96 replies to this topic

[segwayrulz]

I actualy prefer SWG's theory

[Spectre]

You know what they say; "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

I guess the same goes for Building 7 also? The facts don't add up, "The Bigger they are the hard they fall isn't exactly scientific. More speculation to counter conspiracist speculation. I fundamentally believe a new investigation is the best way to go in order to "clear things up" as such.

Would you mind rephrasing that? Some of that was confusing.

[Puppeteer]

Going back to the holocaust point of this thread, Nick Griffin called it the "holohaux". Is he really a threat?

[Spectre]

I don't believe anyone when they say they don't believe in the holocaust. If you ask me, Nick Griffin should be laughed at, since those Holocaust conspiracy theories are funnily inaccurate.

Edited by Durandel, 23 May 2009 - 02:26 PM.

[Tom]

Tom, please, don't buy into any of that rubbish. The demolitions theory is 100 percent pure BULLSHIT. I can list off reason after reason why anything contrary is a lie.

Fen I use to argue that 9/11 was an inside job, I've just toned down on it now as there is this bullshit speculation from both sides.

Personally I think the official story is a ridiculous fraud as there are so many holes in it but the conspiracist don't particularily prove much either as most of it is speculation. List off your arguments against the demolition theory, I want to hear them And please don't use Popular Mechanics; I've read that article hundreds of time and it is a full of holes as any of the theories, including the official one. The guy who wrote it isn't a scientist and is a total jackass. He just wrote it to uphold the establishment line, most of his own insights are bullshit and have been proved so by confrontation with people in the truth movement.

Durandel: Building 7 (WTC7) also came down at almost freefall speed (6 seconds) and it was 47 stories tall. There are many experts who have said it was a demolition. Larry Silverstein was recorded on the record saying they decided to "pull" which is a demolition term for demolish. But when he came under fire for this comment, he changed his view claiming he said "pull the operation" and said he spoke to the firefighter chief to do so - when asked to name the fire fighter chief he remained silent. For a many to change his story so many times, I wonder why he hasn't been investigated. He did afterall get a 7billion dollar payout from the towers.

Also the BBC reported that 4 of the hijackers were still alive days after the attacks and had came forward, they also changed their story claiming this was poor investigation a few years later when they came under fire from people investigating 9/11.

Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/1559151.stm
Their Rebuttal: http://www.bbc.co.uk...y_theory_1.html

We also have to take into account that the BBC reported the collapse of wtc 7 about 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. What happened there?

Secondly there are claims that thermite has been found in WTC dust. My question about that is why it has taken 7 years to discover this evidence if this is the case? It doesn't mean that its false, but I don't know how an event with so many conspiracy theories could have taken so long to get some evidence to support one of them.

I still think another investigation should be done due to these claims, but unfortunately all the metal for the WTC is gone for scrap as far as I am aware of.

The other argument that I develop to get me out of the conspiracist mindset in relation to 9/11, is the fact that 9/11 was used for political means in unpopular ways, regardless to who committed it. Still I have decided it be best to remain open minded about 9/11, as with most things, as I haven't seen anything massively convincing yet. If a new investigation could be done, I would support it.

[Ash]

I don't believe anyone when they say they don't believe in the holocaust. If you ask me, Nick Griffin should be laughed at, since those Holocaust conspiracy theories are funnily inaccurate.

Nick Griffin IS laughed at, by everyone outside of his own party of thugs.

[Allathar]

But what was the reason for the US government to 'fake' 9/11? There are many points which suggest that there was indeed something fishy going on, but why on earth would they do that?

[Tom]

Well no one can answer that question unless they wish to get deep into a conspiracy theory or speculate, however you only need to read things like the the project for the New American Century to see where it does lead some people. In the PNAC texts it was written: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

http://en.wikipedia....merican_Century

Conspiracists use this to support their argument and say 9/11 was that event. We also all know how the neocons manipulated the fear, anger and confusion after 9/11 to push America into two wars that they knew would be unpopular. This is also what I meant about focusing on the political implications after 9/11; it was used as a pretext to further some form of an agenda (PNAC), whether conspiratorial or just a group of greedy and power hungry men working for profits is a matter of perspective. Look at the legislation that has been passed worldwide and you can get an easy picture of how much of an effect post-9/11 truama has had on the world. When you have fearful people you can basically exploit their fear to do what you wish, if you are smart enough. The Nazi's themselves where aware of that - whilst their ideology was sick it still had some great wisdom in terms of intellect (how to use propaganda and fear to the advantage of leaders for example). Some people believe we should forget 9/11, but the consequences of it are still with us very strongly today.

[Beowulf]

ARGH. Not this shit again. There is no 9/11 Conspiracy. Period. It was an act of war and terror by Muslim extremists.
Watch the fucking video footage and you'll see there is _no_ evidence whatsoever of demolitions. There were no loud successive explosive popping noises attributed to a real demolition and experts have commented on the lack of this; there was no thermite, or any other explosive powder, found in wreckage nor any real evidence like blasting caps or detonating cords.

