IMO, people who flat out deny any wrong doing on the governments part come off just as stupid and ridiculous as the people who flat out won't accept anything the government says as truth. But, it seems the world is full of people who are on the extreme ends of the scale when it comes to conspiracies, religion, ect. It really just astounds me that anyone can believe anything so whole heartedly without knowing all the facts.
The fact is, none of us know exactly how or why the events of 9/11 occurred, so how can any of us be so sure one way or the other?
Harping on someone for spewing conspiracy theories as facts is one thing, but harassing someone who just wants to get answers is juvenile and quite frankly, pathetic.
No amount of answers will suffice unless they fit their accepted reality. Every statement of fact will bring further questions. What questions do you suppose have not been answered?
The thing I find weird having spent most of this week watching various documentries on the towers collapse, is how unlike a demolition they were and how much they went down like they had been badly damaged and then collapsed.
I am now wondering how anyone that spent any time looking at the footage could find any reason to think it was a demolition!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
The thing I find weird having spent most of this week watching various documentries on the towers collapse, is how unlike a demolition they were and how much they went down like they had been badly damaged and then collapsed.
I am now wondering how anyone that spent any time looking at the footage could find any reason to think it was a demolition!
I totally agree here.
I have spent 10 years being told by truthers that the building fell exactly like a controlled demolition and I believed that, never really putting much thought into the fact that they might not be right on that.
Then after watching the towers fall 100+ times an hour over several movies and newscasts this past week, I realized how totally wrong they are. I don't need an expert to tell me a controlled demolition doesn't eject huge chunks of a building almost half a block away.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
They had some footage that I''d never seen before, including a zoom in on the second collapse where you actually see the corners of the building right at the crash area buckling and giving way. The other interesting thing were the eye witness accounts right after the second hit where they thought that WTC 1 was leaning.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
They had some footage that I''d never seen before, including a zoom in on the second collapse where you actually see the corners of the building right at the crash area buckling and giving way. The other interesting thing were the eye witness accounts right after the second hit where they thought that WTC 1 was leaning.
I saw that as well, the outside wall buckles inward, relatively slowely, as if it was overloaded with weight and gave way, I watched that myself and thought how does that look like an explosion?
When I was watching that I was distracted because it was during an interview with a woman who was talking about her last conversation with her husband when she heard a loud crack and the phone went dead. But you could literally see it buckle inward then it was obscured by the debris coming down.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I still can't get over the one astonishing suggestion of a controlled demolition. The amount of wiring, prep work, and sheer amount of materials/man hours required to set up the two world trade centers is beyond crazy to suggest is even possible doing it let alone in secret!
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Actually the one thing that kind of makes me laugh is that the conspiracy group blames old George W and his evil cabal for 9/11. But Bush had only been in power for 8 months when 9/11 happened, so he either must be a genius planner, who managed to gather his circle of hundreds of conspirators, wire all three WTC, etc, or duh duh dah, this whole thing was Bill Clinton's idea.
I knew Clinton was the Sith lord that we were looking for.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The problem with the collapse theory is that the "collapse" takes the path of greatest resistance in a matter of 10 seconds or less for all 3 buildings. A few storeys of building material is not going to plunge through 80 or more floors to the ground in 10sec. without assistance of some kind. If the planes impact zone hollowed out the structural elements of the twin towers then they would have collapsed almost immediately, and not in a symmetrical way either....
NIST even admitted in their final report that free-fall did occur for 2.3 seconds in the case of WTC7. In order for this to happen, all materials, structural or otherwise would have to be moved out of the way or nullified simultaneously in a precise manner for their to be no resistance.
I find it funny when CaptainCrunch believes certain witness testimony to support the pentagon impact and the supposed "bulge" in building 7 (I'm not saying these things are not true/plausible btw), but then dismisses all the witness accounts of explosions/flashes in the basement/lobby sections of the twin towers and WTC 7 (Barry Jennings). Tons of witnesses saw the flashes, heard the bombs, saw the molten steel under the rubble pile.....
I fully acknowledge the damage to the corner of WTC-7, but it was minor compared to the overall size of the rectangular shaped building. You can go to youtube and see high rise buildings that are damaged from war etc. and they always fall in the direction of the damage, often times remaining intact or breaking into several large pieces and falling over.
Thermitic materials have been found in the dust samples using the scientific method, and it's been replicated at real institutions like the University of Copenhagen and others I cannot remember. This is irrefutable, no matter what the news channels and Popular Mechanics has to say about it. NIST did not even test for the possibility of explosives, and ignored the thermal images showing high temperatures several weeks after the event, so all you have is a bunch of government/media trying to explain it away, and I'm not buying it.
And again ........6 out of 10 9-11 Commission members complained and denounced their own investigation and one even resigned during the process.
