World Trade Center Conspiracies

[cleller]

I may regret starting this, as I've never paid much attention to that crap. Its like arguing with people that think the moon landings are fake. If they are dumb enough to believe that, you'll never change their mind. However, my brother recently sent me a video of the WTC building 7 collapse. Lots of "smart" people have said this looks too much like a controlled demolition, etc. Then they launch into all types of reasons why they think it was demolished by previously set explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth?blend=7&

They never go into the How or Why, of course. They say they hear explosions (when a building falls, it is loud), it went down too straight (how else should something that heavy fall, sideways?).
Only a handful of firms in the world could have brought down that tower. Someone would have had to hire and pay them. They'd have spent weeks hauling in tons of TNT, blasting caps, cables, drilling placements, etc. No one notices something like this? These companies just blindly agree?
The idea is preposterous. "Sure was noisy in the food court today", "Yeah, and what's up with all the TNT?"

The building caught fire, and burned all day, due to no water pressure at the site. Thus, no sprinklers, no fire hoses, etc. Never happened to a large building before. Eventually, the heat forced key girders to expand out of position, and the tower fell. Some people claim that a steel framed building had never burned and collapsed before. BS, lots of steel framed buildings during and prior to WWII burned completely, due to lack of sprinklers.

Basically, I can't understand why people want to believe these things. There is only one logical explanation for these events, and we all know what that is. Why is the obvious so hard for some people to accept?

[C&CDean]

Because Bush is bad.

I wonder how long it will be before this needs to go to the politics board? Over/under?

[KantoSooner]

The self same government that can't keep Obama's speech contents secret for 24 hours keeps a secret like that hermetically sealed for over a decade?

Occam's Razor.

[NormanPride]

People deal with loss in different ways.

[Boomer.....]

That show Conspiracy Theory with Jessie Ventura talks about all of the different nut job theories.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I don't know about all the stuff that the truthers claim, but the one about the buildings falling too straight down kinda gets on my nerves. I know a little about how high-rise buildings go together, and it's the curtainwall technology that makes skyscrapers possible that also makes them fall straight down. Since the outer walls aren't load bearing, there was little to slow down the planes that were traveling at 500 mph before they struck the central columns. Once you take out a section of those columns, because they are carrying the weight of the building, the floors above are going to collapse and cause an accordion effect all the way to the ground. And yes, the air inside the building is going to be forced out the sides as it collapses and give the impression that synchronized explosions are happening.

[sooneron]

People are crackheads -
I know two people that died when this happened.

0VixEL9h9pk

& two more in this one...

WOXJUgppl1w&feature=fvst

No explosions.

[SicEmBaylor]

Some people need to be throat punched....hard.

[jumperstop]

I've been watching a lot of 9/11 videos and unfortunately most of them are by conspiracy ****ers. Skip to minute 5 or so in this video and there is proof that the fire was melting the beems, you can acctually see the molten metal dripping off.

MKPMTDZTSh4

THIS IS HOW IT ****ING FELL! I can't believe people don't believe that this could have acctually happened. I've seen videos of people claiming the planes were holograms....I thought about making this thread after watching these videos the past couple of days, but I didn't think anyone else would care to bitch about retarded conspiracy theorist.

[GKeeper316]

a friend of mine made me watch "Loose Change" a 9/11 conspiracy documentary... dude that made the movie brought up some good points. not saying i believe it, but i see the possibility.

[jumperstop]

a friend of mine made me watch "Loose Change" a 9/11 conspiracy documentary... dude that made the movie brought up some good points. not saying i believe it, but i see the possibility.

Any point they could prove is thrown out the window with the fact the thousands of people saw the planes hit those buildings. A conspiracy of this magnitude would involve way to many people to stop just one person from talking....

[GKeeper316]

Any point they could prove is thrown out the window with the fact the thousands of people saw the planes hit those buildings. A conspiracy of this magnitude would involve way to many people to stop just one person from talking....

and it's also scientifically impossible that the planes hitting the WTC is what brought them down. the government's claim that burning jet fuel weakened the structural supports doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.

[jumperstop]

and it's also scientifically impossible that the planes hitting the WTC is what brought them down. the government's claim that burning jet fuel weakened the structural supports doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Go back and watch the video I posted. You can see the beams melting from the fire, skip to min five. It's scientifically possible, because it happened.

[C&CDean]

Isn't scientifically possible? Are you retarded? Wait...

[GKeeper316]

Go back and watch the video I posted. You can see the beams melting from the fire, skip to min five. It's scientifically possible, because it happened.

jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a temp of 1600 degrees f. the 4 center columns inside WTC buildings were made of steel that was rated (and recently inspected to insure it was still sound) that had to be heated to 3000 degrees f before it would even start to buckle. eyewitnesses heard explosions in the basement levels... eyewitnesses that include veteran firefighters that know wtf they're talking about.

if these 3 buildings did actually collapse due to the fire, they were the 3 first skyscrapers in the history of skyscrapers that collapsed due to fire... its never happened before until wtc 1,2 and 7 dropped.

[jumperstop]

Isn't scientifically possible? Are you retarded? Wait...

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or making fun of me. I'll just assume the latter since that's how you always are to me for some reason....

[SicEmBaylor]

and it's also scientifically impossible that the planes hitting the WTC is what brought them down. the government's claim that burning jet fuel weakened the structural supports doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Actually it does. Numerous studies and tests have been conducted and it is more than possible for burning jet fuel to weaken those support beams enough that they fail.

Loose Change only makes sense if you throw reason and common sense out the window. It was made by a couple of kids who wouldn't know their *** from a smoldering hole in the ground.

[GKeeper316]

if a hijacked plane hit the pentagon, where was the debris field? we all saw the burning building, but no plane debris, and the government has, as yet, refused to release any video surveilence of the pentagon strike, except for 5 frames that don't show a plane hitting the outer ring at all.

[jumperstop]

jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a temp of 1600 degrees f. the 4 center columns inside WTC buildings were made of steel that was rated (and recently inspected to insure it was still sound) that had to be heated to 3000 degrees f before it would even start to buckle. eyewitnesses heard explosions in the basement levels... eyewitnesses that include veteran firefighters that know wtf they're talking about.

if these 3 buildings did actually collapse due to the fire, they were the 3 first skyscrapers in the history of skyscrapers that collapsed due to fire... its never happened before until wtc 1,2 and 7 dropped.

Again, watch the video. Whether or not it was supposed to do that or not, it did. You can see the molten metal dripping from the building. Someone wasn't up there cutting it with a torch. After that, there is plenty of weight to bring down the building with weakend supports.

[GKeeper316]

Loose Change only makes sense if you throw reason and common sense out the window. It was made by a couple of kids who wouldn't know their *** from a smoldering hole in the ground.

ya you're all about common sense, sic

[jumperstop]

if a hijacked plane hit the pentagon, where was the debris field? we all saw the burning building, but no plane debris, and the government has, as yet, refused to release any video surveilence of the pentagon strike, except for 5 frames that don't show a plane hitting the outer ring at all.

Planes traveling 500 mph on impact don't leave debris...Other plane crashes have proven this....And that camera, THE ONLY camera to capture that impact didn't have enough FPM to capture much of anything flying 500 mph...

[GKeeper316]

Again, watch the video. Whether or not it was supposed to do that or not, it did. You can see the molten metal dripping from the building. Someone wasn't up there cutting it with a torch. After that, there is plenty of weight to bring down the building with weakend supports.

i'm not denying that they fell, i'm just saying that the plane impacts alone could not have brought down those towers.

[SicEmBaylor]

if a hijacked plane hit the pentagon, where was the debris field? we all saw the burning building, but no plane debris, and the government has, as yet, refused to release any video surveilence of the pentagon strike, except for 5 frames that don't show a plane hitting the outer ring at all.

There was debris from the plane. This is yet another lie pushed by conspiracy theorists. The Pentagon has been built and reinforced to withstand a nuclear attack -- a tin-can airplane is not going to do an enormous amount of damage. The plane disintegrated, and I'm surprised it made as big an impact on the Pentagon as it did.

[SicEmBaylor]

i'm not denying that they fell, i'm just saying that the plane impacts alone could not have brought down those towers.

I could also say the Earth is flat because I've never seen the curvature, but that doesn't make it true -- it just means I don't know jack ****.

[GKeeper316]

There was debris from the plane. This is yet another lie pushed by conspiracy theorists. The Pentagon has been built and reinforced to withstand a nuclear attack -- a tin-can airplane is not going to do an enormous amount of damage. The plane disintegrated, and I'm surprised it made as big an impact on the Pentagon as it did.

the pentagon's outer rings were never designed to withstand a nuclear attack, and planes do not just disintigrate... there will ALWAYS be some debris left behind.

