Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
You’ve brought up exactly no good questions, Glenn. You’ve brought up the same stupid crap from 2004.
I did find it fun that the squibs were resurrected.
“I think this thread has proved very well that – far from the raving “loons” the True Believers
would have us 9/11 sceptics portrayed – we simply have a lot of very good questions and
observations that cannot be brushed off with hand-waving explanations and insults. ”
Glenn, all you do is ask a few questions. Ignore the answers and then say that you not listening to, or understanding the answers means you are correct.
Question 1.
Do you believe WTC1 and WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolitions?
To buy their version of events, all Angrysoba et al need to explain is how come newtonian mechanics went AWOL in NY on 9/11. Until then I’m with Glenn 100%
Nikko,
99.9% of the structural engineers of the world disagree with you. Perhaps you think your understanding of structural engineering is superior.
Don’t forget that such people learned a great deal about buildings on 911, as they always learn when buildings collapse.
But I imagine that 99.9% of the structural engineers of the world could never convince you on the sufficiency of the airplane strikes in collapsing the Towers.
“To buy their version of events, all Angrysoba et al need to explain is how come newtonian mechanics went AWOL in NY on 9/11.”
Would you like to expand on that? Give me some useful figures and explain to me why no one has used such simple understanding of Newtonian mechanics to write a paper on the destruction of the Towers.
I don’t know about you Larry, but I am getting the distinct impression that Truthers are a bunch of liars or bullshitters.
Larry
please quote the source of your statement that “99.9% of the structural engineers of the world disagree…”. Until I see that and their reasoning I’ll continue to believe that the official version of events does not stack up.
The count so far, out of 344 posts
62 posts from Soba
54 posts from Larry
And I thought I was overdoing it with 14!
Quantity is no substitute for quality, fellows 😉
“Would you like to expand on that? Give me some useful figures and explain to me why no one has used such simple understanding of Newtonian mechanics to write a paper on the destruction of the Towers”
It is not necessary to provide an alternative theory for the collapse to disprove the official version.
“I don’t know about you Larry, but I am getting the distinct impression that Truthers are a bunch of liars or bullshitters.”
Is this the best you can do for a convincing argument?
Angrysoba – you see? They just change the subject!
Their movement is dead. The anti-war movement rejected them from the beginning.
“Is this the best you can do for a convincing argument?”
You and the rest are lying sacks of shit!
Explain how the towers came down!
“The count so far, out of 344 posts
62 posts from Soba
54 posts from Larry
And I thought I was overdoing it with 14!
Quantity is no substitute for quality, fellows ;)”
Glenn, do you believe the Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition?
“It is not necessary to provide an alternative theory for the collapse to disprove the official version.”
Angrysoba, I’ve encountered this silly statement here more than anywhere else.
Just a thought – perhaps the Holocaust deniers have made more of an impact in this context. After all, that is one of the Holocaust deniers’ favorite things to say.
“Just a thought – perhaps the Holocaust deniers have made more of an impact in this context. After all, that is one of the Holocaust deniers’ favorite things to say.”
Holocaust deniers tend to focus in on weird and obscure details such as how a door might close. Truthers do something similar.
BUT Truthers claim that the Towers COULD NOT have come down in the way they did without explosives.
Amazingly there are thousands and thousands of people all over the Internet who know that fact and yet there is not one of them who know enough to have written a paper explaining it and able to get it published in an engineering journal.
Why not?
Soba wrote “do you believe the Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition?”
Well of course – things like that wouldn’t just demolish themselves!
“Well of course – things like that wouldn’t just demolish themselves!”
What demolished the buildings?
TNT?
Thermite?
Nanothermite?
Could you at least give us all a hint and explain where you have been for the last nine years?
Glenn, you do it very well but its already been covered.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygsq7bo
Plausible theories
* distributed explosives
* thermobaric devices
* thermite preparations
Larry&Soba
There has been an intellegent 911 discussion on craigmurray.org.uk besides your worst efforts.
All you two eegits can do about it now is try and relieve yourselves at the end of it, with your characteristic pram rattling, inane whataboutery and randiforum linkages. Who wants or needs to repond to your sorry charade? Ambassadors for sense and sanity?? The rest of us can all actualy agree to disagree. Have a look at how ‘loons get on – read your own posts!
Hey Soba… you ask why someone wouldn’t be able to publish a paper which hypothesised an explanation of why the towers came down.
The answer, of course, is that to do so would not be good for the career of the editor who accepted such a paper. Because that editor would be very heavily leaned on.
Not wishing to change subject, but you must know full well that self-censorship takes place all the time on all matter of issues, from Palestine to US-trained deathsquads. I recall reading a journalist saying that if we were to write an article critical of Israel, he might as well clear his desk the moment it was submitted. Same has happened with people that want to speak out on the events of 911 – academics and engineers have been dismissed.
What is more curious is why engineers and architects are not filling the pages of their respective magazines, urgently figuring out how to retrofit all existing steel framed buildings, and why safety codes have not demanded that nobody occupies them until doing so.
Then again, here’s a building nobody commented on earlier which burned rather well without collapsing, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8
You can tell the heat from the colour of the flames, and they were no less hot than fires in the WTC buildings.
“Hey Soba… you ask why someone wouldn’t be able to publish a paper
which hypothesised an explanation of why the towers came down.
The answer, of course, is that to do so would not be good for the career
of the editor who accepted such a paper. Because that editor would be
very heavily leaned on.”
Don’t be ridiculous! You’ve been reading too many US isolationist/survivalist sites and come to the conclusion that if you can’t work in Buttfuck Alabama you can’t work nowhere!
Don’t be silly. I asked YOU! YOU! YOU! and all the other anonymous brilliant minds to explain how those towers were destroyed and none of you Truthers can explain it because you’re all liars, charlatans and fantasists.
Why can’t you get a paper published in Japan? China? North Korea? Iran? France?
Because you are sucking on the stupid pipe that Alex jones fed to you.
Larry,
Do you specialize in Chapter 11 bankruptcy – how come you got so much time to spend here? Are you a paid distraction or just a flag waver.
I was goin to say ‘with respect’ but of course if someone throws you a bundle to talk shit – who needs respect.
Why do you keep bringing up Chapter 11? I don’t get it.
Glenn,
You and the other Truthers are just a bunch of liars and fantasists.
Deep down I am sure you know it.
Always an excuse about why you and all the other supercilious eggheads can’t get their papers published.
Why don’t you just admit that you are a liar and you don’t know what you are talking about. Just like MJ and Tim Groves.
You say that you know more about physics and structural engineering than the experts and yet none of you have ever written a paper on the subject and none of you ever will because none of you have any idea what you are talking about.
You’re a bunch of fantasy dissidents. Like David Ray Griffin.
“Why can’t you get a paper published in Japan? China? North Korea? Iran? France?”
Plus, there’s another venue.
It’s used by other silly 911 nuts to disseminate their so-called “peer reviewed” papers.
If it’s good work (relative to other truther scholarship, that’s not too difficult), truthers would love to disseminate it.
Here’s the other venue.
It has a name.
Here it is.
The Internet
And you ask Glenn simple questions and he can’t answer them because he’s afraid to.
Larry,
Well you wouldn’t get it as a 2 bit lawyer – as demonstrated by your shit posts – I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.
“What is more curious is why engineers and architects are not filling the
pages of their respective magazines, urgently figuring out how to
retrofit all existing steel framed buildings, and why safety codes have
not demanded that nobody occupies them until doing so.”
I have to admit – that one is original!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen here – the idea is to get terrorists to not fly into buildings in the first place. Regardless of whether a building is completely demolished, it’s still a bad thing to have a plane fly into it. Yet, you would expect all buildings to go through the cost and non-use for being able to withstand thousands of gallons of jet fuel pouring into their veins (not to mention the plane impacts).
This argument actually goes the other way – why the fuck do you think they put fireproofing on steel columns? Should they stop doing that?
crab: Thanks, and you’re right.
(very) Angrysoba: Calm down, mate, you’re going to fret yourself into an early grave. You’ve got the entire government behind you, the established MSN, most people don’t give a toss anyway, and I’m nobody at all writing on a free blog-space Craig Murray has kindly provided.
So why are you go angry? What are you so concerned about, just because somebody, somewhere doesn’t agree with you?
And you’ve come nowhere near answering my post on inertia (January 28, 2010 1:05PM), apart from bringing up some utter silliness about bowling balls and paper.
As to me, this is why I’m sometimes angry:
1. I had one friend and one acquaintance die in the Towers. They found my friend’s head some weeks later in the pile.
2. I have friends in the FDNY.
3. 911 troof doesn’t bother me in the States, but it bothers me when I travel. I have family in Europe. Since I’m American, people want to bring this up all the time. And it’s the same rehashing of silly claims.
4. I hate lies, and I hate arrogant douchebags.
5. 911 troof only contributes to problems between the West and Islam.
“Well you wouldn’t get it as a 2 bit lawyer – as demonstrated by your shit posts – I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.”
Who the fuck is paying you?
“I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.”
What would whether I practice in the area of corporate bankruptcy have to do with whether I’m getting paid to chat here? You’re not making any sense, and I’m sure you’re fellow truthers would agree.