Another 9/11 Theory
-
So... Skimmed the below 9/11 thread this morning, and as an NYC resident (I was at college in the suburbs when it happened, but still in the area), I kind of have to chime in, right? Loose Change is bloody ridiculous, and so is Zeitgeist... I'm not even going to touch the garbage in CSS's signature, though I assume that's just as awful. Still, there are elements that don't seem to quite make sense... Off the top of my head... What are the pieces of the conspiracy theory that aren't COMPLETELY ridiculous? (i.e. the parts that have at least an ounce of credibility)... 1) Larry Silverstein, the owner, had very recently insured (Or was it bought & insured) the properties, and made a ton of money. 2) There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect). So, here's a different hypothesis that just popped into my head... Feel free to try to prove/disprove it. And keep in mind, this is JUST a hypothesis, not an accusation: A) The attack was done by a bunch of pissed-off terrorists, not by our government B) Larry Silverstein heard about the attack beforehand, or was contacted by said terrorists, or perhaps was already in contact with them, and figured he'd take advantage of it. C) Either he offered the twin towers as potential targets and promised to assist, or found they were already targeted and decided to ensure it all happened as planned. D) He hired a few very discrete people to plant explosives in the towers. When the towers looked about ready to collapse, he hit the switch and made sure it was a complete wipe, so he could collect the maximum amount of insurance and have the easiest job of rebuilding (No chance of the city just forcing him to repair) E) The government was just completely incompetent, and not in any way involved, but still saw that as the perfect excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, something they'd wanted to do for a while. Conspiracy members (Secret-keepers): Al Qaeda, Larry Silverstein, 5-10 hired "contractors" to plant charges Motivation: Money. Thoughts? EDIT (After seeing a bunch of the replies): Just to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, nor am I siding with it. Just trying to spark some discussion other than Climategate :)
Proud to have finally moved to
-
So... Skimmed the below 9/11 thread this morning, and as an NYC resident (I was at college in the suburbs when it happened, but still in the area), I kind of have to chime in, right? Loose Change is bloody ridiculous, and so is Zeitgeist... I'm not even going to touch the garbage in CSS's signature, though I assume that's just as awful. Still, there are elements that don't seem to quite make sense... Off the top of my head... What are the pieces of the conspiracy theory that aren't COMPLETELY ridiculous? (i.e. the parts that have at least an ounce of credibility)... 1) Larry Silverstein, the owner, had very recently insured (Or was it bought & insured) the properties, and made a ton of money. 2) There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect). So, here's a different hypothesis that just popped into my head... Feel free to try to prove/disprove it. And keep in mind, this is JUST a hypothesis, not an accusation: A) The attack was done by a bunch of pissed-off terrorists, not by our government B) Larry Silverstein heard about the attack beforehand, or was contacted by said terrorists, or perhaps was already in contact with them, and figured he'd take advantage of it. C) Either he offered the twin towers as potential targets and promised to assist, or found they were already targeted and decided to ensure it all happened as planned. D) He hired a few very discrete people to plant explosives in the towers. When the towers looked about ready to collapse, he hit the switch and made sure it was a complete wipe, so he could collect the maximum amount of insurance and have the easiest job of rebuilding (No chance of the city just forcing him to repair) E) The government was just completely incompetent, and not in any way involved, but still saw that as the perfect excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, something they'd wanted to do for a while. Conspiracy members (Secret-keepers): Al Qaeda, Larry Silverstein, 5-10 hired "contractors" to plant charges Motivation: Money. Thoughts? EDIT (After seeing a bunch of the replies): Just to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, nor am I siding with it. Just trying to spark some discussion other than Climategate :)
Proud to have finally moved to
Not sure I agree, Firstly, anybody with prior knowledge and enough intelligence to be i a position to exploit the knowledge would be smart enough not to, as the risk of discovery would far outweigh the benefits. Coincidences do happen - more often than you realize but its only on major events that they get noticed. (for example a lot of the code words for D-Day were used as answers to a crossword just days prior to the landings) The planned explosions idea, as the failure was from the impact site downward it was mighty good flying to impact the CORRECT floor, had they missed high or low it would have shown on the film - either the collapse starting floor below the impact or floors above the impact failing - the footage shows nothing of the sort but I will agree that E) makes perfect sense
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
So... Skimmed the below 9/11 thread this morning, and as an NYC resident (I was at college in the suburbs when it happened, but still in the area), I kind of have to chime in, right? Loose Change is bloody ridiculous, and so is Zeitgeist... I'm not even going to touch the garbage in CSS's signature, though I assume that's just as awful. Still, there are elements that don't seem to quite make sense... Off the top of my head... What are the pieces of the conspiracy theory that aren't COMPLETELY ridiculous? (i.e. the parts that have at least an ounce of credibility)... 1) Larry Silverstein, the owner, had very recently insured (Or was it bought & insured) the properties, and made a ton of money. 2) There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect). So, here's a different hypothesis that just popped into my head... Feel free to try to prove/disprove it. And keep in mind, this is JUST a hypothesis, not an accusation: A) The attack was done by a bunch of pissed-off terrorists, not by our government B) Larry Silverstein heard about the attack beforehand, or was contacted by said terrorists, or perhaps was already in contact with them, and figured he'd take advantage of it. C) Either he offered the twin towers as potential targets and promised to assist, or found they were already targeted and decided to ensure it all happened as planned. D) He hired a few very discrete people to plant explosives in the towers. When the towers looked about ready to collapse, he hit the switch and made sure it was a complete wipe, so he could collect the maximum amount of insurance and have the easiest job of rebuilding (No chance of the city just forcing him to repair) E) The government was just completely incompetent, and not in any way involved, but still saw that as the perfect excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, something they'd wanted to do for a while. Conspiracy members (Secret-keepers): Al Qaeda, Larry Silverstein, 5-10 hired "contractors" to plant charges Motivation: Money. Thoughts? EDIT (After seeing a bunch of the replies): Just to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, nor am I siding with it. Just trying to spark some discussion other than Climategate :)
Proud to have finally moved to
I'll buy everything you said, except that the government wasn't involved. Whether or not they were the ones to actually do it is debatable, IMO. But I have to say that your theories on Silverstein are probably accurate. The reason why I say the government must have been involved is because they are holding back evidence. If they were not at least partly guilty, they would have made all evidence public. Instead, they hold the planes and the black boxes in storage facilities. But that's just my two cents. I still don't know enough to make a full complaint/argument.
-
I'll buy everything you said, except that the government wasn't involved. Whether or not they were the ones to actually do it is debatable, IMO. But I have to say that your theories on Silverstein are probably accurate. The reason why I say the government must have been involved is because they are holding back evidence. If they were not at least partly guilty, they would have made all evidence public. Instead, they hold the planes and the black boxes in storage facilities. But that's just my two cents. I still don't know enough to make a full complaint/argument.
