3 of 7
3
9/11 Conspiracy Theories are bullshit.
Posted: 17 July 2007 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

Speed wasn’t the only difference between the plane accidentally hitting the Empire State Building and the jets purposefully hitting the WTC Towers while revving their engines at the last second…

Can you read?

I didn’t say anything about the plane hitting the Empire State Building.  I said I went to school for Electrical Engineering and that building was constructed before the invention of the transistor.

I notice neither of you have tried to come up with a sane reason why the NIST should tell us the tons of cargo in the planes but not the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each floor of the WTC.  Nor have you explained why any sane person would not expect that information to be easy to obtain from the original documentation for the building. 

So why are you making a big deal about terminology like “knocked down” and “licorice” and bringing up antiquated planes I never mentioned.  Can’t you come up with sane and intelligent responses?

The building was held up by steel and concrete.  In order for it to collapse that steel and concrete had to fail.  What is the problem with wanting to know the quantity and distribution of that steel and concrete?  Have either of you tried finding the quantity of concrete in the NIST reports yourselves?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 17 July 2007 12:15 PM

Speed wasn’t the only difference between the plane accidentally hitting the Empire State Building and the jets purposefully hitting the WTC Towers while revving their engines at the last second…

Can you read?

I didn’t say anything about the plane hitting the Empire State Building.  I said I went to school for Electrical Engineering and that building was constructed before the invention of the transistor.

psik

I was trying to read between the lines.  It is all one can try to do with your ramblings since you will never come right out and say what you think happened!  Why in the hell would you bring up the Empire State Building in this discussion if not for the fact that it too was hit by an aircraft, but didn’t collapse afterwards! 

psikeyhackr reminds me of a creationist.  Like creationists, he has no proof of what he claims.  He just sees what he wants to see, even if that means distorting the evidence in his mind.  Also like creationists he points to anything he doesn’t understand (that’s a lot of pointing!  LOL  ) and fills in the perceived gaps with something (he won’t say what) instead of a god.  But unlike creationists who, at least, have the courage to come right out and state what they are claiming, psikeyhackr won’t even do that.  He just beats around the bush and will never get to his point of who, how or why.  Also like creationists, he has some sort of need to believe in what he believes.  I don’t know what that need is, but I hope he seeks professional help.  And finally, like creationists, I hope that people like him never seize control of science classes!  LOL

[ Edited: 17 July 2007 12:36 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4065
Joined  2006-11-28

Ok guys, I know you feel strongly about the topic, but let’s try to keep the ad hominem out of it. “Can you read” and “I hope he seeks professional help” are not appropriate or productive even in passionate debates

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

OK.  I’ll apologize to psikeyhackr and CFI for that inappropriate remark on my part.  Sorry.  downer

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

This is my first post here on CFI.  To be honest, I wasn’t expecting to find a 911 discussion on this thread but I guess that is a testament to the size and popularity the 911 Truth Movement has taken on.  Now, when I first heard of the “911 was an inside job” theory a couple years ago, I burst out laughing, shook my head and said to myself “these nuts are absolutely ridiculous.”  But soon after that, a good friend of mine brought it up with me again during conversation and convinced me to check out some of the arguments for the “conspiracy theories”, so I indulged him and read up on it, watched a few videos online and became increasingly convinced that the official story could just simply not be true.  Now, I know that the people here on this forum are intelligent, open-minded thinkers who seek cogent, logical and scientific information, dare I say, truth.  There are hundreds of theories regarding the “truth about 911” and most of them are full of holes and logical fallacies but, conspiracy theories aside, there are too many unanswered questions concerning 911 that one can, by means of probability and logical deduction, arrive at the conclusion that the truth, whatever it may be, has been and is being covered up.  Take World Trade Center Building 7, for example:  not hit by a plane, sustained minimal fire damage yet collapsed perfectly into it’s footprint at freefall speed, leaving behind no steel frames or corners.  a phenomenon previously unheard of in the history of human architecture.  Oddly enough, a controlled demolition looks exactly like it and demolition experts around the world have studied WTC 7’s collapse and are more or less unanimously convinced that the building was demolished.  What’s more, we have footage of the building’s owner admitting that he asked for the building to be “pulled…and we watched the building collapse.”  Strangely enough, the 9/11 Commission Report left out mention of WTC 7 completely.
There is also the fact that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel though pools of molten metal were found at the bottom of the rubble days after 911.  Ironically, demolition explosives do produce molten metal.  Unfortunately, Giulliani had all the steel shipped from ground zero and melted down immediately before tests could be made on it. Why would he do this? Well, to destroy evidence perhap? It seems the only plausible explanation for such an act.  The few pieces of metal that were salvaged for testing showed traces of thermite on the steel, implying the use of explosives.
OK, I don’t want to go on and on here as I’m sure most of you have heard the arguments and have already made up your minds more or less.  I will admit, it is at first extremely hard to believe. If you are still on the fence though, then I encourage you to do a few hours of research, listen to both sides and use your common sense.  If you do genuinely take the time to read up on 911, I am of the opinion that you will be convinced 110% that the government and mainstream media are lying to you. Here are a few good sites to get you started:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739
http://www.911blogger.com
http://physics911.net/
http://www.911truth.org/

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

baffledking,

Perhaps you can answer some simple questions:

1.  Who do you believe planned and carried out 9/11?

2.  By what means do you believe the buildings collapsed?

3.  Why did the person or persons from question #1 do it? 

Thank you in advance for any answers you can supply.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

Certainly.  Though let us keep in mind that you are now asking me to speculate, and that just because my speculations may be false that does not mean the official story is true.

