EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 128
The Signal

The truth behind 9/11? - Part II

Post new topic Reply to topic

Author  Message 
DayLight
RIP Albert Hofmann
cookie lover
30
Posts: 1108
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 22 Nov 2017
LD count: ?
Location: once you open these doors they do not close
 
PostPosted: Sun 27 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:
The other day I read a site that forwarded the idea that the Northwoods documents are fakes. They refer to people being "on holiday" which, as they correctly point out, is mostly a British expression. Americans much more usually say "on vacation". So if Northwoods was supposed to have been written by the US military, that's some evidence against it being authentic.


I don't think it is at all. That seems like a horrible peice of evidence against Northwoods. I live in America, and I have heard people say "on holiday" several, several times.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Sun 27 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Josh Redstone wrote:
I'm all in favour of the government releasing clearer tapes, in fact, I think that the fact that they haven't shows how badly they're handling this situation.

I think you'd be hard-pushed to find a situation they are handling particularly well right now...
Quote:
But, I'm very skeptical of a conspiracy theory because it's not unreasonable to assume that militant fanatics with lots of money could do something like this,

Well, militant fanatics don't come any richer than the Neo-Cons.
But really the pertinent questions to ask are with regard the specifics:

- is it reasonable to assume that the impact of the planes alone can account for the nature of the three collapses?

- is it reasonable to assume that a newbie pilot could perform manouvres of the kind required at the pentagon?

- is it reasonable to assume that the two statements 'President' George Bush made with regard to seeing the first plane hit were both honest errors? (and why hasnt he been subject to cross-examination with regard those statements by the commission anyway?)
Quote:
and if there were a conspiracy afoot, why would the government conspire to kill thousands of Americans, along with thousands more Iraqis and Afghans, but do nothing to stop people like Alex Jones from making their documentaries....it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Reason for killing the Americans: to stir up fear/hatred in American populace at large (see: Northwoods, I believe the word used there is "galvanizing")
Reason to kill Iraqis and Afghans: to gain control of oil supplies for financial gain (see: where troops were first posted to defend in Iraq... and remind me, just what does Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Hasnt Bush recently stated to the press it had nothing to do with it?)
Reason to kill Alex Jones: to provide 9/11 skeptics with further evidence?

Besides, he may still get his, although of course they'll likely spin it to appear as a suicide due to mental imbalance... but I'm getting ahead of myself now.

(R.I.P Dr David Kelly, Hunter S Thompson and Diana, Princess of Wales)

re: pentagon
Quote:
I think it depends on how you look at it. I've read reports that he was actually a bad pilot, since no one in their right mind would attempt to maneuver a plane like that, he could have stalled it and went into a free-fall; probably not something he intended to do.

This just shows that it was an exceptional manouvre. His goal was not to land the plane safely, his goal was to slam into the pentagon (much lower target than the WTC). It is surprising to me that he attained that goal as perfectly as he did.

But then, if the plane was not a commercial airliner, there is the possibility that the manouvre was quite standard. Which just highlights the urgent need for the government to release some footage.

re: possible squibs
Quote:
The theory I've heard, part of 'the official theory', is that compressed air from the collapses is being blown out the sides of the buildings. If you watch the videos of the collapse, you'll notice that the blasts coming out of the buildings are moving at the same speed as the building is falling. If they had been 'squibs', they would have travelled much faster, before the building started to fall.

In my post I was referring to the materials ejected from the WTC below the main point of collapse. These are separate from the main collapse and therefore are not at the speed of the collapse and are, in effect, occuring before the building (or at least that part of it) began to fall.
Quote:
I wanted to see for myself so I watched some buildings being blown up (on video of course) and it's true, the squibs are travelling faster than the blasts coming from WTC 1 and 2.

Well ok, but lack of proof for my theory does not prove yours. If the materials ejected are due to compressed air, how do you explain the fact that some of these blasts are occuring at a location considerably lower than the main collapse area? There are also the alleged basement explosions that occur as the planes first hit, which would seem to be another anomally supported by some video evidence (and testimony from Rodriguez, last man out of the towers).
Quote:
We should also remember that the buildings didn't fall all at once as in a controlled demolition, they fell from the top down, buildings aren't typically demolished in this way. It's the pancaking theory again, the top sections crush the sections below as they fall.

Would you say WTC 7 was more in line with the demolition hypothesis then? That seemed to pretty much give-way all over very, very quickly.

As for the main towers, I appreciate what you're saying here, and I'm going to give it more thought and research, but the main features of the collapse still don't fit with the pancake day hypothesis, for me. I don't think it explains the behaviour of the upper floors (also pulverised into concrete despite not being 'pancaked' upon), I don't think it explains the behaviour of the lower floors (failing in the same way as the damaged upper floors so easily), and I don't think it explains the previously-mentioned blasts occuring well below the main collapse area (debatably even in the basement).

Jones is working on the thermate hypothesis, and hopefully that will soon be fleshed out into as much detail as the official pancake day theory. But while many details are still missing, what I do know is that, like the intelligence agencies and air defences before them, those buildings failed spectacularly.

Make of that what you will.
Quote:
However I do agree that WTC 7's collapse is weird. As far as I know, it's still not conclusive as to what exactly caused it to fall. Sure, it was on fire, sure there was diesel in the basement that probably fueled the fire, sure it was damaged from the North Tower's fall, but according to engineers, it should have been able to withstand that stuff, which has actually led engineers to re-evaluate the way the engineer buildings to withstand fire.

Look at that: the eleventh of september re-wrote the way the professionals look at building safety. Who'd have guessed that over-designed buildings like that could spontaneously self-demolish the way they did? (apparently not many)
Quote:
Yeah, I think North-woods was real,

Me too (thanks Daylight for the linguistic info there)
Quote:
but the fact that those documents have been declassified show that the government is being honest about it's past, it's being accountable to the people.

Really?!

I think it has much more to do with some document declassification act or other (excuse lack of citation, but I have read of it. Might even have been connected to the release of documents following the JFK investigation). Looks like it dodged the shredder to me. Certainly hasnt received anywhere near enough media attention, it's an absolutely outrageous document. I don't blame Jones for bringing it up every five minutes.
Quote:
But about Jones, I think he's quite a character ^^

Where would the world be without em?!
Quote:
I don't like his christian bias, which does show through his work quite a bit.

You think? I think he keeps it pretty much out of the way. I only really noticed it during his "new 9/11 prediction" broadcast recently, and even then it was indirect (no mention of the J-man or the Big Book). But he'd gotten himself really, really agitated over the latest "terror alerts" here in the UK so I'm inclined to let it slide.
Quote:
As for Bohemian grove, I watched his film 'Dark Secrets of Bohemian grove'. It certainly sounds like they do weird stuff there, which doesn't bother me much. What bothers me is that these powerful people don't tell the public this stuff, because I believe politicians should be absolutely accountable to the public in not only their policies, but also their businesses and interests, as well as what they do at their Gentleman's Clubs.

Hence the aptly chosen title: Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove. I applaud Jones for making that and it gives me some extra confidence in his work.

And about that "weird stuff" in there: it is important to know what they are doing, and who they are doing it. If Jones is right, and that important, powerful people who effect the lives of millions, are performing "cremation of care" rituals, during which they destroy their guilt and conscience for performing immoral acts, then well...it's in the public interest to know. It's like "why are you doing that?!?"

And that sacrifice ritual... Jones actually does them a favour of assuming it was a dummy up there being "sacrificed". But I've read somewhere of dead kids turning up in the woods round that area, and of a cameraman going back to re-investigate being killed. I may be mistaken in the former, or it may be coincidence, but if the latter is true then I definitely think Jones is onto something.


back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
cookie lover
37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
 
PostPosted: Sun 27 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:
If the materials ejected are due to compressed air, how do you explain the fact that some of these blasts are occuring at a location considerably lower than the main collapse area?


It is acknowledged that the inside of the building collapsed much faster than the outside walls. Upwards of twenty floors at a time had already given way below what we could see as the point of collapse from the outside. This was covered in the document Josh linked to.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
There are also the alleged basement explosions that occur as the planes first hit, which would seem to be another anomally supported by some video evidence (and testimony from Rodriguez, last man out of the towers).


There were no explosions anywhere near the scene for the duration of that day. Seismologists working independently of the government scan the area consistently, and the only noticeable vibrations appeared during the actual collapse of the towers. This was covered in the document Josh linked to.

You, uh... did actually read the document, right? smile

Eye-witness accounts are useless. Completely and utterly useless. People don't know what they're seeing and hearing when they're panicking and don't know what's going on. Instead, we have to rely on empirical evidence. We can safely prove that there were no explosives used on the ground floor during the collapse of the towers, as the seismologists' readings are definitive.

There also doesn't appear to be any evidence that explosives were used higher up in the tower, as the impact of the plane and heat of the resulting fire is enough to convince most experts that a total collapse was to be expected from the factors involved.

None of us know anything about building demolition, so it's pointless to argue over the supposed squibs, the definition of "to pull a building", or the pancake theory. Qualified experts mostly agree that nothing we weren't able to see had to be responsible for the collapse. I don't know what else to say.


back to top
DayLight
RIP Albert Hofmann
cookie lover
30
Posts: 1108
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 22 Nov 2017
LD count: ?
Location: once you open these doors they do not close
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Quote:
We should also remember that the buildings didn't fall all at once as in a controlled demolition, they fell from the top down, buildings aren't typically demolished in this way. It's the pancaking theory again, the top sections crush the sections below as they fall.


Just a quick comment on this-

Why would a government demolish a building in a typical fashion if it was going to blame the building's collapse on something other than demolition? Just because a building was not demolished in a typical fashion does not mean it wasn't demolished.


back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
cookie lover
37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

DayLight wrote:
Just because a building was not demolished in a typical fashion does not mean it wasn't demolished.


Yep, very true. It would be amazingly suspicious if the building failed on the ground floor, and collapsed in a typical implosion. Even the government wouldn't make it that obvious.

However, given that the point of collapse began at the precise set of floors that were struck by each plane (this can be seen in every video and cannot be disputed), it begins to make less sense that explosives were used:

1) How were the explosives brought into the building and then positioned all throughout those several floors without anybody noticing?

2) How did the explosives remain in working condition despite the Hellish conditions on the affected floors? Explosives don't like fire, and simply would not have withstood the heat for a full hour before being remotely detonated.

3) If any explosives capable of bringing down a building of that size were set off prior to the collapse itself, they would have registered on the seismologists' readouts. This point seems to have been ignored so far, but it's very valid, and at the very least proves that no bombs were set off on the ground and basement levels.

It's amazing how some conspiracy advocates will cling to ideas that make no sense at all, so long as they appear to support the theory. For example, lease owners never, ever have any say in whether or not their buildings is demolished amidst a crisis. So even if that's what Silverstein meant with his "pull" comment (and it isn't, as that term simply doesn't mean what conspiros claim it does), they wouldn't have listened to him.

But let's not allow logic and knowledge to interfere with the fun. grin


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

DayLight wrote:

Why would a government demolish a building in a typical fashion if it was going to blame the building's collapse on something other than demolition? Just because a building was not demolished in a typical fashion does not mean it wasn't demolished.


Like Atheist said, I'd call that suspicious, but on the other hand you have to consider what it would have taken to demolish those buildings, conventionally or not.
First, you'd have to wire the buildings, which int his case wopuld take monthes, if not years. You'd have to hide a demolition team from security, janitorial staff, and workers. Then, those charges would have to survive plane crashes, and fires - very long burning fires in WTC 7's case. This is covered in the document I presented.

I'm also not convinced of the thermite theory. All Dr. Jones found was sulfur on the metal - I watched him give his speach about in on CSPAN. That is shockingly bad science comming from a guy with a Ph.D. That sulfur could have come from anywhere (welding torches, etc.), and had FEMA or anyone else been suspicious of thermite being used, they probably would have mentioned something while they were testing the debris, until is was completely removed nearly one year later.

This page talks about Prof. Steven E. Jones and his credentials.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Before I address what has been posted here since my last post, I'd like to share some thoughts on a news feature I heard on BBC Radio 4 earlier today. It is not directly related to 9/11 but I believe it to be relevent.

The feature was about Turkey and the controversies surrounding its possible acceptance into the European Union. There is a controversy surrounding whether Turkey is a sufficiently secular country for inclusion. The two main parties involved are the Turkish military and a new Islamic group. The Islamic group seem to want to reintroduce a link between religion and the state, and ultimately incorporate some elements of Sharia law, and the military is opposed to this. The military has, in the recent past, instigated multiple coups in order to guide the country back to what they see as the right direction whenever they feel it is being led astray. The spokesperson put this in these terms: "we want to prevent democracy from destroying itself" (in reference to a democratically elected un-democratic party).

Now, a representative from the military was interviewed, and took the opportunity to show the interviewer his photo collection of how helpful they have been for the people. But this was followed by an interview with a survivor of a bomb attack in Turkey. The incident occured as follows:

Two grenades were thrown into a civilian bar in the centre of a town, and they detonated, causing death and destruction. People nearby had the presence of mind to pursue the two men responsible and they cornered them at their getaway vehicle. In the vehicle was found military ID that identified them as military men.

The programme then interviewed a former military man, who only agreed to conduct the interview on the condition his voice was distorted. He explained that this was a common military tactic that all states incorporate into their strategy, and the function was to instill fear in the local population that could be redirected at the enemies of the military (the Islamic group, who would, had the military guys fled the scene as planned, have been blamed for the attack and labelled terrorists). When questioned who would have known about it, he said it would certainly have been 4 star generals. When told the military strongly denied these charges, he laughed and said "of course, what they did was illegal" and also spoke of the aborted investigation into the incident (which didnt go any further than the two men and getaway driver).

It all reminded me, of course, of the fairly recent events in Iraq involving soldiers of my own country. Two of these soldiers were arrested after an attempted bombing of a civilian Iraqi area, by the Iraqi police (acknowledged allies with the British and American forces). The British military then proceeded to bulldoze the Iraqi police station holding these two men and "rescue" them.

So, if it seems that these kinds of tactics really are as commonplace in the minds of military thinkers as it seems (and once again I remind you all of Operation Northwoods) then it is definitely our duty as thinking citizens of the free world to carefully scrutinise 9/11 in order to ascertain whether it was such an operation. Ok, so that's all I wanted to say with regards that, direct reply to 9/11 stuff coming up...


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Atheist wrote:
It is acknowledged that the inside of the building collapsed much faster than the outside walls. Upwards of twenty floors at a time had already given way below what we could see as the point of collapse from the outside.

So the interiors of the buildings were collapsing even faster than we had initially thought; the lower floors were giving way at a speed even closer to freefall than we can observe externally (which was already very fast). I don't see how this helps your case, and I don't see how the explusions of matter from the lower floors can be accounted for merely by air pressure. For one thing, they were highly concentrated, and precisely patterned (blasting out of the center of multiple sides) and the buildings didnt have a structure that would have concentrated the air explusions like that (in isolated, straight and powerful bursts).
Atheist wrote:
There were no explosions anywhere near the scene for the duration of that day.

Well note that I did say "alleged basement explosions". I wasnt sure about this, although I do remember seeing some video evidence of some large basement explosions somewhere.
Quote:
Seismologists working independently of the government scan the area consistently, and the only noticeable vibrations appeared during the actual collapse of the towers.

Well ok, I will study the seismology evidence in more detail, but these findings do not discount the possibility of explosions up in the towers being involved in the collapse.

Also, I'd like to reiterate one of my main objections to the pancake theory which is highly relevent here, yet you don't seem to have addressed at all, but to do this I'll post from 911research.wtc7.net as they put it more concisely than I probably can (bold emphasis mine):

911research.wtc7.net wrote:
The combination of basement bombs with the dubious truss failure scenario also cannot account for the destruction observed for all of the following reasons:

- Nearly all the concrete in the Towers was pulverized to dust the consistency of talcum powder in the air. That required far more energy than floors falling a few feet or even a thousand feet.
- The mushrooming of the Towers into dust clouds three to five times the diameter of each Tower before the destruction reached the ground cannot be explained by the falling of floors and damage to the core foundations.
- The dust evolving from each Tower before it reached the ground was already several times the Tower's original volume. Only huge inputs of heat in portions of the building above the ground can account for that.
- This South Tower collapse video shows most of the block of stories above the impact zone breaking up before it started to fall. The steel columns of the perimeter wall wouldn't simply shatter due to a lack of support from the core and floors.


So, basically, the concrete-pulverisation problem. So yes, the building fell from the point at where the planes hit, but it also dissolved from that point and above in a manner that is unaccounted for.
Quote:
Eye-witness accounts are useless. Completely and utterly useless. People don't know what they're seeing and hearing when they're panicking and don't know what's going on. Instead, we have to rely on empirical evidence.

Well, in that case the eyewitness reports that were used to determine what occured at the Pentagon must be treated with equal scepticism. Considering the well-known problems with the use of eyewitness testimony, there is an even more pressing need for the government to release footage of the Pentagon impact, at least to the commision. The qualified eyewitness testimony I've mentioned before (the room full of air traffic controllers) came from a source away from the main area of chaos, and could therefore be seen as of more use.

I think the reality is that eyewitness accounts are somewhat useful, but shouldnt be treated as gospel.
Quote:
There also doesn't appear to be any evidence that explosives were used higher up in the tower, as the impact of the plane and heat of the resulting fire is enough to convince most experts that a total collapse was to be expected from the factors involved.

