It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by zakattack
steel looses 65 percent of its strength and 900 degrees so if the 80th floor was 1000 degrees it support structure made of "STEEL" was weak and there fore could not withstand the weight of all the floors from 81 on up to 110,


then why wasn't the non-weakened steel (floors 1-80) able to put up any resistance to the 30 floors on top? It's not possible for the entire building to fall at freefall speed when only the top had been weekened by fire.


probably becuase the fire does not stay conatined in one area, heat tends to radiate throughout steal, and there were plenty of elevator shafts for the fire to go up and throughout the whole building and heat up the rest of the steel structure,

this is just an example, if floor 80 was 1000 degrees the steel could possibly be between 60-70% weaker then the rest of the building, now heat does not stay in one spot it spreads, so floors 75-79 could be 800-900 degrees and 55-60& weaker and floor 68-74 say 700-800 degrees and could be 45-55% weaker so when say floors 78,79,80,81 gave way and all the weight on top from floors 80-110 come crashing down the steal structure below was not strong enough to support the weight




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Osama bin Laden with a golden ring in footage of a much later video.
I think we can scrap the ring-argument ok?






posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger
"we have firemen telling us there was a twenty story hole in the building"

We also have fireman talking about "bombs going off", and the "small pockets of fire" almost put out.

Who's fire fighters should we take on board - yours or mine?


Bombs going off? I thought they just heard explosions and compared it to the sound of bombs going off. How exactly does one distinguish between loud bangs anyway.

Planes crashed into skyscrapers, part of the debris are still falling as the temperature rises high enough to explode gas and water pipes, emergency generators that where kept in the towers would have combusted and either added to the inferno or blown up, and the entire towers integritity was failing under the increased weight of collapsed levels and heat damage..

..and then people think it odd loud bangs where heard?

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Hey reallynobody can you give us your background check so we can know whether you are mentally stable or not.This thread can have 5000+ replies and this # can go on and on and on until we have orwellion world where our future generations wont even question 9\11 or v for vendetta world in which the opposite or even much worse would happen.Plz do tell your background?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger
"we have firemen telling us there was a twenty story hole in the building"

We also have fireman talking about "bombs going off", and the "small pockets of fire" almost put out.

Who's fire fighters should we take on board - yours or mine?


How about physical evidence and eyewitness testimony thats not purposely and quite obviously taken out of context? If 30 on site witnesses to --anything--state one thing, and 5 who were in a different area say something else, whos testimony do you thing is more valid?

You seem to be a "small details mean everything" man and these things sway your conclusions.
If you believe in the controlled demo theory, what do you think of this small detail?
Please explain how you hammer and file it enough to fit into the "controlled demo" scheme.

Knowing what is necessary for imploding a building--i.e. the process needed for preping a structure to be imploded "in its own footprint" and knowing that anyone who would state that these things are not necessary are being either dishonest for conveinence sake or ignorant of reality-- using a real life example showing that the process of CD for a building almost as tall as #7 takes 4 months with a full crew working in the open--how do you explain it could have been done with no one noticing? Thanks.

I'll wait for you to change the subject to some small detail.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
Hey reallynobody can you give us your background check so we can know whether you are mentally stable or not.This thread can have 5000+ replies and this # can go on and on and on until we have orwellion world where our future generations wont even question 9\11 or v for vendetta world in which the opposite or even much worse would happen.Plz do tell your background?


Orwellian?? Well you're right about that. Anyone who would demand an explaination of personal background for having an opinion and presenting facts that counter the conspiracy status quo is VERY Orwellian. Maybe we should search his house while he's gone to see what kind of books he reads.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
Hey reallynobody can you give us your background check so we can know whether you are mentally stable or not.This thread can have 5000+ replies and this # can go on and on and on until we have orwellion world where our future generations wont even question 9\11 or v for vendetta world in which the opposite or even much worse would happen.Plz do tell your background?


And I get accused of belitteling people?! Besides, im sure you dont want ME to do MY OWN "background check"
if you don't even trust the facts and arguments I give.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Claim 9) America really wanted to invade Iraq and Afganistan and basically every other place. They needed an excuse, so orchestrated 9/11.

Counterclaim) Although I don't doubt megalomaniac characters of many people behind the american show curtains, I wasn't aware that America ever needed an excuse THAT good in order to justify a war.

But what amazes me the most, is that america apparently could arrange for something that vile, complex and time consuming as the 9/11 attack, something that must be the ultimate in conspiracy accomplishments, but can't get the Iraq war to go in it's favor. With so much preparation put into faking a terrorist attack, I would have at least expected something equally professional in Iraq, but it is shamefull. They can't even hide torture? It seems like the put little if no effort in preparing it, used old out-of-date invasion plans, or used morons to make to plans.