[GKeeper316]

Planes traveling 500 mph on impact don't leave debris...Other plane crashes have proven this....And that camera, THE ONLY camera to capture that impact didn't have enough FPM to capture much of anything flying 500 mph...

can i see the proof, please?

and that wasnt the only camera that captured the impact... the fbi has all the rest of the footage and has yet to release any of it to the public.

[SicEmBaylor]

the pentagon's outer rings were never designed to withstand a nuclear attack, and planes do not just disintigrate... there will ALWAYS be some debris left behind.

Once again, there was debris left behind. You can say it as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true.

[GKeeper316]

not to mention the fact that pentagon personnel... people trained in warfare... reported smelling the very distict smell of explosives after the pentagon impact. explosives would not have been present either in the building, or on a commercial jetliner.

[GKeeper316]

Once again, there was debris left behind. You can say it as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true.

show me some jetliner debris on any pic from the pentagon that day. go on.

[OhU1]

"Scientifically impossible" for the planes or burning jet fuel to bring down the towers? Please refrain from using the word "science" to make such an asinine claim. Thanks

[GKeeper316]

"Scientifically impossible" for the planes or burning jet fuel to bring down the towers? Please refrain from using the word "science" to make such an asinine claim. Thanks

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc (http://www.ehl.cc/)). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com (http://www.ul.com/)). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov (http://wtc.nist.gov/). Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle). The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org] ---------
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected] ([email protected])
Date: 11/11/2004


Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html (http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html)
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf)
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php (http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php)
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf) (pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf (http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf)
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

[C&CDean]

Jeezus, the boy really is a tard.

[GKeeper316]

Jeezus, the boy really is a tard.

that is an excellent repudiation of the scientific opinion of the expert i quoted.

[silverwheels]

I bet the guy on the grassy knoll planted those explosives.

[C&CDean]

that is an excellent repudiation of the scientific opinion of the expert i quoted.

I wasn't talking about the idiot who wrote the article.

I'll bet you also believe we never went to the moon, that we blew up the Challenger, and that MLK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswalt. You're some special piece of work, I gotta say.

[GKeeper316]

I wasn't talking about the idiot who wrote the article.

I'll bet you also believe we never went to the moon, that we blew up the Challenger, and that MLK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswalt. You're some special piece of work, I gotta say.

ya i get it... you don't have a logical leg to stand on so you make assumptions about me and what i believe to be the truth of 9/11 and other matters...

you're a dick.

[C&CDean]

ya i get it... you don't have a logical leg to stand on so you make assumptions about me and what i believe to be the truth of 9/11 and other matters...

you're a dick.

I don't have a logical leg to stand on? Are you ****ing kidding me? Let me get this straight - I'm assuming you believe planes ran into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Right? If you say "wrong" then the conversation is over because you're too stupid to bother with.

Now let's assume you agree that airplanes actually did run into those buildings. Now what happened next to bring those buildings down? Did those bad firemen actually carry detonation charges up there and set them in perfect position to bring the buildings down? No? OK, did the bad FBI or CIA or WTF ever go up there and plant those bombs in the exact right place to bring the buildings down, then radio Achmed and Karim and tell them "OK boys, go ahead and let er' rip, we'll handle the dirty part."

No, better yet, we had bad guys fire some invisible ray guns and **** into the buildings to bring them down. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Do you see how ****ing stupid and gullible you are? No? I didn't think so. I'd rather be a dick than a buffoon. You are a buffoon of the highest order. Congrats.

[SicEmBaylor]

show me some jetliner debris on any pic from the pentagon that day. go on.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery_debris.jpg

[jumperstop]

I will say a lot of things probably don't add up surrounding 9/11, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is just to much missing info and no precedent to base any of this on. You should just stop GK, you look like a retard.

[GKeeper316]

I don't have a logical leg to stand on? Are you ****ing kidding me? Let me get this straight - I'm assuming you believe planes ran into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Right? If you say "wrong" then the conversation is over because you're too stupid to bother with.

Now let's assume you agree that airplanes actually did run into those buildings. Now what happened next to bring those buildings down? Did those bad firemen actually carry detonation charges up there and set them in perfect position to bring the buildings down? No? OK, did the bad FBI or CIA or WTF ever go up there and plant those bombs in the exact right place to bring the buildings down, then radio Achmed and Karim and tell them "OK boys, go ahead and let er' rip, we'll handle the dirty part."

No, better yet, we had bad guys fire some invisible ray guns and **** into the buildings to bring them down. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Do you see how ****ing stupid and gullible you are? No? I didn't think so. I'd rather be a dick than a buffoon. You are a buffoon of the highest order. Congrats.

o i get it... im stupid and gullible because i don't believe everything my government tells me... even the stuff that just plain doesn't add up. got it. thank you so much for clearing that up. once again you have proven yourself my intellectual superior.

you just go on being a good ol' Murkan... you fall in line just like the best nazis did.

[jumperstop]

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery_debris.jpg

THAT WAS PLANTED BY THE CIA!!! :rolleyes:

[C&CDean]

ssshhhhh. Don't tell him that. He's already been told there wasn't any airplane stuff at the pentagon...you wanna eff up his mind?

[jumperstop]

o i get it... im stupid and gullible because i don't believe everything my government tells me... even the stuff that just plain doesn't add up. got it. thank you so much for clearing that up. once again you have proven yourself my intellectual superior.

you just go on being a good ol' Murkan... you fall in line just like the best nazis did.

You're basing your argument off of a conspriacy movie, what do you expect? People aren't going to take you seriously. Facts can be spun in 1000's of different ways.

[olevetonahill]

And Gomer strikes again.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QgcIP-pa2II/SUbQw9KAJcI/AAAAAAAAAX8/TygI4OQWl-E/s400/GomerPyle.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

This **** is insulting to everyone who died and their families, but it's especially insulting to the families that had loved ones on those planes. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear about how their loved ones are alive on some beach sipping margaritas because they were secretly involved in a CIA/government plot to attack their own country and kill thousands of people.

[C&CDean]

This one is for the tard:

YVDdjLQkUV8

[sooner_born_1960]

Airplanes hit the WTC towers. Shortly thereafter both towers collapsed. In the time between the two events, neither the CIA, the FDNY, nor the Free Masons planted explosives in the buildings. Whatever failed due to the planes crashing into the buildings, did indeed fail.

[GKeeper316]

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery_debris.jpg

there is quite a bit of debate about this... a single piece of sheet metal, supposedly from flight 77...

mcWT2lQszEE

[C&CDean]

You funny.

[GKeeper316]

Airplanes hit the WTC towers. Shortly thereafter both towers collapsed. In the time between the two events, neither the CIA, the FDNY, nor the Free Masons planted explosives in the buildings. Whatever failed due to the planes crashing into the buildings, did indeed fail.

so its completely outside the realm of possiblity that someone else planted explosives in the sub basements prior to the event knowing that the planes would crash into the towers? and then detonated after impact to make it look like it was all done by the planes? no merit whatsoever?

[olevetonahill]

Dean, Just about the Time I get convinced that Gomer cant possibly type anything stupider than his last post. He reaches for the keyboard.

[sooner_born_1960]

In response to Gkeeper's last post...
Not in my mind, having seen the way the building collapsed.

[olevetonahill]

See what I mean?

[C&CDean]

Lead paint chips I'm thinking.

[jumperstop]

there is quite a bit of debate about this... a single piece of sheet metal, supposedly from flight 77...

mcWT2lQszEE

Couldn't hear the sound on your video because I'm at work.

K89coc88Hrs

There is tons of plane **** there....I'm sure it was all planted there though. And don't you think someone, just one person would have witnessed the amount of explosives needed to blow up a building being brought in if they were demo'd?

[olevetonahill]

Lead paint chips I'm thinking.

Well to be fair, his momma could have dropped him.

[silverwheels]

so its completely outside the realm of possiblity that someone else planted explosives in the sub basements prior to the event knowing that the planes would crash into the towers? and then detonated after impact to make it look like it was all done by the planes? no merit whatsoever?

No. The explosives were built INTO the towers.

[GKeeper316]

This one is for the tard:

YVDdjLQkUV8

ok... but what about the airline pilots that say a guy that could barely keep a single engine plane airborn would have stalled a 757 long before he hit the pentagon, if you believe the faa's story about flight path and trajectory?

and do you honestly expect anyone to believe the lightpoles just fell over after being struck by a 20 ton aircraft travelling 500 mph? hell that impact alone would have sheared the wings off.

