Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[love]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts.

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.

Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.

That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.

When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims. The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.

The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

 

[patchbunny]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything.

Translation: "I have made a complete and utter ass out of myself in the world press by making snap judgements before I have gotten off my ass and gathered what is known as "evidence". I'm going to shut up and go away before I embarrass myself further."

It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

I thought that was fishy.

I, too, find it fishy when people take the time to dig through the debris and study the evidence before drawing conclusions. What does the NTSB think they're doing, taking the time to examine plane wreckage and black boxes before issuing a conclusion as to what happened? They should know within hours.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I live in the real world where investigators, ya know, investigate.

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

OK, I've been sick for the last few days and I'm feeling pretty miserable. You're not helping matters my making me shoot peas from my nose. My sinuses have enough troubles.

 

[gtc]

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you. That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?

The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

Can you explain this? I can't understand what you mean by 'the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness'.

One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

Can you explain how we will come to understand your perspective?

A further point, I don't understand why it was necessary to use explosives and planes.

Simply crashing two planes into the WTC and crashing two other planes would be a very spectacular event and enough to cause a fear of flying. Why would the added damage from exploding bombs be worth the expense and risk of detection?

 

[Year Zero]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit.

They have experts on "terror attacks on buildings now"? Jesus that's specific. However, that was not what I called for. I said "DEMOLITIONS EXPERT".

He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

He probably withdrew the statement because he read the reports, and trusted architectural engineers were more qualified in that field than he with his "Terror attacks on Buildings" degree.

The whole event is a ritual designed to play to your subconscious fears. The planes were part of it. The idea you are meant to pick up is that it is dangerous to fly, and that aircraft could drop out of the sky an hit you.

Who planned that? Have Imperial Japanese navy pilots infiltrated our government? Do you have any idea how important our airline industry is? Do you know what happens to the economy when people won't fly? Trying to get people not to fly in this country is not simply shooting yourself in the foot. It is aiming a Vickers machine gun at your foot and firing until there is no more foot to shoot at...then shooting the other foot...then blowing yourself up with a grenade...while someone crashes a plane into you.

That way every time you see a plane, it triggers conformant behaviour. It is expertly crafted so that you respond in a manner dictated by your reptilian brain (the brain stem) and your emotional brain. Your logical brain is forced to rationalize around it. It's not really any different to how advertising works.

Hmm... I think you might be on to something. Every time I look at a plane, my mind automatically thinks, "THAT'S A PLANE!!!" Pavlovian!

What stops you subconscious believe seeing the evidence in front of your eyes is that to you the idea that knowing the government is conspiring against you is too dangerous. Your instincts take over to protect you.

What evidence? I'm sorry I didn't see any evidence but then again, I might have been busy looking at a plane.

That's what causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts, rather than the engagement of your own brain to analyze the evidence in front of you.

What causes the knee-jerk trusting of experts is when conspiracy jackasses present idiotic alternative scenarios by presenting a conclusion and then using real or imagined "holes" in the original scenario as evidence.

When I looked closely at the official story in order to construct a null hypothesis, I found that I simply could not make any consistent story out of the claims.

I'll do it for you:

Planes hit buildings, cause catastrophic structural failure, buildings come down.

The official story, is actually a patchwork of locally consistent stories, which completely fail to sit together globally.

See above.

The good news is that ultimately the conspirators are simply an out-projecting of our own consciousness, and cannot affect us if we let go of all fear.

They sure as hell can't affect us if they don't exist too.

This is probably more than you can accept in one go. One day, you will at least be able to understand my perspective, without having to judge it as right or wrong.

If it turns out that I am one of those unfortunate souls whose mind inevitably rots due to schizophrenia(it's hereditary), and it may, I will consider believing in your conspiracy theory. However, till such time I will require evidence.

 

[patchbunny]

Why would they want us to think that it is dangerous to fly?

It's part of a grand conspiracy to wipe out the airlines' pension funds. Instead of going after Osama Bin Laden we should have gone after James Goodwin.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Seems you have used the word 'theory' in an incorrect context
(but then again it is pretty hard to tell as the whole post if fairly incoherant).


No.


Your xenocentricity is showing, and it seems your fulcrum may have slipped.

Pat yourself on the back Flange, you may have just been clever....wait no, sorry...

Theory is the proper term here. As there are no facts really, just inferences that seem most logical to you based on the presented information, that all comes from the official source(something that only prolongs conspiracy ramblings).

My xenocentricity? Awful big word to use, and what bearing does it have? If you want to run around prizing american pseudo culture thats fine...just try and appear as though you are not performing the robot while doing it.


As far as Demolitions experts....Zero, if you really want to base all this on what other people think after viewing the same video's CT's watch, then fine, do so, but as you probably know if you look long enough you will find conjectural opinions on anything. For example:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the “handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses.

If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).

Personally, I think you guys should talk to some demolitions experts, instead just telling others to.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Anyone who wants to claim that the buildings were brought down by demolitions needs to start at one place: demolitions experts. Explain how it is possible, explain how it is done without alerting everyone and tearing the building apart, and explain how this model could have been used even with the massive variables caused by crashing planes into the buildings. Hell, while your at it explain WHY they would want planes to fly into the buildings when it would have been easier(and killed more people) had they simply demolished the buildings and claimed that truckbombs did it.

As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.

Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.

The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.

Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???


anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...

 

[Year Zero]

As I said, why don't you as well.

Because a typical demolition looks like these three building collapses, strikingly so. In fact most of the indications you make to the contrary are the clues that it was a demolition in the first place.

Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.

Explain how it was possible? Ok, if you have been researching this as long as you say then you should have heard multiple explanations on how it happened.

No, there are none.

The leading one that can be verified is the number and frequency of emergency drills in the WTC. At some point power to whole sections of the building was shut down for an extended period of time, and people were evacuated temporarily.

First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.

Why a plane crash? Why not truck bombs? Didn't they try to bomb the basment once before and it didn't work? And wasn't a certain FBI agent ordered to stand down, and let the attack happen in that case, and didn't he even manage to get this order recorded to tape???

Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened. However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?

The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.

anyway like love said, the psychological impact is the biggest wave to emanate from this castrophe, regardless of preplanning or not...we all grabbed out flags and ran off to war...

Yeah Love also thinks that the government wants us to fear airplanes for some reason. Many people did the same in the beginning of Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. What is your point?

 

[valis]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Sorry but in the real world, lots of things LOOK like other things. A building collapse is going to look relatively the same regardless of whether it collapsed due to explosives or other causes. Do you know why? Because EXPLOSIVES ARE USED TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Thus what you are seeing in a controlled demolition is a building collapsing, not a building being destroyed by explosives.

What are the notable differences? THE EXPLOSIONS ARE visible from the outside.

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.

No, there are none.

yes there are plenty of alternate timelines, you had to have seen them.

First of all, we have to assume all this is true. Second, this does not leave enough time to do the job. Rigging a much smaller building for destruction may often take MONTHS. Third, you cannot simply put the explosives in and then blow the thing up. Holes have to be drilled, walls need to be knocked out, etc. People would notice.

In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

Oh I am sure some conspiracy writer SAID the FBI was given the order to stand down, and people not having remembered most of the coverage naturally assume this actually happened.

they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).

However, how hard would it be to just blow the thing up and say, "Hey, they got a lot more explosives this time!!!" ? In short, if it is somehow unbelievable that planes crashing into buildings could lead to their total destruction, WHY WOULDN'T THE CONSPIRATORS THINK OF THAT?

well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.

why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

The fact is that if 9-11 is some kind of conspiracy it would be the most elaborate one to date, involving hundreds of people if not more. Somehow, none of them squeal.

not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks. this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.


.

 

[gtc]

In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

If all it takes is the cornerstone, then why wouldn't crashing an aeroplane be enough?

well then they would have to explain how after having one bombing in this fashion, nothing was done in the wake of it, and how they were able to get in and set that many explosives up in the first place.

Are you saying the people pushing the CT angle should show how that much explosives were able to be put in place?

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable.

Are you distinguishing between the Bin Laden family and Osama Bin Laden? I think you will find the US government had become estranged with Osama over the years.

it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more.

How so, given the need to keep it hushed up from everyone, the sheer volume of explosives needed, the careful arrangement required and the need to keep it hidden from the people whose job it was to know what was in the WTC and why. I am thinking of security, maintenance, janitors, owners, lessees etc.

it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

Surely, it would be harder to keep a plot to place and detonate explosives hushed up than a plot to hijack and crash planes? If true, then not only did the conspiracy have to keep the preperations for the covering hijacks hushed up, they also had to keep the preperations for the bombings hushed up.

not really, the official story is just as crazy. compare...

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election,

Bush had only won the election in Nov 2000, that is not a large window of opportunity given we know the plans and training for the hijacking part of the operation was already underway before the election.

and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.

They didn't do a very good job of the cover up, given that most, if not all the links were already in the public domain well before 911.

this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease,

But didn't you say earlier today that 911 was all about installing fear in the population, it can not work both ways.

all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind.

And yet, Bush was re elected along with fellow Republicans in other state and federal and local elections and Republican promoted referendum have also passed. It seems the American public accepts the agenda.

Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

Going so far as to wage a seriously 19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field[/quote]

They had more than 19 conspirators.

defying all known countermeasures,

As has been pointed out, most of the countermeasures were aimed against truck bombs on the ground and, in the air, the hijacking of planes for political purposes. This attack caught the agencies by surprise.

due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI,

People mess up. Pearl Harbour and any number of other attacks in the world wars testify to this. It is only in conspiracy theories that the authorities are omnipotent.

as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.

How many wargames do you think they should be allowed to perform at any one time?

The number of wargames may be confusing to you, but it is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. I think you would find the same number of wargames taking place at any one point in time. The reason you don't see any mention of them is that they tend to be either secret or so routine as to be not worth mentioning. It is only after a significant event that people take any notice of them.

Think about this:

Soldiers who aren't actually fighting a war tend to be practicing. It keeps them out of trouble and gives them practice.

Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.

I don't see the point of this statement. Surely it makes sense to hide out in rough terrain that is impenitrable but controlled by groups who support your aims? Is it also crazy to think that those local groups would also tend to know their way around those same areas?


.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are correct, and should I be at all surprised it took until page 8 for you genius' to finally grasp such a simple concept?

Most posters here have a very good idea what "deductive" and "inductive" actually mean. So if you are going to make up your own definitions for these words it's not surprising nobody understands you, and it's your own fault. You might as well go to a science forum and start a thread where you use your own definitions of "joule" and "coulomb".

My point, to state it for the board again, is that because a deductive investigation wasn't done..ie they didn't disprove all other possibilities, CT is allowed to thrive.

thats why I asked, why not 1 photo of a plane hitting the pentagon, why not release the sealed photo's...etc...

What, they haven't released any footage of a major military asset taking a hit, showing in detail how the building is structured and what defences are in place against such impacts? I cannot think of any possible legitimate reason for the US government to keep that kind of information secret, can you?

I don't suppose the civillian casualty figures came up while you were frantically trying to locate the exact budget for the NIST investigation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is at odds with us, because of the people in question, and your too busy trying to prove there isn't a NWO to notice that there is a power elite messing things up for everyone.

The Politics forum here has had any number of relatively intelligent discussions of just these issues. The reason we are talking about 9/11 kookery in this particular thread is that you and your sock brought it up, see?

meanwhile good americans like yourselves are busy defending the fulcrum of their agenda.

Here's news: not everybody on the internet is necessarily posting from within the borders of the USA.

I, for example, am an Australian citizen posting from Australia.

 

[kookbreaker]

That's is where I started. I found an article which was published shortly after 9/11 in which an expert on terror attacks on buildings proclaimed that the buildings had been brought down by explosives after the planes hit. He later retracted his opinion without giving a reason and refused to comment further. He did not admit being wrong, just refused to say anything. It was only much later that the accepted explanations were invented.

If you are talking about Romero, he never claimed the WTC was brought down with explosives. He merely said that the collapse resembled one. He's royally ticked off at having been misquoted as claiming otherwise

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

So there you have it.

I thought that was fishy.

Of course, the Sinister Intelligence Agency is always to blame, rather than the sloppy, inept, prejudicial, imcompetent, self-serving reporting of the CT crowd.

 

[kookbreaker]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.

So you still think steel doesn't weaken when heated. Such intellectual cowardice from you.

 

[Manny]

OMG I just realised I haven't been to New York since before 911!!!!!

How can I know if it really happened?

The conspiracy is bigger than that. The fact is that not only did 9-11 never happen, but that the appearance of 9-11 was cooked up to cover the fact that the World Trade Center was never built at all! The Rockerfellers pocketed the construction funds, less enough money to make some plywood cutouts to convince rubes like you that the buildings were there. The mainstream media was in on the conspiracy of course, but now with the age of blogging upon us it was only a matter of time before some truth-seeker wanted to go to the "top" of the "buildings." So they had to come down. That's why only 200 beams were examined -- that's all there were to support the plywood mockups.

 

[Year Zero]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet. There is some weight to the pancake theory, but only if you can explain how it started to fall to begin with.

They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.

In this world of what if's yeah you are right. it would take months. however, like I mentioned above, it wouldn't require the whole building. just the proverbial corner stone. This can be contended for and against either way adinfinitum due to the many possibilities that could have occured.

So now you are a demolitions expert?

they sure did, I think you are refering to alex jones, who makes a living selling his version of the truth based on actual documentation(it's how he has any credibility at all).

What documentation?

why didn't the conspirators think about people questioning the use of planes?
why are you asking this? there were no conspirators. the planes were hijacked, they were flown into the buildings...

Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.

the real question is how were they able to do it in the first place...and how much of this plot was known before it happened...some would even say that the close relationship between the bin ladens and our government is a good clue....who knows...but it's concievable. it's concievable that arab terrorists were able to plant explosives in the buildings over a year or more. it's also concievable that given the track record of our government, it may be more important to cover up all of these tiny details because it would be too embarrassing/destablizing for us as a country.

So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.

a small group of neo-extremists takes control of the government in a questionable election, and exploits the most heinous attack on the U.S. to forward its agenda, all the while covering up any previous associations made with the very same people its holding responsible for the attacks.

Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.

this small group utilizes mass media manipulation, and talking points attacks to keep the majority of the busily working populace at ease, all the while continuing to forward an agenda that does not have the interests of americans, our allies or our future children in mind. Going so far as to wage a seriously questionable war on false intel, all under the pretense of liberation, while gratiously lining theirs, and their campaign contributers pockets.

How does that prove they were behind the attack?

19 al-qaeda terrorists under the command of Osama Bin Laden plan and carry out the highkacking of 4 planes, ultimately crashing them into three targets and a field defying all known countermeasures, due in part to the negligence of the CIA, and FBI, as well as the confusing number of wargames exercises that were being performed at the exact moment of the attacks.

Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?

Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the tribal lands of Afghanistan, a region impenetrable to outside forces for ages, and rugged even for the seasoned hiker, he is accompanied by his doctor and a dialysis machine, with support from the local taliban in getting his various taped confessions, and coded instructions to his cells in the field undetected.

Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.

 

[patchbunny]

So why call in a demolitions expert? If they all relatively look the same how are they going to be able to tell anything? I understand there is a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled explosions, however, you wouldn't have to wire the trade center to completely fragment, you would simply have to pull the carpet out from under it's feet.

But that is exactly what your sources are stating. The building was wired top to bottom, every floor. (If there's some way of linking to a direct spot on a page, I have no idea what it is.) From here:

"the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall."

"The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well [slicing steel into manageable lengths]. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”

"Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.

 

[thesyntaxera]

They DID explain how the fall started. Second, if you look at what is left, you can see the "feet" seem to still be there.

They did? Yeah, you mentioned that, planes hit the building...right...fires....gotcha, official mouthpiece. Those feet you are talking about could be anything, namely a pile of rubble, so your assertion that the whole bottom of the building must be demolished is wrong.

So now you are a demolitions expert?

Is that what I said? Maybe the problem here is that the words say one thing, and when you read they mean another.

What documentation?

You tell me, oh ye investigator. I would assume if you are interested in debunking guys like that you would check to see if they have sources...he claims that all of his material is backed up by official documentation "110%" which I assume to mean, that if I were to look into his kooky claims I might actually find the documentation he is talking about.

Now you're being immature, pretending that you aren't advocating a theory.

ha, I am advocating nothing, except a proper investigation.

So they can engineer massive terrorist attacks that look like real ones, but Bill Clinton can't hide oral sex in the Oval Office. Sure.

Once more, they didn't engineer anything, as far as I can tell they knew something was going to happen and let it, which to me is just as bad. Bill Clinton was the subject of a Right Wing smear campaign, or didn't you know that?

Our government has been doing this for years, the connections are not as solid as you think, thus this proves nothing.

I know, all too well. And the connections in this case are air tight, you giving a one sentence dismissal isn't going to change that....

How does that prove they were behind the attack?

again no one here said they were behind it, although the popular opinion in CT circles is that they are, and to remind you, NOTHING is being PROVED here. Not by you or me. All it does do is show who directly benefited from the political football this event became.

Again, get your facts straight. First, they were not under the command of Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Al Qaeda cells could pull off the Cole and Embassy bombings, as well as the one at Khobar towers, is it not possible that they could pull off hijackings, something that has been done by numerous terrorists many times since the end of WWII?

My facts straight? Excuse me? If Osama bin Laden is not the one most directly responsible for this then who is? Your contradicting yourself here. The Cole bombing was a boat that ran up along side and exploded, the us embassy was a truck bomb, as well as the Khobar towers, none of those are nearly as complex as this, 4 highjackings and years of planning??? Sure they could highjack them, but how many highjackers went to flight school?

Another thing that has stuck with me is that the fuel burning being the cause for the collapse was talked about by bin Laden in his supposed confession, where he stated that he knew the fuel would bring the towers down in the exact way they fell....however...most experts contend that it was a freak occurrance that shouldn't have happened even though it did.

Believed by people that known little of Bin Laden, yes. Bin Laden is not the operational head of Al Qaeda, and probably never was. He is a financer and spokesman, and little else.

And you know this how? So all the mujahadeen bull, and training by the cia never happened either then did it? The funny thing is that it did, and he was, although most likely not now....most likely dead....

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how molten steel is a sign of explosives. Their arguments make no sense.

Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly. Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.

 

[patchbunny]

Thermite is a demolitions explosive that works not by exploding, but by melting through metal rapidly.

And why would one use it, given that shaped charges are so much more precise and instantaneous?

Besides that, the metal could have melted naturally.

So much for it being signs explosives were used.

quick story, my ladyfriends dad tore down an old barn. after all the good pieces of wood were taken out, he burned the rest in three large fire pits. The whole process took a month of spare time. After two weeks there was about 3 feet of ash in the bottom. Sometime later, he threw some more wood in the fire pits and went inside to eat. While eating we started to smell smoke. We go outside to find three fires smoldering. It turns out that the fire had never gone completely out, despite the rain, and despite being extinguished with water from a hose...those fires burned for two weeks on their own.

I learned this from Smokey the Bear some years ago. And it proves...?

 

[azazal]

Wow, just finished reading the 8 pages, and my brain hurts.

But here is something I've always wondered, CTs use the accounts of eye witnesses to show proof of demolition charges - Fire fighters hearing multiple explosions, people that were fleeing the buildings seeing molten steel, etc. Now granted I am sure these people are experts in their fields. I'm sure that the banker, lawyers, and financial gurus that were in the area on 9/11 are/were at the forefront of their respective fields. And one cannot question the bravery and dedication of the firefighters and police that were there that day; all train professionals in their jobs. But how many of these eyewitnesses were also trained in the use and execution of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy?

Yet, when experts in the fields of building demolitions, structural engineering, and metallurgy examine the evidence, and come to the overwhelming conclusion that no demolitions were used. The CT answer is always - they can’t be believed, because they’re part of the government cover-up.

So how is it that the people who work in the fields daily as their trained profession are wrong, and people under the most extreme duress possible making snap judgments about subjects that they have little or no training on, are correct?

Or am I just trying to be too logical?






PS - hope this doesn’t double post, the internet connection at work is acting screwy