Conspiracies: Are they real?

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Still, with the 'need to know' basis of the US government and the general compartmentalization in MILDEC (Military Deception) operations, there would not need to be thousands of 911 perpetrators in the 'conspiracy' scenario. <snip rest>

this is the point at which you get into pure conjecture. you don't know anything about how the black world works (not directly at least) except from what you read on conspiracy sites. you draw one weak link after another then use the final point to "prove" everything you've said. it's all conjecture.

 

Exactly. My point is that since it is not uncommon for governments to stage terror for political motives, we should stop questioning the logic of such a scenario and discuss the evidence.

since they can they must be. sheesh.

 

The shot from the front proves that there was a second rifleman. Now, ask yourself why there was such a cover-up of this information. Ask yourself why the autopsy photos were forged to cover this up. Ask yourself why Grassy Knoll witnesses were intimidated. Ask yourself why JFK's security was stripped from him that day.

 

Please, then, explain how all of my arguments were circumstantial.

the quote immediately above this is a perfect example. "ask yourself this" and "why" are nothing but conjecture in which you start off with an answer then phrase your questions to support that answer.

 

when you extend your physical evidence to come to a conclusion which is only one of many possibilities said physical evidence becomes circumstantial. you've provided a bunch of points of evidence (you confuse the terms evidence and proof rather often) then filled in the gaps between these points with your own pre-conceived notions. that is all circumstantial.

 

taks

 

this is the point at which you get into pure conjecture. you don't know anything about how the black world works (not directly at least) except from what you read on conspiracy sites. you draw one weak link after another then use the final point to "prove" everything you've said. it's all conjecture.

 

History has shown us that this is how it works. It's also the logical way you would carry out a secret operation. The government is run on a 'need to know' basis. That is not conjecture. This fact is what refutes the "thousands of people would have been involved!" argument.

 

since they can they must be. sheesh.

 

I never said that. I said that since we know that they do, then there should be no question as to whether such a conspiracy could really occur in relation to 9/11. Whether it be questions of the magnitude of the conspiracy or whether they were morally capable, all of that is explained by the fact that governments have done this before. It was proven through recorded phone conversations that the 1993 bombing of the WTC was organized by the FBI. It was proven through sworn testimony, expert reports, and an endless fountain of other evidence that the Oklahoma City Bombing was an inside job. We now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete fabrication and that the US deliberately allowed the Israeli military to attack the USS Liberty and ordered fighters that were sent out to defend it to stand down. We now know about the Northwoods documents, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, and the US links to Islamic terrorism.

 

Since governments are known to stage terror, we know that 9-11 'could have been' staged terror and that the scenario has no real logical problems (Moral capability, Too many perps, etc.). We should move on to a discussion of the evidence.

 

the quote immediately above this is a perfect example. "ask yourself this" and "why" are nothing but conjecture in which you start off with an answer then phrase your questions to support that answer.

 

None of it is conjecture. Ask me to back up any of those points that I made and I will.

 

when you extend your physical evidence to come to a conclusion which is only one of many possibilities said physical evidence becomes circumstantial. you've provided a bunch of points of evidence (you confuse the terms evidence and proof rather often) then filled in the gaps between these points with your own pre-conceived notions. that is all circumstantial.

 

No. The forensics evidence, acoustics evidence, and eyewitness evidence all indicates that there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll. The obvious conclusion is that there was a second gunman who fired from that area. When we see the media and government covering this up, we can start to smell out a wider conspiracy. The other points, such as witness intimidation, the theft of the body by secret service spooks, the mutilation of the body, the stand-down of security, and Oswald's CIA background is all evidence that leads us to a larger conspiracy.

[taks]

History has shown us that this is how it works. It's also the logical way you would carry out a secret operation. The government is run on a 'need to know' basis. That is not conjecture. This fact is what refutes the "thousands of people would have been involved!" argument.

clearly you don't understand how compartmentalization works, nor why. i cannot be more specific other than "you just don't get it."

 

 

I never said that. I said that since we know that they do, then there should be no question as to whether such a conspiracy could really occur in relation to 9/11.

that's the point. just because you assume such a conspiracy can occur, you're implication is that it must have. you said specificallY:

 

Since governments are known to stage terror, we know that 9-11 'could have been' staged terror and that the scenario has no real logical problems (Moral capability, Too many perps, etc.). We should move on to a discussion of the evidence.

like i said, just because it "could have been" does not mean it did.

 

None of it is conjecture. Ask me to back up any of those points that I made and I will.

it's all conjecture. every single connection is either coincidence or an assumption. people like you do not understand occam's razor, nor the concept of the scientific method. every major piece, for example, of the conspiracy claim regarding 9/11 can and has been explained with simpler and more plausible alternatives.

 

The obvious conclusion is that there was a second gunman who fired from that area.

obvious to you. that is, by definition, conjecture.

 

When we see the media and government covering this up, we can start to smell out a wider conspiracy.

ah, that's how it starts. you begin with the above possible inconsistency, then claim a conspiracy, then reach to a cover-up. it continues downhill from there till you get to another piece, misconstrue it or attribute some more complex than necessary explanation, then continue again filling in the gap with more conjecture.