[jumperstop]

ok... but what about the airline pilots that say a guy that could barely keep a single engine plane airborn would have stalled a 757 long before he hit the pentagon, if you believe the faa's story about flight path and trajectory?

and do you honestly expect anyone to believe the lightpoles just fell over after being struck by a 20 ton aircraft travelling 500 mph? hell that impact alone would have sheared the wings off.

They may have been sheered off, and yes what else would lightpoles do when being hit by a plane? Remain standing?

[GKeeper316]

This **** is insulting to everyone who died and their families, but it's especially insulting to the families that had loved ones on those planes. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear about how their loved ones are alive on some beach sipping margaritas because they were secretly involved in a CIA/government plot to attack their own country and kill thousands of people.

hahaha nice one... playing the poor family card.

i'd think those people that died would want the whole truth, which can't be found if nobody questions the bull**** stories we've been fed.

[olevetonahill]

ok... but what about the airline pilots that say a guy that could barely keep a single engine plane airborn would have stalled a 757 long before he hit the pentagon, if you believe the faa's story about flight path and trajectory?

and do you honestly expect anyone to believe the lightpoles just fell over after being struck by a 20 ton aircraft travelling 500 mph? hell that impact alone would have sheared the wings off.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcTMTzSQiE

[GKeeper316]

They may have been sheered off, and yes what else would lightpoles do when being hit by a plane? Remain standing?

no they get propelled away from the point of impact, not just fall over. thats just basic neutonian physics.

[jumperstop]

no they get propelled away from the point of impact, not just fall over. thats just basic neutonian physics.

I don't see what that video was supposed to prove. It backs up everything everyone else has been saying and make perfect sense of how the airplane hit the pentagon...That video proved the other side of the argument you are making...

Edit: ohh that was posted by Dean. I really hate the new quoting, especially with videos....But that video still made perfect sense and debunked everything you've been saying.

[GKeeper316]

I don't see what that video was supposed to prove. It backs up everything everyone else has been saying and make perfect sense of how the airplane hit the pentagon...That video proved the other side of the argument you are making...

give me access to 3dsmax... i'll make a video that discounts everything that video claims as truth...

i can manipulate a standard digital image in any way i want, and can construct a 3d scene, fully rendered, that would show a missile hitting the pentagon and pulling lamp posts out of the ground in its wake. doing so doesn't make it fact. untill surveilence video is released, unaltered, that shows a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, i'm not going to believe it was actually a 757.

[OutlandTrophy]

and do you honestly expect anyone to believe the lightpoles just fell over after being struck by a 20 ton aircraft travelling 500 mph? hell that impact alone would have sheared the wings off.

simply not true. they would have put some hellacious dents in the leading edge but that's about it.

[olevetonahill]

give me access to 3dsmax... i'll make a video that discounts everything that video claims as truth...

i can manipulate a standard digital image in any way i want, and can construct a 3d scene, fully rendered, that would show a missile hitting the pentagon and pulling lamp posts out of the ground in its wake. doing so doesn't make it fact. untill surveilence video is released, unaltered, that shows a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, i'm not going to believe it was actually a 757.

There ya go Gomer, Dont give in . You and I both know it was them Martians and their Ray Guns of death.

[sappstuf]

http://intrawebnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/charlie-sheen-winning-made-easy.jpg

[jumperstop]

give me access to 3dsmax... i'll make a video that discounts everything that video claims as truth...

i can manipulate a standard digital image in any way i want, and can construct a 3d scene, fully rendered, that would show a missile hitting the pentagon and pulling lamp posts out of the ground in its wake. doing so doesn't make it fact. untill surveilence video is released, unaltered, that shows a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, i'm not going to believe it was actually a 757.

If it was a missle did it zig zag back and forth hitting all those lightpoles? It's basic neutonian physics.....

[C&CDean]

give me access to 3dsmax... i'll make a video that discounts everything that video claims as truth...

i can manipulate a standard digital image in any way i want, and can construct a 3d scene, fully rendered, that would show a missile hitting the pentagon and pulling lamp posts out of the ground in its wake. doing so doesn't make it fact. untill surveilence video is released, unaltered, that shows a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, i'm not going to believe it was actually a 757.

So where are all the people who took off on Flight 77 that day? This list is fictitous, right? They're all in Europe getting paid by the government to hush, right?

No
Seat
Full Name (apparent passenger list abbreviation)

1
12B
Khalid Almihdhar (KHALI ALMIHDHAR)

2
17D
Paul Ambrose (PAUL AKBROSE)

3
5E
Nawaf Alhazmi (NAKAF ALHAZMI)

4
5F
Salem Alhazmi (SALEM ALHAZMI)

5
15A
Yeneneh Betru (YEMEN ??TRU)

6
1E
Mary Jane (MJ) Booth (MJ BOOTH)

7
20E
Bernard Curtis Brown (BERNA BROWN)

8
4E
Suzanne Calley (SUZAN CALLEY)

9
10A
William Caswell (?ILLI CAS?ELL)

10
25D
Sarah Clark (SARAH CLARK)

11
25E
Asia Cottom (ASIA COTTOM)

12
27C
James Debeuneure (JAMES DEBEUNEURE)

13
27A
Rodney Dickens (RODNE DICKENS)

14
5B
Eddie Dillard (EDDIE DILLARD)

15
9C
Charles Droz (CHARL DROZ)

16
22F
Barbara G Edwards (BARBA EDWARDS)

17
23A
Charles S Falkenberg (CHARL FALKENBERG)

18
23B
Zoe Falkenberg (ZOE?I FALKENBERG)

19
23C
Dana Falkenberg (DANA? FALKENBERG)

20
26D
James Joe Ferguson (JAMES FERGUSON)

21
22D
Wilson "Bud" Flagg (BUDD FLAGG)

22
22E
Darlene Flagg (DEE FLAGG)

23
3B
Richard Gabriel (RICHA GABRIEL)

24
6F
Ian J Gray (IAN GRAY)

25
5A
Stanley Hall (STANL HALL)

26
1B
Hani Hanjour (HANI HANJOUR)

27
21F
Bryan Jack (BRYAN JACK)

28
2?
Steven D Jacoby (STEVE JACOBY)

29
26F
Ann Judge (ANN JUDGE)

30
18F
Chandler Keller (CHAND KELLER)

31
21C
Yvonne Kennedy (YMS KENNEDY)

32
21A
Norma Khan (NORMA KHAN)

33
15D
Karen A Kincaid (KAREN KINCAID)

34
24F
Dora Menchaca (DORA MENCHACA)

35
12A
Majed Moqed (MAJED MODED)

36
6E
Christopher Newton (CHRIS NEWTON)

37
3E
Barbara Olson (BARBA OLSON)

38
13A
Ruben Ornedo (?U?EN ORNEDO)

39
2A
Zandra Cooper Ploger (ZANDR PLOGER?)
Variously listed as Cooper (maiden name), Ploger (married name), Cooper Ploger, or even Ploger Cooper.

40
2B
Robert R Ploger (ROBER PLOGER?)

41
19D
Lisa J Raines (LISA RAINES )

42
13C
Todd Reuben (TODD REUBEN)

43
22C
John Sammartino (JOHN SA??ARTINO)

44
18A
Diane Simmons (DIANE SIMMONS)

45
18C
George Simmons (GEORG SIMMONS)

46
20D
Marie-Rae Sopper (MARIA SOPPER)

47
4B
Robert Speisman (ROBER SFEISMAN)

48
19D
Norma Lang Steuerle (NORMA LANGBTEUER)

49
20F
Hilda E Taylor (HILDA TAYLOR)

50
24C
Leonard Taylor (LEONA TAYLOR)

51
12F
Sandra Teague (SANDR TEAGUE)

52
23D
Leslie A Whittington (LESLI WHITTINGTO)

53
9D
John D Yamnicky (JOHN YAKNICKY)

54
21D
Vicki Yancey (VICKI YANCEY)

55
23E
Shuyin Yang (SHUYI YANG)

56
23F
Yuguag Zheng (YUGUA ZHEN?)

57
???
Robert Penninger? (???)
One passenger name is almost entirely missing on our list. Penninger looks to be a match, although he’s listed as Penniger elsewhere.

58
???
Dong Lee (???)
The details of passenger 25 on the manifest are missing. Dong Lee is a Flight 77 victim who doesn’t appear elsewhere. It would make sense if he was the 25th passenger on the manifest, but we have no evidence either way.

