I would really like a truther to be man enough to answer these questions for me 1. What was the motivation for George Bush, Dick Cheaney, Condaliza Rice to perpetrate such an attack on the country? To just get the green light to go to War? why? cause the military was just bored and lacking hands on practice? was it oil? The administration was willing to sacrifice thousands of american lives (including firefighters) and risk an economic recession as a result? 2. Was all that footage of the planes from several different cameras fake? and were the news channels all in with the conspiracy? and all the eye witnesses? 3. If planes didn't hit the buildings, where did the 4 planes go? Were they shot down by the airforce? perhaps the airlines were in it too and those flights never existed? and the families of the passengers also lying? oh, they were remote controlled and crashed... 4. all the communications from the planes and towers fake? fabricated? even though it was shown that calls were made from satellite phones fitted to the back of the passenger seats? 5. I guess the CIA, FBI and other agencies had to be involved as-well? and somehow no-one has come forward? I mean this conspiracy would have needed to be covered up by hundreds of people 6. So there is no explanation for the collapses of the buildings other than demolition? even though there has been as many engineers, experts explain time and time again how planes could've brought the buildings down? I guess only the truther experts are the only ones who are credible? Controlled demolitions are typically from the bottom up btw, not from the top down (something which somehow is dismissed) and let's sit back and ponder - to bring such massive buildings down, it would've have taken considerable effort in planting bombs everywhere... no-one noticed? and what about the scientific simulations done by some which show how the shock of a big plane crashing and 10k gallons of fuel can bring buildings down? oh... this is just BS... duh! 7. A misile hit the pentagon? and the plane debris was 'planted' in the explosion area afterwards? i mean... seriously? What about the pilot and other eye witnesses who saw the plane? oh... all in the conspiracy! of course! duh... 8. Building 7 - demolition only explanation. What about the intense fires which spread from the adjacent twin towers? oh, impossible right? okay then 9. What about the terrorists which were caught on camera (known terrorists) at the airports and confirmed to be passengers on those flights? all fabricated? by airlines, airports and goverments? and also the school flight records all fake? eye witnessses and instructors in it to? 10. Bin Laden and Al Queda. Why did they take credit for it if it wasn't them? Could it be that they just took credit for something they didn't do to get attention or could it be that they never admitted to it but our government just translated their denials as 'confessions' to us? i wonder I mean, for real..... i can see how conspiracy thoeries can come to life on the JFK assassination (even though their is overwhelming evidence which points to Oswald) but here's where you conspiracy theorsists just show your lunacy or just Tim Mcveigh type hatred for the government. You are both Tim Mcveigh and Charles Manson put together! just crazy sht!
The proof that the government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks is crushing. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 There are a lot of plausible scenarios that would explain what happened to the passengers; we just don't know which one it is. A likely one is put forth at the 44:00 time mark of this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk The government probably did it to get control of the oil in the region. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26162.html The official US government reason for one of its wars is never the true reason. http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301A.html http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/fabricatingenemy.htm Outside of the US people base their opinions on info such as this. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145531 Outside of the US there's nothing more amusing than a group of brainwashed Americans discussing politics. It takes a while to look at all of the important proof of an inside job but anyone who looks at it and still maintains that it wasn't an inside job is in denial... http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm ...and should watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
Mike, I hate to break it to you, but truthers can't defend their claims, nor can they even tell you exactly what it is they believe. They are so steeped in hatred, paranoia and delusions that all they know is they are the pathetic victims of society in general.
all the above is nothing but trash and you didn't really asnwer my questions... not a single truther can answer the questions i have, one by one, with anything remotely acceptable... In summary, for every truther claim of of evidence there are 10 pieces of evidence refuting it but what truthers do is claim the 10 pieces of evidence are fabricated/fake and their 1 piece of evidence is irrefutable. Not a single truther claim has been accepted as credible and why they will never get their wish.
This is you only relevant question. The towers were 116 stories. To construct the buildings they dug down to bedrock and constructed upward from there, so there were 6 levels below ground level. Obviously every LEVEL of every skyscrape must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above. So how is it after 11 years we can't be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? 10,000 gollosn of fuel is only 34 tons. Even the experts conceded that about half of that must hve been used up in the initial fireball. The curios thing about the south tower explosion is that much of it happened outside the building but after the explosion it does not look like there was any damage besides the broke windows. Like the explosion did not affect the steel. The NIST says there wes 200,000 tons of steel in both towers so that would be 100,000/116 on each LEVEL if they were all equal. That is 860 tons of steel. What is 17 tons of kerosene going to do to 860 tons of steel when an open air fire is not going to be anywhere near 100% efficient. But since there had to be more steel toward the bottom of the tower there must have been less than 860 tons per level in the area of the fire but why aren't the EXPERTS being spscific? It is the inadequate information about the physics and engineering of this issue that makes the whole thing BS. But after 11 years how can experts possible admit that airliners could not do it? 9/11 shold be becoming a bigger issue all of the time the problem is Conspiracy Theorists keep talking about irrelevant crap. Who cares who did it? This now involves all of the engineering schools not getting their physics straight. Purdue has a supposedly scientific simulation of the north tower impact. But the NIST has empirical data of the building deflection in the south tower impact. The building had to move 15 inches. So how is it that the core columns in the Purdue simulation don't move and no engineering school has pointed out this little error. Don't they know about the Conservation of Momentum? psik
But this is the same crap i keep getting 'theories'. None of this proves that two planes couldn't have taken the twin towers down, period. They are just 'theories'.. No-one can say these twin towers were 757 crash proof... and so no-one can claim they know that two 757 jet airliners full of fuel couldn't have done it. There is no emperical evidence to support these theories. The best evidence is what happened - two jet airliners crashed in and brought buildings down. Of course, this evidence is questioned since a it is claimed that a 'demoliton' of the buildings was performed. There is no proof of a demolition, just theories and theories which can be refuted more than they can be supported but hey, as a conspiracy theorist.. you hold your ground. here's how a controlled demolition looks like vs what happened to twin towers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUYhrXonXQ 1. controlled demolitions typically produce flashes before building collapses - no such thing is visible on twin towers 2. dust and debris only started blowing out after buildings started to collapse, inconsistent with a demolition 3. Demotions are typically bottom-up... not top-down 4. Demolitions produce loud explosions before collapse begin - no explosions were heard by anyone or captured by the many cameras that day (a silent bomb? really?). This was typical of a collapse due to structural weakening. 5. Controlled demolitions work by taking out the innder core first, pulling building inwards but south tower's inner core remained intact temporarily after rest of building had collapsed - this would be impossible under a controlled demoltion you talk about all that steel and how it's not pssible for the impacts and fuel to cause structural failure, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA a good explanation and account of how the crash and ensuing fire caused the collapses. It is also shown how conspiracy theorists use straw-man arguments to try and get anywhere Truthers have even talked about this 'nano-thermite' as proof of an explosive event but check this out: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm Look, every single truther argument has been refuted time and time again and the proof of the buildings being brought down by planes, is overwhelming. Not only were the planes seen flying into the buildings but every aspect of the collapses can be explained and can be shown to be inconsistent with a demolition. the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they exploit imperfections, after all, nothing can be proven with 100% certainty right? so there are always things you can point at to extrapolate different theories. When it comes to something for which we have little empirical evidence for (a 757 full of fuel slamming into a big building) then it's easier to exploit imperfections and argue in different directions. No scientist or engineer can say for sure that they know a big plane slamming into a big building at 500mph, full of fuel cannot bring the building down. If they claim it's impossible, there's an equally # of scientists (or many more of them) than can support the theory. The only way to know is to re-produce the event but who will? It totality, by just analyzing how the buildings collapsed and looking at the evidence/, it's hard that a truther can win any argument at all.
Your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only part of the twin towers that support the weight of all the floors is the core and the outer lattice. Other than that, the floors ONLY supported their own weight. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was a revolutionary design because before that they used a system where what you claim would be true; each floor had to support the floors above it. As for your constant whining about not knowing the exact weights, I have told you REPEATEDLY to run your calculations with minimal values, yet you can't. So what good would the actual numbers do you? All you would do is sit there and look really stupid. So what is your point? Are you trying to claim the only fuel source was the jet fuel and nothing else? And here you expose your complete and utter lack of understanding of ANYTHING regarding physics or even reality. Was 17 tons of fuel the only fuel that burned that day? Nope. Not even a complete and total moron should be able to believe that claim yet you keep making it. Second, why would the fire have to affect every single pound of steel on a level in order to initiate a collapse? That is moronic at a level that boggles the mind. Maybe the experts aren't complete and total buffoons who think only the fuel from the plane is the fuel used and that the fuel has to affect every single pound of steel in order to initiate a collapse. If they were, maybe there would be some out there making the same claims as you are, but there aren't. Want to take a guess as to why? It is the inadequate understanding about physics and engineering on your part that makes every one of your claims BS. No, this involves a lone person incapable of understanding the physics. The engineers and experts understand the truth of things. You don't. Once you understand that simple concept, the rest is easy. Because the Purdue study showed the dynamics of what happened to the plane and the interior of the towers. The movement of the towers had nothing to do with that study as it didn't have much to do with what happened to the plane or the interior of the building. They clearly do. They also understand the scope of their study which you obviously don't.
My test for all these vast conspiracy scenarios is this. Where are all the tell all books from the people involved in the conspiracy? We all know the first person to write such a book would be the one to really cash in. So the rush to be first would have meant you saw books within months of the event. It's just insane to think you could have a vast conspiracy involving so many people and that it would be not be exposed quickly. Whats the line about a secret not being a secret once you tell one other person lol.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/towers_5-1.html http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm So if 2,000 gallons (20%) exploded outside the building how much exploded inside the building? psik
So NO 'experts' say half the fuel load burned off in the initial fireball, save a dubious truther website......thanks for playing
Pretty much, yep. But if you hang around long enough, they'll get frustrated because they can't back up any of their crap and just say you are either in denial or a paid shill.
I haven't found an EXPERT saying exactly that yet but the FEMA expert did say about 2000 gallons exploded OUTSIDE THE BUILDING. I have run across the 50% guesstimate mentioned plenty of times but I have not kept a record of them. Of course it would be impossible to measure the fireball inside the building but then it would not be a ball shape anyway. Since the plane was in the building it would make sense that more fuel would explode inside than out so if 20% exploded outside then... So you can make a big deal about what an expert actually said and not figure out the obvious. If I run across an expert having said that I will let you know but the fact of the matter is that this is one of those thing that no one can actually know. Look at the error range he admits to on the fuel exploding outside the building. psik
So to reiterate: You were talking your ass when you said 'experts concede half the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball' Got it.
I get that you need for people to not think and need experts to tell them exactly what to think. I gave you and EXPERT saying that 20% exploded outside the building. There would be no way for anyone to measure what exploded inside the building. But how much thinking should it take to figure out that there should have been more fuel inside than out? You just need to talk people into being dumber than you. psik
I don't think it matters whether you are able to prove 9/11 was a set-up. This must be the same kind of arguments people had at the Gulf of Ton Kin. It sent thousands of soldiers into Vietnam (why the hell would we need to defend Vietnam??? what was the purpose of that war???) under the pretense that the US was attacked first, but the US actually tried to command a US military captain to fire on his own ship. The commander refused, but the incident happened anyway. Daniel Ellsberg got this information and leaked it to the public. A clear case of government killing its own citizens to forward an agenda political or whatever in nature. The same kind of people dismiss such claims here, dismissing facts as if they really looked at it and, if they did, knew what they were talking about in either case rather than repeating what they just read after a google search. Both sides have their arguments, their professionals, and all that. But the event is over, already. That's all that matters. No one is going to be pulled down for this.
You've already been shown the facts on the Gulf of Tonkin. You're wrong about that and just about everything I've seen you post. Just making bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims isn't going to do your credibility any good.
if 20% exploded outside,then 80 burned inside....simple I don't NEED experts,but if you're claiming an expert said something,you need to back it up. Again,simple.
only delusional people think something like 09/11 can be an inside job and be covered up by hundreds of people.. and not single piece of evidence exists pointing to 0911 being an inside job. All conspiarcy theorists set forth are theories, baseless accusations, straw mans and utter distortions of facts. There is massive/overwhelming evidence showing that a group of terrorists was responsible for this, using planes as misiles yet conspiracy theorists claim it's all fabricated, fake and what not.. It's a surreal universe these people live in and every single argument they have used has been thoroughly refuted, decisively time and time and time again.. but somehow they keep spewing so much trash and let's ignore the total mismatch in evidence against a conspiracy and just use common sense. No-one has been able to explain to me how Al Queda and Bin Laden were blamed for this and they took credit for it. I haven't heard any middle eastern country or any terrorist deny they were at fault. Conspiracy goofballs will probably say 'Bin Laden happily took the blame to gain popularity' or 'The US never transalated Bin Laden's denials to us' but this holds no water... i mean... no-one ever denied they did it? even elements of Al Queda or any intelligence elements from middle eastern countries? i mean... this is just an example of commons sense and overwhelming evidence conspioracy theorists have been struggling with.. no wonder no-one takes them serioulsy
This always cracks me up. Scott and other truthers will freely admit that they don't really know exactly how 9/11 happened. But they claim to know with 100% certainty that it did not happen the way the government said it did. Although they can't back that claim up with any evidence. Is not the government's explanation a "plausible scenario"?? Given that its backed up with evidence and facts??
Haven't you heard? 9/11 "changed everything". It's not just about going to war. 9/11 gave the government a blank check. 9/11 has been used to justify everything from TSA groping to warrentless wiretaps to torture. It was used to get people to accept a level of government intrusion that is so un-American that it never would have flown without 9/11. No. Planes DID hit the buildings. Whether they were remote controlled, I couldn't tell you. No. Well, the CIA, anyway. More about this later. Planes probably brought the buildings down. Maybe had help, maybe not. Irrelevant. Could very well have been a plane. Irrelevant. Well, we know a plane DIDN'T hit it. We know that all that jet fuel which allegedly took down WTC 1&2 DIDN'T also take down WTC7. At the very least it's suspicious as hell. Yep, those were real, known terrorists that we trained to do 9/11. At least we can agree on that. OK, here is the real issue. OBL and Al Queda DID do it. The thing is, OBL worked for the CIA. Al Queda was created, trained, and funded by the CIA. Al Queda is basically a branch of the CIA. All they had to do was claim that OBL and company "went rogue". Why should official government agents get their hands dirty, when they already had a band of militants who had no problem killing Americans, a group that could be disavowed and scapegoated? There is no need for a huge conspiracy when you outsource your terrorism. Just fund em, train em, and let em go. Then act like you never knew them.
lol, well you are at least more clever than the others claiming all of the above which i find to be obcenely irrational and nuts. So you are clever enough not to argue against what is almost impossisble to argue against but you still have a conspiracy - Yes, planes did it, those terrorists did it, all the footage is real, it was Bin Laden etc... etc... but your dark twist is this: Bin Laden worked for the CIA and the government had them do this, allowed it to happen and then turned against OBL and claimed OBL acted on his own account. Hmm... nice twist but now asnwer this: 1. Why didn't OBL ever claim thye CIA was behind this? and let the CIA blame him and them BOMB the hel l out of his organization? OBL happily and proudly took responsibility for the attack but why if he was betrayed by CIA? 2. No-one has come forward? not Al Queada, not intelligence officials out of Pakistan, Isreal and others who would surely know? 3. OBL was an ally to the US in 2001 even though Clinton fired tomahawks at him and attempted to kill him several times? oh, i guess they made up once Bush took office? 4. how many times did OBL declare war on America years and years before 09/11? was it all under CIA direction? as a plot 10 years in the making? why did OBL attack the USS Cole? and act as an enemy to the death of the US? still holds no water... but i like your twist, a bit more clever.
Debatable I'll save you the time, you obviously weren't going to spend, on research. They weren't remote controlled, there were real people on those planes that really died. There was no help. It was purely planes + jet fuel + gravity. There has been both government and independent confirmation of this, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. You're right, a plane didn't hit the 7, 2 gigantic skyscrapers did, however. Along with flaming debris, fires roaring for 7 hours being fed by diesel fuel, and office contents. It only looks "suspicious as hell" if you have no idea how thermodynamics, and fires work. Yay! No, it's not. That's true and you have nothing to back it up. Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is. We were in league with OBL at one point, that doesn't mean forever. Only the government isn't doing that are they? They are admitting they knew them, trained them, and funded them. They haven't even attempted to cover that portion of the connection between us and them. That's you attempting to make it look spookier than it really is. I would appreciate just one piece of evidence for any of what you say, because I don't believe any of it. Considering that the government can't cover up cum on a dress, I think it's hilarious that people insinuate that they can pull something like 9/11 with no hitch.
