911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
LightningMcSteve said:
You clearly see the Penthouse on the roof collapse before the building goes.
There is a highly detailed breakdown and modeling of the collapse on AE, working from and with many of the same materials and information NIST was using.If you happen to have something of scientific merit that contradicts their findings, I would be happy to read it. Most of the typical "debunker" arguments are covered on the site; though, like much of what appears in this thread, I don't see how this post rises to even that level.
What annoys me about this is the whole melting beams thing. You don't need to melt the beam for it to collapse - in our structures lab at uni many moons ago we loaded a steel bar with sufficent weight to be able to bend it with your little finger.
Anyway, a funny thing is that people who say JFK wasn't a conspiracy are actually creating a conspiracy by denying the US government's own findings that it was a conspiracy
Anyway, a funny thing is that people who say JFK wasn't a conspiracy are actually creating a conspiracy by denying the US government's own findings that it was a conspiracy
kowalski655 said:
I have no truck with the conspiuracy nuts, but I have always wondered why the terrorists used commercial flights that had to be hijacked,with the risk of being caught on boarding,or resistance like Flight 93,when,with all their backing money they could have hired planes , either biz jets packed with bombs,or larger cargo jets, and just used them. They could have co ordinated all 4 attacks at 1 go then,hit all targets at once for even greater effect
Navigating a plane is much easier than taking off etc, basically when the planes in flight you just pop in the cockpit, shut the door, point the plane at your target and that's the limit of training you need. To get it off the runway, following all the towers instructions and not making a massive arse of yourself is very hard!
scherzkeks said:
There is a highly detailed breakdown and modeling of the collapse on AE, working from and with many of the same materials and information NIST was using.
If you happen to have something of scientific merit that contradicts their findings, I would be happy to read it. Most of the typical "debunker" arguments are covered on the site; though, like much of what appears in this thread, I don't see how this post rises to even that level.
Problem is Gage and his compadres have pretty much been shown the door on anything they put up form free fall to red particles/chips to thermite and a whole load of other issues. You can find it yourself if you want to. It is out there and it is free.If you happen to have something of scientific merit that contradicts their findings, I would be happy to read it. Most of the typical "debunker" arguments are covered on the site; though, like much of what appears in this thread, I don't see how this post rises to even that level.
And it's a niche market for the "facts" they peddle and they way it is done. For example the desire to chuck "free fall" at anyone who cares to listen without understanding what they are saying can win some over. Bit like saying 1+1=2 so that proves a conspiracy. We shall ignore other debris falling faster than the main body at the moment.
Think the list of architects is quite interesting myself. If you look into it. Then compare that to the number of architects in the US then the world. Remarkable few considering the import of the undeniable proof they post, or is the proof a problem that the worlds scientist and professionals see it as it is?
mattyn1 said:
I read a good book some years ago discussing the conspiracies with 9/11, but I cannot remember it's name. It centered round the ideas the conspiracy was either "make it happen" or "let it happen", and leant toward the "let it happen. If I remember rightly it stated due to the military exercises occurring that day, only two or three people would have to know it was happening. Everything else would be found during the exercise and evolve accordingly.
Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
This stuff is much more believable, if a small group of people up top let this happen based on the idea they thought it would result in a handful of casualties and no lasting damage but enable them to push an agenda I'd be all for believing that was a strong possibility. The whole rigging the building and planning things for years is pure nonsense.Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
The other symptom of believing this particular conspiracy is one of western arrogance. It's just inconceivable to some people that:
a) the US was a target: I really don't think many Americans realised just how much of the world they'd pissed off with their foreign policies
b) that anyone outside the US could have penetrated her borders so catastrophically and completely
For the first time since Pearl Harbour (?), US citizens felt vulnerable. So it was reassuring for them to believe none of the above is true, and the rich white guys are still running the show.
a) the US was a target: I really don't think many Americans realised just how much of the world they'd pissed off with their foreign policies
b) that anyone outside the US could have penetrated her borders so catastrophically and completely
For the first time since Pearl Harbour (?), US citizens felt vulnerable. So it was reassuring for them to believe none of the above is true, and the rich white guys are still running the show.
scherzkeks said:
LightningMcSteve said:
You clearly see the Penthouse on the roof collapse before the building goes.
There is a highly detailed breakdown and modeling of the collapse on AE, working from and with many of the same materials and information NIST was using.If you happen to have something of scientific merit that contradicts their findings, I would be happy to read it. Most of the typical "debunker" arguments are covered on the site; though, like much of what appears in this thread, I don't see how this post rises to even that level.
MDMetal said:
mattyn1 said:
I read a good book some years ago discussing the conspiracies with 9/11, but I cannot remember it's name. It centered round the ideas the conspiracy was either "make it happen" or "let it happen", and leant toward the "let it happen. If I remember rightly it stated due to the military exercises occurring that day, only two or three people would have to know it was happening. Everything else would be found during the exercise and evolve accordingly.
Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
This stuff is much more believable, if a small group of people up top let this happen based on the idea they thought it would result in a handful of casualties and no lasting damage but enable them to push an agenda I'd be all for believing that was a strong possibility. Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
But I'm not convinced it was a deliberate, just pure incompetence. Anyone on Thatcher loving PH think she was in on it, and deliberately stood back and let the Argies invade??
TwigtheWonderkid said:
MDMetal said:
mattyn1 said:
I read a good book some years ago discussing the conspiracies with 9/11, but I cannot remember it's name. It centered round the ideas the conspiracy was either "make it happen" or "let it happen", and leant toward the "let it happen. If I remember rightly it stated due to the military exercises occurring that day, only two or three people would have to know it was happening. Everything else would be found during the exercise and evolve accordingly.
Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
This stuff is much more believable, if a small group of people up top let this happen based on the idea they thought it would result in a handful of casualties and no lasting damage but enable them to push an agenda I'd be all for believing that was a strong possibility. Now if this was the case, what better symbol to convince the US public war was necessary than the sight of the burning towers which may have burned for days. Using those burning r mongerint propoganda. The towers ablaze is the image that stays with me....watching the impacts seem quite surreal even now. Their collapse, if the idea is to be believed was certainly not planned for and somewhat spoiled the intent.
Anyone else read this book, and what was it called??
But I'm not convinced it was a deliberate, just pure incompetence. Anyone on Thatcher loving PH think she was in on it, and deliberately stood back and let the Argies invade??
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Scherzerks: how did "they" get the considerable amount of explosives and miles of detonation chord into the buildings?
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Scherzerks: how did "they" get the considerable amount of explosives and miles of detonation chord into the buildings?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That kind of theory actually works well with the Falklands War. Lots of warnings about Argentinian military intentions and our own cutbacks, even raised in the commons before the invasion. Yet the government did nothing. And the whole shooting match, once it kicked off, gave Thatcher a huge popularity boost.
But I'm not convinced it was a deliberate, just pure incompetence. Anyone on Thatcher loving PH think she was in on it, and deliberately stood back and let the Argies invade??
No Thatcher love-in here, but didn't she remove the one Falklands (admittedly poor) guard vessel prior to the invasion?But I'm not convinced it was a deliberate, just pure incompetence. Anyone on Thatcher loving PH think she was in on it, and deliberately stood back and let the Argies invade??
Europa1 said:
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Scherzerks: how did "they" get the considerable amount of explosives and miles of detonation chord into the buildings?
Not only that but it needs to have been hidden, people worked in those buildings and didn't see anything, fire fighters went in to them, especially damaged areas and no one came back saying "yah the wall fell over and was packed with explosives behind it"Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Scherzerks: how did "they" get the considerable amount of explosives and miles of detonation chord into the buildings?
In fact how many rescue workers or survivors go for these conspiracy theories?
jshell said:
No Thatcher love-in here, but didn't she remove the one Falklands (admittedly poor) guard vessel prior to the invasion?
The proposed decommissioning of HMS Endurance was viewed by the Argentines as evidence of a lack of commitment by the UK to the Falklands but I don't think it was the deciding factor in the decision to invade. Endurance had very limited ability to repel an invasion so would not have been an obstacle if it remained in place (and in fact was still in place when the invasion occurred).ralphrj said:
jshell said:
No Thatcher love-in here, but didn't she remove the one Falklands (admittedly poor) guard vessel prior to the invasion?
The proposed decommissioning of HMS Endurance was viewed by the Argentines as evidence of a lack of commitment by the UK to the Falklands but I don't think it was the deciding factor in the decision to invade. Endurance had very limited ability to repel an invasion so would not have been an obstacle if it remained in place (and in fact was still in place when the invasion occurred).jshell said:
But in their minds, that could've been enough possibly. No replacement, open political invite?
The Argentines definitely didn't think that the UK would go to trouble of re-taking the islands. However, I don't think that they formed that view based on a single event. It was a combination of things that convinced them, such as:The Suez Crisis
The poor state of the UK economy
The Cold War
The Lancaster House Agreement
The termination of sovereignty talks between the UK and Argentina
The cancellation of CVA-01 aircraft carriers
The British Nationality Act 1981
and so on.
Europa1 said:
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
scherzkeks said:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
Hold on.The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
Move away from fantasy scenarios? Get real....
Let me go along with what your saying for a moment. "There is no way they fell how they did without removing or pulverising support structures"
We will start with a simple question that I assume you will have an answer to (or at least some theory to support this notion)
How were these supporting structures pulverised or removed?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff