I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Two planes didnt cause all that damage.
Two planes crashed
Three buildings collapsed demolition-style. Wut?
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Two planes didnt cause all that damage.
Two planes crashed
Three buildings collapsed demolition-style. Wut?
Open your eyes.
Between this post and your Avatar I have to assume this is some performance art piece, or satire.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Two planes didnt cause all that damage.
Two planes crashed
Three buildings collapsed demolition-style. Wut?
Open your eyes.
Between this post and your Avatar I have to assume this is some performance art piece, or satire.
Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Two planes didnt cause all that damage.
Two planes crashed Three buildings collapsed demolition-style. Wut?
Open your eyes.
Between this post and your Avatar I have to assume this is some performance art piece, or satire.
Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
Noooo....that wasnt controlled.
Soooo... What you're saying is you took a deuce in the urinal.
Ouze wrote:If this was a conspiracy, why haven't these whistleblowers disappeared?
Becuase after the Lizard people stopped giving orders to the Rothschilds and Rockafellers they haven't been nearly as organized. The Lizard people had them coordinate the attack so no one would notice that they replaced all the High Fructose Corn Syrup with Sugar. Without their psychic coordination they have been less able to keep all the loose ends together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadshane1 wrote:If you dont wanna talk about it, get out.
It's not your forum, you don't get to dictate others actions. Perhaps this lack of control over people and things leads you to want to buy into such silliness.
Deadshane1 wrote:Noone will miss you.
That is just wishful thinking on your part.
Deadshane1 wrote:Yes they did.
No they didn't. It was said that the idea that the government did it was stupid. There is a difference between saying an idea is stupid and saying a person is stupid.
A legitimate discussion would be what causes people to buy into this kind of thing and/or what can we do to get them the help they need.
Beerfart wrote:Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
What are your qualifications to make this determination? Have you participated in planning controlled demolitions, been a fire inspector or otherwise investigated building collapses, or have an educational basis in the relevant fields of engineering or physics?
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Get your head out of the 40k codex and think on a larger scale.
Money and power is what motivates government, those two things come before the lives of a couple thousand worker bees.
Gamers who are unable to have rational conversation go on the attack.
I thought you guys were supposed to be creative.
What is the point of an Off Topic forum if its not to discuss topics?
Ever heard of generating ideas so that we can converse and learn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Beerfart wrote:Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
What are your qualifications to make this determination? Have you participated in planning controlled demolitions, been a fire inspector or otherwise investigated building collapses, or have an educational basis in the relevant fields of engineering or physics?
He doesnt need to be an expert when everything and everyone online (including demo experts) say that this looks like a controlled demolition.
@Ahtman
Why the heck do you get on forum threads that you're not interested in talking about? What, to derail it? You havent contributed yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction,.
...and how is this not calling someone "galactically" stupid?
In a nutshell, tell my WHY these theorists are stupid with evidence and reasoning. Not "because they're dumbheads". That's not constructive discussion.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Get your head out of the 40k codex and think on a larger scale.
Money and power is what motivates government, those two things come before the lives of a couple thousand worker bees.
Arright, let's play this game.
The United States government issued an order to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They tell the president to act like he feels sorry for the people. They make up the story about him reading to the kids before he learned what happened.
And then they declare war on the Middle East several years later. Somehow, they get multiple other countries to participate in this War on Terror, and they forge numbers about dead friendlies and enemies. Everyone is complacent.
So I say to you,
What in the holy mother of feth does that achieve?
You're trying to tell me that they'd do this for money and power? That somehow getting attacked, starting a war, and *getting other countries to cooperate*, with all this evidence of the people that are actually trying to kill every American, with all the attempted attacks that never came to fruition and those we have in Guantanamo Bay, you're trying to tell me that this is all staged?
Yknow what? I'm done. feth this new world order gak. I'm out.
Beerfart wrote:Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
What are your qualifications to make this determination? Have you participated in planning controlled demolitions, been a fire inspector or otherwise investigated building collapses, or have an educational basis in the relevant fields of engineering or physics?
He doesnt need to be an expert when everything and everyone online (including demo experts) say that this looks like a controlled demolition.
Ah, he's relying on an outside expert. Can you provide a source?
And assuming your sources say it "looks like a controlled demolition," the next question we have to ask is "are there uncontrolled demolitions that look like controlled demolitions?".
Remember also that the WTC7 collapse was after everything had been evacuated in advance. So even if WTC7 was a controlled demolition it doesn't suggest that the government "did" 9/11. They could have collapsed the building intentionally to prevent further damage.
Even if you show what is alleged (that it looks controlled), it doesn't follow that it was controlled, or that the government had any involvement in the actual attacks that led to the WTC towers collapsing.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Get your head out of the 40k codex and think on a larger scale.
Money and power is what motivates government, those two things come before the lives of a couple thousand worker bees.
Arright, let's play this game.
The United States government issued an order to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They tell the president to act like he feels sorry for the people. They make up the story about him reading to the kids before he learned what happened.
And then they declare war on the Middle East several years later. Somehow, they get multiple other countries to participate in this War on Terror, and they forge numbers about dead friendlies and enemies. Everyone is complacent.
So I say to you,
What in the holy mother of feth does that achieve?
You're trying to tell me that they'd do this for money and power? That somehow getting attacked, starting a war, and *getting other countries to cooperate*, with all this evidence of the people that are actually trying to kill every American, with all the attempted attacks that never came to fruition and those we have in Guantanamo Bay, you're trying to tell me that this is all staged?
Yknow what? I'm done. feth this new world order gak. I'm out.
It acheives a war in the middle east to further certain factions control of the oil resources there.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Get your head out of the 40k codex and think on a larger scale.