 

the persistence of conspiracy theorists is, to say the least, commendable. their lack of rigor, however, is shameful.

 

taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

I said that it implies that the scenario 'could be' and should not be immediately thrown out. Since governments are known to stage terrorism for political motive and the administration certainly did benefit from 9-11, I'm saying that the scenario should not be thrown out on the grounds of 'too many people' or 'they wouldn't have the moral capability'.

 

As for "Just because it could doesn't mean it did", I agree. I'm just showing that it CAN happen, and thus, we shouldn't have to get into issues of moral capability or magnitude.

 

it's all conjecture. every single connection is either coincidence or an assumption. people like you do not understand occam's razor, nor the concept of the scientific method. every major piece, for example, of the conspiracy claim regarding 9/11 can and has been explained with simpler and more plausible alternatives.

 

#1: None of it was conjecture. I can back all of it up. Eyewitnesses who saw Kennedy's body said that they felt that the autopsy photos were forgeries because the photos contradicted what they remembered (a large exit wound in the back). As for the stand-down, the secret service is on videotape being ordered to stand down. As for the witness intimidation, I can tell you about plenty of that. Orville Nix witnessed a shot from the knoll and in his CBS interview, he said that. This was followed by 'Cut!' and he was told to change his story to "the shots came from the depository".

 

#2: Occam's Razor is highly unreliable. The simplest explanation is not always the right one. In fact, many times officials initially assume the simplest and turn out to be wrong.

 

#3: I don't feel that every conspiracy claim regarding 9/11 have simple explanations. There are plenty that do, but there are plenty that don't. Building 7, for example.

 

obvious to you. that is, by definition, conjecture.

 

No, not obvious to me. Obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts. You yourself said that the forensics indicate that more is going on.

 

*Dozens of eyewitnesses spoke of shots from the Grassy Knoll area.

*The doctors in Dallas unanimously reported that there was a large exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

*Acoustics experts hired by congress to analyze a tape of the assassination found that there was a fourth shot that had come from the Grassy Knoll area.

 

ah, that's how it starts. you begin with the above possible inconsistency, then claim a conspiracy, then reach to a cover-up.

 

There is irrefutable evidence of a second gunman who fired from the front and hit the President. This evidence comes in the form of the testimony of the Dallas doctors, the testimony of Grassy Knoll eyewitnesses, and the acoustics evidence. Now, follow the implications. The media has promoted the ridiculous official line that state that Kennedy 'slumped forward' after getting shot. Dan Rather reported that the shot thrust Kennedy forward with 'considerable violence'. They have put out ridiculously dishonest hit pieces like Peter Jennings' "Beyond Conspiracy". The government got the Warren Commission (Full of suspicious folks) to put out ridiculous, disproven lies ("The Magic Bullet"). When we see this, how can we deny a cover up? If there was a second gunman, as the evidence suggests, and the government/media covered this up, as the evidence suggests, what does that suggest?

 

it continues downhill from there till you get to another piece, misconstrue it or attribute some more complex than necessary explanation, then continue again filling in the gap with more conjecture.

 

It would be nice if you explained how I am doing all of these things.

[taks]

#1: None of it was conjecture. I can back all of it up.

not the conspiracy. sorry, but that's what i'm talking about. your statements immediately assume cover-up when a more plausible explanation is incompetence. particularly when ascribing conspriatorial motives to news agencies. the average journalist does not have anywhere near the education required to cover any topic that involves scientific findings.

 

#2: Occam's Razor is highly unreliable. The simplest explanation is not always the right one. In fact, many times officials initially assume the simplest and turn out to be wrong.

it is most often the right one, contrary to your belief.

 

#3: I don't feel that every conspiracy claim regarding 9/11 have simple explanations. There are plenty that do, but there are plenty that don't. Building 7, for example.

uh, that's an easy one and has been debunked more thoroughly than the original two towers.

 

No, not obvious to me. Obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts. You yourself said that the forensics indicate that more is going on.

more going on does not equate to conspiracy, particularly one as deep as described in that video. the simplest answer is basic incompetence.

 

*Dozens of eyewitnesses spoke of shots from the Grassy Knoll area.

*The doctors in Dallas unanimously reported that there was a large exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

*Acoustics experts hired by congress to analyze a tape of the assassination found that there was a fourth shot that had come from the Grassy Knoll area.

still does not equate to conspiracy. that's where your conjecture comes it. you instantly assume it is and any of your follow-up analysis begins under the assumption of a conspiracy.

 

It would be nice if you explained how I am doing all of these things.

you just did it right there for god's sake! evidence of a second gunman is not "proof" of anything other than oswald acting with someone else. you made the leap to huge conspricies then tied all the other little inconsitencies together with conjecture. man, how many times do i have to point this out?

 

now we're at a point, 40+ years later, where it would be impossible to get everyone involved to speak to what really happened. the same goes for timothy mcveigh, for example, "confessing" that the FBI made him do it. he was a documented whack job long before OK city, and now (er, then) he's facing the death penalty, yet somehow he's credible? give me a break.

 

taks

Edited December 18, 2008 by taks

[Walsingham]

While I appreciate you taking the trouble to link to your proofs regarding your theories I have to weigh them against my own professional judgement re engineering and explosives, plus the judgement of a doctor in structural engineering who specialises in disasters. You apply the maths, and the maths doesn't lie.

 

1. I'd have to see the calculations and simulation being used by anyone who wanted to convince me that you couldn't reliably expect the twin towers to collapse after you hit them with passenger planes.

 

2. Why would a covert team take the extraordinary risk involved in planting traceable explosives around the building? It just doesn't make any ****ing sense. They've already decided to crash planes into them. You're talking an immense potential for failure, due to the time to plant, and leave dormant. Anyone could have stumbled across them.

 

3. To assert that none of the terrorist attacks on the USA/UK are genuine is extraordinary if only because you're saying that either Al Qaeda doesn't exist, or they are really ****ing lazy. Either assertion is contradicted by about a bajillion pieces of evidence. Who the hell do you think was planting all the sophisticated bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[taks]

one of the methods of conspiracy theorists (along the lines of stuff you point out, walsh) is to flip the burden of proof back onto those that discount their views. they don't properly apply falsification methods (read: the scientific method) and expect skeptics of their position to essentially "prove us wrong," i.e., prove a negative, when in fact, the burden of proof is on them to rule out all other plausible hypotheses. they simply label any dissenting opinion, expert or otherwise, as disinformation without even the background to make such a claim. basic scientific principles, learned when we were all children, are merely hindrances when deeply held ideological* beliefs are at play.

 

taks

 

* i was reading something on the wiki from popper maybe that conspiracy theorists aren't really ideological in the same sense as the term is normally used. i don't recall seeing another term.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

not the conspiracy. sorry, but that's what i'm talking about. your statements immediately assume cover-up when a more plausible explanation is incompetence. particularly when ascribing conspriatorial motives to news agencies. the average journalist does not have anywhere near the education required to cover any topic that involves scientific findings.

 

How can intimidation of witnesses be incompetence? That's cover-up. When your intimidating/trying to kill/threatening a witness and telling them what to say, you are not failing to do something or bumbling around, you are trying to change the eyewitness' testimony or erase eyewitnesses. The plausible explanation for trying to change witness testimony is to cover something up. When the eyewitnesses happen to be Richard Carr, Acquila Clemmons, Orville Nix, and Nelson Delgado, all of whom have testimony that conflicts with the official version of events, then the plausible explanation is that the cover-up in relation to these witness testimonies is likely because they are damaging the official version.

 

I will list two examples of journalists who have unmistakably covered up the Kennedy assassination.

 

----

 

#1: Dan Rather

 

Dan Rather's 1963 report on the Zapruder film had him telling the public, who weren't allowed to see the film at this time, that the film showed Kennedy's head being pushed forward with 'considerable violence'. This is not an issue of scientific expertise or analysis. This is a simple report on whether the President went forward or backward. There are only two explanations here:

 

1. Rather did not see the tape.

2. Rather did see the tape and is lying about it.

 

Either one has Rather lying. The most plausible explanation for a lie would be a cover-up.

 

Here the audio of Rather lying for yourself: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/rather4.wav

 

#2: Peter Jennings

 

In Jennings' pathetic WarrenCommission-hugging hit piece "Beyond Conspiracy", he played part of a conference with Malcolm Kilduff, Kennedy's assistant press secretary. He cut the conference off seconds before Kilduff demonstrated with his hand that the bullet hit Kennedy in the front of the head. To cut that part off is dishonest.

 

See the fulll conference with Malcolm Kilduff here: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU

 

----

 

Also, what about Orville Nix? Once you hear his story, it's clear that the media was covering something up: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE9XQZvis8

 

"it is most often the right one, contrary to your belief."

 

I disagree with that, but let's focus on the evidence.

 

uh, that's an easy one and has been debunked more thoroughly than the original two towers.

 

No it hasn't. All the debunking claims are debunk-able themselves. One of the popular debunking myths is that the diesel fuel caused the collapse. This is false. The FEMA report admits that no diesel smells were reported in Building 7. The debunkers fail to explain why:

 

*The building came straight down, vertically, nearly symmetrically.

*The building came nearly into it's own footprint. This doesn't happen by accident. This is what controlled demolitions are designed to achieve.

*The building produced massive amounts of fine, pulverized concrete dust.

*The building came down in under 7 seconds and fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.

*The building's exterior walls were pulled towards the center.

*The building appeared to 'pull itself' down, with a 'kink' present in the center of the roof.

*According to an eyewitness (Daryl the medical student), there was a 'clap of thunder' explosion, a shockwave, and then the bottom floor caved out, followed by the building.

*According to an eyewitness (Craig Bartmer), there were 'booms' going off constantly during the collapse.

*According to an eyewitness (Al Jones), the building came down 'from an explosion'.

*Photographs show that the heaviest damage was only on one side of the building, and did not appear to be severe enough to bring the building down. The fires on the other sides were small and much of the building appeared to be standing solid.

 

 

*Many skyscraper fires have caused more damage, burned longer, and were larger than the ones in Building 7. None of these other steel buildings collapsed. The Murrah building was more severely damaged than Building 7, but it didn't collapse. The fires in the Windsor Building burned all night and damaged it way more than Building 7 was damaged. Part of the building fell, but the building itself stayed standing and was able to support a large crane on the roof.

*The Bankers Trust building was further away, but did not collapse.

 

So, we already have powerful evidence that fires were not responsible and that the building exhibited all of the key characteristics of a controlled demolition (It collapsed straight down, It collapsed nearly into it's own footprint, fell rapidly, produced fine, pulverized dust at it's base, the exterior walls were pulled towards the center, there was a kink in the center, indicating that the central supports had failed simultaneously, and the collapse was preceded by an explosion).

 

The photo showing the worst damage that I've seen is this one: http://911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg

 

It looks pretty fake, though, wouldn't you say? Just look at it. WTC7 looks cartoonish. Assuming that it's real, though, does this look like the damage of 'falling debris'? Looks more like blast damage to me.Let's assume that it is, though! Does this hole look bad enough to take down a skyscraper? Look at the upper floors. They are completely in-tact and undamaged, except for a few charred/broken windows.

 

Oh, there was also this photo: http://911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7groove2.jpg

 

That's another debunker favorite, but come on. This looks so fake. Falling debris doesn't cause neat, straight vertical gashes. Just look at it. Let's assume that this is real and was caused by falling debris, though. The rest of the building around this gash is fine and in-tact.

 

NIST's own graphic admits that most of the building wasn't damaged: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h2.jpg

 

More proof of demolition comes in the form of the 911 responders.

 

Indira Singh, a Ground Zero emergency worker, said on the "Guns & Butter" radio program that she was told that they were going have to "bring down" Building 7.

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78

 

Kenneth McPadden, an eyewitness to the collapse, said that he saw a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth with a radio. Over the radio, he heard "3.. 2.. 1.." then explosions happened and Building 7 collapsed. 9/11 researcher Kevin Barret said that he heard from a number of responders who heard a countdown before the WTC7 collapse over their radios.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

 

Barry Jennings, a man who worked in Building 7, reported multiple explosions inside Building 7 before it collapsed and a 'big explosion'.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

 

Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually

[taks]

I don't believe I've done this. You ask me to prove something, I give my argument for it, and then throw the ball back to you.

no, you haven't even come close to providing proper falsification. consider all other plausible explanations for every connection you've made, then you get to throw the ball back after you've legitimately ruled them all out. your statements always assume one outcome, one possibility, i.e., conspiracy. that's not science, that's pseudo-science.

 

i'm sure you don't believe you have done this, though i would guess it is likely because you don't know how to do it properly. it is not a natural thing to do as humans desire patterns and connections between obscure events. it takes training. lots of training.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, IMO, the closest one you have a chance with is the JFK assassination. the OKC boming and 9/11 attack are the difficult ones primarily because it is difficult to refute hard science and they were recent enough that memories haven't faded into obscurity. there are clearly some serious inconsitencies with the JFK thing, which is the only reason i say "you have a chance," but that was so long ago that the truth is all but impossible to find. furthermore, the truth does not require conspiracy to be at odds with the official record.

 

taks

Edited December 19, 2008 by taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

btw, IMO, the closest one you have a chance with is the JFK assassination. the OKC boming and 9/11 attack are the difficult ones primarily because it is difficult to refute hard science and they were recent enough that memories haven't faded into obscurity. there are clearly some serious inconsitencies with the JFK thing, which is the only reason i say "you have a chance," but that was so long ago that the truth is all but impossible to find. furthermore, the truth does not require conspiracy to be at odds with the official record.

 

taks

 

The OKC bombing has been proven with hard science to be an inside job. Read the report of General Benton K. Partin, an explosives expert. It was never scientifically refuted and it proved the existence of explosive device inside the Murrah building.. a fact which is backed up by all the local news reports in Oklahoma and sworn testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, as well as seismic evidence.

 

The official version of the WTC collapses was not based on hard science. The corporate media and 'official' experts fed the public different story after different story. First, it was that the steel trusses melted. Then, it was that the floors pancaked. As the false explanations fell, government/military-linked NIST provided the world with "the official story", which states that the impact damaged the steel supports, and the fires that followed continued to weaken them until the intense heat caused the supports to buckle and eventually snap, sending the top portion of the building falling down into the rest. A detailed, well-researched critique of the NIST's report was done by Jim Hoffman. It can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

 

The government's case depends on the witnesses dying or growing too old to remember. Hundreds of witnesses reported explosions inside the World Trade Center, many on the lower floors. The OKC witnesses remember the ATF carrying unexploded bombs out of the building and secondary explosions.

 

I know that truth doesn't have to equal conspiracy. Once again, I just call them as I see them.

Edited December 19, 2008 by DownWithTheIlluminati

[taks]

The official version of the WTC collapses was not based on hard science.

to hell it wasn't. that one was explained rather well in fact. just because you don't understand the physics doesn't mean it's disinformation. yes, i've read about it.

 

The corporate media and 'official' experts fed the public different story after different story. First, it was that the steel trusses melted. Then, it was that the floors pancaked. As the false explanations fell, government/military-linked NIST provided the world with "the official story", which states that the impact damaged the steel supports, and the fires that followed continued to weaken them until the intense heat caused the supports to buckle and eventually snap, sending the top portion of the building falling down into the rest. A detailed, well-researched critique of the NIST's report was done by Jim Hoffman.

you mean, in other words, they weren't sure how it happened, debated in a scientific manner, then came to a conclusion that fit the evidence as well as science? yes, i hate to tell you, that's how science proceeds. study, learn.

 

The government's case depends on the witnesses dying or growing too old to remember. Hundreds of witnesses reported explosions inside the World Trade Center, many on the lower floors. The OKC witnesses remember the ATF carrying unexploded bombs out of the building and secondary explosions.

they reported what they thought were explosions, none of those people understood nor were they qualified to provide reasonable accounts of the occurences. sigh... do you have any idea what happens when a 757 slams into the side of a building taking out several floors? neither did the occupants.

 

repeat after me: you MUST rule out all plausible explanations in addition to proving your point. eyewitness testimony regarding what they heard is about as unreliable as it gets given their general lack of knowledge of the subject. in order to prove your point, you will also need proof that bombs were placed inside the WTC, a point that doesn't even have evidence, let alone proof.

 

c'mon man. you can't have missed every science class as you were growing up?

 

taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

to hell it wasn't. that one was explained rather well in fact. just because you don't understand the physics doesn't mean it's disinformation. yes, i've read about it.

 

Please read this detailed and well-researched review of NIST's fraud report: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

 

you mean, in other words, they weren't sure how it happened, debated in a scientific manner, then came to a conclusion that fit the evidence as well as science? yes, i hate to tell you, that's how science proceeds. study, learn.

 

Just because they followed the scientific method doesn't meant they were right. It is my opinion that the NIST report was built to fail. Have you read Jim Hoffman's review?

 

they reported what they thought were explosions, none of those people understood nor were they qualified to provide reasonable accounts of the occurences. sigh... do you have any idea what happens when a 757 slams into the side of a building taking out several floors? neither did the occupants.

 

The explosions that were reported were either immediately prior to the collapses or in the period between the impacts and the collapses. Therefore, we can safely rule out an airplane impact as a possibility of what these witnesses heard.

 

Hell, we can hear one of these explosions for ourselves.

 

Check it out: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

 

Doesn't this sound exactly like an explosive detonation? A comparison video suggested that it was just that: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU

 

repeat after me: you MUST rule out all plausible explanations in addition to proving your point. eyewitness testimony regarding what they heard is about as unreliable as it gets given their general lack of knowledge of the subject. in order to prove your point, you will also need proof that bombs were placed inside the WTC, a point that doesn't even have evidence, let alone proof.

 

c'mon man. you can't have missed every science class as you were growing up?

 

Well, the most compelling explosions are the ones that occurred on the lower floors. Since Shyam Sunder admits that the majority of the jet fuel would have burned off in around 10 minutes, the most plausible explanation is that these explosions were events completely separate from the initial explosion. What does that leave us with?

 

Also, we have the designers coming out and saying that the building was designed to take only local damage from the 600mph impact of a commercial airplane. We know that the Towers were redundant and had strong, steel supports that made it one of the strongest buildings in the world. As Scientific American said, "They just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center". NIST admits that they found no evidence of fires above 600 degrees. This isn't even enough heat to cause the steel to lose half it's strength. We also know, based on the photographs, that the fires in the Tower were only local. We know that the impact area had only a few small fires, and was not that hot, as a woman was photographed waving from the hole and hanging onto a steel beam. She was not melted or burnt to a crisp.

 

So, the airplane hits were not enough to cause collapse AND people heard explosions on the lower levels AND a high-velocity detonation sound was caught on video in the area.

 

And what about Building 7? NIST admits that most of the building was not damaged. In fact, only one face was damaged and only had some holes in it. The other sides only had a few small fires on only a few floors. The Murrah building had it's entire front face blown out, but did not collapse. The Windsor Building burned all night long like a torch but still stood, and was able to support a large crane on it's roof. When it collapsed, it collapsed straight-down, vertically. It's center columns appeared to have been taken out, because the center of the roof was pulled downwards, massive amounts of pulverized, fine concrete dust was produced at it's base, the exterior walls were pulled towards it's central axis, the collapse was preceded by a 'clap of thunder', there were 'booms' all the way down during the collapse, and it collapsed nearly entirely into it's own footprint.. which does not happen by accident. That is what demolition professionals work to achieve.. So you can see that Building 7 collapsed in a way that was completely inconsistent with structural failure but that exhibited every characteristic of a controlled demolition. If you need even more evidence, Indira Singh (Ground Zero emergency worker) was told that Building 7 would be 'brought down', Kenneth McPadden heard a guy counting down over his radio before the collapse, and Barry Jennings heard massive explosions inside Building 7 prior to the collapse.

 

The way Building 7 collapsed rules out the official explanation for it's collapse.

[Trenitay]

I may be wrong but I thought the WTC was meant to withstand commercial airplanes up to the time it was built, and that the planes that hit Were significantly larger than the ones back then.

[Walsingham]

I can almost cope with the fact that you're relying on the statement of the guys who made the buildings that they think it would be fine if hit by a plane. except for the fact that my pocket expert at my end assures me that they don't know what they are talking about. I can see why, because I know personally the huge differences between naval architecture, and salvage engineering. The guy who designs a ship often will be completely wrong about how it will behave once it starts sinking/catches fire/ is overrun by tribbles.

 

I can cope with that because by contrast you are actually maintaining that Al Qaeda is a fiction designed by British and American special forces?

 

I want to laugh, but I'm not sure I can start laughing that much and not die.

 

Or it could be that I find the suggestion that my friends and colleagues would be detonating bombs every day that killed civilians in their thousands, grossly offensive. It's offensive to their sacrifices, it's offensive to their honourable conduct, but most importantly it's offensive to their ****ing eyesight. Or how do you explain the regular shootouts with terrorists and the infantry? How do you explain the way we keep finding dead terrorists and failing to notice they are ****ing caucasian?

[taks]

I may be wrong but I thought the WTC was meant to withstand commercial airplanes up to the time it was built, and that the planes that hit Were significantly larger than the ones back then.

a boeing 707.

 

taks

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

I may be wrong but I thought the WTC was meant to withstand commercial airplanes up to the time it was built, and that the planes that hit Were significantly larger than the ones back then.

 

Taks is right. They were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 going at 600mph. A Boeing 707 was the largest airplane at the time. On 9/11, we are told that the Towers were hit by Boeing 767s. The 707/767 really are quite comparable:

 

 

 

I can almost cope with the fact that you're relying on the statement of the guys who made the buildings that they think it would be fine if hit by a plane. except for the fact that my pocket expert at my end assures me that they don't know what they are talking about. I can see why, because I know personally the huge differences between naval architecture, and salvage engineering. The guy who designs a ship often will be completely wrong about how it will behave once it starts sinking/catches fire/ is overrun by tribbles.

 

We have the building designers, and then we have quite a few structural/civil engineers and relevant building architects: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

 

There are also some demolitions experts who agree with the demolition theory:

http://www.bt.dk/article/20010912/NYHEDER/109120204/1192

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Jowenko

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...10707expert.htm

 

The head of a national demolition association said that the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "classic demolition":

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

 

According to the official version, a commercial airplane hit the higher floors of the Tower and started an inferno that weakened the supports in that area, causing them to snap, which caused the tops of the buildings to fall into themselves, initiating global collapse. This is debunked here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

 

One of the many reasons NIST's theory does not add up is the fact that it relies on the airplane creating a massive inferno to weaken the steel supports to the point of snapping. The problem with that is that they themselves admit that they couldn't find evidence of heat above 600 degrees, which isn't even enough heat to reduce half of the steel's strength.

 

I can cope with that because by contrast you are actually maintaining that Al Qaeda is a fiction designed by British and American special forces?

 

No. Al Qaeda is not complete fiction. It's greatly exaggerated (every time there's a random attack, it's 'believed to be linked to al qaeda'.. they couldn't find any Al Qaeda link to 3-11 in Madrid but the propagandists repeated the "believed to be linked to al qaeda" line like sheep). Al Qaeda was created by US intelligence and is backed from behind the scenes by US/UK/Israeli/Pakistani intelligence. It is an intelligence operation. Many of the bombings in Iraq are staged by US/UK forces. I can provide EVIDENCE that they are working to stage attacks inside Iraq and pin them on Al Qaeda.

 

Or it could be that I find the suggestion that my friends and colleagues would be detonating bombs every day that killed civilians in their thousands, grossly offensive.

 

Be offended at them, not me. Please read:

 

Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...p;articleId=994

 

As I said, two British SAS guys were caught trying to stage an Al Qaeda bombing. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. They were caught doing it. They got thrown in jail and British forces busted them out. This was in the news, but they brushed it off as if it was nothing.

 

Also, when you say "your friends and colleagues", if you mean the military, it's not your everyday soldier that's behind this. Al Qaeda is a US/UK/Israeli/Pakistani intelligence operation. Think spooks. There are, as you saw with those SAS guys, 'special units' in the military that are engaged in such activities.

 

It's offensive to their sacrifices, it's offensive to their honourable conduct,

 

How is shooting cops in Basra and trying to stage a false flag bombing "honorable conduct"?

 

Or how do you explain the regular shootouts with terrorists and the infantry?

