9/11 conspiracy what do you think ??
- Thread starter Pokerboy
- Start date
P_Trembath
The Best
Actually, I believe that the "evidence" presented to us by the conspiracy theorists is nothing more than schoolboy science, badly interpreted, and incorrectly used.
The whole thing is now nothing more than a mildly amusing bad taste joke.
Most of this junk is being plastered all over the Internet by disaffected Americans, who have a grudge against their government, and are attempting to grasp at anything they can that they think will help discredit that government.
These people need to realise that CSI, The X Files, Supernatural, Buffy, are just entertainment. Dan Brown and co, write books of Fiction.
These people need to get out more.
Right, the 9/11 "Conspiracy".
Firstly, is there one?
Did Bush Jnr, or some other person or persons, decide that they needed to provide an event that they could use to justify to the American public, and the world at large, America starting a war?
Maybe, it has been suggested that America was aware that the Japs were intent on destroying the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour, but allowed it to happen so that they then had the excuse they needed to enter WWII, so it is not out of the realms of possibility that elements of the American establishment would consider something similar.
So now, we can accept that such an event is possible.
But, these people, the ones behind the scenes, are reasonably intelligent people, even if they are American. They will have sat down and arrived at the obvious conclusion that for such a scheme to work, they need to be able to distance themselves from it. Their involvement needs to be deniable.
They would know that it is imperative that as few people as possible are aware of the plan, as few people as possible are involved in the setting up of, and the execution of, the plan.
Therefore, any form of pre-arranged demolition would be extremely risky, with the amount of people that would be required to prepare the buildings, the time it would take. So unless you wish to suggest that all the workers involved were all victims of the day,...........Someone would have bragged about it by now.
Therefore no hidden explosive devices, no "secret weapons", nothing. All we are left with is 1 aeroplane crashing into 1 building, twice, ( Ok, and 1 near miss, and one total, don't even know the target, miss).
This being the case, is it that far beyond the realms of possibility, that some element in the CIA, or similar, was able to egg on a group of insane religious fruitcakes, with an intense hatred of America, to hijack 4 planes, and then crash them into buildings, even suggest which buildings would be the best targets, help ease their way into the USA, and maybe even arrange an exercise that would remove any military aircraft from the intended target on the intended day.
No need for fantastic remote controlled airplanes, or anything other than the previously mentioned religious weirdos.
If you were to tell me that that was what happened, then I could be persuaded to believe, it is plausible, possible, do-able.
Now here's a real conspiracy theory for you:-
Bush and his mates did arrange the events of that fateful day, in just the way I described above, but now faced with a growing public disbelief, have decided on a policy of misdirection. They not only permit the inane ramblings of the so called "Truth seekers", but also slip them a tasty bit of misinformation from time to time, just to keep the inquisitive away from the real truth.
P_Trembath
The Best
I disagree that it does defy science.
Would you care to point out what science it defies, and for ease of clarity, if there is more than point that you think requires raising, can we do them one at a time please.
treeve
Major Contributor
As you may have noticed I pressed for all points to be presented, right from the start, rather than have a what to you think a b or c, I wanted this to be a discussion of all the points raised. I therefore have been through them one at a time. I have studied the footage of the collapse, I can see this as an individual, I can see this from a structural engineering angle (having had that under my belt for many years). The idea of gravity free fall on a building of that structure is impossible, from fire or from simple failure. For the floors to have collapsed, that is possible, but only if the entire set of internal columns and the external cage of box section columns had been cut, for they were not cut or folded as the buildings collapsed, in any normal collapse eventually takes a tumble through disproportionate loading, equilibrium is lost, it collapses outside of its footprint. There is enough example in the world, ignoring building engineering, in structural collapse, in fire collapse, in earthquake collapse, in collapse from military conflict. To have collapsed in 10 seconds of free fall informs everyone that there was no structure supporting the floors. No distortion, no differential, straight down. Not even the normal resistance offered by substructure to the downward movement. Having studied structures at great length over thirty years, I can say that it defies science. When I then watch a video of experts in nano particle science, I rather dismiss any ideas of schoolboy science. That building in its collapse produced a dust that contained burned out thermate; Particles that cannot suddenly appear as defined in Newtonic scientific laws, let alone in cosmic particle science, this was no illusion, it killed nigh 3,000 people. The whole collapse defies science.
P_Trembath
The Best
I admit to not being a structural engineer, however I do not see the science in what you have written. The fact that such a collapse has not been witnessed before, is not an acceptable, scientific, reason to dismiss it. The other thing is that I have not heard of any other tall buildings that have been hit by a large jet, with the resulting forces and inferno that such a collision would provide.
As I understand it, there are questions surrounding the provenience of the dust and metal samples that gave the original Thermate signatures. There are also questions raised as to weather the chemical traces found are actually indicative of a Thermate reaction in the first place.
What I do not get is why some people have to look for such complicated "proofs" as to what they believe to have happened on that dreadful day.
Simple plans work, complicated ones usually don't, something will always go wrong.
1/ A handful of morons hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, the plane explodes, the skyscraper falls down.............Simple.
2/ Persuade a handful of morons to hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, the plane explodes, the skyscraper falls down..............Still fairly simple, and only a very small number of people to worry about talking.
3/ Persuade a handful of morons to hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper, previously rig that skyscraper, a very busy skyscraper with thousands of people coming and going day and night, with high grade explosives, and set up a detonation system, one with multiple fail-safes that will work around any unintentional damage done to it by the plane hitting the wrong part of the tower, that can be remotely triggered, etc, etc, etc ..................... the skyscraper falls down..............No longer simple, in fact it's getting very complicated, the logistics of ferrying in the demolition experts, and the ton (estimate) of Thermate that will be required, plus all the other preparation work that will be needed to ensure an effective demolition, and we are getting very complicated indeed. Such a large operation, and there will always be someone willing to sell their story.
1/ or 2/ yes, 3/?????????
Come on, this is real life, not an episode of "Mission Impossible".
It does not make sense. If this was an "inside job", presumably so that "W" would have a justification to go into Afghanistan, why, when the result of being caught out, either before, during, or after the event would be so catastrophic for those planning it (admittedly not as catastrophic as for those in the buildings) would anyone go to such unnecessary, and risky, lengths?
I maintain that the science being used to support the theory is suspect, and the logic and common sense in the theory is noticeable by its complete absence.
treeve
Major Contributor
But Building 7 was not hit by a plane. It is physically impossible for the steel frame to have collapsed from a few small fires, or even a raging furnace. To have caused the complete failure of a welded steel cage 46 stories high, each and every floor of the building would have had to have been removed from its role acting as a support for the building. That is one methodology in designing structures that I had to use. What is the resultant graph of forces if any one member was to be removed. Remove a single one and the result is instability and a rotational collapse, remove all at the same time, and it is a vertical collapse.
ibrowze
Senior Member
surviving hijackers?????
David Ray Griffin has plenty to say during this short interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9kEwQud4Ek&feature=related
David Ray Griffin has plenty to say during this short interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9kEwQud4Ek&feature=related
P_Trembath
The Best
As I have said before, I am not a structural engineer, but I would have thought that the fact that the building was built on top of an existing building (an electrical substation) albeit one that had been designed to have another building on top of it, was larger than the footprint of the existing foundations. The fact that the building was not only on fire for a long time, far in excess of the 3 hours fire retardant system on the structure of the building (only 2 hours on some of it) but there was almost no attempt at controlling that fire, and that that very fire was being fed from large storage tanks of fuel, ironically fuel intended for use by the city's emergency services. The building had also just been subjected to not only being hit by large pieces of masonry and other debris from both towers, but had also had to undergo the almost earthquake like forces created by the collapse of both towers...............
Actually, I am amazed that the building managed to stay up as long as it did.
Foundation too small.
Foundation, weakened by nearby collapse of 2 towers.
Raging inferno inside building causing all steel in the vicinity to loose all its structural integrity.
There was no need for any further man made "encouragement", the building was doomed from the second the first plane hit.
The question remains though, if you are right, WHY?
Why would any of this have been done?
If it was to enable Bush to start his "War on Terror", then it was massive over kill, (and if found out, had the potential of being the worst "own goal" in history) 1 hijacked plane crashed into 1 of the towers would have galvanized American public opinion enough for him start his war, 2 planes crashing into 2 towers, and he would have problems keeping his population from lynching every Muslim they came across.
WHY?
P_Trembath
The Best
Please, the man is trying to sell his book.
treeve
Major Contributor
Still not had a considered answer to my questions.
The only science that was not broken was Newtonian Gravitational Law, exactly, that is the point. Straight down.
I am not a Neurologist, but I can follow neurological and musculoskeletal arguments and decide as to whether or not it 'fits the picture', without delving into political opinion as to the management of the NHS.
You can take it from me that the buildings did not behave naturally, there is no evidence of twisted columns having slowly distorted, the cladding would have bowed out as the steel cage gave way, it would have become a ribbon, the columns were boxes of of two inch thick plate. More importantly if the steel supports became unstable, for a footprint free fall to have happened, the steel would have had to have given way at exactly the same rate all at once over the entire building. Otherwise it would not have been free fall, it would have been differential collapse, that is basic science. I am not even going to speak of the temperatures in detail, but it simply does not compute.
The removal of evidence from a crime scene for destruction is unprecendented, particularly as it was the greatest crime committed of its nature. I do believe it is quite within normal human behaviour to question that. For those that care to read the investigation on the steel itself, including the discovery that some of the steel has been located at JFK, it was not all shipped. Also details of the steel itself.
9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal
9-11 Research: The Core Structures
The only science that was not broken was Newtonian Gravitational Law, exactly, that is the point. Straight down.
I am not a Neurologist, but I can follow neurological and musculoskeletal arguments and decide as to whether or not it 'fits the picture', without delving into political opinion as to the management of the NHS.
You can take it from me that the buildings did not behave naturally, there is no evidence of twisted columns having slowly distorted, the cladding would have bowed out as the steel cage gave way, it would have become a ribbon, the columns were boxes of of two inch thick plate. More importantly if the steel supports became unstable, for a footprint free fall to have happened, the steel would have had to have given way at exactly the same rate all at once over the entire building. Otherwise it would not have been free fall, it would have been differential collapse, that is basic science. I am not even going to speak of the temperatures in detail, but it simply does not compute.
The removal of evidence from a crime scene for destruction is unprecendented, particularly as it was the greatest crime committed of its nature. I do believe it is quite within normal human behaviour to question that. For those that care to read the investigation on the steel itself, including the discovery that some of the steel has been located at JFK, it was not all shipped. Also details of the steel itself.
9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal
9-11 Research: The Core Structures
ibrowze
Senior Member
What happened to the rubble, what rubble?
"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero" according to the first link on treeve's previous post. Just scroll down this next link and see what you think. In order to prevent Lower Manhattan from being swamped, the bathtub had to be kept intact which indeed it was. Yet had both the buildings totally collapsed into their footprints this would not have been so.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html
It doesn't appear that Dr Judy Wood is trying to sell a book from here, just exercising inititiative and trying to uphold the American constitution.
"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero" according to the first link on treeve's previous post. Just scroll down this next link and see what you think. In order to prevent Lower Manhattan from being swamped, the bathtub had to be kept intact which indeed it was. Yet had both the buildings totally collapsed into their footprints this would not have been so.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html
It doesn't appear that Dr Judy Wood is trying to sell a book from here, just exercising inititiative and trying to uphold the American constitution.
46traveller
Member
Here's an interesting bit of footage, no plane.............
RICHPLANET.NET - 9/11 ANALYSIS OF WORLD TRADE CENTRE ATTACKS
RICHPLANET.NET - 9/11 ANALYSIS OF WORLD TRADE CENTRE ATTACKS
46traveller
Member
Freedom of information request regarding occupancy of WTC leading up to 911. Every little helps build a picture for you to make up your own mind.
http://www.matrixfiles.com/911floors/ManyWTC-FloorsNeverOccupied.htm
http://www.matrixfiles.com/911floors/ManyWTC-FloorsNeverOccupied.htm