There are cases where fire can cause steel to weaken and sag, but not outright melt and fail like a house of cards and plunge through the rest of the structure below it.
Also ...........with regards to the nature of fire. They do not remain stationary. Fire burns up the carpet, desks and chairs and moves along to find more fuel. Fire does not cause collapse of a steel building.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
I still can't get over the one astonishing suggestion of a controlled demolition. The amount of wiring, prep work, and sheer amount of materials/man hours required to set up the two world trade centers is beyond crazy to suggest is even possible doing it let alone in secret!
And, like AFC Wimbledon and Rathji just said, the collapse looks absolutely nothing like a controlled implosion. It looks exactly like I would imagine that a building that could no longer hold itself up due to massive structural damage and fire would fall down.
I still can't get over the one astonishing suggestion of a controlled demolition. The amount of wiring, prep work, and sheer amount of materials/man hours required to set up the two world trade centers is beyond crazy to suggest is even possible doing it let alone in secret!
You're right, it would take alot of prep work....and that is why an investigation is needed.
The point of having a new investigation would be to figure out the details of the attack and put people on the stand under oath. I don't know why people expect 9-11 truthers to expose the whole plot start to finish when it is not possible without a new non-government investigaion.
Hey, if you think someone has broken into your neighbors house, do the cops expect you to make a case over the phone and fill in every detail or is the suspicion with some evidence enough?
Last edited by mikey_the_redneck; 09-13-2011 at 10:27 AM.
That video is ridiculous, collapsing buildings look the same, THATS INSANE what are the odds.
Right and Thermite would do the trick, not. Oh wait, magic military grade thermite maybe?!? 175 POUNDS around a tiny small column couldn't take down this small beam in National Geographics 9/11 conspiracy documentary.
To suggest that a group of extremists who have attacked in the past, who would not think twice about blowing your brains out if they had a chance, had nothing to do with this - its a slap in the face to the victims, the first responders - the families WHO Have gone through HELL and any logical thinking human being - its a disgrace
if you aren't making good coin off being a truther - i wonder about you.
There are plenty of whistle blowers within the government...you just haven't heard them. Michael Springman, Sibel Edmonds, Barry Jennings....
No one is saying that jihadi extremists don't exist. I don't think anyone is saying that hijackers did not hijack the airplanes either.
70+% of the families are for 9-11 truth....the official investigation is the real slap in the face and you are un-informed if you think they are insulted by 9-11 truth.
That video is ridiculous, collapsing buildings look the same, THATS INSANE what are the odds.
Right and Thermite would do the trick, not. Oh wait, magic military grade thermite maybe?!? 175 POUNDS around a tiny small column couldn't take down this small beam in National Geographics 9/11 conspiracy documentary.
Thermite can absolutely melt a beam connection, and quick. It's purpose is for demolition. Look for other sources besides National Geographic.
Hell .......ANY evidence of explosive material should be closely examined by a new investigation.
A 2010 study of Facebook users affiliated with a 9/11 Truth group known as "We Are Change" found that most members of this group are males in their late 20s. Most members of this group are involved in right-wing politics, particularly with libertarianism and Ron Paul
Lev Grossman of Time magazine has stated that support for the 9/11 Truth movement is not a "fringe phenomenon", but "a mainstream political reality."[21] However, others, such as Ben Smith of Politico and the Minneapolis Star Tribune have stated that the movement has been "relegated to the fringe".[27][28] The Washington Post editorial staff went further describing the movement as "lunatic fringe."[29]
Since our inception, more than 2,400 people have joined our organization (FOS11 has a volunteer, opt-in membership policy), including approximately 1,700 family members and 700 individuals who are concerned with our mission. About half of our members reside in the New York tristate area.
Well since there's no clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon it's kind of hard to agree. The problem I have with the whole argument from both sides is the completely unscientific and illogical methods. Did the government have a hand in 9/11? Frankly I have no idea, I've heard arguments from both sides, both vehement. The problem is there is no conclusive evidence and to draw 100% certain conclusions about a situation with so much controversy is ridiculous, the biggest problem I have with it all is one side takes one wrong idea the other has and then runs with it assuming the entire side of the argument is wrong. (e.g. it's improbable bombs were planted in the buildings therefore everything you say is wrong)
It's frustrating to see people who are so certain when the evidence either way is so inconclusive, the proper approach should be a scientific one. If people wanted to know so bad they should form an independent unbiased organization with the sole priority of investigating what really happened in a professional manner. Otherwise it's all just a waste of time. False flag attacks have happened in the past and to assume the American government is immune to such events is insane, but to assume a conspiracy without conclusive evidence is equally insane
but then dismisses all the witness accounts of explosions/flashes in the basement/lobby sections of the twin towers and WTC 7 (Barry Jennings). Tons of witnesses saw the flashes, heard the bombs, saw the molten steel under the rubble pile.....
Buildings have elevator shafts. Some elevator shafts would undoubtedly have been damaged. Also undoubtedly, some burning materials and jet fuel would have fallen to the base of the building. It's completely naive to believe that nothing would have.
The massive loads of 15 floors of building falling is going to cause any floor below to immediately fail, especially the way the twin towers were constructed. It really is not surprising that the buildings fall so fast. If you think that any of the building contents are going to slow down that massive load significantly - well, it's like dropping a bowling ball on a tower made of cards.
No other buildings have collapsed due to fire, but no other buildings have had the same factors as the three buildings at ground zero. Buildings 1 & 2 had massive structural damage from the impact of the planes. Also, it was always assumed that if there ever was a fire, it would start out small, and that the fire dept could reach it when it still was small. There was almost certainly large areas of fire that were essentially unreachable to the fire fighters. The stairs to reach them had been cut. With the buildings already so damaged by the planes, there wasn't much of a safety factor left. The steel doesn't need to melt, it just gets significant;y weaker when heated. There simply wasn't enough structure left in certain areas, and the weakened steel simply could not hold up the enormous weight of the above floors, especially when they were subjected to significant forces that they were never intended to carry.
Building 7 had a significant amount of damage and was left burning without any attempt to fight the fire for 7 hours. The designers would never have considered such a scenario when designing the building. It's always assumed that a fire is going to be fought.
Other buildings have had multiple entire floors on fire, yes. But those buildings didn't have massive structural damage to start, and probably had the entire resources of the fire dept trying to put out the fire.
Well since there's no clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon it's kind of hard to agree. The problem I have with the whole argument from both sides is the completely unscientific and illogical methods. Did the government have a hand in 9/11? Frankly I have no idea, I've heard arguments from both sides, both vehement. The problem is there is no conclusive evidence and to draw 100% certain conclusions about a situation with so much controversy is ridiculous, the biggest problem I have with it all is one side takes one wrong idea the other has and then runs with it assuming the entire side of the argument is wrong. (e.g. it's improbable bombs were planted in the buildings therefore everything you say is wrong)
It's frustrating to see people who are so certain when the evidence either way is so inconclusive, the proper approach should be a scientific one. If people wanted to know so bad they should form an independent unbiased organization with the sole priority of investigating what really happened in a professional manner. Otherwise it's all just a waste of time. False flag attacks have happened in the past and to assume the American government is immune to such events is insane, but to assume a conspiracy without conclusive evidence is equally insane
Buildings have elevator shafts. Some elevator shafts would undoubtedly have been damaged. Also undoubtedly, some burning materials and jet fuel would have fallen to the base of the building. It's completely naive to believe that nothing would have.
The massive loads of 15 floors of building falling is going to cause any floor below to immediately fail, especially the way the twin towers were constructed. It really is not surprising that the buildings fall so fast. If you think that any of the building contents are going to slow down that massive load significantly - well, it's like dropping a bowling ball on a tower made of cards.
No other buildings have collapsed due to fire, but no other buildings have had the same factors as the three buildings at ground zero. Buildings 1 & 2 had massive structural damage from the impact of the planes. Also, it was always assumed that if there ever was a fire, it would start out small, and that the fire dept could reach it when it still was small. There was almost certainly large areas of fire that were essentially unreachable to the fire fighters. The stairs to reach them had been cut. With the buildings already so damaged by the planes, there wasn't much of a safety factor left. The steel doesn't need to melt, it just gets significant;y weaker when heated. There simply wasn't enough structure left in certain areas, and the weakened steel simply could not hold up the enormous weight of the above floors, especially when they were subjected to significant forces that they were never intended to carry.
Building 7 had a significant amount of damage and was left burning without any attempt to fight the fire for 7 hours. The designers would never have considered such a scenario when designing the building. It's always assumed that a fire is going to be fought.
Other buildings have had multiple entire floors on fire, yes. But those buildings didn't have massive structural damage to start, and probably had the entire resources of the fire dept trying to put out the fire.
Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy.....
The flashes were not witnessed when the planes made impact. They were reported right before collapse.
"If you think that any of the building contents are going to slow down that massive load significantly - well, it's like dropping a bowling ball on a tower made of cards."
Wow.......you don't get it.
"Building 7 had a significant amount of damage and was left burning without any attempt to fight the fire for 7 hours. The designers would never have considered such a scenario when designing the building. It's always assumed that a fire is going to be fought."
You're reaching big time. How do you know what the desginers considered?
You shuold really check out what real architects, fire experts and engineers have to say about the collapse.