---Michael Moore actually said it best towards the end of F.9/11. He said something along the lines of:

War isn't meant to be WON. It's meant to be ongoing.
They are "botching" it or being nonprofessional about it on purpose. To keep it going. The fact the the U.S.A., a superpower can't "finish up over there in a desert already" is enough of a red flag. I mean, it's #in Iraq. There are so many other reasons for the belief of a "consiracy" obviously. But just the fact WE haven't completed the objective over THERE... it's a joke really.

This world is testing us. We are failing.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
www.popularmechanics.com...

"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST's estimation of the damage to WTC7's south face is in fact a complete guess based on the vague reports of, at most, three fire-fighters. Each of these accounts describes wildly differing severities, locations, and types of damage. With all the thousands of videos and photos that are available of the event and the scene afterwards, including the north, east and west faces of WTC7, strangely not one person felt compelled to point their camera at the alleged monstrous hole in the south face of the building and go click. All the other damaged buildings were photographed, so why did no one feel that the damage to WTC7 was photo-worthy?

Here is NIST's guess at the damage to WTC7:



Note that even NIST's guess of the damage is nowhere near the three columns (79 - 81) that allegedly failed thus causing the entire structure to collapse in perfect free fall implosion. And notice the damage region re-drawing and re-guesstimate. Here we see that NIST has repeated the method of pathological science they used for the towers, that is, re-guessing damage estimates when the results of the first assessments fail to produce the pre-formed conclusion, progressively tweaking and increasing the severity of those assessments until they do.

Also note that the location of those three massive columns under the east penthouse is the very same location where the largest and hottest thermal spectroscopy readings were recorded:





NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.

For "more research", read: "more tweaking to fit the predetermined results".

The NIST WTC7 report is now 12 months overdue.


But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.
A process which has only been observed three times before in the entire history of modern construction, and all in one day.


The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
The collapse was not diagonal in any way, shape, or form. It was perfectly level and simultaneous except for the kink where the east penthouse was. Popular Mechanics has perpetrated this lie because they are aware that a diagonal collapse would fit slightly more with NIST's preconceived conclusions as to the cause of the collapse. Notice how there are zero supporting pictures provided in the PM article for any of their contentions regarding WTC7.

This is not diagonal:



It does however fit very well with the characteristics of controlled demolition.

1. The initial collapse is marked by a kink in the middle of the building as the center columns are destroyed.
2. The outermost walls fall last and "lie down" on top of the rest of the building.
3. The building collapses into its own footprint and in a symmetrical fashion.










According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

The columns in question were specifically strengthened to handle many times this load. PM would have the average reader believe that the building was over-stressed by design and resting on a global collapse hair-trigger. Ask any structural engineer how much work goes into ensuring buildings and assemblies can handle many times the loads they will be expected to support.

Notice too how the article jumps from the alleged massive damage, straight to the failure of these columns, but no mention is made of the fact that these columns were nowhere near the damage region. No explanation is given for why or how these columns failed. The reader is tricked into associating the alleged damage with the column failure, when in fact no connection is provided.

Why didn't PM quote the following words from the NIST report?

"Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures."


There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

The above paragraph is meaningless mumbo-jumbo. PM strangely neglects to mention that the transfer girders were on the complete other side of the building to the damage. Your brain is supposed to go "damage...load...failure...oh, I get it." when in fact there is no connection made between the three. Again, deception by association.




Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Again PM strangely neglects to mention evidence which undermines their case.

From the FEMA report:


www.fema.gov...

Except for the SSB system, where it is understood that a UPS system provided backup power to the 75-gpm pump, the flow of oil would stop and, as soon as the day tanks [275 gallons] were empty, the involved generator would stop running.
...the SSB pump, which had a pumping rate of 75-gpm, would have drained the two 6,000gallon tanks serving that system in less than 3 hours [i.e all dried up by noon. The building collapsed in the very late afternoon].

(Square-bracket additions mine.)


Unsupported, deceptive rubbish from Chertoff's cousin's CIA-connected propaganda-rag here? What's ATS coming to? I thought for a moment I was on yahoo.groups...



[edit on 2006-6-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Yes, building 7 was mentioned before. It collapsed without any planes hitting it and limited fire. I could give arguments of my own, but why would you believe me? Instead, here is an excerpt from Popular Mechanics...



This was your REBUTTAL?


Allow me to retort, reallynobody.

Firstly, I asked you in my last post to you to respond to my argument, which you have used the quote button to highlight one section of in your last post, but you have not done so - in fact you have attempted to tiptoe around it by making the implication that I would automatically discount whatever rebuttal you present on the grounds of personal dogmatism.
Not only is this a transparently weak counter-argument but does not address at all what I and others here have raised regarding building 7. I assure you that if you have the ability to reason your way through my arguments and convince me that they are fallacious with logical and direct responses, I would be only too willing to believe you.
My statements thus still require a reasoned rebuttal from you or anyone else with your views here, and I invite you to try again.