I dispute this on the usual grounds (the nature of the collapse), but shall forward here for clarity the "concrete-pulverisation" problem (which you have currently not addressed at all).
Atheist wrote:
However, given that the point of collapse began at the precise set of floors that were struck by each plane (this can be seen in every video and cannot be disputed), it begins to make less sense that explosives were used:

Are you claiming the US military could not have the resources to orchestrate such a demolition?

And also I think it is important to notice here that you have shifted from defending the pancake day theory to attacking the demolition hypothesis. And even if you "disprove" the demolition hypothesis, that does not prove pancake day.
Quote:
1) How were the explosives brought into the building and then positioned all throughout those several floors without anybody noticing?

There was apparently some "powerdown" time prior to 9/11 during which some "workmen" were allowed access to the towers. Now whether that can provide sufficient time for it all to be rigged is something the demolition hypothesis guys will have to ascertain.
Quote:
2) How did the explosives remain in working condition despite the Hellish conditions on the affected floors? Explosives don't like fire, and simply would not have withstood the heat for a full hour before being remotely detonated.

I'd imagine the US military has some pretty nifty explosives.
Quote:
3) If any explosives capable of bringing down a building of that size were set off prior to the collapse itself, they would have registered on the seismologists' readouts. This point seems to have been ignored so far, but it's very valid, and at the very least proves that no bombs were set off on the ground and basement levels.

If you look once again at the concrete-pulverisation problem, it could be explained by a sequential detonation of bombs from the higher levels down. I wasnt sure about the basement bomb hypothesis to begin with, to be honest, although I'm going to go over the evidence again.
Quote:
It's amazing how some conspiracy advocates will cling to ideas that make no sense at all, so long as they appear to support the theory.

Well of course you'll say that. Your ideas don't make sense to me either.
Quote:
For example, lease owners never, ever have any say in whether or not their buildings is demolished amidst a crisis. So even if that's what Silverstein meant with his "pull" comment (and it isn't, as that term simply doesn't mean what conspiros claim it does), they wouldn't have listened to him.

Here's what Silverstein actually said (bold emphasis mine):

Larry Silverstein wrote:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


So, according to Silverstein's testimony, the following occured:

1) He suggested "pulling" to the fire department
2) the fire department made the decision to "pull"
3) they all watched the building collapse

Now, so far, there have been two offered definitions of "pull" in this context: a) demolish and b) remove firefighters from the area

So, either way, it seems that there was a chrnological link between what Silverstein said and what happened. Seems possible that people did listen to him, it was an exceptional day, you'd need to cross-examine everyone thoroughly to get some idea of whether standard proceedure was followed.

But while you're bringing up personal testimony, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on Bush's statements. He said, on two separate occasions, that he saw the first plane hit, and thought "now that's one bad pilot". The first hit was not televised until the next day.

All of these guys should be getting fiercely cross-examined in a court of law.
Quote:
But let's not allow logic and knowledge to interfere with the fun.

Lets not allow rhetorical techniques to interfere with the logic and reasoning, more like. Although I don't deny that, whatever the subject matter, debating is fun. It's also important though.

Josh: with regard the link attacking prof Jones.

They open by questioning the validity of the peer-review process (bold emphasis mine):

"His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on. "

What I'm saying is his paper was either peer reviewed, or it wasnt. They have acknowledged that it has been peer reviewed. Their objection isnt more substantial than saying "it wasnt peer reviewed by some body who share our views".

Besides, despite what has been said here, there are qualified experts who have been on-record supporting the demolition hypothesis. I have linked to a radio interview with one such professional in my last long post, there is also the firefighters journal that was outraged by the collapses, and then there was the professional who remarked just after 9/11 on how demolition-like the collapses were... only to retract his statement much later, without elaborating on why. I have a long and detailed pro-demolition scientific piece that is pro-demolition, by a prof Green or Greening perhaps. It's on my computer, I'll find and post it here later.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

But Leb, shouldn't the credentials of those who are doing the peer review matter? It's fine to have some chemists of physicists peer-review a paper about this subject, but engineers/demolition experts have more relevant education and practical experience, and their knowledge could account for something that a physicist or chemist, with no practical experience with this kind of event couldn't. So with regards to peer review, I say it isn't really a black and white issue.
However, it passed peer review either way, so now it's up to other scientists to offer their opinions and rebuttals if they choose to smile


back to top
stranger
Explorer of the mind
Astral Explorer
Posts: 384
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 07 Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Search for and buy a documentary called "9/11 In Plane Site"
You can buy it here: http://www.policestate21.com/911trailer.html

After watching that, anyone who believed the US government was not keeping anything from the public and that this is NO conspiracy, will believe otherwise.
I showed this to a few people already who were very sure that there was no conspiracy, nothing to hide by Bush, and they are now sure it is totally the other way.

In fact, I don't mean to offend anyone here but, anyone with half a brain would surely know that it IS a conspiracy, and it really makes sense.

Most people find it hard to believe that almost anything and everything that the US government says, is just a plot, and not truth. Such as the war in Iraq, the failure to assist victims of hurricane Katrina even the elections that take place, all rigged, all bullshit, I challenge anyone to point me otherwise, and I wish it wasn't true, but it is.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

stranger wrote:

Most people find it hard to believe that almost anything and everything that the US government says, is just a plot, and not truth. Such as the war in Iraq, the failure to assist victims of hurricane Katrina even the elections that take place, all rigged, all bullshit, I challenge anyone to point me otherwise, and I wish it wasn't true, but it is.


I will challenge you on that, because I assure you, I have more than half a brain wink
The sad fact is that the war in Iraq, Katrina, the elections, they all show how fraudulent and incompetent the US administration is, but that doesn't automatically equal a conspiracy theory, and I'm saying this as someone who has looked extensively into both sides of this debate.

It's obviously naive to blindly trust everything your government tells you, but it's equally naive to just jump ship upon hearing what some conspiracy theorists say as well. Some of the members of the 9/11 truth movement have good points and use real facts in their arguments, and some of them are just liars. So it's okay to be skeptical, just make sure you're skeptical of everyone.

There is a short film I saw recently called 'The Usual Suspects', very disturbing, but if you doubt the fact that their are religious extremists behind 9/11, then watch it.....heck, watch it anyway, it's something everyone should probably see.


back to top
stranger
Explorer of the mind
Astral Explorer
Posts: 384
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 07 Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
 
PostPosted: Thu 31 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

ok thats fair, however I am not just throwing my speculation around and making accusations blindly. I have gathered evidence, have my own personal opinions and everything matches.

Let's not jump around to too many conclusions but lets look at ONE topic. The hurricane Katrina.
ONE form of evidence is PROVEN and shown that George Bush and his administration, were SHOWN that the hurricane will be as devistating as it turned out to be. It was shown that much help would be needed and lots of supplies and re-inforcements would be needed. It was clearly evident (yes there is proof and if you want me to show you I will) that help WAS required.

And what happened? Was the administration THAT incompetant that it forgot? Did Bush and his members all forget to send reinforcements, support, help of all kinds, to the victims at New Orleans?
Of course they didn't forget, a government THAT incompetant, now, come on? So what is the real reason? Care to explain it? Do you know? Does anyone? Nobody does?

Simple, mate, why should the government waste its time, its money, to help members of society that effectively provide little in tax return due to the poor health and state they are in. But its not just that, I am certain there are other reasons which I don't know of, that aren't being told to the public.

Answer me, tell me, why did Bush not supply hurricane Katrina victims with support when he KNEW what was coming to them.

That's one small topic (compared to other ones), such as the war in Iraq, which is major, but lets keep it to this small topic, if you can clearly give me good reasons I will read and tell you what I think. But I am certain you won't be able to, nobody is able to, not even Bush himself has given reasons for it, because he controls the media and therefore never has to answer to it.

Just because the media says something on TV or in the newspaper, it doesn't necessarily mean it is true. We ARE going through the era of Hitler II. He used the same techniques that Bush is using now, made his own people (and allies to himself) believe that what they are doing is out of GOOD WILL, used propaganda is a very helpful tool, and what happened?
Now, same thing is occurring, only the death toll will be much worse, it has already been considerably bad, but will get much worse.
Don't believe me? Wait some 3-6 years, and we will speak again, and you can tell me if I was wrong that we are going through the era of Hitler II.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Sep, 2006  Reply with quote

stranger wrote:

Answer me, tell me, why did Bush not supply hurricane Katrina victims with support when he KNEW what was coming to them.



Because, I am certain, that Bush wanted his approval ratings to go down, his public image to look bad, to put FEMA at risk of being dismantled, etc.

[/sarcasm]

Actually, I think it is possible for rich men to become obsessed with power and become completely insensitive to the public. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, after all.

By the way, I agree, Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. He is not the legitimate president and he is running the US into more trouble than it's seen since the depression....now, does that mean he is involved is some sort of conspiracy? No, I don't think so, because you don't need 9/11 being an inside job to put this whole awful puzzle together.


back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
cookie lover
37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Sep, 2006  Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:
Squibs: For one thing, they were highly concentrated, and precisely patterned (blasting out of the center of multiple sides) and the buildings didnt have a structure that would have concentrated the air explusions like that (in isolated, straight and powerful bursts).


