rhys 0
Recommended Posts
rhys 0
QuoteCome on - everyone is ridiculing you here, regardless of their stance on Iraq in 2003. And on that matter, I don't think you'll find many people 'changed to agree with your prophetic stance.'
I am not here to change other people minds, i am here to either confirm or change mine.
This whole thing is so clouded with bullshit that the topic is usually missed and the onversation goes off in tangents.
There has to be respectable people lying or kidding themselves on either side of the story if either of them are true and it is still not conclusive either way.
NIST reprt is not peer reveiwed either?
i may just have moved my standpoint on controled demolition due to another person/site that I have poseted on another thread.
these guys explain better the photgraphic evidence than NIST did and focus primarily on the reason for the attacks, which is US foreign policy.
Now i can't be sure what to believe but i am not a tubborn idiot, and I am not bias, i did have an origional perception/gut instinct which i will naturally be inclined to go with but NIST's crap along with their 'adams apple swollowing' explanations are what has kept me skeptake of the official story.
Untl now there has been two credable sides, now I have discovered 3.
[url]Come on - everyone is ridiculing you here, regardless of their stance on Iraq in 2003. And on that matter, I don't think you'll find many people 'changed to agree with your prophetic stance.'
Quote
note his opinion of conspiracy theorists."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
Quote
Have they (BL/AQ) not stated on numerous occasions that their primary reason for attacking the USA and any other nation for that matter is the support those counrtries give to Isreal?
It is part of their propaganda. It is not the basis for their war against the West. But if you're trying to recruit Muslims in your fight, why not throw in some anti-Israeli rants? It's a much more effective ploy then continuing to demonize a nation 10000 miles away because they would show the women what relative equality is like.
Reread what you wrote. Very few nations in the world besides the US support Israel, and AQ is quite happy to attack everyone else.
rhys 0
QuoteAre you able to claim how much it should have been slower than if there were no resistance from the rest of building below? I think it is important to know how much you think it missed the mark? If you, or the experts you cite, cannot provide a target value they would have accepted, then you have no basis to argue your assertion.
The buildings managed to hold the weight if the structure for almost 3 decades. the buildings were designed to carry massive weight. and they did that until the point in which they gave way completely.
The whole truth movement is not about trying to discover the answers themselves, it is about having an new impartial investigation so these things can be determined without deciet or secrecy.
You are asking me, a skydiver to produce answers that you are sure that I cant answer in thier detailed entirety, and will use that as a basis to say I am wrong.
how does that acheive anything?
Listen to JFK and his wise words to america before he lost his life for debatable reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM&feature=related
Ignore the title just listen,
then ask yourself why these guys
http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
think the investigation is bogus? tell me why they are stupid tin foil hatters and you are so wise.
Why is NIST being so secretive? that is not the american way is it?
I have learned that assumtion is no good in an argument, you guys will pin that shit down in a heart beat, and use it to swing the conversation in your favor.
There 'is' a real smelly rat here, I am not entirly sure what, who, how and why but the truth is not being told and there is a reson for it.
I am prepared to admit I am wrong if I can be proved wrong beyond resonable doubt, I have made incorrect decisions from incorrect information many times as we all probably have. My opinion is not set in concrete.
I am an honest person and expect others to be the same, if I am told a lie and have no reson to think it is a lie, then how am I to know?
A controversy as large and widespead as this one is good enough reason to commit to another investigation, if you oppose that then you must want the controversy and not a resolution.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
philh 0
"Have they (BL/AQ) not stated on numerous occasions that their primary reason for attacking the USA and any other nation for that matter is the support those counrtries give to Isreal?
Has that point been made clear to the american people? "
Bin Laden has made a lot of noise about Isreal but if you read numerous biographies of Bin Laden what you find is that his real anger and real motivation was created by the presence of Us troops on Saudi soil.
Moreover in his letter to the US people in 2002 , he said:
"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam..it is the religion of jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supeme... we call on you to reject the immoral acts of fornicaiton, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest."