Because they told direct lies concerning foreknowledge of the attacks and because of their extremely fishy behavior the day of 911 (anyone remember My Pet Goat?), I am willing to bet that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Rudolph Guilliani are certainly complicit in the planning of the attacks.  This bunch and others who share the philosophy of Leo Strauss, are commonly referred to as the Neo-Conservatives or Neocons.  An ominous publication entitled Project for the New American Century (PNAC) details plans to reestablish the United States as the dominant superpower in the world by infiltrating and subjugating the regimes in the Middle East.  The report, published in the 90’s, also highlighted the necessity for a “new Pearl Harbor” like catastrophe which would give the green light to the Military-Industrial Complex to go to war with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.  Authors of the report include 17 future members of the Bush Administration including: Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John R. Bolton, Dick Cheney, Francis Fukuyama, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.  Conspiracy or not, these guys got their wish and they certainly went to war.  Oddly, troops were also already stationed outside Afghanistan days before the 911 attacks.  As we all know, Bush and Cheney’s companies Zapata Oil, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group all made billions in profits from the wars, as well.  Of course, I am not offering this up as proof, only as evidence.  Logically, to find the culprit, one must look for the person who benefited from the crime. 

Now, there are many theories out there that would like you to believe that the Jews are responsible for 911 or that Reptilian Aliens masquerading as our leaders planned the attacks.  This stuff is nonsense and should not be confused with the scientific evidence available that points to the US government’s complicity in the attacks.

I believe they recently have discovered microscopic balls of steel taken from the dust samples around ground zero and have proven that explosives were indeed used to bring the buildings down.

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

Why in the hell would you bring up the Empire State Building in this discussion if not for the fact that it too was hit by an aircraft, but didn’t collapse afterwards!

I also mentioned the Taj Mahal and the Parthenon so that must mean they were hit by planes also.

I was merely trying to emphasize the gravity of the situation and that it isn’t that complicated a problem.

1. Who do you believe planned and carried out 9/11?

Rocinante takes the approach that if I don’t think like him then I must be stupid.  He can’t comprehend that I DON’T CARE WHO DID IT!!!  I DON’T CARE WHY THEY DID IT!!! I am talking about a physics problem.  I thought the idea that the plane could do what is seen in those videos was ridiculous from DAY 0NE.  How could the building collapse straight down into its own mass as a result of a plane collision on the 80th floor though it stood for 25+ years with no problems?  And then the experts don’t tell us the tons of steel and concrete on those floors where there was no fire in a report that took 3 years when that info should have been in the original documentation from the 60’s.

Fine, I’m not sane.  No point in further discussion.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 10:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
baffledking - 17 July 2007 08:15 PM

Certainly.  Though let us keep in mind that you are now asking me to speculate, and that just because my speculations may be false that does not mean the official story is true.

I understand.  Thank you baffledking for your responses.  Now if you don’t mind, some questions regarding those responses:

1.)  What exactly does Bush, Cheney, et al gain from his response to 9/11 other than losing Congress for the Republicans and nationwide and worldwide contempt of his actions? 

2.)  Do you believe that Bush, Cheney, et al were also responsible for:

* The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?
* The attack on on U.S. Military Headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995? 
* The attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996?
* The U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998?
* The attack on U.S.S. Cole in 2000?

If not, who carried out those acts and why?

3.)  Who do you believe piloted the 4 jets on 9/11?  It certainly wasn’t Bush or Cheney!  :grin:

4.)  How do you explain the fact that the both buildings just happened to collapse at the point where the planes crashed into them?  Did the pilots of the jets know exactly which set of windows to aim for knowing the explosives would later detonate on that same floor?

5.) Why didn’t any of the employees in either of the WTC buildings report anyone cutting supports, drilling holes in concrete and installing explosives and wiring them up in the days before 9/11, as that is how the demolition of buildings take place?

6.) Why didn’t the jets crashing into the buildings and the resulting inferno knock out the explosive charges, wiring and detonators?  And why didn’t the near instantaneous fires in each building cause the explosives to go off much sooner than it took for the buildings to collapse? 

