Horrorshow Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Both really, the man power, time and covert logistics of doing it and doing it without detection before & after the fact seems impossible. Â If we're just looking purely at the man power / time / covert logistics side of things and not a subsequent cover up, I personally would have thought that the U.S. would be just as capable as Al-Qaeda as performing such things, no? After all the planes, air space, buildings etc did belong to the Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted September 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 They didn't need WTC 7 to be hit by a plane. Until now they've got away with it going down as a result of fire as per the offical FEMA and NIST reports. How many examples can you find of steel-frame high-rise buildings that have been ravaged by severe fires collapsing as a result of said fires? WTC 7 wasn't "ravaged by severe fires" though, hence people thinking something dodgy went on with it. The news crew announcing it had collapsed rather prematurely didn't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horrorshow Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Forgive my exit, gentlemen. It's getting a bit late for me and a long day at work tomorrow beckons. I'll hopefully be back in a couple of days. Â FAO: DJ Kris. I will endeavour to repond to post #1132. I ran out of time this evening. Â Cheers, Â Horrorshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted September 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Cheers, Horrorshow  Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 By your definition anyone who questions the official 9/11 story instantly loses any credibility they may have had, regardless of their maturity, sincerity, background or education. Name someone who has ever put forth any credible argument for the Illuminati doing 9/11. It's all just wackos like you and Duane, namedropping "mature, sincere, educated professionals" like Judy Wood whose theories and ideas you by your own admission haven't even really read. Which is awfully rich when you're having a go at the likes of TripleGay for not reading them. Though you might just have been pretending not to have read said theories and suppositions after they were exposed in this thread as utter tosh, because you knew you'd not a leg to stand on if you tried to defend them. Â You aren't willing to listen to, tolerate or consider for even a single moment a shred of the evidence that exists that contradicts or questions aspects of the offical 9/11 story because anyone who asks such questions must by your definition be a nut. No, anyone who starts bleating about the inside job tripe, using nothing to back up their theories other than spurious nonsense, must by their behaviour be a nut. Â The best way I can answer that is by saying that experienced, credible professionals that number in their thousands; who are experts and specialists in such fields as engineering and architecture have conducted research and concluded that several aspects of the offical 9/11 story are spurious and that the manner in which the buildings collapsed can't have been caused by the factors reported in the offical 9/11 story. It should also be noted that even the official reports have been unable to explain some of the aspects of the building's collapses, describing such things as the corrosion of steel beams as very unusual events with no clear explanation for the source of the corrosion. So your answer to the question I actually asked you is "no. No they haven't stood up to the scientific method." Â I think it's fair to argue that any professional who adheres to the belief that the offical 9/11 story isn't all it's cracked up to be is actually risking the loss of far more than they might potentially gain. And rightfully so, if they abandon the processes of their field of "expertise" to chase a wild goose. But hey, they can console themselves with the cavalcade of crackpots who'll buy their books and continue to namecheck them as a credible professional, long after they've been discredited by the legitimate scientific community. Â I'm glad that we can agree that governments on occasion lie to those who have elected them, those who they are meant to serve and deliberately obfuscate important facts. That's a good enough reason imo to question the events of 9/11, particularly as we've seen how the U.S. government and her allies have used 9/11 to their significant advantage over the last decade. Again, "people who work for the government tell fibs" is not a synonym for "the evil rulers are trying to murder and enslave us with foul schemes." You know what the key difference between those two phrases is? You don't have to be mentally ill to believe the former. If you were really concerned with what actually happened rather than just clinging to conspiracies you find exciting, you'd question the fringe websites as much as you question the more widely-accepted official story. But you don't. You've just decided it's a conspiracy and then looked for a few things supporting the idea and gone around going "credible people believe it as well, like Judy Wood" without realising how much of a fruitcake that makes you look. Â They didn't need WTC 7 to be hit by a plane. Until now they've got away with it going down as a result of fire as per the offical FEMA and NIST reports. How many examples can you find of steel-frame high-rise buildings that have been ravaged by severe fires collapsing as a result of said fires? As for faking WMD's in Iraq, they've to date got away with not having had to plant any evidence to justify the invasion. Most people don't care and many of those who do are labelled