But they don't appear to be explosions at all, and this is plainly visible in any decent-quality video of the phenomenon. The squib begins quite slow, then increases in force as the building continues to fall. (Displayed quite well at this site.) You're trying to claim that an explosive was positioned right on the edge of the building (which is pointless, as there are no supports there, and this would only serve to incite scepticism), and that it's a "slow" explosive that gradually picks up pressure over time? That makes no sense to me. The theory that these squibs are caused by air being forced out of certain floors as the ceiling collapses on them makes much more sense in my opinion. Where else did all that air go? (Bearing in mind that office buildings are about 90-95% air.)

Lebowsk1 wrote:
Also, I'd like to reiterate one of my main objections to the pancake theory which is highly relevent here, yet you don't seem to have addressed at all, but to do this I'll post from 911research.wtc7.net as they put it more concisely than I probably can (bold emphasis mine):


I haven't responded to the pulverized concrete argument because I never saw it as a valid point. And I still don't. Of course concrete is going to be pulverised to dust when a 400+ meter tall building weighing five-hundred thousand tons falls down on it. What did you expect to see? Large chunks of concrete perfectly intact? I'm just puzzled about why this is even an issue. Didn't you see the giant cloud of dust that engulfed most of Manhattan right after the buildings fell? That kind of energy is almost unimaginable to us, and concrete is a very rigid substance that could easily be crushed into fine powder. When the old Canberra hospital was imploded about five years ago in my city, there was a problem, and one of the large cement stacks fell the wrong way (away from the building, instead of into it). When it hit the ground, with the help of no explosives whatsoever, it instantly disintegrated. It didn't even bounce. It just fell into a pile of fine dust, with only a couple of fist-size chunks remaining. And this was only six or so stories tall. That's just how cement/concrete behaves when a strong force is applied to it. It crumbles.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
Eye witness accounts are useless: Well, in that case the eyewitness reports that were used to determine what occured at the Pentagon must be treated with equal scepticism.


Agreed. I definitely would like to see some footage of the Pentagon incident released to the public. Something that actually shows the plane moments before impact. But with respect to eye-witness accounts, I tend to think they're a little more valid in the Pentagon case, solely because people weren't panicking when they reported seeing a 757 flying dangerously low to the highway. At the WTC, everyone thought Armageddon was upon them. They heard elevator shafts crashing to the lobby, and they thought it was an explosion. They saw burning jet fuel running down those shafts and spilling out onto the ground floor, and they thought a bomb had gone off in the basement. They had no idea what was happening, and their perception wasn't anywhere near as reliable as that of the 300+ DC residents who calmly watched a massive plane cruise overhead in the direction of the Pentagon.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
And also I think it is important to notice here that you have shifted from defending the pancake day theory to attacking the demolition hypothesis. And even if you "disprove" the demolition hypothesis, that does not prove pancake day.


I'm doing both in equal amounts. I don't think there's any evidence that explosives were used, and I tend to think it makes sense that the collapsing floors within the building would be responsible for the visible ejection of debris (squibs) as well as causing the overall collapse to accumulate in speed rather than slow down. Bear in mind that the burden of proof isn't on me. The cause of the collapse that we all witnessed (ie, the planes) is the "default" explanation, and you're trying to provide alternatives. From what I can see, these alternatives don't appear to stand up to criticism.

Again, it should be noted that very few supporters of the demolition theory actually possess qualifications in that or a related field. The link that Josh provided earlier shows that even Jones himself has no certified understanding of civil engineering, and neither did any of the people who peer reviewed his paper. That's a very significant point. If a handful of software designers, some pastry chefs and a botanist all review my paper on quantum physics and can't point out something that isn't right, then it might as well not have been peer reviewed at all. A great deal of his information is simply wrong, and actual engineers (several of which are mentioned on the aforementioned link) can easily tear it to shreds.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
There was apparently some "powerdown" time prior to 9/11 during which some "workmen" were allowed access to the towers.


Source? I've never heard this before, and I'd be interested to find out more about it. Though I’m sure every sizable building has regular periods of down-time as they’re inspected, repaired, or whatever. I won’t say it’s impossible for people to smuggle the explosives into the building (there’s no time limit, so we have to allow for the possibility of it happening), but it seems unlikely that they could be set up on several support poles around the building without anyone noticing them for weeks, months or years.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
I'd imagine the US military has some pretty nifty explosives.


