-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
WTC 11/9/2001 - conspiracy or not?
- Thread starter Slug
- Start date
I think two things are great about this conversation.
1.) You honestly believe the government is capable of pulling off a massive conspiracy.
2.) You honestly believe that the government is capable of covering it up.
I just find it wonderful that you have soo much faith in the government.
I personally find it hard to believe that this government is really capable of passing meaningful budget reform or proper health care.
1.) You honestly believe the government is capable of pulling off a massive conspiracy.
2.) You honestly believe that the government is capable of covering it up.
I just find it wonderful that you have soo much faith in the government.
I personally find it hard to believe that this government is really capable of passing meaningful budget reform or proper health care.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
1. Who said it is the government?
2. A full investigation doesn't necessarily mean alleging a coverup. Maybe they just overlooked things and rushed out a conclusion to give closure to the public, which is why we are requesting a deeper investigation.
3. The level of faith in government has nothing to do with it.
2. A full investigation doesn't necessarily mean alleging a coverup. Maybe they just overlooked things and rushed out a conclusion to give closure to the public, which is why we are requesting a deeper investigation.
3. The level of faith in government has nothing to do with it.
bajabum
Newbie
Another angle not mentioned in this thread is the term 'False Flag'.
False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.
False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun Tzu and The Art of War
"Warfare is the art of deceit".
False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.
False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun Tzu and The Art of War
"Warfare is the art of deceit".
bajabum
Newbie
Who is the government anymore? Is the so called government really what it is? Or has it become something foreign to what we naturally think it is or should be? I would suggest the true form of government established by the contract agreed to long ago has become something else, aka Military Industrial Complex.
bajabum
Newbie
What exactly is it that frightens all you who don't want anyone to question the 'Party Line'? Why do those who except the 'Official Report' condemn anyone who doesn't buy it? What are you so frigging afraid of?
If what we are suppose to believe is the truth why then are you so worried about anyone who questions it? I thought dissent is the purest form of democracy. Is this what you hate so much? Do you really want every one to just shut up and go along with the program? Is this the direction you really want this country to go in?
I don't think China is the model we should follow but if we don't ask questions and get answers how are we going to be any different?
If what we are suppose to believe is the truth why then are you so worried about anyone who questions it? I thought dissent is the purest form of democracy. Is this what you hate so much? Do you really want every one to just shut up and go along with the program? Is this the direction you really want this country to go in?
I don't think China is the model we should follow but if we don't ask questions and get answers how are we going to be any different?
bajabum
Newbie
And no one could have been more happy the day of 9/11 than Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU&feature=player_detailpage
A true fact does not a conspiracy make.
The largest airliner available at the time of the design of the Twin Towers was the Boeing 707 and yes the scenario they had in mind was a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport. This kind of impact does happen. The Empire State Building got hit by a plane in the 1940s.
A 707 lost in fog looking for the airport would be travelling at about 200mph because it's preparing to land. It's likely to be quite low on fuel too given the distance it has probably flown on its way to JFK or some other New York airport.
A 767 is double the weight of a 707. These 767s had a full load of fuel. These 767s were diliberately flown into the towers at high speed. The impact speed was about 400mph. This, because of the laws of physics, amounts to EIGHT TIMES THE IMPACT FORCE on the buildings. And guess what, they still survived that initial impact. Pretty impressive actually.
Here's why they fell down: remember the fuel? This caused a huge explosion and fire which weakened all the supporting floor trusses that ran between the building core and the steel cladding (which on the Twin Towers was load bearing). The explosion 'blew away' the fire-proofing materials on and around the floor trusses meaning that the fire was able to continue unchecked. Evenually the area of the building affected could no longer support the weight of the building above it and the collapse started. Once the collapse had started the momentum meant that there was no stopping it.
Here's why the second building to be hit fell first. The damage was lower down in the building and so had more weight pressing down from above.
As for why WTC7 fell. A fire started and because everyone was concentrating on the Twin Towers, no-one bothered to put the fire out. Eventually it fell. A bit crap really but that's all there is to it.
Homan13PSU
Android Enthusiast
Ah yes, a typical 9-11 truther who just listens to the BS that gets spouted off by that side and doesn't do any ACTUAL research.
The twin towers were designed to take a hit from a 707 airliner that was almost empty in terms of fuel load after a cross country, or trans-Atlantic flight. They were never designed to be hit by a 767 that was carrying nearly 90% of its fuel load. An aircraft I might add that carries almost 30% more fuel overall than a 707 did.
Homan13PSU
Android Enthusiast
So, you mean to tell me that our United States government SUCCESFULLY attacked the twin towers AND Pentagon without anybody telling the media...yet we couldn't find ONE weapon of mass destruction in Iraq?
Nice try.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
**sigh** The NIST report on WTC7 is up on the 'net for anyone to see. The architect of the building buys it. In fact there is an article in an engineering magazine talking about how all it would've taken is one central truss to fail. That's it. One of them fails in a fire fueled by 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel and the others aren't strong enough to hold the weight of the building. If you actually bother to watch the videos of the collapse, you see the utility building on top of the building collapse a full 30 seconds or so before the rest of the building collapses. This is not consistent at all with a controlled demolition, but is completely consistent with a central support truss/column/whatever you want to call it failing and then the other columns being unable to support the weight of the building without it. In fact, if you watch the videos closely, you can see parts of the roof of the building all 8-10 seconds before the rest of the building does. Again, this is not consistent at all with a controlled demolition. If it was indeed a controlled demolition, please explain to me why sections of the roof collapsed a full 10-30 seconds before the rest of the roof. That's not consistent with a controlled demolition.
Yes, steel and concrete buildings will collapse in fires fueled by 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel. In standard fires, no. In fires that are fueled by diesel fuel, yes.
This is what I absolutely hate about conspiracy theorists. They refuse to accept that anyone can make mistakes or have bad information. At the time people reported there were bombs in the building. They later determined that information was incorrect. But the second time they were lying. There's no chance they were incorrect the first time. Nope. Wouldn't happen. The feds are extremely competent and even more so in a crisis when things are going crazy.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The problem with a lot of conspiracy theorists is that in their mind, life is simple. If someone says "this building is built to withstand the impact of a plane" then that means that no plane can ever take down that building no matter what it does. You could pack that plane to the gills with TNT and jet fuel, smash it into said building at 500 mph, then detonate the ton of TNT you have on board and if the building collapses the conspiracy theorist will say it shouldn't have happened that way.
People inside the building heard explosions. To the conspiracy theorist the only explanation in the entire world is a bomb. That's it. Floors and walls falling making loud banging and crashing sounds? Nope. Has to be a bomb. Transformers inside the building exploding in a fire? Nope. Has to be a bomb. There is only one explanation for everything. Doesn't matter how unlikely or how improbable, there is only one explanation.
Ever watch Jesse Ventura's show on 9/11? It's the perfect example of this. A guy claims he heard explosions in the building before the planes hit. Now, there is no explanation for this that's consistent with the official story. He also claims that he testified in front of the 9/11 commission about this. Problem is, he has no other witnesses to back up his claims. He also has no proof that he ever testified in front of the commission. It's clear on the show though that Jesse 100% believes him. In his mind, a cover up is the only explanation. The idea that the guy could be lying to him never enters his mind.
Another guy on the show claims he knows someone who has inside information on what was on the flight data recorders of the planes that hit the twin towers. Jesse and his crew drive 5 hours to talk to this person. When they get there, the guy claims that the person doesn't want to talk to Jesse because they're afraid for their lives. You'd think that Jesse would accuse the guy of completely making all of this up since there's no evidence the person he's talking about even exists. Instead, his comment is something along the lines of, "If they're not covering this up, why are people too scared to talk to us?" It's ridiculous.
People inside the building heard explosions. To the conspiracy theorist the only explanation in the entire world is a bomb. That's it. Floors and walls falling making loud banging and crashing sounds? Nope. Has to be a bomb. Transformers inside the building exploding in a fire? Nope. Has to be a bomb. There is only one explanation for everything. Doesn't matter how unlikely or how improbable, there is only one explanation.
Ever watch Jesse Ventura's show on 9/11? It's the perfect example of this. A guy claims he heard explosions in the building before the planes hit. Now, there is no explanation for this that's consistent with the official story. He also claims that he testified in front of the 9/11 commission about this. Problem is, he has no other witnesses to back up his claims. He also has no proof that he ever testified in front of the commission. It's clear on the show though that Jesse 100% believes him. In his mind, a cover up is the only explanation. The idea that the guy could be lying to him never enters his mind.
Another guy on the show claims he knows someone who has inside information on what was on the flight data recorders of the planes that hit the twin towers. Jesse and his crew drive 5 hours to talk to this person. When they get there, the guy claims that the person doesn't want to talk to Jesse because they're afraid for their lives. You'd think that Jesse would accuse the guy of completely making all of this up since there's no evidence the person he's talking about even exists. Instead, his comment is something along the lines of, "If they're not covering this up, why are people too scared to talk to us?" It's ridiculous.
You gotta make this difficult huh?
Please quote each part you are responding to separately. That way we can more easily quote your responses.
Fire Fighters don't look for flight recorders. It isn't their job. Their job is solely to rescue the people.
Most of the excavation of the towers was done by construction workers.
It's the job of the NTSB to locate and recover the flight recorders. However, considering the jet fuel fire, and the amount of debris that they would have been crushed under, it's unlikely they would have survived as anything recognizable.
So, they were either there when the explosions happened, or they saw them, or they heard them.
If they saw them, they likely wouldn't have survived. What has been reported is HEARING explosions.
That's the problem with chaos though, there is absolutely no difference in the sound of explosives exploding and transformers exploding through several floors. They are both just booms.
Ok... so, you can't provide that information. If you can't provide that information, then you need to look at the validity of that information before you start accepting it as valid.
Just FYI... Steel is molten at about 752 Fahrenheit.
Anything flammable near that would have burst into flames easily, and the entire place would have been on fire.
We are talking 752 Fahrenheit in a confined space built and intended for 72 Fahrenheit with no fire suppression...
No, the firefighters would not have survived. By the time they got through the fire to see steel melting, the building would have already been down on top of them.
The idea that they saw molten steel flowing defies all logic. The building would have come down by the time they got to see it... The structure would have been so far compromised that the building would have come down... it just doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.
So, you are saying that the BBC made an erroneous report, and everyone else picked up on it? Oh the scandal.
Why would it be a bit odd? Chances are the information was acquired from the same source.
Really, if you have someone who does dry cleaning around a military base that has plenty of Foreign Nationals (such as Maxwell AFB), then you will be able to get all the information that you need.
Yes, and the commission believes that they are covering up how badly they bungled the response... your point?
You can ask why hasn't anyone addressed why the moon is made of blue cheese. However, you won't find that question addressed anywhere in the news media. It's not a big coverup, it's a ridiculous question that doesn't deserve an answer.
Speculation? They are the ones who reported that WTC 7 fell before it did. They have reported the facts as they understand them. Or are you saying that their reporters were given a script, and the main office doesn't know anything about it, and the reporters have never come forward to say they were forced to report on it against their will.
They seem to be making a very honest statement on that sight, but if you want to dismiss it, that's fine, but don't claim to be a scientific minded person who doesn't take people's words for it.
Actually, no. The passport (only one was found from the WTC hijackers) was found as part of the debris that was spewed out when the plane hit the tower. It was found blocks away.
That's the only one found for those attacks.
Please quote each part you are responding to separately. That way we can more easily quote your responses.
Fire Fighters don't look for flight recorders. It isn't their job. Their job is solely to rescue the people.
Most of the excavation of the towers was done by construction workers.
It's the job of the NTSB to locate and recover the flight recorders. However, considering the jet fuel fire, and the amount of debris that they would have been crushed under, it's unlikely they would have survived as anything recognizable.
So, they were either there when the explosions happened, or they saw them, or they heard them.
If they saw them, they likely wouldn't have survived. What has been reported is HEARING explosions.
That's the problem with chaos though, there is absolutely no difference in the sound of explosives exploding and transformers exploding through several floors. They are both just booms.
Ok... so, you can't provide that information. If you can't provide that information, then you need to look at the validity of that information before you start accepting it as valid.
Just FYI... Steel is molten at about 752 Fahrenheit.
Anything flammable near that would have burst into flames easily, and the entire place would have been on fire.
We are talking 752 Fahrenheit in a confined space built and intended for 72 Fahrenheit with no fire suppression...
No, the firefighters would not have survived. By the time they got through the fire to see steel melting, the building would have already been down on top of them.
The idea that they saw molten steel flowing defies all logic. The building would have come down by the time they got to see it... The structure would have been so far compromised that the building would have come down... it just doesn't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.
So, you are saying that the BBC made an erroneous report, and everyone else picked up on it? Oh the scandal.
Why would it be a bit odd? Chances are the information was acquired from the same source.
Really, if you have someone who does dry cleaning around a military base that has plenty of Foreign Nationals (such as Maxwell AFB), then you will be able to get all the information that you need.
Yes, and the commission believes that they are covering up how badly they bungled the response... your point?
You can ask why hasn't anyone addressed why the moon is made of blue cheese. However, you won't find that question addressed anywhere in the news media. It's not a big coverup, it's a ridiculous question that doesn't deserve an answer.
Speculation? They are the ones who reported that WTC 7 fell before it did. They have reported the facts as they understand them. Or are you saying that their reporters were given a script, and the main office doesn't know anything about it, and the reporters have never come forward to say they were forced to report on it against their will.
They seem to be making a very honest statement on that sight, but if you want to dismiss it, that's fine, but don't claim to be a scientific minded person who doesn't take people's words for it.
Actually, no. The passport (only one was found from the WTC hijackers) was found as part of the debris that was spewed out when the plane hit the tower. It was found blocks away.
That's the only one found for those attacks.
Verified by whom?
And I'm noticing that the only thing you need to do to be "verified" is have a degree in architecture.
I'm sorry, but I don't take a website for conspiracy theorists at their word. Show me independent verification, and actual credentials... and then we'll talk.
Homan13PSU
Android Enthusiast
Kind of a funny comment; considering this is the DE FACTO response from truthers like yourself. When presented with factual information on 9-11 you all turn right around and ask...another question.
Mac_Leod
Well-Known Member
So you must believe that Obama wasn't really born in the United States. I mean, the official story is that he was, and according to your logic, the official story must be a cover-up.
See, I can make a straw-man argument too.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
Man, talk about grasping at straws.. I don't have any of the answers, nor does the government, nor does the media. But hey, if you just make it up on the fly I guess that makes it true. I know it may be hard to question things that conflict the 'official' reports.. but that is what scientists and engineers do when things don't add up.
1. I don't just accept reports to be valid just because someone threw them out there. There is conflicting information.
2. You may want to check your steel melting temperatures again.
Ever been in a steel plant around molten steel? I have.. I live right near several and had family work in them. It does not make everything spontaneously combust. As the firefighters describe the molten steel running down like a foundry.. that would not cause them to catch on fire. If they got within a foot, maybe. They were wearing full fire-retardant gear.
3. Your response to someone reporting a building collapse when there wasn't one isn't valid. The specificity and detailed report wasn't just made up on the fly. They gathered information about the building ahead of time. The perfect uniform collapse cannot be caused by fire, which generates hot spots. There must have been perfectly uniform hot spots on all the support columns.
4. We have scientific evidence from multiple trips to know what the moon is made of, analyzed by many scientists. This is not the case with discrepancies in the 9/11 reports because there was not a full investigation carried out.
5. If the commission even says the government is covering up their asses and not giving out answers they asked questions to, that right there is grounds for a full cooperative investigation until all the questions are answered.
6. Firefighters and volunteers worked the cleanup for months.. they stated they were also looking for black boxes. Just read their personal accounts. Many of them wrote books and have done interviews. If I was part of a airline terror disaster cleanup, I know I'd be looking for black boxes or anything remotely resembling them even without someone else's instruction to look for them. That's just common sense.
1. I don't just accept reports to be valid just because someone threw them out there. There is conflicting information.
2. You may want to check your steel melting temperatures again.
Ever been in a steel plant around molten steel? I have.. I live right near several and had family work in them. It does not make everything spontaneously combust. As the firefighters describe the molten steel running down like a foundry.. that would not cause them to catch on fire. If they got within a foot, maybe. They were wearing full fire-retardant gear.3. Your response to someone reporting a building collapse when there wasn't one isn't valid. The specificity and detailed report wasn't just made up on the fly. They gathered information about the building ahead of time. The perfect uniform collapse cannot be caused by fire, which generates hot spots. There must have been perfectly uniform hot spots on all the support columns.
4. We have scientific evidence from multiple trips to know what the moon is made of, analyzed by many scientists. This is not the case with discrepancies in the 9/11 reports because there was not a full investigation carried out.
5. If the commission even says the government is covering up their asses and not giving out answers they asked questions to, that right there is grounds for a full cooperative investigation until all the questions are answered.
6. Firefighters and volunteers worked the cleanup for months.. they stated they were also looking for black boxes. Just read their personal accounts. Many of them wrote books and have done interviews. If I was part of a airline terror disaster cleanup, I know I'd be looking for black boxes or anything remotely resembling them even without someone else's instruction to look for them. That's just common sense.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
What's even funnier is your DE FACTO responses that deny the scientific fact that nano-thermite was found, as well as melted steel. NASA thermographic images even backup temperatures in excess of what a jet fueled fire is capable of.
Homan13PSU
Android Enthusiast
I think you need to look in the mirror in terms of who's grasping at straws.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
Good response. Science and truth will prevail in the investigation. FUD and falsified reports will not.
Homan13PSU
Android Enthusiast
Science and truth has prevailed every step of the way. You just conveniently decide to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your warped view of the events that happened.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
To be fair, the official story is that I was born in the US, but there are no pictures of my head coming out of my mother's vagina with an American flag waving in the background so it must be a coverup.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Nano thermite was found years after the event. Literally years after the event. And it was found on samples that had been handled by many, many people. Chain of custody problems much?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I remember a famous video of a basketball team playing a game. It was watched by a room full of people. After the scene was over, the presenter asked questions about the bear that walked across the screen.
Nobody saw the bear. When the video was replayed, there was the bear in all its glory.
In another video, people watched women dancing and several women were replaced by others in different uniforms during the game and the backdrop changed color as well as additional dancers were added. Nobody noticed.
My point is, you do not always pay attention to what you are watching and it is well-known that eye witness observation is not always accurate. I can well imagine that what many people saw on September 11th is not to be believed or taken seriously without supporting evidence.
As for Jesse Ventura, he is a wack job. Either that, or he misses the glory days in the squared circle and wants attention.
Bob