Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

9/11 an inside job?

Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2008 8:44:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I may rarely have the ability to convince people to my view on this very serious matter, but I can at least play my small part in creating discussion about it. I want people to not treat the official story as a given, as it being a fact. Whether or not people come to the came conclusion as I is not in the long run that important, since I could be wrong. The point is, though, that everyone must critically think about this subject. We must question everything. We have to be absolutely sure, since there is so much that is unanswered about 9/11. For a democracy to fundtion the citizens must be skeptical and strong minded. If we all go with mob mentality and treat is as a given because everyone else does, than we are more vulnerable to being deceived by higher powers.

Before we bring up all the different contradicting information, let's look at this thing on the face of it, since this is a big topic. Instead of diving into fine details, lets imagine seeing a video of the towers collapsing for the very first time, without any sort of other influence or report or electronic faces telling us what we are seeing.

A plane hit's one tower, than the other. For an hour little or nothing happens. There is just a bunch of smoke. It is exciting, a tragedy indeed, but at least it is just a fire. And then, without warning both towers simultaneously collapse (one in approximately 8 seconds). 2 vertical giants of steel and concrete turn to dust in manhattan and the surrounding buildings are almost unscathed. It collapses straight downward, it leaves almost nothing but a heap of rubble. How does a fire reduce a 110 story skyscraper to a heap of rubble in 8 seconds?

How can a skyscraper which is meant to whithstand all sorts of storms and really fast winds; which is in fact meant to whithstand a plane crash; be so easily destroyed by a measly plane crash. If our architecture is so flimsy here in America, than we have more to worry about than catching Bin Laden.

And now for information (if I am incorrect on any of these, if what I have gathered is wrong, please tell me.):

-There had been a fire before, which burned much longer, yet did not initiate a collapse.
- The president has many ties with stratesec, the company that did the security for the wtc. His brother used to be on the board of directors of that company.
- The towers fell at near free-fall speeds
- The tower was meant to withstand plane crashes
- witnesses who survived 9/11, who were in the basement, reported several explosions down there before the collapse.

I have personally come to the conclusion that the towers were remotely detonated. But I dearly hope that I am wrong, so PLEASE, someone, show me something that will convince me that I do not live in such a horrible country that would do that to it's own people; convince me that in my country a leader cant just go kill 3000 people right in front of us and get away with it...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2008 9:32:03 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I suspect trolling. That said, 9/11's own essence disallows it. Nothing can be kept secret anymore. To pull off a stunt like that, hundreds of people must have been involved. No whistle blowers? No one noticed? Impossible.

(I'm sure you've thought of this already; I eagerly await your response).)
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Robert_Santurri
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2008 9:36:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/1/2008 9:32:03 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I suspect trolling. That said, 9/11's own essence disallows it. Nothing can be kept secret anymore. To pull off a stunt like that, hundreds of people must have been involved. No whistle blowers? No one noticed? Impossible.

(I'm sure you've thought of this already; I eagerly await your response).)

One's opinion isn't trolling unless this person was going around to every thread doing this. Why don't you two have a debate about this?
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-- Edward R. Murrow

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- Robert Frost
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 3:38:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/1/2008 9:32:03 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I suspect trolling. That said, 9/11's own essence disallows it. Nothing can be kept secret anymore. To pull off a stunt like that, hundreds of people must have been involved. No whistle blowers? No one noticed? Impossible.

(I'm sure you've thought of this already; I eagerly await your response).)

I have thought of this and I am equally perplexed. But we must not kid ourselves that it is impossible, simply very improbable. Going by the sherlock holmes method, we must first cancel out the impossible (i.e. breaking the laws of physics) and then look to the vastly improbable (having a large scale conspiracy).

But that's a good point, and I don't really have an answer to how it can be pulled off. I cannot fathom the complexities of organizing something on that scale.

And Robert, I don't really feel like having a 2 way debate about it. For many reasons...I'd have to do a bunch of research, I want to hear what lots of different people have to say on it, a non-competitive discussion between more people will be much more productive.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 4:07:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I think it is highly unlikely. But as you (Harlan) point out, it is not completely impossible. Just because we cannot fathom the planning and secrecy required does not make it utterly impossible, just highly unlikely.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 4:27:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Given: It is improbable I can walk through a wall. It's not impossible, just highly improbable.
Problem: I want to find the fastest way from one room to another.

Of course I wouldn't considering walking through a wall.

Occam's razor. 9/11 as a conspiracy should not be taken into consideration.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 6:12:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 4:27:17 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Given: It is improbable I can walk through a wall. It's not impossible, just highly improbable.
Problem: I want to find the fastest way from one room to another.

Of course I wouldn't considering walking through a wall.

Occam's razor. 9/11 as a conspiracy should not be taken into consideration.

Yes, with our simple brains, our blood-soaked dog's breakfast, we can not be fully sure whether something is possible. For all practical purposes, it is impossible to walk through a wall. It is counterproductive to suddenly give up and say: "we can't be sure of anything whatsoerver".

Before we apply occam's razor, we should consider ALL the factors involved. Listen: with just the politics of the situation, I would draw the same conclusion, there is no way they could pull that off. With the actual physical implications of it, though, there's just no way that thing was the result of a plane.

You wanna talk about occam's razor? Do you wanna realize how many people would have had to have completely screwed up in the construction of that skyscraper for a plane to make it fall.

Also, we would have to be incorrect in our understanding of physics. The tower fell at free fall speeds, which can only happen if there is nothing stopping it's descent, which means floors were timedly detonated, as in a demolition.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 3:03:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The reason the towers collapse is simple actually. You see, they had a unique design: They were built in layers of structural supports. The planes took out layers of supports where they hit the building. This put too much weight on the supports right below, so the top collapsed down onto them, and they broke, which made the ones below break, and the ones below, et cetera. It was a design that allowed for cost effectiveness, and resistance to many natural disasters, but it made it vulnerable to a plane crash.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:50:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 3:03:09 AM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
The reason the towers collapse is simple actually. You see, they had a unique design: They were built in layers of structural supports. The planes took out layers of supports where they hit the building. This put too much weight on the supports right below, so the top collapsed down onto them, and they broke, which made the ones below break, and the ones below, et cetera. It was a design that allowed for cost effectiveness, and resistance to many natural disasters, but it made it vulnerable to a plane crash.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Architects think about strong winds, earthquakes, and other more normal events. Building aren't designed to withstand a plane crash because no one thinks of it.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 3:50:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 3:03:09 AM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
The reason the towers collapse is simple actually. You see, they had a unique design: They were built in layers of structural supports. The planes took out layers of supports where they hit the building. This put too much weight on the supports right below, so the top collapsed down onto them, and they broke, which made the ones below break, and the ones below, et cetera. It was a design that allowed for cost effectiveness, and resistance to many natural disasters, but it made it vulnerable to a plane crash.

1. If the impact of the plane caused collapse, why did it occur over an hour after the impact, and all at once, rather than slowly and gradually crumbling. That would make alot more sense.

2. It makes sense that the floors could collapse, but what about the central core, which was not a part of the main structure? That should still be standing, because it is seperate from the rest of the structural system.

3. Yes, the towers actually WERE meant to withstand a plane crash. They were specifically built to withstand a boeing 707, which I believe larger than the 737 (note: I have NOT verified this).