Money and power is what motivates government, those two things come before the lives of a couple thousand worker bees.
Arright, let's play this game.
The United States government issued an order to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They tell the president to act like he feels sorry for the people. They make up the story about him reading to the kids before he learned what happened.
And then they declare war on the Middle East several years later. Somehow, they get multiple other countries to participate in this War on Terror, and they forge numbers about dead friendlies and enemies. Everyone is complacent.
So I say to you,
What in the holy mother of feth does that achieve?
You're trying to tell me that they'd do this for money and power? That somehow getting attacked, starting a war, and *getting other countries to cooperate*, with all this evidence of the people that are actually trying to kill every American, with all the attempted attacks that never came to fruition and those we have in Guantanamo Bay, you're trying to tell me that this is all staged?
Yknow what? I'm done. feth this new world order gak. I'm out.
Don't forget about when they told Bin Laden to take credit for planning it.
I'm glad that all that money they did it for was a huge boon to the economy.
Beerfart wrote:Why did building 7 collapse then? Tell me, fires dont cause buildings like that to collapse as if a controlled demolition took place....and it wasnt one of the buildings hit.
All these buildings and the official story is that fire caused supports to collapse....while until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
What are your qualifications to make this determination? Have you participated in planning controlled demolitions, been a fire inspector or otherwise investigated building collapses, or have an educational basis in the relevant fields of engineering or physics?
He doesnt need to be an expert when everything and everyone online (including demo experts) say that this looks like a controlled demolition.
Ah, he's relying on an outside expert. Can you provide a source?
And assuming your sources say it "looks like a controlled demolition," the next question we have to ask is "are there uncontrolled demolitions that look like controlled demolitions?".
Remember also that the WTC7 collapse was after everything had been evacuated in advance. So even if WTC7 was a controlled demolition it doesn't suggest that the government "did" 9/11. They could have collapsed the building intentionally to prevent further damage.
Even if you show what is alleged (that it looks controlled), it doesn't follow that it was controlled, or that the government had any involvement in the actual attacks that led to the WTC towers collapsing.
It's called the internet. Lots of info there. Try it.
I've posted MY theory, I'm still waiting to hear yours. The one that I doubt that you even have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:
I'm glad that all that money they did it for was a huge boon to the economy.
Oh, wait...
Another one who missed that day in class....
They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda.
Deadshane1 wrote: Some of us are discussing a serious subject that has emotional content for many people.
Reality shows have emotional content for people, too, doesn't make reality shows any less vapid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beerfart wrote:
Platuan4th wrote: I'm glad that all that money they did it for was a huge boon to the economy.
Oh, wait...
Another one who missed that day in class....
They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda.
The economy IS their agenda. That's how governments and businesses gain their money and power. Destroying the economy does nothing to further their "agenda"
Seriously, stop spouting nonsense and actually learn something.
One thing it states is that no explosions or "squibs" were heard....
Completely untrue, in fact many eyewitnesses actually told of hearing multiple rapid explosions before the collapse....
That's one thing...there are others, but they're not really worth the time. Your video is pretty much not worthy of attention. Whoever made it didnt do their homework...obviously.
I honestly do not think the US government has the collective cognitive capacity or the trust and solidarity to pull this off, and if they did, someone would have probably blew the whistle by now.
For instance, who were the pilots that someone convinced it was a good idea to do this? Also, there is no way they could have predicted how things would turn out in the aftermath with enough
certainty to know they wouldn't be swinging from the gallows. I'll admit that tower 7 looks a bit suspicious, but I do not pretend to know enough about demolitions to bother commenting on that.
Seriously though, some of you people need to calm down. It is no less of a legitimate topic than a lot of topics that blow through here on any given day, try acting like adults.
I'm sure it is...just like the videos that insist that 9/11 was an inside job also have their falsehoods...
The point it is there are arguments for both sides and using logic based on the outcome of other such arguments (see the JFK assassination), we'll probably never know exactly what happened...
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:I honestly do not think the US government has the collective cognitive capacity or the trust and solidarity to pull this off, and if they did, someone would have probably blew the whistle by now.
For instance, who were the pilots that someone convinced it was a good idea to do this? Also, there is no way they could have predicted how things would turn out in the aftermath with enough
certainty to know they wouldn't be swinging from the gallows. I'll admit that tower 7 looks a bit suspicious, but I do not pretend to know enough about demolitions to bother commenting on that.
Seriously though, some of you people need to calm down. It is no less of a legitimate topic than a lot of topics that blow through here on any given day, try acting like adults.
A constructive way to disagree with the conspiracy theory....thank you. Have to wade thru a page of useless and childish arguments against first, but nonetheless, thank you.
EDIT: Actually, the video wanst a horrible way to disagree. I just didnt feel it presented a very good arguement.
Personally, I think the Government ABSOLUTELY has the stones to pull something like this off. Grease the right palms and you get what you want...You don't have to do much to get past the people. Look at this thread, disbeleivers that simply close their eyes to evidence.
People don't WANT to beleive that their elected officials could be capable of these horrific things...it's scary. Easier to hide under the covers....and they don't even NEED evidence that things are as they say they are.
Who were the pilots? We may never know. Think about it though, I'm betting that they were family men that were well paid for their silence. That situation will silence people easily if the right ideas are passed along....that, or the pilots are simply dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:
Beerfart wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:I'll just leave this here...
This video itself is full of falsehoods.
I'm sure it is...just like the videos that insist that 9/11 was an inside job also have their falsehoods...
The point it is there are arguments for both sides and using logic based on the outcome of other such arguments (see the JFK assassination), we'll probably never know exactly what happened...