Not to mention the amount of manpower to successfully rig the building with enough explosive power is absolutely staggering. I mean you don't just walk in a slap a thing of C4 to a duct and expect it to work. No, you have to attach that directly to the supports and you don't just tear down an office and put it together in one night... without someone noticing.

There are far too many holes in this bogus 'theory' that completely discredits the idea. And I don't just mean the physical evidence, which is just overwhelmingly in my favor as well.

Simple common sense people. Common sense... or do I need to quote Wesforce on that one?

Edited by Beowulf, 23 May 2009 - 11:40 PM.

[fieldwings]

Yay, I get to kill this conspiracy crap again! First CNCNZ, now here! What fuuuuuun.

Personally I think the official story is a ridiculous fraud as there are so many holes in it but the conspiracist don't particularily prove much either as most of it is speculation. List off your arguments against the demolition theory, I want to hear them

How about this then;

No pops/flashes occured before or during the collapses. REAL controlled demolitions always have very clearly visible flashes from the charges, and a rapid succession of detonations can be heard for miles around.

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
I think 5's good.

There was one video where you could even hear the charges over a hovering helicopter's rotors where the camera was INSIDE the helicopter, but I can't find that one.

No evidence either. No det cord, blasting caps, copper backing, shock tubes, etc., NONE were found in any of the towers' wreckage. If there was a real controlled demolition, you'd even see it on top of the debris piles. Yet there wasn't any. Emergency crews were there before cleanup crews as well, and they would have noticed.

And please don't use Popular Mechanics; I've read that article hundreds of time and it is a full of holes as any of the theories, including the official one. The guy who wrote it isn't a scientist and is a total jackass. He just wrote it to uphold the establishment line, most of his own insights are bullshit and have been proved so by confrontation with people in the truth movement.

How uptight. Popular Mechanics actually did a good job in their articles. The author has NONE of the alleged family ties claimed by conspiracy junkies.

Durandel: Building 7 (WTC7) also came down at almost freefall speed (6 seconds) and it was 47 stories tall. There are many experts who have said it was a demolition.

Wrong again. What "experts" say it was a demolition, I do pray tell? Because as far as I can tell, NO expert worth their grit, that is to say, actual demolitions experts and structural engineers, agree with any controlled demolition theory.

Larry Silverstein was recorded on the record saying they decided to "pull" which is a demolition term for demolish.

Intended mis-interpretation by conspiracy theorists. Why would he be talking to a fire chief about a controlled demolition when the order was to pull the firefighters away, for reason that they KNEW a collapse was inevitable?

But when he came under fire for this comment, he changed his view claiming he said "pull the operation" and said he spoke to the firefighter chief to do so - when asked to name the fire fighter chief he remained silent. For a many to change his story so many times, I wonder why he hasn't been investigated. He did afterall get a 7billion dollar payout from the towers.

He changed nothing. He stated the truth by elaboration and nothing more. What does it matter who the fire chief was? He did NOT get 7 billion by the way. In the real world, he got a little more than 4 and a half billion.

Also the BBC reported that 4 of the hijackers were still alive days after the attacks and had came forward, they also changed their story claiming this was poor investigation a few years later when they came under fire from people investigating 9/11.

Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/1559151.stm
Their Rebuttal: http://www.bbc.co.uk...y_theory_1.html

So what? There are many people with the same names as the hijackers and it's easy to make this mistake.

We also have to take into account that the BBC reported the collapse of wtc 7 about 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. What happened there?

You think it's unnatural for a news team to be told to report a collapse when they THINK it will collapse? Sure, it was the BBC that made this mistake, but really, what do you think they were gonna do?

Secondly there are claims that thermite has been found in WTC dust. My question about that is why it has taken 7 years to discover this evidence if this is the case? It doesn't mean that its false, but I don't know how an event with so many conspiracy theories could have taken so long to get some evidence to support one of them.

Wrong again. Trace amounts of chemicals that are SOMETIMES found in thermite/thermate compounds were discovered. Unfortunately for conspiracy buffs, neither barium nitrate NOR aluminum oxide were found in the collapse sites. BOTH chemicals ALWAYS occur naturally after a thermite/thermate reaction.

I still think another investigation should be done due to these claims, but unfortunately all the metal for the WTC is gone for scrap as far as I am aware of.

The other argument that I develop to get me out of the conspiracist mindset in relation to 9/11, is the fact that 9/11 was used for political means in unpopular ways, regardless to who committed it. Still I have decided it be best to remain open minded about 9/11, as with most things, as I haven't seen anything massively convincing yet. If a new investigation could be done, I would support it.

They don't need to do a new investigation. The NIST completed their full report on WTC7 back in November.

Edited by fieldwings, 24 May 2009 - 12:22 AM.

[Tom]

Ok. Noted

[Spectre]

From Holocaust > to Conspiracy > to 9/11 > to Demolition theories.

Can anyone explain?

[Mathijs]

Sure I can, Kacen thinks the Holocaust is a conspiracy and whenever someone mentions conspiracies Tom comes in with a whole lot more.

Done.

[Rattuskid]

I don't want to get into too much conspiracy theory but the theorist claim that science doesn't back up the official theory. NIST who is currently doing investigations to debunk conspiracy theories are actually raising more questions than they are dispelling because they were purposely ignoring data: Primarily that the buildings fell down at almost free fall speed - claimed to be impossible unless there was little resistance

The building had a steel truss system for holding up the floors, and external/elevator core support. The planes essentially vaporized one outer support wall, almost all of the inner elevator core walls, and in the case of the South tower (IIRC) much of the OPPOSITE outer supporting wall. The vast majority of it's real support is lost then, and the weight of the floor (it's static weight alone, ignoring the plane) AND the weight of the floors above it are pressing down on fucking truss supports.

Firemen have an expression "never trust a truss", not because they are prone to failing faster than girders (they are), but also because they do so quickly. No warning before a collapse. Sound familiar? Steel, designed to hold up just one floor, and known to be poor type of construction for a fire... and likely having much of it's fire insulation blown off from the impact... is holding up a good portion of the goddamned tower.

One floor snaps. All that static weigh now has kinetic energy... why WOULDN'T it fall at near freefall from that point?

Hell, even this brick 5-story falls at nearly the norm for any other object, and it collapses well after the fire.


This is exactly opposite of how I see video of demolitions. That usually involves complete vertical severing of supports at once to ensure a roughly straight-down collapse. This doesn't have the advantage of weakened steel through a fire. Essentially every major structure has to be hit at once for it to fold on itself rather than fall to pieces.

If the WTC was a controlled demolition, it would be the first echelon-style one... in history... and would have to be done with equipment that was extraordinarily fireproofed. Not to mention the quantity. Much more explosive than involved in Oklahoma City. That was a fucking vans-worth. Essentially the employees in the towers would be tripping over the damn bombs, which would be planted by the exterior walls... which were hallways.

This all of this is ignoring the most obvious two faults of a conspiracy theory.

1 - As Maddox pointed out, if the people involved had zero problem offing 3,000 Americans, why do the handful of people originally behind Loose Change still draw breath? What would be a few more, especially if they are actually exposing a conspiracy?

2 - If you have a bomb planted, why involve planes? You can just claim the bomb was planted by Al Qaeda. There one day, gone the next. Hell, it's way more believable as you well show. Do you doubt the official story for the 1993 bombing of the WTC garage?

[Allathar]

To go back to the original topic, a Dutch politician, Mark Rutte of the right and liberal party VVD, wants to have people the option of denying the holocaust. Right now it's forbidden in the law for someone to deny it. It's not that he denies the holocaust, but he wants to give people the option of doing it, because of the 'freedom of speach'.

And sure enough, everybody gets angry at him because of it... I think he's totally right though.

[Mathijs]

VVD? Hahaha!

[Allathar]

VVD? Hahaha!

Care to explain the 'Hahaha!' part?

VVD > SP anytime. The SP is just a bunch of sour idealists who complain about everything and have 'amazing plans' about how it should work, yet those 'plans' fail in the real world and so far all they have done is waste a lot of money. The only people who vote SP are the poor, lazy and jobless who expect to get more money from the government because they are so poor. Hey, here's an idea, if you are so poor, go find a goddamn job and earn some money. (Yes, I'm fully aware there are really people out there who are poor, but the more money we give them, the less they are tempted to find a job).

Also, the SP thinks the rich people should pay for everything, because 'they have enough money anyway'. Yes, they have, through hard working. It's really easy for the SP to decide what to do with the money of other people... Also, the last of respect I had for them disappeared when in a 'slave of work and capitalism' demonstration a demonstrant was asked what job he had. 'None, I'm currently jobless', he said...

For the non-Dutch, VVD are the right and liberals, and the SP are the leftist, socialists, and communist bastards.

[Mathijs]

Easy there fellow, I'm not a member of the SP, (anymore) and as such I'm not planning to vote for them. They (just like pretty much every party in the Netherlands) have succumbed to a new wave of stupid populism, which as you'll undoubtedly deny was caused by the right-wing.

I like your preemptive judging of me though, and I love your black and white view of the world.

[Allathar]

I won't deny that it was caused by the right-wing (Verdonk for example), and I hate the populism too. Every party here just seems to want to score votes using hot items and the mass media, focusing on only one issue...

The fact that you aren't a member of the SP anymore shows that you have at least some brain capacity and a more realistic view, which I admire. The 'preemptive judge' was based on your VVD remark, which was rather, well, weird. If you, by any chance, happen to hate the VVD, at least back up your opinion and care to elaborate. Trust me, it works and won't make you sound like an asshole. This is a discussion forum, remember.

I'm glad you still like me though.

[Mathijs]

I do dislike the VVD, and I'm not going to back my opinion up with anything because if there's one thing I hate, it's discussing politics, and if there's one thing I hate MORE it's discussing Dutch politics. It's a waste of time, and no, I will not be voting for any party come the 4th of June.

Check out my political compass for more details.