loons by a majority of people. Yeah, that's the funny thing with being a loon, you'll often get labelled one. Â That's where a lot of their power lies. In our apathy. So they got away with exploding a building in plain sight because of our apathy. They got away with not bothering to fake WMDs in Iraq because of our apathy. Their power lies in our apathy. Well if we're that apathetic and the N-N-N-N-New World Order are that lazy, they probably didn't bother doing 9/11 either. Based on the picture you've painted of them, I'm surprised they could even get their arses out of bed to build all the FEMA coffins and spike the water with fluoride. Â But that's the crux of it, isn't it? That's what it's all about. People like you and Duane just want to see yourselves as the awake underdogs fighting the evil overlords in a big dystopian film, more dynamic and smart than the asleeple sheeple who are blinded by apathy and (yo, you dealin' with the) X Factor. The troof movement makes you feel important. That's fine. If blindly and unquestioningly accepting any old shite about the evil elite is what gets you through the day, that's your lookout. But unless you're on a forum populated exclusively by conspiracy nuts, you're going to get stick about expressing those silly beliefs. And even if you were on a forum populated exclusively by conspiracy nuts, there'd be someone telling you to at least look at the fucking "independent research" you keep citing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Hmm. Â You don't think, Gladders.. it can't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted September 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Â Buy my shit. Available now. Â Or not, as I've blatently just knocked it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted September 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) In your opinion! By your definition anyone who questions the official 9/11 story instantly loses any credibility they may have had, regardless of their maturity, sincerity, background or education. You aren't willing to listen to, tolerate or consider for even a single moment a shred of the evidence that exists that contradicts or questions aspects of the offical 9/11 story because anyone who asks such questions must by your definition be a nut. But what evidence actually exists? Everything I ever hear is pure speculation at something that doesn't sit right in someone's head, or something that could have been done another way. I'm not aware of one hard fact that can be considered actual evidence. Â They didn't need WTC 7 to be hit by a plane. Until now they've got away with it going down as a result of fire as per the offical FEMA and NIST reports. How many examples can you find of steel-frame high-rise buildings that have been ravaged by severe fires collapsing as a result of said fires? As for faking WMD's in Iraq, they've to date got away with not having had to plant any evidence to justify the invasion. Most people don't care and many of those who do are labelled loons by a majority of people. That's where a lot of their power lies. In our apathy. I'm confused by this though. You're saying they didn't need to do this and that because they've got away with it. If this was the case then we wouldn't be having this discussion, surely? Â If we're just looking purely at the man power / time / covert logistics side of things and not a subsequent cover up, I personally would have thought that the U.S. would be just as capable as Al-Qaeda as performing such things, no? After all the planes, air space, buildings etc did belong to the Americans. You can't split it off though, you have to look at the whole picture. Its the operation as a whole, particularly the cover up aspect that makes it harder. Terrorists don't need to worry about a cover up, they can leave a trail, it won't matter because they will likely want people to know it was them anyway. An inside job would be the total opposite! Â You need your guys to take over the planes, how many people are we talking there? I forget how many were supposedly on the planes, but lets say 2 per plane, 4 planes, so thats 8 people willing to die. Why? The motivation isn't the same for someone who believe's it to be in the name of religion, so why are these guys doing it? Â So who else needs to be in on it? Someone will have had to give them training on how to take over the planes and how to fly them. Â These are just the end of the line people, guys to physically get the job done. How many others would need to be involved in the planning process? In the part where it gets pinned on Al Qaeda? Why did they do it in the first place? Was Bush the mastermind? Did he know? Edited September 13, 2011 by DJ Kris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted September 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) As someone who works for a government department that has direct dealings with the American government I can safely say that no government, not even the almight United States Of America government, are anywhere near organised, secure enough or capable of planning such a ridiculously over the top task as the 9/11 terrorist attack. Edited September 13, 2011 by LaGoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Horrorshow, you'll need to provide some real, credible evidence before you get any traction here. So far you've thrown out a lady who believes in space lasers. Â You're talking about this as if there are two equally valid, equally substantive sides to this argument. But there really aren't. Â On the one hand, you have almost the entire weight of the scientific community, countless papers and articles stating that the physics behind the collapse of the towers is sound. You've got evidence trails, presented to Congress and scrutinised at many levels, proving the guilt of the terrorists who actually took over the planes. You have the bragging of Al Quaeda members themselves, including Bin Laden. And you have about ten thousand eye witnesses who were there at the time. It's probably the most overwhelming case portfolio ever. Â On the other side you have the occasional niggle in the evidence or query, usually easily explained, and a general sense of unease shared across the internet by a small handful of individuals. These thousands of professionals you claim are doubters - where's the evidence of their existence? I've seen the odd college professor (and there are a LOT of them in the US) and various shock jocks. You present me with some credible, peer reviewed evidence or accept you're barking up the wrong tree. Â The onus, I'll say again, is on YOU to PROVE your case. Â -------------- Â On a purely intellectual level though, the argument against a 9/11 conspiracy is essentially the same as against most conspiracies. How feasible is it that such a conspiracy could have been perpetrated; how many people would have to have been involved? Â The JFK case remains potent as realistically, his assassination could have been perpetrated by a small handful of insiders - perhaps a dozen or so. People who might realistically believe that the death of one man is a price to pay for achieving a massive political realignment in the US. Â In the 9/11 event however, you're positing the collusion of thousands of people - FBI, CIA, aviation control, police, firemen, scientists, politicians, international partners such as the UK. Thousands, probably in the tens of thousands of people who all have to be persuaded to keep their mouths shut about their involvement in an event that cost thousands of innocent lives. Â I don't believe that's a credible scenario. As LaGoosh says, the US government struggles to do simple things like collect taxes or provide healthcare. Far easier, far far easier for a small group of Islamic terrorists to gain pilot's licences and board 3 planes. Â Â --- Â I doubt I can convince you; generally people who believe in conspiracies WANT to believe in them more than they want to know the truth. I think the psychology of paranoia is the most interesting aspect of all of these cases. What drives people to want to think that the world is controlled by Majestic 12 or whoever? Is it a desire for a simpler world, a world of black and white, good and evil, where they are absolved of personal responsibility as "the man" can always be blamed? For a lot of people, it's probably a bit of fun. For others, it's a rabbit hole down which they can disappear, and lose their sanity as well as the patience of their friends! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Burchill's Buddy Posted September 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 13, 2011 That's a fucking excellent post Loki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Not that any of their claims have any credibility, but where these truthers really come unstuck imo is when it comes to putting forward their theories about the collapse itself. It's amazing how so many people become Structural Engineers and demolition experts all of a sudden. When they at least confine their conspiracies to the Government's supposed motives and the political side of things behind the scenes, they'll still get ridiculed, but at least they can continue on safe in the knowledge that they can't really be disproved as such. But the topic of what physically brought the buildings down is another matter entirely, because it can quite easily be shown that they Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted September 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 13, 2011 One of my friends is an idiot who think 9/11 was a conspiracy and one of the things he says is "how could a skyscraper collapse like that after being hit by a plane?"...but I always reply with "If you're such a construction expert why have you been selling shirts in Alders for the past 7 years?". Â That shuts the twat up quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimufctna24 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) One of my friends is an idiot who think 9/11 was a conspiracy and one of the things he says is "how could a skyscraper collapse like that after being hit by a plane?"...but I always reply with "If you're such a construction expert why have you been selling shirts in Alders for the past 7 years?". That shuts the twat up quickly. That thoery was put to bed a long time ago, the detonation theory is the most common claim of a conspiracy involving 9/11. Some still believe after it was shown that the heat that the impact of the plane hitting the skyscraper caused it to completly collapase.  There is still a theory that one building ( WTC 7 I believe) was blown up with explosions, some even suggest that even if the other towers where collapsed by planes this one was brought down by a controlled explosion. Here is the man behind the theory  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IL9Yrf4nxg  This one hasnt actually been totally dismissed, but I can see if the time was taken like it was with dismissing other 9/11 theories such as my favorite , the abducted plane kidnapping, it could be proven to be false. Edited September 13, 2011 by jimufctna24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted September 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 13, 2011 And again popular mechanics.com explains it. Â http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ade-center#wtc7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.