-
-
try this little experiment:
stack a bunch of bricks on a 4 leg table. then knock out one of the legs and see what happens.
does the table collapse straight down or does it fall over to the side of the missing leg?Comment
-
You're comparing 10 story buildings which broke down at the first floors to the wtc towers (100 floors or so?) which started to collapse almost on top? Seriously?
Fuck, i really wanted to stop responding to you but i just can't help to call you a big fucking idiot one more time...
Truly amazing..Comment
-
Those paragraphs I posted were not from the internet, they were from a book. A BOOK... do you know what that is?
I must have missed the rule that says I am not allowed to post someone else's information. So instead of talking about the issues presented in that information, you would rather just flame me for copying it from what you thought was the "internet." Real productive.Comment
-
damn, allanuk surely got more sig views from this thread than from all others combinedI don't use ICQ anymore.Comment
-
thats all any of us have been saying. its one thing to question some aspects of everything. its another thing to construct wildly impossible scenarios and try to argue them as fact and continually suggest that anyone who doesn't fully agree is brainwashed by CNN, while summarily dismissing any evidence that disputes any aspect of their "arguments".
just like the arguments this guy is making about bricks on a table. clearly out of touch with reality and grasping desperately for any argument he can make which are not even rooted in reality or the facts at all.Comment
-
the NIST report? what does the NIST report have to do with anything? if the government was at fault, of course a government agencies report would be fudged!
if a cop commited a crime, would it be fair to have his other police buddies do the investigation?
we already saw what happens when an independant agency does the investigation. people disguard it as conspiracy theorists.
you can fake a report, you can't fake the video.Comment
-
Enlighten us how the official reports were all part of the conspiracy. Poke holes in the reports by showing what was concluded and how you know better. Post excerpts and how they were in error or covering up the real facts. You are the one that sounds ignorant with blanket statements like that.Comment
-
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they let this happen in one way or another. It was a great excuse to invade Iraq again (or at least they made it an excuse while obviously Iraq had nothing to with it) and basically start a war against anything middle east (they can use the 9/11 attacks forever as an excuse to invade middle eastern countries where muslim terrorists are). These attacks had a lot of benefits for some people. So yes, that's very possible but Bush and his buddies behind the attacks...nah, simply not possible. Just the amount of people that would've been involved makes it impossible.Comment
-
Well I kind of see what he's trying to say with that argument. The bottom side of the WTC7 building was totally gutted from all the falling debris from the 2 tall towers, so I would think maybe it would have collapsed towards the side that was gutted, not straight down as it appeared to have collapsed. It's hard to say though because I've never seen a picture of the entire damaged area of WTC7. The "official" report says the entire middle of the building's lobby area was completely gutted, so if true, it would make sense that it could collapse straight down. I just wish we had better pics of the building 7 damage. I can't prove that building 7 was demolitioned, but I must admit it does look pretty strange the way it appeared to collapse right down in on it's own footprint.Comment
-
John Farmer's new book might be able to enlighten you, I don't know for sure though because it's not out yet. He was on the 9/11 commission and he supposedly says in the book that at some level of the government that they agreed not to tell the truth about what happened. The book is called The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America?s Defense on 9/11.Comment
-
what other reason could bush use to invade iraq? he tried the WMD approach and what happened with that! where are they? they spent all our tax money to find them because they swore up and down they had them. so, where are they? are they still looking?
how many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent looking for them?
the truth is, everyone forgot why we went there in the first place.Comment
-
I would mostly agree except I'd say nothing is impossible, just very improbable.
Is it possible that controlled demolitions were used? Sure, in the absence of indusputable evidence like a frame by frame x-ray series of the entire buildings collapse, then we can only examine the evidence and say what most probably happened.
The number of people and the logistics required to wire those buildings up for controlled demolitions that had to perform flawlessly even after being hit by a plane and be kept an absolute secret just make it very, very improbable that this is what happened. Abigious "flashes" of a collapsing building and single words out of complex like "pull" does not change this. These things are not evidence.
We don't know for sure what happened that day, especially when it comes to motives, intelligence and involvment but any sane person can rule out ridiculous concepts like holographic planes and pop culture references..Comment
-
Did you look at the roll call of world renowned experts who all contributed to the NIST report? So they were all in on it too according to your reasoning? The vast conspiracy now includes hundreds of ph.d's, engineers...who have no other involvement with the gov't except being asked to examine the evidence and help write the report.