So clealry Isreal is not his only beef.
I agree with that you that the is no connection of the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. That the Bush admisntration implied a link in the run up to the war was a disgrace. But that does not mean there is any eivdence of a conspiracy . In fact it means the very opposite. As I have explained, the Bush adminstration tried to use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq. If they had planned 9/11 they would have put a few Iraqis on the planes.
I dont knwo what review process the NISt report went through , but other pieces of research which have been published in well respected journal confirm their findings. A real scientific process is done in serious journals and conferences. According to your own heroes they have only published two articles in what they consider respectable journals and we have seen, one is a letter of what they agree with the Nist on and the other is in a journal which welcomes pure opinion pieces. So it seems to me there are 0 serious piceses of research publsihed in proper jounrals backing a conspiracy.
Sure you find a few people who feel empowered by beleiving they've uncovered a conspiracy. Lawyers, scientists , engineers are not above this process.
If every path a researcher followed turned into success wed have a lot more advanced society than we do now. There are many dead ends for every genuine discovery. But there are no shortages of anomaly hunters; and why would a lawyer have any special insight on this topic?
Wow you managed to find just over 30 lawyers that agree from 6 countries. Lets put that in perspective there are over 1 million lawyers in the USA alone. What are the chances that a unimaginably small percentage of them wouldnt like to ifnlate their egos by thinking they've uncovered this great conspiracy? and why should we care what they think?
As regards to the free fall speeds, have you read this?
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Has that point been made clear to the american people? "
Bin Laden has made a lot of noise about Isreal but if you read numerous biographies of Bin Laden what you find is that his real anger and real motivation was created by the presence of Us troops on Saudi soil.
Moreover in his letter to the US people in 2002 , he said:
"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam..it is the religion of jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supeme... we call on you to reject the immoral acts of fornicaiton, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest."
So clealry Isreal is not his only beef.
I agree with that you that the is no connection of the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. That the Bush admisntration implied a link in the run up to the war was a disgrace. But that does not mean there is any eivdence of a conspiracy . In fact it means the very opposite. As I have explained, the Bush adminstration tried to use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq. If they had planned 9/11 they would have put a few Iraqis on the planes.
I dont knwo what review process the NISt report went through , but other pieces of research which have been published in well respected journal confirm their findings. A real scientific process is done in serious journals and conferences. According to your own heroes they have only published two articles in what they consider respectable journals and we have seen, one is a letter of what they agree with the Nist on and the other is in a journal which welcomes pure opinion pieces. So it seems to me there are 0 serious piceses of research publsihed in proper jounrals backing a conspiracy.
Sure you find a few people who feel empowered by beleiving they've uncovered a conspiracy. Lawyers, scientists , engineers are not above this process.
If every path a researcher followed turned into success wed have a lot more advanced society than we do now. There are many dead ends for every genuine discovery. But there are no shortages of anomaly hunters; and why would a lawyer have any special insight on this topic?
Wow you managed to find just over 30 lawyers that agree from 6 countries. Lets put that in perspective there are over 1 million lawyers in the USA alone. What are the chances that a unimaginably small percentage of them wouldnt like to ifnlate their egos by thinking they've uncovered this great conspiracy? and why should we care what they think?
As regards to the free fall speeds, have you read this?
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuoteAre you able to claim how much it should have been slower than if there were no resistance from the rest of building below? I think it is important to know how much you think it missed the mark? If you, or the experts you cite, cannot provide a target value they would have accepted, then you have no basis to argue your assertion.
The buildings managed to hold the weight if the structure for almost 3 decades. the buildings were designed to carry massive weight. and they did that until the point in which they gave way completely.
The whole truth movement is not about trying to discover the answers themselves, it is about having an new impartial investigation so these things can be determined without deciet or secrecy.
You are asking me, a skydiver to produce answers that you are sure that I cant answer in thier detailed entirety, and will use that as a basis to say I am wrong.
I didn't expect you to have the answer, but you should expect the experts to which you refer to have the answer. To have no estimate for this effect, just to say it wasn't enough, is bullshit. The building was designed to hold it in a static condition, not when it is moving, crashing down on itself. You got nothing if there is no target for the effect you claim should have happened.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
philh 0
I found this an excellent read:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/
15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer
One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the “official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the “truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics.
The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther debating tactics nicely.
Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.
Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7!” And so on and so forth.
Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.
Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from Screw Loose Change, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls.
It’s time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that they can “just ask questions” too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:
Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.
(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation
support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/
15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer
One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the “official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the “truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics.
The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther debating tactics nicely.
Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.
Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7!” And so on and so forth.
Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.
Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from Screw Loose Change, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls.
It’s time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that they can “just ask questions” too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:
Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.
(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation
support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?
sundevil777 102
QuoteI am an honest person and expect others to be the same, if I am told a lie and have no reson to think it is a lie, then how am I to know?
No reason to think it is a lie? You know very well there are so many sources of information that allow you to know the truthers are lying to you. To pretend otherwise is an intentional self deception, at best.
You are correct that you are being ridiculed, but that is putting a nice face to it. I suppose there is some pride to be taken by the truthers knowing the real opinion that others have of them, and in this respect, I suspect you are very happy. Your claims to be willing to be skeptical of the truther's claims I think is just a way to draw us into further debate - to keep us feeding the trolls. You don't need any further help from us to find the truth. I suppose that the south park episode might be correct, perhaps it is good that some people think government is actually able to do what you claim.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
rhys 0
QuoteSo clealry Isreal is not his only beef.
Sounds, plausable, but so do his reasons. I do not condone terrorism in any way but US foreign policy is often nothing less than terrorism in its own right.
I started reading your paper,
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
I was skeptical once I read;
QuoteWe consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of
crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building,
followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one
floor height = 3.7 meters. It is readily determined using the relation v = {2gh) that the
descending upper block impacts the floor below at a velocity of 8.5 m/s. The law of
conservation of momentum states that:
m1 v1=
That is a mother of an assumtion, and it assumes the entire floor all 48 or so core colums all collaped simultaniously from a random fire. Here is the floor plan and core plan of the north tower /WTC1 on the the 96th floor;
96th floor plan
and the core plan
That paper uses the kintetic and potential energy of the entire weight and mass of the building above that floor and assumes all the core colums and perimeter fixings failed at precicely that same time(and dissapeared?), then allowed the entire weight and mass of the combined floors above to Free Fall(thier words) for the height separating the floors.
they extend their data from that assertion
Isaak newton would be turning in his grave.
Do you not see that that is flawed,
also, if the building (according to popular belief/NIST)had been manipulated already by gravity (sagging) and this movement and weakening was caused buy heat from fire (random temperatures in different areas), then how can they concede that the distance between the two floors was the same as it was before the planes hit/the same distance as the undamged floors.
please.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
rhys 0
QuoteNo reason to think it is a lie? You know very well there are so many sources of information that allow you to know the truthers are lying to you. To pretend otherwise is an intentional self deception, at best.
Ahem, excuse me? the main recource is the NIST report is it not? this is suposedly a bonafide report that the US govornment payed $20 million dollars for and it is not peer reviewed?
I have been asked many times to produce peer reviewed papers to confirm my beliefs when I am not exactly sure what to beieve, and cannot find any concrete evidence/investigation into what caused the buildings to collapse.
Show me where NIST's report is peer reviewed, I have looked but cant find it, if you can that would be of help.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
rhys 0
QuoteI found this an excellent read:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/
most of that is irellevent to the buildings and the buildings collapses (911 reality) and how nist handled the investigation.
bar the 1 question which is easy;
Quote
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
Now in answering this question, do not think I necessarily agree that the Al Q connection is a hoax, just pointing out that it is an easy question to answer;
The hijacking scenario would be paramount in the deception of the global community about the motives and repercussions of the accused attack/ers. This would allow the heavy handed use of military might in countries that played absolutely no role whatsoever in the incident using semantics around the term 'Terrorist', with the consent of the majority of the US and global population.
the explosives were not times with the impact at all but were ignited a considerable time after the collisions with the aircraft.
A car or truck bomb would have very minimal impact on the structural integrety of the buildings and this has been confirmed by a previous explosive attack on one of the buildings, the fire weakening the steel scenario would have been concocted prior to the collapse and 'stood by' regardles of the audaciuos claims that surrount that hypothesis.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
philh 0
My understanding of the paper simply implies that once the supporting structure can no lonegr hold the wait of the higher structure then it falls through and the speeds described. Maybe my udernstadning of the paper is flawed but if you would like a more detailed dcisussion of this in peer reviewd sites try:
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
None of which agree with the conspiracy version. You wanted peer review , you got it.
Now perhaps you would return us the favour ?
Thanks for ignoring all of the question posed to you bar one. You say you dont think the Aq involvement is a hoax. So what are you saying ? That AQ and the US government are actually in it together? Is there no limit to the depth of this fantasy? You say the hijaking scenario was paramount , why? Surely it was the number of deaths and their dramatic nature that would be paramount?
you say the explosives were not timed with the impact but were ingited afterwards. Do you have any evidene of these explosives?
You also say that the failed previous attack on the building (by Ramzi Yousef, nephew of OBL'splanner Khalid Sheik Muhammed ) shows that truck bomb would have minimal impact . Thats funny becuase Ramzi Yousef said he was not succsful in bringing down the buildings simply becuase he diddnt have a bigger bomb. He had a 1310 lb bomb which cretaed a 98 ft wide hole. Before 911 the US miliatrty had conventional bomb with more than ten times that power and shortly after they developed developed a bomb that had 18,700 llb of high explosvies and could create a balst radius alsone of 450 feet and a blast yeild of 11 tons Maybe they could have brought down the towers witha few of those, I dont know but I presume you have done the calculations?
Whats interesting is that you insist the planes alone didnt bring down the buildings and that it had to have been explosvies , but yet you want us to believe that they had to hijack the aeroplanes becuase no one would believe explosives could have brought down the buildings. Spot the contradiction in your argument?
"This would allow the heavy handed use of military might in countries that played absolutely no role whatsoever in the incident using semantics around the term 'Terrorist', with the consent of the majority of the US and global population. "
Yes but if the Us planned the attacks why not put at least one hijacker from Iraq given that was the big war they wanted? if they can fabricate the whole attack and the cover up afterwards, dont you think they would fabricate some evidnece linking it to Iraq ? The fact they didnt implies they were not behind it plain and simple.
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
None of which agree with the conspiracy version. You wanted peer review , you got it.
Now perhaps you would return us the favour ?
Thanks for ignoring all of the question posed to you bar one. You say you dont think the Aq involvement is a hoax. So what are you saying ? That AQ and the US government are actually in it together? Is there no limit to the depth of this fantasy? You say the hijaking scenario was paramount , why? Surely it was the number of deaths and their dramatic nature that would be paramount?
you say the explosives were not timed with the impact but were ingited afterwards. Do you have any evidene of these explosives?
You also say that the failed previous attack on the building (by Ramzi Yousef, nephew of OBL'splanner Khalid Sheik Muhammed ) shows that truck bomb would have minimal impact . Thats funny becuase Ramzi Yousef said he was not succsful in bringing down the buildings simply becuase he diddnt have a bigger bomb. He had a 1310 lb bomb which cretaed a 98 ft wide hole. Before 911 the US miliatrty had conventional bomb with more than ten times that power and shortly after they developed developed a bomb that had 18,700 llb of high explosvies and could create a balst radius alsone of 450 feet and a blast yeild of 11 tons Maybe they could have brought down the towers witha few of those, I dont know but I presume you have done the calculations?
Whats interesting is that you insist the planes alone didnt bring down the buildings and that it had to have been explosvies , but yet you want us to believe that they had to hijack the aeroplanes becuase no one would believe explosives could have brought down the buildings. Spot the contradiction in your argument?
"This would allow the heavy handed use of military might in countries that played absolutely no role whatsoever in the incident using semantics around the term 'Terrorist', with the consent of the majority of the US and global population. "
Yes but if the Us planned the attacks why not put at least one hijacker from Iraq given that was the big war they wanted? if they can fabricate the whole attack and the cover up afterwards, dont you think they would fabricate some evidnece linking it to Iraq ? The fact they didnt implies they were not behind it plain and simple.
mnealtx 0
You still haven't answered my question, rhys.
Explain how the many thousands of people working in the WTC didn't notice all the explosives and cables all over the floors, or the teams of people installing them over several weeks/months.
Explain how the many thousands of people working in the WTC didn't notice all the explosives and cables all over the floors, or the teams of people installing them over several weeks/months.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,006
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The building was designed to hold it in a static condition, not when it is
>moving, crashing down on itself.
Yep. Just to see what sort of forces are involved, I did a quick calculation:
Mass of each Twin Tower: 450 million kg
Mass of structure above impact point: 150 million kg
Area seriously damaged by aircraft impact: 3 floors (12.3 meters)
Potential energy of upper structure falling 3 floors to lower structure (MGH): 18 billion joules
Speed of upper structure when it impacts the floor below: 15.68m/s, 32 mph
Deformation of most structural steel at yield point: .5%
Distance the floor below would have to stop the collapse before the steel failed: .185 meters
Force exerted if the floor below could decelerate that mass in time: 52 billion kg
To put it another way, the structure would have had to be 346 times stronger to hold the falling floors than it would be to just hold the structure up normally. Most tall buildings are designed to withstand forces approximately 10x the static load (primarily for wind loading.)
A force that's over 30 times greater than a structure can resist would result in a nearly freefall collapse. It would be like a bedsheet trying to stop a navy fighter on a carrier.
>moving, crashing down on itself.
Yep. Just to see what sort of forces are involved, I did a quick calculation:
Mass of each Twin Tower: 450 million kg
Mass of structure above impact point: 150 million kg
Area seriously damaged by aircraft impact: 3 floors (12.3 meters)
Potential energy of upper structure falling 3 floors to lower structure (MGH): 18 billion joules
Speed of upper structure when it impacts the floor below: 15.68m/s, 32 mph
Deformation of most structural steel at yield point: .5%
Distance the floor below would have to stop the collapse before the steel failed: .185 meters
Force exerted if the floor below could decelerate that mass in time: 52 billion kg
To put it another way, the structure would have had to be 346 times stronger to hold the falling floors than it would be to just hold the structure up normally. Most tall buildings are designed to withstand forces approximately 10x the static load (primarily for wind loading.)
A force that's over 30 times greater than a structure can resist would result in a nearly freefall collapse. It would be like a bedsheet trying to stop a navy fighter on a carrier.
jakee 1,500
Quotethe explosives were not times with the impact at all but were ignited a considerable time after the collisions with the aircraft.
A) How did they survive the collision?
B) How fucking good were the pilots that they could impact the floors right where the explosives were planted? That's impressive flying.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Remster 30
QuoteThat's impressive flying.
Did you expect anything less from Mossad's finest?
Remster
Quote
A car or truck bomb would have very minimal impact on the structural integrety of the buildings and this has been confirmed by a previous explosive attack on one of the buildings,
Oklahoma City was a pretty clear illustration of what a car bomb can do. Just because they failed in their first attempt doesn't mean the Towers are indestructable.
And since the building collapse would effectively destroy the evidence, it would be just as easy for the Fed traitors to say they determined that cause as a truck bomb. Far far easier than the plane fantasy. So the question stands.
Quote
Sure you find a few people who feel empowered by beleiving they've uncovered a conspiracy. Lawyers, scientists , engineers are not above this process.
good posts, Phil. I think you've introduced enough facts to shut this up for another month or two, then we can repeat the dance. But I am interested in this part - why do people lose their rationality and join cults and conspiracy theories?
It doesn't seem that we have a lot of behaviorists and shrinks on DZ, unlike most other professions. Or perhaps they just keep that to themselves, since we still cast a stigma on anything related to mental health (PMs invited to that end).
People who have trouble accepting bad events, or who don't understand the matter often create structures of order to explain it.
God/Allah/Jim Jones made the world, so if we believe in it, then we don't have to figure out how the world came to be. Simple and comforting. It's His will is easier to accept for some than 'your kid lost the lottery for getting leukemia and there's nothing that can be done.'
If you don't understand investing or money, it's much easier to believe 401ks are a fraud to sucker the commoners out of their money. Of course, you only hear this shit when the economy is doing poorly, not when it's booming and people are buying stocks on margin (paid for with a credit card).
9/11 didn't happen because there are people in the world who wish to destroy our example of society. Our own government did it to us so they could profit. This seems rather similar to the last one, eh? Financial ignorance is abound in America.
And then you have the desire to feel special. If you KNOW the truth that everyone else cannot see, you're one of the chosen people. This is basically what Phil wrote. The intelligent are often guilty of elitism, something knowingly, sometimes not.
billvon 3,006
>why do people lose their rationality and join cults and conspiracy theories?
A lot of reasons.
1) A sense of belonging. Once you are "in" on the consipracy, you can find like-minded people to talk with and share in a passion. It's a way to build a community, to separate "us" from "them." (We all do this BTW. People in skydiving call non-skydivers "whuffos," people in the BDSM community call non-BDSMers "vanilla" and people in the SF community call non-SF readers "danes." Us and them.)
2) Ready-made victimhood. A lot of people enjoy being the "underdog", the persecuted minority standing up for truth, justice and the american way. Most conspiracy theories give you that option.
3) A desire to not believe in the power of terrorism, or random chance, or that simple evil can affect history to such a degree.
4) Most conspiracy theories do not require any proof or rational hypothesis, just skepticism and a careful observation of the situation. ANY tragic situation can be found to have inconsistencies (just look at Apollo 13, the Columbia disaster and the JFK assassination.) Thus, they can always take on (for example) an architect who actually knows what he's talking about. The architect is hampered by having to stick to facts, physics and the (incomplete) record of what happened; the conspiracy theorist can change his approach instantly, make something up and then claim that _that_ happened. When he is doubted, he can simply say "prove it didn't!"
5) Infamous events generate a lot of press coverage. If you have a good conspiracy theory, you share in that glory. Heck, Scientific American and Popular Mechanics both wrote stories about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists; for several of the theorists, that meant fame and (in some cases) fortune.
A writer named Melley gave the two most important factors for any conspiracy theorist: strong individualist values and a feeling of a lack of control. 9/11 plays very well into the second part of that. It is terrifying to think that a bunch of nuts with boxcutters could kill 3000 people in a few hours; it represents a loss of control, proof that your life is not really always under your control. A conspiracy theory represents a way out of that loss of control. Expose the "conspiracy" and you have "put an end" to the risk it poses.
(Note that I am not saying that anyone here shares these characteristics; they are just characteristics of conspiracy theorists in general.)
A lot of reasons.
1) A sense of belonging. Once you are "in" on the consipracy, you can find like-minded people to talk with and share in a passion. It's a way to build a community, to separate "us" from "them." (We all do this BTW. People in skydiving call non-skydivers "whuffos," people in the BDSM community call non-BDSMers "vanilla" and people in the SF community call non-SF readers "danes." Us and them.)
2) Ready-made victimhood. A lot of people enjoy being the "underdog", the persecuted minority standing up for truth, justice and the american way. Most conspiracy theories give you that option.
3) A desire to not believe in the power of terrorism, or random chance, or that simple evil can affect history to such a degree.
4) Most conspiracy theories do not require any proof or rational hypothesis, just skepticism and a careful observation of the situation. ANY tragic situation can be found to have inconsistencies (just look at Apollo 13, the Columbia disaster and the JFK assassination.) Thus, they can always take on (for example) an architect who actually knows what he's talking about. The architect is hampered by having to stick to facts, physics and the (incomplete) record of what happened; the conspiracy theorist can change his approach instantly, make something up and then claim that _that_ happened. When he is doubted, he can simply say "prove it didn't!"
5) Infamous events generate a lot of press coverage. If you have a good conspiracy theory, you share in that glory. Heck, Scientific American and Popular Mechanics both wrote stories about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists; for several of the theorists, that meant fame and (in some cases) fortune.
A writer named Melley gave the two most important factors for any conspiracy theorist: strong individualist values and a feeling of a lack of control. 9/11 plays very well into the second part of that. It is terrifying to think that a bunch of nuts with boxcutters could kill 3000 people in a few hours; it represents a loss of control, proof that your life is not really always under your control. A conspiracy theory represents a way out of that loss of control. Expose the "conspiracy" and you have "put an end" to the risk it poses.
(Note that I am not saying that anyone here shares these characteristics; they are just characteristics of conspiracy theorists in general.)
rhys 0
QuoteMy understanding of the paper simply implies that once the supporting structure can no lonegr hold the wait of the higher structure then it falls through and the speeds described. Maybe my udernstadning of the paper is flawed but if you would like a more detailed dcisussion of this in peer reviewd sites try:
I clearly asked to see evidence that NIST's report is peer reviewed, you have not shown me that.
NIST is the official report we are debating here, that most truther do not believe is, and the ONLY REAL REASON THER IS ANY CONTROVERSY.
you could go on all year about who, why, how.... but the fact remains. NIST have not produce a credible report yet and they have been commisioned by the US govornment to do so.
PLEASE SHOW ME THAT NIST'S REPORT IS PEER REVEIWED.
then i will look into your other papers.
QuoteThanks for ignoring all of the question posed to you bar one.
those questions are not directly relevant to the NIST and mechanics of the buildings' collapse, and I am not that interested in that at this stage, I am interested in finding out if NIST has been lying as suspected, and you are avoiding that. While bringing the beleifs of others and not necessarily mine, into our conversation.
QuoteYou say you dont think the Aq involvement is a hoax.
No I said "doesn't necessarily mean I think the Aq involvement is a hoax. "
I am in the not sure bracket, and want to know if we are being told the truth, simple.
QuoteThat AQ and the US government are actually in it together? Is there no limit to the depth of this fantasy?
who's fantasy? yours? You are putting words in my mouth.
Quoteyou say the explosives were not timed with the impact but were ingited afterwards. Do you have any evidene of these explosives?
that was an example fo a potential answer to the question, One again, I do not necessarily believe any story told so far, you assume I do. though one story seems more plausable than others.
Quote
"This would allow the heavy handed use of military might in countries that played absolutely no role whatsoever in the incident using semantics around the term 'Terrorist', with the consent of the majority of the US and global population. "
Yes but if the Us planned the attacks why not put at least one hijacker from Iraq given that was the big war they wanted? if they can fabricate the whole attack and the cover up afterwards, dont you think they would fabricate some evidnece linking it to Iraq ? The fact they didnt implies they were not behind it plain and simple.
No, it goes to show how the preconception of all the 'ragheads being in the same boat' is all too true.
They didn't have much difficulty invading iraq with concent dod they? They did have opposition but not as much as the support they had.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
jakee 1,500
Quoteyou could go on all year about who, why, how.... but the fact remains. NIST have not produce a credible report yet
Bullshit. You don't think the NIST report is credible, don't confuse your opinion with fact. None of your clan have yet demonstrated that any part of the official explanation of the collapses is implausible.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
What has BL or AQ got to do with Iraq/hussein?
Have they (BL/AQ) not stated on numerous occasions that their primary reason for attacking the USA and any other nation for that matter is the support those counrtries give to Isreal?
Has that point been made clear to the american people?
no it has been denied, i am not defending these guys, they are scum but as a basis for a war the standpoint of america is flawed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites