Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

[Ns1]

nm, too ridiculous of a response even for me.

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

What really needs to be done are studies that show just WHY people buy into this crap and what can be done to help them.

That's really what the paper was going to be about - sociology, you know. Analysis of the groupthink thing, shit like that. You're right, it really is a sort of cult. I think there's some sort of appeal to being part of this group of people with the "inside scoop." It kind of amazes me that people that are that whacked the fuck out are able to function.

How is that much different than people who automatically accept whatever their government leaders or people like Rush Limbaugh tell them? Most Americans know very little in regards to details surrounding 9/11. Most formed their permanent opinions on the matter within hours of the events; opinions that were formed based on government leaders talking behind microphones.

The reason the conspiracy theories persist is because the government did an absolutely horrible investigation and left many unanswered questions. For starters, they could easily release many video angles of the plane crashing into the pentagon.

I agree 100% I don't own a tin foil hat, but when my own government came out saying "neither Black Box were found, 99% of everything turned to rubble, OHHH... but we did find this one terrorists passport on ground zero. And it was basically untouched."

I don't know, that makes me wonder, I think about that one thing every time I think about 9/11 and it never gets any less confusing. I would like one person here to explain this. I mean black boxes, the steel of the building basically EVERYTHING disinergrated in the fire, but somehow a piece of paper not only didn't burn & is still readable?

I'm NOT saying the government was behind 9/11 but they did come out saying they found the passport, could one person here explain this to me? Since nobody can, I will assume the government knows more than they're telling us.

it's quite simple, the NSA destroyed the black box and planted fake passports to send the FBI on a wild goose chase.

 

[CasioTech]

btw, flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it flew very close to the pentagon but did not strike it and then a bomb (or missile) went off in the pentagon and the plane was flown away and disassembled.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
btw, flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it flew very close to the pentagon but did not strike it and then a bomb (or missile) went off in the pentagon and the plane was flown away and disassembled.

wow.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
btw, flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it flew very close to the pentagon but did not strike it and then a bomb (or missile) went off in the pentagon and the plane was flown away and disassembled.

Are you really this stupid?

Oh wait, it's casiotech. Nevermind.

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
the plane was flown away and disassembled.

Did they sell the parts on ebay after disassembling it?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

100% incorrect. The "government's" explanation (along with everyone else's) is that WTC got reamed by the collapsing towers. The fires that were started on further destabilized the building.

( 1 ) Notice the amount of debris falling towards WTC 7.
( 2 ) Notice the whole corner of the building missing, caused by the falling debris.
( 3 ) Fires raging throughout the building.

Question: Why was WTC 7 a unique building?
Answer: WTC 7 was unique because it was constructed over a power substation. The original substation was designed to support a 25 story building on top of it, not something the size of WTC 7. In order to accommodate such a huge building, a new foundation and special series of trusses were designed to distribute the load of the building over the foundations. Those trusses were located throughout floors 10 and below. When the building initially got hit, these trusses were severely damaged. Unable to balance the load properly, the building became highly unstable. Meanwhile, fires, fueled by generator fuel and located further destabilized the building.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we?ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Boyle was captain of engine 94

Question: Now what evidence is there for such a collapse?
Answer: IF WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, why does the building not begin to fall uniformly? We can clearly see in time-lapsed photographs that left-hand side of the building (in the photos) begins falling substantially earlier than the right side. Why is that significant? The severe damage done to WTC7 matches that side. As the 'left' side gave out, the building was unable to handle the loads and the weight-bearing columns were overwhelmed. Hence, when the building did start to fall, it fell in a hurry because there was essentially nothing holding it up.

There is ZERO evidence for any explosives or any explosive charges going off in WTC 7 prior to it's collapse. If we are to believe firefighter's testimony, they began to think that WTC7 was going to collapse at 2 pm. It finally did succumb at 5.

CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS:
- If explosives were planted, why did they not go off when main towers came crashing down? Why wait nearly 10 hours to blow them up?
- If explosives were planted, why did firefighters believe that the building was already going to collapse three hours before it actually did?

edit: fixed links

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
btw, flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it flew very close to the pentagon but did not strike it and then a bomb (or missile) went off in the pentagon and the plane was flown away and disassembled.

Why then is there no eye-witness account of such a thing ever happening? We have hundreds of accounts of people seeing the plane hit the Pentagon and, despite some differences in opinion about exactly what it might have been (some say it was a streak of silver, which is understandable considering it was traveling at 500 mph), NOBODY says they saw a plane fly away.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Do you believe Larry Silverstein knocked down the WTC for the insurance money or do you believe that it was the government?

Are you serious? Read what I have said previously. I am not sure who is/was responsible. I doubt it was the 'government' though, tons in the private sector had a major interest in expanding the war and keeping it going.

Not to mention what was lost/taken in the WTC's

I seriously think you don't really have the knowledge to even comment on this thread providing an A or B situation like you did.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

You first.

Again another mudsling...I started this thread...most here like yourself are simply attacking a poster and not providing any thing to back up yourself. Those that keep 'providing' proof are all using the same links from the same sources.

I was not in an attempt to prove or disprove anything, only to discuss it.

Your fear shows though.

Your idiocy shows though. You have never answered any challenges to you theories as they are successively proved wrong.

WTF theory did I make?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Do you believe Larry Silverstein knocked down the WTC for the insurance money or do you believe that it was the government?

Are you serious? Read what I have said previously. I am not sure who is/was responsible. I doubt it was the 'government' though, tons in the private sector had a major interest in expanding the war and keeping it going.

Not to mention what was lost/taken in the WTC's

I seriously think you don't really have the knowledge to even comment on this thread providing an A or B situation like you did.

I'm not proving anything, I just want to understand which of these theories you seem to ascribe to. First, it was that the government brought down the WTC, then you latched onto the Silverstein thing.

I cannot prove any 9/11 conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt because the very nature of a conspiracy doesn't allow it. There is no evidence the government could put forward that would put to rest all conspiracy theories about the events in question.

I just happen to believe that with a little fact-checking a logic we can rule out with a near 100% certainty that there was any foul play.

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: CasioTech
btw, flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it flew very close to the pentagon but did not strike it and then a bomb (or missile) went off in the pentagon and the plane was flown away and disassembled.

This seriously has to be a joke. he must just be trying to get a rise out of everyone. Just stop responding to such nonsense people.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The saddest thing about this thread is that I know you haven't read anything I posted because you choose, instead, to stick your fingers in your ears and scream and stomp as loudly as you can until the big, bad, scary facts go away.

Slim actually provided you the information you are seeking. He knew/knows he will prevail in this and at the slight chance he doesn't he takes the insurance and files bankruptcy. Leases aren't usually paid out in a reorganization.

Regardless this doesn't mean he had anything to do with it nor does it preclude him from involvement.

The problem is you and your cronies want the people that have doubts to provide 100% infallible proof. Even with the story that's being portrayed there isn't 100% proof of anything. Just a lot of reason assumption to whom was ultimately responsible.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: torpid
What happened to the debate over the destructive power of fire? What's all this other crap? Stay on topic, people. Don't make me have spent 5 minutes assembling links about fires for nothing.

Fire didn't burn down the WTC. It couldn't have. It had to have been taken out by explosives.

Thanks for indulging me. So if explosives are all that could have worked, how did people forge swords in the early days? That's just fire, seemingly, yet not only weakened, but melted strong metals. Did Prometheus actually bring explosives down to man? That would seem to be the most logical way to account for this troubling discrepancy.

Are you absolutely sure it wasn't GREEK fire? I mean that would be an understandable mistake. The greek probably just called it fire. It would explain everything. Prometheus brought greek fire, which though mostly just fire, is still enough like explosives that we could forge stuff with it. Rich dude with the insurance policy probably put some in a starbucks to go cup; the really huge one. Venti. Or grande. Whatever. The big one. He probably brought it in every day for a week and then just "accidentally" set it down near a support column. Then, late one night, with an R/C car that had a bluetooth camera on the grill, he knocked them all over. They would still be quite hot being that they were in coffee cups and were GREEK fire.

I believe we have now solved the entire case.

Elementary, Watson.

The metal in a sword is not exactly what they built buildings out of.

Scientists, engineers and others have stated if this wasn't a fire fueled by AVGAS raising it's temperature significantly it would not have had the same effect.

The problem with that is the 3rd tower didn't have anything fueling it. Later they began going with there were diesel tanks in that tower that did it. Diesel isn't really a volatile fuel though which was a huge reason the military adopted it.

 

[02ranger]

This has got to be the best thread I've ever read. I'm not getting involved though, because some of these idiotic arguments would make me insane to get involved in. I just can't handle arguing with somebody that is so set in their beliefs that they can't even acknowledge the possibility they're wrong. You know who you are.

LOL!!!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The saddest thing about this thread is that I know you haven't read anything I posted because you choose, instead, to stick your fingers in your ears and scream and stomp as loudly as you can until the big, bad, scary facts go away.

Slim actually provided you the information you are seeking. He knew/knows he will prevail in this and at the slight chance he doesn't he takes the insurance and files bankruptcy. Leases aren't usually paid out in a reorganization.

Regardless this doesn't mean he had anything to do with it nor does it preclude him from involvement.

The problem is you and your cronies want the people that have doubts to provide 100% infallible proof. Even with the story that's being portrayed there isn't 100% proof of anything. Just a lot of reason assumption to whom was ultimately responsible.

What? Slim came up with some wild theory that has no basis in facts or in practical business sense. If Silverstein wanted to maximize his income, he would have never destroyed the WTC. If he could have bailed out and was only in it for the insurance money, why didn't he? Why is he still struggling to rebuild the WTC? He cannot get out of the lease without losing EVERYTHING.

What is so hard to comprehend about that?

Again,

the path to maximal revenue for Silverstein involves WTC 1 and 2 still standing in downtown New York, not them lying in a pile of rubble and nearly 10 billion dollars worth of money needed to rebuild them.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

This was the 666th post to this thread, I think that's a sign it has run its course

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

Did you even read what I wrote? Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a fucking picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: ric1287
If I lived in a country where I believed all this bat-shit insane stuff was going on with my government....I'd be on the first plane the fuck out.

So for me, that just proves how unbelievably crazy/stupid you have to be to believe in some of the shit talked about in this thread.

So you think the government has never lied or covered up anything?

Seriously you have no where you could go anyway...it's a world problem not just the US. There is no real one world order or anything, but anywhere you would go those in power aren't looking out for the little guy. Just look at the attitudes in here...even if those believing their truth is correct, instead of educating others....they just want to crush them out.

Give them an army and money and they'd be right at home.

 

[Delita]

OMG!! Another conspiracy. Evidence

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: torpid
What happened to the debate over the destructive power of fire? What's all this other crap? Stay on topic, people. Don't make me have spent 5 minutes assembling links about fires for nothing.

Fire didn't burn down the WTC. It couldn't have. It had to have been taken out by explosives.

Thanks for indulging me. So if explosives are all that could have worked, how did people forge swords in the early days? That's just fire, seemingly, yet not only weakened, but melted strong metals. Did Prometheus actually bring explosives down to man? That would seem to be the most logical way to account for this troubling discrepancy.

Are you absolutely sure it wasn't GREEK fire? I mean that would be an understandable mistake. The greek probably just called it fire. It would explain everything. Prometheus brought greek fire, which though mostly just fire, is still enough like explosives that we could forge stuff with it. Rich dude with the insurance policy probably put some in a starbucks to go cup; the really huge one. Venti. Or grande. Whatever. The big one. He probably brought it in every day for a week and then just "accidentally" set it down near a support column. Then, late one night, with an R/C car that had a bluetooth camera on the grill, he knocked them all over. They would still be quite hot being that they were in coffee cups and were GREEK fire.

I believe we have now solved the entire case.

Elementary, Watson.

The metal in a sword is not exactly what they built buildings out of.

Scientists, engineers and others have stated if this wasn't a fire fueled by AVGAS raising it's temperature significantly it would not have had the same effect.

The problem with that is the 3rd tower didn't have anything fueling it. Later they began going with there were diesel tanks in that tower that did it. Diesel isn't really a volatile fuel though which was a huge reason the military adopted it.

A comparmentalized fire increased the temperature, MIT has had multiple independant studies that crunched numbers on it.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

I'm not proving anything, I just want to understand which of these theories you seem to ascribe to. First, it was that the government brought down the WTC, then you latched onto the Silverstein thing.

I cannot prove any 9/11 conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt because the very nature of a conspiracy doesn't allow it. There is no evidence the government could put forward that would put to rest all conspiracy theories about the events in question.

I just happen to believe that with a little fact-checking a logic we can rule out with a near 100% certainty that there was any foul play.

You have me confused with someone else or you are trolling to put words in my mouth.

If you lack comprehension, please leave the thread.

I don't get your theory on conspiracy. Conspiracy can be proved and discovered. It's happened several times in our history and in the history of the world.

However, no matter how many times it happens the masses still believe it won't happen again.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

Did you even read what I wrote? Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a fucking picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.

Except it didn't fall with the other two towers. Maybe a delayed reaction eh?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

Did you even read what I wrote? Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a fucking picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.

Except it didn't fall with the other two towers. Maybe a delayed reaction eh?

The ensuing fires took care of the rest.