What's your theory about 9/11?

[JohnG]

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.
Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo, and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence. Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.
Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion. Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?
The towers wouldn't have fallen, and the implosion couldn't have been performed.

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

I believe you are mistaken.

 

[jaydeehess]

well this is a first for me.
Unsupported belief being touted as a replacement for science and evidence.

Did I fall asleep and then awaken in the 13th century?

Is ignorance now to be equivalent to wisdom?

 

[Mark F]

I would love for you to point out to me an example of ONE part of my theory that has actually been debunked. Please be specific.

I don't even think you have presented anything sufficient to be called a theory yet. A bunch of speculative nonsense with no beginning, middle or end sure, but not a cohesive theory encompassing all of the events of that day.

All of this alleged subterfuge on the part of NEADS isn't even necessary since all but one of the planes had crashed before they even knew it was hijacked.

 

[TrumanHW]

I'm not trying to attract negative attention... I'm utterly new here and uneducated. I realize it's going to be nearly impossible to a conclusive answer... but I'm comfortable putting ALL the other issues, Shanksville, Pentagon, WTC 1&2 to the side. I highly doubt ANYONE who'd discuss on the internet, has ANY idea what happened IF it's not as presented to the public.

However, while WTC 1&2 had an incredibly suspect appearance to me, the layman... WTC 7 looked even more suspicious. Primarily because all 4 corners (within a minute margin of error) translated potential to kinetic nearly at the same time... and there appeared to be no hick-ups in this downward motion on any portion, either.

Is it really a mockable position to want to really examine this most incredible scenario?

Of COURSE it could be as asserted. But unless you're pre-programmed to automatically believe -- the behavior and speed of collapse relative to the duration and distribution of fire is challenging to accept.

No one should posit any ideas of what could (thermite/demolition) or suggest who'd benefit. None of that matters prior to knowing IF it occurred as claimed.

...the unbridled speculation of amateurs had frightened many professionals out of the field.
-- Carl Sagan

While WTC 7 is a small part of the over all issue, the implications would require a rethinking and examination of the balance of details.

Please, if any physicists or structural engineers can view the behavior of such a building collapse and find it consistent with their knowledge of the behavior of matter and gravity it'd spare me a great deal of time contemplating this.

Does anyone know the opinion's of Dawkins, Tyson, Krauss or other notable physicists?
Does the NIST theory bother your common senses or acumen?
Why do all three of these collapses differ so starkly from all other video'd building collapses?
Why do all three of these (to this layman) look so similar to intentional collapses?
Why is there need to propose a counter theory? Isn't it sufficient to discredit what's claimed?

There's no need to belittle me - I'll declare myself an ignoramus. I literally am just seeking some UNBIASED scientific reasoning, skepticism and rationale.

 

[FrankHT]

All of this alleged subterfuge on the part of NEADS isn't even necessary since all but one of the planes had crashed before they even knew it was hijacked.

Rubbish,haven't you been reading along. Both General Arnold & Col. Marr testified they were tracking Flight 93 long before FAA notification. Marr even said he didn't pay more attention to Flight 77 because he was distracted by Flight 93. Arnold admits it WOULD even have been possible for the Langley F16s to reach Washington DC in time to stop 77,but adds they didn't have authorization to shoot it down even if they had. And last,but not least,it was the 'official' story (agreed upon by both NORAD & the FAA for 3 YEARS) that NORAD knew about Flight 175 at the same time as the FAA due to open lines between the two for the tracking of Flight 11. Would you like me to pull the exact quotes?

 

[TrumanHW]

I think it's damaging to the process of inquiry to offer a counter explanation. A counter explanation isn't required -- and when busted, subconsciously provides a straw-man like leap that concludes all your arguments are false.

The only thing required, is to demonstrate that ANY claimed hypothesis is false to show obstruction of justice. That's it.

Offering claims of what did happen are nearly impossible unless you (in the literal sense) performed forensic examination.

Unlikely but not impossible:

Missing ALL "black boxes".
3 buildings, nearly identical collapse appearance.
Contradictory statements from witnesses (fireman claimed explosions in basement)
Fast decision o' who dunnit.
Box cutters?

Poll Question:
Would you rather get in fight me with your bare hands while I have a 1" knife, or, go top speed in your car sans safety belt and close your eyes on the freeway for 20 seconds?

I actually DIS believe explosives throughout the building theory...
however, is it impossible that explosives carefully located near the structure's weaknesses caused the collapse?

My only objections (while there are some VERY surprising things) ... is that all the video's I've seen of building collapses are anything but straight down, and some are quite slow. Have you guys seen the one in Turkey? It's amazing. Or demolitions in which the demolition FAILS?? That is, even when it's intentional it's insufficient to destroy an edifice.

You are RIGHTFULLY EXHAUSTED with rebutting clearly absurd claims.

Am I wrong though in believing that, no one really needs to explain what happened... they only need to expose significant lies, omissions, or impossibilities?

Are ALL the calculations show even momentary free-fall rates of collapse false?

Im CONCERNED that what I've quoted as "free-fall" speeds contradicts the bombs-in-the-basement proposed possibility which would fail to correlate the rate of collapse with it being a planned collapse... but I far from claim to have answers. I just want answers.

Snide remarks are welcomed in particular if they're funny. )

I know I'm taking a dangerous position in that it's highly ridiculed... and I'm okay with that. If that's part of the data-cost to get answers (as I said, preferably from people like PhD physicists or structural engineers) ... have at it.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Poll Question:
Would you rather get in fight me with your bare hands while I have a 1" knife, or, go top speed in your car sans safety belt and close your eyes on the freeway for 20 seconds?

First rule of Fight Club - You do not talk about Fight Club.

Welcome to the forum

 

[DGM]

Yep,I intentionally left that out. Why,because Borgstrum took it upon HIMSELF to order the guns loaded. Read it again,the callers tone was "URGENT". The caller had just been told the other two pilots are already at battle stations and the caller says, “Suit up and go fly! We need all of you at battle stations!”. Nothing about ordering the guns loaded. Borgstrum took it upon himself to order it done. The order as given,followed exactly,would have had the plane unarmed. NEADS leadership knew that.

Are you claiming that "battle stations" would not (by definition) mean armed? Now, that makes no sense.

 

[000063]

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.

Um, this is a skeptic's forum. By definition, skepticism requires evidence of beliefs.

Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo,

An evidence-supported and proven theory that happens to be the status quo, yes.

and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence.

Neither am I, and they don't.

Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

You really shouldn't be bragging about your baseless incredulity.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

Consensus among who? Because you can't have something be the status quo and not have consensus of some kind.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.

You seem to neglect the people who actually saw the planes hit. Not to mention the passenger remains and effects found. Outside the WTC collapse site.

Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion.

And not a single one of the hundreds of thousands of people passing through the joint daily noticed. Got it.

Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?

That is an excellent question we have oft asked Truthers. Some, like you, conclude that there were explosives but no planes, instead of the more logical planes but no explosives. Most of the time, however, they either claim the explosives could've survived, or dodge the question entirely.

Your plan requires a greater amount of risk than just flying actual planes into the towers, with no explosives.

The towers wouldn't have fallen, and the implosion couldn't have been performed.

It wasn't an implosion or explosion, just a collapse. Implosions don't end up covering several times their own footprint when the dust settles.

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

I shall merely call you "wrong".

 

[000063]

Beliefs do not require evidence.

Beliefs also need not be true.

Eyewitnesses can be corrupted.

Every single one, with perfect reliability, even the ones who immediately contacted others and told them about the plane? What's to stop them from just pretending to go along with whatever threat, then scootle off to the newspapers? Why have no Truthers ever found someone who was approached by a MIB? What about the technicians who had to do the actual altering, in real time, from multiple angles, which would be difficult even today?

 

[Mark F]

Would you like me to pull the exact quotes?

Yeah, that's your job.

With page references.

 

[000063]

...The only thing required, is to demonstrate that ANY claimed hypothesis is false to show obstruction of justice. That's it.....

Congratulations! Your first Stundie nom!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm not trying to attract negative attention... I'm utterly new here and uneducated.

You would do well to have a little humility and listen to those who are educated. Like the experts in many different fields who can easily explain the anomalies you find so mysterious.

It's all here in these forums, if you're willing to look for it.

 

[DGM]

Of COURSE it could be as asserted. But unless you're pre-programmed to automatically believe -- the behavior and speed of collapse relative to the duration and distribution of fire is challenging to accept.

Why do you find it challenging? Because you have not seen it before?

Do you believe anything that is not instinctive or based on past experience should be classified as "challenging to accept"?

So, what is your reasoning to classify WTC7 as "challenging to accept"?

 

[DGM]

However, while WTC 1&2 had an incredibly suspect appearance to me, the layman... WTC 7 looked even more suspicious. Primarily because all 4 corners (within a minute margin of error) translated potential to kinetic nearly at the same time... and there appeared to be no hick-ups in this downward motion on any portion, either.

You do know this is not actually true? Why do you ignore everything that happened before the global collapse? Would this seem "suspicious" if you thought of the building as an empty shell (interior already collapsed)?

 

[LSSBB]

However, while WTC 1&2 had an incredibly suspect appearance to me, the layman... WTC 7 looked even more suspicious. Primarily because all 4 corners (within a minute margin of error) translated potential to kinetic nearly at the same time... and there appeared to be no hick-ups in this downward motion on any portion, either.

Truman, do yourself a favor. Take another look at the WTC7 collapse, in slow motion, from the point where the penthouse collapses (a few seconds before the exterior), then forward. Envision the interior collapsing under the penthouse, pulling on the exterior. You may also note the kink in one wall as this happens. Then envision the exterior being yanked down once the interior has exerted enough pull to break the columns holding up the exterior. Think also of the way the exterior is put together - strong enough to hold a box shape. Therefore, when it goes, it goes all together at once.

Note there are no explosive noises or flashes once the building goes. It just, well, collapses.

Edit to add: by the way, I do have a degree in Physics, and a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering, and the collapse makes sense to me. There are others here more experienced and educated in building construction who also think the collapse makes sense as a result of the fires.

 

[fess]

Yep,I intentionally left that out. Why,because Borgstrum took it upon HIMSELF to order the guns loaded. Read it again,the callers tone was "URGENT". The caller had just been told the other two pilots are already at battle stations and the caller says, “Suit up and go fly! We need all of you at battle stations!”. Nothing about ordering the guns loaded. Borgstrum took it upon himself to order it done. The order as given,followed exactly,would have had the plane unarmed. NEADS leadership knew that.

So, intentionally leaving something out of a quote isn’t cherry picking. I think I recognize that tactic as one that many truthers have used.

Why wouldn’t Capt, Borgstrum tell the crew chief to arm the gun on that F-16? You do know that that aircraft was not on alert status at that time. Or, would you expect the Capt. to take off on a possible combat mission armed only with his service weapon? Your statement appears to say that NEADS expects their pilots to fly any combat mission unarmed.

 

[fess]

All of it. Pick one thing, like the SOF. The dumbest one. You made 6 or 7 errors with the SOF, lies you made up after you did not read all about the stuff you posted. How many years did you serve your country?

Would less than zero be a viable answer?

 

[beachnut]

...Does anyone know the opinion's of Dawkins, Tyson, Krauss or other notable physicists?

They know E=mgh. G, gravity has fooled you into thing 911 was CD. What about Flight 93? Flight 77? Your fantasy falls apart as you have to explain the the acts of 19 terrorists you essentially feel proud to apologize for by blaming people you can't name. Who did your fantasy? You have no idea what happen on 911 and you said so.

...Does the NIST theory bother your common senses or acumen?

NIST does not bother me. I don't need NIST to understand gravity collapse, I can do the math. And the fact I spent 5.5 years in engineering schools to get my masters is not needed to see your claims are fantasy. Most intelligent laypeople can study 911 and figure it out; why can't you?

...Why do all three of these collapses differ so starkly from all other video'd building collapses?

They had no BOOM. No explosives, just gravity. No order, chaotic.

...Why do all three of these (to this layman) look so similar to intentional collapses?

Gravity.

...Why is there need to propose a counter theory? Isn't it sufficient to discredit what's claimed?

There is no counter theory. There is reality. 19 terrorists did 911, and the WTC collapse due to impact and fires. The largest office fires in history. And the KEY, ZERO fire fighting because the systems were destroyed by the impacts. Then the water was not available to fight fires started by the collapse in WTC 5, 6, 7. You missed 5 and 6, totaled by fire, and these buildings were fought. You claim you don't know anything about 911, and you have proved it by supporting liars who claim it was CD, or at least you come with a fantasy backed by your on opinion.
CD looks like gravity collapse. You were fooled by not thinking what is the primary source of energy used to destroy building in CD. Gravity. You should have taken physics.

...There's no need to belittle me - I'll declare myself an ignoramus. I literally am just seeking some UNBIASED scientific reasoning, skepticism and rationale.

Your fantasy matches your revelation you know nothing about 911.

You believe 911 truth, that NIST is bogus. A movement with 0.01 percent backing from engineers who failed on 911 issues. You are backed by 0.01 percent engineers; wow. Not one has evidence, or a paper in a real journal to back up your fantasy of CD. Are you going to pin your theory CD with thermite? Where is the fused iron on the steel from the WTC?

 

[DGM]

There's no need to belittle me - I'll declare myself an ignoramus. I literally am just seeking some UNBIASED scientific reasoning, skepticism and rationale.

How about you first. What is your UNBIASED scientific reasoning to doubt what has become the commonly accepted explanation. It's been reported in the media and there have been hundreds of studies all leading to this general consensus. You think they are all wrong, Why?