To Anybody That Thinks 9/11 was a Conspiracy
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
As mentioned in other thread:
Love and compassion is understandable for what happened on 9/11. However, blindness is stupidity. Am I saying this was staged to continue the war effort (for oil) that's been going on in the middle east since early 1990s? Possibly.. If not that, would this have been prevented if we closed our borders to foreign policy/trade? Absolutely. The blood of these people are on the hands of our government, not necessarily the 'enemy' that we're supposedly fighting.
Love and compassion is understandable for what happened on 9/11. However, blindness is stupidity. Am I saying this was staged to continue the war effort (for oil) that's been going on in the middle east since early 1990s? Possibly.. If not that, would this have been prevented if we closed our borders to foreign policy/trade? Absolutely. The blood of these people are on the hands of our government, not necessarily the 'enemy' that we're supposedly fighting.
Was it staged or was it just allowed to happen...? I have a hard time buying the idea that it was a surprise attack, there's just way too much evidence that shows it could have been prevented: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/nsa-analyst-we-could-have_b_1513494.html
This is if you believe a few guys who could barley fly puddle jumpers where able to pull off complicated maneuvers with commercial airliners. Highly trained pilots would have had trouble hitting the towers. The maneuver to hit the Pentagon was also fairly complex.
Having watched the buildings collapse from a few blocks away, I don't personally buy the controlled demolition theory. I saw those planes hit with my own eyes, I don't see why additional explosives were necessary. Would America have been like "oh they crashed planes into the buildings but the buildings are still standing, so we aren't upset with the muslims. If the buildings fell over, it would be a different story, we would really be pissed then!".
Taking 9/11 at 'face value' is naive, I agree, however the whole controlled demolition idea is over the top. Who were these people who planted the explosives? How does such a massive conspiracy go down without any of the people internally involved leaking some kind of information?
I think the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this case the simple solution is that muslims perpetrated a terrorist attack, and then our government used it to their own financial advantage.
Taking 9/11 at 'face value' is naive, I agree, however the whole controlled demolition idea is over the top. Who were these people who planted the explosives? How does such a massive conspiracy go down without any of the people internally involved leaking some kind of information?
I think the simplest solution is often the correct one. In this case the simple solution is that muslims perpetrated a terrorist attack, and then our government used it to their own financial advantage.
No sane person is denying that planes hit the buildings. The buildings were demolished to kill more people, destroy what's inside (especially in the case of WTC7 and the Pentagon), cash out, and have people emotionally charged and traumatized enough that they would not only back the Government's actions, but demand that they take that action.
War by Deception is the best documentary on the subject. Forget the loose change bullshit.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoB80Yk9NYg"]War is always by Deception - YouTube[/ame]
Then you clearly have no idea how strong Steel-framed buildings are.
NEVER BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11 HAS ONE BEEN TAKEN DOWN without controlled explosives. Never.
Even sometimes WITH controlled explosives they knock 10 or 20 floors sideways and then the upper portion of the skyscraper comes down to the ground level and stays intact!
There are no strutural engineers and no demolitions experts anywhere in the world (unless they work for the US government) that would stake their career on the official story even being possible. It's not.
Hundreds of Engineers in fact stated their careers on the opposite, in fact:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTMMNTisBM]9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube[/ame]
If you can watch that without recanting your words above, then I'll be seriously impressed.
BTW.... nuclear power is TOTALLY safe. Never, ever, will there be a series of events that leads to a meltdown in today's world. We've already learned our lessons from other meltdowns.
NUCLEAR POWER IS TOTALLY SAFE!
As they say... fact is stranger than fiction. (Which of course could be an argument for 9/11 being an inside job)
It's straight forward, support was lost between two or more floors from the heat and poor design/lack of insulation. The floors above dropped, then the building went down.
Are they going to come with an even more bizarre tragedy in order to attack Iran? Blow up all of the NFL stadiums at the same time? Contaminate LAs water supply?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc&lr=1&feature=mhum]North Tower Exploding by David Chandler - YouTube[/ame]
Would be plausible if there wasn't evidence that large metal beams are being thrown with considerable force from the building.
So they went out of their way to make it look like a collapse, but they didn't actually do it well enough to convince any experts? I am far from convinced.
Totally agree. I guess I feel that at the bare minimum it was ignored.It makes sense to let something like this happen for the people at the top. There is a lot of money to be had from war when you have ownership in the contracting companies that will be hired to support the effort.
They clearly had to blow up the buildings in order to achieve whatever goal they had in mind.
Airplanes CANNOT do this. Even 55 years ago, an airplane hitting the world's tallest building at the time, a few blocks away from where the WTC buildings would be built, only did damage to 2 floors, with no structual problems afterwards.
Since the dawn of steel-framed buildings until today, there are no other examples on this planet of a plane destroying an entire steel-framed building, much less 3 of them with just two planes! They're constructed to take that kind of punishment and do so regularly without so much as a single beam breaking.
Same goes for Fires. No Fire has ever taken down an entire steel-framed building. It just can't happen, never has and never will. Steel doesn't even start bending until you get to temps higher than those that Kerosene (Jet fuel) burns at.
So apparently to convince you, I'd need to show you the technical reason why they weren't able to fake it better... Well I don't have those and frankly I don't even know why they had to fully demolish those towers at all... Seems like just burning them would have gotten the message across. :\
But just because I don't know the technical reason that stopped the bad guys from doing a better job at staging this disaster doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
It could be anything; Like how they could have been restricted to only placing X# of charges in there during a time when employees were also in the building to not raise suspicions... Or simple lack of sufficient technology to do a better job... I dunno, but you can't rule out that it was possible, can you?
This aired in March, 2011 :
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRccF5Tf8rM]The Lone Gunmen Pilot - FOX TV 9/11 Predictive Programming - YouTube[/ame]
"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
- WTC Building Performance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
Former CIA agent explains all. Motives, source, timing, all of it... After she got out of jail for a 6 years.. This is some incredible shit guys, clears a lot up:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAwPqfJqccA]CENSORED: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer - 911 @censorednewsnow - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAwPqfJqccA]CENSORED: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer - 911 @censorednewsnow - YouTube[/ame]
That video proves nothing. And Richard Gage is a sheister/internet marketer out to make a buck and a name online.
lukep said:
Everything happened a first time. No one ever flew a jet into a building at 500mph loaded with fuel before. To say the planes couldn't take down a building is ignorant. Like the people that said no way if one floor collapsed could it take down a building like that.
All the talk about how incompetent the government is and to think they could pull this off. They can't even sell guns without getting caught.
QUOTE=lukep]No Fire has ever taken down an entire steel-framed building. It just can't happen, never has and never will. Steel doesn't even start bending until you get to temps higher than those that Kerosene (Jet fuel) burns at.[/QUOTE]
lol, yes burning jet fuel can bend steel.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
factual information
popular science
The lunacy over this is astounding.