Are you sick of conspiracy nuts?.....9/11

by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Galileo

    AGuest, I must apologize. I haven't read any of your posts in this thread, since you've shown in other threads that you're bat-shit crazy (peace be with you!). I assume that you are probably on the conspiracy theorists side since you're a total wack job.

    Leolaia, thank you for your thoughtful response. I wish I had your patience. You have laid out a very well researched and well reasoned argument, as usual, which I'm sure will continue to be met with ridicule by those that wish to believe we live in a world filled with cartoonish supervillians. Rest assured that those of us capable of thoughtful analysis appreciate your research.

  • talesin

    Galileo, you're a rude f*ck.

    Leo, I had had had to post this!!!!

    We Need You to Restore Truthiness



    What bothers me the most about "truthers" is the cultish manner in which they dismiss those that have looked at their evidence and concluded differently. We are told that we stick our heads in the sand, or up our asses. This is what makes me label "truthers" as a cult, and to dismiss their claims out of hand.

    Do you "truthers" really understand just how J-Dub you sound?

  • White Dove
    White Dove


    You will die alone.

    It will be a most horrible death, too.

    Go to Sokar.

  • White Dove
    White Dove

    I think our vaccines are safe.

    Been vaccinated my whole life and never felt badly for it.

  • Leolaia
    Considering the way both building went down, I believe it was an inside job. Those buildings were felled by professionals. Both went down perfectly, in imitation of YouTube videos I've seen of professional demolitions. Planes didn't do that.

    Just a thought.....If a building constructed like the WTC were to undergo actual structural failure and then collapse, how would that have looked? How would it have differed? What are your expectations about how a naturally collapsing steel skyscraper would behave? This is reminiscent of a famous question posed by the philosopher Wittgenstein:

    Wittgenstein: Tell me, why does it seem more natural for people to believe that the sun goes around the earth, than the other way around? Student: Well, obviously because it looks that way. Wittgenstein: I see. And how would it look like, if the earth went around the sun? Student: Well I suppose..... (smiles) Yes. I see what you mean.

    I ask that question because professional demolitions are designed to induce gravity-driven progressive collapse; the explosives do not blow up the building but set a collapse into motion. So of course they will look similar. Rather, what are the differences? Well I can certainly think of one huge huge relevant difference: the WTC collapses did not involve the detonation of explosive charges. No bright flashes, no loud BANGS, much less a timed sequence of explosives. This is very conspicuous too in the case of the WTC7 collapse. Where it counts, there is no substantive similarity between the collapses and actual building implosions -- only the superficial similarity of what happens in general when tall buildings succumb to the forces of gravity.

    Also the buildings did not 'go down perfectly' in a manner similar to professional demolitions. They fell in a rather chaotic uncontrolled manner, and instead of failing simultaneously throughout the entire structure (as in the typical BANG BANG BANG controlled demolition), the Twin Towers each failed at their weakest floors (the impact floors), with floors below failing individually in face of a falling upper block. This is very different from what normally occurs in controlled demolitions. The collapse was also preceded for many minutes by conspicious deformation of the perimeter columns where collapse began (the south face in the case of WTC1 and the east face in the case of WTC2), showing that failure was already in progress for some time prior to the collapse, and the video of the WTC2 collapse shows quite clearly that this increasing deformation led directly to the initiation of the collapse (basically, the columns were pulled inward further and further until they snapped). This is not what occurs in controlled demolitions. The floors also collapsed around the core, which took longer to fall; videos show remnants of the core of both towers standing haphazardly for some time after the collapse of the floors. Not exactly a picture "perfect" collapse. Nor did they fall perfectly into their footprint but spread debris over a large area and onto other surrounding buildings.

    It is also worth pointing out that all three buildings were much taller than the largest building ever imploded (which was 33 floors in height). So on a SINGLE day, some mysterious demolition company set the world record for controlled demolition THREE TIMES. That must've taken massive preparations, which oddly enough no one ever noticed. Imagine rigging up the three buildings for explosive demolition while they were fully occupied, and since most of the columns were on the exterior of the buildings, that would have meant going into people's offices and drilling holes into columns and inserting explosives right behind people's desks and cubicles. I find that really hard to believe. And what demolition company was it that did the job? There aren't very many of them. What evidence is there that they were there in NYC in advance of 9/11 working hard on preparing those buildings for demolition? How did they keep it all a secret? And how did the perps convince such a company to ignore the laws in New York City which have banned the practice of explosive demolition for many years in Manhattan?

  • JeffT

    I wasn't going to get back in this but I can't sleep so I'm going to ask once again the question no truther has yet to answer intelligently:


    OK I get all the we wanted to whip the country up to go steal oil arguments. That might even be plausible. What is NOT plausible is why use a method that entails months of work by hundreds of people. I watched Seattle implode the Kingdome (I could see it out the window of my offiice). This is not something a couple of guys can do over night. I have yet to hear a single story from one person who saw anything unusual in the twin towers prior to Sept 11, let alone anybody that helped wire the buildings.

    If it had been done it would have created a tremendous opportunity for discovery prior to the event. Much easier to just fly a couple of radio controlled planes into the buildings. I know, some one is going to point out that doing that might not bring the buildings down. So what? An attack of that magnitude would have enraged the country even if it left the buildings standing.

    PS: they would have had to be torn down, you can't repair a high rise that has taken that kind of punishment.

    PPS: I tried looking up the 119th FW, and didn't see anythng that made sense. It's a North Dakota Air National Guard Unit flying F-16's. The F-16 has a combat range of 680 miles. It's over a thousand miles from ND to PA. One site has a map showing the 119th based outside Washington, but I couldn't locate an explanation of why a North Dakota ANG was in Washington when there wasn't an alert on. This is a good example of the kind of details the conspriacy crowd tends to overlook.

  • cofty

    Leo thank you for injecting facts into this discussion.

    My biggest problem with "truthers" is that they never have a coherent explanation. It’s just a contradictory jumble of conjecture. Where is the big picture? Join all your crazy ideas together please into one big meta-narrative and tell us who, how and why and then let us see whether you have a coherent and credible story .

  • Leolaia

    crofty....Yeah, that's what I meant about the the "plot" making little operational sense and why I posted the South Park video. With so much riding on the success of the operation with the risk of failure so great, why wouldn't the plotters have kept things as simple as possible involving the least number of co-conspirators? Why would the plotters have green-light such a logistically convoluted and pointless scheme? For instance, the more mainstream-minded truthers claim that planes crashed into the WTC towers, but that no plane crashed at the Pentagon. Rather, explosives were used to make it look like a plane crashed into the Pentagon while the real AA77 missed and flew away from the building, or a cruise missile was fired at the building instead of a plane. Like, seriously? If the evil government plotters crashed planes into the Twin Towers, then why the hell not do the same at the Pentagon? Why do to all the effort in faking a plane crash there (including having agents plant plane debris on the lawn and fake toppled light poles), when you could simply crash a plane there! Why take the risk of using something else and claiming through the media that it was actually a plane. How could they not know that in some apartment overlooking the Pentagon some person didn't have a camera ready to snap a picture or take video of that cruise missile, or of the plane flying away from the Pentagon? They could not have possibly known that such evidence did not exist when the media started reporting -- just minutes after the attack -- that a plane was witnessed crashing at the Pentagon? One guy named Steve Riskus was in traffic right in front of the building and saw the plane fly right in front of him into the building. He had his camera with him and took some of the earliest photos of the Pentagon immediately after the crash. He put the photos up on the internet in hours. How could the government have expected that no one could possibly have documentary evidence showing in fact that a cruise missile had been launched in broad daylight in full view of thousands of people?

    Similarly, the "demolition" of WTC7 is also pointlessly risky. After the horrific destruction of the Twin Towers and loss of thousands of lives, did it really add to the "shock and awe" motivating the country into war with Afghanistan and Iraq? Did anyone even remember it in the weeks that followed? The tragedy of Building 7...the collapse that killed no one. Why take the risk of demolishing a 47-story skyscraper in broad daylight in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses after the dust of the Twin Towers had long settled, while, as one observer noted, "depending on the debris from the Towers to, by sheer dumb luck, do enough damage to it to establish a plausible cover story"? Does that really make sense? If it really was that important to bring down WTC7, why not have the fires start just after the WTC1 fireball and then bring down the building after the WTC1 collapse under the cover of the dust cloud, perfectly obscuring the view of what supposedly was a very 'obvious' controlled demolition?

  • bohm

    Leolaia: PSON explained in a previous post that WTC7 was brought down because it was where they stored the nukes which was used to blow up WTC1 and 2.. after the hologram planes made it look like something flew into them. so you see, it had to go :-).

Share this