What really happened ....11 september

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NickBarings, Dec 5, 2006.


  1. Um, isnt that a CT, in and of itself?
    That is THE bogeyman, isnt it?
    The main one no "rational" people accept?

    (BTW, my original handle was going to be Mr or Captain obvious)
     
    #601     Dec 28, 2006
  2. A mountain of motive does not make a case. In fact, that usually makes for a perfect decoy.
     
    #602     Dec 28, 2006
  3. i do see your point
     
    #603     Dec 28, 2006
  4. i tend to believe corruption exists from the top down. at least that's how most every hierarchical culture i've ever been a part of worked. it's not like i'm looking for a solution to human nature lol

    we should just be represented by our best. that's all (and i know that's inherently contradictory. technically i suppose bush does actually represent at least ..what, ~30-35% of americans)
     
    #604     Dec 28, 2006
  5. dpt

    dpt

    I agree fully with this argument. I don't consider it possible that such work
    could have been hidden. It simply requires far too much precision, far too
    many materials and is far too extensive in nature. You can't possibly do it
    with a few guys disguised as janitors on the night shift or some such
    ... anyone who has ever read anything, or even watched a television show about
    demolition work will be clear enough on this question.

    But there are, nevertheless some interesting and peculiar considerations
    associated with this line of thought, due to the particular design of the
    towers. In order to cause them to collapse in a more or less symmetric
    fashion, it would very probably have been sufficient merely to destroy the
    supporting columns on a single floor, as long as that floor were sufficiently
    far down from the top.

    Free fall of the unsupported top of the building through a distance of a
    single story would then have ensued, and the impact of all of that mass would
    certainly produce a dynamic stress on the impacted floor which the structure
    simply could not sustain.

    The result would have been pretty much the same kind of collapse that we
    actually saw, assuming that the explosive free theory of the collapse is
    correct in its basic essentials!

    Such a collapse would not be the cleanest possible, but neither were the
    actual collapses anywhere near as clean as what is seen in controlled
    demolitions, which are in some cases carried off without even breaking a
    window in buildings that are located incredibly nearby.

    So the demolition work need not in principle have been as extensive as one
    might expect for a building this size. If I were a conspiracy theorist this is
    certainly the way I would argue. It's strange that none of them has thought
    to do so.

    The problem with arguing this way, from the point of view of a conspiracy
    theorist of course, is clearly that one would then have to agree that the
    standard story has some very basic points in its favour: the structures are
    inherently quite vulnerable to collapse given that sufficient local damage is
    caused, and they do not offer a great deal of resistance to very large masses
    that begin falling through the floor spaces.

    The other problem is that the collapse clearly began in both towers very close
    to the level where the airplanes actually struck, and it really strains
    credulity to say that these levels could have been precisely known in advance
    of the crashes.

    Remember, in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, the fiendishly clever
    government conspirators wanted it to be possible for the sheeple to think that
    the airplanes were actually what brought the towers down, so it had to look as
    if that could have been the case at least :p

    So it simply would not have been sufficient to prepare 2 or 3 floors for
    demolition, you really would have to prepare 20 or 30, and then tell the pilots
    to aim for roughly the right levels. But then of course, the whole buildings
    might just as well have been more or less filled with explosives. So its
    better just to insist that they could never have come down the way they
    did unless they were wired from top to bottom, and had lots of big bombs
    inside, to boot :p
     
    #605     Dec 29, 2006
  6. What happened....11 september 2006?

    Five year anniversay of a terrorist attack on the WTC. That's what.
     
    #606     Dec 29, 2006
  7. Not really. In my mind CT would be part of the group, not the entire group. The problem isn't that our government and all of it's agencies are sitting around planning events like 9/11. The problem is, a culture of corruption, incompetence, and worst of all, an attitude of complete indifference. They simply don't care because they are virtually untouchable. Worst case scenario is they resign with a golden parachute, then land a 7 figure job in the private sector.
     
    #607     Dec 29, 2006
  8. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    This thread has been focused almost entirely on the way the buildings fell. The thinking is *IF* the buildings were demolished by explosive denotations it is proof 911 was pre-planned, and therefore a massive government conspiracy involving thousands of americans willing to slaughter their countrymen to justify invading Iraq and make tons of OIL money. (which Iraq has little of)

    Ignoring the sheer lunacy and stupidity of the arguments of "squibs", "free fall theories", etc, etc, etc ... All I'm left wondering is WHY the so-called conspirators would go to such lengths and take such risks to control the manner in which the buildings fell.

    All For DRAMATIC EFFECT?!?!

    They rigged 216 stories of buildings, DOING SO UNNOTICED mind you, to make good TV.

    NOW WHAT ELSE DO YOU NUTJOBS HAVE? missiles Hitting the Pentagon? Good Lord ............

    (Mind rot and cultural pollution ........ I'm literally embarrassed for you and of you)
     
    #608     Dec 29, 2006
  9. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    One more question for you NUTJOBS .........

    WHY DIDN'T THEY RECRUIT IRAQI'S TO FLY THE PLANES OR PLANT WMD'S IN IRAQ ?????????????????????????????????????

    The feds were able to conducting 9-11, AND YET COULDN'T SLIP A NUKE INTO IRAQ TO JUSTIFY THE GODDAMN WAR ?????????????


    f'ing nutjobs
     
    #609     Dec 29, 2006
  10. yet you suckers jump on the official ever changing govt fantasy that cave dwellers outsmarted a multi billion dollar air defense system and convinced our govt to hold a terrorist training exercise on the same fking exact day these arab cave dwellers were going to magically fly jumbo jets into bldgs because they had a couple of fking box cutters.

    and you know who the pilots were because the govt produced a pristine passport from one of the saudi hijackers although the blast was so intense it melted steel and vaporized the plane. just fking brilliant i tell you.

    it is a crime to want to see the numerous video feeds that the govt says they have to prove a jet hit the pentagon. i dont say a missile hit it... DO YOU KNOW WHY??? BECAUSE I HAVENT SEEN ANYTHING HIT IT. THE GOVT WONT SHOW US DESPITE FOIA REQUEST!!!! sorry if i just dont bend over and let these people have their way like you do.

    heaven forbid you opine as to why NIST does not support the "pancake theory"... how odd..... all these great govt scientist hard at work and they avoid the collapse altogether, not to mention wtc7.

    FOOLS
     
    #610     Dec 29, 2006