9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

They also want me to believe that demolition experts precisely placed many explosive packages in a building while it was in the process of falling down, in regards to building 7. I'm not even sure that the story that it was badly shaken by the other collapses holds water.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moderator Note: This is Science and Society, not Linguistics.

One more opportunity to discuss the topic, not the linguistic deficiencies of teh poster

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, a few of the posters behave badly and it's time to close the thread and the subject to everyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which means you don't know how to refute even one of them.

 

Oh, is that what that means?

Why dont you tell us how the xplosives to take down two huge buildings could have been planted. We are only talking about two - three of the most secure building in one of the most populated cities in the world. The city that never sleeps no less. Do you know what 24\7 security is?

So tell me how that was accomplished. How long it would take AND how it went unnoticed.

 

How they could have been planted? That at least is physically possible. Did it go unnoticed? People noticed it but there are a lot of spin doctors out there who can explain that they didn't actually.

 

It is not physically possible. Case closed.

Edit:nice try.

 

It is not physically possible to plant explosives in a skyscraper?

Right now I'm not even trying to push a case, I'm attacking presumptions. I cannot presume that they were unable to plant explosives and keep it a secret.

 

Not as i outlined in post #24. Youve never been to Manhattan have you? Did tom cruise drop in for the job like in mission impossible?

 

Just use the right contractors to do renovations. Do you even read material before you try to debunk it?

 

Well, I don't know about the AlexJones hoodoo but many things went "unnoticed".

There are a ton of instances like these:

September 10, 2001 (I): According to CBS News, in the afternoon before the attack, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the US stock options market." It has been documented that the CIA, the Mossad and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs such as Promis. Both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed the use of such programs for US intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that CIA should have had additional advance warning of imminent attacks against American and United Airlines planes. [CBS, 9/19/01] There are even allegations that bin Laden was able to get a copy of Promis. [Fox News, 10/16/01] FTW



September 10, 2001 (Q): Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from "my security people at the airport" advising him to be cautious in traveling. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/12/01] Later reports claim that this is because someone saw the State Department warning of September 7, which focused on the threat to military personnel in Asia (see September 7, 2001 (B)). He was scheduled to fly to New York the next morning. [San Francisco Chronicle 9/14/01, San Francisco Chronicle, 9/12/01, US State Department, 9/7/01]

 

And one major reason many of these very interesting and provocative coincidences went unnoticed is that they were safely drowned in a swamp of completely unrealistic and easily debunked (should they get any actual backing) Mission Impossible demolition scenarios,

so that anyone attempting to discuss actual complicity (in, say, failure to take obvious precautions given advance notice, or failure to attend to disturbing indications, or even undermining of the possibility of interruption), the spread of the actual conspiracy, the advantage taken of the event by well-prepared people, etc,

gets lumped in with essentially fruitcake speculations about missiles and vanished passengers and coordinated demolitions, and can reach no serious audience.

 

I simply don't believe the phrase "easily debunked" when you use it that way, Iceaura. Debunking is when some fat white guy makes the false claim that he has disproven an idea, anyway.

 

Never mind the twin towers, where the hell is all the video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon??
Forgive me for asking such an obvious question, us Brits might be kept in the dark about all this.

 

Do you think the claim that the towers "fell at free fall speed", plus puddles of melted steel, plus side explosions during the collapse, prove it was the product of controlled demolition,

and the claim that the size of the hole, plus the missing video, plus a lack of debris, prove the Pentagon was hit by a missile,

and so forth

are not easily debunked ?

All anyone has to do, if those speculations actually grow to threaten anyone in the US administration, is put a stopwatch on the video of the collapse, have a physicist demonstrate on TV the kinds of temperatures generated by such an event, and take sworn testimony from an experienced demolition expert about what would be necessary in rigging the buildings to fall as they did when they did. Or fit a silhouette of the Pentagon plane into the hole and point to the wing scars on either side, while pointing to the photos of plane debris outside the building, and possibly even releasing the good video if they have any.

That's if those speculations do somehow begin to threaten anyone who might be threatened by public explication.

Meanwhile, they have been serving a valuable role for the people dubiously involved in 9/11 - the actual evidence of complicity and odd dealings goes unpublicized, buried in a compost heap of Hollywood inspired drama.

Maybe a good analogy might be the bullfighter's cape - except that would imply deliberate agency, which is possible but not necessary.

 

Why would terrorists wait for the buildings to be evacuated before setting off demolition charges, reducing the casualties significantly?

 

Well done Sam, now the crappily phrased sentence which means nothing from decantemix goes unchallenged.

Btw, there was no flame from me. You are being hypersensitve. Part of 'Science and Society', at least when I took that module when studying my degree, was about how scientists explain things to the general public. That requires solid linguistic skills.

 

Nit-picking aside (lead word for plhogistician: take aim), most assume explosives to be planted would require something like you see in them movies. Bushes on your head, radio traffic galore, commanders screaming: 'This has gotta' get done...'

It's not the case. In the years prior, pipe-bomb guides were common on the I-net. And, were/are a threat. Done inconspicuously, so to be more effective, they can be detrimental.

References were made to "satchel bombs" post 9/11. As, it was alerted to the public, this was a threat. Vigilance required suspicious activities to be noted. On weakening a structure inflicted on by jet planes, say 1 dozen placed explosives would cause significant damage. Easily toted backpack style, by other operatives.

Aside from the fact that most "see" what they want, and "won't" see that which they do not intend; There was an attack. It's official. Most of the world knows. It was recognized as an organized, planned operation. Movie-mode on or off, I guess to quote from some I've dealt with extensively, and is more and more readily applicable: Ignorance is Bliss...

 

Apparently that rule does not apply to this forum. We've got one moderator who can't seem to speak in complete sentences, but yet, has the ability to edit threads. I guess every town needs a Barney Fife.

 

A dozen satchel bombs, vs a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel is going to make a difference?

Please, get a clue. Sustained fire does just as much structural damage as explosions, and we saw a collapse that was consistent with the gradual weakening of the structure.