Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is the ONE thing that is the biggest question in my mind, and one I have asked from the beginning, when I first started reading how some people did not believe the official story: How COULD this happen without the involvement of a lot of people, and their continued silence?
Btw, the above video examines almost all aspects of 9/11 -- the alleged foreign terrorists, all four attacks, the clean-up, etc. -- but it never even attempts to answer the question of as to who were responsible for the attacks (although they do very strongly suggest that it was impossible for the men the government accused of doing it). The main thrust is just that the official story, in many respects, just does not make sense and is, in fact, impossible. The part of the video that I suggested as a "start" -- for those who just want to get a sampling of the video and its format -- delves into the fact that according to experts (both experienced pilots and a Boeing spokesperson) that it is "impossible" for a 737, for example, to go much more than 410 mph at lower altitudes without losing control, whereas the government itself says the planes were going close to 500 mph just before they hit.
Now, again, I am not saying that there aren't explanations for the questions the producers of the video asks, and the reason I started this thread to see if anyone knows of any scientific rebuttal to any or all of what the producers say is impossible. (And for those who have not yet watched any of the video, the video itself is one rebuttal after another to the debunkers, most notably the Popular Mechanics article. Kind of a point-counterpoint format. Btw, it surprises me that the Popular Mechanics people have not rebutted the rebuttals, unless they believe that they just don't have to do so and/or simply won't dignify or give publicity to to the video by answering its questions.)
Thanks for all replies!
P.S. And the question you asked that I bolded is the problem I have with many conspiracy theories, not just the 9/11 one.
How COULD this happen without the involvement of a lot of people, and their continued silence?
Ive talked about this in other threads, mostly about school shootings and mass shootings, it seems that when many people hear 'Conspiracy theory' relating to one of these incidents, they automatically jump to the conclusion that the person believes LOTS of people were 'in on it', firefighters, police, first responders, parents, etc.
But in reality, if someone is present during one of these, they would not be able to determine if it was a real false flag or a true mass shooting, carried out by a lone wolf person, all they would see is people being gunned down or killed by someone.
The only people that would need to be 'in on it' would be the shooter and the person/group who orchestrated it. to all the firefighters, police, first responders, parents, they would have no idea if this was a false flag or a real lone wolf attack.
Its kind of the same thing with 9-11, given there is much more complicated aspects of this attack versus a school shooting, but the same thing could be true...if a govt wanted to fake something like this, in order to impose a more strict control over the people, and have the people scared of some 'boogeyman',so they welcome tough new laws and regulations in, this would be the most effective way to do so without the risk of a public uprising or all out revolution.
Ive said before, if England had used this 'tactic' there never would have been an American Revolution, they would have just 'conditioned' the colonists that life under a strict monarchy was in their best interest, best thing for their safety and security/ prosperity.
^^^ Yes, I agree regarding the responders, but the MAIN question I have that leads me to think that 9/11 couldn't have happened the way many conspiracy theorists suggest it happened is because it would take a massive coordination not only to plant the explosives (IF that is what happened) but also to coordinate the lack of response when it was first discovered that New York City and Washington, D.C. were under attack.
Again, my thinking and belief is simply that the there are many questions still left unanswered, and I think that the public should have a right to expect the questions asked in the video in my opening post to be answered -- and if they cannot be answered, then I don't think it is too much to ask to have some independent international scientific panel reconvene and issue a new report. Again, I am willing to say that the official story IS the true story; however, in my admittedly unscientific opinion, there are still many questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.
So according to this “theory” there would need to be explosives planted in WTC 1, 2 and 7. Carefully planted too so they were unnoticed, and quickly. Then two planes were also highjacked by this same lone wolf and flown into the towers?
Any time these conspiracy theories get brought up Occam’s Razor seems to apply.
Which is more likely, a group of terrorists wanting to attack America, or a lone wolf with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of explosives and access to aircraft?
The problem with the "planted explosives" story--besides the fact that I know too many engineers who are familiar with the situation, have examined the structural elements and reviewed and commented on the draft reports--is that no one I've challenged has ever come up with details as to how it may have been done. They just "could've" done it, I suppose, because things like this happen in movies and on TV all the time, but that doesn't fly. Show me that you know something about how the system worked that the saboteurs would have had to get around to wire the building.
What I mean by "details" is demonstrating that one knows the security protocols and procedures that were in place for contractors doing work in the WTC. There seems to be some bizarre concept that, in a known terrorist target building where we couldn't get a frikken pizza delivered up to our offices because of security rules, a group of saboteurs with tools and explosives would have been able to merrily prance on in to restricted access areas and systematically wire the building for a controlled demolition. Materials and equipment had to be checked in and recorded, as were the workers, who had to undergo background checks before they could do any work. Material and equipment were only brought in through certain entrances and through security protocols. Any work was overseen by PA inspectors/engineers. Every material and piece of equipment and the name of every worker was recorded by the inspector in charge of the project at the beginning and end of each shift.
Or that in a complex with a huge security control center with banks of screens and a dozen people watching them 24/7 so that you couldn't scratch your ass in a corridor without being seen, this operation could be carried out. Hell, I personally recall seeing a memo about threats of sabotage to the Mechanical Equipment Rooms by ME terrorists posing as engineering students asking for a tour back around 1985. Wire the building with explosives? They'd been on alert for someone to try something like that for 15 years.
And why does anyone think that no one who worked there would notice anything? Remember, we all KNEW that we worked in a building that was constantly under threat. The WTC got threats every single day, mostly from the same assortment of NYC nuts who call in bomb threats to significant buildings, but some were taken seriously and you'd see PAPD with the dogs in the Concourse or in the PATH well. But the average workers were certainly aware of the WTC's status as a prime terrorist target, especially after 1993.
Back in 1999-2000, part of my job was overseeing a contract for the stand-alone air conditioning units in certain areas of office space (these were in addition to the building's a/c system; e.g., for computer areas, the police radio room, etc.). We got a task order for a unit that wasn't working on a one of the engineering floors, and I called the contractor and he sent a guy. When the guy got there and said he was there to look at the a/c unit in the room where it was located, the receptionist held him until she could call and verify that he was supposed to be there. Nobody was going to just let some random schmoe with tools walk around.
Because of my job, I sometimes needed access to restricted areas for pre-bid walkthroughs, and I had to make a formal request and be accompanied by someone with restricted area access, and it was all recorded, including everyone who attended.
But oddly, no one ever seems to want to address any of the details. Then again, those who want it to have been a controlled demolition start from the wrong place to begin with--the idea that the cleanup, recovery, and investigation was done in a vacuum by the US government, and anyone with any connection to the WTC attacks and aftermath knows that that is simply not true.
The problem with the "planted explosives" story--besides the fact that I know too many engineers who are familiar with the situation, have examined the structural elements and reviewed and commented on the draft reports--is that no one I've challenged has ever come up with details as to how it may have been done. They just "could've" done it, I suppose, because things like this happen in movies and on TV all the time, but that doesn't fly. Show me that you know something about how the system worked that the saboteurs would have had to get around to wire the building.
Half of this is just common sense - something that the conspiracy theorists (CT) are sorely lacking.
Who has ever worked in a building where the steel supports were bare and visible? Sure, maybe in the basement but that's not the CT argument. The CT's argue the "puffs" of smoke during pancaking are the explosives going off.
Explosives blow stuff up, but of course walls dampen those explosions.
There is a valid theory about those explosions if they occurred. The heat inside those buildings would of been hot enough to melt aluminum and there is a lot of aluminum from the planes and the building itself. In molten state when combined with water pound for pound it has an explosive power many times TNT. The water of course was also present from the massive storage tanks.
If there was big enough pool of it could have even helped bring them down. You may also recall that one video where there was something molten dripping outside the building, the two guys that put this theory forth suggested it might have been aluminum. It had the right color, etc.
They haven't claimed to be right and explained they needed access to some of the debris to test it for something that would be present if this occurred. Last I read about it they weren't given access.
^^^ Yes, I agree regarding the responders, but the MAIN question I have that leads me to think that 9/11 couldn't have happened the way many conspiracy theorists suggest it happened is because it would take a massive coordination not only to plant the explosives (IF that is what happened) but also to coordinate the lack of response when it was first discovered that New York City and Washington, D.C. were under attack.
Again, my thinking and belief is simply that the there are many questions still left unanswered, and I think that the public should have a right to expect the questions asked in the video in my opening post to be answered -- and if they cannot be answered, then I don't think it is too much to ask to have some independent international scientific panel reconvene and issue a new report. Again, I am willing to say that the official story IS the true story; however, in my admittedly unscientific opinion, there are still many questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.
It wouldnt take THAT many people to pull it off, a small team to plant the explosives or whatever they did and then just let it play out like if it was real attack, no one would know the difference once it all happened, the media would just report on it the same way, they would not be aware if it was a false flag or a real attack, it would just be a major event/attack.
The problem with the "planted explosives" story--besides the fact that I know too many engineers who are familiar with the situation, have examined the structural elements and reviewed and commented on the draft reports--is that no one I've challenged has ever come up with details as to how it may have been done. They just "could've" done it, I suppose, because things like this happen in movies and on TV all the time, but that doesn't fly. Show me that you know something about how the system worked that the saboteurs would have had to get around to wire the building.
What I mean by "details" is demonstrating that one knows the security protocols and procedures that were in place for contractors doing work in the WTC. There seems to be some bizarre concept that, in a known terrorist target building where we couldn't get a frikken pizza delivered up to our offices because of security rules, a group of saboteurs with tools and explosives would have been able to merrily prance on in to restricted access areas and systematically wire the building for a controlled demolition. Materials and equipment had to be checked in and recorded, as were the workers, who had to undergo background checks before they could do any work. Material and equipment were only brought in through certain entrances and through security protocols. Any work was overseen by PA inspectors/engineers. Every material and piece of equipment and the name of every worker was recorded by the inspector in charge of the project at the beginning and end of each shift.