 

When you invade a country and a ton of people there hate you, shootouts between infantry and the people there are to be expected. You can't pin it all on an organized "Al Qaeda". Most of the shootouts are real, but the bombings? Nope. Many of the bombings are false flag operations designed to keep the Al CIAda scares alive. Want evidence? Here's some evidence:

 

"People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away."

http://riverbendblog.blogspit.com/2005_05_...636281930496496

 

I understand. That's just a rumor. Let's use a more solid example:

 

Also in May 2005, Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi-exile physicist whose writings helped to discredit American and British fabrications about weapons of mass destruction, reported a story that in Baghdad a driver whose license had been confiscated at an American check-point was told "to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license." After being questioned for half an hour, he was informed that there was nothing against him, but that his license had been forwarded to the Iraqi police at the al-Khadimiya station "for processing"

Edited December 21, 2008 by DownWithTheIlluminati

[Pidesco]

[Guest The Architect]

Going back to 9/11, I won't lie, it all seems a bit dodgy to me, personally.

 

The collapse of WTC7 was always something about 9/11 that interested me, especially Larry Silverstein's "pull it" conversation, followed by this, from 2:36 - 3:20'ish..

 

I'd like to know why Larry Silverstein refused to answer the question about who was it in the NYFD he had the "pull it" conversation with if it wasn't Chief Nigro. If it was, he would've told the guys that they're full of **** and he did actually speak to him. He was the fire commander Silverstein was referring to in the "pull it" conversation.

 

Of course, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, the most important question to ask is how could this be pulled off? They would've had to have set the demolitions in the buildings a couple weeks or so before 9/11 without anyone noticing {dodgy team conducted fire drills, perhaps?} and there couldn't have been many people involved but how possible is it for few people to do it all on their own? Or maybe demolitions weren't even needed and all that was required was ignoring and suppressing advanced knowledge of the planned hijackings.

 

Also what gets me about 9/11 is why the hijacked planes weren't shot down. Hell they prepared for this sort of thing and still couldn't stop it. Is it possible someone gave the NORAD guys the war game coordinates and the real ones were hidden? I dunno, I find it hard to believe **** like this could be pulled off but behaviour like that makes me suspicious, although the reporter was wrong, he didn't actually say he saw the first plane hit the tower, he just said he saw a plane hit the tower, but the point still stands, why was his version different from the official White House media reported one?

 

But enough about 9/11 being a conspiracy, is there actually any proof Al-Qaeda were behind it, that they were solely responsible other than a dodgy confession tape that could've been faked?

[Gfted1]

But enough about 9/11 being a conspiracy, is there actually any proof Al-Qaeda were behind it, that they were solely responsible other than a dodgy confession tape that could've been faked?

 

I guess that depends on how hard you want to "not believe". Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden specifically have repeatadly taken credit for 9/11 over the years. Of course I suppose that can be splained away with "dodgy confession tapes" and "Al-Qaeda is really part of the CIA" reasoning.

[Dark_Raven]

9/11 and cover ups. The plane that "crashed" in Pennsylvania was most likely shot down IMO. The debris was scattered miles away plus there was no large parts of the plane that would correspond to a crash. The only images I remember seeing was a crater where the plane "crashed". Same goes with the "plane" that crashed into the pentagon. From images from the media it shows something hit it at a verticle level, not a horizontal level like a plane coming from above.

 

@ the Penns plane crash. Government cover up that it crashed and not being shot down? Better for the public to see a plane taken down by passengers who fought back at the terrorist than the truth that we were forced to shoot down one of our own planes.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Dark_Raven

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

Going back to 9/11, I won't lie, it all seems a bit dodgy to me, personally.

 

The collapse of WTC7 was always something about 9/11 that interested me, especially Larry Silverstein's "pull it" conversation, followed by this, from 2:36 - 3:20'ish..

 

I'd like to know why Larry Silverstein refused to answer the question about who was it in the NYFD he had the "pull it" conversation with if it wasn't Chief Nigro. If it was, he would've told the guys that they're full of **** and he did actually speak to him. He was the fire commander Silverstein was referring to in the "pull it" conversation.

 

The main question for me about Larry Silverstein's 'Pull It' is "Why did Perp Larry Silverstein come public on PBS and never admit it anywhere else?" and "Why did the mainstream media allow the clip to be played? Why wouldn't be taken out of the DVD?". I got my answer when I was showing my friends clips of Building 7 and how it was clearly demolished. They were all pretty convinced, and then I showed them the 'Pull It' clip. Before I said anything, they all said "Ah! That explains it! The building was demolished for public safety!".

 

Regardless of the fact that you cannot wire a building in a few hours, people's knee-jerk reaction to such a statement will be "Ah, nothing nefarious about this demolition!". Since Building 7 was an obvious demolition, the perpetrators obviously needed to control the situation for people who would look further than the "Fire+Damage" explanation. They had Perp Larry Silverstein (Who had very close ties to Israel and Netanyahu) say 'Pull It'. It was vague (Pull what?), there was some plausible deniability ("He meant the firefighters!), and it was enough to fool people who had just woken up to the fact that Building 7 was demolished (Guys, I found out it was a public safety demolition!).

