The final 9/11 conspiracy thread

[R00k]

Puff, et al. I believe I have a concession to make in the realm of demolition:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

I saw this linked in your pdf (I have not read the full 134-page pdf and I imagine it will take me quite some time to get through it, reading pieces here and there).

This statement by members of Protec was apparently just released 2 months ago. This is the kind of information I have been hoping to see from one side or the other.

For 5 years, no one who has directly handled the debris has spoken out - and since Steven Jones did his direct testing on actual pieces of steel from the WTC, no one has refuted him with any authority that I'm aware of.

So I have gleaned one nugget out of this massive article that has made this worthwhile.

That said, I have also said for a long time now that any debates about demolition were only a small part of the issues at hand, and I still believe that is true now.

But thanks for the link, and as I said, I will read it.

[R00k]

R00k, I think you're being very defensive in regards to the tone of that article. I don't dispute most of the points you just enumerated, with the exception of the demolitions bit. Yeah, there are shitloads of questions that are unanswered and uninvestigated. But there's also a lot of evidence that goes a long way towards clarifying many of these same questions. Those that don't have hard evidence to support or refute them, well, then we get to the crux of your stance, the lack of investigation.
What I wonder is why is it that you're so quick to bring forth claims like Silverstein's alleged monetary gain from the WT buildings being brought down, yet you dismiss the clarification of same that this article highlights? Also, your comment about the cores "disappearing" and "not being covered by pancaking" seems to me to be comments that only one with some pretty advanced structural engineering knowledge could reasonably make. Yet you seem to assert them confidently.
I say this because in a lot of the discussions I've had with a dude I used to work with, issues like this came up frequently. What we as laypeople suspect versus what is known or can be calculated. Perhaps not by us, but by experts in the respective field. MANY people that argue this stuff seem to act rather authoritatively with little or no basis to do so. I'm not attacking you here, just pointing out a common modality for these discussions.

Damn right I'm defensive -- this has been an uphill battle for nearly 5 years, and I'm tired of talking about it!

I hear you though -- sometimes I think if I were left to my "layman sense," I would try to argue that airplanes should need ailerons 40 feet long to operate reliably.

Which of course, is true.

[R00k]

i agree there's evidence of foreknowledge of the attack and there's evidence that the administration let the attacks happen. now i'd like some evidence of controlled demolition.

i don't think you are dumb or crazy rook, but the 911 truth movement has spread so much misinformation about 9/11 that you are starting from deeply flawed premises and you're accepting spurious information as fact.

I had to speak to this too. I don't believe I'm accepting spurious information as fact at all.

The problem is that on one side of the issue, you have an experienced fire chief giving his testimony on what he saw with his own eyes.

And on the other side.... you have an experienced fire chief giving his testimony on what he saw with his own eyes.

It makes for a very frustrating debate. And your article has some good information in it, but most of what I've read is no more authoritative than some of the info from the other side, when it comes right down to it.

But I will admit to being biased on one side - due to the fact that information is being deliberately withheld and covered up by the other side, which makes me question everything they endorse, as well as their motives and what they're capable of.



Damn it I can't believe I stayed up this late. I wonder if I could get some pure caffeine on blotter paper and have my gf feed it to me about 30 mins before I have to get up in the morning.

[Freakaloin]

okay its settled...it was an obvious inside job...case closed...

[iluvquake4]

your daughter's loss of virginity?

[Freakaloin]

yeah and that ur now officially as fat as the kid u fucked last nite...

[iluvquake4]

yeah

[R00k]

okay its settled...it was an obvious inside job...case closed...

Did you read the pdf I linked up there?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

okay its settled...it was an obvious inside job...case closed...

Did you read the pdf I linked up there?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

pretty conclusive

[Freakaloin]

okay its settled...it was an obvious inside job...case closed...

Did you read the pdf I linked up there?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

pretty conclusive

if ur a moron...

First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".

Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?

Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.

Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.

Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.

Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure

Now to the main assertions:

Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".



I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.

They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes

I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings

Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".



I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.

The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.

Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.



This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.

Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."

This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.

This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out....

[R00k]

Okay....


WTF #1 - the plane crashes were faked? have you gone off the deep end?

WTF #2 - there's no way you wrote this reply.

[R00k]

okay its settled...it was an obvious inside job...case closed...

Did you read the pdf I linked up there?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

pretty conclusive

There are still a couple of things I am grappling with, but it is conclusive about many things that weren't clear before.

[[xeno]Julios]

WTF #2 - there's no way you wrote this reply.

course he didn't - geoff doesn't have that sort of ability:

he copied and pasted from here:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[Nightshade]

What I want to know is why this is the only terrorist attack wherein people have screamed "OMGWTFHAX!". No one debated the Cole attack, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor countless carbombings, Munich '72, NONE of them. Why this attack?

[4days]

911 had a lot more razzamataz than that cole business

[prince1000]

What I want to know is why this is the only terrorist attack wherein people have screamed "OMGWTFHAX!". No one debated the Cole attack, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor countless carbombings, Munich '72, NONE of them. Why this attack?

aMURRRRRRican soil

[seremtan]

What I want to know is why this is the only terrorist attack wherein people have screamed "OMGWTFHAX!". No one debated the Cole attack, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor countless carbombings, Munich '72, NONE of them. Why this attack?

because everyone knows those were mossad. there's a question mark over 9/11. a big question mark. a big fat question mark made entirely of chips, burgers and diet pepsi

[R00k]

What I want to know is why this is the only terrorist attack wherein people have screamed "OMGWTFHAX!". No one debated the Cole attack, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor countless carbombings, Munich '72, NONE of them. Why this attack?

Because it takes resources and planning that implies help from the inside to be able to accomplish. For instance, it could never have been successful without being planned on the same day as multiple hijacked-plane terrorist attack scenarios. They would have had to at the very least know someone on the inside privy to this information who was willing to help them.

And once you realize this much, it becomes easier to imagine active involvement by those same officials - especially when active involvement would give the attacks a much higher likelihood of success.

[prince1000]

oh he was serious?

[R00k]

To be completely open here, I still have a hard time believing that our own government officials (with very few exceptions) would ever actively participate even in planning such an attack, much less materially participating.

I do find it very plausible though, that another outside intelligence service may have very well been facilitating the operation the whole time - could have even been assuring our own government to trust them, because they had it infiltrated and well in control. After the attacks actually occurred with such devastating effectiveness, it would be hard for any members of our government to ever admit that they had any inkling of what was going on, and would be forced to fight tooth and nail to prevent it from becoming known.

[Nightshade]

What I want to know is why this is the only terrorist attack wherein people have screamed "OMGWTFHAX!". No one debated the Cole attack, nor the African Embassy bombings, nor countless carbombings, Munich '72, NONE of them. Why this attack?

Because it takes resources and planning that implies help from the inside to be able to accomplish. For instance, it could never have been successful without being planned on the same day as multiple hijacked-plane terrorist attack scenarios. They would have had to at the very least know someone on the inside privy to this information who was willing to help them.

And once you realize this much, it becomes easier to imagine active involvement by those same officials - especially when active involvement would give the attacks a much higher likelihood of success.

I disagree that success implies complicity on the part of the government. Do you really think it was that hard to fly planes into buildings? Now, I'm not saying that there WASN'T some weird shit happening with NORAD, etc., but given that it was a scenario that had never happened before, I can see fighters not being dispatched. That part's a bit sketchy, I know, but as far as hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, I don't think that requires any outside help.

[R00k]

For 3 different planes to actually hit their targets hours apart without being intercepted? With one of those targets being the Pentagon?

Really?

[iluvquake4]

Did you read the pdf I linked up there?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

pretty conclusive

if ur a moron...

First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".

Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?

Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.

Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.

Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.

Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure

Now to the main assertions:

Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".



I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.

They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes

I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings

Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".



I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.

The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.

Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.



This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.

Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."

This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.

This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out....

Freakaloin copies someone else's comments off a website and pastes them as his own.

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/ ... is-of.html

[R00k]

a little slow on the uptake?

[Nightshade]

That's why I said it's a bit sketchy. Remember, I believe that the US government knew it was coming, but I don't necessarily believe that they assisted in any way.
And it's not like there are anti-aircraft missile batteries around the Pentagon. Hell, there may be NOW, but not then.
Given that NORAD is what it is, I don't think we'll be able to get any accurate info on what aircraft were where. But I do think that it's possible (however unlikely) that the planes could have been able to hit their targets without being intercepted. Think about the difficulty in communications here, it's not like FAA controllers have a red phone that they can pick up to call in air support. I don't know if there's ANY sort of contingency plan for that kind of situation.
And no, with a handheld GPS and a few hours at MS Flight Simulator it wouldn't be hard at all to find a building and hit it.