Quote :

"the future of american was in great jeopordy, the survival of our economy depended on us controlling the trade of oil in the US $ the only way we could have done it is if we were provoked to go to war"

Not sure what you're saying here, but I'm assuming that it has something to do with the U.S. needing to control the world's oil, so therefore by having Saudi's fly planes into major US landmarks, they would provoke us to going to war over the world's oil supply?....

Then by that rationalization, wouldn't we have gone to war with the Saudi's over their oil supply? Seeing as how a vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia....

You're logic is somewhat flawed....

10/22/2007 11:41:42 AM

Quote :

"where are the people that were on that plane and where did that plane go? "

a very valid question that none of the conpsiracists are willing to answer probably

10/22/2007 11:43:36 AM

^ didn't you hear?
that plane was landed at an airport somewhere in Pennsylvania. All the people were ushered off, and summarily shot, execution style. Then the plane was destroyed.
jesus, do i have to explain everything to you people?

10/22/2007 11:53:19 AM

^^^no, the problem was not control over oil, its control over using the $ for oil trades, the value of the dollar was greatly dependent on this
if countries switched to the euro they would first go the our fed reserve & trade in their dollars for gold, that would wipe out our reserver, since we print way more money than we can back
then what would the $ be backed by
the oil is gone, gold is gone
our economy would plummet, trade would be impossible, the dollar would be worthless

this is the fact that most people dont take into consideration
nobody in their right mind would think the govt would allow an attack just to make a few bucks
this is about survival

once again, im not say i think they did or did not do it, im just saying theres alot more to it than you may think

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 11:55:33 AM

check out these nut jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzrUD-5hf1A

10/22/2007 12:24:03 PM

the thing that the conspiracy theorists don't understand is that it would take a massive amount of people, including all of the eye witnesses from the pentagon attack to lie. Every single one of them. If only ONE came out and said, it was a missile, I saw it, then the whole story would crumble.

So the fact that thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans are all card carrying good ole Republicans and are all lying in unison becomes a very unlikely scenario.

That and the fact that the Nixon Administration and a gang of 15 couldn't lie in unison makes the fact that thousands lying in unison even more unlikely.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 12:27:17 PM

Also, if Al Quaeda didn't do this..you think they would have told someone.

10/22/2007 12:29:45 PM

10/22/2007 12:37:15 PM

^

and

"Benefit is not an indicator of causality."

10/22/2007 1:17:44 PM

Quote :

"^ didn't you hear? that plane was landed at an airport somewhere in Pennsylvania. All the people were ushered off, and summarily shot, execution style. Then the plane was destroyed. jesus, do i have to explain everything to you people?"

lawlz

10/22/2007 1:32:10 PM

Lets think about how a typical building demolition works...

In general, to demolish a building with explosives requires, for each column, 3 charges. Two of the charges are shaped charges and are designed to slice a gap in the column at an angle, much like one would do when cutting a tree down. The third charge detonates a split second later to knock the 'chipped' piece of column out of the way so it doesnt get stuck and hold the column up still.

Keep in mind this is very typical, for more details on just how intracite a building demolition is, see this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

Now, lets assume, for the sake of argument that only 50 columns on 50 of the 110 stories are rigged with 3 explosives a piece in each of the two towers. That means that someone has to go in and strip away the drywall, insulation and HVAC/Mech/Electrical to get down to the bare steel (you cannot just put the explosives any old place, they must be right on the column itself) on 2500 seperate places within the building, and thats 7500 seperate explosive charges!!

Even more interesting, each charge needs 2 wires (at least) so thats 15000 wires, running all up and down this building.

Typically demolishing a medium rise building takes 6-8 weeks, for a 110 floor building that will surely take longer but we will assume 2 months.


You mean to tell me that not one of 50,000+ people who spend 40+ hours a week on average going in and out of the twin towers over the span of at least two months aren't going to notice one of 10,000+ holes in the wall with wires running all over the place:


If you saw this you wouldn't be the slightest bit alarmed?

Oh, and this isn't a two man job either, it can easily take 100+ people of various trades to set all this up. Not one of them is going to squeal? Assuming they do this in the night none of the rent-a-cops are going to notice them doing this on any of the surveillance cameras, coming in and out every night with all this stuff?


heres what the inside of a building looks like when being prepared for demolition



If you still believe this I have beachfront real estate on Saturn to sell you.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2007 4:11:05 PM

^i predict the conspiracists' answer to your (sane and logical) rational will be "oh the people working there were in on it too".

Basically their answer to everything is that anything that could debunk their theory..it doesnt work because that sector of people 'were in on it'. and the amount of times that i have heard this, and the amount of people it has been applied to...there must have been thousands upon thousands of people in on this, yet not 1 has come forward...hmmm


[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2007 4:16:29 PM

^ perhaps, but the question remains, would you have no problem working in a building where you saw all of this going on...

Surely not everyone of the 50,000 people were in on it too, if they were, then why be in the building on the big day?

10/22/2007 4:24:10 PM

I'm taking a look at the Popular Mechanics article. Hopefully I'll have something critiquing it later tonight. It's pretty long and this isn't the only thing I do so give me a little time.

10/22/2007 4:31:00 PM

^^ i was being sarcastic

because i completely agree with you. the number of people that would have had to be in on it is just stupid.

i was just giving a typical illogical explanation the conspiracy lovers often use

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2007 4:43:15 PM

^ i know I'll be waiting to see what they say to this.

10/22/2007 4:47:27 PM

Ok, first of all I would like to just go ahead and say that a lot of the reports on what happened came from FEMA. I don't trust FEMA anymore than I trust a crackhead to pay me back if I loaned him $20. FEMA is an incompetent division of the incompetent Department of Homeland Security. With that in mind:

Quote :

"And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

That's an incredibly stupid strategy. Why wouldn't they be looking inside the US at all? Maybe because Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD that day. There was a span of time of a little more than 35 minutes between when they knew there were hijacked planes and when the last plane hit the WTCand a span of about 20 minutes between when they hit the WTC. A fighter jet should have at least been up in the air. This was a failure on the part of the US government... one of many.

Quote :

"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts."

I'm sure this is true, but it doesn't prove much for your side. His plane crashed in South Dakota. That means the plane probably wasn't intercepted until it was around Missouri or thereabouts... probably far away from any base that could intercept the plane (I'm not sure, but most bases are located close to the coast). It would take significantly less time to intercept planes that were so close to the coast.

[u]Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Quote :

"Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters. The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." "

FEMA report... The guy admits he doesn't know what happened to the fuel. This is exactly the kind of ambiguous and weak report I would expect from a government agency. The fuel probably all exploded and burned up very quickly after the crash.

Quote :

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety."

He says that he's never seen melted steel in a building fire. After the first 10 minutes, that's exactly what this was... a building fire. These were the first 3 buildings to ever collapse from fire.

Quote :

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.""

I doubt there is any way that rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper could reach 1832°F. This further proves the incompetence and untruthfulness of reports by the government. If the first 10 minutes of jet fuel burning weren't enough to bring the towers down, there should have been no way that a regular building fire would have been enough. These towers were designed to sustain hits from airplanes. I think the models were 1 size off, but still, this is something they were designed to be able to take.

Quote :

"PUFFS OF DUST: Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like." Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.""

He says the Pentagon did not pressure him, but his loyalties are questionable. He was an outside expert and probably the first person to notice the windows blowing out as the building came down. Too bad he was silenced.

Quote :

""There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." ... On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. "

"That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." This is probably the most ambiguous way he could have expressed his thoughts. It reeks of government handling. The data suggests that a demolition was very possible though. The seismic waves start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. A relatively small bomb goes off followed by massive amounts or steel, concrete and whatever else was in the towers crashing to the ground.

Quote :

"WTC 7 Collapse: This section is longer than I want to quote, but here's the link. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5"

FEMA's preliminary report said there was relatively light damage to the building. It was later changed to say there was much more extensive damage. "NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research." 3 years later and they're still working on this... It's never going to be done. They also said a 5th floor fire burned for 7 hours. How can they possibly know this? "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." 3 years later and the best they have is a "current working hypothesis." They either don't know what brought down WTC 7 or they don't want other people to know. But they're definitely frontin'.



I'm far from sure that this is a conspiracy theory and I certainly don't have a bunch of evidence to back myself up. But there are a lot of things that are peculiar about this event and there are hundreds of people who have massively benefited from 9/11, most of whom are friends of Bush/Cheney. There likely won't ever be a smoking barrel for proving that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but that's one of the main attributes of a conspiracy... no evidence. If this is true I wouldn't expect to find anything to prove it because anything that could was likely destroyed a long time ago. I just wish there was an answer for all the circumstantial evidence that is mounted against the current administration. I highly doubt there is a logical explanation for every point that has been brought up. In the end though, you can't prove your case with nothing but circumstantial evidence and that's what has happened here. There's no hard evidence so there's no way to really prove what happened... one way or the other.

10/22/2007 11:39:00 PM

Quote :

"so my question is why are you so satisfied with the story you've been told?"

lafta

I'm satisfied for at least the following reasons:

1. I don't believe--and will never believe--that America attacked itself. And in case some of you don't remember, BIN LADEN ADMITTED THAT HE PLANNED THE WHOLE DAMN THING!!!1

2. America did not need to attack itself to justify a war--in Afghanistan or Iraq. There are a number of other less destructive ways that this could have been accomplished.

3. These conspiracy theories are nothing more than the typical blame-America-first rubbish from bug-eyed left-wing potbangers. They're not my go-to source for information.

10/23/2007 12:04:09 AM

Quote :

"here was a span of time of a little more than 35 minutes between when they knew there were hijacked planes and when the last plane hit the WTCand a span of about 20 minutes between when they hit the WTC. A fighter jet should have at least been up in the air."

Find out what a transponder is.

Quote :

"That means the plane probably wasn't intercepted until it was around Missouri or thereabouts... probably far away from any base that could intercept the plane (I'm not sure, but most bases are located close to the coast)."

There are Air Force and Air National Guard bases all over the midwest.

Quote :

"FEMA report... The guy admits he doesn't know what happened to the fuel. This is exactly the kind of ambiguous and weak report I would expect from a government agency. The fuel probably all exploded and burned up very quickly after the crash."

Believe it or not, it's hard to model. It states that utility shafts were sliced open. Gravity makes things go down. Do the math.

Quote :

"These were the first 3 buildings to ever collapse from fire."

That's idiotic. It happens all the time. Google it if you don't believe me.

Quote :

"I doubt there is any way that rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper could reach 1832°F. This further proves the incompetence and untruthfulness of reports by the government."

Why don't you do some research instead of saying "Durrrr.....I doubt dat." Oh right, because you think that "research" means watching youtube and flash videos.

Quote :

"These towers were designed to sustain hits from airplanes. I think the models were 1 size off, but still, this is something they were designed to be able to take."

Designed to survive an impact from a 707 trying to land at low airspeeds. Not a widebody aircraft full of fuel at high speed.

Quote :

"He says the Pentagon did not pressure him, but his loyalties are questionable."

Or that was a genuine statement but you're too wrapped up in your conspiracy to believe it. This country is full of engineers. If it was so clearly an explosion I would expect them to be coming out of the woodwork.

Quote :

"This is probably the most ambiguous way he could have expressed his thoughts. It reeks of government handling."

Thats not ambiguous at all.

Quote :

"The data suggests that a demolition was very possible though. The seismic waves start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground."

No, it suggests that the buildings collapsed on their own. A bomb big enough to bring down the WTC would have created seismic energy. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to set off explosives in a building that is already undergoing a catastrophic collapse. Too bad your mind is made up.

Quote :

"They also said a 5th floor fire burned for 7 hours. How can they possibly know this?"

Fire makes smoke.

Quote :

"They either don't know what brought down WTC 7 or they don't want other people to know. But they're definitely frontin'."

Or they figured it out and released info on it. However, they didn't put in flash video format so you didn't see it.

Quote :

"There likely won't ever be a smoking barrel for proving that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but that's one of the main attributes of a conspiracy... no evidence."

No, thats the main attribute of a conspiracy theory. Read a book.

Quote :

"I highly doubt there is a logical explanation for every point that has been brought up. In the end though, you can't prove your case with nothing but circumstantial evidence and that's what has happened here. There's no hard evidence so there's no way to really prove what happened... one way or the other."

Actually there is hard evidence. However, it's hard for gullible college kids to pay attention to the hard evidence after they see a catchy web site made by another college kid that tells them something different. There's actually some pretty interesting writing on the psychology behind conspiracism if you want to know more.

10/23/2007 12:25:20 AM

why are y'all even bothering to argue with this fucking moron?

10/23/2007 12:29:42 AM

Is a transponder the name of your dildo or something? Because obviously I'm much too simple-minded to understand what one of those could be.

Jet fuel is also flammable. If there's a huge explosion and a bunch of jet fuel nearby, it's all probably going to burn up very quickly.

Sorry. First 3 steel-structured buildings to ever collapse due to fire.

A building fire burning at 1832°F? Seriously. That is fucking hotter than hell. Humans couldn't even make a fire that hot for thousands of years, so I doubt a natural building fire would get that hot. Prove me wrong or suck a dick.

The supposed bomb did create seismic energy. Then a huge building hit the ground. This would have been a continuous seismic wave, starting small and getting bigger.

I fail to see very much smoke coming anywhere out of WTC 7. Especially not huge black plumes of diesel smoke.

No, their lack of certainty is a sign of incompetence. They don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Please enlighten me on what a book is, as I'm far too stupid to know without you actually telling me.

I don't want to know about the psychology behind conspiracism. It was probably written by some guy who wanted people to believe that conspiracies never happen. They do. They've happened before and they'll surely happen again. With the internet, all one has to do is generate massive amounts of information to manipulate history. Know where I found about this? A little book called '1984.' Don't think it's not possible. It's already happening. People are stupid and will believe anything you tell them. If you change information to support what you tell them, there's no way anyone could ever go back to prove anything. The Department of Homeland Security is pretty much the same thing as the Ministry of Truth.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : DHS]

10/23/2007 12:47:28 AM

more lols in this fun thread

10/23/2007 1:15:22 AM

^^


Answer my question, Elizabeth!!!1

10/23/2007 1:39:30 AM

^ Suck a dick. I don't know what your question was, but I feel comfortable that this covers all bases.

10/23/2007 1:41:42 AM

Building 7 was damaged pretty badly, the nutjobs rarely show you the damaged side though. Also, the destroyed wings happened to be where the main guts of its fire suppression system was, so the sprinkler system failed.

It may have been one of the only 3 metal frame buildings ever to collapse by fire (or whatever the idiotic phrasing the nutjobs use for this dubious statement), but it (like the towers) was one of the only 3 buildings ever to be hit by 2 gigantic airplanes, and to suffer the damage that they suffered. Typically, when buildings catch fire, firemen respond to put the fire out. In the case of WTC7, they had bigger fish to fry, and the fire was never addressed, hence why the buildings fell.

Quote :

"A building fire burning at 1832°F? Seriously. That is fucking hotter than hell. Humans couldn't even make a fire that hot for thousands of years, so I doubt a natural building fire would get that hot. Prove me wrong or suck a dick. "

This has been posted in this thread already, but the fire doesn't have to get that hot to cause the steel to fail. The steel will start to bend, and eventually break with MUCH lower temperatures. Please respond with the word "avocado" so that I know you have read and understood the preceding sentence.

10/23/2007 2:10:15 AM

Avocado.

How come the building fell straight down and not off to the side at all or anything?

10/23/2007 2:20:30 AM

^^^ You first.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:21 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 2:21:11 AM

^^ It fell to the side as much as physics would allow. See Newton's First Law of Motion.

I see you supposedly are an engineer, but the first law of motion is that an object will maintain its velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. In this case, the primary force is gravity, acting against the failing supports. Once the supports fail, there's a bit of other torquing forces, but it's mostly gravity, and gravity goes downwards.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:47 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2007 2:45:13 AM

^ 1st Law makes sense. I was mostly expecting the support on one side to crumble first and one side of the building goes down first atleast slightly. But the way videos show it, the outside collapses in on the middle. So yeah, I was expecting more torquing force to push it sideways a little bit.

10/23/2007 2:53:01 AM

Quote :

"Is a transponder the name of your dildo or something? Because obviously I'm much too simple-minded to understand what one of those could be."

Turning off your transponder turns you into one of around 4500 green blips. Do you expect that every one of those would receive it's own fighter intercept?

Quote :

"If there's a huge explosion and a bunch of jet fuel nearby, it's all probably going to burn up very quickly."

The wreckage of the WTC continued to burn for months and remains the longest structural fire in history.

Quote :

"Sorry. First 3 steel-structured buildings to ever collapse due to fire."

I could point out that they were also the first steel buildings damaged by high speed aircraft impact in history. Instead I'll point out stories of other steel buildings collapsing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Building
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30collapse.html

Unfortunately, due to the young age of internet news and the frequent purging of news servers, I was unable to find stories about similar collapses prior to 2001. However, it should be clear that they are fairly commonplace, as these are just ones that I'm familiar with.

Quote :

"A building fire burning at 1832°F? Seriously. That is fucking hotter than hell. Humans couldn't even make a fire that hot for thousands of years, so I doubt a natural building fire would get that hot. Prove me wrong or suck a dick."

Jet fuel burns at 1800°F. Why is it impossible for added materials to increase the temperature by 30°?

Quote :

"The supposed bomb did create seismic energy. Then a huge building hit the ground. This would have been a continuous seismic wave, starting small and getting bigger."

Building collapses start small and end big. This is in no way indicative of a bomb, much less the many bombs needed to demolish 2 massive buildings.

Quote :

"I fail to see very much smoke coming anywhere out of WTC 7. Especially not huge black plumes of diesel smoke."

Thats because conspiracy theory websites only show you the info that supports their opinion.

Quote :

"No, their lack of certainty is a sign of incompetence. They don't know what the hell they're talking about."

There is no lack of certainty. Reread the quote. You're taking shots in the dark.

Quote :

"I don't want to know about the psychology behind conspiracism."

Of course you don't. You're only interested in things that support what you want to believe.

Quote :

"It was probably written by some guy who wanted people to believe that conspiracies never happen. They do. They've happened before and they'll surely happen again."

So now you're including the entire field of psychology as part of your conspiracy? Conspiracies do happen, but not on the scale that you're talking about. You're trying to pass off a conspiracy that would include literally thousands of people. Why hasn't anyone come forward? Why don't all engineers agree that it was a controlled demolition?

Quote :

"With the internet, all one has to do is generate massive amounts of information to manipulate history."

Conversely, all one has to do is put together a flash video of carefully selected images, attach some unfalsifiable claims, throw in some catchy music and show it to some naive people and suddenly there is a massive conspiracy.

Quote :

"Know where I found about this? A little book called '1984.' Don't think it's not possible."

That was dystopian fiction. Read up on literary use of hyperbole. Of course, don't let me stop you from being just be another cliche dipshit who chooses "Orwellian" as their favorite buzzword instead of thinking on their own.

Quote :

"People are stupid and will believe anything you tell them."

Do you think you're any different?

Quote :

"The Department of Homeland Security is pretty much the same thing as the Ministry of Truth."

Explain.

10/23/2007 3:41:46 AM

Anyone else think that the conspiracy theorist in this topic might just be doing a very dedicated tongue-in-cheek parody of conspiracy theorists? Or has he done this sort of thing before?

10/23/2007 3:49:35 AM

Nah, after about the first or second post I was mostly just trying to get Mr Joshua here to actually answer me. Obviously I haven't researched this as extensively as he has so while some things might seem plausible it's really not with a little deeper looking. I honestly appreciate you replying to me in a non-aggressive manner in your last post instead of just saying "you're an idiot" in about 7 or 8 different ways.

I actually am getting scared of the DHS though. Some of the technology they're developing just does not need to exist.

10/23/2007 4:07:21 AM

Quote :

"These conspiracy theories are nothing more than the typical blame-America-first rubbish from bug-eyed left-wing potbangers."

I love how lafta, IMStoned420, and conspiracy theorists in general are now representative of the political left.

10/23/2007 7:44:00 AM

^^ read The Singularity Is Near that'll blow your fucking mind about technology.

10/23/2007 8:26:08 AM

Quote :

"I highly doubt there is a logical explanation for every point that has been brought up. In the end though, you can't prove your case with nothing but circumstantial evidence and that's what has happened here. There's no hard evidence so there's no way to really prove what happened... one way or the other."

my lord, this motherfucker...


Dude, this realm that you are dealing in is all CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. We have hard evidence, eyewitness accounts, tv cameras that were zoomed in on the planes striking the towers... that's HARD evidence. Your evidence?

"OMG DICK CHENEY WAS IN CONTROL OF NORAD! THEREFORE HE DID IT!"

"OMG THE LEASE HOLDER OF THE WTC GOT 5 BILLION! THEREFORE HE DID IT!"

"OMG I THINK THERE ARE NO MILITARY BASES EXCEPT BY THE COASTS! THEREFORE THE MILITARY PLANNED IT!"

"OMG I DOUBT RUGS CAN BURN AT 1832 DEGREES! OOPS I FORGOT ABOUT JET FUEL AND A CONTINUING CYCLE OF EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS! BUT OH WELL! GEORGE BUSH DID IT"


It's all hypothetical from your point of view and you refuse to believe anything else. I'm going to make that flash video for you, that way, you'll actually listen.

10/23/2007 8:27:34 AM

I like how these wackos will ignore the questions that they cant answer...like:

Quote :

"one thing the conspiracy theorists cant explain is how our government would keep the 100's of people who would be involved quiet. there would be too much to gain monetarily plus the immortalization of being the hero who exposed the plot for so many people to keep their mouths shut. use your brains people. "

human nature alone tells you there is no vast conspiracy

/thread

10/23/2007 9:34:36 AM

And they still can't tell us what happened to Olson's wife and the other passengers on the "plane that hit the pentagon except it didn't because it was a missle."

They have ZERO explanation of that.

10/23/2007 9:56:08 AM

Quote :

"I actually am getting scared of the DHS though. Some of the technology they're developing just does not need to exist."

Yeah.

I wonder if we'll hear about the research at Duke where the guy created that meta-material that bends microwaves around it.

The military probably took over his project, and we won't hear anything for another 20 years when they announce the first invisible tank.

I remember back in the early 90s seeing a report on a laser-based platform for shooting missiles, then in 2002 or so, seeing the same reports, using at least 1 of the same video clip. Not that these technologies could do much good in the consumer sector, but there's probably lots of crazy stuff the gov. has.

10/23/2007 12:52:14 PM

Quote :

"was expecting more torquing force to push it sideways a little bit"

if you look at the video for the 1st tower, you see it does start to fall off to the side, at least the part above where the plane hit. the plane hit ~2/3s of the way up. As soon as it starts to fall, the upper 1/3d does start to list in one direction, but before it falls over completely, the rest of the building below it starts to fail. once the floors start failing below where the plane hit and fall into each other, there is no reason for it to fall to the side. the upper 1/3 is slightly tilted, but everything below it gave way, so there is no reason why it shouldn't fall straight down. I get the feeling that conspiracy theorists think it should collapse like a tree..... just lean, then fall over in one big piece. The difference is that a building is mostly made up of empty space. even if one corner of a large building like that collapses first and it starts to tilt, the immediate damage from the initial tilting will destroy the supports on all other corners/edges of the buildings, and it will just collapse in on itself.

the plane hit in the 2nd building even further up, maybe 4/5's of the way up. there was not enough floors above where that plane was to even allow it to begin to tilt. engineers (governmental and not, if that matters) have fully explained how the steel straps that held the floors in place were weakened, and once one level of floors gave way, they just dominoed on top of each other. then once the floors had fallen down, there was no inner support for the shell of the building, and it fell into itself.

10/23/2007 1:29:58 PM

Quote :

"Nah, after about the first or second post I was mostly just trying to get Mr Joshua here to actually answer me."

It's hard to respond when you don't present an intelligent argument, just a statement mentioning the "fact that the buildings were brought down by demolitions."

10/23/2007 1:30:54 PM

all this thread has proved is that the people that believe the conspiracy are those who accept it without question because of the mass amount of 'evidence' presented in videos. Its all smoke and mirrors and INCORRECT, IRRELEVANT, or OUT OF CONTEXT information twisted to fit their agendas.

i dont think ive argued this with one single person who has actually used real evidence to back up what they are saying

10/23/2007 1:57:27 PM

I am not for or against the whole conspiracy theory stuff, but just think to yourself had you been on that plane and it was being taken over by durkas with box cutters would you not attempt to fight back? I mean logically how well could a hostage take over in a plane go, none of those people had to really think they were going to live so why not fight the terrorists? It just seemed very far fetched that they were outnumbered that greatly on EVERY flight but their mission was still that successful. Hell even if it was all women and children, they still GREATLY outnumbered them. Had I been jumped by 6-10 angry/scared women I am sure I would get my ass handed to me.

10/23/2007 3:28:14 PM

and yes i do know about the one unsuccessful flight, but I am assuming that these planes needed to hit the towers in a specific region/spot for them to collapse and that if there was even the slightest resistance then the target would/could be missed. I mean I am going on just thoughts, hell for all i know they couldve hit the towers anywhere and they could've collapsed (which i doubt).

10/23/2007 3:33:04 PM

i doubt any normal passengers on the plane would know that the planes had to hit the towers in a 'certain spot' (which i really dont think they needed to within reason). I can understand how youre surprised there wasnt really much resistance. However if youre talking about a passenger interfering so that the plane hits Floor X instead of desired Floor Y I dont think anyone on board would have seen that as a big success...or running the plane into any other building in the area for that matter. Most likely they would all still die on board, they probably werent thinking of much else honestly.

10/23/2007 3:43:26 PM

^^ no, i think you're pretty much wrong on that one.
The two planes did hit in different places in each building, at different angles, and they both collapsed. and i don't know what you expect by "hit the slightest resistance"..... I would say huge steel beams and several inches of concrete count as "slight resistance". However, these are huge plans traveling at high speed.
maybe you're right in that had one plane just clipped a corner, not much would have happened to the building. But the speed and size of the planes is the key factor here. I think if the planes were headed in the right general direction, towards the core of the building, then that would have done enough. they headed towards the core and sent debris and fire everywhere. Then once the inside of the building had caught on fire and some of the structure was damaged by the plane, the rest was up to the intensity of the fire. As many engineers have pointed out, all the fire needed to do was weaken the straps holding the floors to the columns. Then when just a couple of those straps weakened enough, one floor collapsed, which 12-15 feet onto the floor below it, which also had weakened straps, which collapsed itself, etc etc. By the time the falling floors reached levels that had not been affected by the fire, there was enough weight and speed to crush the floors without any help from the fire

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 3:44:02 PM

I think you underestimate the bystander effect.

Plus, I think the passengers were being told they were going to live, IIRC, and no one is going to risk getting even a little bit sliced up if they think they are going to live. Typically hijackers don't kill the passengers.

10/23/2007 3:45:55 PM

Quote :

"I am not for or against the whole conspiracy theory stuff, but just think to yourself had you been on that plane and it was being taken over by durkas with box cutters would you not attempt to fight back? I mean logically how well could a hostage take over in a plane go, none of those people had to really think they were going to live so why not fight the terrorists?"

Why? When can you think of a time before September 11th when hijackers used as suicide vehicles? Every single other time, the passengers were hostages and barganing chips. Sure, some were killed, but the way to survive was to look non-descript and sit tight. The reason flight 93 resisted was because they were able to contact people outside of the aircraft and realized the intentions of the hijackers, hence the resistance.

Oh, and the whole NORAD thing earlier, it is a Cold War system designed to look outward in order to intercept inbound Soviet aircraft, it wasn't simply "convinently" turned out for this conspiracy.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 3:46:30 PM

Just my opinion, I don't give a fuck if the world is in peace...if I am in a plane that is IN AIR flying and we get taken over by terrorists my ass isn't going to remain calm because wtf are they going to do land the plane and get a few million dollars and a helicopter filled with fuel to help them get away? If the terrorists believe that plan would work then I do not feel comfortable with them having my life in their hands in the first place i.e. landing the plane. I mean that is just my logic.

10/23/2007 3:55:35 PM

Quote :

"I mean logically how well could a hostage take over in a plane go, none of those people had to really think they were going to live so why not fight the terrorists? It just seemed very far fetched that they were outnumbered that greatly on EVERY flight but their mission was still that successful. Hell even if it was all women and children, they still GREATLY outnumbered them. Had I been jumped by 6-10 angry/scared women I am sure I would get my ass handed to me."

this is very "post 9/11" thinking, plus there are so many things wrong with it.

1) they people on the flight probably did have every reason to believe they were going to land and survive, if history of nearly every single other plane hijacking in aviation history held true

2) i agree that a large group of passengers could likely successfully fight back, probably like they did on the Shanksville flight. but you can't think of this like a big free-for-all where 10 passengers could jump one hijacker. Think about it - a plane is not really the best fighting arena. Small areas, tight aisles. Say there are two guys standing at the front of the aisle, and you gather 10 guys at the back of the plane to jump him..... now what? you still have to attack single file, basically. So whoever is first in line gets hacked to shit with box cutters while the guys behind him try to jump over and grab the guard, probably getting hacked up too. You would need to get a lot of people to help, and many of them would sustain pretty good damage from whatever weapons the terrorists are wielding before you could overcome them. "post 9/11", yeah, you could probably round up enough people to take that risk. but "pre 9/11", why bother? just let them land the plane and exchange you for money.

10/23/2007 3:59:20 PM

Quote :

"I mean logically how well could a hostage take over in a plane go, none of those people had to really think they were going to live so why not fight the terrorists?"

This is where you're wrong. 99% of the plane hijackings have been over money, they divert the flight to some horrible country, land the plane, demand money, lured out of the plane, and killed or taken to jail.

Once the passengers on the pennsylvania flight learned that they WERE GOING TO DIE, they took action...

10/23/2007 4:00:15 PM