 

So, the "Pull It" remark was a PSYOP. The more conclusive evidence relating to Building 7 is the way it fell. No amount of fire+damage could cause a skyscraper to fall that way. That is exactly the type of collapse that demolition experts aim for when wiring a building. It takes weeks of planning to bring a building down in that fashion. It does not happen by accident. Getting back to 'Pull It', we must be careful when the perps hand us the clues.

 

Building 7 may have been a giant PSYOP in itself. It is an obvious conventional demolition. It brought us down the lines of "Well, Building 7 was obvious, so they were probably all conventional demolitions!". Evidence now indicates, though, that exotic weaponry was used to destroy the Twin Towers. Evidence also seems to be emerging that indicates that the perpetrators are actively trying to cover up this exotic technology (because it is a sensitive means of deception). Perhaps Building 7 was used to lead people down the "It was all 100% conventional" road.

 

I guess that depends on how hard you want to "not believe". Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden specifically have repeatadly taken credit for 9/11 over the years. Of course I suppose that can be splained away with "dodgy confession tapes" and "Al-Qaeda is really part of the CIA" reasoning.

 

Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset working under the name "Tim Osman". His right-hand man, Zawahiri, was trained by the CIA in Bosnia. The seeds that would grow into Al Qaeda were trained/funded/armed/taught by US forces. Top-level officials of FBI and MI6 has been caught protecting Al Qaeda cells. Mossad has been caught creating fake Al Qaeda cells.

 

It would seem that Al Qaeda is a CIA/MI6/Mossad production. As for Bin Laden, my guess is that he's dead, because they haven't been able to produce any "Bin Laden Videos" that are the least bit convincing. The two "9/11 Confession" videos were the most poorly done ones. It is interesting that initially, he denied responsibility for the attacks thrice.

 

Ask the FBI what evidence they have that connects Bin Laden to 9/11. Ed Haas of the Mucracker Report called the FBI and asked why the September 11th attacks weren't listed as one of Bin Laden's crimes on his Most Wanted poster. He was told by Agent Rex Tomb that this was because "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11".

 

9/11 and cover ups. The plane that "crashed" in Pennsylvania was most likely shot down IMO. The debris was scattered miles away plus there was no large parts of the plane that would correspond to a crash. The only images I remember seeing was a crater where the plane "crashed". Same goes with the "plane" that crashed into the pentagon. From images from the media it shows something hit it at a verticle level, not a horizontal level like a plane coming from above.

 

@ the Penns plane crash. Government cover up that it crashed and not being shot down? Better for the public to see a plane taken down by passengers who fought back at the terrorist than the truth that we were forced to shoot down one of our own planes.

 

I used to think that Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter, but I don't think it crashed in Shanksville now:

 

 

There's no plane here. Just a cartoon, plane-shape hole.

[Calax]

I'm pretty sure that Flight 93 was shot down in favor of the possibility of it being used as another weapon. I was frustrated when the movie came out (I haven't seen it) because the film crew consulted the families on how the now dead member was as a person. And I'm presuming here but I would guess that each "passenger" in the movie was potrayed as a altruistic paragon of humanity. What's more likely is that rather than them moving to take down the plane (the fact that they were reported as gathering in the back sounds like it's falsified. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain knows that you don't let hostages congregate together for obvious reasons. Mob mentality takes over and things go REALLY wrong) a military plane just turned it into a smoking crater. It certainly makes more sense than the military simply sitting on their hands when a plane ignored a no-fly order.

[DownWithTheIlluminati]

I'm pretty sure that Flight 93 was shot down in favor of the possibility of it being used as another weapon. I was frustrated when the movie came out (I haven't seen it) because the film crew consulted the families on how the now dead member was as a person. And I'm presuming here but I would guess that each "passenger" in the movie was potrayed as a altruistic paragon of humanity. What's more likely is that rather than them moving to take down the plane (the fact that they were reported as gathering in the back sounds like it's falsified. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain knows that you don't let hostages congregate together for obvious reasons. Mob mentality takes over and things go REALLY wrong) a military plane just turned it into a smoking crater. It certainly makes more sense than the military simply sitting on their hands when a plane ignored a no-fly order.

 

The "United 93" movie was propaganda. Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville. There is no plane in that crater. There were no commercial airplane crashes on 9-11. No planes, no hijackers. Just faked videos, bombs, drones, and a man-made crash site. Very exotic weaponry and explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

Edited December 24, 2008 by DownWithTheIlluminati

[taks]

yup, it was all faked. all the witnesses are lying and every one of the thousands of experts that took part in the official records don't know what they're talking about. folks like me with too much education (less than 0.1% have a hard science phd) and the obvious ability to critically examine evidence are either bought, which implies we're also lying, or incompetent. yah, the government that can't seem to get anything right has either fixed it all or silenced those that found out.

 

prove i'm lying, btw.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

Foucault's Pendulum has the best analysis on conspiracies and how they work.