families of the dead by not providing sufficient answers to burning questions.

 

Bullsh!t. They investigated it, and they published their conclusions. The NIST investigated the fall of both towers and published it. The NIST is currently investigating the collapse of WTC7, and will publish their findings when they've concluded.

 

The NIST even went as far as to address conspiracy theorists questions, and published their answers here.

 

Maybe I was wrong in accusing you of disrespect, so I apologize for that. However, people like Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and James Fetzer certainly have no respect for the victims. I've seen Fetzer laugh at the transcripts of the calls from flight 93 and call victim's families liars right to their faces. Fetzer also has said there's a special place in hell for all the structural engineers who don't support the controlled demolition theory. I've seen Jason Bermas say the bodies of flight 77 weren't important. Avery has openly laughed about hijackers with box cutters on radio talk shows. I think people that support these guys are pissing on the graves of the dead. These assrods are making money from the people who died that day, and openly disrespecting them at the same time.

 

explosives could have got there in any fashion. Maybe it was when security was disabled a couple weeks before.

 

One guy, Scott Forbes, claimed that the power down happened. Not one of the thousands of people who worked in the towers has stepped forward to corroborate his story. Why? If the power was really shut off, it would've caused a massive problem for the companies that were housed in the towers - don't you think someone would've supported Forbes' story by now?

 

Forbes claims that the power down happened over the span of 26 hours. That's hardly enough time to wire up both towers.

 

Also, even if a power down happened in the towers (highly unlikely) which gave thousands of workers a chance to scramble in and set explosives (this team must've been pretty difficult to assemble, since they had to be willing to kill thousands of Americans, know how to wire a building with explosives, and keep quiet about it), how do you account for WTC7? When and how did they wire that one up?

 

Wires wouldn't be found out at the scene for the same reason over 1,000 bodies weren't. Because they were melted to oblivion.

 

So you're saying miles and miles of detonation wires completely melted so that not a trace remained? You'll have to do better than that. How did the government know it would melt, clearing them of wrongdoing? Did they just take a chance? And why didn't anyone notice wires all over the place prior to 9/11?

 

If it was an inside job, it's easy to keep the bomb-sniffing dogs away from explosives. That's just a silly question...

 

It is??? Tell me how it would be so easy. The dogs are trained to seek out explosives, and both buildings were packed full of them? Were clothespins employed?

 

If you think it would require so much C4 to bring down the towers, how the hell do you think small isolated fires brought down the building?

 

Where did I say small isolated fires brought down the buildings? I'm pretty sure I saw a couple planes slam into the buildings and people jumping to their deaths. Why would someone do that if the fires were small?

 

I don't "think" it would take a lot of C4, I know. It takes a lot of C4 to bring down a building when its supports are cut up to 90%. You expect me to believe that enough C4 was packed onto uncut supports to bring the buildings down, and the eardrums of everyone in the vicinity remained intact when the charges were blown? That much C4 would shatter every window in Manhattan, and yet no one heard the obvious detonation. People reported explosions, but if that much C4 were to be set off, everyone would know it.

 

I suppose the world's largest controlled demolition could have been conducted.

 

Completely secretively? And no one's said a peep since? Absolutely no way.

 

If you don't think the United States Government has the resources to get this done, you probably underestimate our capability.

 

Or you overestimate it. Believe it or not, the government doesn't have an infinite supply of money. And it can't just secretly spend it on anything it wants. This would've cost the government hundreds of billions, maybe even a trillion, to pull off. They would also need to kill anyone directly involved in the scheme, which would've been thousands of people. And yet a 23 year old college student remained alive to crack the whole thing? Please.

 

I'll admit that it's possible just planes brought it down.

 

Good for you.

 

You're not even willing to admit it's possible there was a 2nd factor.

 

You're right, I'm not. Because the idea of it is stupid and can't be proven with any shred of evidence.

 

When the government declares war, they're killing thousands of Americans. As part of this new war on terror and as part of a broader metawar, I think somebody who's delusional/obsessed could justify this plan to themselves.

 

And get thousands of people to go along with him? By the way, if this was a setup, why the hell did the government choose to do it in the most expensive manner conceivable? Why not blow up a ferry or the Washington monument or even the White House? That would've certainly gotten us all lathered up for war, and a major portion of Manhattan wouldn't have to be sacrificed.

