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).
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. –Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
Right, but that does not make the pleas of the village idiot any more listenworthy.
I am the village idiot – and proud of it! 1st principles, man.
@Edo at January 29, 2010 3:08 PM: “Vincent Salandria was perhaps the first JFK researcher to come to believe that the truth of the assassination could be better approached by large-scale considerations than by focusing on details.”
Thanks, Edo, for your comment on Salandria (and thanks to Vronsky for noting it on a later thread). I looked him up and found this interesting bit about Salandria’s method:
“As I examined the evidence I was confronted with an unvarying pattern. Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged – and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize – the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting a lone assassin theory – the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the lone assassin myth. That is not the earmark of an innocent, blundering government.
I posited that an innocent civilian government would have in an unbiased fashion accepted, made public, and protected all of the assassination data. An innocent government would have fairly evaluated the data irrespective of whether or not they supported a particular conclusion. An innocent civilian government would never have accepted an improbable explanation of data while other probable explanations were extant.”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsalandria.htm
Some Truther: “We have the wheel now too in case you hadn’t notice those strange rolling circles on the bizarre metal beasts.”
The delusions never cease!
Yep, you truly terrorise the websites of the tender-headed.
hawley_jr
http://tinyurl.com/y94dgx6
Sorry, hawley. Just WHAT has JFK got to do with 9/11?
Truthers here keep swooning over that quote and I just don’t see the relevance.
It’s only useful if you are a serial conspiracy theorist and think that massive conspiracies involving thousands are normal occurences.
But if you’re not convinced that JFK was killed in a massive conspiracy then it doesn’t really work as “evidence”.
JFK conspiracy theorists usually use just as much kooky evidence as Truthers then they whine about how they don’t want the burden of proof and insist on others simply drinking the Kool-aid.
Truthers on this site have already declared an inside job to have been conclusively proved and yet when asked to prove that there were explosives have utterly failed to turn up any evidence, complained about why they have to PROVE it then flounced off in a huff.
I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off, and why, when it was hit by a Tower, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite in Building 7 didn’t go off. This is a big problem if you’re a failed Mormon physicist or a slimy Danish pseudoscientist with crazy hair. Or should I say, unless you’re a failed Mormon physicist or a slimy Danish pseudoscientist with crazy hair.
“turn up any evidence”
Posted by: George Dutton at January 28, 2010 11:43 AM
“I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off”
Well, obviously they were held in blast-resistant fireproof containers.
[/twoof]
http://orphia-nay.blogspot.com/2007/01/911-truther-credo.html
“Controlled Demolition proven, you can all go home now”
Well, this is apparently where things go for Truthers once they have satisfied themselves. They go home.
“The building materials were very flimsy and not reinforced anywhere near to the degree the towers were.”
Oh really? Then if the material being crushed is flimsy then how would equally flimsy material crush it? Isn’t this like trying to smash a polystyrene block with a polystyrene hammer? After all these are the “expirements” that Steven Jones with his concrete blocks and Richard Gage with his cardboard boxes want people to emulate to prove that this material can’t smash the same material.
In the towers a big heavy wieght smashed through a weak part of the structure and compromised the rest of the structure.
And the collapses were not “symmetrical”. There were bits and pieces falling off the towers and peeling down asymmetrically. Bits of the towers were still standing briefly after the rest had collapsed.
I can’t for the life of me understand what angry-noodle and larry-the-laugh get out of arguing so hotly in favour of the official “line”. As hawley_jr said above.
Makes no sense at all that private individuals would devote *all this time and effort* into telling us that it happened just as the US government said it did.
Defending official stories doesn’t even come into the category of hobbies, let alone obsessions. But these two are as devoted as Opus Dei members defending Catholicism.
“I can’t for the life of me understand what angry-noodle and larry-the-laugh get out of arguing so hotly in favour of the official “line”. As hawley_jr said above.”
I see. You’re upset because someone’s criticising your religion and you don’t understand why.
There are people who debunk ghosts and UFOs and other stuff like that.
Then there are people who debunk harebrained conspiracy theories.
I don’t think anyone here is saying you must always believe the “official line”. I think it should always be questioned. But when alternative hypotheses aren’t supported by evidence then they should be rejected.
It’s simply about evidence. None of the evidence I’ve seen points to an inside job and all the “structural engineering hypotheses” that Truthers come up with don’t seem convincing. Especially given that they come from people parroting dogma they’ve read about on the Internet rather than coming from anyone with any real knowledge in the subject.
Absolutely NO controlled demolition experts agree that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives.
So it was an inside job then. I see.
Larry, weight does not equate to structural integrity, you can drop several tonnes of water on several tonnes of more water and it’s still going to follow the path of least resistance, laterally and multidirectionally.
Wrong Larry the collapses WERE symmetrical, in such tall structures if they were asymmetric the imbalance would be accumulative and deflected away from the tower early on, in order to collapse all the way to the ground it has to be perfectly symmetric, which is impossible from the asymmetric damage.
Really Larry I went over all this. Watch the footage, the south tower top section leans to an angle of 22 degrees, the lower section then explodes downward perfectly symmetrically (watch the collapse front in the video). This is impossible from an asymmetric leaning off centre mass, basic physics.
Read my previous posts….slowly…then watch the footage of the demolitions then you’ll see I’m right.
Jaded wrote: So it was an inside job then. I see.”
I will concede one thing to the truth movement. Your recruiting efforts will indeed have some success. Every year, there are all sorts of hate-filled dickless Brits and narcissistic empty-headed Americans aging into a period of extreme gullibility in their lives. So 911 Truth will remain a force, although it will become increasingly pathetic.
Forget about converting people with brains. Won’t happen.
I believe you know that you are like an amoeba compared to me. I understand you can’t admit it though. It’s ok Lamby. No worries chum. 😉
Jaded, you don’t seem to understand that your blatant racist anti-Semitism has done more to discredit truthy truthers than I could ever match.
You keep believing that Lamby, you keep believing that. As for racist accusations, I believe the previous thread went very quiet after I asked for quotes. Just like this one will… 😉
@Saber
In many years I have never read such fanatical bullshit as you have posted here, you are really deluded. Do you live on a small farm in Montana surrounded by guns and underground bunkers ? Please get a life !
angri,Frazer and Larry and all your other pseudonyms have been argued off the floor.
It’s over guys.
You’re in denial re-the patent complicity of your own government in the atrocity.You’re in denial re-your intellectually challenged position on this,not to mention all the other topics on which you post and make complete arses of yourselves.
You’re now just turning yourselves into an utter laughing stock! It’s as patently obvious you guys are sharing a brain cell as the fact that 9/11 was an inside job!
“I see. You’re upset because someone’s criticising your religion and you don’t understand why.”
–angrynoodle
I have already said that I tend to agree with Craig. Get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.
And tell us why you or anyone else would spend hours, nay, days and days, defending the official line — about anything. It’s beyond reason.
“There are people who debunk ghosts and UFOs and other stuff like that.”
To the extent that you and Larry do here? You must be kidding me. You’re a joke, the pair of you. Nothing but a joke.
Hell Larry,jussa had Massa Sunstein roun’ here ‘gain.
Massa Sun says you anna angri,an Clark,techni,Frazer bin taken offa the disinfo team.
He say you no damn good,Larry and yawl jusssa makin’ tings mighty sight worsa thanna they was befo’.He say cossa you now-E’BODY KNOW 911 WASSA A INSIDE JOB!
Massa Sunstein he say he want yawl to jus shutta yourself up cos he done foun’ hisself another disinfo team thassa got them some brain cells betweena dem.
Larry,why don yoy jussa listen to Massa Sunstein an’ Massa Steelback cossa the game sure is up by now!
P.S. I’s lookin’ affer yo’wife now cos I jus don’ like wassa this’all doin’to ‘er.Sure ain’t fair,Larry.
That’s great news Juniper?
Enjoy, juniper.
“To the extent that you and Larry do here? You must be kidding me. You’re a joke, the pair of you. Nothing but a joke.”
Conspiracy theorist stomps her feet!
That’s the best you can do in response to someone who agrees with Craig?
Poor you, angrynoodle. You’ve completely run out of answers.
dreoilin, I’ve no idea what your point is. Are you just here on this thread to declare your non-interest in the topic?
Most of us know that it was the likes of angrisober,Larry,crab,technicolor et al who forced Craig into opening this 9/11 thread.
They were obsessively bringing up the topic in every thread on the site.
When they got their 9/11 thread it was beholden on them to fight their corner and make their case.
They have proved signally unequal to the task to put it mildly.
In fact I think juniper for all his linguistic shortcomings has it right.
It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!