4. The most important problem with your scenario is that it still does not explain the collapse of building 7, which was not struck by a plane, or in fact anything at all that could fathomably cause it to collapse. It also collpased in a way identical to a demolition. It fell of no accord, simply collapsed. This building was not struck by a plane, and therefore your explanation still leaves much unexplained.
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 4:06:42 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Actually it was 2 767s that hit WTC. 767s are 30 feet longer, 25 feet wider, and 15 feet taller than 707s.These planes were also full of a transcontinental amount of jet fuel, which helped dissolve the structure. Not to mention that the only way that anyone can be sure that a building can withstand the force of a commercial airliner hitting it would be to actually fly a commercial airliner into it.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 4:53:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 4:06:42 PM, Sweatingjojo wrote:
Actually it was 2 767s that hit WTC. 767s are 30 feet longer, 25 feet wider, and 15 feet taller than 707s.These planes were also full of a transcontinental amount of jet fuel, which helped dissolve the structure. Not to mention that the only way that anyone can be sure that a building can withstand the force of a commercial airliner hitting it would be to actually fly a commercial airliner into it.

Oh, thank you for the factual correction. I still think that if it was caused by the impact, it would not be so all of a sudden, after an uneventful hour and a half. And yes, the only way one could be "sure" of it would be that, but "sure" is an unreasonable explonation. With computer models now-a-days if a tower is deemed impervious to plane crashes, it probably is.
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:20:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Computer models didn't exist at a level anywhere near they do today in 1970. They barely existed at all.

Also, the reason why it took a while to fall was because it wasn't the impact, but rather the structural damage incurred from the heat of the fire. After a point, the steel got too wobbly and then that was that.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:51:43 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 5:20:06 PM, Sweatingjojo wrote:
Computer models didn't exist at a level anywhere near they do today in 1970. They barely existed at all.

Noted.

Also, the reason why it took a while to fall was because it wasn't the impact, but rather the structural damage incurred from the heat of the fire. After a point, the steel got too wobbly and then that was that.

But that's just it, it didn't take a while to fall. It was like a button was pressed (I think there was) somewhere, and all of a sudden it collapsed. It took along time UNTIL it collapsed, but once it did, there was nothing gradual about it.

"too wobbly" is not a specific anything. It would gradually get wobblier and wobblier, starting to crumble a little bit at a time.

If it were a natural phenomenon that was a result of the crash, it would not have acted so. Nay, that was a controlled demolition.

But listen: the central core still needs to be accounted for. If something became wobbly in the wall supports, it would not effect the core, since it was not part of the main structural system.

Also we must bring up building seven. Building seven fell (the result) without your alleged cause (plane crash), therefore, the plane crash was not the cause, since in the isolated scenario of building seven it fell without a plane crashing into it.

Also, we must think of the very rare chance that a plane would bring down a tower that way. We must also then consider the chance of both towers having that happen. Then we must consider the chances of both towers falling down at the exact same time in synchronized fashion. With all of those, it almost HAD to be controlled.
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 6:14:01 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Wobbly was referring to the super-heating of the structural components, causing it to become less rigid. When an object's atoms begin to separate, as they would when heated, that object will give way. Hence the towers falling. With WTC 7, the building received major damage from the twin towers' collapse, leading to its collapse as well.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 8:12:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 6:14:01 PM, Sweatingjojo wrote:
Wobbly was referring to the super-heating of the structural components, causing it to become less rigid. When an object's atoms begin to separate, as they would when heated, that object will give way. Hence the towers falling. With WTC 7, the building received major damage from the twin towers' collapse, leading to its collapse as well.

Yes, but the seperation of the atoms is gradual, and so the collapse should be gradual. And what are the chances that both towers would collapse simultaneously, in near perffect synchronization?

Also, if you are going to instigate that the fire made it collapse, it must be brought to attention that there was a fire before that burned for much longer, yet did not initiate a collapse.

The problem with your explanation for the wtc 7 collapse, is that the falling debris from the twin towers was coming from above, while building 7 collapsed from the bottom, indicating charges destroying it from the bottom, as in a controlled demolitition. Also, the building collapsed inward, suggesting structural damage INSIDE of it, which could not be caused by fallind debris either.

Listen, things much worse than "falling debris" hit buildings all the time, but how often do you hear about large buildings completely collapsing into a pile of rubbel? Never.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2008 3:54:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him."

-1984, by George Orwell
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2008 9:16:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/24/2008 3:54:23 PM, Harlan wrote:
*overquoted book reguarding socialism

-1984, by George Orwell

*yawns
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
younstownsoldier
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2009 8:09:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
i personally feel that anyone who, in their right minds thinks that someone would have come up with a plan this complex and have the resources to pull it off without a single person blowing the whistle is not right in the head. of course its going to collapse and collapse fast. you've got all that weight coming down, and you think its going to be gradual? you have to also take in consideration all the secondary explosions from the gas pipes, and all that jazz as the building is collapsing. Let's not forget, this was also not the first attack on these same buildings.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2009 11:09:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2009 8:09:45 PM, younstownsoldier wrote:
i personally feel that anyone who, in their right minds thinks that someone would have come up with a plan this complex and have the resources to pull it off without a single person blowing the whistle is not right in the head. of course its going to collapse and collapse fast. you've got all that weight coming down, and you think its going to be gradual? you have to also take in consideration all the secondary explosions from the gas pipes, and all that jazz as the building is collapsing. Let's not forget, this was also not the first attack on these same buildings.

We must apply the Sherlock Holmes method to this. That is, we must first eliminate the impossible, and then move on to the highly improbable.

Defying the laws of physics is impossible, so we must eliminate the possibility of a plane crash alone taking down an entire skyscraper. We must then consider the improbable. Yes, it is improbable in theory that an operation of such size could be carried out and for no word of it to leak, but: it is not impossible, and it should not be regarded as such. With the evidence, it is largely apparent to me that this is the most likely cause of the collapse.

You continue to push the theory that the collision of the plane/the subsequent fires, caused an entire skyscraper to collapse in under 10 seconds. I will explain why this is not possible.

a). The collision of the plane should not have caused a collapse because the skyscraper was built to withstand plane crashes.

b). The fire should not have caused a collapse because all history of similiar fires will show that a fire will not cause a skyscraper to collapse. In fact, the north tower has experienced a much worse fire than that of 2001 in the 70's. It burned for hours on end, yet caused no collapse. Not only did it not cause collapse, but there was little or no structural damage.

c). The improbable collapse of WTC7 is most important to deducing what happened. Building 7 was not struck by any plane, it only suffered fires. A fire shouldn't cause a collapse though. Never, in all of history, has fire ever caused a steel-framed, high-rise building to collapse.

d). The twin towers collapsed at free-fall speeds, even accelerating. This is illogical when applied to the theory of a plane crash causing the collapse. The only way that a building may fall at free-fall is if the floors are timedly detonated, because otherwise the pancake-ing floors will cause resistance and slow it down. Also, a naturally collapsing skyscraper should slow down in it's descent, as more and more floors are pancaked under it. The twin towers acted in the opposite fashion, indicating a controlled demolition.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2009 2:42:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't really want to debate about this because of how ugly people always get in this debate, but I will state that I DO believe it was a conspiracy of some kind. I think a more in depth investigation should have been funded (even though the government spent less money on it than Bill Clintons blow job trials), and not headed by biased members of Government.

No idea how they did it, or who did it, or how many people were involved.
Nobody can know.

The interviews of eye witness reports are too overwhelming to attempt to "explain away" with a computer model. The physics of the "freefall" are all the evidence that is necessary. A=A, the Buildings absolutely COULD NOT have collapsed at a freefall rate without explosives.

I don't want to come off as one of these "I'm Alex Jones and I'm going to fight the power and change the world" types, because ultimately I don't care even if it was a conspiracy. "Power does what it wants." ~ George Carlin
I'm not going to go stand on a street corner and preach to people about it, or even debate about it online.

It's going down in history the same way the Kennedy Assassination did.
In ambiguity.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2009 7:33:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Explosives?

Jet fuel is an explosive innit?

S
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2009 10:16:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2008 8:44:35 PM, Harlan wrote:
I may rarely have the ability to convince people to my view on this very serious matter, but I can at least play my small part in creating discussion about it. I want people to not treat the official story as a given, as it being a fact. Whether or not people come to the came conclusion as I is not in the long run that important, since I could be wrong. The point is, though, that everyone must critically think how is listening to all sides including the official side hurting critical thinking?
about this subject. We must question everything. We have to be absolutely sure, since there is so much that is unanswered about 9/11. For a democracy to fundtion the citizens must be skeptical and strong minded.if so why do you keep all the questions a secret? If we all go with mob mentality and treat is as a given because everyone else does, than we are more vulnerable to being deceived by higher powers.
why aren't you sharing your information on the mestiriuos higher powers? Or this wr are allowed to be treating it as a given?
Before we bring up all the different contradicting information,are we privaliged to be informed on the contredictions? If not all perhapes a few? let's look at this thing on the face of it, since this is a big topic. Instead of diving into fine details,is details controdicting your point why aren't we allowed to make note of them? lets imagine seeing a video of the towers collapsing for the very first time, without any sort of other influence or report or electronic faces telling us what we are seeing.

A plane hit's one tower, than the other. For an hour little or nothing happens. There is just a bunch of smoke. It is exciting,well only to muslims dancing in streets celebrating deaths of inocents however americans did not find it exciting...! a tragedy indeed, but at least it is just a fire. And then, without warning both towers simultaneously collapse (one in approximately 8 seconds). 2 vertical giants of steel and concrete turn to dust in manhattan and the surrounding buildings are almost unscathed. It collapses straight downward, it leaves almost nothing but a heap of rubble. How does a fire reduce a 110 story skyscraper to a heap of rubble in 8 seconds? Take in consideration heat of fual waight of 110 floors to get your answer despite of it being official answer you still have to refute it to.make a differant point unless you only give credit to conspiracey

How can a skyscraper which is meant to whithstand all sorts of storms and really fast winds; which is in fact meant to whithstand a plane crash;was it ever tested for one? Or its your assumption that if its strong against winds its strong against plains as well? be so easily destroyed by a measly plane how clever ? Measly some plane crash..would some measly atoms be able to destroy nagesaki?how about that conspiracey? If our architecture is so flimsy here in America, than we have more to worry about than catching Bin Laden.

And now for information (if I am incorrect on any of these, if what I have gathered is wrong, please tell me.):what have you gathered? Other then rethorical questions?

-There had been a fire before, which burned much longer, yet did not initiate a collapse.was that fire started by higher powers as well?
- The president has many ties with stratesec,since this is non oficial view could we question that?or no? the company that did the security for the wtc. His brother used to be on the board of directors of that company.is this a point we are allowed to question and are the whole fam of the company guilty or only the fam of old board members?
- The towers fell at near free-fall speeds
- The tower was meant to withstand plane crashes was there any test on that? Or your psychic?
- witnesses who survived 9/11, who were in the basement, reported several explosions down there before the collapse.oh yeah I would expect that there should not be noise how come that explosions should come from mesley planes?and I wonder how the ones in basement at that time accurding to you it took 8 seconds survived?

I have personally come to the conclusion that the towers were remotely detonated.based on which fact ? But I dearly hope that I am wrong, so PLEASE, someone, show me something that will convince me that I do not live in such a horrible country that would do that to it's own people; convince me that in my country a leader cant just go kill 3000 people right in front of us and get away with it...
Bin ladin may be your leader not mine so don't worry our leader didn't do it and despite that we are infidel we are not harrible
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2009 12:05:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Where's the fury going to come from?

Of course we did, we provided airliners and legally disarmed the pilots, making them prime targets for terrorism :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2009 11:24:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
""The vapor of this substance [kerosene] mixed with air is as explosive as gunpowder.""
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2009 10:21:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Okay, so your position is...

"Jet fueled caused a severe enough explosion through all ~100 floors such that the mass of the building could be moved out of the way fast enough (via jet fuel explosions per floor) to allow the collapse of the entire building (including floors that were undamaged by the impact) to occur at freefall speed."

?