The 9/11 Conspiracy will Never Die.

Originally posted by Archirvion
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Did you say that there is no proof of that it was an inside job?

Have you not seen the conference the last years

? *shocked*

No, I haven't, and I'll tell you why- up until now, everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, the conspiracy people put out is either something taken out of context (I.E. Silverstein's, "pull it), adolescent innuendo dropping (I.E. "Bush knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Hitler. Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)") or an outright lie (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled on 9/11). Listening to the runaway abject paranoia of you conspiracy people, the 9/11 attack was really some gigantic secret plot that involved everyone from NORAD to Israel to even the American Red Cross.

What did this conference have that was any different? Please, enlighten me.

Originally posted by Juanxlink
So you say they went to the moon?
Where are the facts that prove that? And I dont mean the doctored pictures, or the rocks that could have been made here, I mean hard facts.

This isn't the moon landing hoax forum, dude, but you bring up a very good analogy to the 9/11 conspiracy movement- rubbish facts and outright falsehoods are running rampant and they're directly fueling the abject paranoia that's driving all these crackpot conspiracies of controlled demolitions, cruise missiles, faked crash sites, or whatever. All it takes is a 30 second google search to find out everythign you need to know, from why the moon rocks couldn't be made on Earth to how sociopathic Mohammed Attas was in his personal life, but you don't do that becuase these damned fool conspiracy web sites got to you first and filled your head with their own horse [censored].

You're right about one thing, though- these 9/11 conspiracies will never die, as long as there's still a buck to be made off of them by Dylan Avery and Alex Jones.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


We seek the truth.
The commissioners provide us with report that even themselves not satisfied.
While at it, some other guy provide us with agreeable hints of what is wrong.
We want to know if this is right because the report it self is doubtful.
We want the case to be reopen, double checked without compromise.
We just want the truth even if its hard swallow.

Is that a problem ? If thats a problem, then we sure have bigger problems.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by RainCloud]

Originally posted by RainCloud
We seek the truth.
The commissioners provide us with report that even themselves not satisfied.
While at it, some other guy provide us with agreeable hints of what is wrong.
We want to know if this is right because the report it self is doubtful.
We want the case to be reopen, double checked without compromise.
We just want the truth even if its hard swallow.

I have no problem with more investigations. Have as many investigatiosn as you want, becuase my opinion is that it's falsehoods, never the truth, than need to fear critique. My problem is with the people who have an ulterior agenda to manipulate the facts and who resort to outright lying to artificially make one scenario look more plausible than another.

Jone's thermite report is a sterling case in point. The WTC was chock full of steel, rust, and aluminum, so of course there's goign to be steel, rust, and aluminum found in the remains after it collapsed. His finding steel, rust, and aluminum in the dust and inventing the word, "thermitic material" to get people to believe he actually found thermite is disinformation and blatant dishonesty. In my mind, if you need to change the facts around to get people to believe what you're saying, then it's a de facto admission that you know what you're saying is false.

This should be in YOUR mind, as well, you know, but instead it's the very people guilty of this manipulation (Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, etc) that you're goign to, to get all your information. May I ask why?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well, who should we follow ?

The scene - burned, restricted and scoop up before anyone can touch it
The investigators - limited access to the scene, evidence and mismatch data
The gov/military - They predict, plan maneuver, exercise and ready for anything, yet crippled to act even at basic level ?
The report - if the writer himself complain about it, should we buy it ?

The conspiracies maker - they provide what is plausible and provide more question that I can think of, upraise a movement for transparency.

Again, who should we follow ?

Originally posted by RainCloud

Well, who should we follow ?

What do you mean, "who should you follow"? You shouldn't follow *anybody*. Do your own research and decide on your own which scenario sounds best, and once you have that, check out what you've been shown to see if it can be corroborated.

For me, I know from cases like the Katrina episode where the gov't couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims to know that there's no flipping way, shape, or form that the gov't could pull off this mind blowing global conspiracy with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act, all without leaving a microbe or real evidence or any whistleblowers coming forward. For me, it also explains how the attack succeeded- some dope probably had an imminent warning of a terrorist attack, but it was lying forgotten beneath a pizza box in the corner of his office. It also explains the reason for secrecy and reluctance to testify, particularly Bush- noone wanted to be the one who comes forward and admit they're the ones who [censored] up and allowed 3000 people to die.

There, I came up with a very reasonable explanation of how things went down and I didn't need to read the 9/11 commission report OR listen to Alex Jones to come up with it. I can even corroborate it by giving you as many examples of gov't bungling as you'd like. Can you give me even ONE example where anyone snuck into an occupied building and planted secret controlled demolitions withotu anyone noticing?

I'm sorry, I cant give any example. Probably you are right all along, I dont know everything and I dont care anymore.

By the way, an easy way to plant demolition device without anyone knowing is to use the elevator shaft. Nobody there at anytime and the steel support truss encircle it as bonus. It will collapse and pull everything inwards, will not scatter and produce nice rubble for further melting.

Actually, you can rip the whole tower apart by planting demolition stuff the elevator shaft. No need for aeroplane.

"Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards."

Put another circle so it become a target.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by RainCloud]

It can't fade away as long people need to know Newtonian physics.

All of the people that can't understand the importance of knowing the distributions of steel and concrete in analyzing the supposed collapse of a skyscraper are stuck on stupid.

It has to be PROVEN that a less than 200 ton airliner can destroy a greater than 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours. It is absurd that anybody ever believed it.

It is certainly curious that structural engineers in the US have not been specifying those distributions. Try finding the total weight of one of those floor assemblies that some people say pancaked.

The 9/11 Religion must be stamped out.

psik

[edit on 5-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

That guy did a great job!

Thank you for sharing

you're right it will never die!!!!!




[edit on 5-8-2010 by cosmo740]

Originally posted by RainCloud
By the way, an easy way to plant demolition device without anyone knowing is to use the elevator shaft. Nobody there at anytime and the steel support truss encircle it as bonus. It will collapse and pull everything inwards, will not scatter and produce nice rubble for further melting.

Slight problem with your hypothesis- Putting bombs in the elevator shaft wouldn't be controlled demolitions becuase CD involve destroying each and every structural support sumultaneously, meanign that explosives need to be placed directly on ALL the beams. Simply putting explosives in the elevator shaft is just a bomb, and although yes, it'll cause damage, the 1993 attack showed that simply putting a bomb in the building isn't enough to bring it down.

I'm not being argumentative here. I'm telling you how the building was laid out in the real world and how it would react.

"Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards."

Put another circle so it become a target.

Hmmm. All the reports I've read stated this is the very component that the fires destroyed, and destroying it caused a chain reaction of structural failure like a domino effect. So why are you bringing explosives into the mix when you're all but agreeing that a failure here would have caused the collapse we all saw?

I never said it was a bomb.
That words alone reflect how you view the matter.

I just hope whoever behind the mission (hijacker or not) will have punishment from god on his descendants. Not to worry, its just a hope. What goes around comes around in one way or another, right ?.

Iron Maiden song - Only the good die young, the evil lives forever.......(in pain)

Originally posted by RainCloud
I never said it was a bomb.

Ummmm, yes you did:

"By the way, an easy way to plant demolition device without anyone knowing is to use the elevator shaft. Nobody there at anytime and the steel support truss encircle it as bonus. It will collapse and pull everything inwards, will not scatter and produce nice rubble for further melting.

Actually, you can rip the whole tower apart by planting demolition stuff in the elevator shaft. No need for aeroplane."

I just hope whoever behind the mission (hijacker or not) will have punishment from god on his descendants. Not to worry, its just a hope. What goes around comes around in one way or another, right ?.

The GOOD news is that it did come around: Bin Laden is hiding in flea bitten villages worryign whether a CIA informant is going to rat him out, while the Taliban is hiding in the mountains constantly looking over their shoulder for a Predator missile coming out of nowhere. The BAD news is that they're all hard core religious fanatics and they can't accept the fact that going around killing innocent bystanders just might not be a good idea after all.

FYI kewl Avatar, BTW, much better than mine. Anyone who likes GITS has good taste, regardless of where they stand on 9/11 conspiracies (grin)

Originally posted by bekod
no it will just fade away just like 7 Dec, 1941 did FDR let it (pearl harbor) happen, what is really happening at area 51, and here is an old one do any of you know this one DID WE DROP THE BOMB?

What was there about Pearl Harbor that looks like it defies the laws of physics?

And then the experts can't even tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings that had to hold themselves up.

IN NINE YEARS!!!

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Off topic.
Thanks, turned out I cannot be like the GITS hacker. Oh yeah, I cannot be the Individual 11 too, wrong context.

I choose to become deaf-mutes now. In GITS its because everyone connected through e-brain, in real life its because I do not posses enough ability to change others.

Apart from some laughable post, I'm deaf-mutes to 911 debates. Good luck to all participants.

10 year memorial day is quite near, maybe start design, collect, create and stockpile 911 stuff now to sell on that date. Big bucks here I come, probably not.

Originally posted by bekod
no it will just fade away just like 7 Dec, 1941 did FDR let it (pearl harbor) happen, what is really happening at area 51, and here is an old one do any of you know this one DID WE DROP THE BOMB?

What was there about Pearl Harbor that defied the laws of physics?

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm new here, hello everyone, been following along...

911 wasn't an Inside Job or even a Terrorist Attack IMO, rather, it more closely resembles a Criminal Act. Now how in the world did I arrive at that? I'll tell you.

Like a lot of you I've had my nagging doubts and questions concerning 911. I saw the whole thing on CNN that day and ever since some things just didn't add up for me.

Like, if you're into terror and an attack of America and you can get your hands on 4 commercial jet planes and be flying around the nation without being shot down and you have the precision to hit some buildings dead on then why not put a plane or two into the OBVIOUS TARGET - the White House? (It's like Monopoly, if you can get a plane up - or 4! - what you going to crash it into Baltic or Boardwalk? Right?) But it wasn't done.

Next, why were there two planes in Manhattan on 911? Because there were two buildings!! D'oh I know, But NO...

You see because the White House wasn't hit but the towers were, and one plane per each, to their complete destruction, I got the idea that it might all be about the buildings and not about the "Terror".

Let's take a traditional terrorist (if I can say that) and look at what they do. There is some planning but it's usually not massive, they want to terrorize sure but they're more interested in body count than building demolition. Or, why not crash a few planes into a stadium full of people? See, also not done.

If you suspect something is going on and the people telling you what the OS is even may be involved in it, then it's likely not true. Then what is?

If you do the thought experiment of looking at 911 not as a Terrorist Attack or even an Inside Job, but as a Criminal Act, then it changes the questions you ask.

For instance, it does seem strange that both towers were completely demolished (to ground level etc.), and, according to the OS, by airplanes. For how could anyone know this? I mean, a Google search prior to 911 would've told anyone that the twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of a large jet. But there was only ONE jet per tower. And yet BOTH buildings were completely leveled. It has always seemed to me that it was someone's GOAL to bring those two buildings completely down... but to do that with airplanes alone a Google search of the towers would tell you you're probably going to need more than one per tower. But, THIS WAS NOT DONE EITHER.

Now, let's talk chance and planning. The OS makes out that some planning went into 911 but it must've involved a lot of chance too. The OS makes it out like a ragtag whim of a mission; a lucky sneak attack like etc.

So, a little planning and a good measure of chance IF it's a Terrorist Attack. If it's a Criminal Act though then what is it? It's a lot more planning and a lot less chance, it would have to be, because it would be criminal and you also would not want to be found out. Terrorists can get away with less planning, more chance, and they claim they did it and so do not need to try to hide the fact etc. So therefore, if 911 is a Criminal Act it is going to be massively planned, cut way down on chance, and be Completely Controlled. (Like one of those Bank Job movies.)

If it was completely controlled you just have to ask things like, was it the buildings or what was in the buildings? What was in the buildings? And why, if CONTROLLED, did one plane hit one tower at one floor and the other in a different lower location on the second tower? And the Pentagon, it has 5 SIDES - why hit THAT SIDE of it? If it's totally controlled there are reasons why... there have to be, for if it's controlled next to nothing would be left to chance. Likewise, if it's controlled even the story of 911 and who likely did it is part of the PLAN and therefore no one fingered yet may even be the actual PERPS.

Cheers

reply to post by weedwhacker


You were on a role until you mentioned the "Air Phones." Sorry dude, there were no "Air Phones" on any of the planes associated with 911.

And as far as Ted "box cutter, my wife phoned me from the plane" Olson is concerned, he is a lying sob, and that comes from not me but the F.B.I..

reply to post by beijingyank


No, you are mistaken in this:

Sorry dude, there were no "Air Phones" on any of the planes associated with 911.

I realize it isn't your fault --- there are "9/11 truth" websites out there still spreading that particular lie....it is the case with MOST of those sorts of sites. They never update thier "info" when proven wrong.

The wheels keep turning, the crap keeps spewing.....

~~~~~

United 93 Air Fone picture, recovered in crash debris:



American Airlines also most of their B757s and B767s equipped as well. What is being mis-used by "conspiracy" sites is the fact that American began to REMOVE, un-install, the Air Fones sometime in 2002.

(I am guessing, will have to research it, but it would make sense that they had reached the end of a contract with GTE...and decided to not renew it. The entire concept of in-flight telephones was still a bit experimental, back then....the companies that promoted the product bore a lot, but not all, of the expense, and airlines were in cost-cutting mode post 9/11 to a great degree).

[edit on 16 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by RainCloud

By the way, an easy way to plant demolition device without anyone knowing is to use the elevator shaft. Nobody there at anytime and the steel support truss encircle it as bonus.

Really? Are you serious about this or is this just some kind of sci-fi thing? Do you have any clue how often the elevators and shafts and electrical systems were monitored and inspected at the world trade center towers? The elevators are what made the building possible do you think they just call some guy in once a year, he pokes his nose in with a flashlight and goes home? And then there is a whole union thing that is very, very , very serious. They watched those elevators like a hawk. No one and I mean no one goes into those shafts unannounced and unnoticed. Try again.