[sappstuf]

a friend of mine made me watch "Loose Change" a 9/11 conspiracy documentary... dude that made the movie brought up some good points. not saying i believe it, but i see the possibility.

I must say you went from "not saying i believe it" to full on fanatic in record time!

[GKeeper316]

So where are all the people who took off on Flight 77 that day? This list is fictitous, right? They're all in Europe getting paid by the government to hush, right?

No
Seat
Full Name (apparent passenger list abbreviation)

1
12B
Khalid Almihdhar (KHALI ALMIHDHAR)

2
17D
Paul Ambrose (PAUL AKBROSE)

3
5E
Nawaf Alhazmi (NAKAF ALHAZMI)

4
5F
Salem Alhazmi (SALEM ALHAZMI)

5
15A
Yeneneh Betru (YEMEN ??TRU)

6
1E
Mary Jane (MJ) Booth (MJ BOOTH)

7
20E
Bernard Curtis Brown (BERNA BROWN)

8
4E
Suzanne Calley (SUZAN CALLEY)

9
10A
William Caswell (?ILLI CAS?ELL)

10
25D
Sarah Clark (SARAH CLARK)

11
25E
Asia Cottom (ASIA COTTOM)

12
27C
James Debeuneure (JAMES DEBEUNEURE)

13
27A
Rodney Dickens (RODNE DICKENS)

14
5B
Eddie Dillard (EDDIE DILLARD)

15
9C
Charles Droz (CHARL DROZ)

16
22F
Barbara G Edwards (BARBA EDWARDS)

17
23A
Charles S Falkenberg (CHARL FALKENBERG)

18
23B
Zoe Falkenberg (ZOE?I FALKENBERG)

19
23C
Dana Falkenberg (DANA? FALKENBERG)

20
26D
James Joe Ferguson (JAMES FERGUSON)

21
22D
Wilson "Bud" Flagg (BUDD FLAGG)

22
22E
Darlene Flagg (DEE FLAGG)

23
3B
Richard Gabriel (RICHA GABRIEL)

24
6F
Ian J Gray (IAN GRAY)

25
5A
Stanley Hall (STANL HALL)

26
1B
Hani Hanjour (HANI HANJOUR)

27
21F
Bryan Jack (BRYAN JACK)

28
2?
Steven D Jacoby (STEVE JACOBY)

29
26F
Ann Judge (ANN JUDGE)

30
18F
Chandler Keller (CHAND KELLER)

31
21C
Yvonne Kennedy (YMS KENNEDY)

32
21A
Norma Khan (NORMA KHAN)

33
15D
Karen A Kincaid (KAREN KINCAID)

34
24F
Dora Menchaca (DORA MENCHACA)

35
12A
Majed Moqed (MAJED MODED)

36
6E
Christopher Newton (CHRIS NEWTON)

37
3E
Barbara Olson (BARBA OLSON)

38
13A
Ruben Ornedo (?U?EN ORNEDO)

39
2A
Zandra Cooper Ploger (ZANDR PLOGER?)
Variously listed as Cooper (maiden name), Ploger (married name), Cooper Ploger, or even Ploger Cooper.

40
2B
Robert R Ploger (ROBER PLOGER?)

41
19D
Lisa J Raines (LISA RAINES )

42
13C
Todd Reuben (TODD REUBEN)

43
22C
John Sammartino (JOHN SA??ARTINO)

44
18A
Diane Simmons (DIANE SIMMONS)

45
18C
George Simmons (GEORG SIMMONS)

46
20D
Marie-Rae Sopper (MARIA SOPPER)

47
4B
Robert Speisman (ROBER SFEISMAN)

48
19D
Norma Lang Steuerle (NORMA LANGBTEUER)

49
20F
Hilda E Taylor (HILDA TAYLOR)

50
24C
Leonard Taylor (LEONA TAYLOR)

51
12F
Sandra Teague (SANDR TEAGUE)

52
23D
Leslie A Whittington (LESLI WHITTINGTO)

53
9D
John D Yamnicky (JOHN YAKNICKY)

54
21D
Vicki Yancey (VICKI YANCEY)

55
23E
Shuyin Yang (SHUYI YANG)

56
23F
Yuguag Zheng (YUGUA ZHEN?)

57
???
Robert Penninger? (???)
One passenger name is almost entirely missing on our list. Penninger looks to be a match, although he’s listed as Penniger elsewhere.

58
???
Dong Lee (???)
The details of passenger 25 on the manifest are missing. Dong Lee is a Flight 77 victim who doesn’t appear elsewhere. It would make sense if he was the 25th passenger on the manifest, but we have no evidence either way.

i also find it suspect that the impact of the 757 resulted in the total disintigration on the plane itself, while leaving enough dna to positively identify 184 of the passengers.

[sappstuf]

Best movie review ever.


Loose Change - Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

[jumperstop]

i also find it suspect that the impact of the 757 resulted in the total disintigration on the plane itself, while leaving enough dna to positively identify 184 of the passengers.

All it takes is a finger. I saw an interview with this guy who was rescuing people from the pentagon and he was picking up handfuls of body parts to make sure they wouldn't get destroyed and their families would have something to know for sure what happened to them. He was talking about sticking dead people's hands in his pockets before they floated away to a drain or got burned up. Terribly terribly sad...

[C&CDean]

i also find it suspect that the impact of the 757 resulted in the total disintigration on the plane itself, while leaving enough dna to positively identify 184 of the passengers.

****ing stop already. The plane wasn't vaporized, there were tons of pieces. There were tons of pieces of people too. Why are you so ****ing obtuse and ignorant? Seriously, give it a rest. You've already removed all doubt of your gullibility and suckerness, now how about just quitting while you're getting lapped. Again. It'd be a lot less painful.

Or not, cause you are some seriously cheap entertainment.

[SicEmBaylor]

I, for one, look forward to the day that Barbara Olson suddenly reappears.

[GKeeper316]

Or not, cause you are some seriously cheap entertainment.

so's your wife.

[SicEmBaylor]

One thing I don't understand: It's indisputable that two planes hit the WTC. If there were some conspiracy then why would they break with the pattern and attack the Pentagon in some other way? I mean, these conspirators already demonstrated the fact that they can send two aircraft into a building, so why would they do something different at the Pentagon? Why is that so far outside the realm of possibility for these people?

[C&CDean]

I, for one, look forward to the day that Barbara Olson suddenly reappears.

I'm kinda waiting for Barbara Eden myself.

[olevetonahill]

****ing stop already. The plane wasn't vaporized, there were tons of pieces. There were tons of pieces of people too. Why are you so ****ing obtuse and ignorant? Seriously, give it a rest. You've already removed all doubt of your gullibility and suckerness, now how about just quitting while you're getting lapped. Again. It'd be a lot less painful.

Or not, cause you are some seriously cheap entertainment.

Better than TeeVee.

[C&CDean]

so's your wife.

She prefers men. Sorry.

[sappstuf]

so's your wife.

And boom goes the dynamite... I was hoping you would stick around a little longer. Oh well.

C'est la vie

[GKeeper316]

She prefers men. Sorry.

I'm a tardy tard tard.

[sappstuf]

I'm kinda waiting for Barbara Eden myself.

Go enjoy yourself, you old man!

http://www.cryosites.com/shared/img/b/barbara_eden_h6kwn.jpeg

[C&CDean]

Dude, to die and be reincarnated as Jeannie. DOH. Although for about a however the hell old woman she is she's alright.

[Wishboned]

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."


FACT: 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. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

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."



Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

[TUSooner]

GK should move to Iran where they think every event in history since 1952 has been caused by the CIA. All they need to get started is to show some way, however indirect or bizarre, that the USA might have benefitted from it, even if it looks like a disaster for the US at the time. And just like GK's conspiracy, it matters not that there is no benefit that could outweigh the disaster: You can always say they caused the disaster in order to give them an excuse to do something, like a reprisal or a military op. And it doesn't even matter that they could have done the "something" anyway or that they botched the something or they never did it at all. Just doctor a few facts ever so slightly, or start with one itty bitty lie, and you build on it from there until the lie is buried under a compelling story. Bottom line: People want to believe whatever confirms their suspicions and prejudices. And Old Billy Occam's razor gets rusty from lack of use.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Anybody who listens to Loose Change is a ****ing idiot. There are better documentaries out there on the subject. Why Loose Change and Dylan Avery became the poster child for the 911 Truth Movement I'll never know.

Here's a rebuttal to everything they claim in the second edition: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

How accurate is it? Dylan Avery said is was perfectly alright when one of his posters on his website claimed he was going to kill the guy who posted the above link. Yeah, he can clearly take criticism.

Dylan Avery was a film student who dropped out. He came up with a story of 9/11 and then threw a few things together to make it seem real. How real is he? He has had to re-edit and re-release Loose Change at least three different times. The very first version, which I watched back in '05, had missile pods under the planes because "supposedly" the outside of the WTC was too hard for a "soft aluminum plane" to penetrate so missiles were needed to knock an entrance hole into the building.

[GKeeper316]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

rugs, curtains furniture and paper still wouldnt generate enough heat to cause those pillars to collapse. first they tried to say it was from all the kitchens in the buildings.

again... the wtc towers were over engineered to withstand more than a couple planes hitting it. the contruction manager of the project even said that a plane hitting it wouldn't bring it down. if it was just a fire that did it, it was the first time, ever, that a fire brought down a skyskraper. hell a b-52 flew straight into the empire state building in heavy fog once. all it did was set a few floors on fire. b-52's at least as ig as a 757, and it hit a building much older than either wtc 1 or 2.

[RFH Shakes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyYFoXV6iAs

[jumperstop]

One thing I don't understand: It's indisputable that two planes hit the WTC. If there were some conspiracy then why would they break with the pattern and attack the Pentagon in some other way? I mean, these conspirators already demonstrated the fact that they can send two aircraft into a building, so why would they do something different at the Pentagon? Why is that so far outside the realm of possibility for these people?

Those were holograms, duh....

[Wishboned]

rugs, curtains furniture and paper still wouldnt generate enough heat to cause those pillars to collapse. first they tried to say it was from all the kitchens in the buildings.

again... the wtc towers were over engineered to withstand more than a couple planes hitting it. the contruction manager of the project even said that a plane hitting it wouldn't bring it down. if it was just a fire that did it, it was the first time, ever, that a fire brought down a skyskraper. hell a b-52 flew straight into the empire state building in heavy fog once. all it did was set a few floors on fire. b-52's at least as ig as a 757, and it hit a building much older than either wtc 1 or 2.



http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml






The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building. Most of the B-25 impact was absorbed by the building's exterior wall leaving very little to damage the interior structure. The 767 impacts, however, not only produced gaping holes in the WTC exterior but also destroyed much of the structural core at the center of each tower.

[sappstuf]

rugs, curtains furniture and paper still wouldnt generate enough heat to cause those pillars to collapse. first they tried to say it was from all the kitchens in the buildings.

again... the wtc towers were over engineered to withstand more than a couple planes hitting it. the contruction manager of the project even said that a plane hitting it wouldn't bring it down. if it was just a fire that did it, it was the first time, ever, that a fire brought down a skyskraper. hell a b-52 flew straight into the empire state building in heavy fog once. all it did was set a few floors on fire. b-52's at least as ig as a 757, and it hit a building much older than either wtc 1 or 2.

It wasn't a B-52... Although Loose Change said it was..

It was a B-25.. Much, much smaller and much much slower.

[olevetonahill]

rugs, curtains furniture and paper still wouldnt generate enough heat to cause those pillars to collapse. first they tried to say it was from all the kitchens in the buildings.

again... the wtc towers were over engineered to withstand more than a couple planes hitting it. the contruction manager of the project even said that a plane hitting it wouldn't bring it down. if it was just a fire that did it, it was the first time, ever, that a fire brought down a skyskraper. hell a b-52 flew straight into the empire state building in heavy fog once. all it did was set a few floors on fire. b-52's at least as ig as a 757, and it hit a building much older than either wtc 1 or 2.

Gomer,Who woulda thot that you could be both ?

http://moviecarpet.com/iwave/images/7/o-farrelly-brothers-developing-dumb-dumber-sequel.jpg

[Wishboned]

It wasn't a B-52... Although Loose Change said it was..

It was a B-25.. Much, much smaller and much much slower.

That is correct.

The B-52 did not make it's maiden flight until 1952.


6 years after the B-25 struck the Empire State Building.

[jumperstop]

A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.

http://www.456fis.org/THE_B-25_&_THE_EMPIRE_STATE_BUILDING.htm

[SicEmBaylor]

It wasn't a B-52... Although Loose Change said it was..

It was a B-25.. Much, much smaller and much much slower.

That is an utterly asinine comparison.

A B-25 is, I believe, smaller than a 767.
A B-25 is propeller driven and thus much slower than a 767.
The B-25 that crashed wasn't trying to purposely hit the ESB.
The B-25 wasn't loaded down with jet fuel for a cross-continental trip.
The B-25 didn't bore down on the WTC at full speed with the intention of inflicting as much structural damage as possible.

Anyone who tries to make a serious comparison of the two events is an absolute moron and shouldn't be taken seriously if they claim the sky is blue.

[SicEmBaylor]

That is correct.

The B-52 did not make it's maiden flight until 1952.


6 years after the B-25 struck the Empire State Building.

Not to mention the fact that a B-52 is a **** load bigger than a B-25.

[jumperstop]

That is an utterly asinine comparison.

A B-25 is, I believe, smaller than a 767.
A B-25 is propeller driven and thus much slower than a 767.
The B-25 that crashed wasn't trying to purposely hit the ESB.
The B-25 wasn't loaded down with jet fuel for a cross-continental trip.
The B-25 didn't bore down on the WTC at full speed with the intention of inflicting as much structural damage as possible.

Anyone who tries to make a serious comparison of the two events is an absolute moron and shouldn't be taken seriously if they claim the sky is blue.

It's more than the comparison to the B25 Empire State Builing event why he shouldn't be taken seriously. Dudes a nut job if he believes any of what he's saying...

[sappstuf]

That is correct.

The B-52 did not make it's maiden flight until 1952.

6 years after the B-25 struck the Empire State Building.

That is just what the government wants you to think....

[Wishboned]

That is just what the government wants you to think....

Time Traveling Masons.

This is not our reality. This is the reality they want us to have.

[RFH Shakes]

I just wish the CIA would allow us to have some rain! That's the REAL conspiracy.

[sappstuf]

Time Traveling Masons.

This is not our reality. This is the reality they want us to have.

Hmm... Possible. I always thought it was the Stonecutters..

dSpOjj4YD8c&

[kbsooner21]

Remind me never to read another thread that GKeeper has posted in. I'm seriously dumber after reading that. Geez, a dbag of the highest order...

[silverwheels]

GKeeper is a plant by the government to post the conspiracy theories and make them look stupid so you all wouldn't believe them and the truth would remain hidden. And you all fell for it.

[sappstuf]

I'm a tardy tard tard.

A revealing statement.

[olevetonahill]

Remind me never to read another thread that GKeeper has posted in. I'm seriously dumber after reading that. Geez, a dbag of the highest order...

But Like Dean said. Gomer is cheap entertainment

[northspeter]

i feel sorry for people that believe in conspiracy theories... it's kind of sad... once you start down that rabbit hole... there is no coming out....

[C&CDean]

i feel sorry for people that believe in conspiracy theories... it's kind of sad... once you start down that rabbit hole... there is no coming out....

It's kind of like peeing your pants on the first day of school. The rest of the year, you're the pants pisser who everyone laughs at. Yes, it is sad.

[cleller]

I figured something like this would happen. How can anyone jump onto the conspiracy crazy train, yet just ignore how impossible it would be to set up?

A busload of scientists from NASA and who knows where worked on the Hubble telescope, and still messed up the most basic component. But a bunch of spooks from the CIA can wheel in explosives into all these WTC towers and bring them down without a hitch?

I can understand some guy living in a tent in the desert buying into that baloney, but not someone who can use appliances.
Remember, the government did not own these buildings, and they had been bombed before. There were already plenty of security precautions in place to prevent someone from strolling in with tons of explosives, miles of detonator cable, jackhammers, etc. Sheesh.

[C&CDean]

I figured something like this would happen. How can anyone jump onto the conspiracy crazy train, yet just ignore how impossible it would be to set up?

A busload of scientists from NASA and who knows where worked on the Hubble telescope, and still messed up the most basic component. But a bunch of spooks from the CIA can wheel in explosives into all these WTC towers and bring them down without a hitch?

I can understand some guy living in a tent in the desert buying into that baloney, but not someone who can use appliances.
Remember, the government did not own these buildings, and they had been bombed before. There were already plenty of security precautions in place to prevent someone from strolling in with tons of explosives, miles of detonator cable, jackhammers, etc. Sheesh.


ssshhh. You'll make their heads assplode.

[cleller]

Oh, and just for clarification: When I started the thread I was speaking specifically of WTC Building 7; an outlying building not struck by the planes. In the aftermath of the collapse of the north tower, building 7 caught fire, burning uncontrolled for 8 hours. Due to lack of water pressure, the sprinkler systems did not work, and there was no real effort to fight the fire.

This is a little lesser known event than the towers, yet the conspiracy crazies are pumping this event as well. (see specifics on first post)

[OhU1]

Dumb. Retarded. 9-11 "truthers" are pseudo skeptics. "Truthers" have no interest in an impartial inquiry and evaluation of the evidence. The mentality is exactly the same as a cultist fundamentalist. Data/facts are cherry picked and "examined" in a vacuum, obvious but conflicting evidence is ignored or rationalized.

This thread (and people who buy into irrational conspiracy theories) made me think of this quote:

"Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.
— Sir Peter Medawar

[TUSooner]

Somebody remind me again, what was the benefit the conspirators gained from all this?

[Caboose]

I have never felt more sorry for a message board poster than I do for this GKeeper guy. I can not imagine how he is able to function in his daily life being so gullible and willfully ignorant.

[C&CDean]

Somebody remind me again, what was the benefit the conspirators gained from all this?

GWB is the debbil? ****, I don't know.

[C&CDean]

I have never felt more sorry for a message board poster than I do for this GKeeper guy. I can not imagine how he is able to function in his daily life being so gullible and willfully ignorant.

Don't worry, he's a Marine. Not.

[GDC]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZVeI4zX_L1Y/TbK6s-N6lWI/AAAAAAAAJYo/F5_nk9I7bNo/s1600/cap+red.jpg

[C&CDean]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZVeI4zX_L1Y/TbK6s-N6lWI/AAAAAAAAJYo/F5_nk9I7bNo/s1600/cap+red.jpg

Them ain't girines galdamnit!!

[TitoMorelli]

What most of you fail to comprehend is that our government very well could have placed the explosives in the basement of the towers amidst all the turmoil in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC bombing. Perfect opportunity.

Now how they managed to detonate those undetected basement explosives eight years later way up on the 87th floor, well, I'm still working on that part.





[/sarc]

[SicEmBaylor]

Those were holograms, duh....

Holy ****. I chuckled a little when you posted this, but on a hunch I did a google search for "hologram" and "9/11." This is a real f'n theory! I'm not kidding.

http://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2006/11/hologram-theory.html

I'm astounded.

[jumperstop]

Holy ****. I chuckled a little when you posted this, but on a hunch I did a google search for "hologram" and "9/11." This is a real f'n theory! I'm not kidding.

http://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2006/11/hologram-theory.html

I'm astounded.

I know that's why I said it, cause I've seen videos of people claiming that to be the truth. How anyone could be so retarded is beyond me. I mean according to Back to the Future II we are only 4 years away from holograms of that nature so it could happen... :rolleyes:

[AlboSooner]

i'm not denying that they fell, i'm just saying that the plane impacts alone could not have brought down those towers.
how can you know this?

[AlboSooner]

Oh, and just for clarification: When I started the thread I was speaking specifically of WTC Building 7; an outlying building not struck by the planes. In the aftermath of the collapse of the north tower, building 7 caught fire, burning uncontrolled for 8 hours. Due to lack of water pressure, the sprinkler systems did not work, and there was no real effort to fight the fire.

This is a little lesser known event than the towers, yet the conspiracy crazies are pumping this event as well. (see specifics on first post)

I haven't read a satisfactory answer to why 7 collapsed, and this doesn't satisfy either. When it comes to 7, I do believe it was brought down for insurance money or whatever.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I will say that although I find the story of the 911 Truth Movement to be mostly "anti-Bush" bull****, remember Truthers "the Government" involves both parties and not just Republicans, I find it very healthy. It's always good to question things. Not to mention it makes people do their own homework and research which is always good. It's never good to take everything that's spoon-fed to you. However, it's not good to question things so much you're paranoid about everything.

With that said, there are many things that seem fishy about that day.

What I hate is, and I can see it from a few posters on this board, questioning the official story in any way what-so-ever automatically makes you a conspiracy theorist loon who doesn't know anything.

Alright, even though conspiracy theories in the past have been right?

People like to look at 9/11, the moon landings, and lizard people but they quickly look over the ones that were right. I guess if it was right in the end then it really wasn't a conspiracy theory now was it?

The U.S. government doesn't lie? Gulf of Tonkin anybody?
The U.S. government doesn't kill innocent people? Ruby Ridge, Waco, Tuskegee syphilis study ring any bells? How about Operation Fast and Furious leading to the deaths of several Americans because the ATF let several thousand guns enter Mexico?
The U.S. government doesn't play both sides? How about the DEA playing favorites with the drug cartels letting some bring drugs into the country to go after others? Lets not forget the CIA being caught bringing drugs into this country themselves for some extra cash.
The U.S. government wouldn't support terrorist? We did in the 80's backing the Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan didn't we?
In 2003 we invaded Iraq for having WMDs. We should know, we gave them WMDs in the 1980's.
How about us helping Saddam in the 1980's as he fought Iran but at the same time we were selling Iran weapons in the Iran-Contra Affair?
Speaking of Iran who overthrew their democratically elected government again?
Who invaded Panama because it otherwise would have made us look bad to back the anti-communist drug lord Noriega who wasn't the best in human rights?
How about the CIA taking people against their will to perform mind control experiments on them with project Project MKULTRA?
How about the CIA placing people inside the mass media to promote propaganda with Operation Mockingbird?

Did our government carry out 9/11? The evidence I've seen presented doesn't show me that they did. Could they have carried it out? If they really wanted to, yes.

I know what you're thinking, our government isn't that heartless. They've shown to be. I don't care what side you're on but lying about something, sending 50,000 Americans to their death, and installing rules of engagement to make it "fair" that only cost Americans their lives is pretty heartless. That's just one incident.

I know what' you're also thinking, that'd involve too many people with Watergate being the first thing brought up. Alright, well The Manhattan Project involved over 100,000 people and nobody knew about it. In fact it was so secret several people died during it that we're just now finding out about many, many years later.

I know, some might call me crazy or a loon or throw out some other type of ad hominem against me. They're free to do so, if they can show me where I'm wrong. I guess it's easier though to attack others than it is to disrupt the cozy little reality you've built for yourself.

"I never trust anything the government tells me." - George Carlin

[bluedogok]

Knowing how the structure of WTC 1/2 were designed, I can see how it would happen. It was an unconventional structural design at the time, the desire was to have a column-less floor space in the majority of the building so most were bundled in the core and the footprint was a little more than 200 x 200 feet. In the upper floors as the elevators of the lower floor ranges dropped off you started having columns exposed. There were 4 main columns on the exterior at the corners tied together with very large beams connecting them at the exterior and beams crossing, the core beams were tied into that structure as well. Every bit of perimeter structure was tied to the core structure. There were much smaller columns at the perimeter spaced closer together, the exterior also was somewhat self supporting and flexed like a large spring to accept wind load. Most of the columns were covered with a cementitious fireproofing and furred out with firecode gypsum wallboard. All the walls of the core were rated gyp. bd. on metal stud framing. The floors were concrete filled metal deck with conventional joists and sprayed with the same cementitious fireproofing. That type of fireproofing is fine as long as there is no impact to break the coverage, once that happens the entire fireproofing is compromised. All of the fireproofing designed in the building should have worked fine for the type of conventional fire it was designed to protect against, but this was no ordinary fire event. A fire suppression system is for an office building is designed to put out an expected fire for that type of building, the systems for aircraft hangers and fuel storage depots are a completely different type of system usually using a chemical to suffocate the fire instead of water to extinguish it.

When the planes struck the exterior curtainwall they broke all the smaller columns, as the plane traveled through the building it blew out all the fireproofing in those areas and once the planes blew through the core they effectively created a place for the large amount of fuel in those jumbo jets to concentrate and since there was so much fuel it burned at a much hotter temperature than the fire protection systems were designed to withstand, even if they had not have been compromised. So what happened is the fuel pooled at the bottom of the elevator shafts and effectively boiled the structural framing at the base of the building and once if softened enough the weight that it carried above essentially pancaked the entire structure causing it to collapse on itself. So you had floor plate after floor plate start collapsing from the bottom up much like how a demolition team designs the system used to implode a building.