Absolutely there are arguements for both sides. That's what we're trying to see here. I doubt that DAKKADAKKA will "Solve" the issues once and for all, but we're here to discuss.
That's what OT is for....not for calling people stupid and telling us that the subject isnt worth discussion.
I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
RatBot wrote:You must have an awful lot of faith in the US Government's competency to believe that they could pull this off and cover it up so well.
I, on the other hand, do not.
What did they cover up?
Building 7....no explanation.
This is the same Gov't that flew copters into pakistan and killed Bin Laden before Pakistan even knew we were there.
We've got tanks that are so tough that even WE cannot destroy them (army friend gave me an example of this...beleive it)
U.S. is capable...beleive it.
Besides....
It's not the U.S. Governments abilities to cover crap up, its the populace that refuses to question info given to them when things don't add up. It's scary that our Gov't would be capable of this, don't hide....GET MAD!
If I die in the next cataclysmic event of violence to happen to this country....watch the info as it's fed to you.
Don't accept it, WATCH it. I would WANT you to watch it. Because if my gov't is responsible for my death just so that they can get more control over oil, stimulate the economy, or remove more of the populace freedoms (patriot act)....that sh!t aint right!
We OWE it to the people who died on 9/11 to DEMAND EXPLANATION. We owe it to them to ensure that our government isnt hiding anything. We owe it to them to get the complete and total truth.
It's the only honorable thing to do.
There are 1000 things that I want to know about these events, others want to know as well. Our government OWES it to the people to tell us what happened. (they know) If they are found to be responsible, then a radical evaluation needs to be made as to our government. The founding fathers are already rolling over in their graves about how this country is run.
We OWE it to the 9/11 victims to ask questions. Beleive that.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
You're country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
What I've never understood is if the U.S. orchestrated this attack (which is complete bs), why did they hit the Pentagon and then attempt to hit the White House with the Plane that was taken down by the passengers and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?
I'm not going to debate with children who buy into every conspiracy theory they hear. We didn't attack ourselves, 'Despite the tense topic, rule #1 still applies. Disagree, but do it politely' MT11.
Beerfart wrote:
RatBot wrote:You must have an awful lot of faith in the US Government's competency to believe that they could pull this off and cover it up so well.
I, on the other hand, do not.
What did they cover up?
Building 7....no explanation.
This is the same Gov't that flew copters into pakistan and killed Bin Laden before Pakistan even knew we were there.
We've got tanks that are so tough that even WE cannot destroy them (army friend gave me an example of this...beleive it)
U.S. is capable...beleive it.
Besides....
It's not the U.S. Governments abilities to cover crap up, its the populace that refuses to question info given to them when things don't add up. It's scary that our Gov't would be capable of this, don't hide....GET MAD!
If I die in the next cataclysmic event of violence to happen to this country....watch the info as it's fed to you.
Don't accept it, WATCH it. I would WANT you to watch it. Because if my gov't is responsible for my death just so that they can get more control over oil, stimulate the economy, or remove more of the populace freedoms (patriot act)....that sh!t aint right!
We OWE it to the people who died on 9/11 to DEMAND EXPLANATION. We owe it to them to ensure that our government isnt hiding anything. We owe it to them to get the complete and total truth.
It's the only honorable thing to do.
There are 1000 things that I want to know about these events, others want to know as well. Our government OWES it to the people to tell us what happened. (they know) If they are found to be responsible, then a radical evaluation needs to be made as to our government. The founding fathers are already rolling over in their graves about how this country is run.
We OWE it to the 9/11 victims to ask questions. Beleive that.
Oh hello post with lots of fearmongering, painting our government has the Illuminati. Do you also believe Woopie Goldberg is a Martian?
You say we haven't looked at the evidence and demanded answers. WE HAVE, and the more plausible answer(that it was terrorists) is what the evidence points us to.
You claim we're ignorant for not seeing it, we say you're ignorant for not seeing our way. That's why these "discussions" never work, because we all came in with our minds made up and looking to fight.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
You're country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
Don't think that 9/11 didnt effect Canada. That's naive and selfish....and beside the point.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I literally cannot think of any fething rational reason why people think the US government crashed planes into its own industrial centers, with civilians on them. It boggles my mind why people think these things. It's on the fething level of the people that think genetic engineers control the world and there's sterilants in the water. It's so galactically stupid that I can't possibly fathom how you could ever trust your own judgement after saying, with conviction, 'The United States blew up its own gak with loaded planes'.
Get your head out of the 40k codex and think on a larger scale.
Money and power is what motivates government, those two things come before the lives of a couple thousand worker bees.
Arright, let's play this game.
The United States government issued an order to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They tell the president to act like he feels sorry for the people. They make up the story about him reading to the kids before he learned what happened.
And then they declare war on the Middle East several years later. Somehow, they get multiple other countries to participate in this War on Terror, and they forge numbers about dead friendlies and enemies. Everyone is complacent.
So I say to you,
What in the holy mother of feth does that achieve?
You're trying to tell me that they'd do this for money and power? That somehow getting attacked, starting a war, and *getting other countries to cooperate*, with all this evidence of the people that are actually trying to kill every American, with all the attempted attacks that never came to fruition and those we have in Guantanamo Bay, you're trying to tell me that this is all staged?
Yknow what? I'm done. feth this new world order gak. I'm out.
Don't forget about when they told Bin Laden to take credit for planning it.
I'm glad that all that money they did it for was a huge boon to the economy.
Oh, wait...
Don't forget the fact that gas prices dropped and we now enjoy incredibly cheap gas... wait a second...
Karon wrote:What I've never understood is if the U.S. orchestrated this attack (which is complete bs), why did they hit the Pentagon and then attempt to hit the White House with the Plane that was taken down by the passengers and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?
