9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that these buildings were designed to take the impact of a jumbo jet crashing into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, if true, this proves nothing DUCY???

[ QUOTE ]
Just the sheer fact that no high rise building has ever fallen due to fire in the history of high rise buildings besides on 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another irrelevant tidbit that proves absolutely nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken the steel to a point of collapse since structural steel has to be able to handle 500-600% its load.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty funny actually steel melts period. To say that a fire could never melt steel is absurd.


[ QUOTE ]
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

[/ QUOTE ]

What collapse isn't "gravitional" when it happens?


You guys have to make a much better case than this to actually convince people.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Who are "these people"? Do you know what a conspiracy theory is? Not believing what the government tells you is not a conspiracy theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but believing that the government is conspiring to hide the truth from us, and/or conspired to cause the events of 9/11 *does* make you a "conspiracy theorist".

[zasterguava]

To those who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy:

Do you feel it was a conspiracy 100% or are you prepared to acknowledge it is at least a possiblity that the events of 9/11 are accurately potrayed by the media/government/independent studies that are widely accepted by expert opinion?

Personally, I do not believe it was a conspiracy, but, on the other hand Im not entirely convinced either way- based on the information we have to work on (we are not FBI/government officials/ terroists...) it is impossible for us to profess to know either way 100%.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but believing that the government is conspiring to hide the truth from us, and/or conspired to cause the events of 9/11 *does* make you a "conspiracy theorist".

[/ QUOTE ]

Suprised not everyone has grasped this yet.

[DcifrThs]

i'm watching it now so i'll try to write as best i can.

on first note, there are many "slights of grammar" that make the "conspiracy theorists" look non - expert and all the"experts" look like total experts.

however, there are some counter examples. professors of history and philosophy and psychology are noted as such AND that they believe in the "conspiracy theory."

further, "demolition experts" are cited, one of whom gives a part of his resume that took over 5 secods to go over. i immediately took note of that as it was pretty impressive.

so i'll deal with that first on this commercial break...i agree w/ the guy that just said "one of the biggest problems i have is that the bombs would have to be placed exactly wher ethe planes hit AND detonated precisely."

but demolition of a building is a precise science as noted previously by one of the more true experts on the show. the overlayed filmed demolitions and every one of them occur from the bottom up. the expert (who was one of hte only true noted experts b/c that is simply what he's done for a living) stated that you never take a building down from the top.

i've also watched film of this thing a few dozen times and it is 100% clearly indisputable that the buildings failed or was demolished from the site of the plane crashes from both buildings. the planes hit at different floors and came from different angles.

demolishing a building is a precise science. demolishing a building to make it appear ex post that it came from a point of contact that is somehow distributed (and hard to guage when you're putting explosives in) at the top of the buildings and making sure that the floors fail from the point of contact and then flow dwon from there seems to me, on the face of it, an unbelievably impossible act of precision. i can't see that being the case. this is probably the strongest piece of evidence to me that the "it was a controlled demolition" is flat wrong.

now, onto the pentagon, i'm pretty well sold by the army transport plane pilot who said he saw a plane crash into the pentagon.

further, then they talk with the first structural engineer who held the black box in his hand and other pieces of plane debris.

and the hole size being analagoes to a car driving through a building is interesting. there are claims that the holes proceeding the entry are too small to be caused by a plane. well a car that drives through a normal not insanely reinforced building will leave a larger entry hole and progressively smaller holes as it passes through until it is stopped.

then there is a recording of the hijackers talking over the

then there are reports of first hand police officers saying they found "plenty of debris" and found "human remains." how do you debunk first hand accounts? they pretty much stand on their own...

i will now say ... LOL though at the "you are about to hear the theories of conspiracy theorists. you will then hear rebuttals by experts." this is SOOOO not a documentary. this is as much of an "even handed documentary" as michael moore's films are "even handed documentary"s.

but, this film does have some useful facts.

another thought i have is that it is very interesting that "loose change" was filmed and made by 1 20something. i'm kinda shocked that there are only 1 or 2 older people who were filmed on the "conspiracy theorist" side. i'm sure there are older people who believe in that theory.

and that the main "reserach rep." from popular mechanics is a 20something.

anyways, i'll wrap up this post now, lest it be completely ignored due to its length.

i'm not a believer that any "official" release is 100% accurate. the writers aren't perfect. i don't even think that there should be an "official response"... just an educated guess imo. we can never know, even as 1st, 2nd and 3rd had accounts, what is the truth.

i will say htough that i'm a believer in random hugely impactful events. i think 911 was one of those events. i don't think it was a hugely conspiritorial event. there was probably a ton of use of it to forward political agendas and that is really weak sauce imo.

i think there are many govt conspiracies. i just don't think you'd hear about them on the news or in films by a 20something kid. (though i'm still a 20something). i bet real govt conspiracies happen every day and involve things that are important but never heard about.

further, if the us govt wanted to use an attack to forward an agenda, why pick one that is gunna hurt so bad. you'd want to use one that would be believable but not maximally painful. you'd want to maximize damage, minimize human life lost, and maximize believability. with malice a forethought, you could definitely come up with one of those.

think of how deep this kind of conpiracy would have to go without ANY official leaks.

those are just my thoughts, written while watching the first 1hr 20mins of this thing and drinking some fine 18yr chilled glenlivet single malt scotch (as opposed to my go-to 1/2 glass of glenlivet 12 w/ 2 cubes of ice).

i'll be happy to answer questions about my scotch taste [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

if you made it this far, congrats and thanks. it is an unedited (and un re-read) post so sorry about that.

Barron

EDIT: OMG LOL just saw the building 7 footage of the female reporter...she says "oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, oh my god" like she was biulding towards an orgasm hahahaha

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
further, if the us govt wanted to use an attack to forward an agenda, why pick one that is gunna hurt so bad. you'd want to use one that would be believable but not maximally painful. you'd want to maximize damage, minimize human life lost, and maximize believability. with malice a forethought, you could definitely come up with one of those.

[/ QUOTE ] First of all, how badly did it really hurt us? We are still an intact country. We have basically everything we had before 9/11. We lost 3,000 people, and our economy suffered briefly, but they are rebuilding at the WTC site. The Pentagon is repaired, and the government sent out plenty of subsidies to the airlines to keep them a float. But if you believe all the conspiracy theories, all of this is irrelevant to those who purportedly carried this out. The key element to this for them is the War on Terrorism, because it leads to increased defense spending and an assurance to protect the interests of the rich oil companies. These people don't give a damn about our nations economy, or 3,000 lives, or the airlines. They care about their coffers and their lives.



I am incredibly skeptical of this whole thing. For me, I do think this conspiracies have some merit to them because there is some proof to back up their claims. Both physical and anecdotal proof from that very day, but also "proof" from how this Admin behaved before and after this event. Too many things have occured that make me seriously question a lot of things. Furthermore, I have an incredibly hard time believing anything this Admin says or believing in any of its actions and policies. They misled our entire country about Iraq, which is definitely connected to 9/11. They treat all of us like [censored] because they don't care about us.

I don't see this admin as just bumbling fools who made a mistake on 9/11, I see them as malicious people who would lie and cheat to get what they want. So thats why I think these conspiracy theories have some merit, and quite frankly I think you all should as well. I see little reason why we all should idly sit back and accept everything they tell us.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
further, if the us govt wanted to use an attack to forward an agenda, why pick one that is gunna hurt so bad. you'd want to use one that would be believable but not maximally painful. you'd want to maximize damage, minimize human life lost, and maximize believability. with malice a forethought, you could definitely come up with one of those.

[/ QUOTE ] First of all, how badly did it really hurt us? We are still an intact country. We have basically everything we had before 9/11. We lost 3,000 people, and our economy suffered briefly, but they are rebuilding at the WTC site. The Pentagon is repaired, and the government sent out plenty of subsidies to the airlines to keep them a float. But if you believe all the conspiracy theories, all of this is irrelevant to those who purportedly carried this out. The key element to this for them is the War on Terrorism, because it leads to increased defense spending and an assurance to protect the interests of the rich oil companies. These people don't give a damn about our nations economy, or 3,000 lives, or the airlines. They care about their coffers and their lives.



I am incredibly skeptical of this whole thing. For me, I do think this conspiracies have some merit to them because there is some proof to back up their claims. Both physical and anecdotal proof from that very day, but also "proof" from how this Admin behaved before and after this event. Too many things have occured that make me seriously question a lot of things. Furthermore, I have an incredibly hard time believing anything this Admin says or believing in any of its actions and policies. They misled our entire country about Iraq, which is definitely connected to 9/11. They treat all of us like [censored] because they don't care about us.

I don't see this admin as just bumbling fools who made a mistake on 9/11, I see them as malicious people who would lie and cheat to get what they want. So thats why I think these conspiracy theories have some merit, and quite frankly I think you all should as well. I see little reason why we all should idly sit back and accept everything they tell us.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i'm stupid...i agree with a lot of what you say...but i just come to a different conclusion.

i don't believe the govt could design and execute 911 the way it occured. it was just too good.

i DO see the govt as bumbling.

are you REALLY going to get back at somebody by leaking the top secret/classified name of their spouse to the press and expect it not to get back to you? REALLY??

are you REALLY going to invade iraq on the basis that they were connected to 911 and that they pose an imminant threat on the basis that they currently have WMD...but that many could prove they didn't have and expect everybody to buy it...and THEN say that once it was proven that they didn't pose an immediate threat and had no WMD that it was to dispose of a tyrannical leader and it was all for the best?? REALLY??

c'mon...

the bush administration is not capable enough of executing something as exact and amazingly well done without ANY leaks, ANY slipups and have it play out exactly as those who believe they planned it seem to believe it happened.

did you read that part of my post about the demolition? how in the name of all that is good and holy could they set up the buildings to collapse from the point of impact with an ex ante setup of explosives and execute the fall so precisely? is that really something that could have been done?

no way in hell.

aside from the demolition thing, how could this all happen without a single govt leak. not one. every slipup the govt has and there's a ton of people ready and willing to testify to further their career or their life in some way. yet here, the biggest conspiracy in the history of the united states and we have not one witness to the govt's forethougt? REALLY?

the administration is opportunistic, not perfectionist. they took advantage of 911 to invade iraq...they didn't plan 911 to invade iraq.

the patriot act was completely opportunistic, again, not perfectionist.

i believe the govt executes conspiracies. ones that happen under our noses and that we don't see. the mark of a good one is that it won't get found out. 911 was a horrible one if it was one. possibly the worst way to do it. and it was just amazingly perfect. those 19 hijakers all in on it. the FAA recordings, the black boxes, the phone calls, the planes hitting the towers, the demolition of hte buildings from that exact point where ex ante they had no real data on where exactly the planes would hit. c'mon...REALLY?

Barron

[Richard Tanner]

That' the thing, it's just not possible, the coordination of hundreds to thousands of people and the secrecy involved. Common sense should tell you it's not an elaborate set up.

The Patriot Act and the Iraq situation were matters of oppertunism not conspiracy. Bush has had oppertunistic people around him from day 1, it's not at all a stretch to imagine Rove saying "well this presents an interesting oppertunity".

But as I mentioned above, the human mind has a weakness for conspiracy theories so things like this have, are, and will continue to pop up.

Cody

[ThaSaltCracka]

DcifrThs, thanks for the post.

All of this is so [censored] up, to me at least. We comment on how perfectly carried out this attack was, and say it couldn't have been carried out by our bumbling bunch in the white house. But somehow a group of Saudi's carried it out? You serious? One of the guys from the flight school said one of the attackers could barely fly a single engine cesna, but we are suppose to believe he could fly 4(right?) engine jetliner into a building or the pentagon? Really? I mean, most airline pilots go to school for a while or are ex-military, but somehow these four planes were flown by amateurs?

Also, this was all somehow conducted under the nose of the FBI and CIA? Really? Is this really the case?

I know there are reports that other governments warned our government. So either they knew this was coming, and let it happen, or ignored the complaints as bs threats. With this crew we have in office, it could be either. Suppose for a second they let it happen. How does that effect the conspiracy claims? If they let it happen, surely they could or would have helped as well, right?

[CORed]

The thing I have a really hard time with for all the 9/11 conspiracy theories is why "the government" (or whoever you believe to be responsible) would arrange to have planes flown into the buildings and explosively demolish them. Even if the buildings had not collapsed, wouldn't the disaster have been sufficient to achieve their political ends? Why on earth would you explosively demolish WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane? Even without the collapse, there would have been several hundred, if not a thousand deaths from the fire. Very few people on the floors above the impact would have survived.

Staging an explosive demolition after the impacts would have substantially increased the risk of the conspiracy being discovered, and done nothing to further whatever political agenda the conspiracy was supposed to be supporting.

[LongRedHair]

The one theory that I think has to be the top of the list of stupid ones is the missile that hit the Pentagon. It goes something like the reason there were 100+ people that saw a plane hit the pentagon was that the missile had been disguised to look like a plane.

I've still not found a cruise missile with a wingspan and lenght of 150ft+ and a tail of 50ft+ but you can't let that get in the way of a good theory.