Secondly, as has been eminently demonstrated elsewhere both at ATS and elsewhere, the popular mechanics article you have quoted (this time without the use of the quote button - why is that?
) is a completely spurious "hit-piece" that raises no serious challenges at all to the mystery surrounding building 7. My reasons for this statement follow.

To summarise for the benefit of yourself and those here who genuinely believe the PM article to be a definitive debunk of what it describes as the 9/11 "conspiracy theories", the article claims to do so by listing and "debunking" 16 claims of its choosing (all of which can be demonstrated to be straw-men) which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists". It provides no explanation as to how the authors arrived at this list of 16 points or how they determined that these were universally accepted as the key arguments used by the 9/11 skeptics. This alone would be enough reason for anyone truly interested in a truthful and unbiased account to discount the article outright, but to illustrate, a few of the straw men it presents as "arguments" are listed below:

1 - Where are the "pods" on the underbelly of the planes? Implying of course that this fringe theory was in general acceptance among 9/11 skeptics as part of the core of their beliefs. Poppycock.

2 - The article asserts that 9/11 skeptics all contend that no interceptor jets were scrambled on 9/11 and then uses an unreferenced citation of the official 9/11 commission report to "debunk" this obvious straw man. Drivel.

3 - The authors of the article, as though cognizant of the flaccidity of argument 2, attempt to bolster it with the frankly incredible assertion that such intercepts are NOT ROUTINE in the case of hijackings! Nonsense.

4 - The article asserts that 9/11 skeptics all contend that the plane that sttruck the South tower had no windows (?!?!?!) and then triumphantly claims the debunking of this point as another point in favour of its argument, when no reasoning person with the ability to do the most cursory analysis of the footage available wouldever make such a claim. Rubbish.

5 - The assertion (to my understanding one that has never had widespread support among 9/11 skeptics - in fact, I personally had not come across it until reading the PM article, and I've been looking into 9/11 since it happened) that explosives in the BASEMENTS of the WTC caused damage to the lobbies at the time the planes hit is again wrongly touted as being among the crown jewels of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and the debunking of this particular straw man actually forms the mainstay of the PM article's argument. Ludicrous.

6 - The PM article mentions NONE of the aspects of the collapse that suggest controlled demolition OTHER THAN "PUFFS OF DUST" (not the vast billowing clouds of concrete, dust and other particles that all here without selective vision have seen again and pluming from the buildings, but merely "puffs of dust"!). It does not mention the numerous other inconvenient observations made by the skeptic community such as the squibs, the radially symmetrical nature of the collapse, the near free-fall speed, the blast-waves observed to shatter adjacent buildings' windows and the reports of explosions, the shredded steel from the towers, etc. Feeble.

7 - The PM article mistakenly portrays the 9/11 skeptics as holding the view that the official account of collapse due to fire were contingent on fires MELTING the steel, where no such consensus was made. Again, the straw man. Baseless.

8 - The article repeatedly cites several rather weak 9/11 skeptic websites that have bought into some of the straw men it claims are generally accepted arguments among the truth movement, presenting them almost as the official organs of the 9/11 truth movement where this is categorically not the case. Pathetic.

I find it highly surprising that anyone still claims this PM article is a valid rebuttal at all to the skeptic movement. It is transparently a hit piece, from the spurious and eroneous content, to the use of caveats and qualifiers and vague language, all the way to the outright attempts made by the authors to slur those with an opposing viewpoint and pigeonhole them with the all too convenient epithet of "Conspiracy Theorists" in its most common, derogatory sense.

If you are going to post a reply to my arguments, reallynobody, at least have the cojones to speak personally to them without citing such rubbish as a rebuttal. Try harder.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt
War isn't meant to be WON. It's meant to be ongoing.
They are "botching" it or being nonprofessional about it on purpose. To keep it going. The fact the the U.S.A., a superpower can't "finish up over there in a desert already" is enough of a red flag. I mean, it's #in Iraq. There are so many other reasons for the belief of a "consiracy" obviously. But just the fact WE haven't completed the objective over THERE... it's a joke really.


But that is circle-reasoning! That would mean that both successes and failures of the government are evidence of their abilities to cover-up.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Okay, I'm forging into this headlong because I really don't have the time to read every new thread debunkings the conspiracy claims made on ATS (and there's rather a lot of such threads). In this I will apply my take on the issues as I see fit, and I apologizeto anyone that may have previously made the same comment.

Here goes:


Originally Posted by reallynobody

Claim 1) Osama was not behind it because he wears a ring in one of the videos. Islamics aren't SUPPOSED to wear jewellery so it couldnt have been Bin Laden so it must have been American agents in disguise.

Counterclaim) Islamics aren't allowed to wear jewellery, but they aren't allowed to have their picture taken or put on film either. Osama doesn't have a problem with that does he?! There have been terrorist attacks on friday too, even though friday is an islamic restday. Guess Islamic terrorists don't care about religious rules afterall when it suits them.


Never heard this line of reasoning, nor have I ever really paid close attention to the Bin Laden videos, because regardless of conspiracy theory, I've always felt they were fake, either by the US government,or by Al Quaeda themselves.


Claim 2) A Koran that was found in the trunk of a car belonging to one of the hijackers was planted by government agents. Why wouldn't the terrorist take it with him on the plane?

Counterclaim) It is against the Islamic religion to destroy a Koran. This is actually quite an important rule too. (even worse than to carry rings) Guess the terrorists where smart enough to understand that a Koran might get damaged by taking it onbard a suicide-run.


Once again, I've never heard this line of reasoning. Even if it is true, it stands to reason that it has nothing to do with conspiracy theory.


Claim 3) There are eye-witnesses that claim that there where other planes in the vacinity when a plane 'supposedly' crashed into the pentagon. Obviously these must be part of the conspiracy, for instance firing a missile into that building.

Counterclaim) The eye-witnesses that claim to see other planes don't quite agree with eachother what kind of planes these would have been, or even HOW MANY other planes there where. Besides, there are planes in the sky all the time, so what?


I have never heard that other eyewitnesses have seen several planes in the area of the Pentagon crash (by the way, for future reference, Pentagon is capitalized). The only aircraft debate that I have seen from eyewitnesses is regarding the exact make and model of aircraft. As I have stated in other posts in this forum, it is VERY difficult for a civillian to make out the exact make and model of an aircraft flying at high speed (reportedly around 550mph), and at low altitude (roughly 30 feet or less). All eyewitness reports, however, do seem to agree on the notion that it was a twin jet engine passenger aircraft, with an American Airlines logo on the tailsection. This means that it could have been any number of commercial or military jets (as far as the military jets, they could have easilly been painted to look like an AA jet, as is outlined in the Operation Northwoods document). By alleyewittness accounts, there's no way to tell the size of the plane,or how many passengers it could carry. At that rate of speed and low altitude, a Leer Jet (50' wingspan, 12 passenger max) could have looked like a 757 to a shocked and suprised bystander.


And with soooo many aquite eyewitnesses around you can't fire a rocket at the pentagon. They tend to make for a lot of noise, smoke and sight, even before they detonate. How can people spot every plane in the sky but miss a huge air-to-ground missile screeching through the air?

Further more, there are also eye-witnesses that claim that they clearly saw a giant passenger airliner move close over the ground heading towards the Pentagon.


No, a rocket being fired at the Pentagon is a silly notion, even knowing what I do about the Pentagon' exterior walls, and the resultant damage. Even as a long range missile, we wouldn't have so many eye-witness reports claiming to have seen an airplane. For further details, please see my response above.


Claim 4) There was thermite found in the remains of the WTC rubble! This means that it was all a set-up.

Counterclaim) Thermite is a big word. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). So what did people find that got all the tin-hatties excited? Microscopic bits of aluminium and rusty iron.

Considering that two mostly aluminium planes just crashed into two steel and iron filled towers: is it TRULY surprising?

I guess researchers published findings on analysis of the rubble, and some conspiracy theorists took the wrong conclusions.


Personally, I'm not a big fan of the thermite theory either (considering, for a moment, if it was a controlled demolition, there's much easier and cheaper methods to destroy a building - even a steel frame building - such as the typical TNT or Dynamite that's used in average building demolition/implosion). Even in light of that opinion, there is compelling evidence to suggest thermite residue (and yes, it does leave residue, in the form of pure iron and aluminum oxide, neither of which would be found in the aftermath of a jet fuel burn involving an aircraft in a steel frame building. Much higher temperatures would be required to create these elements in such quantity in the collapse site).


Claim 5) No building ever collapsed because of a fire!

Counterclaim) Did those buildings had planes fly into them?
(On a side not I doubt that no building ever collapsed after a fire, some buildings rely heavily on wood reinforcements, so at most no STONE building ever collapsed because of fire. Although I doubt that as well.)


This is, indeed, fact. To date, the only steel frame buildings to collapse under the official explanation of fire are WTC 1, 2, and 7. Steel has a melting point of 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Jet fuel, often alcohol or propane, has a maximum burning temperature of roughly 700 degrees F. That said, even jet fuel does not burn hot enough to compromise the integrity of structural steel (which often has an even higher soften/melt temperature, due to the nature of usage for said steel). Outside of jet fuel, the only other combustibles available in the building (unless someone was hiding a whole lot of fuel on 55 out of 110 floors) would be paper products and flame reatardant office furniture (and the flame retardancy is due to Federal safety laws), which will often not combust at less than 700 degrees F, but rather smoulder and become a general mess. That said, it's possible for the jet fuel to have ignited the office furniture, but even those pieces that did burn would not burn for long, as the flame retardant nature of it would extinguish itself before a hot fire could start.

So, without any fuel hot enough to compromise the integrity of steel, let alone melt it, how could such a building collapse from fire?



Claim 6) The two towers where engineered to withstand impacts of planes. This proves that planes could not have brought it down!

Counterclaim) Was it tested? Where there planes flown against the towers which then bounced back or something?

A part of a French airport terminal collapsed once because of lousy architecture.
If it is so difficult designing something based on a known concept, I can imagine
how difficult it must be to design something that you can't even test.


The WTC buildings were not actually engineered to withstand the impact of an aircraft, but upon post implementation testing of the design, it was found that the structure could actually withstand the impact of one (and possibly more) Boeing 707 jets (the predecessor to the 747, and only slightly smaller in size - much bigger than the 767s that crashed into the WTC towers).

Just some food for thought.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by innerevolt
War isn't meant to be WON. It's meant to be ongoing.
They are "botching" it or being nonprofessional about it on purpose. To keep it going. The fact the the U.S.A., a superpower can't "finish up over there in a desert already" is enough of a red flag. I mean, it's #in Iraq. There are so many other reasons for the belief of a "consiracy" obviously. But just the fact WE haven't completed the objective over THERE... it's a joke really.


But that is circle-reasoning! That would mean that both successes and failures of the government are evidence of their abilities to cover-up.


Circle Reasoning? The point is there is no "failure" only success as long as the war keeps going. Thats the success. The longer the war, the more money is made. By no means if we "lose the war" will it be a failure. It would probably be more of a success. We were there for desert storm and accomplished nothing. We're "there again because" of it for the most part. So if we "don't win" this time, it will be easy again to find another reason to go back after everyone forgets how we were there doing the same # 10-15 yrs ago.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulcanelli
Firstly, I asked you in my last post to you to respond to my argument, which you have used the quote button to highlight one section of in your last post, but you have not done so - in fact you have attempted to tiptoe around it by making the implication that I would automatically discount whatever rebuttal you present on the grounds of personal dogmatism.


What I MEANT, was that I am not such an expert on architecture as the people who wrote the article in Popular Mechanics. Are you?



Not only is this a transparently weak counter-argument but does not address at all what I and others here have raised regarding building 7.

But the article excerpt does which was why I posted it in the freakin first place.



It provides no explanation as to how the authors arrived at this list of 16 points or how they determined that these were universally accepted as the key arguments used by the 9/11 skeptics.

So? I guess they focused on the elements they felt they where the most qualified to explain. Isn't that what people on this thread have been doing? Focus on the arguments that they know the best?



1 - Where are the "pods" on the underbelly of the planes? Implying of course that this fringe theory was in general acceptance among 9/11 skeptics as part of the core of their beliefs. Poppycock.

Pods? That is when people watch low quality video and claim that there are ''pods" attached to the planes that crash into the towers?
How on earth could planes with pods attached not be noticed on the airfields? And why would you attach bombs on the outside of the planes, that doesn't even make a liquior-sense. I thought the building itself was already rigged, what would be the point of adding an extra huge bomb on the outside of the plane for all to see. Everyone can see them right? Well conspiracy theorists can at least. I can't. I guess Im not wearing the special sunglasses. (yes that was a THEY LIVE reference) Show me pods on a video where the pixels aren't the size of smilies. I mean seriously, pods?



2 - The article asserts that 9/11 skeptics all contend that no interceptor jets were scrambled on 9/11 and then uses an unreferenced citation of the official 9/11 commission report to "debunk" this obvious straw man. Drivel.

Do you have a link to footage of those interceptor jets?




3 - The authors of the article, as though cognizant of the flaccidity of argument 2, attempt to bolster it with the frankly incredible assertion that such intercepts are NOT ROUTINE in the case of hijackings! Nonsense.

Before 9/11 it depended on whether airtraffic controllers where certain there was a hijacking going on or not. After 9/11 even the probability is enough.



4 - The article asserts that 9/11 skeptics all contend that the plane that sttruck the South tower had no windows (?!?!?!) and then triumphantly claims the debunking of this point as another point in favour of its argument, when no reasoning person with the ability to do the most cursory analysis of the footage available wouldever make such a claim. Rubbish.


9/11 skeptics believe that that the plane had no windows? I think you mean 9/11 conspiracy theorists? If you mean "skeptics" as skeptic agains't the official version, then plz stop using that word. It gets confusing. In any case there are theorists claiming the plane had no windows, and so it is fair game to debunk it. That not all theorists buy it is not necessarily obvious to outsiders. For most people there is only ony group, the public hardly realizes how much discrepancy there is among conspiracy theorists.



5 - The assertion (to my understanding one that has never had widespread support among 9/11 skeptics - in fact, I personally had not come across it until reading the PM article, and I've been looking into 9/11 since it happened) that explosives in the BASEMENTS of the WTC caused damage to the lobbies at the time the planes hit is again wrongly touted as being among the crown jewels of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and the debunking of this particular straw man actually forms the mainstay of the PM article's argument. Ludicrous.

I remember reading about it, but most theorists claim that the bombs where distributed right? That was a mistake of popular mechanics, they should have spent more time on other theories as well. But the lack of mentioning of many of the claims doesn't reduce the credibility of the debunking of claim they DID investigate.



6 - The PM article mentions NONE of the aspects of the collapse that suggest controlled demolition OTHER THAN "PUFFS OF DUST" (not the vast billowing clouds of concrete, dust and other particles that all here without selective vision have seen again and pluming from the buildings, but merely "puffs of dust"!). It does not mention the numerous other inconvenient observations made by the skeptic community such as the squibs, the radially symmetrical nature of the collapse, the near free-fall speed, the blast-waves observed to shatter adjacent buildings' windows and the reports of explosions, the shredded steel from the towers, etc. Feeble.

Incorrect. The article also mentions other claims such as "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below" AND
"The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." (The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.") AND seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers.



7 - The PM article mistakenly portrays the 9/11 skeptics as holding the view that the official account of collapse due to fire were contingent on fires MELTING the steel, where no such consensus was made. Again, the straw man. Baseless.

No concensus if EVER MADE, there are too many opposing views for that. Does that mean nobody is allowed to discuss it anymore? If you want to adress every claim you end up with something a lot bigger than an article. And where do they say that the claim is hold by all 9/11 conspiracy theorists? They only say it was used by conspiracy theorists. That doesn't give the illusion of all of them believing it any stronger then saying that "the secret service was behind it" gives the illusion that all agents are involved.



8 - The article repeatedly cites several rather weak 9/11 skeptic websites that have bought into some of the straw men it claims are generally accepted arguments among the truth movement, presenting them almost as the official organs of the 9/11 truth movement where this is categorically not the case. Pathetic.

See point 7. Absense of mentioning of additional claims IN NO WAY diminishes the validity of the debunking of the mentioned claims. If it was, then all what you just said is all "pathetic" and useless aswell, as you don't adress the actual entire article either! You seem to focus solely on the absence of certain claims and ignore the content, which is no less wrong as not discussing all possible claims theorists as of yet have thought up.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by innerevolt
War isn't meant to be WON. It's meant to be ongoing.
They are "botching" it or being nonprofessional about it on purpose. To keep it going. The fact the the U.S.A., a superpower can't "finish up over there in a desert already" is enough of a red flag. I mean, it's #in Iraq. There are so many other reasons for the belief of a "consiracy" obviously. But just the fact WE haven't completed the objective over THERE... it's a joke really.


But that is circle-reasoning! That would mean that both successes and failures of the government are evidence of their abilities to cover-up.


Circle Reasoning? The point is there is no "failure" only success as long as the war keeps going. Thats the success. The longer the war, the more money is made. By no means if we "lose the war" will it be a failure. It would probably be more of a success. We were there for desert storm and accomplished nothing. We're "there again because" of it for the most part. So if we "don't win" this time, it will be easy again to find another reason to go back after everyone forgets how we were there doing the same # 10-15 yrs ago.



Circle-reasoning creates a situation in which there is no way out. That is why scientists are thaught to avoid it. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are creating a deadlock reasoning.

That aside, the war could have gone on without america loosing popularity in the west. It just isn't worth it. Besides, people told me that the 9/11 attack was so insanely huge as to justify everthing the gov wants to do, then I don't see the use of further excuses.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Claim 2) A Koran that was found in the trunk of a car belonging to one of the hijackers was planted by government agents. Why wouldn't the terrorist take it with him on the plane?

Counterclaim) It is against the Islamic religion to destroy a Koran. This is actually quite an important rule too. (even worse than to carry rings) Guess the terrorists where smart enough to understand that a Koran might get damaged by taking it onbard a suicide-run.


Once again, I've never heard this line of reasoning. Even if it is true, it stands to reason that it has nothing to do with conspiracy theory.


Some theorists disagree with you on that, last time I heard of it it was made out to be a big deal.


Claim 3) There are eye-witnesses that claim that there where other planes in the vacinity when a plane 'supposedly' crashed into the pentagon. Obviously these must be part of the conspiracy, for instance firing a missile into that building.

Counterclaim) The eye-witnesses that claim to see other planes don't quite agree with eachother what kind of planes these would have been, or even HOW MANY other planes there where. Besides, there are planes in the sky all the time, so what?


I have never heard that other eyewitnesses have seen several planes in the area of the Pentagon crash (by the way, for future reference, Pentagon is capitalized). The only aircraft debate that I have seen from eyewitnesses is regarding the exact make and model of aircraft. As I have stated in other posts in this forum, it is VERY difficult for a civillian to make out the exact make and model of an aircraft flying at high speed (reportedly around 550mph), and at low altitude (roughly 30 feet or less). All eyewitness reports, however, do seem to agree on the notion that it was a twin jet engine passenger aircraft, with an American Airlines logo on the tailsection. This means that it could have been any number of commercial or military jets (as far as the military jets, they could have easilly been painted to look like an AA jet, as is outlined in the Operation Northwoods document). By alleyewittness accounts, there's no way to tell the size of the plane,or how many passengers it could carry. At that rate of speed and low altitude, a Leer Jet (50' wingspan, 12 passenger max) could have looked like a 757 to a shocked and suprised bystander.


I agree eyewitnesses are unreliable but what happened to the passenger-airliner? What is the point of faking a crash if you already control a passenger plane that is in the vicinity?


And with soooo many aquite eyewitnesses around you can't fire a rocket at the pentagon. They tend to make for a lot of noise, smoke and sight, even before they detonate. How can people spot every plane in the sky but miss a huge air-to-ground missile screeching through the air?

Further more, there are also eye-witnesses that claim that they clearly saw a giant passenger airliner move close over the ground heading towards the Pentagon.


No, a rocket being fired at the Pentagon is a silly notion, even knowing what I do about the Pentagon' exterior walls, and the resultant damage. Even as a long range missile, we wouldn't have so many eye-witness reports claiming to have seen an airplane. For further details, please see my response above.



Glad you agree with that.


Claim 4) There was thermite found in the remains of the WTC rubble! This means that it was all a set-up.

Counterclaim) Thermite is a big word. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). So what did people find that got all the tin-hatties excited? Microscopic bits of aluminium and rusty iron.

Considering that two mostly aluminium planes just crashed into two steel and iron filled towers: is it TRULY surprising?

I guess researchers published findings on analysis of the rubble, and some conspiracy theorists took the wrong conclusions.


Personally, I'm not a big fan of the thermite theory either (considering, for a moment, if it was a controlled demolition, there's much easier and cheaper methods to destroy a building - even a steel frame building - such as the typical TNT or Dynamite that's used in average building demolition/implosion). Even in light of that opinion, there is compelling evidence to suggest thermite residue (and yes, it does leave residue, in the form of pure iron and aluminum oxide, neither of which would be found in the aftermath of a jet fuel burn involving an aircraft in a steel frame building. Much higher temperatures would be required to create these elements in such quantity in the collapse site).


There was partially molten steel right? Steel contains iron right? So how do you tell apart molten iron residues resulting of thermite from molten iron residues resulting from molten steel? There both iron. And aluminium melts at a far lower temperature than even steel.


Claim 5) No building ever collapsed because of a fire!

Counterclaim) Did those buildings had planes fly into them? (On a side note I doubt that no building ever collapsed after a fire, some buildings rely heavily on wood reinforcements, so at most no STONE building ever collapsed because of fire. Although I doubt that as well.)


This is, indeed, fact. To date, the only steel frame buildings to collapse under the official explanation of fire are WTC 1, 2, and 7. Steel has a melting point of 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Jet fuel, often alcohol or propane, has a maximum burning temperature of roughly 700 degrees F. That said, even jet fuel does not burn hot enough to compromise the integrity of structural steel (which often has an even higher soften/melt temperature, due to the nature of usage for said steel). Outside of jet fuel, the only other combustibles available in the building (unless someone was hiding a whole lot of fuel on 55 out of 110 floors) would be paper products and flame reatardant office furniture (and the flame retardancy is due to Federal safety laws), which will often not combust at less than 700 degrees F, but rather smoulder and become a general mess. That said, it's possible for the jet fuel to have ignited the office furniture, but even those pieces that did burn would not burn for long, as the flame retardant nature of it would extinguish itself before a hot fire could start.

So, without any fuel hot enough to compromise the integrity of steel, let alone melt it, how could such a building collapse from fire?


Well obviously the fuel was hot enough to melt some steel,otherwize there would not have been molten parts. But a fire isn't as simple as people make it out.
As it progresses it does get hotter and hotter, the maximum temperature of jet fuel has nothing to do with the maximum termperature of a fire, even if it runs (partly?) on jet fuel. That the maximum temperature of jet fuel can't reach above 700 degrees only means that the stuff can't produce any more heat at any given time. Steel and other heatconducting materials absorp heat like a battery and it builts up till it explodes (concrete explodes at around 2000 degree C) or melts. In the case of steel, the fire retardent foam should have prevented heat conduction, however it was found to be lacking. Iinvestigation clearly shows that the foam was only applied partially, and even a single spot could have allowed heat conduction. (maybe a new basis for a heory?)



Claim 6) The two towers where engineered to withstand impacts of planes. This proves that planes could not have brought it down!

Counterclaim) Was it tested? Where there planes flown against the towers which then bounced back or something?

A part of a French airport terminal collapsed once because of lousy architecture.
If it is so difficult designing something based on a known concept, I can imagine
how difficult it must be to design something that you can't even test.


The WTC buildings were not actually engineered to withstand the impact of an aircraft, but upon post implementation testing of the design, it was found that the structure could actually withstand the impact of one (and possibly more) Boeing 707 jets (the predecessor to the 747, and only slightly smaller in size - much bigger than the 767s that crashed into the WTC towers).

Just some food for thought.



Thanks but I like my food processed. It was only found that the initial impact won't bring the towers down right? Well it didnt. It was the combination of heat weakening and the impact.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
>>>>Circle-reasoning creates a situation in which there is no way out. That is why scientists are thaught to avoid it. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are creating a deadlock reasoning.

That aside, the war could have gone on without america loosing popularity in the west. It just isn't worth it. Besides, people told me that the 9/11 attack was so insanely huge as to justify everthing the gov wants to do, then I don't see the use of further excuses.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt
>>>>Circle-reasoning creates a situation in which there is no way out. That is why scientists are thaught to avoid it. I understand what you are trying to say, but you are creating a deadlock reasoning.

That aside, the war could have gone on without america loosing popularity in the west. It just isn't worth it. Besides, people told me that the 9/11 attack was so insanely huge as to justify everthing the gov wants to do, then I don't see the use of further excuses.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by innerevolt
I'm not sure what you mean exactly in the second paragraph. The 9/11 attack was insanley huge in terms of the statement it made and what it must have took for the orchestration of it (conspiracy or not) but in terms of casualties/injuries it was nothing. The U.S. has aided in the forming of these "terrorist groups/countries" and many other atrocities (genocides in South America, the Holocaust depending on what you've read/believe


Im going to pretend you didn't say that for the sake of conversation


just plain bombing of innocent people/cities). ANYWAY... sorry... i think the attack HAD to be huge to get ppl really upset. So upset to just shoot and ask questions later.

I'm sure you've heard it before, but just look at who benefits from # like this. People with the means and motive. Look at it like no one knows who did it yet and you have to figure it out. No bias on leaving anyone out. Include everyone as a suspect even the gov't it happened to. If you investigate it like that, too much eveidence points to a home job. That's another reason I think its a test for us. It's so obvious to me and i'm sure others that it's like they are saying "see what we can do and get away with unopposed?"

Thank you for responding to me btw. And no disrespect meant at all. Just conversation...


Except for the remark which I chose to ignore, no disrespect taken. But the Cuba plans clearly show a much smaller scenario justifying a Cuban invasion. And wouldn't people just forget about 9/11 in a while? The next generation will only read about it in history books and I doubt theres going to be a repeat of such every 50 years or so to keep peoples memory fresh.


Yeah, notice how i put depending on what you've read/believe? that left you an out to disregard. But thanks for pointing it out. Now i know you really dont do that much research. I guess I should have picked up on that just by you starting this thread, but I gave you respect.

I dont think we are on the same level, for lack of a better description. I'm not sure why you are responding with what you are responding with. Yeah, im sure people will forget about the attacks in 50 years. I dont get your point. Why did you say that? Are you doing this one purpose? seriously. It's confusing.
The best most appropriate and relevant response i have to your comment is: yeah, people will forget about it. Whats the point in ANYTHING we are talking about really when it will all just become history that doesn't REALLY concern the present anymore, at least not in the way it happened.
Or maybe, yeah, most will forget, but like some CIA and FBI files that come to light over a long period of time, files pertaining to this will come to light giving us a better answer for what really happened. And a few individuals (i.e. some of these posters grandkids) will be right there to peice them together and debate, talk about it with a bit more conviction in light of new evidence.

Again, thats the best response I have for your what seems to me out-of-context response.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Thanks for the post wecomeinpeace. It feels a bit lame posting a short reply to a long post but I have posted quite a lot already.

Basically I wanted to say this:

People keep pointing to the building 7 collapse as similar to a controlled demolition. But controlled demolition is bascially an equal weakening of the integrity of a structure so that it will collapse completely without any bits left behind. If the weakening occurs equal, the weight of a building will drag the rest down with it.

The fact that the building wasn't hit by an airplane does not alter the fact that building 7 would have received a massive weakening due to the shockwaves of the impacts.

Such shockwaves are responsible for what allowed even a small bomb to shatter windows blocks away, even the windows that did not shatter would have seriously reduced lifespans as their structure would likely have suffered microscopic damage.

Since the shockwave was large it would have affected building 7 and the fire was no limited to only one side of the building, why would it not have had it's structure weakened severely enough to collapse in a controlled manner?

The only reason most buildings do not collapse in a controlled is because the explosions, impacts and fire are usually too local to affect much of the structure elsewhere. Therefore only one side might collapse or the collapse is far more chaotic.

An analogy would be to compare elastic and plastic. The plastic sheet would allow you to punch a hole in it and with sufficent thickness only a small hole results.
However the heat reduced the hardness, it's rigidity, gradually to the point where it lost at least half or more of it's structural integrity. Attempting to punch a hole in a sheet of elastic, you will discover that the entire sheet is stretched out.

Considering the fractures and heat-weakening combined with the immense amount of weight that the beams carried it would have been the equivalent of transmuting the steel into rubber. Because of this the building collapsed into itself.

I would like to say that there is no shame in being proven wrong, only in not accepting you are wrong, but you would probably say the same about me


[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]




top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join