The keyword there being "imagine." It's all well and good to say, "They're the military, I'm sure they have some kind of top-secret explosive that can withstand temperatures capable of warping steel and still be capable of receiving remote signals to detonate," but you'll need to back that up with something. Explosives are volatile by nature, and we’re talking about every square inch of the affected floors being baked in 1000+ degrees for an hour. I don’t buy it. I think those extreme temperatures and the damage that the planes did to the support columns is enough in itself.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
Well of course you'll say that. Your ideas don't make sense to me either.


What ideas? That a plane can bring down a building? I'm just working with what we can see. You're the one with ideas that require further evidence and explanations, and so far they just don't hold up in my view.

Are you sure you're reading the links that have been posted in here? In the entire official 9/11 Conspiracy Movement, only two members actually have qualifications in engineering. And of those, one doesn't seem to have finished his degree yet, and the other is 82 years old. You'll be hard pressed to find a qualified engineer who agrees that the buildings probably would not have fallen without the aid of explosives. This page comments on most of the big voices who have come forth and protested the official story. It also shows that very few of them can back up their assertions with the appropriate qualifications. Maybe a few engineers support the conspiracy, but it seems that the vast majority of them aren't questioning the likeliness of the official story. To them, it makes sense exactly as we see it.

I don't want to sound repetitive, but more attention really should be paid to the people supporting both sides of the argument, and what experience or qualifications they have. A couple of engineers giving a presentation about how suspicious the events were doesn’t outweigh a dozen others who firmly maintain that it was a legitimate collapse resulting from the known causes.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
Now, so far, there have been two offered definitions of "pull" in this context: a) demolish and b) remove firefighters from the area


But it still doesn't make sense. "Pull" isn't used in the demolitions business to mean "implode/explode.”. It (officially) means to tie ropes around any remaining structures or wall segments that survived the implosion and pulling them over with bulldozers. Everyone has said this. Also, fire fighters don't destroy buildings. Never have, never will. The comment about "pulling" can only mean, "Get everyone out of there." Conspiracy websites like to cut small sections out of longer quotes to help their cause, but if you read the full transcripts of recorded conversation on that day, it really does look like the reference was intended to mean clear the area, as building 7 was apparently unstable and about to fall down.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
But while you're bringing up personal testimony, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on Bush's statements. He said, on two separate occasions, that he saw the first plane hit, and thought "now that's one bad pilot". The first hit was not televised until the next day.


I don't know anything about this, so I have no thoughts on it. However, I am aware that Bush was sitting in an elementary school classroom at the moment that the first plane hit, so I'm not going to buy into what you're probably suggesting here. He was obviously just referring to watching it on TV after the event, as he simply wasn't anywhere near the site at the time, and this is verifiable. It wasn’t televised until later that day, but I’m sure the President had access to recordings long before the media.

Oh, and wait a minute… the first hit wasn’t televised until the next day? What are you talking about? The first hit was played over and over on the same day (heck, I watched it myself) just an hour or so after the plane hit. Both collisions, the second one being filmed live because all the film crews had arrived on the scene long before then, were played repeatedly.

Lebowsk1 wrote:
What I'm saying is his paper was either peer reviewed, or it wasnt.


No, no, no! Having something "peer reviewed" doesn't immediately grant it some kind of magically appointed, indisputable validity. It depends entirely on who reviews your paper, and in this case, it appears all the wrong people were chosen. Not Jones himself, nor any of the people he showed his paper to, were qualified to comment on the validity of his claims. It would be like you writing a paper on why the buildings had to have been rigged with explosives, then showing it to your friends (who all major in Philosophy) before getting it published. It was an illegitimate paper, and actual structural engineers all but laugh when they read it.

Oh, and Stranger, you should never base your views on one video that was put together by conspiracy advocates. They intentionally skip over or change information to suit their cause, and if you do a little research, you'll probably find that virtually no part of these videos can be trusted. Read a bunch of websites for and against the conspiracy, then make up your mind. You'll find that it's a more complicated issue than it first appears. Just, for the love of God, don't restrict all your research time to pro-conspiracy pages. There's a great deal of information they don't like to mention.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Sun 03 Sep, 2006  Reply with quote

I just found this today, from the same site as the 'Screw Loose Change' video. It's another excellent document debunking the copnspiracy theories.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB
LD4all ~ spreading the art and knowledge of lucid dreaming online since 1996 ~