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.
Do any of your conspiracy theory nuts ever accept anything?
We have went over, and over, and over, these claims now, disproving them time and time again with simple explinations... and two months later, here they are again.
Lets assume that the Trade Tower was "pulled".
Can one of you experts in structural engineering, architecture, or controlled demolitions explain to me how the building was wired with thousands of pounds of explosives, with hundreds of miles of wires, with the structural steel columns exposed through very invasive demolition techniques, all performed MONTHS before the building came down.... and not a single person saw it?
Explain that, with an ounce of logic, and then I will concede that the building was a controlled demolition.
I love how these conspiracy theorists never want to say what type of experience they have, what their education is, or what job they do for a living while they make these outrageous claims.
I am always suspicious of peoples motives when they try to stifle open debate. These forums are an excellent vehicle for people to exchange points of view along with their rational. Most arguments are supported by evidence showing the writer has at least done some research on the topic. These type of debates increase education regardless of agreement, and in doing so stregthen our democracy which is in dire need of more education.
No skyscrapers before or after 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire. and no skyscraperS had been hit by fullyloaded commercial planes at full speed before
Again there is no comparison to this particular situation because of the uniqueness of the WTC. You can run 100 planes into other buildings and they might not collapse. The WTC was not standard construction. Typical construction is like a honeycomb, failure of part of the structure is not going to have a severe impact on the rest of the structure.
I can find an "expert" to take any point. What you have to look at, is a preponderance of the evidence. The people who believe the government’s explanation of why the towers fell (even though they cannot explain WTC7) are going to stick to their point of view regardless of evidence. They are the same type of people who still believe Oswald shot Kennedy,
Their were multiple shooters in the Kennedy assassination. WTC 1 & 2 fell from the impact damage from the airplanes hitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
the Gulf of Tonkin attack actually happened and that the CIA does not actively overthrow foreign governments.
We over through foreign governments all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
They just want to continue to live in their illusion that their interests are being served by government and the powers that be. They find comfort in making light of the people who have looked at both sides of controversy and found that more times than not, what is being said by mass media and government are fabrications designed to placate the masses. Even when the evidence is overwhelming as in the collusion between government and banking in the home loan debacle, people would prefer to believe that it just happened and no one was at fault. Nothing just happens. Things happen for reasons. When those reasons benefit the wealthy and powerful it is not just luck, it is planed and executed. How do you think they got wealthy and powerful? By looking out for your interests?
Read what I have to say over on the 9/11 bombs thread.
I can find an "expert" to take any point. What you have to look at, is a preponderance of the evidence. The people who believe the government’s explanation of why the towers fell (even though they cannot explain WTC7) are going to stick to their point of view regardless of evidence. They are the same type of people who still believe Oswald shot Kennedy, the Gulf of Tonkin attack actually happened and that the CIA does not actively overthrow foreign governments. They just want to continue to live in their illusion that their interests are being served by government and the powers that be. They find comfort in making light of the people who have looked at both sides of controversy and found that more times than not, what is being said by mass media and government are fabrications designed to placate the masses. Even when the evidence is overwhelming as in the collusion between government and banking in the home loan debacle, people would prefer to believe that it just happened and no one was at fault. Nothing just happens. Things happen for reasons. When those reasons benefit the wealthy and powerful it is not just luck, it is planed and executed. How do you think they got wealthy and powerful? By looking out for your interests?
Why is it that those of you who so very badly want this to have been a controlled demolition cannot see beyond "The government's explanation" when someone questions your CT's? There were many people other than the government involved in the investigation and analysis of the steel and debris, you know. I am acquainted with a number of them. They are structural and civil engineers who were actually on site for the cleanup and actually looked at the steel, and of course I am going to listen to what they say. Pretending that the government somehow conducted all the analyses of the collapses in secret and in a vacuum doesn't fool anyone who knows better.
And what makes you think "they can't explain 7"? Is that what you got from NCSTAR1A?
computer monitors
battery backups
emergency lighting
florescent bulds
transformers
breakerboxes
fire extignushers
arisol cans ('dust-off')
cleaning solvents
wax for floors in 5 gallon cans
betteries
car batteries (in underground parking)
car fuel tanks (in underground parking)
etc
explosions dont mean bombs
I was there. There were many sounds of explosions from the very beginning, random not timed. Elevators dropped full of burning human beings, remember? You don't think they made some kind of SOUND when they hit their terminus? The mechanical equipment rooms were located around 41/42 75/76 and on some of the upper floors (108 had enormous a/c units in it, I can tell you that). None of this could have had an impact? And for the person whose post I am quoting, good list, but add that to the car fuel tanks that exploded as burning debris hit that were parked around the area as well. This was happening as debris was crashing down off the buildings, some of it on fire--I am talking about BEFORE the collapses. And Fresh Kills 101--1400 destroyed vehicles were logged in -- some of them could be carried by two cops.
I can't say this enough--some of you seem to have no concept how much you cannot see when you are just sitting there munching on popcorn and watching videos. Please understand that those videos look like Warner Brothers cartoons to those of us who were there.
PBS has a video of Silverstien, the owner, saying he was going to pull WT7 the day of 9/11. How can you do that? RP
Misquote, old and tiresome.
And the guy is running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to get financing for his towers at the WTC site. What would be his purpose for putting himself billions in the hole? I'm sure, since you've done all this research, that you've been following the details of the arbitration this past year.
Please do not insult my intelligence with some story of a big insurance payout. I am well aware that the lease required him to carry insurance to rebuild in case the complex was ever destroyed (why WOULDN'T he be???) and I am also well aware that the conditions of the insurance payments by the 11 firms required the money be used to rebuild, and I also am well aware that the insurance is not enough to cover the rebuilding.
It's not like when you got your cousin Bobo to steal your car and drive it into the lake and the insurance company sent you a check to spend as you want.
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers. BBC - The Editors: 9/11 conspiracy theory
I am always suspicious of peoples motives when they try to stifle open debate.
The problem is. The debates have happened over and over time and time again on these forums. Somebody comes in here with this idea, these theories, based usually on half truths presented by other conspiracy theorists, and wants to put forward that these half truths are now facts.
Time and time again, people waste time showing the other half of the facts which simply disprove the allegations, and then 2 months later we get another round of people who just watched the video or can't accept the facts, that again want to present their theory.
Its tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
These forums are an excellent vehicle for people to exchange points of view along with their rational.
There is virtually no rational. Most information that is accepted by CTers is presented in a format that has a huge conspiracy bias. The only "facts" presented are those that support their theory, and all other information is squashed.
I am all about facts. I am an Architect and have great knowledge of building design, structural engineering, and building demolition. If you want to debate facts, I am ready. But I am not going to debate crap videos posted on youtube from people that have no education or professional background to come to the conclusions they do against people gullible enough to believe it.
Especially over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Most arguments are supported by evidence showing the writer has at least done some research on the topic. These type of debates increase education regardless of agreement, and in doing so stregthen our democracy which is in dire need of more education.
Education isn't found on youtube and internet forums. Especially when people have been brainwashed into believing a theory because joe janitor or lame college student who has nothing better to do with his time posted a youtube video.
You want people to be able to have a logical debate regarding the facts of the matter, then those people should take some unbiased classes in some form of trade and educate themselves on the subject from an unbiased source, by people who are in the profession of educating.
At that point, I am sure we could have a great debate. Until then, its just me vs. propoganda from gullible people over and over again.
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers. BBC - The Editors: 9/11 conspiracy theory
Is this intended to refute the original article? If so it hardly makes the case.
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.
