Zeitgeist, 9/11 Coincidences, 7/7 Ripple Effect, etc.

Remove all ads!

No, I believe you did everything you could to avoid answering the question. A simple "I was involved in the greatest conspiracy of all time" would be the "holy grail" of investigative journalism. There is no way in hell that if a single credible person came forward and said it the media (both foreign and domestic) wouldn't have been all over the story.

Is there a single example of these people who came forward that the lawyers got to?

 

The rippling effect, and kinetic energy. In laymans terms then, vibrations would have damaged concrete and steel alike, before the floors collapsed on them. And the sheer force of the collapse would have reduced resistance to practically zero, much like kicking in a door is easier than pushing it in. These are valid arguments. I'm inclined to doubt that the resistance would actually become negligible, there would still be some delay from resistance. Ultimately, neither of us can test our hypotheses. There is no more evidence remaining: the steel was quickly melted, and investigations were delayed. It took 411 days for the 911 commission to even be formed. Most investigations start much sooner. I'd say there was a lot of evidence to destroy.

The damage from this blast is relevant, but its kinetic force had dissipated long before the collapse started. I'd say it was a testament to the sturdiness of the building.

TGS, without truly undeniably damning evidence, these stories wouldn't have been taken seriously.

 

But the 9/11 debunkers would have taken those stores extremely serious, making it the first argument in any 9/11 discussion. One email into the direction of the main 9/11 debunk site, and the world wouldn't hear the end of it. Since these conspiracy people are so extremely powerful and smart, I'm sure that the are very capable of not being intercepted by someone who is trying to stop them. They could just sit down at a Internet Cafe, use a gmail account and send it to secretinfohere@main911debunksite.org.
I hope you're not going to argue that the secret service would take down those sites, since that would eventually mean that all the 911 debunk sites were taken over by secret service and that they actually manage them. Perhaps you're actually being deliberately misled by the 911 debunk sites

 

Lots of evidence has come up, and I'd consider much of it damning too. But very little evidence is truly undeniable, so it's considered circumstantial, and uncertain. If USgovt were to try and restrict debunking sites, they'd soon have to restrict internet access. This would be too obvious, and would practically be an admission of guilt. By allowing debunkers to exist, it gives them added credibility too. That sould also answer your point, Montresor. BTW many videos were removed from YouTube repeatedly, but from objecting viewers, I doubt the government had a direct hand in it.

Proteus_za made some very sharp observations too, from a fresh perspective. I'm surprised nobody is responding to that...

 

But why hasn't anyone confessed it to a 9/11 debunk site?

Look! It's a three-headed monkey! Alright I'll respond to them.

They also confiscated videos from the WTC attacks, but we can still access them because every American tv-station was present and broadcasting them live.

To me it looks like they were trying to collect evidence.

4 airplanes just crashed into buildings, people were shocked with disbelief and, mildly put, angry at whoever was behind it. Do you think its odd that the agent acted mentally unstable?

They keep everything out of public hands, its a standard procedure. Why would they release it? They don't care about a few people who do not believe the official version.

Do you seriously think that it might have been a missile? If so, then what happened to actual flight? Why would they risk throwing a missile against it, that might have been seen and filmed (with a good camera) accidentally, if they had a doomed Boeing available? Are you perhaps also suggesting that the firefighters who arrived immediately to the crash site were also involved since they haven't come out with stories about how they couldn't find airplane parts. They did btw. There are dozens of pictures showing debris that no missile could have made (wheels!), funny that all the 9/11 debunk sites have been avoiding them.

Was dealt with by T2Bruno.

Because NORAD claims that they weren't notified quick enough. You might call this convenient, but I'll blame incompetence rather than malice.

They apparently got all thousands involved to get their mouths shut.

 

I was going to address those as well. Morgoth did an excellent job.

I will add to number 3....

Fighter planes were typically on a Ready-5 or Ready-15 status -- that means literally the fighters would be airborn in 5 or 15 minutes. A flying air patrol is extremely expensive to maintain and, quite frankly, no one in the US would have thought the expense was worth it on September 10th. Ready-5 costs a fraction of a CAP (engines are running with pilot in the cockpit), Ready-15 is even less costly (the engines are off but the pilot is in the cockpit).

The Pentagon is literally a couple of miles from Ronald Reagan, with a flight path very close overhead. The deviation into the Pentagon only lasted perhaps 30 seconds. Even a CAP would not have intercepted a slight deviation like that.

It is believed the Pentagon was the secondary target and the terrorists chose the target due to convenience -- a 100% chance of success versus an unknown change of success at striking the White House or Capitol.

Someone I knew died in the Pentagon that day -- I, and several other reservist that served with him, followed this issue quite closely.

 

Actually after reading some more on the 911myths site, i really don't think that they shot down the flight at the pentagon anymore. They explained the situation just to well to argue with.

 

I get this feeling that it's an endless circle, because we don't see eye to eye on this. I don't think it's such a strong point. I'll repeat my earlier reaction, that very few of the co-conspirators had a full picture of what was going on, let alone have access to damning evidence. Those who did were too deeply involved, and had too much to gain. Perhaps any and all involved would be executed for high treason, so no one dares take the chance. There are many more reasons why whitleblowers wouldn't or couldn't come out with the info, but I'd just be repeating myself.

Eventually the material should be released to the press, and the families of the deceased. That's usually what happens when the investigation is over. The 9/11 commission is complete. The court cases, that families chose to start, were consolidated under a single judge, and dismissed. So if there's nothing left to research, why not release them? It's classic guilty demeanor, exhibited by the government.

Let's say for a moment that they wanted to stage an attack at the pentagon. A section of the building was prepared for destruction, but they didn't want to damage the rest. A cruise missile would have hit its target with more precision than a terrorist, or remote-controlled aircraft. Adding some scrap airplane parts wouldn't be too difficult. I don't expect you'll now believe that it's possible, but this may be the reason why they chose to use a missile.

My condolances. This is a sensitive issue for americans, the whole conspiracy thing is. As a non-american, do you think I'm overstepping my bounds by starting this thread? My reasoning was, that since it had global repercussions, it concerns me too.

 

A cruise missile would not have been able to penetrate to the command center -- even the mammoth soviet cruise missiles would not have had enough mass and speed for that kind of penetration. It took something moving fast and weighing over 150,000 pounds to do the damage seen.

Adding scrap airplane parts on the lawn in a matter of minutes would be a considerable feat -- which I don't think is possible. The hit was in sight of the nearby expressway -- a lot of witnesses saw a clean lawn one second and a lot of really big pieces of debris the next second.

I've worked in the military and I don't believe they are capable of the kind of cover-up that is being implied here.

Not at all. Although there are two obvious reasons for starting the thread: to ask people to help poke holes in the arguments presented, or try to recruit converts to the cause. You obviously succeeded in the former, but this is probably not the right forum for the latter.

I remember an interview with a retired top official from the FBI about the Kennedy conspiracy. He had a great line when asked if the FBI or CIA was involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Paraphrasing: In this age of huge budget cuts both the FBI and CIA had taken big hits in our finances. We are both understaffed. Do you really think, that if either department could present evidence of the other's involvement, it would not have come out by now? Either department would gladly sacrifice the other to obtain a greater working budget.

I tend to loath the entire "conspiracy theory" idea. When a few people in goverment conspire to commit a crime it is not a government conspiracy -- it is a criminal act by individuals. A conspiracy can only work if a few people are involved; with each additional person the risk of someone disclosing the information significantly increases. It is only thorugh very tight controls and very harsh punishments that classified material is kept reasonable safe -- even then it is leaked out all the time. Having been involved in safeguarding classified material I simply do not see how a conspiracy of this magnitude is possible.

 

You make a strong case why a missile couldn't have done it. It still doesn't rule out a remote-controlled aircraft.
I wonder if the idea of a cruise missile was a distraction anyway. People often come up with the most strange and inconsequential stories, like:
- There was a face in the smoke clouds on 9/11
- If you fold a 5 dollar note in a certain way, you will see the WTC
- There were crop circles close to the Shanksville crash
Airy-fairy, artsy-fartsy chit-chatty small talk. It distracts from the topic, and ridicules legitimate questions. Morgoth had a good one, so silly it's annoying:

I'm reading it about half-way before I realize it's not serious, grrr.

I was also curious as to the political viewpoints of others on the site. They're a lot more conservative than I had guessed, but maybe this is only the most outspoken ones.
These 2 departments are in direct competition, but they would work together in a plan that would increase their combined budgets...

You really know your stuff, then. Maybe, just maybe, it's not like that in all situations though. A hand-picked group of nationalists that support the neo-conservative cause wholeheartedly may approach things differently. they would know how to misinform people working under their orders. Perhaps demolition experts placing charges in the WTC didn't know the plan until after it was carried out. Maybe (this is pure speculation i know) they were told that the demolition would be announced quickly, to avoid people protesting, and pushing to make it be declared a monument. Or they might have been told that placing charges was a safety measure, to 'pull' the building in a calamity, preventing it from collapsing more dangerously.
Using some imagination (there's little evidence left, so I improvise) there would actually be much less people with FULL knowlegde, and safe access to evidence. Perhaps the amount of people that qualify as conspirators were in the hundreds, not thousands. And it is entirely possible for neo-conservative government to find that many ruthless members within its ranks, and maneuver them into positions of power.

 

I'm not so sure there's any correlation (positive or negative) regarding one's political viewpoint and one's willingness to accept a conspiracy theory as true. While most of the people who are refuting your claims are conservative, I'm liberal, and I believe the official report. I'm firmly in the "the Bush Administration is way too incompetent to pull something like this off" camp. Basically, I believe the strongest evidence against government involvement in 9/11 is that it worked. In order to get me to believe otherwise I would have to either forget or overlook a large chunk of the current administration's incompetence over the last 8 years.

 

Actually, I've found most people on this site are fairly liberal -- but not anarchic. Most of us saw this information many years ago and have already evaluated it on our own. I also think the majority of us do not believe there is anyone intelligent enough in the current administration to pull this kind of deception off -- especially with how soon the incident occurred after the current powers were elected into office. (Edit: See... Aldeth addressed this same point while I was typing).

The problem with a conspiracy of this magnitude is that all personnel involved would need to be fully committed to sacrificing thousands of their fellow countrymen (and women, and children) for the cause. Those not committed would need to killed immediately. That brings up my fundamental disagreement with most conspiracy theories -- there's just not that many people willing to sacrifice innocent lives and violate the Constitution of the United States in the positions necessary to pull this off. I believe someone would come forward and testify against the others.

 

Remember how this thread started? You had irrefutable evidence and called us fools for not seeing it and claimed that we were (sub)conciously denying it. After 4 pages of us explaining you almost every suspicious point that you threw at us, your explanations and counter arguments have become weirder and weirder, slowly creeping in the realm of the surrealistic. Remotely controlled airplanes? People dumping airplane wheels at crash sites? Powerful men working together to pull the biggest stunt ever? Detonators who *just* plant bombs in the cities two highest buildings while they are still in use? Thousands and thousands of people who uncritically follow orders and who still dont speak out when they see the consequences? People like firefighters and building detonators are highly trained professionals. One major aspect of professionality is the ability to be critical about what you see and what is being offered as an explanation. They would NEVER EVER plant bombs in a building that was still being used, neither would they plant evidence like airplane wreckage. But still you have claimed that those things might have happened.

Why do you keep giving us these arguments? I think I know why, because you have already assumed the conspiracy to be true. Why would you even think critically about those assumptions and how you arrived at them if you already know that you're right? Looking at your profile I can see that you're a clever guy. I'm sure that with the slightest added amount of critical thinking, you could stop speculating and realize the absurdity of your position. Judging from your last post, you're almost there.

Of course we cannot really prove that terrorists attacked the tower, neither can we prove that most powerful men were involved. So what? Nothing to very little can be proven. Nobody can prove that God exists. Nobody can prove that God doesn't exist. Nobody can prove that we are not living in a Matrix-like world. Nobody can prove that God didn't create the entire universe 1 microsecond ago along with all our memories and ideas. Nobody can prove that the perception we receive and the experiences we experience actually match to an external world. That philosophical problem has been hunting us for eons.

Karl Popper came up with a nice solution for this problem. When we construct a theory, we cannot prove its true. What we can do, is proving that it is false (if it is.) So when we construct a theory, we look at it critically and then try to falsify it. This is very much like the evolution theory, but then for theories themselves. Bad theories die out, better theories live on longer, the best theories exist forever. So, instead of throwing absurd ideas, speculations and arguments at us, I want you to try and test your theory. We have been helping you out so far (for 4 pages,) but I've learned on these boards that you can not convince a believer. Change has to come from the inside.

Cheers

P.S:
I'm liberal as heck, fully supporting personal and economical freedoms.

P.P.S:
I just remembered that I used a 9/11 debunker as well. I guess started looking at my beliefs critically, but I'm afraid I can't remember when or how

 

This made my day. Thanks.

 

You know the one thing we haven't pointed out that everyone(well almost everyone) knows but doesn't really think about?
The major corruption that existed in the NY city inspections dept for decades. I wonder how much cost-cutting was done when they built the towers?
Not enough to be hazardous in everyday normal situations but when a disaster like this occurs, it may have played a part.

I seem to remember a building that had collapsed because the bolt connections had been changed by the engineer yet were never inplemented on the blueprints & work diagrams.

 

I remember watching a show on Discovery Channel in which they showed that according to the documents, most of the support beams had been coated in some fire resistant material, but that inspectors discoverd that that wasn't the case. It included videos made by the inspectors of the support beams which, indeed, were not covered with anything! It was a long time ago since I saw that documentary, so maybe I just remembered it wrong.

Edit:
I forgot to say that the videos were made a few months before the 9/11 attacks.

Edit2:

Because uncritical trust in the government is part of the conservative movement in the US? No, conservatism is a political idea that differs per country. US conservatives hope for a small government that holds little power and places responsibility back in hands of the people (or at least in control of the individual states, please correct me if I'm wrong here.)

 

I agree "no" on the trust part & you hit it dead square on the head on the second part.

 

Dangerous Angles: the power of belief

And from my viewpoint there have been very few counterarguments offered that aren't in some way based on belief. Belief in the balance of power, in human nature, and appealing to the layman's assessment of likelihood.

Like here: On what do you base this assumption? If ordered by high-ups, given some explanation, throw in the word 'classified', they might just do it.

So i should think about it carefully, make a balanced evaluation of the facts, and I'll come to the same conclusion/belief you have: They couldn't have pulled it off. I'm not confronted daily by the visible incompetence in domestic affairs, of the Bush administration. What I do see in the news is a government making up reasons to stay in a war. A war it went into based upon false assumptions, the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The lack of evidence of these weapons is inconsequential, the world should thank USgovt for its vigilance. The inability of the strongest army in the world to keep the peace is a great reason to stay. Apparently cultures who were living side by side, now start fighting with eachother. The US army had nothing to do with this. Now here I do use my assessments, and conclude/believe that the US is in the business of war. That's what I believe. Strike that, I know because there are facts that support this.

But we can prove that the 'confession' by Osama bin Laden was a forgery. The USgovt was quick to jump to conclusions, and demontrated very little scrutiny, much like they jumped to conclusions about Iraq. They only needed to compare it with other videos of Bin Laden, and they would have seen it wasn't him. Very strange indeed. Maybe the important part was getting the public to believe it. Now this may be like planting evidence in the O.J.Simpson trial, it doesn't prove that the 'evil terrorists' didn't do it. But if the USgovt was so certain that the terrorists did it, why didn't they wait for real evidence to surface, or just go ahead with no evidence? It's very likely that the USgovt produced the tape, and that indicates that they are willing to break the rules to achieve their goals.

Are you talking to a mirror? I've demonstrated on numerous occasions that i'll change my assumptions, if presented with knowledge or evidence that disproves it. The long discussion about the twin towers produced knowledge and evidence that made its collapse a bit less implausible. And knowing that it would weaken my position, I adjusted my viewpoint all the same. The support structure moved from the core of the buildings to the outside, and there were spaning wires added. You guys on the other hand, have been quick to declare victory when I was off the boards for 19 hours. You are convinced that your arguments, based on your beliefs, are ironclad. Need I remind you that you started out with namecalling and an attack on my person? You're the believer here. It's kinda like religion: They call scientists arrogant, but scientists don't claim to know it all. Believers are the wise guys, since they need, and claim to have, an answer for everything (God did it. God will know.). Can you demonstrate, using facts not beliefs, that my ideas are absurd?

Oh, and by conservative I meant board members are more religious and right-wing than I expected.

 

That's exactly why it's so funny... you couldn't be more off (with a few exeptions).