You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: September 11 2001
What gets me the most, if you believe that the government was behind it, if you think the media was in on it (or not), that they did this whole elaborate scheme... Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Wouldn't you think, if they pulled a WTC hoax off, on that scale, wouldn't they have planted WMDs in Iraq? Wouldn't it have been easier than doing that than faking the WTC hijackings, or blowing the buildings up? Why not manufacture and plant the WMD's when no one was looking? If the press was in on it, it would be even easier. Why didn't they do that? They're not going to have their basses covered?
If Cheney was behind 9/11, I'm sure he would have had those WMD's ready to find once we were in Iraq. Otherwise, he and his daughter wouldn't be wearing out his new heart trying to keep him from being written as the villain in American history. He'd already have that chapter written.
Re: September 11 2001
So the gov't thought the twin towers wasn't quite enough, let's blow up some random building that didn't get directly hit by a plane? That's the most compelling case for the conspiracy theorists?
Who said that? Try sticking to what I wrote. Please don't rewrite it and argue against that (strawman.)
Re: September 11 2001
buzzsaw wrote:So the gov't thought the twin towers wasn't quite enough, let's blow up some random building that didn't get directly hit by a plane? That's the most compelling case for the conspiracy theorists?
Who said that? Try sticking to what I wrote. Please don't rewrite it and argue against that (strawman.)
I'm just trying to fit in around here (not directed at you).
Re: September 11 2001
polluxlm wrote:I obviously don't know how they did it all, but bottom line is those videos are depicting an event that can't happen.
I disagree.
The plane does smash up the less heavy parts of the structure (glass etc) and clearly explodes when it hits parts that it can't instantly destroy (steel etc).
It explodes inside the building. The exterior is made of steel, woven like a spider web. There is absolutely no chance the far parts of the wings would have enough force to literally slice through that steel. It's like saying a bicycle will penetrate a trailer truck.
The jet fuel may not burn stronger than steel..but it doesn't have to....all that has to happen is that it has to hit a part of the structure that is not capable of withstanding a side impact with anything weighting 900,000 lbs and moving at over 500mph....IN ADDITION to the existing pressure and load on the building that it withstands all the time....all that has to happen is some of the structure has to buckle out of shape from the impact and the remaining parts are now holding insane loads of pressure from the building itself in addition to the raging fires and other impact damage...and you trigger a domino effect where the momentum of the floors above failing damage the supports of the floors beneath and have a kenetic force of around a kiloton - which is more than the structures at each level can withstand.
That's pretty much a moot point once you realize a plane can't enter the structure like that. In any case you are forgetting the steel core which the floors were attached to. If anything the floors would break off like branches on a tree, but there is simply not enough force to pulverize steel like that. Not to mention the extreme accuracy needed for the whole structure to collapse instead of the top part sliding off at some point. Do that twice and we're talking odds in the trillions.
It's god damn tragic is what it is...but there's nothing at all scientifically impossible about it in my opinion...and alternatively...the theories described to fake it require an implausible number of conspirators involved to execute. You're talking about literally hundreds of regular Americans acting in a treasonous way...and while I'd buy that the top brass may take a utilitarian view...I don't think regular soldiers and media and others raised on the "leave no man behind" war ideals are going to be happily slaughtering new yorkers at random.
You'll fill that quota in Congress alone, and then some. Why wouldn't they? They killed a million in Iraq.
But you are digressing from the main point, the "live" coverage is partly or fully computer generated images. That's a problem.
These are from a FOIA FBI video released in 2008. If you don't see a problem with this footage I don't know what to tell you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g
Re: September 11 2001
What gets me the most, if you believe that the government was behind it, if you think the media was in on it (or not), that they did this whole elaborate scheme... Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Wouldn't you think, if they pulled a WTC hoax off, on that scale, wouldn't they have planted WMDs in Iraq? Wouldn't it have been easier than doing that than faking the WTC hijackings, or blowing the buildings up? Why not manufacture and plant the WMD's when no one was looking? If the press was in on it, it would be even easier. Why didn't they do that? They're not going to have their basses covered?
If Cheney was behind 9/11, I'm sure he would have had those WMD's ready to find once we were in Iraq. Otherwise, he and his daughter wouldn't be wearing out his new heart trying to keep him from being written as the villain in American history. He'd already have that chapter written.
The US Government didn't engineer 9/11. Most likely some people in the secret services did.
The WMD lies were set up to put America in a bad light. To proliferate the new image of an aggressive, unjustified superpower. Damaging, not enough to bring the administration down, but enough so a deep resentment was rooted all around the world. Pre 2001 America was the dream to foreigners. Now you're basically viewed as greedy, fascist imperialists.
That doesn't happen with a justified Iraq war.
Re: September 11 2001
It amazes me that there are people that believe this garbage in spite of overwhelming evidence and reason that says there's no way. As I said earlier:
People will believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of proof will ever change their minds.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: September 11 2001
Polluxlm.....not quite understanding you..
Firstly....you're suggesting that the steel lining of the building is so thick that 900,000 pounds of a jumbo jet can slam into it at 500mph without warping the shape of the support beams or in ANY way weakening the structural integrity?
Secondly...are you using these photos to suggest that there was no plane? If so where are the people who took those flights?
My opinion is that the plane banked heavily before hitting which is why in certain shots it's obscured by the buildings themselves...and that the 30 year old structure was weakened by the force of the initial hit and couldn't then withstand it's own weight.
Re: September 11 2001
The plane could probably make a hole, but most of the explosion would take place on the outside. The wings certainly wouldn't enter like a rock in the ocean. There is no speed reduction at impact and the building shows no sign of distress until the explosion.
There is clearly no plane on the horizon in those pictures. People could be flown to another location and killed, or just be made up. Curiously there are none or close to none 9/11 victims in the Social Security Death Database.
Re: September 11 2001
The plane could probably make a hole, but most of the explosion would take place on the outside. The wings certainly wouldn't enter like a rock in the ocean. There is no speed reduction at impact and the building shows no sign of distress until the explosion.
Are you serious? How exactly do you know what a commercial jet would or wouldn't do when it crashes into a steel skyscraper? Based on all the studies of times this has happened in history?
Planes hit both buildings. People saw it. Private video exists capturing it. The gov't isn't capable of faking it; if they were, there would have been plenty of WMD in Iraq. The gov't isn't capable of covering a conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, all the "evidence" you've supplied has been doctored to appear to support a theory that nothing supports so people like you would believe it. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because there is one shred of proof or common sense that says you're right. That's okay, but stop stating these crazy things as though they are facts.
Re: September 11 2001
Yeah, I was going to say something about tinfoil hats, but yeah... It's really telling that you're dismissing so much evidence and believing a theory from some very paranoid indiviuals (with or without their own agendas) with nothing to back it up. Any proof given to the contrary, and that person is automatically behind a cover up also. We're expected to accept that we've been duped by doctored evidence, but there's not a single possibility that some youtube vid is not legit or doctored, that just so happens to "prove" your theory... Or even just an opitical illusion from the limitation of video isn't possible.