Or maybe, if I'm right (And that's a BIG "if"), they found out the truth, and realized it would be more beneficial to keep everyone pissed off at Bin Laden, than to give then Silverstein as a whipping boy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
So... Skimmed the below 9/11 thread this morning, and as an NYC resident (I was at college in the suburbs when it happened, but still in the area), I kind of have to chime in, right? Loose Change is bloody ridiculous, and so is Zeitgeist... I'm not even going to touch the garbage in CSS's signature, though I assume that's just as awful. Still, there are elements that don't seem to quite make sense... Off the top of my head... What are the pieces of the conspiracy theory that aren't COMPLETELY ridiculous? (i.e. the parts that have at least an ounce of credibility)... 1) Larry Silverstein, the owner, had very recently insured (Or was it bought & insured) the properties, and made a ton of money. 2) There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect). So, here's a different hypothesis that just popped into my head... Feel free to try to prove/disprove it. And keep in mind, this is JUST a hypothesis, not an accusation: A) The attack was done by a bunch of pissed-off terrorists, not by our government B) Larry Silverstein heard about the attack beforehand, or was contacted by said terrorists, or perhaps was already in contact with them, and figured he'd take advantage of it. C) Either he offered the twin towers as potential targets and promised to assist, or found they were already targeted and decided to ensure it all happened as planned. D) He hired a few very discrete people to plant explosives in the towers. When the towers looked about ready to collapse, he hit the switch and made sure it was a complete wipe, so he could collect the maximum amount of insurance and have the easiest job of rebuilding (No chance of the city just forcing him to repair) E) The government was just completely incompetent, and not in any way involved, but still saw that as the perfect excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, something they'd wanted to do for a while. Conspiracy members (Secret-keepers): Al Qaeda, Larry Silverstein, 5-10 hired "contractors" to plant charges Motivation: Money. Thoughts? EDIT (After seeing a bunch of the replies): Just to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, nor am I siding with it. Just trying to spark some discussion other than Climategate :)
Proud to have finally moved to
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect).
This one bugs me, with the damage done to the building structural members snapping shouldn't be much of a surprise, but the claims of a controlled demolition are based on a remarkable lack of knowledge of physics. When ten stories of building start falling onto the next few stories, there isn't jack shit that's going to stop it. The 'explosive force' or whatever they want to call it today propelling crap out the sides is nothing more than loose debris getting flung out by the force of the stories falling and impacting each other. But the real difference between the fall of the building and a real controlled demolition is quite simple. Watch a controlled demolition sometime, generally the explosives go off in stages, or drop the building all at the same time. Which leads to chunks of the building falling before the rest impacts them, at no point beyond the initial collapse do either of the main towers fall in any way other than through the impact of the upper portions of the tower. If that is the a controlled demolition it's one of the most impressive in history, and the engineers should be given a medal just before we string them up from a street lamp. And what someone heard in a massive building collapse between the thoughts of "wha?" and "I'm going to die" are hardly reliable evidence. The human mind has a remarkable ability to disconnect itself with reality and convince itself that things did in fact happen in some other way, take CSS for instance. There have been studies which show that people will be convinced of what they remember when they're afraid, even if they are completely incorrect in what they remember.
-
I'll buy everything you said, except that the government wasn't involved. Whether or not they were the ones to actually do it is debatable, IMO. But I have to say that your theories on Silverstein are probably accurate. The reason why I say the government must have been involved is because they are holding back evidence. If they were not at least partly guilty, they would have made all evidence public. Instead, they hold the planes and the black boxes in storage facilities. But that's just my two cents. I still don't know enough to make a full complaint/argument.
Correct me if iam wrong but I would think that there would naff all left of the planes. certainly nothing that anyone but a trained AAI would be able to identify, and certainly easy enough to fake, so why would you hide when you can fake? Black boxes are specized equipment requiring special equipment to decode, its not like you can just give it to a mathmatition brother of an FBI agent to decode, and again was its digital info if you have the equipment to decode then its a simple matter to fake it!
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
Or maybe, if I'm right (And that's a BIG "if"), they found out the truth, and realized it would be more beneficial to keep everyone pissed off at Bin Laden, than to give then Silverstein as a whipping boy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Correct me if iam wrong but I would think that there would naff all left of the planes. certainly nothing that anyone but a trained AAI would be able to identify, and certainly easy enough to fake, so why would you hide when you can fake? Black boxes are specized equipment requiring special equipment to decode, its not like you can just give it to a mathmatition brother of an FBI agent to decode, and again was its digital info if you have the equipment to decode then its a simple matter to fake it!
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
Alex hogarth wrote:
Correct me if iam wrong but I would think that there would naff all left of the planes. certainly nothing that anyone but a trained AAI would be able to identify, and certainly easy enough to fake, so why would you hide when you can fake?
Which again means they're guilty.
Alex hogarth wrote:
Black boxes are specized equipment requiring special equipment to decode, its not like you can just give it to a mathmatition brother of an FBI agent to decode, and again was its digital info if you have the equipment to decode then its a simple matter to fake it!
What of it? If they decode it, and all parties agree that this is what the black box holds, then there's no problem. However, they never exposed that evidence clearly. So there's something being covered up. That's all I'm getting at. In a free society, nothing should be uncovered. {edit} make that, "nothing should be covered up." {/edit}
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
Correct me if iam wrong but I would think that there would naff all left of the planes. certainly nothing that anyone but a trained AAI would be able to identify, and certainly easy enough to fake, so why would you hide when you can fake?
Which again means they're guilty.
Alex hogarth wrote:
Black boxes are specized equipment requiring special equipment to decode, its not like you can just give it to a mathmatition brother of an FBI agent to decode, and again was its digital info if you have the equipment to decode then its a simple matter to fake it!
What of it? If they decode it, and all parties agree that this is what the black box holds, then there's no problem. However, they never exposed that evidence clearly. So there's something being covered up. That's all I'm getting at. In a free society, nothing should be uncovered. {edit} make that, "nothing should be covered up." {/edit}
so they are guilty if they don’t release what is a pile of scrap and they are guilty if they do because its obviously faked! nice logic which all parties are these? the FAA has decoded these, but they are in the conspiracy aren’t they, so who do they need to have this checked by? and if your right then surely they could arrange a fake to present for testing! its a stupid argument that they are hiding something, recent revelations from the Lockabie bombing have shown that the CIA can be rather imaginative about evidence
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
If you are right, then they are partly guilty, aren't they? If they aren't guilty at all, and not trying to put something over the people, they would expose all evidence.
Guilty of keeping secrets (Using it to their advantage), not of planning the attack. But keep in mind, this whole thing is just an out-there hypothesis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Not sure I agree, Firstly, anybody with prior knowledge and enough intelligence to be i a position to exploit the knowledge would be smart enough not to, as the risk of discovery would far outweigh the benefits. Coincidences do happen - more often than you realize but its only on major events that they get noticed. (for example a lot of the code words for D-Day were used as answers to a crossword just days prior to the landings) The planned explosions idea, as the failure was from the impact site downward it was mighty good flying to impact the CORRECT floor, had they missed high or low it would have shown on the film - either the collapse starting floor below the impact or floors above the impact failing - the footage shows nothing of the sort but I will agree that E) makes perfect sense
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
Alex hogarth wrote:
The planned explosions idea, as the failure was from the impact site downward it was mighty good flying to impact the CORRECT floor, had they missed high or low it would have shown on the film - either the collapse starting floor below the impact or floors above the impact failing - the footage shows nothing of the sort
Hmm, very good point. That's a pretty big mark against this hypothesis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
So... Skimmed the below 9/11 thread this morning, and as an NYC resident (I was at college in the suburbs when it happened, but still in the area), I kind of have to chime in, right? Loose Change is bloody ridiculous, and so is Zeitgeist... I'm not even going to touch the garbage in CSS's signature, though I assume that's just as awful. Still, there are elements that don't seem to quite make sense... Off the top of my head... What are the pieces of the conspiracy theory that aren't COMPLETELY ridiculous? (i.e. the parts that have at least an ounce of credibility)... 1) Larry Silverstein, the owner, had very recently insured (Or was it bought & insured) the properties, and made a ton of money. 2) There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect). So, here's a different hypothesis that just popped into my head... Feel free to try to prove/disprove it. And keep in mind, this is JUST a hypothesis, not an accusation: A) The attack was done by a bunch of pissed-off terrorists, not by our government B) Larry Silverstein heard about the attack beforehand, or was contacted by said terrorists, or perhaps was already in contact with them, and figured he'd take advantage of it. C) Either he offered the twin towers as potential targets and promised to assist, or found they were already targeted and decided to ensure it all happened as planned. D) He hired a few very discrete people to plant explosives in the towers. When the towers looked about ready to collapse, he hit the switch and made sure it was a complete wipe, so he could collect the maximum amount of insurance and have the easiest job of rebuilding (No chance of the city just forcing him to repair) E) The government was just completely incompetent, and not in any way involved, but still saw that as the perfect excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, something they'd wanted to do for a while. Conspiracy members (Secret-keepers): Al Qaeda, Larry Silverstein, 5-10 hired "contractors" to plant charges Motivation: Money. Thoughts? EDIT (After seeing a bunch of the replies): Just to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this, nor am I siding with it. Just trying to spark some discussion other than Climategate :)
Proud to have finally moved to
I'm alway mindful with conspiracy theories that, 99.99% of the time (remember 83.4% of statistics are bullshit), the truth is far simpler and much more likely. In any case even if any of the conspiracy theories have even a grain of truth what do you think the chances are of those stories being proven? Bottom line is that there are many muslims that want to destroy the west and will take any and every opportunity to do so (having already tried to blow up the buildings once before) and this was just another opportunity though I will concede that it may have been preventable had there been more co-operation between the many and various intelligence agencies. However, that was a symptom of the time and I think it harsh to blame anyone other than the murdering bastards who took all of those innocent lives.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect).