 

They could sell those involved on the idea that, "well, we think the Twin Towers may be targets... if they're hit, so that they don't fall sideways, we're going to plant explosives just in case we have to bring them down." Those involved could have thought they were doing the right thing, and maybe they do to this day.

 

Yeah, and no one would think to question that, right? That certainly wouldn't make the news or anything...

[OakHeadFootball 1]

This, beyond the shadow of a doubt, PROVES that there is nofocking way the towers collapsed the way the 911 report claims!!

 

I mean how can you argue with logic such as this??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...p;mesg_id=56836

[BMoney 0]

i blame gravity....

 

how dare it make the building fall straight down like it always does when the structures been demolished...

 

 

too many people with way too mcuh time on their hands...

 

why didnt it tip over?

 

why did the anntenna fall first?

 

 

are you focking kidding me? were you WATCHING the events that day?..if u ask these 2 questions, you clearly are ignoring physics and just want there to be an answer that rips those in office...

 

 

move on...

[Sho Nuff 720]

My other question for VikesFan.

 

How come, every time this topic pops up...you have a different website...with a different theory...and not one of them have ever agreed with each other?

 

Do you just look at a site and decide that is what you want to believe at the time? Until someone proves it completely wrong...then you move on to the next one?

 

 

 

This, beyond the shadow of a doubt, PROVES that there is nofocking way the towers collapsed the way the 911 report claims!!

 

I mean how can you argue with logic such as this??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...p;mesg_id=56836

 

And I thought MrSteak, De Novo, and VikesFan were nuts....some of those people really need to have their heads examined.

[joneo 562]

This is what kills me. People keep bringing crap about a conspiracy and demanding answers. Fine, I have no problem with people questioning something that doesn't make sense to them. However, what I find ludicris is when answers ARE supplied to them, they disregard them as lies. They already have their minds made up and no proof will satisfy them and change their minds. So, I vow never to get invovled talking with someone about the conspiracy crap anymore. It will do no one any good. Like my grandfather used to say, "You can't argue with an idiot."

 

Anyone wishing to know the answers can go here. They are based on scientific FACT and not rumors.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

 

 

Is any conspiracy theorist going to read this?

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Yet more proof from the same genius that brought you the "Chicken Wire" test.

 

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...c-approach.html

 

This guy has actually been credited as being a researcher on this report.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...uble_with_jones

[Sho Nuff 720]

Is any conspiracy theorist going to read this?

 

We have been over that one in another thread. They will post a site...which first makes fun of Popular Mechanics...then questions why they did not look at a few other things...speculates some more...and never actually addresses what PM stated in its article.

[TK0001 99]

We have been over that one in another thread. They will post a site...which first makes fun of Popular Mechanics...then questions why they did not look at a few other things...speculates some more...and never actually addresses what PM stated in its article.

 

They'll also mention the last name of the author of the article, which happens to be Chertoff. Since he shares the same last name as a high ranking government official, they dismiss the entire article.

 

Any excuse to block facts and scientific data from entering into their brains.

[De Novo 0]

So...now that you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite with all the insults you have slung...its time to just say.

 

Fock off, seriously.

Where the hell did I insult you?

 

The closest I came was using your laughable logic that suggested I was obsessed with it. If you are expert on every subject, then you must be obsessed with it (using the same logic you applied to me). And, thus, if you haven't read read about it for hundreds of hours, then you're not much of an expert. So either you're obsessed with it, or you're uninformed. It's pretty silly, don't you think?

[De Novo 0]

Is any conspiracy theorist going to read this?

Yes, I read it. They only address 2 of my concerns, and in a very superficial manner. Their evidence, in most cases, is simply a regurgitation of the NIST report. I hardly consider that an independent investigation.

[TK0001 99]

Yes, I read it. They only address 2 of my concerns, and in a very superficial manner. Their evidence, in most cases, is simply a regurgitation of the NIST report. I hardly consider that an independent investigation.

 

What about the NIST investigation did you find to be false or a misrepresntation? Surely you're not dismissing the entire publication because the NIST is a federal institution. Seems to me that you would be intentionally limiting your knowledge of the matter...

[De Novo 0]

What about the NIST investigation did you find to be false or a misrepresntation? Surely you're not dismissing the entire publication because the NIST is a federal institution. Seems to me that you would be intentionally limiting your knowledge of the matter...

I was unclear in speaking. I wasn't suggesting the NIST investigation wasn't independent. I was referring to the Popular Mechanics report. It was simply a regurgitation of the NIST investigation. As such, it adds zero value and therefore would leave me with no reason to change my mind.

[BMoney 0]

Is any conspiracy theorist going to read this?

 

im late to this party..because a) i know it wasnt a conspiracy and reading about 9-11 was always difficult to do..

 

but thanks for the popular mechanics link..pretty interesting..

 

my fire fighting friends have said the same thing..extreme heat and fire causes steel to twist, warp and expand and cement loses strength and sadly..what happens happens..

 

as for explosions people heard..i dont think people truly grasp how big the WTCs were..when floors collapse and come down..of course there is going to be noise....

 

when people argue silly things like this and actually believe they are..when they are clearly proven NOT to be..it just makes their other arguments look silly as well..people only sticking to their beliefs because of their political affiliation..thats pretty weak...

[TK0001 99]

I was unclear in speaking. I wasn't suggesting the NIST investigation wasn't independent. I was referring to the Popular Mechanics report. It was simply a regurgitation of the NIST investigation. As such, it adds zero value and therefore would leave me with no reason to change my mind.

 

Excellent, thanks for explaining.

 

So, why do you choose to not believe the NIST report? What about it do you disagree with? I'd like specifics, please. Did they miscalculate something or make an error somewhere? Please inform me.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Where the hell did I insult you?

 

The closest I came was using your laughable logic that suggested I was obsessed with it. If you are expert on every subject, then you must be obsessed with it (using the same logic you applied to me). And, thus, if you haven't read read about it for hundreds of hours, then you're not much of an expert. So either you're obsessed with it, or you're uninformed. It's pretty silly, don't you think?

 

 

In just what I quoted...

 

I suspect that you're too simple-minded

 

Sounds quite insulting there hypocrite.

[De Novo 0]

In just what I quoted...

Sounds quite insulting there hypocrite.

What I meant by simple-minded was accepting the easy answer without giving any credence whatsoever to alternate scenarios. I'll give you an example. Notre Dame is ranked higher and thought to be better than Michigan. Therefore, there's zero chance they will lose. That's what I was getting at. You accept the most likely answer as being the only possibility, and I content that it is not. That's what I mean by simple-minded.

[Sho Nuff 720]

What I meant by simple-minded was accepting the easy answer without giving any credence whatsoever to alternate scenarios. I'll give you an example. Notre Dame is ranked higher and thought to be better than Michigan. Therefore, there's zero chance they will lose. That's what I was getting at. You accept the most likely answer as being the only possibility, and I content that it is not. That's what I mean by simple-minded.

 

I do not think any of it is an easy answer.

And I have given credence to alternate scenarios...long enough to read and see that those scenarios are simply not plausible given the facts of the day.

 

Nice example.

Because opinion based rankings and what will happen in a game is the same as proving something with facts and evidence.

 

Quit trying to spin, it was an insult...no matter how you want to twist. You made yourself to be a hypocrite...and no amount of idiotic comparisons to college football will save you.

[TK0001 99]

Excellent, thanks for explaining.

 

So, why do you choose to not believe the NIST report? What about it do you disagree with? I'd like specifics, please. Did they miscalculate something or make an error somewhere? Please inform me.

 

Please answer this, DeNovo. You replied to Sho Nuff's post, now extend the same courtesy to me.

[De Novo 0]

Please answer this, DeNovo. You replied to Sho Nuff's post, now extend the same courtesy to me.

 

They explicitly went in with a few null hypotheses to test, none of which included the use of explosives. Their scientific approach was such that they adjusted their models until their null hypothesis was proven. It's unscientific. Further, in my opinion an extensive on-site investigation was necessary. How much of their analysis was done onsite instead of in a laboratory? As I recall, everything was done in a lab. and they didn't test the temperature of some steel found glowing yellow onsite. They relied too heavily on video and photographic evidence provided by 3rd parties, many of whom, IF there is a conspiracy, would be in their best interests to limit to what isn't incriminating. I'd like to go on but I really have a lot of work to do... What I eagerly await is their report on Bldg 7 since that is by far the most suspicious to me. It's absolutely conceivable for 2 fuel-filled jets to bring the buildings down. For falling debris (albeit large) and small fires to bring down Bldg 7 into it's footprint at near-free fall speed... just seems hard to believe.

[TK0001 99]

They explicitly went in with a few null hypotheses to test, none of which included the use of explosives. Their scientific approach was such that they adjusted their models until their null hypothesis was proven. It's unscientific. Further, in my opinion an extensive on-site investigation was necessary. How much of their analysis was done onsite instead of in a laboratory? As I recall, everything was done in a lab. and they didn't test the temperature of some steel found glowing yellow onsite. They relied too heavily on video and photographic evidence provided by 3rd parties, many of whom, IF there is a conspiracy, would be in their best interests to limit to what isn't incriminating. I'd like to go on but I really have a lot of work to do... What I eagerly await is their report on Bldg 7 since that is by far the most suspicious to me. It's absolutely conceivable for 2 fuel-filled jets to bring the buildings down. For falling debris (albeit large) and small fires to bring down Bldg 7 into it's footprint at near-free fall speed... just seems hard to believe.

 

Thanks for the reply. I think you are assuming that the NIST performed their research unscientifically, but if you have proof, by all means present it. I'd be interested to discover that they "adjusted their models" until their hypothesis was proven because I was always under the impression that they approached it scientifically. They anayzed the data, then formed a conslusion based from their analysis. But you apparently know different - please show me.

 

Also, what I really asked for was specifics. Where excactly did they err? Please bring up an example of exactly where they were wrong, because to me it still seems like you're attempting to dismiss their entire report with a sweep of your hand.

 

And, since no one can go back in time, is it safe to say you're under the impression a proper investigation will never be launched? They did do analysis of the debris on site, by the way.

[Sho Nuff 720]

They explicitly went in with a few null hypotheses to test, none of which included the use of explosives. Their scientific approach was such that they adjusted their models until their null hypothesis was proven. It's unscientific. Further, in my opinion an extensive on-site investigation was necessary. How much of their analysis was done onsite instead of in a laboratory? As I recall, everything was done in a lab. and they didn't test the temperature of some steel found glowing yellow onsite. They relied too heavily on video and photographic evidence provided by 3rd parties, many of whom, IF there is a conspiracy, would be in their best interests to limit to what isn't incriminating. I'd like to go on but I really have a lot of work to do... What I eagerly await is their report on Bldg 7 since that is by far the most suspicious to me. It's absolutely conceivable for 2 fuel-filled jets to bring the buildings down. For falling debris (albeit large) and small fires to bring down Bldg 7 into it's footprint at near-free fall speed... just seems hard to believe.

 

 

Yet, you seem to have no problem bringing up conspiracy sites and other things that offer no scientific evidence, have only analyzed pictures and videos rather than any onsite analysis.

[parrot 790]

2. Last I checked, one of the biggest disputes to 9/11 has everything to do with the laws of physics. What we all saw on Sept 11 was physically impossible. Tall skyscrapers don't fall at nearly free fall speeds from any process other than demolition. Buildings that collapse due to losing supports collapse in the direction of the supports that broke. They fall into their own footprints, ONLY when all supports break simultaneously. There's no way, given what we have been told happened that all supports could have broken simultaneuosly. It just doesn't work that way. One of the towers wasn't even hit dead center, yet both towers fell into their own footprints.

This is a load of complete and utter crap. The buildings didn't fall at free fall speeds, they didn't fall in their own footprints, and they do tip somewhat - particularly the South Tower - but gravity demands they fall mostly straight down.

 

Just how fast should the buildings fall? How much of a dramatic pause would you like while successive floors make up their minds regarding whether or not they can hold the hundreds of thousands of tons falling on top of them? The weight hits them and either they collapse or they do not, the resistance is negligible, just like in a controlled demolition. The collapse appears similar to a controlled demolition because the process is not all that different, once the initial supports give way, gravity and momentum do all the work.

[Sho Nuff 720]

A bit more for those spreading the conspiracy BS...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...dex_CHRONO.html

 

Notice the timeline when you click 9:45...right between 9:39 and 9:40 "caller reports buckling floors.

 

Then under 10:00. You see the fire...you see what they are showing as molten metal seen out of the building. But I thought that did not happen?