I'm not going to debate with children who buy into every conspiracy theory they hear. 'Edited for Rule 1 violation' MT11
Beerfart wrote:
RatBot wrote:You must have an awful lot of faith in the US Government's competency to believe that they could pull this off and cover it up so well.
I, on the other hand, do not.
What did they cover up?
Building 7....no explanation.
This is the same Gov't that flew copters into pakistan and killed Bin Laden before Pakistan even knew we were there.
We've got tanks that are so tough that even WE cannot destroy them (army friend gave me an example of this...beleive it)
U.S. is capable...beleive it.
Besides....
It's not the U.S. Governments abilities to cover crap up, its the populace that refuses to question info given to them when things don't add up. It's scary that our Gov't would be capable of this, don't hide....GET MAD!
If I die in the next cataclysmic event of violence to happen to this country....watch the info as it's fed to you.
Don't accept it, WATCH it. I would WANT you to watch it. Because if my gov't is responsible for my death just so that they can get more control over oil, stimulate the economy, or remove more of the populace freedoms (patriot act)....that sh!t aint right!
We OWE it to the people who died on 9/11 to DEMAND EXPLANATION. We owe it to them to ensure that our government isnt hiding anything. We owe it to them to get the complete and total truth.
It's the only honorable thing to do.
There are 1000 things that I want to know about these events, others want to know as well. Our government OWES it to the people to tell us what happened. (they know) If they are found to be responsible, then a radical evaluation needs to be made as to our government. The founding fathers are already rolling over in their graves about how this country is run.
We OWE it to the 9/11 victims to ask questions. Beleive that.
Oh hello post with lots of fearmongering, painting our government has the Illuminati. Do you also believe Woopie Goldberg is a Martian?
Your post was so helpful, informative and full of relevant info and evidence that I'm going to give it exactly the amount of responce it is due....
....there you go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
Beerfart wrote:
kronk wrote:Terrorist attack.
Why? They hate America.
In certain ways, I hate America. (BTW:I live here because the rest of the world sucks worse to live in)
I don't attack it.
I've got better things to do....
Amsterdam. Stockholm. Sydney. Vancouver. All of which are better places to live than in any other state in the US, save for a few.
They are also cheap places to live. The door's open if you want to move to Canada. No-one will blame you. It's actually what I've been planning to do.
All that is relative. The U.S. is the best place for me to be....right now.
As a Citizen I have absolutely every right to question my Gov't....you do to.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
You're country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
Don't think that 9/11 didnt effect Canada. That's naive and selfish....and beside the point.
Please explain to me where exactly I said that it didn't affect Canada. I never said that. I said they didn't feel the full effect. I was wondering whether half my family was dead for days. I know many people across the world were feeling that way as well. And some were sadly correct in their assumptions.
Excellent, you ignored my initial question Beerfart. You have proved my point you are, in fact, a fearmongering child that doesn't put logic in any of his assumptions.
This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.
Karon wrote:Excellent, you ignored my initial question Beerfart. You have proved my point you are, in fact, a fearmongering child that doesn't put logic in any of his assumptions.
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed your question since it was bracketted with a comment of "BS" and "head in your ass". I normally skim over such childish comments....
What I've never understood is if the U.S. orchestrated this attack (which is complete bs), why did they hit the Pentagon and then attempt to hit the White House with the Plane that was taken down by the passengers and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?
I beleive I already answered that earlier in this thread.
beerfart wrote:
It acheives a war in the middle east to further certain factions control of the oil resources there.
War, as pointed out earlier by one of our posters here, is very profitable already. Oil not withstanding....and will build new buildings and planes.
As to how old I am...this is irrelevant to the conversation here and none of your business.
Please try to be less emotional with your posts in the future. Thank you.
This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.
Nowhere in that article does it say that the bomber was fully loaded, nor does it say that it even had a full load of fuel. In fact, I would imagine that a bomber traveling over domestic airspace for non-combat purposes likely wouldn't be loaded... any military folks on the site care to confirm or deny my assumption?
Furthermore, the article states that the bomber weighs 10 tons. The planes that crashed into the WTC were 767s which weigh well over 100 tons.
This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.
That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.
Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.
I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.
Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.
Karon, I agree. Why would the US need 4 planes if they just wanted to take down the World Trade Center? And why would President Bush order a 767 to hit the White House, where he was?
This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.
That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.
Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.
Fact:
until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
Fact:
The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.
Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.
Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.
You will learn when you grow.
Not all people under 20 fit the description you just... err, described.
The fire from the planes wouldn't have been able to destroy the towers, I'm not saying its the government im not saying that what the government says is true, im just saying that theirs no way they would have fallen just by planes.
Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.
Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.
This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.
That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.
Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.
Fact:
until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.
Fact: Airplanes haven't hit a building with such force until now. The weakened building was destroyed because the Explostion caused by the 23980 gallons of high explosive Jet Fuel might have helped a slight bit.
Fact:
The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.
No it wasn't. It was earthquake resistant. Wherever you got that fact, I want to see it. I can assure you that unless your building is made of 10 feet of concrete, it's not plane-proof.
Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.
Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.
Necessary for what? Generating MORE terror amongst the populace in order to gain support for a pointless war?
Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.
Again, irrelevant and inflammatory. If you are indeed 24...please act your age. This is a discussion, not a schoolyard cut-down contest.
bombboy1252 wrote:The fire from the planes wouldn't have been able to destroy the towers, I'm not saying its the government im not saying that what the government says is true, im just saying that theirs no way they would have fallen just by planes.
It wasn't just the fire from the planes, it was the planes themselves. You have a big chunk of metal flying into more chunks of metal and both of them are going to get messed up. Couple that with the fire weakening the beams that had the protective coating knocked off of them and you get a tower that will collapse.
halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.
Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.
We already tried that.
Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "
Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.
Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.
Chowderhead wrote:Fact: Airplanes haven't hit a building with such force until now. The weakened building was destroyed because the Explostion caused by the 23980 gallons of high explosive Jet Fuel might have helped a slight bit.
Fact:
The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.
No it wasn't. It was earthquake resistant. Wherever you got that fact, I want to see it. I can assure you that unless your building is made of 10 feet of concrete, it's not plane-proof.
Wow, you need to get your facts straight...it's common knowledge that they were.
A quick internet search of "was the WTC designed to withstand the impact of aircraft" will get you all the info you need.
halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.
Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.
We already tried that.
Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "
So I guess the people in charge don't want money, but want middle to lower class people to die in wars?
halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.
Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.
We already tried that.
Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "
So I guess the people in charge don't want money, but want middle to lower class people to die in wars?
Also according to Beerfart, the people in charge don't get their money from the economy.
Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.
Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.
Again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.
I'd also be interested to know how damage to a portion of debris results in a "controlled" collapse of a building. One would think that the building would list to one side rather than "bow" in the middle and collapse upon itself.
Beerfart wrote:Also, again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.
Just for the record thanks to a civil engineer friend and industrial technology friend: Fire protected does NOT mean fire immune.
I suppose there has to be a "first time in the history of buildings ever" for pretty much anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bombboy1252 wrote:Let's get along and agree to disagree folks. That way we can go back to playing with our toy soldiers.....
It's unfortunate that some people are unable to debate in a civil manner. I'm about to give up here as well. 4 pages of garbage and Mod indifference is about enough for me.
I weary of wading thru insults and emotional responses looking for posts with some shred of intelligence or data.
....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.
Guys, this topic is tough, and many will feel strongly about it. Despite that, it doesn't mean rule #1 doesn't apply. BE POLITE. Even if you are disagreeing.
Keep it together boys or this one will be shut down - MT11
Not much can withstand and Impact like that. Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.
Any way you look at it, that building was coming down. Oh, and Tower 7? It had about 728200000 pounds of Skyscraper crash on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beerfart wrote:....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.
You're asking for a non-emotional response near the 10th anniversary of the worst Terrorist Attack on US soil?
I don't know, It does look like a set up demolition, but I do question the governments motives of doing something like this, I can understand the oil reason, but maybe some 3rd party we don't know about did something? the world may never know the truth.
Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.
Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.
Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.
Again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.
I'd also be interested to know how damage to a portion of debris results in a "controlled" collapse of a building. One would think that the building would list to one side rather than "bow" in the middle and collapse upon itself.
According to civil engineers, the tower was designed for jet-liner impacts. It was also designed to last for three hours in normal fires, however we're talking about engulfing entire levels of the building with fire within seconds which is of course a faster spread than a normal office fire. It took roughly an hour for the buildings to start collapsing after the impact of the jet-liners. The fire had enough time to weaken the steel beams that had survived being blown to hell from the initial impact. The building itself was filled with a lot of air, 95% of the building was actually air and not steel or concrete and the perimeter is what supported the building with the core also holding up a lot of weight. We have a plane that destroyed two sides of the building and damaged the center core, which is already stressing the surviving beams. Then we add flash fire on more than several floors that weakens the surviving beams after an hour of burning. After awhile the weight of the upper floors can no longer be held by the weakened surviving beams and the building starts to collapse, with the additional weight from each floor gradually speeding up the collapse for the floors below. There was little to know lateral pressure on the building, it wasn't windy that day and the impact of the fighter would not have affected the building after an hour of sitting still. The building had only one direction of pressure, vertical pressure, gravity and all pushing down on the building and causing it to eventually collapse downwards.
This is basic physics, if you drop something it will go straight down. If you put enough pressure in another direction then it will start falling in that direction, and in this case there was more pressure coming from gravity on the upper floors than going against the side of the building which caused it to straight down as opposed to sideways.
It was designed to survive a standard office fire for three hours(office fires are smaller and slower than jet fuel exploding), it was designed to survive jet-liner impacts(it didn't topple over), it was not designed to suffer from a jet-liner impact and then a flash fire engulfing multiple in mere seconds.
Chowderhead wrote:Not much can withstand and Impact like that.
Not exactly a scientific evaluation, but the fact remains...the WTC was designed to.
Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.
Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.
Any way you look at it, that building was coming down.
absolultely true...I'm just questioning...how and why.
Oh, and Tower 7? It had about 728200000 pounds of Skyscraper crash on it.
No it did not. More like there was structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof. It's not really known if this was the real 'cause' of the collapse or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beerfart wrote:....less emotional responses would make for a much better debate thread.
You're asking for a non-emotional response near the 10th anniversary of the worst Terrorist Attack on US soil?
That's a bit mad, isn't it?
Not at all. You see, I was actually effected by this disaster. Thus far, my posts have been the least inflammatory that I've seen from most anyone in this discussion.
So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.
So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.
So the US government purposefully destroyed the World Trade Centers in order to open up an inter-dimensional rabbit hole large enough for large armies to go through so that they could invade Wonderland and dethrone the tyrannical Queen of Hearts.
Chowderhead wrote:Not much can withstand and Impact like that.
Not exactly a scientific evaluation, but the fact remains...the WTC was designed to.
Also, the burning of the Jet Fuel aided in the destruction. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. And if you were a really smart cookie, you would realize that the Hijackers had nearly full tanks of gas, as they took Trans-continental flights.
Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Actual experts say that the structural steel used in the WTC construction will begin to soften at 425 Celsius and lose half of its strength at 650 Celsius. The fire was reported to be around 750-800 Celsius(normal house fires reach 500 to 650 Celsius in comparison) and then you have to couple that with uneven heating of the steel. This heating caused uneven expansion in parts of the beams and then caused stresses on the beams which ultimately lead to buckling.
Beerfart wrote:Yea, that's the official story. Nevermind that Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to weaken the support girders of the towers. (this is from experts, again, easy to find info on this very subject online) Nor does it explain the damage to WTC 7.
Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
All it has to do is lose strength.
Also, a Glass building isn't very safe against a Airplane screaming across the sky at it.
halonachos wrote:
According to civil engineers, the tower was designed for jet-liner impacts. It was also designed to last for three hours in normal fires, however we're talking about engulfing entire levels of the building with fire within seconds which is of course a faster spread than a normal office fire. It took roughly an hour for the buildings to start collapsing after the impact of the jet-liners. The fire had enough time to weaken the steel beams that had survived being blown to hell from the initial impact. The building itself was filled with a lot of air, 95% of the building was actually air and not steel or concrete and the perimeter is what supported the building with the core also holding up a lot of weight. We have a plane that destroyed two sides of the building and damaged the center core, which is already stressing the surviving beams. Then we add flash fire on more than several floors that weakens the surviving beams after an hour of burning. After awhile the weight of the upper floors can no longer be held by the weakened surviving beams and the building starts to collapse, with the additional weight from each floor gradually speeding up the collapse for the floors below. There was little to know lateral pressure on the building, it wasn't windy that day and the impact of the fighter would not have affected the building after an hour of sitting still. The building had only one direction of pressure, vertical pressure, gravity and all pushing down on the building and causing it to eventually collapse downwards.
This is basic physics, if you drop something it will go straight down. If you put enough pressure in another direction then it will start falling in that direction, and in this case there was more pressure coming from gravity on the upper floors than going against the side of the building which caused it to straight down as opposed to sideways.
It was designed to survive a standard office fire for three hours(office fires are smaller and slower than jet fuel exploding), it was designed to survive jet-liner impacts(it didn't topple over), it was not designed to suffer from a jet-liner impact and then a flash fire engulfing multiple in mere seconds.
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)
It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.
....and it's the crux of my problem with the whole thing.
Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote:Gentlemen. There is a button called ignore.
I have pressed it 9 times since I joined Dakkadakka.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.
Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.
I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).
That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.
Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.
I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).
That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.
WTF.
Welcome to life, it's a wonderful thing when you don't think about it!
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Beerfart wrote:
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)
It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.
Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.
Look, I may only be in the fourth year of my biochemistry major, I may have gotten a C in physics and physics 2, and I may have gotten an A in my philosophy class, but I think I know the difference between actual science and trying to put philosophy into hard sciences.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Beerfart wrote:
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)
It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.
Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.
Look, I may only be in the fourth year of my biochemistry major, I may have gotten a C in physics and physics 2, and I may have gotten an A in my philosophy class, but I think I know the difference between actual science and trying to put philosophy into hard sciences.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Beerfart wrote:We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.
Beerfart wrote:
I see many of ways to refute what you've claimed here, but it would take books of text to type out where I feel that you're mistaken and/or simply wrong. (one fact is that jet fuel burns off fast and regular office fires do not weaken huge steel support beams...but whatever)
It's much easier to analyse building 7 that's why I focus on that. Not that there is much of a cover up there, no cover up, no explanation, nothing....except video that produces what looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
We could argue all day the possibilities or not of the twin towers toppling...but building 7 is something most non-conspiracy theorists avoid...because it's a sore subject...one that they really cannot explain.
Look, actually look into the engineering aspects, stories, accounts and evidence behind the twin towers falling and it just makes it worse.
Look, I may only be in the fourth year of my biochemistry major, I may have gotten a C in physics and physics 2, and I may have gotten an A in my philosophy class, but I think I know the difference between actual science and trying to put philosophy into hard sciences.
Okay...I guess. However, irrelevant.
Like most of what you have said, you're putting hidden meanings into hard sciences and that is not something that can not be done unless you happen to work at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Not really...no.
If one looks at all the evidence, ALL OF IT, and believes it to actually be the result of a terrorist attack, there are still large gaping holes.
...Ones that some people (like myself who was effected) still want answers for.
That or you simply accept some of the drivel that's fed to the populace...and go hide.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Not really...no.
If one looks at all the evidence, ALL OF IT, and believes it to actually be the result of a terrorist attack, there are still large gaping holes.
...Ones that some people (like myself who was effected) still want answers for.
That or you simply accept some of the drivel that's fed to the populace...and go hide.
So what's one of these gaping holes, Hmm? Because I disproved Tower Seven, that a Plane couldn't bring down the Twin Towers, and every other piece of mindless trash you have.
Come on. Let's pit conspiracy against logic and see who the victor is. I know who my bet's on.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Not really...no.
Yes really, yes.
ALL the evidence fills those holes quite nicely, unless you decide not to read it or believe it due to being presented by certain groups.
Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Not really...no.
If one looks at all the evidence, ALL OF IT, and believes it to actually be the result of a terrorist attack, there are still large gaping holes.
...Ones that some people (like myself who was effected) still want answers for.
That or you simply accept some of the drivel that's fed to the populace...and go hide.
The fact that you were affected doesn't matter, in fact it means that you may be incredibly biased in this "debate" if you want to call it that.
The fact that you have been given science, science that is accepted internationally as being true, seriously the US government doesn't have the ability to change the laws of physics like you may believe they do, and are just saying that we don't understand it because we're not looking at the evidence. Evidence like the fire being incredibly hot, Building 7 being hit by debris, the impact destroying the outer perimeter that held the building up, etc which all point to what is widely believed to have happened.
Melissia wrote:Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
Thank you very much, Mel. I have stated this in the past, though he seems to just ignore it. I hope he won't ignore this.
Melissia wrote:Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
Thank you very much, Mel. I have stated this in the past, though he seems to just ignore it. I hope he won't ignore this.
I was about to say, wasn't this sort of thing posted earlier?
Melissia wrote:Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
Thank you very much, Mel. I have stated this in the past, though he seems to just ignore it. I hope he won't ignore this.
He will, I said the same thing and he said I wasn't looking at the actual evidence. I guess science and evidence aren't the same thing.
Beerfart, I challenge you to bring proof that the fire was not hot enough to degrade the structural integrity of the steel, that debris from the WTC did not hit building 7, and that the force of gravity would not have caused the building to collapse. So far you have produced nothing hard.
Melissia wrote:Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
Thank you very much, Mel. I have stated this in the past, though he seems to just ignore it. I hope he won't ignore this.
He will, I said the same thing and he said I wasn't looking at the actual evidence. I guess science and evidence aren't the same thing.
Beerfart, I challenge you to bring proof that the fire was not hot enough to degrade the structural integrity of the steel, that debris from the WTC did not hit building 7, and that the force of gravity would not have caused the building to collapse So far you have produced nothing hard.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.
Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.
I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).
That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.
WTF.
Welcome to life, it's a wonderful thing when you don't think about it!
Yeah, yeah, I know. That's why I generally keep my head in the sand and try to be a good little cog in the machine.If you actually try to pay attention and make some sense of it all, you'll just go mad.
Guys, if you have made your point, multiple times, move along now. Accept some will not agree, and some will. I do not want to see the same posters coming back in re-igniting the same circular arguement over and over. You said your piece, move on. You know who you are.
And on a personal note, I would advise you all to remember this was an extremely significant event no matter how you slice it in terms of the human impact. A lot of suffering came of this. Whomever you believe did it, whatever you think was behind it, treat the subject and the loss of life with a degree of respect please. Be smart enough to know that contradicting people aggressively on this topic will likely escalate. Be delicate if it is at all possible. I do not say this to edit anyone's opinion, but to remind that Rule #1 is in place for good bloody reasons sometimes. Discuss, but discuss as gentlemen as best you can please.
feeder wrote:I'll tell you this... my country of 34 million people has spent 92 billion dollars on security since 9/11.
I'm not saying "they" (the government, the trillionaire multicorps, the dolphins, the intergalactic lizard people) orchestrated the attacks, but "they" sure are cashing in.
For anyone who can't get why "they" might have an interest in promoting unrest, it's this: peace ain't profitable. Up to and including WW2, wars have always been excellent ways of stimulating economies and making the rich, richer. of course, after the war the loser gets fiscally raped, but that's what you get when your brave young men aren't brave enough and your wily old men aren't wily enough.
And I'll tell you this: My country of 300,000,000 is a much bigger target than Canada. When you want to make a message heard, do you hit the CN Tower? No. You hit the Empire State Building. You hit the Statue of Liberty.
Your country is a non-threat. When was the last time you were attacked by Extremists from the outside in a magnitude of September 11th? You have no idea what it feels like.
I think you missed my point. I am using my country as an example because I read the figure (92 billion) in the paper yesterday morning. We spent a vast, vast sum of money, on security, and our biggest threat is domestic; drunken hockey fans/douchebags. Where did the money go? Partly to fly our CF-18s around a bit, partly to sail our destroyers around the Persian Gulf a bit, partly to send a few thousand troops over to get shot at for a while, and quite a large part to private security firms.
Assuming the per capita spending is the same, compared to Canada, the US has spent 800 billion on security since 9/11.
I would speculate that the worldwide post-9/11 security business has been the largest transfer of public money (taxes) to private pockets (security corps).
That guy walking around town with his not-cop uniform, sipping a coffee and checking out the skirts, his job is safe. I sweat my bag off all day, building the condo he is going to live in and get laid off when the project is finished. His job is pointless, he has nearly no training, and he essentially is someone who is paid to call the police when something dangerous goes down, like a homeless man sits down at a coffeshop. My job is essential; I am highly skilled.
WTF.
Welcome to life, it's a wonderful thing when you don't think about it!
Yeah, yeah, I know. That's why I generally keep my head in the sand and try to be a good little cog in the machine.If you actually try to pay attention and make some sense of it all, you'll just go mad.
But....being a cog is no fun either.....so going mad seems like a nice little vacation away from the norm
Beerfart wrote:I don't see how anyone who actually looks at videos, pictures, photographs, listens to experts, and who can analyse data can actually think that it wasnt a Government Conspiracy.
Because they've looked at the videos, pictures, photographs, listened to experts, and analyzed the data.
Not really...no.
If one looks at all the evidence, ALL OF IT, and believes it to actually be the result of a terrorist attack, there are still large gaping holes.
...Ones that some people (like myself who was effected) still want answers for.
That or you simply accept some of the drivel that's fed to the populace...and go hide.
So what's one of these gaping holes, Hmm? Because I disproved Tower Seven, that a Plane couldn't bring down the Twin Towers, and every other piece of mindless trash you have.
Come on. Let's pit conspiracy against logic and see who the victor is. I know who my bet's on.
You didnt disprove anything.
The structural damage was investigated and deemed NOT the cause of the collapse. Entertaining fictional video however.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorTom11 wrote:Guys, if you have made your point, multiple times, move along now. Accept some will not agree, and some will. I do not want to see the same posters coming back in re-igniting the same circular arguement over and over. You said your piece, move on. You know who you are.
And on a personal note, I would advise you all to remember this was an extremely significant event no matter how you slice it in terms of the human impact. A lot of suffering came of this. Whomever you believe did it, whatever you think was behind it, treat the subject and the loss of life with a degree of respect please. Be smart enough to know that contradicting people aggressively on this topic will likely escalate. Be delicate if it is at all possible. I do not say this to edit anyone's opinion, but to remind that Rule #1 is in place for good bloody reasons sometimes. Discuss, but discuss as gentlemen as best you can please.
Are we only allowed to make a certain number of posts in threads now? I was unaware of this new rule.
Are we not supposed to discuss things in a discussion forum. Just asking.
There comes a point where a poster keeps repeating themselves and hijacks a thread to the same back and forth. Anyone willing to listen has listened, anyone who hasn't, hasn't. There is a point where posts turn to spam. If you want to continue going back and forth on the same topic, why not take it to PM?
Structural damage probably had something to do with the crash....you don't investigate why a building fell, see structural damage and say, meh, probably was nothing, structural damage has something to with something!
Automatically Appended Next Post: He's not trying to "limit your posts" he trying to limit you from saying the same thing over...and over...and over again.
bombboy1252 wrote:Structural damage probably had something to do with the crash....you don't investigate why a building fell, see structural damage and say, meh, probably was nothing, structural damage has something to with something!
Nah, we just don't get the actual hidden meaning of the science.
Melissia wrote:Perhaps he believes that there's no chemistry majors on this forum to contradict him?
When steel gets hot-- I mean extremely hot-- it loses its structural integrity. It does not have to get close to its melting point to do so. The hotter it gets, the more structural integrity it loses.
Steel is a strong material because of the various intermolecular forces (which in steel's case are quite strong thus resulting in a high melting point) and how the molecules interact with eachother. But as the molecules absorb more energy-- through being heated up-- the energy makes actions which break or change these intermolecular attractions easier.
The cheese example I gave before comes to mind-- take cold hard cheese. You can't really bend it, you break and crumble it instead. But heat it up enough, and it bends even if it's not yet melted, but it'll eventually break. Heat it up more, and it bends even easier without breaking-- gradually taking more and more properties of a liquid, until finally it melts, at which point it takes on the properties of liquids entirely.
Don't think melting steel is like melting ice... it's not. The molecular interactions between various water molecules are quite different.
All of which is fine but it doesnt decide whether or not the steel was weakened enough for any of the suggested collapses.
This is what I'm questioning. You'll obviously state yes....possibly citing online experts (i don't really care about YOUR educational background and would prefer actual info cited online)
...to which I could cite an equal or even MORE experts online that state NO, The fire couldnt have inflicted this sort of damage to the building. It's not hard to find this data online either.
bombboy1252 wrote:Structural damage probably had something to do with the crash....you don't investigate why a building fell, see structural damage and say, meh, probably was nothing, structural damage has something to with something!
Nah, we just don't get the actual hidden meaning of the science.
the science behind warping steel? or the science behind warping steel causing structural damage?
MajorTom11 wrote:There comes a point where a poster keeps repeating themselves and hijacks a thread to the same back and forth. Anyone willing to listen has listened, anyone who hasn't, hasn't. There is a point where posts turn to spam. If you want to continue going back and forth on the same topic, why not take it to PM?
Because theres an entire thread dedicated to it....?
This thread is absolutely tasteless. Especially 2 days before the 10th anniversary.
-1 to the OT forum's already abysmal reputation. Make that -2.
I was in lower manhattan that day. People I knew were killed. It was absolute chaos. Absolute and total terror. If you honestly and whole heartedly believe it to have been a goverment conspiracy, perpatrated by the United States Goverment. If you believe that, in your heart of hearts, and you haven't either: A: Left the country B: Made it your life mission to personally help expose this massacre.
Then you are truly apathetic or just plain complacent.
To believe that the events that unfolded on September 11th 2001 were perpetrated by the United States Government, is to believe that the USA committed acts, against it's own citizens, that are rivaled only by Adolf Hitler, and Pol Pot. Perhaps a select few others. The point of course is; total murderous tyranny.
To believe that the events of that day were perpetrated by the US Gov't, against it's own people, for the purpose of starting a war in Afganistan, and by proxy Iraq, is to believe that you live in a totalitarian state of ultimate tyranny and terror. It is paramount to the highest level of treasonous thought conceivable, barring physically taking action against the United States of America.
Believing such a thing would require a man of any decent moral character to immediately take rebellious action against the Federal Government, because the assault against American citizens that day. New Yorkers. Foreign nationals. From businesspersons, to clerks and clients, to the janitorial staff. It is to believe that an act of mass murder was planned and executed, by the USA, against it's own citizens. Contemplate that. Think of what you must believe, if you truly, deeply believe in these conspiracy theories.
You don't. You can't. Because if you did believe in these things. You would leave the country. You would kill yourself from grief. You would take drastic and immediate action.
I can't believe the conspiracy theories. If it came to be that the conspiracy surrounding 9/11 was proven to be scientific fact, myself, as a 6 year combat veteran Navy Sailor, would be wearing a uniform of shame even as I write this. I wouldn't know what to do with myself. I would live in grief and self-hatred.
You simply cannot truly believe in these conspiracy theories, and then go about your normal life, without being either totally callous, or completely apathetic.
Don't mind me, I was just making a point about the chemistry of it. A lot of people don't know very much on the subject of chemistry.
Heck, most people don't even know that Hydrogen is a metal and in its solid form has a distinct metal lattice structure just like steel does. It just doesn't hold it very well outside of extreme pressures (metallic hydrogen exists in the outer layer of the cores of Jupiter and Saturn, for example).
