• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Truth hypothesis

Bell said:
How 9/11 Was REALLY Done
Click to expand...

This was always one of my faves!
Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of *********** nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of *********** nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
Click to expand...

Think Matt nailed it?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...st_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies
 
This is a little off topic, but I have a question. I saw a video where Steven Jones (I think it was him that said it) said that there was an experiment done where the steel only sagged about 3 inches. I think he thinks that this experiment shows that the bowing of the outer walls could not have been caused by the fires.

Was the experiment flawed? How so?
 
too vague tj. You're gonna have to get a reference for that one.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
tj15 said:
Do any truthers here have a plausible hypothesis for what they think happened on 9/11?...
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has answered the OP directly.

Here goes! NO!

uke2se said:
On RationalSkepticism we have a 9/11 thread were we've demanded just this sort of thing over and over again. Our truthers are bending over backwards to avoid fulfilling this request, and it's kind of obvious why.
Click to expand...
..there is a second possibility that some of them are not capable of making any decision so they cannot "converge" their thinking to say "No Demolition" OR "Of course it was that plane" OR "If it didn't crash there waht made that hole."

But maybe I'm being too generous to them. :rolleyes:
 
tj15 said:
Are there any truthers that come to this forum daily that have plausible theories?
Click to expand...

The short answer is "no!".

The longer answer is that they all believe wildly different things and explaining Their Version Of 9/11 will be immediately countered (if not attacked as the posting of a NWO shill) by other fantasists posting Their Only True Version, not to mention by other posters firmly rooted in reality. Truthers only try to poke holes in the history of what happened because that way they don't have to post their own (laughable!) version of things.

You'll notice that this thread's been up for three days now and not a single Truther has posted, which is a telling sign.
 
tj15 said:
I'm not seeing where the link discusses the experiment done, I THINK by Underwriters Laboratory in 2004, that caused only 3 inches of sagging. I'm just looking for details on the experiment like how they accounted for the weight of the floors, what temperatures they used, ect.
Click to expand...
Actually it does.

Note: ASTM E119

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E119.htm

You have to remember the NIST reports were directed to professionals not to convince the layman.
 
tj15 said:
Do any truthers here have a plausible hypothesis for what they think happened on 9/11?

Sorry if this has been asked multiple times before.

Truthers: Why haven't you guys attempted to form an agreed upon hypothesis among the Truth Movement? I mean, 9/11 happened only one way... So why are there so many different theories?
Click to expand...

Are there any Truthers left here on JREF??
 
tj15 said:
I'm not seeing where the link discusses the experiment done, I THINK by Underwriters Laboratory in 2004, that caused only 3 inches of sagging. I'm just looking for details on the experiment like how they accounted for the weight of the floors, what temperatures they used, ect.
Click to expand...

I think it can be found in the meat of one of the NIST reports...not sure where, but I am pretty sure it is in there.

TAM:)
 
tj15 said:
I'm not seeing where the link discusses the experiment done, I THINK by Underwriters Laboratory in 2004, that caused only 3 inches of sagging. I'm just looking for details on the experiment like how they accounted for the weight of the floors, what temperatures they used, ect.
Click to expand...


This link might have what you're looking for, tj15 (NIST factsheet with links to pdf files).
 
So the UL test included fireproofing?... But in reality, the fireproofing was blown off during the impacts?

Sorry... I know this is all old stuff. I just never really looked into the stuff about these experiments with how much the floors sagged.
 
dafydd said:
Yes,but never never respond to threads like like this,they have jelly fish instead of a spine.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how difficult it is for truthers to answer the question about what their hypothesis for 9/11 is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom