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.

 

If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It strikes me that you're attempting to have your cake (I.E. no steel building in history has ever collapsed from fire) and eat it too (I.E. just because no controlled demolitions job in history ever caused wreckage to fly hundreds of feet in every direction it doesn't mean it couldn't happen) here, and you're simply adding and subtracting your justification for controlled demolitions as you go along. Isn't that being rather contrived?

I see the point you're making, but there is a significant difference - fire is organic in nature, while demolitions are man-made. Meaning that advancements in demolition technology could create a unique event, while fire is going to do what fire normally does.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Tree or light post is irrelevant. When you watch a movie do you doubt that all of the cars in the movie are doing what the creators want them to whether it is driving normally or crashing or going off a cliff.

My point is the word CONTROLLED, not the other irrelevant directions you always go into.


I was an extra in a Hollywood movie a few years back so I can tell you that what you see in the movie is NOT what actually happens on the set. Actors consistantly do take after take until they do the scene to the director's satisfaction, and that car you see being smashed into a tree is actually the seventh identical car they smashed up until they got the damage to look the way the director wanted it to, and that tree it smashed into is a fake tree because trees can only be smashed into once before being destroyed themselves. Plus, the the cars are really driven by professional stunt drivers because in the real world people's brains would be splattered all over the windshield in an actual crash. Nobody, but nobody, sitting on a set of a movie would ever confuse the make believe they're seeing with reality so your example only refutes your argument and only confirms mine.

...and no, I'm not going to mention the movie or the scene I'm in. It was an exceptionally stinky flick.


To come down that fast something had to eliminate the supports holding the building up. My personal guess would be that there was space among the core columns that could be accessed by punching a hole into the core on an unrented floor high up in the building and then pack lots of explosives into the core. That would be why the videos show material hurled outward on all sides sequentially down the building.


I do appreciate your acknowledgement this is only your personal opinion, as it puts you above the mindless "everyone who disagrees with me is a secret disinformation agent" zealots prevalent here. If what you say is true, then wouldn't the wreckage recovered from ground zero show blatant signs of such sabotage? Here are some photos of WTC wreckage stored in a hanger at JFK airport. They don't show any signs of any explosives damage, but they do show signs of being bent in ghastly angles before snapping like twigs, which supports the "the columns simply couldn't hold up against the force of the floors crashing down on them" scenario rather than the "they were cut by controlled demolitions" scenario.







Also, keep in mind that the initial collapse begain at the point of impact of the planes, so whatever caused the structure to fail, it necessarily needed to have happened there. The planes impacted floors that were occupied in both towers.



If airliners did it then explain the physics in detail, including the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers.


Is this really the argument you're going with, that if NIST can't explain what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge during the collapse then it necessarily had to have been controlled demolitions? I can just as well ask you to show precisely how these controlled demoltions compromised every weld, girder, and rivet in the building, because if you can't it necessarily means it had to have collapsed from fire induced loss of structural integrity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

Can we at least agree that because the chain reaction of the collapse was so complex and because there are no videos or eyewitness accounts showing how the internal structure was compromised, that there will be necessarily areas that may never be explained to anyone's satisfaction?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
 
I agree that I'm not aware of a controlled demolition technique that doesn't fit your description, and that planting a bomb in a garbage can won't bring down a building. I don't know much about controlled demolition techniques, so I assume there are possibilities I'm not aware of, but I'm willing to agree with your premise in general.


I would be lying if I said I was an expert on controlled demolitions, but what I do know about them is it involves more than just wheeling a bomb up to a column and then running away. These are demolitions specifically designed to cut steel at critical locations which transfers the weight to other columns, which in turn fail in a chain reaction because they are no longer capable of holding the weight. The process isn't necessary for every single floor, but only in sections, because the idea is that gravity is used to cause the top section above the point where the columns were cut to fall and crush the lower sections as it collapses.

This is of course the "standard" controlled demolitions rather than these supposed "assault" controlled demolitions, but regardless of methodology, since you agree that the physics of controlled demolitions would still apply, and that controlled demolitions doesn't just blow up a building but instead mostly uses gravity to force the upper section to fall and crush the lower section, do you also agree something similar would have happened in the towers so that the building was at least partially destroyed by the upper sections simply falling and crushing the lower sections? In short, demolitions would NOT be needed to destroy each and every floor because physics show the collapse of the upper section legitimately has enough force to destroy the floor below it by itself, correct?


A super secret army of covert agents planting explosives in three buildings under the noses of oblivious workers and visitors might be logistically inconceivable, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I don't know for sure whether or not three buildings collapsing the way they did due to fire damage violates the laws of physics, but I think you've just articulated a pretty solid argument against the inherent logic of it.


To which I would reply, the HMS Titanic and HMS Olympic were sister ships of the exact same design. An iceberg punctured five of the watertight compartments on the Titanic which caused it to overflow and sink. If five compartments on the Olympic were punctured the same way, what would the likelihood be that it would sink too?

Thus, whatever caused the collapse of the south tower, it can be regarded as an acceptable reason for why the north tower fell because the two buildings had identical designs, so it's not as much of the statistical oddity as you surmise.


I can only guess, but I understand that a plausible theory needs to involve a motive, so I have thought through several possible motives, depending on who this group actually is and how strong my tinfoil hat is any given day. Oil, guns, power, money, opium ... I could see any of these and more being a probable reward that justifies the cost. I have a harder time seeing what Al Qaeda gained.


a) Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, and the only weapons they have are 70's era Soviet gear that wouldn't last five minutes on a modern battlefield. Plus, it's development is so backward that it makes North Korea look like a superpower in comparison. For a "invading Al Qaida's hideout" plan the war makes perfect logical sense, but from a "we framed Afghanistan for its resources" standpoint I have to believe this is a case of molding the evidence to suit the argument here, particularly when there were more lucrative choices to frame I.E. Iran.

b) Al Qaida is a terrorist organization, and their philosophy is to create violent acts in order to influence gov't policy. The attack wasn't meant to be stand-alone; it was meant to be an ongoing terrorist offensive, just as the IRA's offensive against the British and the PLO's offensive against the Isralis are/were. As you recall, our embassies in Africa and a destroyer were also attacked.


Fair question. There are plenty of plausible scenarios, so none can be considered proven.


This is absolutely true. In cases like this, with no scenario being proven over and above any other scenario, we would need to instead consider the scenarios that are the most likely to have occurred, yes? You and I may disagree on what caused the towers to collape, but I think it's safe to say we both agree the towers weren't destroyed by UFOs because we both agree that's a scenario down toward the "not likely at all" end of the scale.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I see the point you're making, but there is a significant difference - fire is organic in nature, while demolitions are man-made. Meaning that advancements in demolition technology could create a unique event, while fire is going to do what fire normally does.



To which I would reply that this doesn't matter becuase both fire and demolitions are scalar, in that explosives are variable in destructive power from a firecracker to a thermonuclear device, just as fire is variable in destructive power from cooking your food on a gas stove to being hot enough to turn stone into lava.

This isn't the point the person I was responding to was referring to, though, as he was attempting to prove the case for controlled demolitions on the basis of what was normal vs what wasn't normal. I think you and I can both agree that regardless of fire induced collapse OR controlled demolitions, there wasn't a whole lot that was "normal" that day.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Tree or light post is irrelevant. When you watch a movie do you doubt that all of the cars in the movie are doing what the creators want them to whether it is driving normally or crashing or going off a cliff.

My point is the word CONTROLLED, not the other irrelevant directions you always go into.


I was an extra in a Hollywood movie a few years back so I can tell you that what you see in the movie is NOT what actually happens on the set. Actors consistantly do take after take until they do the scene to the director's satisfaction, and that car you see being smashed into a tree is actually the seventh identical car they smashed up until they got the damage to look the way the director wanted it to, and that tree it smashed into is a fake tree because trees can only be smashed into once before being destroyed themselves. Plus, the the cars are really driven by professional stunt drivers because in the real world people's brains would be splattered all over the windshield in an actual crash. Nobody, but nobody, sitting on a set of a movie would ever confuse the make believe they're seeing with reality so your example only refutes your argument and only confirms mine.

...and no, I'm not going to mention the movie or the scene I'm in. It was an exceptionally stinky flick.


Where did you say it was not CONTROLLED. It is just a matter of the PRECISION of control that the director wants. They can afford to do it multiple times. Whatever happened to the WTC could not be done multiple times. So it looks like they went in for overkill the be sure.

That does not mean it was not CONTROLLED.

psik



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That does not mean it was not CONTROLLED.

Double negative. So it means it was controlled? What means it was controlled?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

... since you agree that the physics of controlled demolitions would still apply, and that controlled demolitions doesn't just blow up a building but instead mostly uses gravity to force the upper section to fall and crush the lower section, do you also agree something similar would have happened in the towers so that the building was at least partially destroyed by the upper sections simply falling and crushing the lower sections? In short, demolitions would NOT be needed to destroy each and every floor because physics show the collapse of the upper section legitimately has enough force to destroy the floor below it by itself, correct?
If it was partially destroyed, yes, I would agree. Completely destroyed, three times in a row, seems unlikely to me, though I have to accept that it's a possibility.

You just described how carefully and deliberately demolition techniques have to be planned and prepared in order to completely collapse a building, but you're willing to accept that unplanned fire damage can do it consistently. That seems illogical to me.


To which I would reply, the HMS Titanic and HMS Olympic were sister ships of the exact same design. An iceberg punctured five of the watertight compartments on the Titanic which caused it to overflow and sink. If five compartments on the Olympic were punctured the same way, what would the likelihood be that it would sink too?

Thus, whatever caused the collapse of the south tower, it can be regarded as an acceptable reason for why the north tower fell because the two buildings had identical designs, so it's not as much of the statistical oddity as you surmise.
To which I would reply...

So the "identical designs" argument doesn't hold water (no pun intended) logically speaking, or at the very least it isn't a complete answer. I'm still surmising that it's odd.


a) Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, and the only weapons they have are 70's era Soviet gear that wouldn't last five minutes on a modern battlefield. Plus, it's development is so backward that it makes North Korea look like a superpower in comparison. For a "invading Al Qaida's hideout" plan the war makes perfect logical sense, but from a "we framed Afghanistan for its resources" standpoint I have to believe this is a case of molding the evidence to suit the argument here, particularly when there were more lucrative choices to frame I.E. Iran.

Afghanistan does in fact have oil -

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 1.6 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil, 15.7 trillion cubic feet (440 bn m3) of natural gas, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids.(wikipedia)
- but I was thinking more along the lines of oil pipelines. I certainly wasn't suggesting that stealing their guns would be a motive. That would be silly. Making and selling guns, though, is big business. I do agree that there are more lucrative choices, and if you've read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses or Kissinger's Seizing Arab Oil, it looks to me like Afghanistan is a small part of a larger plan to dominate the entire region.

I'll agree that the philosophy and possible motive you're describing on the part of Al Qaeda are supported by evidence. No argument on that point.


In cases like this, with no scenario being proven over and above any other scenario, we would need to instead consider the scenarios that are the most likely to have occurred, yes? You and I may disagree on what caused the towers to collape, but I think it's safe to say we both agree the towers weren't destroyed by UFOs because we both agree that's a scenario down toward the "not likely at all" end of the scale.
I see the logic of focusing on likely scenarios, but not to the extent of dismissing those less likely. I agree that the UFO scenario is way way down on the "not likely at all" end of the scale, but I honestly can't dismiss it completely (though I wouldn't defend that theory without an awful lot of good solid evidence, which I don't expect to find). You may think that makes me crazy or dumb, and for all I know you may be right, but I can't find a logical reason to dismiss a theory simply because it's unlikely.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I think you and I can both agree that regardless of fire induced collapse OR controlled demolitions, there wasn't a whole lot that was "normal" that day.

Yes, we can definitely agree on that.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That does not mean it was not CONTROLLED.

Double negative. So it means it was controlled? What means it was controlled?


It means SOMETHING had to destroy the supports from underneath for the towers to come down in less than 30 seconds.

I provided a program showing the minimum was 12 seconds without supports that had to be eliminated just because of the conservation of momentum. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

psik



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



It means SOMETHING had to destroy the supports from underneath for the towers to come down in less than 30 seconds.

I provided a program showing the minimum was 12 seconds without supports that had to be eliminated just because of the conservation of momentum. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds.


Which supports had to be compromised in order to accomplish this task as you claim? How many? Which ones? All of them? 10 of them? 100 of them? You should be able to tell me exactly which ones and when. Unless you're just guessing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
 
If it was partially destroyed, yes, I would agree. Completely destroyed, three times in a row, seems unlikely to me, though I have to accept that it's a possibility.

You just described how carefully and deliberately demolition techniques have to be planned and prepared in order to completely collapse a building, but you're willing to accept that unplanned fire damage can do it consistently. That seems illogical to me.


Then you'll appreciate my next point- Each floor in the twin towers was held in air by a horizontal bracework that ran between the internal core columns and the exterior columns, so no floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor. If you looked at the cross section of the towers, it would essentially look like a ladder. This means that if one floor could have legitimately been crushed by the upper section of building falling down on it, then all the floors would have been crushed because the floors were identical in every way. This essentially explains how controlled demolitions work because demolitions aren't needed to compromise every single floor. It only needs to compromise one or two floors,which causes it to collapse and start a chain reaction of the upper floors falling and crushing the lower floors.

Since you agree that a) physics dictate that the towers would need to be compromised in a specific way for a collapse to occur, and that b) the physics of controlled demolitions rely on the simple process of the upper section of a building being set up to collapse onto and crush the lower section of building, then becuase every floor was identical it would necessarily mean c) what destroyed the towers was actually the same chain reaction of cascading structural failure that controlled demolitions employ, where some initial floor collapsed, hit the floor below it, caused that floor to fail and collapse in turn, and so on all the way down the structure in a chain reaction, and all without the assistance of demolitions.

The question to be asked therefore ISN'T what destroyed the towers because we know what destroyed the towers- it was a chain reaction of floor A being unable to withstand the impact of floor B falling on it. The question to be asked is actually what caused that first floor to initially fall and start that chain reaction to begin with. Correct?


So the "identical designs" argument doesn't hold water (no pun intended) logically speaking, or at the very least it isn't a complete answer. I'm still surmising that it's odd.


I am referring just to the twin towers for now, as it cannot be argued that a whole separate chain of events affected WTC 7 that made the set of events that happened at WTC 7 unique, requiring a separate explanation that I will need to come back to. Otherwise, my explanation will be littered with details and become difficult to follow.


Afghanistan does in fact have oil -
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 1.6 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil, 15.7 trillion cubic feet (440 bn m3) of natural gas, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids. I certainly wasn't suggesting that stealing their guns would be a motive. That would be silly.


Is your point then that the conspirators would know the findings of a 2006 estimate back in 2001? I'm sure you'll acknowledge this would be equally as silly.


]I see the logic of focusing on likely scenarios, but not to the extent of dismissing those less likely. I agree that the UFO scenario is way way down on the "not likely at all" end of the scale, but I honestly can't dismiss it completely (though I wouldn't defend that theory without an awful lot of good solid evidence, which I don't expect to find). You may think that makes me crazy or dumb, and for all I know you may be right, but I can't find a logical reason to dismiss a theory simply because it's unlikely.


It certainly doesn't make you crazy and you've irrefutably shown you are not stupid. It just strikes me that for the sake of remaining intellectually honest, you're willing to look at scenarios which you have to know are destined to pan out. It is the desire to remain intellectually honest which is driving you in this case, rather than the desire to look for a plausible answer.
edit on 14-2-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Then you'll appreciate my next point- Each floor in the twin towers was held in air by a horizontal bracework that ran between the internal core columns and the exterior columns, so no floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor. If you looked at the cross section of the towers, it would essentially look like a ladder. This means that if one floor could have legitimately been crushed by the upper section of building falling down on it, then all the floors would have been crushed because the floors were identical in every way. This essentially explains how controlled demolitions work because demolitions aren't needed to compromise every single floor. It only needs to compromise one or two floors,which causes it to collapse and start a chain reaction of the upper floors falling and crushing the lower floors.

Since you agree that a) physics dictate that the towers would need to be compromised in a specific way for a collapse to occur, and that b) the physics of controlled demolitions rely on the simple process of the upper section of a building being set up to collapse onto and crush the lower section of building, then becuase every floor was identical it would necessarily mean c) what destroyed the towers was actually the same chain reaction of cascading structural failure that controlled demolitions employ, where some initial floor collapsed, hit the floor below it, caused that floor to fail and collapse in turn, and so on all the way down the structure in a chain reaction, and all without the assistance of demolitions.

The question to be asked therefore ISN'T what destroyed the towers because we know what destroyed the towers- it was a chain reaction of floor A being unable to withstand the impact of floor B falling on it. The question to be asked is actually what caused that first floor to initially fall and start that chain reaction to begin with. Correct?

I don't know enough about construction or architecture or engineering to know how accurate your summary is, but it feels generally right to me, and it still sounds to me like you're giving really strong logical evidence against the possibility of a natural, fire-driven cause for the collapse of all three towers. I've never been able to shake the instinct that the chain reaction you're describing, while possible, could not have happened anywhere near as quickly, efficiently, and symmetrically as we observed, in three separate instances. (and to be clear, I've thought this since watching it happen live that day, not because some fool truther site put the idea in my head)


I am referring just to the twin towers for now, as it cannot be argued that a whole separate chain of events affected WTC 7 that made the set of events that happened at WTC 7 unique, requiring a separate explanation that I will need to come back to. Otherwise, my explanation will be littered with details and become difficult to follow.

Okay, but then you acknowledge that the "identical designs" argument can't fully explain all three events, right?


Is your point then that the conspirators would know the findings of a 2006 estimate back in 2001? I'm sure you'll acknowledge this would be equally as silly.

Ha! Yes; definitely silly. Nice catch. I completely missed that, and should be more careful in my sourcing. The Afghan Chamber of Commerce says that oil was first discovered in 1959 (source).


It certainly doesn't make you crazy and you've irrefutably shown you are not stupid. It just strikes me that for the sake of remaining intellectually honest, you're willing to look at scenarios which you have to know are destined to pan out. It is the desire to remain intellectually honest which is driving you in this case, rather than the desire to look for a plausible answer.

That's a fair point, if I'm understanding you correctly. I'll put some thought into it, and I think it may be worth starting a thread of my own to try to sort it out. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I don't know enough about construction or architecture or engineering to know how accurate your summary is, but it feels generally right to me, and it still sounds to me like you're giving really strong logical evidence against the possibility of a natural, fire-driven cause for the collapse of all three towers. I've never been able to shake the instinct that the chain reaction you're describing, while possible, could not have happened anywhere near as quickly, efficiently, and symmetrically as we observed, in three separate instances. (and to be clear, I've thought this since watching it happen live that day, not because some fool truther site put the idea in my head)


As I admitted, I am not an expert in controlled demolitions so I can only going by the articles that explain how controlled demolitions work, and everything I've read states the central process of controlled demolitions takes advantage of the fact that the impact from a falling floor severed by demolitions is enough to overcome the structural integrity of an intact stationary floor below it. Here's a good article on how controlled demolitions work along with an interactive movie-

How Stuff Works: Controlled Demolitions

Notice that explosives were NOT necessary on each and every floor. They only needed to destroy three locations and the simple physics of gravity was enough to crush the remaining floors. The reason why this is important is that every floor in the two main WTC towers were identical to every other floor, so if even one floor legitimately collapsed without the aid of explosives because it was whacked by wreckage falling down on it from above, then all the floors would collapse the same way. This is why I asked you whether you agreed that the laws of physics (specifically the physics behind controlled demolitions) would necessarily apply to these conspiracies just as they do to everyone else: the collapse of the building from the impact area on down wasn't from controlled demolitions, but from the physics inherent in the structure of every building that would cause it to collapse regardless of whether controlled demolitions instigated the chain reaction or not. Whatever mischief it was that occurred, controlled demolitions or otherwise, it occurred entirely at the point of impact of the planes.

Controlled demolitions, after all, is your scenario, not mine, so I am merely following the guidelines of the scenario you yourself are introducing.


Okay, but then you acknowledge that the "identical designs" argument can't fully explain all three events, right?


Not all three events, no. My point is that if the collapse of one of the main towers can be logically explained without the use of conspiracy theories, it necessarily means the collapse of the other main tower can also be logically explained without the use of conspiracy theories because their designs were identical, which makes it nowhere near the freak coincidence you interpret it to be.

It also supports the argument that the attempt to use conspiracy theories to explain the collapse of the third building is really just a case where something happened that we don't fully understand and conspiracy theorists are being overly eagar to fill the vaccuum with their own explanations, as has happened elsewhere (I.E. since we don't fully understand how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, it must mean they were really built by UFOs).

The "UFOs built the pyramids" claim is another pet peeve of mine as it's essentially claiming ancient Egyptians were all blithering idiots, but I digress.


Ha! Yes; definitely silly. Nice catch. I completely missed that, and should be more careful in my sourcing. The Afghan Chamber of Commerce says that oil was first discovered in 1959


...to which I would respond, if these estimates were anything more than just estimates, why have we never seen a drop of oil coming from Afghanistan since 1959? More to the point, why haven't we seen a drop of oil coming out of Afghanistan now that it's been under NATO control for ten years? It's your contention that was the goal that was driving this false flag to begin with, yes?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This thread is riduculous, but I will make two comments.

First, go and look at AE911Truth.org. Examine the evidence for yourself. Buildings designed for earthquakes and fire do not collapse in their own footprint in free-fall.

My favorite was the 6000 gallon diesel tank on the 6th floor (building 7) that was later found full during the cleanup. Keep in mind, we are supposed to believe the building collapsed from melting steel beams that were above melting point from burning carpet and office desks.


FYI: My background is in designing concrete plants, large tubular frames, and semi-conductor furnaces where temps often exceed 1000 CELSIUS. My opinion is building 7 was a controlled demolition.
edit on 15-2-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

More to the point, why haven't we seen a drop of oil coming out of Afghanistan now that it's been under NATO control for ten years? It's your contention that was the goal that was driving this false flag to begin with, yes?

Really? After all the good discussion we've been having, you're really going to misrepresent my position that blatantly? Wow.

No, that has not been my contention at all. I corrected your assertion that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, and now you're using that to attack me for a theory I never proposed.
edit on 15-2-2012 by magicrat because: some words are more equal than others



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
Really? After all the good discussion we've been having, you're really going to misrepresent my position that blatantly? Wow.

No, that has not been my contention at all. I corrected your assertion that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, and now you're using that to attack me for a theory I never proposed.


If this is not your point, then I withdraw the statement as it is really not relevent to the point I'm attempting to make in this discussion.

The point still stands, however, that if this is indeed all some false flag then it's clear that the end goal of the operation was to frame Afghanistan for the attack, in which case, there necessarily needs to be a legitimate reason for doing so and it necessarily needs to be so attractive that it makes the monstrous expenditures of time, money, manpower, and the risk of a monumental backlash if it were exposed, worth the effort.

I think we can both agree that after ten years, there really isn't anything coming out of the Afghanistan excusion except casualties. Doesn't it therefore lead one to give second thoughts to the entire cause and effect rationale of these "false flag" suspicions?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jim3981
This thread is riduculous, but I will make two comments.

First, go and look at AE911Truth.org. Examine the evidence for yourself. Buildings designed for earthquakes and fire do not collapse in their own footprint in free-fall.

My favorite was the 6000 gallon diesel tank on the 6th floor (building 7) that was later found full during the cleanup. Keep in mind, we are supposed to believe the building collapsed from melting steel beams that were above melting point from burning carpet and office desks.


Would you mind terribly pointing out your source showing there was a "6000 gallon tank on the 6th floor in bulding 7"? According to all other sources, the building only had three 6000 gallon tanks, two of them underneath the building's loading docks and one on the 1st floor.

At the end of the day, all you've done is shown how the 9/11 truth movement IS a scam, as characters like Richard Gage are deliberately spreading false information to get you to believe what he wants to to believe. For one thing, you just proved that Gage is simply repeating public domain information and adding his own falsified spin on it. From NIST's question and answer section on their report on the WTC 7 collapse...

Q: Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

A: No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


Source: NIST question and answers on WTC 7



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave we are not in the ME to get their oil, we are there to stop the oil coming out.

Artificial scarcity of resources is a functional requirement of capitalism.

It's the high cost of fuel in the west that is keeping it from a major depression. If the market is flooded with oil, prices go down.

Can you not make the connections?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave we are not in the ME to get their oil, we are there to stop the oil coming out.

Artificial scarcity of resources is a functional requirement of capitalism.

It's the high cost of fuel in the west that is keeping it from a major depression. If the market is flooded with oil, prices go down.


Slight problem with your theory- it necessarily requires that the ones controlling the "artificial scarcity" actually do control it. You can't NOT know that the countries making up OPEC are the ones sitting on most of the oil, and they aren't all in the mideast (I.E. Venezuela). I don't know how much imaginary oil Afghanistan actually has, but as of right this second it's zero. Going after Afghanistan makes perfect sense from a standpoint of "it's the Islamic wild west and it's beign used as a hideout for a bunch of muslim zealots" but makes no sense whatsoever from a "wantign to control a monopoly of imaginary oil" standpoint.


Can you not make the connections?


Yes I can, actually. Framing a country with "zero" oil while ignoring the countries with "non-zero" oil sitting there ripe for the framing means that the culprits behind this conspiracy are all unbelievable idiots who'd fight over a five cent bottle return while ignoring the hundred dollar bill lying on the ground, or, you're getting all this bit from a bunch of scam artists pushing out ridiculous nonsense to make a fast buck and you're grasping at straws to patch up the glaring holes in the plotline they're spinning. Guess which scenario I'm subscribing to so far?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jim3981
This thread is riduculous...


This post certainly is


First, go and look at AE911Truth.org. Examine the evidence for yourself. Buildings designed for earthquakes and fire do not collapse in their own footprint in free-fall.


Can you tell us what the "earthquake-design features" were added to the WTC complex buildings? Thanks.


My favorite was the 6000 gallon diesel tank on the 6th floor (building 7) that was later found full during the cleanup.


I usually don't bother with asking for references or where people find the idiotic crap they post here, but could you do that for me with this comment? I just want to see proof that a 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tank survived the collapse of WTC 7 and was found, full, "during the clean up". That has go to be the second most idiotic claim I have seen on this board.

edit on 16-2-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join