Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

moparacer

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,336
0
76
I bet Jesse also knows a little bit about the rocket that was launched into the Pentagon.....

All these years and the conspiracy nuts still flapping their gums.........

Christ.....
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: moparacer
I bet Jesse also knows a little bit about the rocket that was launched into the Pentagon.....

All these years and the conspiracy nuts still flapping their gums.........

Christ.....

be good lil sheep and go back to sleep.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

Who said the u.s. government had to be involved for it to be a conspiracy? There are private interest groups that wield enough power and influence to pull this off.

And you think THEY could be just as silent? Replace government with "large entity" if it suits you. Scandals come out for a reason, people can't shut up.

presuming that it is impossible for any group/corporation/government to keep secrets......seriously? are you serious? What about govt. black budget projects......they spend billions on those and keep them pretty secret.......oh wait I guess the military, CIA and FBI aren't really doing anything that the public doesn't know about......:roll:

Oh yes and we have so many black ops missions to kill American's on American soil while bringing down two 110 story buildings. Yes you found out the governments dirty little secret.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Just like most things in life, I feel the truth is somewhere between the two sides of this story.
The buildings certainly didn't "seem" to fall in a manner one would expect from the collision. Does this mean a conspiracy? Of course not!
It simply could have been some suicide bombers in a van, or some bombs planted in specific locations.
We were in a rush to get an explanation out the American public, and a huge airplane full of fuel barreling full tilt into the skyscraper is a more than plausible answer. Also, trying to find the evidence of anything else in that rubble isn't going to be easy or timely. The only conspiracy I can see going on here would be that the attack was even more planned out than we believe it was.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame blahy,blah,blah.
Screw Ventura, I'd rather hear what the Ultimate Warrior has to say about it.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,586
986
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame blahy,blah,blah.
Screw Ventura, I'd rather hear what the Ultimate Warrior has to say about it.

:laugh: I want to hear what Paris Hilton has to say about it!
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

Who said the u.s. government had to be involved for it to be a conspiracy? There are private interest groups that wield enough power and influence to pull this off.

And you think THEY could be just as silent? Replace government with "large entity" if it suits you. Scandals come out for a reason, people can't shut up.

presuming that it is impossible for any group/corporation/government to keep secrets......seriously? are you serious? What about govt. black budget projects......they spend billions on those and keep them pretty secret.......oh wait I guess the military, CIA and FBI aren't really doing anything that the public doesn't know about......:roll:

Oh yes and we have so many black ops missions to kill American's on American soil while bringing down two 110 story buildings. Yes you found out the governments dirty little secret.

never said that he was making an argument that nobody can keep a secret.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame is an idiot.

fixed.

The top architechts/demolition experts in the country are sick and tired of fielding calls from people on this issue. You check with the top 10 guys in the country and they tell you it was not a controlled demolition. If someone doesn't believe them, you have to ask exactly who are they going to believe? Apparently Jessie Ventura.

Matt Taibbi's hysterical diatribe against the 9/11 truth movement:
http://www.alternet.org/column...ory/42181/?page=entire

He incorporates and greatly expands this bit in his recent book "The Great Derangement" which is a pretty even handed denouncement of, oh, everybody.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The thing about 9/11 is that everyone seems to have taken a position of either the whole thing is exactly as it seems, or the whole thing was a giant government conspiracy. If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly. Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

I, for one, do not think everything happened exactly as it appeared. I'm not speculating as to what did happen, but I do think the official story is wrong. But there's almost no way of further investigating it, and no way of convincing anyone with access to the right information to do a serious inquiry.

I think it goes beyond that. It is either that the towers were brought down by planes, and so the conspiracy involved only a couple dozen people, or it was brought down by explosives and hundreds are involved. There really are no other options.

you wouldn't need 100's of people for this. People believe this though.

Do you know anything at all about controlled demolitions?

How is that relevant? ???????????????

/me prays you are being sarcastic.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame is an idiot.

fixed.

The top architechts/demolition experts in the country are sick and tired of fielding calls from people on this issue. You check with the top 10 guys in the country and they tell you it was not a controlled demolition. If someone doesn't believe them, you have to ask exactly who are they going to believe? Apparently Jessie Ventura.

Matt Taibbi's hysterical diatribe against the 9/11 truth movement:
http://www.alternet.org/column...ory/42181/?page=entire

He incorporates and greatly expands this bit in his recent book "The Great Derangement" which is a pretty even handed denouncement of, oh, everybody.
Oh man that is the best link EVER! I've got to paste the "planning session"

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, okay.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly.

Ok, and who are the people watching this footage with an opinion that matters? Every tom dick and harry on youtube pointing fingers and saying "despite me knowing absolutely nothing about demolitions, that looks funny!" Or, maybe, just maybe, the dozens and dozens of top demolitions experts in the country who have all refuted the controlled demolition theory? Hm...

Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

No, questioning any government explanation is natural and encouraged. But when the top experts in the field present their interpretation of a specific event and yet a person decides to accept the word and investigation of 2 college kids who put together a video based on blogs and internet links, then, yes, they need to get the Reynolds' Wrap out.


 

jemcam

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,676
0
0
First off, I don't believe any conspiracy tales. Anyone who believes them is paranoid as hell in my opinion.

Let's assume it was a conspiracy the government actually was able to do this and keep it quiet..... Just for a minute.

SO WHAT??? Do you think you're going to change them or anything? Do you believe that posting your beliefs are going to cause enough people to believe you? If so, do you really think that the government or "other large entity" is going to confess because of the pressure? Do you not think that evidence has been destroyed and anyone connected to killed or otherwise silenced forever? Do you think you're going to change it? Really?? Someone who was so determined to do such a terrible thing?

I'll bet you that they're hunting you down right now to silence you too.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: jemcam
First off, I don't believe any conspiracy tales. Anyone who believes them is paranoid as hell in my opinion.

Let's assume it was a conspiracy the government actually was able to do this and keep it quiet..... Just for a minute.

SO WHAT??? Do you think you're going to change them or anything? Do you believe that posting your beliefs are going to cause enough people to believe you? If so, do you really think that the government or "other large entity" is going to confess because of the pressure? Do you not think that evidence has been destroyed and anyone connected to killed or otherwise silenced forever? Do you think you're going to change it? Really?? Someone who was so determined to do such a terrible thing?

I'll bet you that they're hunting you down right now to silence you too.

Your words into action, re: "loose change":
http://www.thebestpageintheuni...net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Cliffs (direct quote): Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Really? Do you honestly think this stuff through?

First it would require high up people in the government to decide to do 9/11. Second it would then take people to execute the plan. At MINIMUM you need 5-10 people to be able to wire each building in a timely fasion. Then you have to wire it the day of, because if you wire it a day or two in advance it has a higher % chance at being noticed by an employee. Then you need however many total hijackers they had (who are willing to kill themself). Not to mention the logistics of it are just way too complex and make no sense. Why would we go blow our buildings up? To go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why? For oil? Yeah that's obviously not it. Okay so how about WMD's? Yeah that was a bs reason, but we could have gone in saying WMD's without 9/11. So can you give me one reason to kill our own people, and bring down 3 buildings?

First we weren't really buying the WMD theory especially when at the time they weren't finding them. Second, it would need no one to know anything near the top. I am not sure your work experience or level, but most CEO's are looking for results from their teams. Many have no idea how these results really came to be. They just know they expect them and if they do not happen that infrastructure gets revamped.

Look at all the crime families in the US...the other relatives are not coming forward at all except in EXTREME rare circumstances and usually only after a huge carrot is held out.

In a building like the WTC, there are so many different people coming and going, building and taking things down...do you think anyone would question a few guys?

The explosives would not need to be visible at all and if they needed to have some in plain view a simple box with a set of emergency lights at the very most would be enough to hide it.

Money is the main reason....though.
Very true CEO's don't know everything below them, but do you honestly believe that something of this magnitude could be organized without at least SOME high level officers?

You cannot compare crime families to a government conspiracy. Apples and oranges.

Yes in WTC there were a lot of people coming and going, but lets examine this a bit. You have two options explosives in hidden areas (less chance at them being seen, but harder to get into), or explosives out in the open (high chance at being discovered, but very easy access). For this we will assume they got the explosives in easily without being discovered and are using wireless detonators (which if you have seen controlled demos they use wired). Controlled demolitions are very well planned and thought out. They are methodical in their planning. Most likely they would need a combination of explosives in both restricted access areas, and in the open which would make it high chance of discovery. The amounts of damage needed to be caused would require either a lot of small explosives or fewer large ones. So we will go with medium size and quantities. Also lets say they just did 5 floors near the top of the building (once again controlled demo usually does not just do a few floors and does charges up the whole building on vertical towers). The odds of something being discovered in one of the two buildings are just way too high.

For your "plain box with lights" deal, don't you think somebody would go "hey what is this box I've never noticed before with blinking lights?" If not a person working there at the offices what about maitnence?

Money for who? The guy that leases the building? Since he is making oh so much money on that lease right now. The government? Really? Last I checked we are further in debt, and our economy is in the crapper. So who else?

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Next for the "I could give one building falling like that, but two and then the third one is just crazy from a physics standpoint as well as construction." you aren't in the engineering field are you? Towers 1 and 2 were built the same way, why do you think they WOULDN'T fall the same way? If you really want to see how you're wrong, look at the structures and how they were built. The way they fell is completely possible. The area they were hit was weakend by the impact and further weakend by the fire. Both towers collapsed from those points. Take the amount of weight from the tower and drop it close enough to vertical 30-40 ft+ (each had 3-4 stories minimum hit by each plane) and see what happens. It will collapse it vertically, not falling sideways. If you want it to fall sideways (or any other way then how it did) you would have to hit it in the middle/bottom of the tower.

Before pharmacy and biology (and later computer science) became my career, I was involved in Mechanical Engineering. I designed a few HVAC and fire suppression systems in a college and geriatric center here. The head engineer signed off on my designs as I was just an intern, but there were no changes. I know enough to be able to follow other's research into this.

You are assuming that a controlled demolition is common...also that both planes happened to impact the buildings the same way....it's highly unlikely that these events occured. Hence why one I could say was a lucky shot. Now the third building has yet to have anything scientifically explained...you have had a few 'experts' just say they can agree why it fell...but nothing substantial.

You are thinking in layman's terms and what one would think 'logically' would happen. In reality the building would have still fallen more than likely, however it would have been at some angle and into other surrounding buildings. Also it would be doubtful the buildings would be totally nuked like they were. You would expect some at the bottom few stories to remain at least in one of the cases.

Okay Mechanical Engineering background doing HVAC != building engineer. HVAC design and fire suppression does NOT deal with load bearing structures. Sorry to tell ya, but they are different. Also just being an intern doing it with the head engineer "signing off without making changes" is great and all, it is still not building design.

Controlled demolition isn't common? Really? Are you that ignorant? I didn't think you were that blind, but maybe I am wrong. Both planes impacted the towers in the upper 1/3 of the tower. Both planes impacted and did the same damage to them, just in different spots on the towers. Both towers cores were damaged though along with the floors of 5+ floors. Look at the reports, NIST shows that the 3rd building had severe damage plus fires fed by diesel fuel.

I am thinking in mathmatic and scientific terms using logic to explain the findings from math and science. Do you understand what a "pancake collapse" is? It means that the floors stack on top of each other during it. Do you really expect "the bottom few stories to remain" from 100+ stories falling on top of it? As for the 3rd building if the damage is at the bottom then no I would not expect anything to be intact. Or if it was a pancake collapse, like it was.
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Controlled demolition is just that controlled. I would argue that Towers 1 and 2 were not very controlled, just well engineered.

i don't get this line at all.

Towers 1 and 2 were well engineered and when they collapsed they fell without taking out 110 stories worth of falling sideways.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Very true CEO's don't know everything below them, but do you honestly believe that something of this magnitude could be organized without at least SOME high level officers?

You cannot compare crime families to a government conspiracy. Apples and oranges.

Why not? also why does this have to be 'government'?

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Yes in WTC there were a lot of people coming and going, but lets examine this a bit. You have two options explosives in hidden areas (less chance at them being seen, but harder to get into), or explosives out in the open (high chance at being discovered, but very easy access). For this we will assume they got the explosives in easily without being discovered and are using wireless detonators (which if you have seen controlled demos they use wired). Controlled demolitions are very well planned and thought out. They are methodical in their planning. Most likely they would need a combination of explosives in both restricted access areas, and in the open which would make it high chance of discovery. The amounts of damage needed to be caused would require either a lot of small explosives or fewer large ones. So we will go with medium size and quantities. Also lets say they just did 5 floors near the top of the building (once again controlled demo usually does not just do a few floors and does charges up the whole building on vertical towers). The odds of something being discovered in one of the two buildings are just way too high.

The explosives they could have used could have been easily put into simple cardboard bankers boxes...a simple pallet of them would probably be enough.

There is plenty of utility area outside of the common eye where they'd put these explosives.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
For your "plain box with lights" deal, don't you think somebody would go "hey what is this box I've never noticed before with blinking lights?" If not a person working there at the offices what about maitnence?

Yeah, but who is going to dismantle it...not to mention I said make it look like an emergency light.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Money for who? The guy that leases the building? Since he is making oh so much money on that lease right now. The government? Really? Last I checked we are further in debt, and our economy is in the crapper. So who else?

Keyword 'our' economy...the ultra rich are making a killing on this war and had already invested overseas prior to 9/11.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Okay Mechanical Engineering background doing HVAC != building engineer. HVAC design and fire suppression does NOT deal with load bearing structures. Sorry to tell ya, but they are different. Also just being an intern doing it with the head engineer "signing off without making changes" is great and all, it is still not building design.

Right...but it does mean I can READ the stuff posted and hash it out as just a bunch of crap or reasonable.


Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Controlled demolition isn't common? Really? Are you that ignorant? I didn't think you were that blind, but maybe I am wrong. Both planes impacted the towers in the upper 1/3 of the tower. Both planes impacted and did the same damage to them, just in different spots on the towers. Both towers cores were damaged though along with the floors of 5+ floors. Look at the reports, NIST shows that the 3rd building had severe damage plus fires fed by diesel fuel.

A building to fall like these did is extremely rare...pretty much doesn't happen. The whole diesel fire thing is laughable....we are talking melting steel, diesel is not inherently explosive which is why it was developed.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

I am thinking in mathmatic and scientific terms using logic to explain the findings from math and science. Do you understand what a "pancake collapse" is? It means that the floors stack on top of each other during it. Do you really expect "the bottom few stories to remain" from 100+ stories falling on top of it? As for the 3rd building if the damage is at the bottom then no I would not expect anything to be intact. Or if it was a pancake collapse, like it was.

I don't buy the pancake deal at all, especially not leveling the buildings like they did.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

Hurr durr. They already have, you just don't believe any of them because you're an asshole.