Why can't you just show how the NIST report and independent experts were totally wrong rather than just be dismissive of the report itself. Same thing with the Popular Mechanics report - truther's just call it yellow journalism and dismiss it rather than face head on what the experts actually concluded. What a cop out.Comment
-
.Comment
-
very interestingComment
-
I believe some conspiracy guys here are nuttier than others.
But what if you are wrong Franck, even if some don't know the inside of their hands??
Is it rational to compare God & religion with something that people did (terrorists).
After al people did the bible right, and they have been marketing it to believe every word in this holy book of wisedom...
Are you the one being manipulated here like the people believing the bible. You come off as if there's no way this could be staged, I thought you where way smarter than this.Comment
-
Ok, read your reply from StickyGreen.. What ever, I guess I didn't feel like
reading all this pages..
You are forgiven and been blessed by the lord.
Comment
-
Yes,I learned what books are when I got my degree in mechanical engineering at UW-Madison. I also learned how to formulate my own thoughts based on my own research and observations.
There is nothing productive that will come out of discussing anything with people that believe in the boogieman. Which clearly you do.You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.Comment
-
of course there was damage to WTC 7, just like there was damage to the verizon building and post office right next to them but they didn't collpase. why? because those buildings didn't have important documents that the government was trying to get rid of.
yes, they had to later demo the building but that's not the issue here. they didn't collapse like a textbook demolition pull.
they say WTC 7 collapsed because of damage to the bottom floors. look at this video. all the bottom floors weren't just damaged, they were completely destroyed by explosives (not failure), yet it didn't completely collapse.
Last edited by XXXMovie4M; 04-16-2009, 01:34 PM.Comment
-
The buildings were not constructed the same way and the report never said the damage to the lower floors was why it collapsed and it didn't come down like a textbook demolition pull. Just please have a look at the NIST Q&A http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html and refute the actual findings, not what you say they said.Comment
-
so if buildings are all completely different in construction, how can a demolition company possibly determine the outcome of a building pull? each pull would be a hit or miss.
it doesn't matter what the NIST report says. show me a report from an independant organization unrelated to the US government. people say it collpased because of damage to the bottom floors, others say it was from fire. it doesn't matter, buildings aren't designed to collapse straight down into their own footprint at free-fall speeds. how can a building do that without the help of explosives?
if the building collpased, it would have done it in stages as each floor pancaked into the next. the only way to get a building to collpase like that is to use perfectly placed explosives and blow out each floor to remove the support. if a building could collpase by knocking out the bottom floors, then why don't demo companies use that method? why do they set explosive on every floor?
fire would not have caused the building to collapse. it has never happened before and will never happen again.Last edited by XXXMovie4M; 04-16-2009, 02:00 PM.Comment
-
Why doesn't it matter? It explains how and why building 7 collapsed. It also explains that the building did in fact not fall at free fall speeds. It fell 40% slower than freefall in 3 distinct phases. You don't want to hear any of that though because it plays against your theory. So you're just going to dismiss the oppinions of hundreds of qualified contributors by saying it doesn't matter..Comment
-
See, there's no arguing with you because you just dismiss experts in the field as being under goverment control. We can't believe anything we read, only videos on you tube. I refuse to participate in endless debate with you when you are unwilling to employ even a tiny bit of logic.
You win dude, it was lizards with holographic planes in New York..Comment
-
-
you're dismissing clear evidence due to something written in a report. NIST can't fudge video footage, but i bet someone tried.
how many reports did the government produce saying iraq had WMD? where's the proof? there must be one shred of evidence, look at all the reports they prepared for congress! those reports were prepared by experts who spent alot of time and money putting the case together. surely they must have found at least one WMD!
show me one other report from a reputable (independent) organization confirming NIST's findings. just one! surely they must have had other agencies review the collapse, not just NIST.govComment
-
Soooo, do the rest of you believers in a conspiracy agree that the NIST Report findings by independent experts shouldn't even be reviewed because the gov't put it together? Like the solid evidence that there was no free fall...
Cause, if your answer is that the findings are useless and you refuse to counter them, then I have to believe that you just want to drink the cool-aid and are the real sheeple.Comment
-
because it will destroy our country. can you imagine what would happen if the real truth was exposed. it would be chaos.
even if the guy who pushed the button to set off the explosives admitted he did it, the government would come up with a way to discredit him so no one would believe him.
we have to face the fact that they got away with mass murder...again!Comment
-
i agree with you completely. but this is also the problem of this sort of insanity. as you know, you need all the evidence to make a determination and all of the evidence must be viewed in its proper context and in its entirety. you can't take a single important piece of information from dozens or hundreds and proclaim it as "proof" of something if your going to ignore any and all evidence that doesn't support that conclusion.
was WTC demo'ed? sure. probably. why not? would or should the government be honest about the destruction of a CIA office, its records, equipment etc or IRS office or all of the other important offices in that building? i don't agree they should. would we all be better off if they admitted to bringing that building down on purpose.. but not the others? doubtful. i think these arguments would be 10 times worse. and I don't think its a reasonable thing to create anarchy as an alternative.
furthermore, i personally tend to believe these discussions to be highly corrosive and destructive on the whole. "don't believe anything "they" tell you" is not exactly a tenet of a healthy, well functioning society (or individual for that matter). in fact, its the opposite. at its core, it undermines a society. should people not ask questions? of course they should. that's healthy. should people be running wild with impossible conspiracy theories, demanding that you be equally paranoid and distrustful of anyone in a position of authority? no... i don't think so.Last edited by Pleasurepays; 04-16-2009, 02:55 PM.Comment
-
i have to agree with you on some of this. there was a good reason why they staged the attack even if the population doesn't agree with it. the population would be outraged if they knew the truth. the truth is "oil" and iraq has 40% of the world's oil so they basically control us!
if we didn't go over there to keep an eye on our interests and they decided to strangle our economy by either overcharging the oil or witholding it altogether, the same people who were outraged by the attack would be saying "why can't we just go over there and make them sell it to us for a reasonable price?"
mark my words "we will never pull our troops out of iraq completely". there will always be many large military bases there.Comment
-
This thread has delivered many different arguments for and against.
Thanks to StickyGreen for providing info on Osama Bin Laden, and thanks to Dollarmansteve for his views on the psychology of the 911 truthers.
Personally I haven't yet come to a conclusion of what really happened that day, and the truth will probably never be known. The amount of information is simply too overwhelming to process, and all the socalled evidence can be tampered with. From both camps.
Many of the conspiracy videos use a lot of unnecessary manipulative propaganda tricks often seen in "documentaries". The psychic stressing background music, voice talking simultaneously while displaying text. The narrator asks many questions before quickly changing topic. "Facts" do not mention their source, but yet they are used as arguments. Pictures are small and unsharp etc. Tinfoil research is just a waste of time.
However this video is interesting.
If the video is true then you clearly see the demolition explosions on WTC7. It could be interesting to look for those flashes in other wtc7 videos, and see if they exist there too.That is a false statement. A video is a series of pictures with a soundtrack. In the same way as a screenshot can be edited in Photoshop, a video can be doctored to show exactly what someone wants you to believe it is. 
I think a building can collapse/tilt in many ways. All those pictures have one thing in common. They are all fairly small in comparison with wtc7 which had to hold the weight of 47 stories, plus structural damage from debris and fire weakening the steel.
And a video showing the fires in WTC7, and also damage on the surrounding buildings.
Just remember that in war the truth is always the first victim.
I must admit this topic is interesting.
Comment
-
here ya go...different view
Comment
-
About building 7.
Larry Silverstein says to pull it.
BBC Reports on something that hasn't happened yet.
Firemen and Police warn reporters the building is about to blow up.
Has any of this been covered yet?
Comment
-
did you hear the latest news on that shooting?
i know in the video it clearly looks like the cause of death was from a point blank gunshot wound to the head but appearently the mother hired a doctor to do a private autopsy and he discovered that a split second before she pulled the trigger the son had a brain aneurysm. looks like she's getting off scott free and she even gets his life insurance policy!
just another case where the pen truly is mightier than the video camera!Comment
-
i bet larry silverstein was really upset over this whole ordeal. not only did the poor guy have to watch his money pit buildings collapse, he now has to figure out how he's going to spend the 72 billion insurance payout.Comment
-
The WTC was attacked?<!--BEGIN SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->
<p align="center">
<a href="http://buddy.play.net/dr?TMOREAU1">
<img src="drplay.gif" width="128" height="64" alt="Play DragonRealms!"></a></p>
<!--END SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->Comment
-
Look at this crazy old man.
Comment
-
Comment