Or that in a complex with a huge security control center with banks of screens and a dozen people watching them 24/7 so that you couldn't scratch your ass in a corridor without being seen, this operation could be carried out. Hell, I personally recall seeing a memo about threats of sabotage to the Mechanical Equipment Rooms by ME terrorists posing as engineering students asking for a tour back around 1985. Wire the building with explosives? They'd been on alert for someone to try something like that for 15 years.
And why does anyone think that no one who worked there would notice anything? Remember, we all KNEW that we worked in a building that was constantly under threat. The WTC got threats every single day, mostly from the same assortment of NYC nuts who call in bomb threats to significant buildings, but some were taken seriously and you'd see PAPD with the dogs in the Concourse or in the PATH well. But the average workers were certainly aware of the WTC's status as a prime terrorist target, especially after 1993.
Back in 1999-2000, part of my job was overseeing a contract for the stand-alone air conditioning units in certain areas of office space (these were in addition to the building's a/c system; e.g., for computer areas, the police radio room, etc.). We got a task order for a unit that wasn't working on a one of the engineering floors, and I called the contractor and he sent a guy. When the guy got there and said he was there to look at the a/c unit in the room where it was located, the receptionist held him until she could call and verify that he was supposed to be there. Nobody was going to just let some random schmoe with tools walk around.
Because of my job, I sometimes needed access to restricted areas for pre-bid walkthroughs, and I had to make a formal request and be accompanied by someone with restricted area access, and it was all recorded, including everyone who attended.
But oddly, no one ever seems to want to address any of the details. Then again, those who want it to have been a controlled demolition start from the wrong place to begin with--the idea that the cleanup, recovery, and investigation was done in a vacuum by the US government, and anyone with any connection to the WTC attacks and aftermath knows that that is simply not true.
You need to consider how good Govt is at this kind of thing though, they are very good at making things appear one way, when its the exact opposite is going on, they are also very very good at maintaining secrets over long periods.
If govt wanted to pull something off like this, as a means to impose tough new laws and control over the people...this is exactly the kind of thing they would do, in order to make people accept it and believe its being done in their best interest, or for their safety, its really the only way to pull such a thing off without the risk of a public uprising or revolution.
Look at what they did to start the war on drugs, they made everyone think it was being done to protect public health and safety...but we know now it was a tool to control certain races and what parts of the city they spent time in, even today with the drug war, the way they 'spin it' they are doing it for the good of the public, but we know that isnt the real reason, its really about CONTROL, generating revenue, etc.
You need to consider how good Govt is at this kind of thing though, they are very good at making things appear one way, when its the exact opposite is going on, they are also very very good at maintaining secrets over long periods.
If govt wanted to pull something off like this, as a means to impose tough new laws and control over the people...this is exactly the kind of thing they would do, in order to make people accept it and believe its being done in their best interest, or for their safety, its really the only way to pull such a thing off without the risk of a public uprising or revolution.
Look at what they did to start the war on drugs, they made everyone think it was being done to protect public health and safety...but we know now it was a tool to control certain races and what parts of the city they spent time in, even today with the drug war, the way they 'spin it' they are doing it for the good of the public, but we know that isnt the real reason, its really about CONTROL, generating revenue, etc.
I don't know. That still doesn't address the "how" it was done. Your scenario that they could just do it because they could just do it is wishful thinking on your part, I understand, but there are those practicalities involved that have not been explained.
Besides, there is the little matter of the fact that no evidence of a controlled demolition was found in the debris, and that's not something that is coming from "the government" but rather all the people who did the cleanup and sorting and recovery and examination of the debris. There were a heck of a lot of engineers, construction people, and firefighters crawling over the pile and looking through the debris at Fresh Kills. Somebody would have found something. They pulled file folders and IDs and photographs, etc., out of the wreckage, thousands of them. They would survive but no material from a CD?
Again, I go with what the engineers who were directly involved say vs. people on Internet websites. They have no reason to lie and every reason to speak up. They lost friends, colleagues, family members in a few cases, and some nearly lost their own lives that day.
There are also other obvious questions if you want it to have been a controlled demolition, such as, when the burning jet fuel shot down the elevator shafts and sent fireballs flying through the Concourse, and the buildings shuddered and jerked wildly upon the impact of the planes, why didn't the explosives go off for another hour or so?
There is a valid theory about those explosions if they occurred. The heat inside those buildings would of been hot enough to melt aluminum and there is a lot of aluminum from the planes and the building itself. In molten state when combined with water pound for pound it has an explosive power many times TNT. The water of course was also present from the massive storage tanks.
If there was big enough pool of it could have even helped bring them down. You may also recall that one video where there was something molten dripping outside the building, the two guys that put this theory forth suggested it might have been aluminum. It had the right color, etc.
They haven't claimed to be right and explained they needed access to some of the debris to test it for something that would be present if this occurred. Last I read about it they weren't given access.
Why should conspiracy crackpots be given access? I think you're hiding something in your house. Please let me in so I can inspect it. That's the attitude they take, and it's wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
