The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread

[Surf Digby]

My old man is quite the expert on construction and engineering, being that he worked in the insurance industry for years as an underwriter and a broker specialising in bridges, tunnels and skyscrapers. He said the Twin Towers were built using a fast-tracking system making them weaker than they should have been. Like the levees breaking in New Orleans, it was negligence by the builders not a conspiracy that was the issue.

If that was the case, surely the '93 bombing would have done significantly more structural damage than it did?

[Georgie Pin]

The 1993 explosion was a truck bomb. It wasn't attached to any internal structures of the building. It did cause considerable damage including cutting out the leccy to a fair proportion of New York I believe.

[mikey]

Plus the building was designed to sustain a bombing and even being struck by aircraft, just not one of that size.

[Mattvillain]

I can't believe that anyone would deny 9/11. Seriously, get some fucking brain cells. Holograms, and controlled explosives? Planes flew the fuck into the towers! There's footage of it happening for fuck sake. This thread is full of absolute cretins. I bet half of you deny the holocaust too.

You're the fucking cretin, believing in anything just because 'there's footage of it'. I suppose all the footage of UFOs means they're definitely aliens yeah?

 

No offense there dude, i know footage isnt always the be-all-end-all in proving something, but for some reason i found you post highly idiotic. Just about the "Believe anything just because theres footage of it" bit.

 

Because for the most part (although we do all know in conspiracies its not always the case), that it normally is good enough proof.

 

Just me?

 

You probablyl found it idiotic because it was badly worded. Also I'm an idiot. But the point stands, arguing 'of course it happened, there's footage of it' in a thread about photos and videos of weird stuff most people think is bollocks seemed a bit redundant. For the record I'm not saying the planes were holograms, just that the camera has been known to lie.

[Loki]

I love a good conspiracy theory, but what happened on 9/11 has been endlessly and thoroughly proven, and all alternative theories debunked. The towers were hit by large planes with large amounts of fuel on them. A guy sticking some C4 to the insides of some lift shafts isn't going to melt steel.

 

If people could get away from the obsession with trying to deny an event witness by literally millions of people (both on the ground and live on tv), there are loads of much more interesting questions surrounding the day.

 

Did the US know beforehand that an event was likely to occur? Could the perpetrators have organised all this without some inside help? As has been said above, there were large safety concerns about the Twin Towers years before this happened. Why were those concerns (voiced by the then-head of security for the Towers) not addressed?

 

In the ensuing chaos, did the US airforce shoot down a passenger plane full of people?

 

Basically, there's plenty to conjecture about. Arguing about the actual events of the day is like trying to argue that Kennedy was never shot, rather than who did it and why.

 

 

[King Pitcos]

Now, I'm not silly or arrogant enough to believe that I KNOW whether God exists, that fairies don't or that David Icke has it all right. Neither do I believe that those in positions of power are looking after our best interests at all times, and that the furthest thing from their minds would be mass-extermination of their own citizens for some gain on their part.

But the thing that loons forget is that it's not an either/or. Politicans don't have to be either Christlike altruists or Bond villains. That's what's at the heart of the entire thing. To conspiracy nutters, the world is like a cliched cartoon about fight-the-good-fight goodies battling baddies who want to enslave humanity. It's absurdity. Just because politicians are selfish doesn't mean they're all part of a secret cabal hatching plots to murder half of us and have the other half working in mines shackled to each other.

 

The problem with the no plane theory is the little matter of 1000s of pieces of Boeings found all over Manhattan including the tops of other skyscrapers. Where did they instantaneously appear from?

 

How on earth did they rig up 2 of the biggest skyscrapers on earth with that much explosives without a single person seeing anything or without a single person involved in the whole cover up ever saying a word about it? It would need a cast of thousands of people all of whom had no conscience or sense of right and wrong whatsoever to put that into effect. Now there might possibly be a couple of politicians like that but you'd struggle beyond that.

Because the New World Order are evil masterminds, and nobody could ever uncover or speak out on their fiendish plots. Unless someone was an undiscovered genius who discovered the truth through detective work, evidence, research and watching Youtube propaganda videos that appeal to their mental illnesses.

 

My old man is quite the expert on construction and engineering, being that he worked in the insurance industry for years as an underwriter and a broker specialising in bridges, tunnels and skyscrapers. He said the Twin Towers were built using a fast-tracking system making them weaker than they should have been. Like the levees breaking in New Orleans, it was negligence by the builders not a conspiracy that was the issue.

The "truthers" would just put that down to your old man being a shill or a sheeple.

 

Basically, there's plenty to conjecture about. Arguing about the actual events of the day is like trying to argue that Kennedy was never shot, rather than who did it and why.

Excellently put.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Pityinthecityofsin

[GlennCullen]

I love a good conspiracy theory, but what happened on 9/11 has been endlessly and thoroughly proven, and all alternative theories debunked. The towers were hit by large planes with large amounts of fuel on them. A guy sticking some C4 to the insides of some lift shafts isn't going to melt steel.

 

If people could get away from the obsession with trying to deny an event witness by literally millions of people (both on the ground and live on tv), there are loads of much more interesting questions surrounding the day.

 

Did the US know beforehand that an event was likely to occur? Could the perpetrators have organised all this without some inside help? As has been said above, there were large safety concerns about the Twin Towers years before this happened. Why were those concerns (voiced by the then-head of security for the Towers) not addressed?

 

In the ensuing chaos, did the US airforce shoot down a passenger plane full of people?

 

Basically, there's plenty to conjecture about. Arguing about the actual events of the day is like trying to argue that Kennedy was never shot, rather than who did it and why.

 

This is the biggest one for me. Its very possible that the goverment and army in the midst of all the confusion made the grim decision to bring them down.

[Burchill's Buddy]

Loki, thankyou for bringing some sanity back to this thread.

[Dynamite Duane]

I love a good conspiracy theory, but what happened on 9/11 has been endlessly and thoroughly proven, and all alternative theories debunked. The towers were hit by large planes with large amounts of fuel on them. A guy sticking some C4 to the insides of some lift shafts isn't going to melt steel.

 

If people could get away from the obsession with trying to deny an event witness by literally millions of people (both on the ground and live on tv), there are loads of much more interesting questions surrounding the day.

 

Did the US know beforehand that an event was likely to occur? Could the perpetrators have organised all this without some inside help? As has been said above, there were large safety concerns about the Twin Towers years before this happened. Why were those concerns (voiced by the then-head of security for the Towers) not addressed?

 

In the ensuing chaos, did the US airforce shoot down a passenger plane full of people?

 

Basically, there's plenty to conjecture about. Arguing about the actual events of the day is like trying to argue that Kennedy was never shot, rather than who did it and why.

Absolutely there are lots of questions to be answered.

 

I revisited the 9/11 topic recently, watching a docu 9-11 Ripple Effect on Controversial TV - Sky 200. Evidence put forward showed a demolition job took place. (I'll look up the docu and post a link, it's probably online.) The result of a plane crashing into the towers should have left more of the iron girders still standing. However what was left remaining were the girders cut at an angle right near the base, indicating a controlled demolition. Eyewitnesses also claim there was an explosion before the plane struck the tower/s. Also another was 'taken down' that wasn't even hit by a plane.

 

Found it! 9-11 Ripple Effect

 

Well worth watching, quotes from aviation, demolition experts, eyewitnesses etc. I've not seen Loose Change but I would recommend Ripple Effect.

 

Somewhere I did see that the towers were built with explosives installed, to enable easy demolition when needed.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Dynamite Duane

[GlennCullen]

Oh fucking hell.

[neil]

Yeah, Loose Change is so 2008, this new one that says the same thing but with different eerie music playing is THE TRUTH.

[Steve Justice]

I thought the score was excellent in Loose Change. It made me feel all questionable and fearsome inside.

 

On a serious note, could someone explain how the top part of the building on fire caused the whole building to collapse. I understand there was quite a bit of weight coming down on itself, but the structure at the base up to half way up the building should still be strong and intact and should have withstood most of that. I'm not saying it was explosives, but the physics don't add up.

[neil]

Which building?

 

Although the same principle applies to all. For the towers it was mainly due to weakening of the structural support. That caused the failure which led to the first floor collapsing. The weight of which caused a domino effect on the rest of the floors. Of course, the truthers claim is that explosives caused the pancake effect, and that because the building came down in a similar way that a controlled demolition does that this is proof of foul play - this is how they conclusively prove things!

[Steve Justice]

Which building?

 

Although the same principle applies to all. For the towers it was mainly due to weakening of the structural support. That caused the failure which led to the first floor collapsing. The weight of which caused a domino effect on the rest of the floors. Of course, the truthers claim is that explosives caused the pancake effect, and that because the building came down in a similar way that a controlled demolition does that this is proof of foul play - this is how they conclusively prove things!

 

I know there was a 747 in the reception of Money & Co. but surely that added weight couldn't weaken the first floor. No wait, you didn't mean first floor of the building, you mean the first floor to collapse. Yeah I get it now. Domino effect makes sense. Ta.

[neil]

Not just the collision + weight of the aircraft either. It's the burning of the jet fuel that structurally weakened the steel. Truthers like to point out that jet fuel doesn't burn hurt enough to MELT steel, but that wasn't required. It just needed to burn hot enough to WEAKEN steel, which it does, and when you combine the other combustible materials in that building then their ~~~SMOKING GUN~~~ is pretty much dead in the water.

 

EDIT: I meant first floor, as in the first floor to collapse.

Edited June 29, 2010 by neil