This one bugs me, with the damage done to the building structural members snapping shouldn't be much of a surprise, but the claims of a controlled demolition are based on a remarkable lack of knowledge of physics. When ten stories of building start falling onto the next few stories, there isn't jack shit that's going to stop it. The 'explosive force' or whatever they want to call it today propelling crap out the sides is nothing more than loose debris getting flung out by the force of the stories falling and impacting each other. But the real difference between the fall of the building and a real controlled demolition is quite simple. Watch a controlled demolition sometime, generally the explosives go off in stages, or drop the building all at the same time. Which leads to chunks of the building falling before the rest impacts them, at no point beyond the initial collapse do either of the main towers fall in any way other than through the impact of the upper portions of the tower. If that is the a controlled demolition it's one of the most impressive in history, and the engineers should be given a medal just before we string them up from a street lamp. And what someone heard in a massive building collapse between the thoughts of "wha?" and "I'm going to die" are hardly reliable evidence. The human mind has a remarkable ability to disconnect itself with reality and convince itself that things did in fact happen in some other way, take CSS for instance. There have been studies which show that people will be convinced of what they remember when they're afraid, even if they are completely incorrect in what they remember.
Distind wrote:
And what someone heard in a massive building collapse between the thoughts of "wha?" and "I'm going to die" are hardly reliable evidence. The human mind has a remarkable ability to disconnect itself with reality and convince itself that things did in fact happen in some other way, take CSS for instance.
Agreed, which is why I said it's suspect. Just mentioning it to be thorough.
Distind wrote:
But the real difference between the fall of the building and a real controlled demolition is quite simple. Watch a controlled demolition sometime, generally the explosives go off in stages, or drop the building all at the same time. Which leads to chunks of the building falling before the rest impacts them, at no point beyond the initial collapse do either of the main towers fall in any way other than through the impact of the upper portions of the tower. If that is the a controlled demolition it's one of the most impressive in history, and the engineers should be given a medal just before we string them up from a street lamp.
See, I've heard that argument before (I'm just putting out a hypothesis here to be proven/disproven - Not saying I side with it), and it does seem to make sense. Lots of people have said a lot of different things about the collapse pattern, and though the bulk of the evidence supports an unplanned collapse (As opposed to explosives), there's enough to make you think. Personally, I think all of the confusion is due to the unusual design of the towers, which resulted in a different pattern than people are used to seeing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I'm alway mindful with conspiracy theories that, 99.99% of the time (remember 83.4% of statistics are bullshit), the truth is far simpler and much more likely. In any case even if any of the conspiracy theories have even a grain of truth what do you think the chances are of those stories being proven? Bottom line is that there are many muslims that want to destroy the west and will take any and every opportunity to do so (having already tried to blow up the buildings once before) and this was just another opportunity though I will concede that it may have been preventable had there been more co-operation between the many and various intelligence agencies. However, that was a symptom of the time and I think it harsh to blame anyone other than the murdering bastards who took all of those innocent lives.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
Agreed... But being "harsh" is part of the fun... I'm provoking some discussion here :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I'll buy everything you said, except that the government wasn't involved. Whether or not they were the ones to actually do it is debatable, IMO. But I have to say that your theories on Silverstein are probably accurate. The reason why I say the government must have been involved is because they are holding back evidence. If they were not at least partly guilty, they would have made all evidence public. Instead, they hold the planes and the black boxes in storage facilities. But that's just my two cents. I still don't know enough to make a full complaint/argument.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
Correct me if iam wrong but I would think that there would naff all left of the planes. certainly nothing that anyone but a trained AAI would be able to identify, and certainly easy enough to fake, so why would you hide when you can fake?
Which again means they're guilty.
Alex hogarth wrote:
Black boxes are specized equipment requiring special equipment to decode, its not like you can just give it to a mathmatition brother of an FBI agent to decode, and again was its digital info if you have the equipment to decode then its a simple matter to fake it!
What of it? If they decode it, and all parties agree that this is what the black box holds, then there's no problem. However, they never exposed that evidence clearly. So there's something being covered up. That's all I'm getting at. In a free society, nothing should be uncovered. {edit} make that, "nothing should be covered up." {/edit}
-
Agreed... But being "harsh" is part of the fun... I'm provoking some discussion here :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Oh, you don't mean... no... I won't believe it... you're trolling! :-)
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, ... nothing should be covered up
I disagree. In a free society, some things still need to be hidden from your enemies.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
some things still need to be hidden from your enemies.
Yes, the CIA's number one enemy, the American Public.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There were quite a few reports on how the collapses looked more like controlled demolition than a structural failure, and supposedly there were emergency workers on the scene who thought they heard explosions coming from BELOW, just before the collapse (Granted, echoes can be misleading, so this is suspect).
This one bugs me, with the damage done to the building structural members snapping shouldn't be much of a surprise, but the claims of a controlled demolition are based on a remarkable lack of knowledge of physics. When ten stories of building start falling onto the next few stories, there isn't jack shit that's going to stop it. The 'explosive force' or whatever they want to call it today propelling crap out the sides is nothing more than loose debris getting flung out by the force of the stories falling and impacting each other. But the real difference between the fall of the building and a real controlled demolition is quite simple. Watch a controlled demolition sometime, generally the explosives go off in stages, or drop the building all at the same time. Which leads to chunks of the building falling before the rest impacts them, at no point beyond the initial collapse do either of the main towers fall in any way other than through the impact of the upper portions of the tower. If that is the a controlled demolition it's one of the most impressive in history, and the engineers should be given a medal just before we string them up from a street lamp. And what someone heard in a massive building collapse between the thoughts of "wha?" and "I'm going to die" are hardly reliable evidence. The human mind has a remarkable ability to disconnect itself with reality and convince itself that things did in fact happen in some other way, take CSS for instance. There have been studies which show that people will be convinced of what they remember when they're afraid, even if they are completely incorrect in what they remember.
http://www.ae911truth.org/[^] 1085 architectural and engineering professionals and 7077 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
some things still need to be hidden from your enemies.
Yes, the CIA's number one enemy, the American Public.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yes, the CIA's number one enemy, the American Public.
The problem is that you start with this premise, and only count supporting data as valid. The correct method is to start from a neutral position and let the data show truth. I have a lot of experience that shows me CIA is a bunch of putzes, just like everyone else. Some are smart. Some are not. Some go for US Gov job security. Some go to do the right thing for the US. A very minor few go into it for power and control (Nobody goes for the money). An even smaller go in with illicit intent. All of those I know have gone to jail. 100% of them. You can and will believe what you want, and spout off about it more than anyone wants to hear. And the CIA is part of why you are able to. So thank them, the next time you cuss them.
Opacity, the new Transparency.