9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Yes. However that is not when the collapse began and from the first obvious sign of structural failure, it did not take 7 seconds to hit the ground, it took at least 13.
Um... if you watch the video again you can clearly see there was indeed a chain reaction. The reason the upper floors didn't appear to pancake is probably because the collapse was initiated in the lower floors according to NIST, and thus the upper floors wouldn't have pancaked. Just like with the WTC 1 and 2 where the floors above the impact point didn't pancake right away because it was the lower floors were the collapse was initiated.
And who is to say it shouldn't fall quickly once a building has a critical part of it's structure fail? That's a hell of an amount of weight that succumbs to gravity and it's little wonder a building can collapse quickly.
In short, read the NIST report. Understand that everyone with expertise in demolition and structural engineering saw the building collapse just like you did, and they don't agree with you.
If the free fall speed of the WTC 1 and 2 towers is 9.22 seconds from a height of 1,368. Then with the WTC7 being 610 feet, how can the free fall speed be 6.8 seconds as I've read on a truther website? I can only find the free fall speed of the WTC7 from truther websites, I would like this confirmed by a non-conspiracy theory website.
You can pretend your whacky conspiracy theories have merit all you like. The fact you believe in multiple ones and that they are all so farfetched and founded in fantasy land, they can't all be true, and yet since you have no integrity, you believe all of them. You are not a rational individual.
I haven't studied the conspiracy theories of Pearl Harbour like I have with 9/11, but I've seen reliable sources pretty much say it's bullshit and since I currently know little about it, I will accept their word over yours.
And now you are saying Bush didn't organize 9/11? He simply had foreknowledge and didn't try to stop it? That's a little contradictory since you state the buildings were demolished.
Well pardon me for feeling victorious for seeing the classic religious fundamentalist/conspiracy nut ignore routine. As for honest debate, you wouldn't know such a thing if it bit you in the ass. I will continue to debunk your bullshit whether you read my replies or not.
Not only that.. I can't help but make this point again as Gany missed it the first time.
""I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein said that the decision to pull was made by the fire dept.
And Silverstein was at home at the time with his wife watching the events on TV when Dan Nigro gave the courtesy call. Which would be appropriate for the "we watched the building collapse".
Larry would not have been familiar of the dishonest tactics of conpiracy theorists when he made that innocuous quote. I never thought it was possible to feel sorry for a billionaire, but I do. Especially when you watch footage of him being hounded by a loud group of liars.
Ganymede may not think that the FDNY were "in on it", but most truthers do. Alex Jones said that the FDNY were "guilty of at least manslaughter". A particularly sickening baseless allegation and nonsensical due to the fact that how many of the FDNY themselves died that day?
He was probably a little jumpy and mixed his language up. I can see a lot of people doing that. And what? - the fire commander decided to blow the building up? With what? Did he chuckle eeeevilly and twist his handlebar moustache, counting his Rovedollars?
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
You're calling me a liar?The direct link, which you didn't dare look up, obviously, is here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
Note the webaddress fragment: "nytimes.com". Does this remind you of anything?
I never said that no one ever entered the building. According to the FEMA report the NYFD attempted to fight the fire at 11:30am, once they realized the waterline was severed they evacuated the building, because the sprinkler systems were malfunctioning as well. This was 6 hours before the building collapsed. So the evidence clearly demonstrates that firefighting ever took place because they didn't have any water to fight it with, Silverstein also said in later statement that he knew that the building was already evacuated when he made that statement. So like I said, there was no firefighters to pull. Pull it, means it, (singular) the building.
Did you even read that report? Obviously not, you're just re-posting the same quotes kenny did. I don't know who he was searching for if the building was completely evacuated one hour after the first plane hit. Your PDF isn't consistent with the facts.
It was a controlled demolition.
You official story supporters said that Silverstein used the term "pull it" to evacuate WTC 7 beacuse they knew it was going to collapse. Then you started to pontificated that no demolition company has ever heard of the term "pull it". Once both assertions were proven to be false, you switched to argument to they were outside, so pull it meant those firefighters outside, once that hypothesis was debunked by the fact that 6 hours before the collapse, it was confirmed that no water was available, and the entire building was evacuated before 10:00am that morning. So the facts clearly demonstrate that no firefighting was taking place, it was an uncontrolled fire, so there was no firefighters to "pull it" when Silverstein made that comment.
Yes, this took place 6 hours before it collapsed.
No I don't follow you, the Firefighters said themselves they were frantically searching the rubble for their 200+ fallen comrades. They weren't standing around WTC 7, a building they couldn't do anything to save. We were short on firefighters that day, the small amount of them we had available weren't sitting around WTC 7 for 6 hours whistling dixe since their was no one to rescue, and no water to fight the fires with.
due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. Section 5.5.4
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
I'm just getting started. I'm not saying everything in the FEMA report is right or wrong, however, I do believe they're conclusions are wrong based on the facts in the report.
[
It was common knowledge that WTC 7 was immediately evacuated one hour after the first plane hit. That's why WTC7 suffered zero casualties.
Now: are you up to taking it on?
[/QUOTE]I absolutely obliterated your futile hypothesis, I can't wait to see what your argument evolves into next.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Everyone is a conspiracy theorist. Including you, you believe that 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack America on 911. So it's not a question if a conspiracy has taken place, the question is, who's responsible? The Government has their subjects well trained to never consider anything that the official story doesn't include. That's why Bush assigned his friend Phillip Zelikow as the executive director of the 911 commission. Everything was approved by him before releasing it to the public. It was not an independent investigation, and they didn't even investigate WTC7.
Lol
. I have read 2 books and a bit on 9/11, but I must admit, it takes a lot of time to get the evidence; thank goodness for the internet anyway; it would be a -lot- harder- without it. While I think that people on both sides have gotten a little hot under the collar at times, I'm glad that people are apparently putting real energy into the debate.I saw a response to one of my posts, but someone else defended my arguments.. so maybe I'll let them carry on, lol
.I can go for this; so it took perhaps 6 seconds for the bombs to do their work before the building could go into free fall; that about right? Jim Marrs, in his book "The Terror Conspiracy", stated that the actual collapse of WTC 7 (as opposed to preliminary detonations) of WTC 7 took 8 seconds (page 56).
Yep, the bombs were blown up in sequential order.
True again; the bombs were first blown in the basement.
You're right. The irony is that your argument supports the theory of detonations from below.
Jim Marrs, for one:
"To see how ludicrous it is to claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fies. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building's 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage. In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building's 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report in 1991, although "eams and girders sagged and twisted...under severe fire exposures..., the colums continued to support their loads without obvious damage." In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building's top 20 floors and yet it did not collapse. And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56 minute fire caused the WTC south tower to collapse. Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Caracas were hot enough to break windows." (page 58-59)
Bush needs to have known in order for the buildings to be demolished? I suppose JFK knew he was going to be killed? Please.
I'm no religious fundamentalist, but I suppose you could try to peg me as a conspiracy nut.
Seriously, such a complex conspiracy, and they didn't know not to reveal it over a radio?
Which revelation are you speaking of? I'm not sure whether "let the games begin" was over a radio (I believe it was over a phone), but it certainly got people in the white house riled up about it.
In any case, a conspiracy this big has to have flaws; and it has a lot of them. However, since elements of the government itself are involved, they are actively trying to not get people to look behind the curtain, by coming up with reams of papers which try to make the lies as plausible as possible.
um Scott. if building 7 was a controlled demolition that occurred hours after the attacks then why would that matter?
why would it even be significant? and if it was demoed then why wouldnt the gov't admit it because why is it even significant. damaged buildings such as that are a danger. did you go in and inspect the building to do a report to confirm it was safe?
i dont think so.
why would it even be significant? and if it was demoed then why wouldnt the gov't admit it because why is it even significant. damaged buildings such as that are a danger. did you go in and inspect the building to do a report to confirm it was safe?
i dont think so.
Last edited:
No, I didn't. But you apparently don't understand that the issue isn't whether the building was safe to walk around in; the point is that officially, the building simply collapsed. No official report said that it was pulled. Jim Marrs states:
"..it has been reported that the small fires grew larger, reached the stored fuel and started a conflagration so intense it melted the steel frame of the building causing it to crumple. Hurfschmid dismised this version by noting "Every photo taken of Building 7 shows only a few tiny fires in only a few windows, and only tiny amounts of smoke were produced", he said. (page 61)
But it's understandable that you don't know much about WTC 7. As Jim Marrs continues further on:
"Perhaps the most expedient way to deal with the mystery of the loss of WTC 7 was exemplified by the government's 9/11 Comission. Its final report deals with the collapse by simply omitting any mention of it." (page 62)
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
There was one confirmed war games exercise on 911 "Vigilant Guardian", this definitely distracted Norad, because it was a large scale exercise that dispatched our planes to Alaska. Under the FOG of a War Games exercise this type of operation could easily be achieved if you have high level operatives on the inside.
I read your post, but ok, I think I see where you're going with it now: you are basically saying that there would be no motive to do so. Motive is frequently harder to establish than what actually happened. But if we could accept as a basis that the building -was- demolished, it would help in solving who did it.
In any case, as to motive, go to the bottom of this page (the rest of the page offers a lot of info on what happened):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
The missile theory is by no means "proven moronic". The film "Loose change" goes into detail as to how the missile theory fits the evidence best. Jim Marrs dedicates about 8 pages to what really happened at the pentagon in his first part and more later on in his book. But let's imagine for a moment that it was indeed a plane; while much is said about the jets not being able to make it, jets were not the Pentagon's only defense. Jim Marrs states in his "Terror Conspiracy book" (page 37-38):
"..if fighter jets could not reach the Pentagon in time, what about the antiaircraft missile batteries in place around Washington- indeed, just adjacent to the Pentagon itself?... While researchers have hunted fruitlessly for a stand-down order issue from within the administration to explain the lack of effective response on 9/11, it may be that such orders were much more mundane- a simple matter of slightly changing standard NORAD procedures.
Prior to June 2001, under Department of Defense directives, while the Secretary of Defense retained approval for the release of military jets to support civil air authorities, they also provided that "Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergencyh response authority..." and that "Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command".. In other words, in the event of an air emergency, local commanders could initiate a response pending later approval of the Secretary of Defense.
This all changed on June 1, 2001, with the issuance of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction [9CJCSI] 3610.01A. This document states, under the heading "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft", that "..in the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will... forward requests for DoD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval".
"Secretary of Defense [Donald] Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders." surmised internet writer Jerry Russel. "Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act... it is now clear that [any 'Stand Down' order] was implemented through a routine administrative memo."
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
My God I fucking hate Alex Jones. You can hear him and that other annoying truther screaming through a megaphone "911 was an inside Job" during the MSNBC live telecast. This has been going on for the last 45 minutes. This does nothing to help expose the truth behind 911. Alex Jones does nothing to further the discussion to a civil level, he just antagonizes and thinks people are going to change their minds based on how loud he screams. When the average person sees that on TV, they're automatically going to assume he's crazy, they're not going to investigate the validity of his accusations.
He is a cancer to the truth movement, a complete joke.
He is a cancer to the truth movement, a complete joke.
Oh? Are you sure?
Ganymede said:
Goooootchaaaa.
Heh.What what? But you said that they never entered the building. Now you say they did.
So they went into the building - which you say above - but then you say there 'was' no firefighters to pull. So they evaporated? Were there firefighters to be pulled out or not? Make up your mind. You seem to have no idea what happened there, except that Bush crashed planes into everything.
BTW: "pull it" also can mean "the attempt to save the building".
Frankly, you aren't consistent with the facts. First you deny any firefighters were in the building (uhhh...coz they got all the people out!), then you admit (finally) that there were firefighters in the building, and then you deny it again! Which is it? You flip back and forth to suit your faith in bullshit.
Which has also been proven false. Wait, I have a link:
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Seriously, this should tell you all you need to know.
I did? :shrug: Is that an issue?
Nnnnooo, actually I didn't. And were they not outside the building also? Do you understand what you're arguing here?
You're partially right - it was an uncontrolled fire. But your timeline has some errors.
So in fact, firefighters were still in the building a little under two hours before it collapsed. They didn't even pull out 5 hours before. You see why the Troofer movement is based on conjecture?
Apparently not.
I know you don't follow me; that's why I'm posting. Your statement is hearsay and supposition. It is not reflected anywhere in the statement of the firefighter I cited. You need to reread the source, and the material Kenny posted.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110150.PDF
Except where you falsely interpret them to support your pre-conclusion. And it's "their".
So, your argument having been completely exposed and me mopping the floor with you, are you done? Every time you change your speculation, you end up looking worse and worse. My advice? Give up while you're only this far behind. You're free to believe what you like, of course: but claiming reasonable support or logic is something else entirely.
I don't really know much about him, but I'd like to think that his heart is in the right place, even if his methods aren't exactly ideal. America was wronged; some may not be able to express this in ways that most will believe, but that doesn't mean they are wrong by default.
I must I really like the following saying:
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you". In one of Jim Marrs' books, I remember hearing of a powerful man.. I believe a U.S. general, who was essentially sent to the looney bin because he failed to conform with the party line. I really do believe that the further you go against the people who truly created 9/11, the more danger you can get yourself into. In general, the people who care the least of possible consequences are the people who have lost loved ones in 9/11; they fought for the creation of the 9/11 commission and though that comission was essentially rigged from the start, they haven't stopped there. A quick search found this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4696092
- Status