9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[shaman_]

Like - how come building 7 collapses from the bottom?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92MQLDG0&show_article=1


"
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

.... investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. "

 

[scott3x]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92MQLDG0&show_article=1


"
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

.... investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. "

These types of superficial reports nauseate me. Read something serious for a change:
http://www.911readingroom.org/docs/WhyIndeed_version3.pdf

 

[scott3x]

Another good link

Maintaining the Mirage:
A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory
of the Demolition Deniers

A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

 

[Ganymede]

My wife is a government employee too, yet she has nothing to do with the Bush administration.

Nor does she have nothing to do the 911 investigation.

That must be the 10th time you've said that, and for the 10th time let me debunk it: I've shown you video footage of rescuers pulled from ground zero due to fear of collapse of building 7. I have provided you with firefighter quotes and quotes/video footage of Dan Nigro backing all of this up. You consistently ignore all that which proves your dishonesty.

No one in any of the evidence you posted said pull it. There was no manual firefighting taking place inside of the WTC7, as the FEMA report stated. Nor was their any water available to fight the fires with.

Because you can find the word "pull" on a couple of demolition websites this means they support the theory that the WTC was demolished in a controlled fashion? That's fucking stupid!

Nope, that and the fact that no skyscraper was has collapsed to fire alone. No Jet Fuel in WTC7, not Airplane hitting, controlled demolition. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking stupid.

Find me one well known demolition firm that subscribes to your bullshit conspiracy theory. And by that, "pull" worded on any of it's websites doesn't cut it.

The word pull was used in relation to building demolition. You've lost that point. Stop obsessing over it.

Pure conjecture. Even if Bush did willingly take advantage of 9/11 does not mean he orchestrated the whole thing.

To solve any crime, you look at who benefits the most. And who's benefited the most? Oil Companies and Defense Contractors. Game. The very ilk that Bush and Cheney were spawned from.

LOL.. you CONSTANTLY lie to make a point. Remember when you posted pictures of a plane crash that had their fuselage intact in an attempt to prove that planes shouldnt break up into tiny peices?

That is correct, I'm questioning the fact that the Aluminum parts of the plane were visible, but the 5 ton steele and titanium engines were vaporized. And before you post those pictures of the plane parts that has no original source, remember the size of the parts aren't consistent with the size of a 747 Engine.

I still laugh at that... Oh and when you said that the planes shouldn't have damaged the towers because the towers were designed to withstand wind? :crazy:

Your ignorance is boundless. Instead of parroting talking points from Government propaganda sites actually research the data.

The World Trade Center towers were like huge sails in the wind. These sails had to be able to resist the 140 mile per hour winds of a hurricane. Such hurricane force winds exerted a large (some 6000 tons) lateral force on the building. This lateral force is called the wind loading (or force of the wind) on the building. According to the "official" story, the only possible intermediate support comes from the flimsy trusses and the lightweight concrete floors. The WTC was designed to survive a 45 pounds per square foot, wind loading. This translates to a 12 x 207 x 45/2000 = 56 ton force on each of the floor segments. What this 56 ton force on each floor segment means, is that if one was to lay the World Trade Center on its side and use the pull of gravity as a substitute for the push of the wind, then each of the 110 floors would need to be loaded with a 56 ton block of steel (so the entire wall would have to support 110 such blocks of steel, that is, 110 x 56 = 6160 tons in total).

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...nds&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[Ganymede]

These types of superficial reports nauseate me. Read something serious for a change:
http://www.911readingroom.org/docs/WhyIndeed_version3.pdf

Excellent read, and the paper was peer reviewed. KennyJC must be close to suicide after that fact.

 

[Ganymede]

rofl... there are no words for people like you.

There is for you, SHEEP!

The fact you would say that firefighters and police forces were involved/had knowledge of the conspiracy when they lost hundreds of lives that day just illustrates your conniving nature. Please don't breed.

I've never implicated the firefighters, the explosives were obviously planted before Sept 11th. You're a lying sack of shit to impugn that I've singled out the FDNY as being responsible.

The more honest amongst us will simply come to the conclusion that they knew it would probably collapse because they were close to the tower and could hear and see what a terrible state it was in. Firefighter quotes state they knew it was coming down because it was in a deteriorating condition... not that they knew it was coming down because it had bombs in it.

Here's why you fail at logic. You're assuming that 6 hours after it was confirmed that no water was available to WTC7, 8 hours after all building personal was evacuated, that the FDNY were staring at the WTC7 just before it collapsed. That's what you're implying, since they weren't fighting any fires or rescuing people. There was no manual firefighting taking place inside of WTC7 as the FEMA and NIST reports clearly demonstrate. There was no firefighters to pull.

 

[scott3x]

KennyJC: "My wife is a government employee too, yet she has nothing to do with the Bush administration.”

Nor does she have nothing to do the 911 investigation.

Are you sure about that Ganymede? That claim is a serious one and I wouldn't want someone stating something without evidence. I could certainly agree that if his wife works for the government, KennyJC would be loathe to think that elements within the government were responsible for 9/11. But while I do think that this would be even more so if her wife had something to do with the 9/11 investigation, I would want to see evidence of such first; perhaps KennyJC has mentioned in the past that his wife was part of the investigation; if so, just point me towards the link and I'll apologize for skepticism of your word.

“Because you can find the word "pull" on a couple of demolition websites this means they support the theory that the WTC was demolished in a controlled fashion? That's fucking stupid!”

Nope, that and the fact that no skyscraper has collapsed to fire alone. No Jet Fuel in WTC7, no Airplane hitting, controlled demolition. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking stupid.

Wait, wait.. let's not do these base insults. There are some very intelligent people who still essentially believe the government's story that 9/11 was pulled off by foreigners. Noam Chomsky, hardly in the poor intelligence category, believes that it was 'extremely unlikely' that it was an inside job. I think the problem isn't that the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job is too difficult to grasp to your average adult; rather, I believe the problem is most people just don't spend that much time on the subject of the actual event. Noam Chomsky even wrote a book on it, but it seems his concentration wasn't so much on who planned 9/11, so much as the US's strategy in general. And there, we find that he -does- believe that the US employs terrorism and that the title the US government gives it is "low intensity warfare":
http://www.counterpunch.org/akram0615.html

I can definitely believe that with enough time, he may well change his mind but there are so many wrongs in this world and for most people in the world, 9/11 was just a blip on the radar screen of those wrongs. The people who seem to be putting up the biggest fight to get the truth out are many of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who therefore care a whole lot more about it then your average U.S. citizen.

“Find me one well known demolition firm that subscribes to your bullshit conspiracy theory. And by that, "pull" worded on any of it's websites doesn't cut it.”

The word pull was used in relation to building demolition. You've lost that point. Stop obsessing over it.

While I do believe that Larry Silverstein may have unconsciously revealed that he knew what really happened to WTC7, I think arguing over whether or not this was the case is like arguing over whether a particular pebble is a certain rock type, when there is a beach full of the stuff to be looked at. There are, in my view, far more convincing arguments that the towers were pulled then Larry's one word.

To solve any crime, you look at who benefits the most. And who's benefited the most? Oil Companies and Defense Contractors. Game. The very ilk that Bush and Cheney were spawned from.

I agree that it's good to look at who benefits the most in a crime. However, while I know you are looking at all the aspects, I think it should be stated that potential motive is only one of the pieces of evidence in a crime.

 

[scott3x]

Excellent read, and the paper was peer reviewed. KennyJC must be close to suicide after that fact.

Laugh . I personally am hoping that KennyJC isn't just a shady government plant, here to maintain the false 9/11 official story. I would like to believe that he honestly believes that the 9/11 story is true. Perhaps the real question is, does he -completely- believe the 9/11 story? I mean, even the official story has eroded to some extent. 2 things from official stories that have really gotten to me:

1- Some of the alleged hijackers being found alive. The government seemed to shrug its shoulders, saying that some of the names may have been wrong. The eerie thing to me is, where in the world did they -get- the terrorists' names? They certainly weren't listed on the flight manifests. Did they just pluck them out of thin air? There's certainly strong hints of a little planting; The 'found' passport (that I believe was later reported to be stolen from a foreigner), found intact in the world trade debris, in the midst of a pulverized world trade building..

2- The claim from a 9/11 report that the people who funded 9/11 didn't matter. It.. didn't matter? I'm getting this direct from the movie 'zeitgeist'. I definitely recommend it to everyone here, 2 hours of your time can get a lot of people to change their minds on things.

 

[scott3x]

Which rebuttals go unanswered?

Lots of good stuff here that's gone unchallenged..

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/revi...key/index.html

http://www.911readingroom.org/docs/W...d_version3.pdf

 

[scott3x]

There is for you, SHEEP!

Ganymede, I really like some of your points, but.. I just hate this type of name calling. What, exactly, is gained by it? All I'm thinking of is it's something I saw a lot of when I was a kid and that element is one I would like to leave to childhood days. I know, I know, Kenny does it too, but I just don't think that 2 wrongs make a right, as an elementary school female classmate once said .

I've never implicated the firefighters, the explosives were obviously planted before Sept 11th.

Good point.

You're a lying sack of shit to impugn that I've singled out the FDNY as being responsible.

Bad one; you've already negated what he said; why he made the mistake I don't know, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he was purposely lying about what you said; and adding insult is even worse as it encourages the debate to become a black and white one, the whole 'with us or against us' mentality.

Here's why you fail at logic. You're assuming that 6 hours after it was confirmed that no water was available to WTC7, 8 hours after all building personal was evacuated, that the FDNY were staring at the WTC7 just before it collapsed. That's what you're implying, since they weren't fighting any fires or rescuing people. There was no manual firefighting taking place inside of WTC7 as the FEMA and NIST reports clearly demonstrate. There was no firefighters to pull.

I liked this argument ;-).

 

[Pandaemoni]

I do, however, believe that there is plenty of evidence that the building was indeed pulled. There are lots of books on the subject, there are sites with lots of information.. to me it seems obvious, but then I've read 2 books on the subject, a movie (zeitgeist) and I'm on a third. Most people haven't gotten near that amount of reading done on it.

At the same time if you only read books by people who claim that Atlantis existed or that we never really landed on the Moon, you will discover that you've read a lot more about those controversies ahan others have. You will also find that those books and films can dazzle you with seemingly plausible evidence supporting their theories. The truth is: it's generally easy to spin facts to support a given view when dealing with non-experts. The non-experts don't innately have the knowledge to separate the spin from the cold facts (indeed even the experts may not unless they look at the raw data or rebuttals).

The problem is that the conspiracy nuts write a lot more and make more films. No one wants to watch a film debunking a conspiracy theory they do not themselves believe in. For that matter, no conspiracy nut wants to read a book knocking teh theories he likes. So those books don't get written and those films go unmade. There are not nearly as many books debunking astrology as there are books on astrology, that doesn't make astrology real. Same for Nostradamus, UFO coverups and 9/11 consiracies.

In general, when reviewing any dispute, you cannot read one side of the debate, and assume you are fairly informed.

 

[spidergoat]

Considering that few Americans even heard of building 7, what would be the psychological advantage of destroying that one too? Was it just an insurance scam?

 

[scott3x]

At the same time if you only read books by people who claim that Atlantis existed or that we never really landed on the Moon, you will discover that you've read a lot more about those controversies than others have.

True.

You will also find that those books and films can dazzle you with seemingly plausible evidence supporting their theories.

I'll grant this. However, in terms of sheer volume of evidence, I would say that there's a lot more for an inside job on 9/11 then there is for Atlantis. As to the moon, in his book "Alien Agenda", Jim Marrs seems to believe that initially they did land on the moon, until they were forbidden by extra terrestrials. Whereupon they faked the rest. Wired magazine backs up the possibility that atleast some of the trips were faked. The truth of the matter is, however, that whether some trips were faked or not, no one died because of it. 9/11 is in another category altogether and thus I believe more concentration should be put on that. From what I've heard, there are a fair amount of people who believe that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, although views differ as to how much the rogue elements in the government got it to occur (as far as I'm concerned, the planned it themselves; I could print excerpts of the book I'm reading from Jim Marrs right now for supporting evidence if necessary).

The truth is: it's generally easy to spin facts to support a given view when dealing with non-experts.

Wikipedia defines an expert as: "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public."

By this standard, both Fox News and Jim Marrs are experts. Personally, however, I'd put my money on Jim Marrs instead of Fox news any day. If you refer to technical experts, there are many who back up conspiracy theories as well. Many government experts don't but then, if they were complicit, you'd expect that now, wouldn't you? In the ending, however, I think the evidence speaks for itself. The problem is that not enough people know it.

The non-experts don't innately have the knowledge to separate the spin from the cold facts (indeed even the experts may not unless they look at the raw data or rebuttals).

Indeed. What tends to help most of all is time. When JFK was assassinated, I believe a lot more people believed the official line. That belief has since eroded.

The problem is that the conspiracy nuts write a lot more and make more films.

Oh, I don't know about that. The Warren Commission in the case of the JFK assassination and various studies on 9/11 by government officials are certainly long winded. At times, even the conspiracy theorists will skip over stuff, essentially saying that responding to all the misinformation would just be a waste of time.

No one wants to watch a film debunking a conspiracy theory they do not themselves believe in.

Please. You know how many people have enjoyed watching zeitgeist, a film that debunks the government theory on the 9/11 conspiracy?

For that matter, no conspiracy nut wants to read a book knocking the theories he likes.

Look, I have heard many of the government's arguments. They're bad, but I've heard them. And if I was really bent on not hearing the other side, I wouldn't come to this forum to argue with people of said side. Ofcourse I think I'm right and you think you are, but I'm willing to hear you out.

So those books don't get written and those films go unmade.

There was actually a 9/11 film that followed the official view, complete with Nicholas Cage, I believe. I personally find that the truth has a way of getting out, however, which is why I believe there are so many more films (with much smaller budgets ofcourse) saying that the official story is full of holes.

There are not nearly as many books debunking astrology as there are books on astrology, that doesn't make astrology real. Same for Nostradamus, UFO coverups and 9/11 conspiracies.

I agree that sheer copiousness of writing on a subject doesn't make it true. But if someone who isn't being paid much if anything to do so, it can give one pause.

In general, when reviewing any dispute, you cannot read one side of the debate, and assume you are fairly informed.

I think the debating here makes it evident that both sides know of the other side's arguments. I believe that the 'inside job' conspiracy theorists are winning, but then you could argue that, seeing as how I'm one of them, I would take that point of view. Perhaps you believe that the official version is winning. Anyway, time will tell how it goes.

 

[nietzschefan]

Considering that few Americans even heard of building 7, what would be the psychological advantage of destroying that one too? Was it just an insurance scam?

The Insurance Payout to Silverstein was doubled with the total loss of all 3 buildings. It was a special clause added at nearly the 11th hour of sept11.

 

[spidergoat]

Actually, the payout would be greater if the destruction of the Trade Towers and the destruction of building were considered "separate events". I haven't seen anything about a clause being added on Sept 11. I guess this notion also assumes that Silverstein was in on the conspiracy?

Assuming that he wasn't, what would be the advantage of destroying this other building that's not a landmark?

 

[John99]

Buildings severely damaged by fire (like building 7) dont have to fall to be a complete loss. The builing had structural damage at the base due to the two giant towers falling right near it.

There was no evidence to be gathered from inside of building 7 anyway. The buildings had value and could have been sold if they hadnt had planes flown into them, there really are incredibly wealthy people out there and maybe someone from China would have bought them. also remember that someone tried to take them down years earlier or was that an illusion?....this is like the dumbest f'ng conspiracy theory. I get embarrassed myself when i read it knowing that there really are simple people and you try to be nice to them, you try but at some point you have to tell them - "you are an imbecile, do not read anymore, do not even look at another book or web page". I would even say that the stupid people far outweigh intelligent people. We are in big trouble.

 

[nietzschefan]

Building 7 is the first and still only tall building to collapse from fire(yes that remains the "official" explanation).

 

[shaman_]

These types of superficial reports nauseate me. Read something serious for a change:
http://www.911readingroom.org/docs/WhyIndeed_version3.pdf

I'm guessing that you wont understand why it is funny that you say that and then point me to a Steven Jones document. I have actually skimmed though that document many times before. I don't think there is a point there that hasn't been completely debunked.

If you don't like superficial reports. See if this one is easier on your stomach.
WTC7 Lies

 

[spidergoat]

Building 7 is the first and still only tall building to collapse from fire(yes that remains the "official" explanation).

And what?

 

[John99]

who cares about someone trying to explain exactly how building 7 fell? It is not even relevant to what happened. You cannot hang an investigation on one word and now that the collapse of the towers is shown to have happened like it was captured on video they move to building 7. There comes a time when people have to admit they are wrong.