7.)  Why did Bush, Cheney, et al blow up WTC 7 knowing that a jet would never fly into it?  If they planned everything else perfectly, knowing that all the pieces would fall neatly into place as they pre-planned, why did they allow such a glaring “mistake” as to blow up WTC 7 without a jet flying into it?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2007 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

Now you’re just trolling.  Have fun in your world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2007 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2007-08-01

Bravo!  very well put.  a good reminder.
And a good Shaw quote in the signature, too


wait a minute….this is showing up in the wrong place.  I was remarking about a different above post

[ Edited: 01 August 2007 07:18 PM by Robert K ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2007 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2007-08-10

The title of this thread is extremely loaded and emotive. For example it could be “Is the official story of 9/11 true?” or “Was 9/11 the result of the actions of Arab Hijackers?”

Also, “debunking” is not something which is particularly pallatable. In the case of 9/11, normal rational and analytical thought processes are quickly coloured because the emotive and tragic nature of the event and also by the limited exposure “alternative explanations” have received.

I would therefore encourage everyone to consider the issue carefully. I more or less believed official accounts of the event until about Aug 2004, but as I have been researching this and other topics for 3 years, I am certain, for myself that 9/11 was an Inside Job - a “false flag terror attack” committed by rogue elements of the US authorities, backed by covert elements of international groups.

To consider why I think this, and why I resent the generally rude “debunking sites” which are peppered with insults and use of words like “silly”, “ridiculous” etc etc, please read an article I have just had published in one of our Open University Faculty Magazines.

http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/about-the-faculty/society-matters/society-matters.php

Download the PDF http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/__assets/kuzur9beeawzyzjo0v.pdf and go to page 5.

To get to the truth, careful analysis, as far as possible, devoid of insults, rude accusations and bad language (as used in the title of this thread) will yield the most accurate results.

There is a very large volume of information on the internet and if you take time to analyse it, you may begin to reconsider many of the things you once thought were true - or you may not…. it’s up to you.

Thanks for reading.

PS - You can also look at this, which is a little out of date, but is my own work and quick to go through:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse of Towers.swf

[ Edited: 10 August 2007 05:28 PM by Andrew Johnson ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 02:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2007-06-01
rsonin - 17 July 2007 05:44 AM

The towers were designed to withstand gravity and wind, not being crashed into by airliners.

Actually that’s not accurate.  They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (the largest domestic jet at the time).  The buildings’ designers have even claimed they should have been able to withstand multiple impacts.  Take that latter claim with a grain of salt if you wish, but nevertheless they were designed with this contingency in mind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

Dan Rowden -

If you want to argue semantics, then say they were designed to withstand being crashed into by planes - they weren’t designed to withstand the fires that being hit by planes would cause.  In either case, the buildings were not in fact able to withstand the effects of being crashed into by airliners, and the evidence of that is that they fell down.

The lead structural engineer, Leslie Robertson:

The project was designed for the impact of a - we called it - a low-flying slow-flying Boeing 707 that was the largest aircraft of its time, the intercontinental version.  We envisioned it much as was he case for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War, more or less the same condition, lost in the fog, i.e., an accidental impact by an aircraft into the building.  It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it.  In fact those jets were flying at well above the rated speed at that altitude.  But still it’s not surprising, intuitively not surprising, that the buildings were able to survive that kind of an impact and remain standing.  On the other side of the coin, those of you who have seen photographs of the project must feel that although there was considerable structural damage done to the buildings they were not in anywhere near their original condition. ... The jet fuel set off fires in the building that were rather larger than we would expect to be the case for a normal fire in a high-rise building. ... In the case of the towers ... you had a giant airplane with the wingspan almost that of the size of the building, it went through, and as it did so certainly the fire-protective materials were not designed to exist in that kind of circumstance.” (emphasis mine)

A study done in 1964 asserted that the buildings could withstand the impact of a 707 or DC-8.  That study did not consider the results of a crash, such as the effect of fire and damage to fire suppression systems, or the long-term prospects for the building after being hit.

So, the structure of the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane, or, more likely, found to be able to withstand the impact of a plane hitting it as designed but not designed with that ability as a realistic design specification, but a plane crash was not completely considered, nor was the building designed with one in mind, as a likely contingency.  Even in the 1960’s the probability of a 707 crashing into the WTC because of a navigational error was approximately 0.

The person who said that he thought they could take multiple hits assumed that only the body of the plane would damage the external structure.  That assumption was wrong, as the wings sliced right through the external columns.  (Here’s the interview.)

Andrew Johnson -

Silly and ridiculous?  Resent what you want, but the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy claims are either outright lies or just ignorant.  The last link you provide uses such lies and ignorant claims.  I resent that this junk is continuously trotted out as if it has never been answered, despite the fact that it has been revealed as erroneous at best and fraudulent at worst.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2007 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

So why can’t we be told the tons of steel and concrete on every floor and basement level?

Why did the buildings collapse in less than 12 seconds?

Oh yeah!  Why did WTC7 collapse if it wasn’t hit by a plane?

What conspiracies do the answers to these questions have to do with?

Why do people concentrate on conspiracies instead of physics?  We are talking about mass, velocity, energy and temperatures.  Why do people think these problems are so difficult?  Duh, we need a structural engineer to tell us what to think!!!  The fact that the structural engineers won’t specify the tons of steel on the floors where the planes hit is pretty damn peculiar.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3