Man of Honour
Lets say you're right what was the reason America decided to do this to themselves?
9/11 anti-conspiracy videos/sites?
- Thread starter blix
- Start date
Lets say you're right what was the reason America decided to do this to themselves?
That sounds quite boring! What's the point of being on a forum if we don't debate things? Might as well all go down the library
No. we can discredit 99% of conspiracy stuff. It's called a conspiracy as it's easily disproved.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 378
Shamelessly stolen:
Here is my condensed version of this debate:
Here is what a demolition of a building actually looks and sounds like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Please note the chain of events.
1. Loud Explosions previous to any building motion
2. The only place material was ejected by explosives was near the ground floor where the very last and largest charges were placed. These charges actually initiate the collapse, the other smaller charges cut upper supports which are also pre-weakened. The final charges were accompanied by black smoke and visible flame fronts. All charges were accompanied by loud explosions that could be heard for miles.
3. The gray concrete dust is ejected from the building where the floors are actively crumpling in upon one another. In a demolition this happens when the floors smash into the ground. The concrete dust is a result of the building collapsing, the concrete and other materials inside being ground into dust from the weight and violent release of energy of floors being smashed together and is being propelled by the air escaping from the building because, as it crumples, the building acts like an accordion.
4. The building being imploded in this footage is only about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the WTC towers meaning it would take less explosive force to bring down the building in the footage versus a WTC tower. Had the WTC towers been explosively imploded then the explosions would have needed to have been even larger and louder.
Here is footage of the south tower falling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavn4T26jcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5_TIrTp7J8
Closest footage available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc
This shot actually shows the south tower buckling inward right before collapsing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ
Please note the chain of events:
1. The only sounds heard are those of the building crumpling, no explosions
2. Material is ejected from everywhere starting near where the plane impacted and the collapse initiated all the way down to the ground. The same mechanics as in an implosion are at work but the upper floors of the building are smashing into the lower floors of the building and working their way down to the ground as opposed to crumpling on impact with the ground as in a controlled implosion.
3. Although the building is obstructed by the concrete dust, footage from multiple angles shows it is obvious that the collapse is progressive and doesn't all happen at once. You have sections of the building buckling, material being ejected from everywhere and smashing into other surrounding buildings, parts of the building still collapsing after the main collapse, and all the while there are no high explosive sounds.
The buildings did not fall into their own footprints they fell down and apart and covered a fairly large area outside of their own footprints. Skyscrapers don't fall over sideways like cut trees. They can lean somewhat but at a certain point the lean will overstress the structure and it will start to come apart and then the only direction it goes is down.
Here is the top of the south tower at the beginning of its fall when it actually did achieve a lean angle before coming apart.
Fire can most certainly damage steel. The much talked about "Madrid Fire Building" that 9/11 truthers love to bring up was a mostly reinforced concrete building which can withstand fire much better than steel framing. However part of the building was steel framed just like the towers. This was a section at the very top and steel framing was used because it is lighter and didn't need to support as much weight. The steel framed section of the Madrid Tower did collapse because of the fire.
Here is a picture of the aftermath of the Madrid tower fire:
The steel girders hanging off the top of the building are all that is left of the steel framed section of that building.
Fire has notably damaged other Steel and concrete structures like Freeway Overpasses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tjs5ILNkJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v84dwuEbKig
And finally WTC7 suffered major damage when it was hit by the nearest falling WTC tower which weighed far more than an airliner, then it burned for hours with no water pressure for sprinklers or firefighters fighting the blaze. Thus it was not necessary for a plane to hit it to make it fall down. It was damaged enough and burned long enough for it to also collapse.
And there is the Demolition Debate in a nutshell.
Long ago in the days before Loose Change and the other internet movies about 9/11 there was a debate about whether or not the government MADE IT HAPPEN or LET IT HAPPEN. Somewhere along the way the MADE IT HAPPEN people seem to have won out even though most of their theories about how the government made it happen fall far short on actual evidence, logic, and plausibility. While I don't believe the grand conspiracy plots put forth by the MADE IT HAPPEN people I do think the LET IT HAPPEN argument is entirely plausible.
Here is my condensed version of this debate:
Here is what a demolition of a building actually looks and sounds like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Please note the chain of events.
1. Loud Explosions previous to any building motion
2. The only place material was ejected by explosives was near the ground floor where the very last and largest charges were placed. These charges actually initiate the collapse, the other smaller charges cut upper supports which are also pre-weakened. The final charges were accompanied by black smoke and visible flame fronts. All charges were accompanied by loud explosions that could be heard for miles.
3. The gray concrete dust is ejected from the building where the floors are actively crumpling in upon one another. In a demolition this happens when the floors smash into the ground. The concrete dust is a result of the building collapsing, the concrete and other materials inside being ground into dust from the weight and violent release of energy of floors being smashed together and is being propelled by the air escaping from the building because, as it crumples, the building acts like an accordion.
4. The building being imploded in this footage is only about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the WTC towers meaning it would take less explosive force to bring down the building in the footage versus a WTC tower. Had the WTC towers been explosively imploded then the explosions would have needed to have been even larger and louder.
Here is footage of the south tower falling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavn4T26jcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5_TIrTp7J8
Closest footage available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc
This shot actually shows the south tower buckling inward right before collapsing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ
Please note the chain of events:
1. The only sounds heard are those of the building crumpling, no explosions
2. Material is ejected from everywhere starting near where the plane impacted and the collapse initiated all the way down to the ground. The same mechanics as in an implosion are at work but the upper floors of the building are smashing into the lower floors of the building and working their way down to the ground as opposed to crumpling on impact with the ground as in a controlled implosion.
3. Although the building is obstructed by the concrete dust, footage from multiple angles shows it is obvious that the collapse is progressive and doesn't all happen at once. You have sections of the building buckling, material being ejected from everywhere and smashing into other surrounding buildings, parts of the building still collapsing after the main collapse, and all the while there are no high explosive sounds.
The buildings did not fall into their own footprints they fell down and apart and covered a fairly large area outside of their own footprints. Skyscrapers don't fall over sideways like cut trees. They can lean somewhat but at a certain point the lean will overstress the structure and it will start to come apart and then the only direction it goes is down.
Here is the top of the south tower at the beginning of its fall when it actually did achieve a lean angle before coming apart.
Fire can most certainly damage steel. The much talked about "Madrid Fire Building" that 9/11 truthers love to bring up was a mostly reinforced concrete building which can withstand fire much better than steel framing. However part of the building was steel framed just like the towers. This was a section at the very top and steel framing was used because it is lighter and didn't need to support as much weight. The steel framed section of the Madrid Tower did collapse because of the fire.
Here is a picture of the aftermath of the Madrid tower fire:
The steel girders hanging off the top of the building are all that is left of the steel framed section of that building.
Fire has notably damaged other Steel and concrete structures like Freeway Overpasses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tjs5ILNkJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v84dwuEbKig
And finally WTC7 suffered major damage when it was hit by the nearest falling WTC tower which weighed far more than an airliner, then it burned for hours with no water pressure for sprinklers or firefighters fighting the blaze. Thus it was not necessary for a plane to hit it to make it fall down. It was damaged enough and burned long enough for it to also collapse.
And there is the Demolition Debate in a nutshell.
Long ago in the days before Loose Change and the other internet movies about 9/11 there was a debate about whether or not the government MADE IT HAPPEN or LET IT HAPPEN. Somewhere along the way the MADE IT HAPPEN people seem to have won out even though most of their theories about how the government made it happen fall far short on actual evidence, logic, and plausibility. While I don't believe the grand conspiracy plots put forth by the MADE IT HAPPEN people I do think the LET IT HAPPEN argument is entirely plausible.
yes the whole, didn't act on a warning /Intel theory is much more likely.
Probably not actively planned just they didn't think it was genuine etc it happened then try to save face by denying all knowledge.
Still, no proof, and no will to look for it.
Probably not actively planned just they didn't think it was genuine etc it happened then try to save face by denying all knowledge.
Still, no proof, and no will to look for it.
even that is shaky, there is good reason the planes where not intercepted.
Also the whole thing about them buying insurance is a load off bull. These are some of the main point's about the let them do it conspiracy. Which just don't hold any weight.
[FnG]magnolia " Why and how could this possibly benefit a corrupt Government(s) ?
This stuff really, really riles me. Your crackpot ideas are fine but please at least read some of the many websites/info already posted."
Why? that's simple the same reason as last time. The US government planed to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in the U.S before. Last time the plan was to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. This time, if it was the government the reason would be the same as before only replace Cuba with Afghanistan.
Go read up on Operation Northwoods drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Read up on False flag operations by the US. covert operations conducted by governments, which are designed to appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
dmpoole said "Think of how many people would have to be involved and kept quiet. If it was planned, people would have blabbed by now."
No one blabbed last time it was planed, last time also had hijacked planes in the plan as acts of terrorism. Why would they this time? Sep 11th could well be a False flag operation by the US. They kept all the old plans of terrorism on themselfs a secret for over 30 years, so why couldn't they do it again? I don't believe any of this nonsense about they couldn't keep it a secret if they did plan it. Its been proven they can keep it a secret as they had it a a 30 year old secret before. Who knows perhaps in 30 years from now we will be reading about the Sep 11th plans the US had and did.
This stuff really, really riles me. Your crackpot ideas are fine but please at least read some of the many websites/info already posted."
Why? that's simple the same reason as last time. The US government planed to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in the U.S before. Last time the plan was to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. This time, if it was the government the reason would be the same as before only replace Cuba with Afghanistan.
Go read up on Operation Northwoods drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Read up on False flag operations by the US. covert operations conducted by governments, which are designed to appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
dmpoole said "Think of how many people would have to be involved and kept quiet. If it was planned, people would have blabbed by now."
No one blabbed last time it was planed, last time also had hijacked planes in the plan as acts of terrorism. Why would they this time? Sep 11th could well be a False flag operation by the US. They kept all the old plans of terrorism on themselfs a secret for over 30 years, so why couldn't they do it again? I don't believe any of this nonsense about they couldn't keep it a secret if they did plan it. Its been proven they can keep it a secret as they had it a a 30 year old secret before. Who knows perhaps in 30 years from now we will be reading about the Sep 11th plans the US had and did.
Last edited:
That sounds quite boring! What's the point of being on a forum if we don't debate things? Might as well all go down the library
Totally mate, but as with most things on here it seems that some like to start getting personal. That was my only point.
Debate Away Fella's
Last time it was drafted not planned. There was no operational staff involved and it was not carried out. Therefore you are talking about a handful of people. It's silly to think they could keep this under raps and the fact that the CTs sprout so much other crap like missiles, demolition, bombs on planes. wtc7 and everything else would be funny if it wasn't such a serious event.
At no point in that document does it call for the invasion of Iraq. It does however on several occassions suggest more forces to stop Iraq from being able to invade it's neighbours again. PNAC has been seized upon as some sort of secret controlling force, they aren't, they are a pressure group. The above document goes on about why US Military spending should be increased to ensure continued US military domination and effectiveness, it is no blueprint to a new world order.
For a secret society with aims to take over the world they seem to be awfully up front about it don't you think?
[FnG]magnolia;12493913 said:
Maybe there is someone they wanted to silence and wanted to make it seem like terrorism killed them? (It's possible, you know the american government doesn't care who it kills, look at iraq)
Maybe they wanted insurance money?
Maybe they did it to distract people from government scandals?
I don't wholy believe or disbelieve anything in the conspiracy theorys but I just don't rule them out.
Nore do we, we look at it and say 99% of it is BS and the other 1% is no more than conjecture that can't be proved either way and so is pointless.
Suspended
No. There aren't.
No. They haven't.
Between 87,465 – 95,459 civilians have died in Iraq alone, and a much smaller number in Afghanistan. I don't know how many military personnel have died, but I'm willing to bet it's not enough to take the total figure into "hundreds of thousands".
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of civilians have been killed by insurgents, militia groups, and barbarian fundamentalist savages of the Islamic persuasion (kindly visit www.iraqbodycount.org and peruse the causes of death).
A simple snapshot of killings over the past week is sufficient to prove the point:
Friday 12 September: 38 dead
Baghdad: 1 body found.
Ninewa
Sinjar: suicide bomber kills 3 outside mosque.
Mosul: 2 killed in drive-by shooting.
Salahuddin
Dujail: suicide car bomber kills 32 outside police station.
Thursday 11 September: 25 dead
Baghdad: truck bomb kills 1, Dora; roadside bomb kills 3 Housing Ministry employees; 1 body found.
Diyala
Khalis: gunmen kill sheikh and his infant son in their home.
Sadiya: gunmen kill 5 family members.
Ghalibiya: 4 bodies found in mass grave.
Ninewa
Mosul: car bomb kills 2; gunmen kill 3 family members (father, mother, child)in their home; 2 bodies found.
Basra
Basra: British forces kill man in hotel during raid.
Babil
Haswa: woman's body is found in her home.
Wednesday 10 September: 10 dead
Baghdad: 2 bodies.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill 1; 4 bodies.
Karbala
Karbala: 2 killed in bomb explosions.
Diyala
Khalis: 1 killed during clashes.
Tuesday 9 September: 11 dead
Baghdad: roadside bomb kills 1, Baladiyat; 2 bodies found.
Salahuddin
Isaaqi: roadside bomb kills policeman.
Babil
Mussayab: gunmen kill 1.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill aid agency official, Ahmed al-Djemeili; gunmen kill 2 policemen; policeman's body is found.
Wassit
Suwayra: gunmen kill 1.
Kut: gunmen kill 1.
Monday 8 September: 13 dead
Baghdad: minister's guards open fire in centre of city, kill a woman; roadside bomb kills 1, Karrada; roadside bomb kill 1, Palestine street; 1 body found.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill policeman; car bomb kills policeman; policewoman's body is found.
Diyala
Baquba: a US patrol opens fire and kills Dr Abdul Salam al-Shimari, Head of Internal Disease Dept at Baquba General Hospital, in his car on his way to work.
Salahuddin
Baiji: suicide car bomber kills 2.
Daquq: roadside bomb kills 1.
Wassit
Khalidiya: gunmen kill 1.
Tameem
Kirkuk: roadside bomb kills 1.
Sunday 7 September: 18 dead
Baghdad: 3 bodies found.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill policeman; bomb kills policeman; bomb kills 3 (2 children) as militants try to plant it in car.
Wassit
Kut: gunmen kill man waiting for taxi.
Diyala
Baquba: gunmen kill husband and wife.
Anbar
Falluja: 3 bodies found (of Sahwa members abducted the previous night).
Babil
Mussayab: body found in river.
Hilla: body found in river.
Salahuddin
Tikrit: roadside bomb kills 2 policemen.
Running down that merry little list, I counted one incident of British soldiers killing a civilian, and one incident of US soldiers killing a civilian.
However, I also read of more than 200 civilians killed by barbarian savages in drive-by shootings, suicide bombs, car bombs, roadside bombs, home invasions, and other means.
So... hundreds of thousands killed in revenge for 911? Uh... no.
Tens of thousands killed by insurgents, militia groups, and barbarian fundamentalist savages of the Islamic persuasion? Uh... yes.
Suspended
The problem here is that your "Camp A" is woefully ill-defined. I don't even know anyone who believes your version of "Camp A".
It should read like this:
Camp A: Muslim terrorists with basic flight training who were well known to the authorities hijacked low security internal US flights and then flew the planes into 3 high profile buildings. There was ample warnings from foreign and domestic sources and even direct presidential briefings warning of an impending attack from Osama bin Laden. There were many things that could have been done to prevent this, but - through a combination of incompetence, internal and external politics, apathy, lack of basic foresight and general complacence - they were not done. In the aftermath of the event, an investigation was deliberately stifled to cover the government's own incompetence and oversight.
That's a combination of "Camp A" and "Camp C".
911 was a wakeup call to an arrogant, incompetent, complacent government asleep at the wheel, which then tried to save face by pretending that it didn't know anything beforehand, and couldn't have done anything even if it had.
Last edited:
exactly there is no proof for option C, but plenty of prove for the revised option A
Soldato
bit of a slow day?
it will pick up in a couple of weeks
Suspended
It is true, and PNAC is more than "just another Washington DC pressure group". It is a conservative thinktank with significant political influence and representation. Several of its members were leading lights in the Bush administration during 911 and the leadup to the war.
PNAC had been calling for the removal of Hussein as early as 1998. They lobbied Clinton for regime change, but the closest he ever came to it was signing the Iraq Liberation Act (which PNAC enthusiastically endorsed).
Suspended
I think they were waiting for some bombs on backorder from Syria.