9/11 conspiracy or not?

[Phaedrus]

fear is the darthvader of all this and its being used as a manipulative weapon by governments to make people comply with a lot of false BS

the 666 is not far off

That right there was the money shot- nothin left to do but towel off...

[grimey]

If you enjoyed the 911 commission fable here are a few more just as believeable for your enjoyment

So do you accept that unreliable doesn't mean impossible?

The Absurdity Of The
Official 9-11 Account
Comparable Examples of Fictional Media Reports
By Douglas Herman


http://www.rense.com/general74/aabs.htm

Exclusive to Rense.com

Because it's the only website batshit insane enough to go for it. If you think the 9/11 commission was a fable because of minor inconsistencies, why don't you have the same reservations about a site that publishes shit that's demonstrably false? Like a nuclear bomb going off over NYC on 9/11? Critical thinking involves looking at ALL claims with a critical eye, not just the ones you don't favor.

Nineteen flight school dropouts, in a complex and well-coordinated heist combining speed and stealth with an uncanny knowledge of our nation's security systems, commandeered four jumbo jets and flew hundreds of miles before returning to crash the planes into pre-selected targets. A flight school instructor said the men performed badly in the simplest of flight maneuvers in small Cessna airplanes. But local law enforcement officials quickly claimed the 19 hijackers could easily have performed complex maneuvers in much larger and more complex Boeing jumbo jets. Video cameras captured the ringleaders laughing and joking and a charred passport, found at the scene of the crash indicated, beyond any reasonable doubt, the guilt of the men.

What "uncanny knowledge"? That airport security screeners are minimum wage morons? As has been stated elsewhere on here, the majority of the flight after the hijackings could have been performed by simply entering a new course into the autopilot. None of them had to grease the planes onto a runway.

[grimey]

just a puzzle i guess, but that puzzle and that action of 911 has pretty much turned the world into a police and security state and its interfering with everyones peace of mind and ability to have a calm and good life, fear is the darthvader of all this and its being used as a manipulative weapon by governments to make people comply with a lot of false BS

And this means that they caused it, rather than simply exploited it?

the 666 is not far off

Yeehaw.

[Cat Driver]

I almost went to heaven a few days ago, the sky split open and a bright light blinded me and I thought it has happened Jesus has returned, but sadly it was only lightening.

He will return tomorrow maybe?

[canwhitewolf]

<

[goates]

ever wonder why 6 of these supposed highjackers are still alive?

Do you have any proof other than what someone has told you? This idea looks to have come from some confusion in the days shortly after the attacks.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_ ... alive.html

ever hear of Air Defence Command ?
ever hear of Norad?
cheyenne mountain?

You mean the ones that were setup to protect North america from external threats, not internal ones? Not to mention no one has used an airliner, let alone 4 at once, like this in the West before.

[grimey]

Why would a hijacker need an intimate knowledge of NORAD? That's like saying a bank robber needs in intimate knowledge of the FBI. They don't.

The only knowledge of a security system these guys needed was how to get past the airport security checkpoint.

As for figuring out where they were... There are these wonderful things, called navaids. They help pilots navigate through the sky. If you have a general idea (within a few hundred NM) of where you are, and know how to read a chart and tune up a VOR, it's not hard to figure out where you are.

Or they could read it off of a GPS.

[canwhitewolf]

<><>

[habit]

I always feel like someone is watching me

[bronson]

Can anyone give an example of a skyscraper that collapsed (due to fire) before or since 911. Here we have three in one day and they all go straight down (as opposed to tipping over). It's not the netnuts, it's the math that bothers me.

[grimey]

Saying they "collapsed due to fire" is oversimplyfying it more than a little. The twin towers were both hit by widebody jets, in case you missed that. WTC7 had significant damage from the debris from those towers. Nobody is saying they collapsed solely due to a fire.

And any large building will collapse almost straight down. Might want to study Newton's laws before you suggest differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

[goates]

Can anyone give an example of a skyscraper that collapsed (due to fire) before or since 911. Here we have three in one day and they all go straight down (as opposed to tipping over). It's not the netnuts, it's the math that bothers me.

This is where the phrase "There's a first time for everything" is quite relevant. Just because nothing like this has happened before, does not mean it couldn't have. No human had flown into space before Yuri Gagarin, so does that mean he couldn't have?

As grimey posted, the problem with the "math", as many put it, is with people's understanding of physics, not the events that happened. Something as massive as the World Trade Center towers would need a lot of force to topple over. An airliner simply isn't going to have enough to do it.

[bronson]

There have been many engineers suggest that a) the fire wasn't hot enough b) the towers were very unlikely to go straight down and c) no tower did it before. The math is similiar to the results of the exit polls being so far off in the last election, 1 okay, 2 -millions to one, 6 or 7 -billions to one. Not impossible, but impossible for practical purposes.

[grimey]

There have been many engineers suggest that a) the fire wasn't hot enough b) the towers were very unlikely to go straight down and c) no tower did it before. The math is similiar to the results of the exit polls being so far off in the last election, 1 okay, 2 -millions to one, 6 or 7 -billions to one. Not impossible, but impossible for practical purposes.

