To you 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I am not myself a conspiracy theorist, but even I find the answers to your questions painfully obvious, so I don't know why you'd start this thread.

If, hypothetically, the government created the 9/11 attacks, it knew that the planes would crash into the two WTC towers - there was no mystery about which buildings it would need to implode. At that point any competent demolitions expert could pre-place charges to bring the buildings down. C4, like some other explosive agents frequently used for civil demolitions, is not flammable and would not go off as a result of the impact or the resulting fire. By the same token, they would (or at least could have) install a tiered top-down detonation system that would allow them to start at any floor or group of floors (by placing, say, a set of charges at every fifth floor).

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but surely if the government had the inclination and wherewithal to get the planes on target, the civil demolition piece of the plan would, relatively speaking, be small potatoes.

You would think someone would notice people planting explosives throughout two buildings the size of the twin towers. I don't know how much C4 you'd need to plant throughout say 50 floors (just to be safe) so that it would look like the collapse began at the point of impact but I'm sure it's got to be a staggering quantity.

Has anyone come forward with stories of people carrying truckloads of unknown substances into the WTC buildings prior to the attack?

 

[Unheard]

JFK was guiding the planes in, so they knew exactly where to hit. He did have some help though from all the people who were supposed to be onboard the plane that hit the pentagon. Now they all live in my basement.

 

[spaceghost21]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: spaceghost21
There was no conspiracy.

The United States has been funding extreme Islam for years. We sold our soul for oil. Washington crippled the CIA's ability to prevent such attacks. September 11th was the result of this.

I don't think we ever had a soul. Just a warm nougat center wrapped in a wad of cash.

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DonVito
I am not myself a conspiracy theorist, but even I find the answers to your questions painfully obvious, so I don't know why you'd start this thread.

If, hypothetically, the government created the 9/11 attacks, it knew that the planes would crash into the two WTC towers - there was no mystery about which buildings it would need to implode. At that point any competent demolitions expert could pre-place charges to bring the buildings down. C4, like some other explosive agents frequently used for civil demolitions, is not flammable and would not go off as a result of the impact or the resulting fire. By the same token, they would (or at least could have) install a tiered top-down detonation system that would allow them to start at any floor or group of floors (by placing, say, a set of charges at every fifth floor).

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but surely if the government had the inclination and wherewithal to get the planes on target, the civil demolition piece of the plan would, relatively speaking, be small potatoes.

You would think someone would notice people planting explosives throughout two buildings the size of the twin towers. I don't know how much C4 you'd need to plant throughout say 50 floors (just to be safe) so that it would look like the collapse began at the point of impact but I'm sure it's got to be a staggering quantity.

Has anyone come forward with stories of people carrying truckloads of unknown substances into the WTC buildings prior to the attack?

If it were true, I don't think they needed to C4 that many floors. From conjecture, I would guess that C4ing only one floor would be enough - that would cause the top of the building to collapse down, causing a chain reaction. I have no idea if this would happen, so don't quote me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: yllus

The part that trips it up for me is the idea that the government could pull off the mass murder of 3,000 of its citizens with no leaks. They can't even keep the existence of secret prisons on other continents a secret! Not one guilty party cried into his wife's shoulder at night with the guilt of those people's lives on his concience? Unpossible.

I agree completely. It seems all but impossible to me that the government, which seems so bumbling the majority of the time, could execute such a massive conspiracy and keep it secret. I also don't believe, though I loathe President Bush, that he is so blackhearted that he would authorize a plan that involved killing thousands of innocent American civilians. Cheney, on the other hand . . .

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: yllus
I had a lot more respect for you before you revealed yourself in these threads to be a total tinfoil beanie wearer. Not that you should care what someone on the Interweb thinks of you, of course. But, cripes - tell me you're not pursuing a science degree of any type!

No I'm not persuing a science degree - I already obtained a computer science bachelor's. I'm sorry you feel that way about me because of my views, but I don't sacrafice my opinion for peoples feelings about me on here or IRL. Yeah I care about what people think of me but in my opinion getting the word out about 9/11 inaccuracies is more important then my reputation on an Internet forum, that's why I'm relenting about it.

Originally posted by: Aflac
I'm not sure where I said I thought I knew how everyone who doesn't support the 9/11 official story is a "fanatic who blindly suggests" things. Maybe we're not on the same page here, but I was thinking about the people such as the ones who made the "loose change" video when I made that comment, as well as the people who were harassing that woman who took that pic of the smoke of united flight 93.

Well the thing is you get some extreme cases of CTer's with something like 9/11. I can only roll my eyes at those who harassed that lady in PA, it's ridiculous to accuse her of anything other then taking a picture. The one's who made Loose Change did a good job at producing and distributing their idea's and some people look at it as the holy grail of the 9/11 truth movement, but there are many CTer's who can't stand the video and blame it for a lot of misinformation since they wanted to question many aspects of 9/11 and went a little far in trying to get their point across. Just like the Nazi's gave Germany a bad name, these people give those of us who are actually concerned with fact finding and theory discussion a bad name too. People just throw UFO's and JFK and moon landing hoaxs in with 9/11 like they're all one of the same.

All I'm trying to say is there is more that meets the eye with 9/11, and just like NIST had to do with explaining how these buildings feel, CTer's have to think their way to a conclusion based on what little could be decerned from the aftermath. Some theories are more out there then others, but not every CTer is okay with what the next guy thinks.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DonVito
I am not myself a conspiracy theorist, but even I find the answers to your questions painfully obvious, so I don't know why you'd start this thread.

If, hypothetically, the government created the 9/11 attacks, it knew that the planes would crash into the two WTC towers - there was no mystery about which buildings it would need to implode. At that point any competent demolitions expert could pre-place charges to bring the buildings down. C4, like some other explosive agents frequently used for civil demolitions, is not flammable and would not go off as a result of the impact or the resulting fire. By the same token, they would (or at least could have) install a tiered top-down detonation system that would allow them to start at any floor or group of floors (by placing, say, a set of charges at every fifth floor).

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but surely if the government had the inclination and wherewithal to get the planes on target, the civil demolition piece of the plan would, relatively speaking, be small potatoes.

You would think someone would notice people planting explosives throughout two buildings the size of the twin towers. I don't know how much C4 you'd need to plant throughout say 50 floors (just to be safe) so that it would look like the collapse began at the point of impact but I'm sure it's got to be a staggering quantity.

Has anyone come forward with stories of people carrying truckloads of unknown substances into the WTC buildings prior to the attack?

If it were true, I don't think they needed to C4 that many floors. From conjecture, I would guess that C4ing only one floor would be enough - that would cause the top of the building to collapse down, causing a chain reaction. I have no idea if this would happen, so don't quote me.

Well, a commercial airliner traveling at 500mph is not exactly a precision flying machine. There is no way a pilot could guide one into an exact point let alone do it twice. Fine, we'll say 30 floors then.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: yllus
I had a lot more respect for you before you revealed yourself in these threads to be a total tinfoil beanie wearer. Not that you should care what someone on the Interweb thinks of you, of course. But, cripes - tell me you're not pursuing a science degree of any type!

No I'm not persuing a science degree - I already obtained a computer science bachelor's. I'm sorry you feel that way about me because of my views, but I don't sacrafice my opinion for peoples feelings about me on here or IRL. Yeah I care about what people think of me but in my opinion getting the word out about 9/11 inaccuracies is more important then my reputation on an Internet forum, that's why I'm relenting about it.

Originally posted by: Aflac
I'm not sure where I said I thought I knew how everyone who doesn't support the 9/11 official story is a "fanatic who blindly suggests" things. Maybe we're not on the same page here, but I was thinking about the people such as the ones who made the "loose change" video when I made that comment, as well as the people who were harassing that woman who took that pic of the smoke of united flight 93.

Well the thing is you get some extreme cases of CTer's with something like 9/11. I can only roll my eyes at those who harassed that lady in PA, it's ridiculous to accuse her of anything other then taking a picture. The one's who made Loose Change did a good job at producing and distributing their idea's and some people look at it as the holy grail of the 9/11 truth movement, but there are many CTer's who can't stand the video and blame it for a lot of misinformation since they wanted to question many aspects of 9/11 and went a little far in trying to get their point across. Just like the Nazi's gave Germany a bad name, these people give those of us who are actually concerned with fact finding and theory discussion a bad name too. People just throw UFO's and JFK and moon landing hoaxs in with 9/11 like they're all one of the same.

All I'm trying to say is there is more that meets the eye with 9/11, and just like NIST had to do with explaining how these buildings feel, CTer's have to think their way to a conclusion based on what little could be decerned from the aftermath. Some theories are more out there then others, but not every CTer is okay with what the next guy thinks.

I use to believe in UFOs as a kid but after years of reading and thinking, it just stopped making sense for me. You sound like an intelligent person. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in this kind of stuff. One day when you get older, you?ll snap out of it. In the mean time, carry on as if you were normal and keep inquiring.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: microAmp
There is a dedicated thread for you to ask that question, use it.

yes, there is only one thread, don't start any new ones

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

Reminds me of a show I watched on Discovery taking on the Moon Landing conspiracy theorists, they were shown and proven all their "proof there was no landing" theories were flawed and explained and showed how and why and none of them would hear of it.

Was pretty interesting show.

 

[Dumac]

Well since we caused the Tsunami in 04, who knows what else we could have done?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

Reminds me of a show I watched on Discovery taking on the Moon Landing conspiracy theorists, they were shown and proven all their "proof there was no landing" theories were flawed and explained and showed how and why and none of them would hear of it.

Was pretty interesting show.

Although I'm not a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy, it distresses me a little how so many people are inclined to go to such extremes to marginalize those who DO believe in a conspiracy. I for one think it's healthy to question things, and there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11. Many of the "conspiracy theorists" are highly respected scientists who, IMO, are able to articulate some persuasive points.

I guess I can understand that people get so emotional about traumatic events like 9/11 that they are offended by the very idea that a 9/11-type attack could be the result of an internal conspiracy, but it seems to me that the mockery of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" interferes with sincere efforts to dig into the facts of what happened and ask questions about them. There was a time that those who believed that the earth was round would, in today's parlance, have been called "tinfoil hat wearers."

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: yllus

The part that trips it up for me is the idea that the government could pull off the mass murder of 3,000 of its citizens with no leaks. They can't even keep the existence of secret prisons on other continents a secret! Not one guilty party cried into his wife's shoulder at night with the guilt of those people's lives on his concience? Unpossible.

I agree completely. It seems all but impossible to me that the government, which seems so bumbling the majority of the time, could execute such a massive conspiracy and keep it secret. I also don't believe, though I loathe President Bush, that he is so blackhearted that he would authorize a plan that involved killing thousands of innocent American civilians. Cheney, on the other hand . . .

I hear that sometimes and have to admit I don't know if it's a joke or not - is Cheney really that bad a guy? The most I've ever seen of him 'personally' was his televised debate with John Edwards where he completely and utterly destroyed the poor guy (don't mess with experience, I guess).

Cheney seemed like a cool, collected, and very resolute man. Not the cold-hearted murderer people seem to make him out to be in P&N. What's the real deal?

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: yllus
I had a lot more respect for you before you revealed yourself in these threads to be a total tinfoil beanie wearer. Not that you should care what someone on the Interweb thinks of you, of course. But, cripes - tell me you're not pursuing a science degree of any type!

No I'm not persuing a science degree - I already obtained a computer science bachelor's. I'm sorry you feel that way about me because of my views, but I don't sacrafice my opinion for peoples feelings about me on here or IRL. Yeah I care about what people think of me but in my opinion getting the word out about 9/11 inaccuracies is more important then my reputation on an Internet forum, that's why I'm relenting about it.

Okay, so long as you don't voice these things aloud and tar all of us comp sci degree holders by association. I like being employed.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

Reminds me of a show I watched on Discovery taking on the Moon Landing conspiracy theorists, they were shown and proven all their "proof there was no landing" theories were flawed and explained and showed how and why and none of them would hear of it.

Was pretty interesting show.

Although I'm not a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy, it distresses me a little how so many people are inclined to go to such extremes to marginalize those who DO believe in a conspiracy. I for one think it's healthy to question things, and there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11. Many of the "conspiracy theorists" are highly respected scientists who, IMO, are able to articulate some persuasive points.

I guess I can understand that people get so emotional about traumatic events like 9/11 that they are offended by the very idea that a 9/11-type attack could be the result of an internal conspiracy, but it seems to me that the mockery of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" interferes with sincere efforts to dig into the facts of what happened and ask questions about them. There was a time that those who believed that the earth was round would, in today's parlance, have been called "tinfoil hat wearers."

QFT

There are many many questions surrounding 9-11, but anyone asking them is labeled a "nut" by the majority of people. It was my understanding that free thought was encouraged in this country, but more and more lately, people seem to fall in line with the group.

IMO, the government has the power to make 99% of conspiracy theorists change their minds. If it truely has nothing to hide, we should have an open and honest discussion about it. Instead they hide behind "National Security, " and fail to address many of the very convincing points put forth bypeople well respected in their fields (scientists, firemen...)

By leaving certain fairly logical questions unanswered, it encourages people to believe that something is being hidden from them, and allows the speculatoin of a coverup to continue.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: yllus
Okay, so long as you don't voice these things aloud and tar all of us comp sci degree holders by association. I like being employed.

:roll:

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: Aflac
In general, I think trying to dispute the claims that conspiracy theorists are coming up with is pointless. If you refute one point, they're going to blindly suggest another. It's a battle that you can't win... and there's no way they'll change their minds. The fact that they believe in such an absurd theory is proof enough that they're fanatics. At that point I don't believe there's a turning-back point.

Reminds me of a show I watched on Discovery taking on the Moon Landing conspiracy theorists, they were shown and proven all their "proof there was no landing" theories were flawed and explained and showed how and why and none of them would hear of it.

Was pretty interesting show.

Although I'm not a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy, it distresses me a little how so many people are inclined to go to such extremes to marginalize those who DO believe in a conspiracy. I for one think it's healthy to question things, and there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11. Many of the "conspiracy theorists" are highly respected scientists who, IMO, are able to articulate some persuasive points.

I guess I can understand that people get so emotional about traumatic events like 9/11 that they are offended by the very idea that a 9/11-type attack could be the result of an internal conspiracy, but it seems to me that the mockery of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" interferes with sincere efforts to dig into the facts of what happened and ask questions about them. There was a time that those who believed that the earth was round would, in today's parlance, have been called "tinfoil hat wearers."

They are labeled "nutjobs" becauase the vocal majority of them truly are nutjobs, and they unfortunately spoil it for those who believe there may be more to story then we've been led to believe.

I am one who happens to believe there is probably more to the story than we are being told. But anyone who believes that it wasn't a commcerical jet that hit the Pentagon IS a nutjob because the amount of evidence you would have to ignore to believe otherwise is mind numbing. Anyone who believes that it was anything other than two commercial jets crashing into the WTC that brought it down IS a also a nutjob for the same reason.

It was fine to pose these questions in the early days after 9/11, but it's been 5 years and the evidence is settled-- so for people to come along now with these crazy ideas and state them as gospel even though they have long been debunked is just not intellectually honest.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: QED

They are labeled "nutjobs" becauase the vocal majority of them truly are nutjobs, and they unfortunately spoil it for those who believe there may be more to story then we've been led to believe.

I am one who happens to believe there is probably more to the story than we are being told. But anyone who believes that it wasn't a commcerical jet that hit the Pentagon IS a nutjob because the amount of evidence you would have to ignore to believe otherwise is mind numbing. Anyone who believes that it was anything other than two commercial jets crashing into the WTC that brought it down IS a also a nutjob for the same reason.

It was fine to pose these questions in the early days after 9/11, but it's been 5 years and the evidence is settled-- so for people to come along now with these crazy ideas and state them as gospel even though they have long been debunked is just not intellectually honest.

I thought this was in question because a lack of evidence, namely any remains of an airliner.

I do agree that the most vocal of the theorists are a bit nuts.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: QED

They are labeled "nutjobs" becauase the vocal majority of them truly are nutjobs, and they unfortunately spoil it for those who believe there may be more to story then we've been led to believe.

I am one who happens to believe there is probably more to the story than we are being told. But anyone who believes that it wasn't a commcerical jet that hit the Pentagon IS a nutjob because the amount of evidence you would have to ignore to believe otherwise is mind numbing. Anyone who believes that it was anything other than two commercial jets crashing into the WTC that brought it down IS a also a nutjob for the same reason.

It was fine to pose these questions in the early days after 9/11, but it's been 5 years and the evidence is settled-- so for people to come along now with these crazy ideas and state them as gospel even though they have long been debunked is just not intellectually honest.

I thought this was in question because a lack of evidence, namely any remains of an airliner.

I do agree that the most vocal of the theorists are a bit nuts.

there were pieces of airliner all over the place. there are plenty of pictures of them. there are eyewitness accounts of them. to ignore all that takes about the same degree of rectal-cranial inversion as it take to think that OJ didn't kill nicole and ron.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

There are many many questions surrounding 9-11, but anyone asking them is labeled a "nut" by the majority of people. It was my understanding that free thought was encouraged in this country, but more and more lately, people seem to fall in line with the group.

IMO, the government has the power to make 99% of conspiracy theorists change their minds. If it truely has nothing to hide, we should have an open and honest discussion about it. Instead they hide behind "National Security, " and fail to address many of the very convincing points put forth bypeople well respected in their fields (scientists, firemen...)

By leaving certain fairly logical questions unanswered, it encourages people to believe that something is being hidden from them, and allows the speculatoin of a coverup to continue.

Lets think about this for a minute. If the government were to release a report that detailed *everything* minute by minute, detail by detail, and leave nothing out, do you think that people would still cook something up?

Heck yes. People who are conspiracy theorists do not care for fact, "beyond a reasonable doubt" or logic. They want to believe that something is wrong, more or less to support their own oddness. It doesn't matter how many videos or pictures or foresnic evidence comes out to disprove the Pentagon "bomb" or the WTC "bombs", it'll still happen. Some people just need that conspiracy, no matter what.

The whole bomb in the WTC is a joke, it was metal fatigue, plain and simple. That building had a specific way it worked. It had a structure build upon the premise that the whole of the structure was *much* stronger than the parts. However, once you took a bite out of that whole, the whole structure became much more weak.

Its like putting togeather furniture. The whole thing seems wobbly until you add one critical component. However, that critical component alone can't keep the structure up, it's just the final piece in a jigsaw puzzle. Remove that piece and the whole thing comes crashing down. Metal bends, it snaps in half, it cracks, and it crashes down.

The WTC operated on that type of structure, where the external tubes held the whole thing up. That structure, as a whole, was much stronger than you'd expect, it worked dang well. However, remove one piece of that structure, then the pieces underneath have to support incrimentally more weight.

Once you add in cracking metal and explosive outbursts of air due to the pancaking of the floors and you get your "explosions".

However, that irrefutable logic, even if we had the world's best minds make a consensus, along with *every* shred of government evidence will never assuage a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Explain to me how the government was able to place explosives at the precise place in the building where the planes were flown into them? There is no disputing that the collapse of the towers began at the point of impact where the planes hit the buildings so how do you explain that? Besides, wouldn't the planes have set off the explosives?

Puts flame suit on and waits for tinfoil hat crowd.

are you a civil engineer?

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Seems I read somewhere that steel melts at just a bit above 1500*C, and while jet fuel only burns at a little over 800*C, what made the WTC fall is the fact that the steel loses 50% of its strength at only about 650*C. So the fires didn't melt the steel, but it weakened it plenty.
And that closes the case.

 

[fishface313]

here is the answer to all of your questions...

maddox!

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: fishface313
here is the answer to all of your questions...

maddox!

Ha, he has the temp figures, too.

He also has the link to the Popular Mechanics article that debunks everything:
Popular Mechanics

 

[Powermoloch]

conspiracy theorists are bunch of crackpots.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

OP, PM me when you can prove an airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11


...Galvanized

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: DonVito
I am not myself a conspiracy theorist, but even I find the answers to your questions painfully obvious, so I don't know why you'd start this thread.

If, hypothetically, the government created the 9/11 attacks, it knew that the planes would crash into the two WTC towers - there was no mystery about which buildings it would need to implode. At that point any competent demolitions expert could pre-place charges to bring the buildings down. C4, like some other explosive agents frequently used for civil demolitions, is not flammable and would not go off as a result of the impact or the resulting fire. By the same token, they would (or at least could have) install a tiered top-down detonation system that would allow them to start at any floor or group of floors (by placing, say, a set of charges at every fifth floor).

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but surely if the government had the inclination and wherewithal to get the planes on target, the civil demolition piece of the plan would, relatively speaking, be small potatoes.

You would think someone would notice people planting explosives throughout two buildings the size of the twin towers. I don't know how much C4 you'd need to plant throughout say 50 floors (just to be safe) so that it would look like the collapse began at the point of impact but I'm sure it's got to be a staggering quantity.

Has anyone come forward with stories of people carrying truckloads of unknown substances into the WTC buildings prior to the attack?

You obviously did not actually even watch or read much of the conspiracy theorist's side of the argument before you disregarded it as buffoonery.
If you had, you would know that WTC had an evacuation for a fire drill a week before, in which a group of people went in during the drill.
The demolitions was not placed exactly where the planes it - why would it need to? It was planted underground where it would blow up the foundation of the building. Also don't you think they could have easily placed remote detonators there? :roll: