What brought the towers down???

[azxcvbnm321]

Well looks like more and more people are coming to the side of reason based on the poll results. Finally the number of delusional conspiracy theorists is under 70% on this board.

All the while we have even more evidence that the War on Terror is real.

Al Qaeda leader calls on Bush to return body of 'great knight'

Friday, June 30, 2006; Posted: 1:20 p.m. EDT (17:20 GMT)

story.binladen.tape.jpg
An audiotape posted on the Internet features Osama bin Laden, left, mourning the loss of his leader in Iraq.


CNN's Octavia Nasr discusses the new bin Laden tape (4:02)
SPECIAL REPORT
• Bin Laden: Alive or dead?
• Timeline: Al Qaeda attacks


(CNN) -- An audio message posted Friday on an Islamic Web site purports to be the voice of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, grieving over the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and taunting President Bush.



I suppose this tape was faked as well? But why would fake Bin Laden grieve over Al-Zarqawi who is a real terrorist? After all, Al-Zarqawi's terrorism threatens to disrupt the US's grip on Iraq. If the conspiracy is true, then the fake Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi should be on opposite sides, not the same side. Face it folks, there is no conspiracy.

[Big Mean Kitty]

Interesting story before launch tomorrow that NASA has remote control capabilities to fly the Space Shuttle home if they have to. I would think it would be much harder to remotely guide the Shuttle down from space than it would be to control a passenger jet flightpath into the WTC from another location. Just curious...:confused:

[azxcvbnm321]

That's because landing and re-entry is almost 100% computerized anyway. On a plane, auto-pilot and landing is computerized, but there's no way that the computers are designed to remotely fly into buildings. They are designed to prevent that. Special equiptment would have to be install if at all possible. Very unlikely. The most likely course of events is that terrorists hijacked four planes and tried to fly them into buildings. Only three were successful.

The plight of United 93 proves that this was not a conspiracy. What would be the point of having a "failure"? It would have been better if United 93 hit a target no?

[Large Sarge]

better link (more bandwidth)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11+revisited

[Halophyte]

The plight of United 93 proves that this was not a conspiracy. What would be the point of having a "failure"? It would have been better if United 93 hit a target no?


Logic isn't thrilling enough .... low entertainment value.


.

[Large Sarge]

That's because landing and re-entry is almost 100% computerized anyway. On a plane, auto-pilot and landing is computerized, but there's no way that the computers are designed to remotely fly into buildings. They are designed to prevent that. Special equiptment would have to be install if at all possible. Very unlikely. The most likely course of events is that terrorists hijacked four planes and tried to fly them into buildings. Only three were successful.

The plight of United 93 proves that this was not a conspiracy. What would be the point of having a "failure"? It would have been better if United 93 hit a target no?

you need to get your facts straight, these guys could barely make a cessna do 1 loop around an airfield, no way they were taking those planes hundreds of miles and hitting anything they wanted to.

[Large Sarge]

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=289029#post289029

[Pook]

you need to get your facts straight, these guys could barely make a cessna do 1 loop around an airfield, no way they were taking those planes hundreds of miles and hitting anything they wanted to.

I had a friend who worked at a place that has the simulators that airline pilots use for training. I used to fly the sim into tall buildings for fun. It isnt as hard as you might think. Also, people and cameras saw the airliners hit.

The eyewitness descriptions of explosions and the fall of Tower 7 is what has me scratching my head.

If you guys figure this out, let me know! :wink:

[Didga]

I had a friend who worked at a place that has the simulators that airline pilots use for training. I used to fly the sim into tall buildings for fun. It isnt as hard as you might think. Also, people and cameras saw the airliners hit.

Navigating without any help from the air traffic controllers or on-board computer systems is pretty hard (transponders were turned off)

A spiral dive from 30,000 feet at 400mph to level off a 4 ft above the ground at hit the Pentagon on the 1st floor sideways into its re-enforced section.

Hijacking with box-cutters and plastic knives

I'm starting to think its harder than I thought, maybe its actually impossible bullshit.

[azxcvbnm321]

Hijacking with box cutters would be impossible now which is why there is no need for these stupid security checks at the airport. The checks are just there to make people feel safe, nothing more.

Back then, people were told to not fight back during a hijacking because in previous hijackings, the terrorists would just make their demands and everyone would wind up safe. If something like that happened today, the hijackers would get their ass kicked and be torn from limb to limb.

As for WTC7 could it be that some things in the universe don't happen EXACTLY like you predict? Regardless, the best explaination is that the building was destroyed indirectly by the planes flying into the WTC.

This reminds me of the Theory of Evolution. There are many holes in that theory, including how no one has actually seen evolution happen. However it's still the best explaination period. Just because we don't have all the details doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed, especially since the alternatives are even worse.

The explosives theory is much more ridiculous than fire from WTC1 and WTC2 spreading to WTC7 and burning it down. How could this happen? How does wildfire spread? How does a single match end up destroying thousands of acres of wildlife? I'm sure you conspiracy people would say that it's impossible for a stray lighted match to end up burning out of control. After all, that fire would have to jump! My God it must be a conspiracy!

[Large Sarge]

Hijacking with box cutters would be impossible now which is why there is no need for these stupid security checks at the airport. The checks are just there to make people feel safe, nothing more.

Back then, people were told to not fight back during a hijacking because in previous hijackings, the terrorists would just make their demands and everyone would wind up safe. If something like that happened today, the hijackers would get their ass kicked and be torn from limb to limb.

As for WTC7 could it be that some things in the universe don't happen EXACTLY like you predict? Regardless, the best explaination is that the building was destroyed indirectly by the planes flying into the WTC.

This reminds me of the Theory of Evolution. There are many holes in that theory, including how no one has actually seen evolution happen. However it's still the best explaination period. Just because we don't have all the details doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed, especially since the alternatives are even worse.

The explosives theory is much more ridiculous than fire from WTC1 and WTC2 spreading to WTC7 and burning it down. How could this happen? How does wildfire spread? How does a single match end up destroying thousands of acres of wildlife? I'm sure you conspiracy people would say that it's impossible for a stray lighted match to end up burning out of control. After all, that fire would have to jump! My God it must be a conspiracy!


you need to watch the video above again. all those people who heard, saw and felt (blown over) explosions were not having mass hallucinations.

I also find it very hard to swallow that some guy who can barely circle a cessna plane once, can take a large aircraft hunrdeds of miles, with no help from air traffic controllers/land navigation, and hit its target.

we are not talking crashing into the side of a mountain here, this is a high rise building.

he has to approach at just the right angle to hit it and not glance off, like the second plane did, most of the debris went out the back/side because the plane did not even hit directly.

this is not like jumping in your car and driving to mcdonalds, these guys do not make 100+K a year for having an easy job. high skill level is required for this.

[Merlin]

My God it must be a conspiracy!

My God, do you folks even know the definition of conspiracy? Anytime two or more people plan or conspire to commit a crime, there is a conspiracy -- whether it's 19 Arabs with box cutters or whether it's the criminal thugs running our government. If you have some idea or explanation for how the actual crime was committed, you have a theory. Thus, conspiracy theory. It's not dirty talk, folks, and it can apply to the people in power who run our government as easily as it can apply to wackos and nut cases.

You can't discredit the 9/11 Truth movement by calling them conspiracy theorists! The official government explanation for what happened that awful day is the grand daddy of all conspiracy theories and the most unbelievable of the bunch.

[runcible]

There's one benefit from over-zealous airport security guidelines: Ebay is full of interesting tools that were seized at airport security and later sold off.

I picked up a cheap Swisscard for my wallet awhile back from Ebay.

http://www.keychain-tools.com/admin/images/swisscard.jpg

For those of you who are not familar with this, the entire tool is the size and the shape of a credit card, and about twice as thick. The "knife"/letter opener is 3.125", including the handle. The blade is only 1.5" long. The scissors are slightly shorter than the knife. In my not so humble opinion, I'd rather try to hijack a plane with a sharp pencil or metal pen.

But I got a fun little tool for very, very cheap. :D I'd recommend it, if you don't expect to use the knife for any serious use. If you want a credit-card sized knife that will stand up for more abuse, check out the spydercard. I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about it.

http://www.midwestgunexchange.com/pictures/spydercard.jpg

There's a variety of other tools the size of credit cards, including other knives. Ebay has a variety, if you search for '"Credit Card" knife' or '"Credit Card" tool".

</threadjack status=complete> :wink:

[goldbug]

I think an old man on dialysis hiding in a cave directed several men with cutters to overcome all of our defenses and hijack planes and crash them into the buildings.

The fuel heated up the girders until the towers fell down.

One terrorist's ID actually survived the collisons, explosions, and fires to flitter down to the ground.

The owner of the towers made a lot of FRNs in a big insurance payout.

Short sellers of American and United Airlines made good money too.

After the collapse, the Kings men wasted no time and invaded several countries to make them pay for the cave man's crimes.

:getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown: :getdown:

[ForTheRepulic]

All your conspiracy conjectures about 911 and of buildings being taken down by controlled demolitions/thermite fall apart when you see this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1506026976066602012

The real conspiracy is the For-knowledge the CIA had before it happened. And Didn't Former CIA director, James Woolsey, have connections to the Federal Reserve Bankers?

[Mercury Rising]

All your conspiracy conjectures about 911 and of buildings being taken down by controlled demolitions/thermite fall apart when you see this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11+revisited

The real conspiracy is the For-knowledge the CIA had before it happened. And Didn't Former CIA director, James Woolsey, have connections to the Federal Reserve Bankers?
Wow thanks for posting this!...awesome video bro!..here I will post it again for you...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11+revisited

[goldbug]

Wow thanks for posting this!...awesome video bro!..here I will post it again for you...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11+revisited

Encore! Play it again!!!!!!!!

:adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: :adore:

[Penny Lane]

1. I've worked for state and federal governments, both as part of a summer youth program, and as work-study in college (in which, I took a few courses on mechanical engineering).
In that case, you most certainly know how to do high school physics and one dimensional momentum calculations. Therefore, you should be able to estimate the time it took the towers to collapse according to the official pancake theory, given the generous assumption that there was no resistance given when one floor hit another, only that floor's inertia.

Then you can estimate a more realistic time, one that actually assumes that there is some energy expended in breaking a floor free of its support.

You might also explain how, if this floor by floor, pancake process is something that happens deep inside the building and is not evident outside, how this can occur when the floors are connected to the outside shell.

[runcible]

What scares me is that the best way to debate 9/11 conspiracies seems to be video.

In that case, you most certainly know how to do high school physics and one dimensional momentum calculations. Therefore, you should be able to estimate the time it took the towers to collapse according to the official pancake theory, given the generous assumption that there was no resistance given when one floor hit another, only that floor's inertia.

Then you can estimate a more realistic time, one that actually assumes that there is some energy expended in breaking a floor free of its support.

You might also explain how, if this floor by floor, pancake process is something that happens deep inside the building and is not evident outside, how this can occur when the floors are connected to the outside shell.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Who said that the pancaking process wasn't evident from outside the building?

[Penny Lane]

All your conspiracy conjectures about 911 and of buildings being taken down by controlled demolitions/thermite fall apart when you see this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1506026976066602012

Really?

I had a look at it. If that's the best debunking that the official CTers can come up with, that side has already lost.

"We are not given the when and where of these quotes. Context and attribution are essential to understanding if the quote is relevant to the issue. Why leave this issue out?"

Uhhh... how about use google, dumbass? E.g. here is one (http://www.thedailyaztec.com/media/storage/paper741/news/2005/05/09/Opinion/Clarke.Trustworthy.Throughout.Aftermath-950008.shtml?norewrite200607022029&sourcedomain=www.thedailyaztec.com) quote I looked up:
In his 9-11 commission report, Clarke later said, "Your government has failed you, and I have failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness." Yes, really out of context. All this guy is doing is sowing seeds of doubt. If he can go to the effort of crafting a point by point rebuttal of the video, the least he could do was use google to find these quotes and then show how they are taken out of context. It really isn't difficult.

"Note that no one was to be killed in this fake terror plot."
Errr... bombing the base with mortar shells isn't going to kill people? Sinking a ship outside the base, everything will be just fine and dandy? Staging a terror campaign in Miami, Florida will not involve loss of life?

"It's true that governments and militaries have a long history of doing dishonest and unethical things. However, Loose Change just shows us that such a plan exists. What is the connection to 911?"
Whoever edited this video is being intentionally obtuse. One of the biggest objections most people have to unofficial explanations that involve government involvement is that "Our government would NEVER do such a thing!". I suggest that, just for fun, you try convincing someone that the official story is bogus WITHOUT first getting their agreement that the US government is capable of planning a false flag operation.

The point of detailing the declassified document "Operation Northwoods" is that very similar things are definitely on the table and have been offered at the very highest levels of government. And additionally, share many similarities with 911.

Come straight out with "911 was a controlled demolition", and the thousands of hours that official sources such as CNN, FOX and Michael Moore have devoted to propagandizing the official CT will come into play. None of the official sources would remotely suggest that 911 was a false flag or that the US government was capable of such a thing. Thus, before the evidence that it WAS a false flag is presented, these myriad objections must be answered in advance.

In reference to the remote controlled Boeing...
"Where is the connection to 9/11?"

Again, it's to answer the objection that "We don't have the technology to fly aircraft by remote control into a specific location." Well, we do, and we've had it since 1984.

If this is the general quality of the rebutting that "MarkyX" is capable, then it's clearly a waste of my time to rebut any further.

[Penny Lane]

What scares me is that the best way to debate 9/11 conspiracies seems to be video.



I'm not sure what you are talking about. Who said that the pancaking process wasn't evident from outside the building?
I brought this up before, and the only response that anyone was able to give me was "How do you know that the building didn't already start collapsing on the inside before it was visible on the outside?

But go on, if you can do ME classes you should be able to do the highschool physics that they are based on.

[azxcvbnm321]

The video debunks the CT pretty well. Given that there wasn't much evidence for the conspiracy in the first place, I'd say that the video is the final nail in the coffin.

Given all the evidence presented by the "offical view" vs. the shaky speculation that the conspiracy theorists have, which side is stronger? Which side would win in a court of law? I declare victory.

[Penny Lane]

The video debunks the CT pretty well. Given that there wasn't much evidence for the conspiracy in the first place, I'd say that the video is the final nail in the coffin.

Given all the evidence presented by the "offical view" vs. the shaky speculation that the conspiracy theorists have, which side is stronger? Which side would win in a court of law? I declare victory.
Those sure are some powerful adjectives. You convinced me, I think I'll go back to watching American Idol.

[ForTheRepulic]

Really?

I had a look at it. If that's the best debunking that the official CTers can come up with, that side has already lost.



I didn't know this was a competition. I thought it was a search for truth. I watched the video you posted. I'll consider it. But all you have is conjecture.

[Penny Lane]

I didn't know this was a competition. I thought it was a search for truth.
If it's a search, you aren't looking too hard.
I watched the video you posted. I'll consider it.
Uhhh... what video?
But all you have is conjecture.
Really? Public domain video footage and the laws of physics are "conjecture"? I guess that means that all the engineers of the world may as well go and retire, since that stuff they base their degrees on (i.e. physics) is "conjecture".

[ForTheRepulic]

If it's a search, you aren't looking too hard.

Uhhh... what video?

Really? Public domain video footage and the laws of physics are "conjecture"? I guess that means that all the engineers of the world may as well go and retire, since that stuff they base their degrees on (i.e. physics) is "conjecture".

I've probably considered the same evidence you have. I've watch just about every movie on it. And read quit a bit on forums. Again why do you act like this is a competition.

You didn't post the video. But here's one for you. Have you watched the whole thing?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...26976066602012

There are hundreds of variables at work there. Just to paste science on top of something is ridiculous. Obviously not all scientist agree here. I'm not even saying your wrong. Only that what I've seen/read is not convincing at all.

[runcible]

I brought this up before, and the only response that anyone was able to give me was "How do you know that the building didn't already start collapsing on the inside before it was visible on the outside?

But go on, if you can do ME classes you should be able to do the highschool physics that they are based on.

I wish I went to the high schools you seem to be referring to. My college physics/engineering classes required more math than I learned in HS. We stopped after 1 year of calculus in HS, engineering required more. :D

I did some calculations in this thread. You can look back on the thread, if you want.

I do have a few questions for you -- assuming (for the sake of argument) that the supports separating the 81st floor from the 80th floor failed, dropping the weight of the top twenty stories on the 80th floor, what would happen to the speed of the 81st floor when it hit the 80th floor? Would the speed of the top of the building change by roughly the same amount?

If you want a hint, watch one of those slow motion vehicle crash tests right as the vehicle hits the wall. Notice how the front of the vehicle slows down drastically, while the rear of the vehicle still is traveling at a high speed.

[Penny Lane]

Again why do you act like this is a competition.
Because it is - between the truth, i.e. what really happened, and a lie, i.e. what didn't happen. The same thing happens in a courtroom, which is a very adversarial environment.

You didn't post the video. But here's one for you. Have you watched the whole thing?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...26976066602012
Didn't show up via google. What name is it?

There are hundreds of variables at work there. Just to paste science on top of something is ridiculous. Obviously not all scientist agree here. I'm not even saying your wrong. Only that what I've seen/read is not convincing at all.

Of course there are hundreds of variables at work here.

However, a major plank of the official story vs. the controlled demolition theory is the pancake theory as an explanation for why the towers fell down. If that can be shown to be false, then whatever is left must be taken on face value, irrespective of how hard to believe it is.

Most intelligent people do not have experience with pyroclastic flows, heat/strength curves for steel, nor do they know what was in the building that could burn or how hot the temperature got. They are not experts in building demolition.

HOWEVER, many intelligent people DO have knowledge of highschool physics. It's a universal for every technical degree from chemistry to biology to engineering. For everyday problems at everyday speeds (such as occur on 911 with collapsing buildings), conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are univesral LAW. Any realistic explanation of events that day CANNOT violate those laws. There is absolutely no wiggle room there.

And so that's why I bring up conservation of momentum and the pancake theory. A proponent of the pancake theory MUST be able to satisfy conservation of momentum, or his theory collapses. Of course, I know it's impossible and so it's a great way to separate the shills from someone who has just watched Fox/CNN and listened to Rush/NPR for a few years too long and is a little slow in coming around.

The only alternatives are to claim:
-the footage is wrong or timed incorrectly (why? evidence for this?)
-that the floors between the initial point of explosion and the bottom are virtually massless (ridiculous on the face of it)
-that conservation of momentum decided to be a guideline and not a natural law on one day in history, 9/11.
-that the collapse actually began several seconds earlier, but was not actually visible on the outside. (I'm not sure how this works out as the floors were firmly attached to the outside.)

[runcible]

I never got why Pearl Harbour was a conspiracy. The US had cut off its oil exports to Japan (at that time, the US was supplying over 3/4ths of the oil used in Japan) and had cut off other exports such as scrap iron to Japan.

War was going to happen. More importantly, Japan was going to lose. Japan had problems dealing with China. It couldn't survive a war with the US.

The US was waiting for Japan to attack first, presumably at the Phillipines. Yamamoto attacked Hawaii instead. Six months later, true to Yamamoto's own prediction, the US was once again a serious threat to Japan, even with the damage suffered at Pearl Harbor.

The same incompetence that Japan showed during the Sino-Japanese war destroyed the nation in the war between Japan and the US.

Occam's razor seems to be against the idea of a Pearl Harbour conspiracy.

Here's how a good Pearl Harbour conspiracy Should work: Save the battleships -- those won the last war, many skilled military tacticians were expecting them to win WWII. Aircraft carriers are for support, nothing more, they can be lost (at least, in the mentality of 1941). In addition, the US needs to be more aggressive. It needs to attack the Japanese first, and trigger the defence alliance between Japan and Germany. If Japan attacks the US, Germany is under no obligation to declare war. Perhaps the US should "accidentally" discover the Japanese fleet, or blow up a few incidents into a full fledged war in the Phillipines. See, much better -- the US discovers aggressive behavior on Japan's half, declares war (believing it fully justified), saves the battleships, and triggers the defense clause in the German/Japanese treaty, resulting in Hitler being forced to declare war on the US.

PS: Yep, time for a good FDR conspiracy tangent. Since my last post on the pancaking scenerio was ignored, lets try WWII for a change.

[ForTheRepulic]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1506026976066602012

Penny Lane. There is the video. Would you agree a lot of what was said in Loose change was discredited? Notice I didn't say all.

Have a good night.