I kind up came to this conclusion myself after watching as many angles of the collapse as I could find well before the official investigation was concluded. A structural engineer in my old office kind became obsessed by this and read everything he could on in including the official NIST/FEMA report and many independent reports by both reputable and not so reputable sources. I have read many of those as well. He pretty much came to the same conclusion, the collapse was caused by the lower steel getting cooked to the point of failure with the massive load placed on it.

I haven't studied the Building 7 collapse near as much as 1/2 which was the ones that I spent the most amount of time working on. So I don't know real well what happened there. As far as the other buildings, the entire complex was tied together above and below ground by parking garages and utility tunnels.

[OhU1]

Did our government carry out 9/11? The evidence I've seen presented doesn't show me that they did. Could they have carried it out? If they really wanted to, yes.


I'm only quoting this part of your post because the rest of it appears to be a psuedo skeptical appeal to "someone in government lied in the past" therefore "9-11 conspiracy" is plausible. Not very compelling evidence of a conspiracy. The argument from "mistrust of government" is a very weak argument, more of an appeal to emotion. Your examples of vast government conspiracies are laughable and require nothing more than a few spooks acting toward a political aim that later shocks the sensibility of some. No great technical and logistical genius is required.

What I'm interested to hear is your theory regarding how the WTC buildings came down. Where is the evidence of a controlled demolition (if this is your assertion)? What evidence leads you to think the government is technically capable of pulling off the undetected rigging of this structure for demolition?

BTW no one has a burden to "show you where you are wrong".
A. you have failed to state a claim. B. if you did state a claim that I somehow missed, you have the burden to convince the rest of us why your claim should be believed. P.S. George Carlin, although funny, is not very good evidence either.

[sooneron]

I haven't studied the Building 7 collapse near as much as 1/2 which was the ones that I spent the most amount of time working on. So I don't know real well what happened there. As far as the other buildings, the entire complex was tied together above and below ground by parking garages and utility tunnels.
This. Most all of the WTC was interconnected. I seriously doubt that a building that just stood there burning AND had just experienced two very large seismic events around it and beneath it, could have stood for much longer. I knew as I was watching the events unfold that many of the buildings down there were going to need to be demo'd. Which some were later on, to some degree or another.

[picasso]

I saw the Pentagon in November '01. From across the street you could see the impact area quite well. I'll say that was some creative demolition folks if they blew that place themselves.

And, the French lads who shot the NYC fire department documentary have video shots of one of the jet engines on the sidewalk just moments after the impact at the WTC.

Rolls eyes.

[En_Fuego]

Marvin....Oh Marvin...Come out, Come out wherever you are.

If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.

Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."

That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served


October 1996: Security Firm with Connections to Bush Family Acquires Security Contract for World Trade Center



Marvin Bush. [Source: Eric Draper / White House]A security company called Stratesec acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security at the World Trade Center. It is one of numerous contractors hired in the upgrade of security at the WTC following the 1993 bombing. Stratesec, which was formerly called Securacom, is responsible for installing the “security-description plan”—the layout of the electronic security system—at the World Trade Center. It has a “completion contract” to provide some of the center’s security “up to the day the buildings fell down,” according to Barry McDaniel, its CEO.
Involved with Airport Security - Another of Stratesec’s biggest security contracts, between 1995 and 1998, is with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Its work includes maintaining the airfield access systems, the CCTV (closed circuit television) systems, and the electronic badging systems. American Airlines Flight 77—one of the planes hijacked on 9/11—takes off from Dulles.
Directors Include Bush Family Member - Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of future President George W. Bush, is a director at Stratesec from 1993 to June 2000, when most of its work on these big projects is done. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, is chairman of the board at Stratesec from 1992, and its CEO from 1999 until January 2002. Another of Stratesec’s directors, from 1991 to 2001, is Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah, who is a member of the Kuwaiti royal family. Al Sabah is also chairman of an investment company called the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), which, between 1993 and 1999, holds a large, often controlling share of Stratesec. In 1996, it owns 90 percent of the company; by 1999 it owns 47 percent.
Other Interests - Walker and Al Sabah are also co-investors in two inter-related aviation companies: Aviation General and Commander Aircraft. According to a 2005 report by freelance journalist Margie Burns: “Aviation General boasted of its international clientele. A 1996 press release announced its sale of airplanes to the National Civil Aviation Training Organization (NCATO) of Giza, Egypt, ‘the sole civilian pilot training organization in Egypt.’ The announcement mentions Al Sabah as chairman of KuwAm and board member of Commander Aircraft Company.” NCATO also has contractual partnerships with several US flight schools, including Embry-Riddle University in Florida.
Connections with Foreign Company a Delicate Matter - According to Wayne Black, the head of a Florida-based security firm, it is delicate for a security company serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company. He suggests, “Somebody knew somebody.” Black also points out that when a company has a security contract, “you know the inner workings of everything.” Furthermore, if another company is linked to the security company, then “what’s on your computer is on their computer.” After 9/11 Stratesec CEO Barry McDaniel will be asked whether FBI or other agents have questioned him or others at Stratesec about their security work related to 9/11. He answers, “No.” [American Reporter, 1/20/2003; Prince George's Journal, 2/4/2003; Progressive Populist, 3/1/2003; Progressive Populist, 4/15/2003; Washington Spectator, 2/15/2005] Other companies involved with the security overhaul during this time include Ensec Inc., which is in charge of creating a new parking access control system, E-J Electric Installation Co., and Electronic Systems Associates, a division of Syska Hennessy. [Access Control & Security Systems, 7/1/1997; CEE News, 1/1/2001; CEE News, 10/1/2001; Building Design and Construction, 7/1/2002]


Entity Tags: Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah, Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), Marvin Bush, Stratesec, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, World Trade Center, Wirt D. Walker III, Washington Dulles International Airport, Ensec, Inc., Embry-Riddle University, National Civil Aviation Training Organization, E-J Electric Installation Co., Commander Aircraft, Aviation General, Electronic Systems Associates

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

[C&CDean]

See, Bush did it.

[Ton Loc]

Hilarious Thread----

Somehow our goverment could pull off the WTC events and yet

couldn't find one damn scrap of WMDs in Iraq?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Mississippi Sooner]

Hilarious Thread----

Somehow our goverment could pull off the WTC events and yet

couldn't find one damn scrap of WMDs in Iraq?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

And it took them 10 years to find Osama.

That is, if they actually found him. <wink, nudge>

[SCOUT]

This is the most informative thread I have read in a long time. Rarely do posters admit their lunacy with such clarity. The only thing missing at this point is the appropriate level of tin foil. Anyway, I appreciate the information, please keep it up.

[cleller]

I haven't read a satisfactory answer to why 7 collapsed, and this doesn't satisfy either. When it comes to 7, I do believe it was brought down for insurance money or whatever.

Well, if you believe it came down any other way than burning, you're back to conspiracy. It burned then collapsed about 8 hours after the event. No one could have possibly installed explosives after the planes hit the towers. The fire department could tell the building was going, and got everyone away something like 3 hours before it fell. This brings me right back how confounding it is for anyone to believe explosives were used in any event.

Its not like someone can run in there with a backpack full of dynamite, and a long fuse. That stuff takes weeks to prepare, with highly specialized equipment, lots of manpower, and coordination.

Basically, Building 7 burned, the steel frame expanded, girders moved out of place, and down it came. Straight down, because that's the way gravity works.

[GDC]

I just wish the CIA would allow us to have some rain! That's the REAL conspiracy.

It's the chemtrails, man, the chemtrails...

East of the Rockies, you're on the air...

[thecynic]

how come every time we have a huge incident like this, there's a conspiracy. There's tons of OKC bombing conspiracy's as well. (as I'm sure most of you are aware)

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm only quoting this part of your post because the rest of it appears to be a psuedo skeptical appeal to "someone in government lied in the past" therefore "9-11 conspiracy" is plausible. Not very compelling evidence of a conspiracy.

Missed the point entirely of course reading more into your post it's evident you saw what you wanted to see.


The argument from "mistrust of government" is a very weak argument, more of an appeal to emotion. Your examples of vast government conspiracies are laughable and require nothing more than a few spooks acting toward a political aim that later shocks the sensibility of some. No great technical and logistical genius is required.

So what I listed required a few rouge agents with political aims that didn't need a very technical or detailed plan? You're free to have that opinion, it's wrong, but you're free to it.

A couple of those, yes, there could have been some guys in the CIA, ATF, DEA, etc. who kept things to themselves. That speaks very poorly of our government however if they can't keep control of agencies who can do whatever they want and get away with it. Not all of them were just isolated incidents though.

Gulf of Tonkin had LBJ's administration directly involved with it.
Waco had Clinton's administration, again, directly involved.
Operation Fast and Furious has Obama's administration directly involved.
Iran-Contra had Reagan's administration directly involved.

The way I see it...
A. Our Government doesn't know what the left hand is doing from the right which allows corruption to run amuck unchecked.
B. Our Government does know what it's doing and shows a whole lot of corruption from top to bottom.

To say all of what I said is "nothing serious" either shows you're naive or just don't care. Neither scenario is a good thing.


What I'm interested to hear is your theory regarding how the WTC buildings came down. Where is the evidence of a controlled demolition (if this is your assertion)? What evidence leads you to think the government is technically capable of pulling off the undetected rigging of this structure for demolition?

Again, you miss the point and it's very obvious reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

"I will say that although I find the story of the 911 Truth Movement to be mostly "anti-Bush" bull****"
"Did our government carry out 9/11? The evidence I've seen presented doesn't show me that they did."

Yup I clearly state that controlled demolition brought the buildings down.

What really brought down the WTC? Religious Muslims, flew planes into the towers. The structural damage exposed hot open flames to the support, weakening it. This caused the building to finally give out under it's own weight.

fMibXJjx_DE

This video clearly shows the steal give away.

Where Loose Change always failed is they talked about all of these building fires but none of them had a plane hit them. As for the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, apples and oranges.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image102.jpg
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image103.jpg

As for answering how the government could do it, very carefully. All I'm saying is they do have the manpower and resources to do it IF they really wanted to.


BTW no one has a burden to "show you where you are wrong".
A. you have failed to state a claim. B. if you did state a claim that I somehow missed, you have the burden to convince the rest of us why your claim should be believed. P.S. George Carlin, although funny, is not very good evidence either.

What I was talking about in "show me where I'm wrong" is in previous threads I've presented an argument. What followed was nothing more than the typical "you're an idiot" talk. If you can't present a rebuttal, you have no room to talk. It's the same as the religious freaks who say, "god did/says _____" when somebody brings up an argument against their religion.

I'll explain it again so you can, hopefully, get it this time.

What I was saying is that our government has shown in the past that they've done shady, underhanded, **** by agencies and administrations that very obviously had some form of corruption.

As I stated, it's naive and stupid to blindly trust the government or anybody for that matter. When that little voice in you says, "Something doesn't seem right..." you might want to listen.

What I was saying is after 9/11 those little "something doesn't seem right" instances were ignored and slammed. Before you could finish the sentence "what if.." or "what about..." you were shouted down and called: unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizer, heartless, shameful, and many other things. Those same people are as idiotic as the people who scream "racist" when somebody questions Obama's policies.

With that said, it's not a good thing to be paranoid and think there are black helicopters circling your house. Do I think there's a government agent reading my post right now as I type this, putting me on some type of "list" to be watched, where my cell phone will be tapped, and emails read? No I don't.

I like to think of it the same as the police. Are all of the police corrupt? No not at all. If a police officer is corrupt, does that mean the department is corrupt? No not at all. Are there police departments that are corrupt from the bottom up? You better believe it. If the entire department is corrupt, does that mean there aren't a couple of good cops in it? Again no that's not the case.

I guess what I'm trying to say to bring this all together with 9/11 is Dylan Avery is just as bad as the person screaming, "you're unpatriotic and want the terrorist to win if you question the official story and try to form an opinion of your own." It's good to go, "Alright, you think this? Lets look at the facts and get to the bottom of it." Once the facts clearly show which side has an argument and which side doesn't, then you shout them down and tell them to shut up if they won't.

[SoonerAtKU]

I think it's really awesome the trajectory of this thread. OP, then a handful of people saying how sad it is when someone reaches for explanation beyond the real, and then BOOM, right there on the first page someone jumps in headfirst.

Thank you all.

[TFSooner]

Basically, Building 7 burned, the steel frame expanded, girders moved out of place, and down it came. Straight down, because that's the way gravity works.

Additionally, WTC 7 was severly structurally damaged by the debris from Towers 1 and 2, which weakened it prior to the fires starting. The Popular Mechanics website (and a Discovery/History Channel episode) has a great section that debunks ALL the conspiracy theories.

[SoonerAtKU]

And now we're back into it! Huzzah!

Look, MR, saying "There's questions, man" and "The government has done stuff that's bad in the past" is fine, but you have to assert a position before you can have a debate.

If your position is simply "the government could have done it" without providing any sort of qualification isn't really saying anything, because there's nothing to prove or disprove. We disagree, and I'll show you how futile the argument is.

Tell me a time where the government lied to us as a nation and did something evil that we never found out about.

I'll wait for your answer over here.

[MR2-Sooner86]

And now we're back into it! Huzzah!

Look, MR, saying "There's questions, man" and "The government has done stuff that's bad in the past" is fine, but you have to assert a position before you can have a debate.

What debate? I wasn't starting a debate just saying that it's bad to slam people who ask questions. All I'm simply saying is that there's nothing wrong with questioning things and looking into it yourself.

I feel like I'm talking in circles here.


If your position is simply "the government could have done it" without providing any sort of qualification isn't really saying anything, because there's nothing to prove or disprove. We disagree, and I'll show you how futile the argument is.

Not my position. As I said, I don't believe the story the government did it.

You're simply trying to read something that isn't there.

"Oh, so you think the government COULD have done it!? Well that just means you really think they did it!"

It seems like that's what people are reading. That's not the case. If you're asking for the evidence of "how could they do it" it's almost as if you're asking for the evidence of how they really did do it.


Tell me a time where the government lied to us as a nation and did something evil that we never found out about.

I'll wait for your answer over here.

Trick question. If we never found out about it, how would we know they really lied and did something evil?

[SoonerAtKU]

That's what makes it a futile discussion. You can't prove a negative. Nobody can ever prove that the government DIDN'T have anything to do with any event in our nation's history, so what's the point of saying they COULD have?

I happen to think they could not have done something on that scale and have it remain a secret. Conspiracy or not, there's been no positive evidence to suggest government involvement, so it's either still a secret or it didn't happen. If you disagree and feel that it is possible, then I guess that's a difference in our esteem for the capacity and capability of our government across departments and at every level.

[Statalyzer]

That's what makes it a futile discussion. You can't prove a negative. Nobody can ever prove that the government DIDN'T have anything to do with any event in our nation's history, so what's the point of saying they COULD have?

I happen to think they could not have done something on that scale and have it remain a secret. Conspiracy or not, there's been no positive evidence to suggest government involvement, so it's either still a secret or it didn't happen. If you disagree and feel that it is possible, then I guess that's a difference in our esteem for the capacity and capability of our government across departments and at every level.

Well said. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet. The people who believe this sort of thing are the same type of people who think the Da Vinci Code is real history, Roosevelt got Japan to attack Pearl so that he could parlay it into a declaration of war on Germany, and that humans have never been to the moon.

[GDC]

I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[RFH Shakes]

I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

They Didn't?????
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/rfhshakes/belushi_animal_house_thinkin_guitarjpg.jpg

[Caboose]

What debate? I wasn't starting a debate just saying that it's bad to slam people who ask questions. All I'm simply saying is that there's nothing wrong with questioning things and looking into it yourself.


I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The issue regarding the poster in question on this thread isn't that he questioned the government's account of 9/11, it is that he REFUSES to question the absurd and idiotic conspiracy theories presented by these dip**** film makers.

[bluedogok]

I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


They Didn't?????
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/rfhshakes/belushi_animal_house_thinkin_guitarjpg.jpg
Forget it....he's rolling.....

As far as the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building, as MR2 stated, apples and oranges. The Empire State Building has a much more conventional structural system than WTC 1/2 had. It has major columns around the perimeter and in the lease area whereas WTC 1/2 had a much larger clear span between the perimeter and the core structure. The "system" that WTC 1/2 had was very much reliant on the rest of the system remaining stable, a failure in one component can affect other components. Just like a metal building frame can barely hold itself up, it relies on the purlins/girts and metal wall panel to tie it all together to be structurally stable and distribute the load. The tying together of all the systems usually isn't an issue, what caused the front curtainwall to collapse on the Murrah Building was the force of all of the levels above went to the transfer beam that was blown out in the explosion.

Much different is a building like the new OKC Federal Building which was designed and built to minimize the the damage of an event. There are three distinct and separate structural parts to that building and in case of a failure in one the other two are designed to remain standing and resist the force of an event of failure to the other part.