Steel looses most of it's structural strength long before it melts. And the impacts from the 767s would have stripped all of the insulation from the steel supports, allowing them to heat up. And the outer walls also contributed significantly to the building's structural integrity. The jets ripped right through those on multiple floors. There's evidence that a main structural support for WTC 7 was taken out by falling debris from the twin towers, and that the fires there also merely contributed to the collapse, rather than causing it.

Engineers? Like from MIT? http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf There were minimal lateral forces on the 3 buildings compared to the force of gravity pulling the buildings towards the ground. Newton's 1st law says the building should collapse nearly vertically unless the worst hurricane every was going on at the time. But they didn't go *absolutely* straight down:

[goates]

There have been many engineers suggest that a) the fire wasn't hot enough b) the towers were very unlikely to go straight down and c) no tower did it before. The math is similiar to the results of the exit polls being so far off in the last election, 1 okay, 2 -millions to one, 6 or 7 -billions to one. Not impossible, but impossible for practical purposes.

What type of engineers? Were they civil, structural or even mechanical? Or were they industrial, electrical etc.?

Some engineers at Purdue also did some pretty good analysis of the collapses.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/x/2007a/07061 ... nnWTC.html

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

[bronson]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.
As for the engineers who doubt, they seemed pretty credible to me. They weren't offering any conspiracy theories, just wanted to know what actually occurred for future use. I think they were called " Scholars for Truth" and they weren't very happy about the science in the published studies. I believe they mentioned the one from Purdue.

[Topspin]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.
As for the engineers who doubt, they seemed pretty credible to me. They weren't offering any conspiracy theories, just wanted to know what actually occurred for future use. I think they were called " Scholars for Truth" and they weren't very happy about the science in the published studies. I believe they mentioned the one from Purdue.

Consider the fact that the 9/11 commission was spearheaded by the democrats, and was a bi-partisan effort. You honestly believe that the democrats somehow found fault and still kept it quiet? I mean Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob and lying about it, these people have all the reason in the world to go after Bush. All of the resources available to the Democrats, the engineers that actually had access to all of the technical data found no fault, but some college kids and a minority of different types of engineers figured it out? My favorite part was, what was he a water tester or hydro engineer, testifying to the strength of the steel in the buildings.

[grimey]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.

No, making a building collapse entirely in to it's own footprint (which non of the buildings did) isn't that easy. Considering the damage caused to the surrounding buildings, if it was a demo job, it was a pretty bad one.

[swede]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.

No, making a building collapse entirely in to it's own footprint (which non of the buildings did) isn't that easy. Considering the damage caused to the surrounding buildings, if it was a demo job, it was a pretty bad one.

News release. Lets all give a hand to the fat slob with the ukelele. He is finally starting to admit that it could have been a demo job. Your starting to see the light grimey

[habit]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.

No, making a building collapse entirely in to it's own footprint (which non of the buildings did) isn't that easy. Considering the damage caused to the surrounding buildings, if it was a demo job, it was a pretty bad one.

News release. Lets all give a hand to the fat slob with the ukelele. He is finally starting to admit that it could have been a demo job. Your starting to see the light grimey

you conspiracy wackos are a funny breed or should i say inbreed??

[grimey]

Making a building go straight down isn't as easy as relying on gravity. Talk to someone who's done it. Takes a lot of planning and months of work, and the fingers are still crossed.

No, making a building collapse entirely in to it's own footprint (which non of the buildings did) isn't that easy. Considering the damage caused to the surrounding buildings, if it was a demo job, it was a pretty bad one.

News release. Lets all give a hand to the fat slob with the ukelele. He is finally starting to admit that it could have been a demo job. Your starting to see the light grimey

Are you still here? Please post any evidence that any of the 3 buildings were taken down by anything other than the jet impacts, fire, and debris damage.

[swede]

Yes, right here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM , a picture says a thousand words, so you can save your typing finger for the rebuttal, because there is none. Do I believe you, or do I believe my own eyes I'll stick with my eyes thanks.

[goates]

Yes, right here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM , a picture says a thousand words, so you can save your typing finger for the rebuttal, because there is none. Do I believe you, or do I believe my own eyes I'll stick with my eyes thanks.

That's the problem, you're just using your eyes and not engaging the grey mass behind them. Notice that the top floors that were steel only, with no concrete casing, did collapse? The rest of the building was steel encased in concrete, which insulated the steel from the heat.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

[grimey]

Yes, right here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM , a picture says a thousand words, so you can save your typing finger for the rebuttal, because there is none. Do I believe you, or do I believe my own eyes I'll stick with my eyes thanks.

So your best evidence is that another building, of different architecture, didn't totally collapse after a fire, when there was no other damage? That isn't evidence of anything other than the resistance of that particular structure to a fire.

I'm not surprised you have to wear that helmet. I am surprised you managed to get it on correctly, though.

[swede]

In any case, I cannot believe the time you people put into this academic debate. You are Karl Rove - correct? 911 was a pretext for endless war against a ludicrous non-enemy (terrorism) and the destruction of the U.S. constitution with articles like the patriot act. The only people who have benefited from 911 were bushco - bush himself by default only. Bin Laden is long dead and anyone who thinks he pulled this off from a cave with a laptop is almost as stupid as GW himself.