Honest question for the 911 conspiracy buffs.

[candycorn]

It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.

I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.

After the fact, people have come forward with reasons why it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did. They show what they believe is evidence that something couldn't have happened the way it did. they get together with others who might have what THEY call proof that some other part of the official version was wrong and they claim that the whole thing was faked.

Earlier in this thread I asked what people believed actually happened. i found out that nobody has an actual explanation for what happened, they simply have the opinion that it didn't happen the way the government said it did. If someone was to come up with their version, I'll be a dollar to a donut that someone else could poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

I haven't heard anything that makes me think that the government planned this or that anyone but Osama Bin Laden planned this. Do I think that the government's explanation is air tight? No, and I wouldn't expect it to be. We can argue forever about why one thing or another could or couldn't have happened but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation that makes more sense than the government's version, I'll accept that version.

Thanks to those who answered my questions seriously and without resorting to school yard name-calling.

Well, what I have always come down to when I questioned the Government version is the events at the Pentagon. If you want to say there was a conspiracy afoot, you have to account for all four planes. Flight 93 was crashed in the middle of nowhere and served no purpose whatsoever. Why add that to your "inbox" if you're planning a conspiracy?

But the attacks in DC is the one that none of the twoofers can explain. Much to their chagrin, the lightpoles that were taken out by flight 77 on the way to hitting the Pentagon proves that it was not a conspiracy simply because you would have to include way too many moving parts to add in lightpoles which, nobody and I mean NOBODY, would ever think to include in the first place.

I mean, whenever there is a crash, you ask about survivors and look for a CVR and FDR. Never "show me the lightpoles". So if it were a conspiracy, you'll have to explain away all of the following:

1. Why not just increase the angle of attack to eliminate the lightpoles having to be planted?
2. Why not just change the trajectory of the attack laterally to not include the lightpoles at all?
3. How did the 5 lightpoles get planted with nobody seeing them being planted?
4. How did the cab with the smashed in windshield get there if it wasn't hit by the poles?
5. Why include the needless loose end of the cab driver who is nearly senile--would Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice really think, "Man, we need Lloyd Englund to make this conspiracy complete!"
6. Why add in the loose ends--any of whom could blow the cover off of the entire operation--of light pole planters?
7. Why include the Pentagon at all--the HQ of the same group you're going to tap to go to war?

To date, none of those who question the government's version have sufficient'y addressed any of those points much less all of them.

If it isn't a conspiracy in Virginia, there isn't a conspiracy in New York. So it effectively destroys ANY twoofer argument.

PS: If the "missile" crowd also believes that a missile was fired while the plane flew over the Pentagon--which is even more bizarre than those who believe in the "staged lightpole theory", one has to also account for a massive generator that was knocked off of it's moorings before the Pentagon was struck. Missiles explode when they hit things...so apparently the "missile" crowd believes that a missile was fired, zig-zagged and hit 5 light poles then took out a Generator BEFORE hitting the building. Nice.

It is noteworthy how none of the conspiracy whackjobs will address the above points in a rational matter. If they are man enough to address them...it will be only in videos and links. Man up and lets hear it boys.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok]WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.

end story

 

[eots]

it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.

end story

and you come up with this number how ???

 

[daws101]

so are you agreeing or disagreeing with nist ?

ask and answerd.
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!

so you think nist got it wrong ?

asked and answered

 

[daws101]

it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.

end story

and you come up with this number how ???

first, conservative was not specific about how many "several thousand" people is.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Massive Conspiracy

 

[daws101]

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damage the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .
in other words you're makin shut up.
I know it's a tough concept but the debris caused the fires that took out the column.
it's called the domino effect!

Never proven. Even the NIST report that you worship, but know nothing about said as much.
Get your head out from the Governments lap and brush your teeth you spineless toad.

OK, shit head let's talk about what's never been proven:

1. government conspiracy
the only proven conspiracy regarding 911 is the one involving bin laden and the hijackers.
2. explosives/thermite/thermate.
3.missile hits pentagon
4. no plane at shanksville
5.no shoot down at shanksville
6.foreknowledge.
7.wtc7 earwittness testimony
8. breaking or bypassing the law of physics IE:Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[2] and can be summarized as follows:

First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.[3][4][5]
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
9. FREE FALL.
10.SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE ( Definition of SYMMETRICAL
1: having, involving, or exhibiting symmetry
2: having corresponding points whose connecting lines are bisected by a given point or perpendicularly bisected by a given line or plane <symmetrical curves>
3symmetric : being such that the terms or variables may be interchanged without altering the value, character, or truth <symmetric equations> <R is a symmetric relation if aRb implies bRa>
4a : capable of division by a longitudinal plane into similar halves <symmetrical plant parts>

THOSE ARE JUST TEN things you need to prove without using 911 truth sources..
otherwise you're talking out your ass.
there's plenty of proof for that!


more proof of what started the fires in wtc7:What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

[daws101]

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

Can't understand why that doesn't compute with this idiot. Anyone can look your claim up, and move on with the topic, but this is proof that people like dawgshit totally ignore facts to support a fairytale.

 

[daws101]

are you claiming you can show a video of an imploded building and identify the det cord ?? is that what you are claiming ??

So, did you see the pieces of det cord in the rubble of the building destroyed in the video?

For the millionth time already det cord is CONSUMED in the fucking demolitions you fucking ignoramus. Do ya think such a sophisticated job would use what amounts to 2nd hand wiring and planning?
Good God already this shit has been talked about, linked and rehashed in 100's of links on the matter.
Go school yourselves on CDs and listen to CD experts who say this very same thing...DET cord is consumed in the demolition.

 

[Obamerican]

are you claiming you can show a video of an imploded building and identify the det cord ?? is that what you are claiming ??

So, did you see the pieces of det cord in the rubble of the building destroyed in the video?

For the millionth time already det cord is CONSUMED in the fucking demolitions you fucking ignoramus. Do ya think such a sophisticated job would use what amounts to 2nd hand wiring and planning?
Good God already this shit has been talked about, linked and rehashed in 100's of links on the matter.
Go school yourselves on CDs and listen to CD experts who say this very same thing...DET cord is consumed in the demolition.

Go fuck yourself, Jones. I've watched the videos where the CD company picks up pieces of it and shows it to the camera. Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.

end story

and the ignorance of the american sheeps continue.actually if he knew his true history, he would know that in the early 50's there was a secret covert war run by the CIA in indonisia involving thousands that the american people never knew about and was kept a secret from us for over 40 years till through the freedom of information act,congress discovered in the 90's this war took place,yep no way of keeping a secret.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Dude use some common sense and logic for once and be open minded.

Pal, I never called you an idiot, or a whack-job nor have I even implied that you were stupid or not using logic. I'd apprefciate it if you gave me the same courtesy.

they had to have the explosives planted in the basement because to bring down a tower you cant just rig explosives at the top and expect the ENTIRE building to collapse.

You might have a point IF they had rigged explosives. They did not.



Do you only have insults or do you have any facts? Tell me about this science that you know and few other people do.



I didn't ignore the (non-fact) that witness claimed to hear explosions before the planes hit. i in fact asked how anyone could think that there is any validity to those claims.



Hmm...then why isn't that the way that professional demolitionists do it? They don't put dynamite in the basement and let the building fall where it may. And just because it's in some guy's book, doesn't mean it's a fact.



No, I didn't.



Never in the history of mankind has a 747 crashed into a skyscraper either.

if they DO collapse like to an earthquake which CAN cause it collapse,they topple over and dont disintegrate into dust.

Do you not understand the difference between an earthquake striking a building and a jet plane striking it?

I thought you were open minded about this but cealrly your not.

So, your definition of open minded ius believing whatever you say? Sorry, that's not my definition.

So, let me see if I have this straight. If I don't believe what you say, then I'm not only closed-minded, I'm not using common sense or logic, and i slept through my junior high science classes, and I'm clueless and ? Is that how it goes?

congrats your catching on except your twisting my words. You ignore what EXPERTS say like those 1500 architects and engineers link I posted that dont accept the official b.s story of the collapse of the towers. you ignored these credible people.
AE911Truth.org
remember them? to ignore THEM in what THEY say is being close minded and an idiot.

To ignore what they say IS being close minded. you just proved in spades that your afraid of the truth about government corruption.I challenged you to refute the evidence and facts about the kennedy assassination on that thread since you still believe in THAT fairy tale as well that oswald killed kennedy even though 80% of americans dont anymore. priceless.I love it.your a fucking hypocrite.,all I did was list the facts there on that thread and here you go and throw a tantrem and start whining . and you have blatantly ignored evidence and facts that prove the official story is b.s as well so you got what you deserved.you can dish it out but you cant take it.

and when I pointed out the facts were stated by a lead designer that it was designed to take multiple hits from MULTIPLE airliners and it would remain standing? all you come back with is pathetic drivel that a 747 has never crashed into a tower either? Thats pathetic drivel when one of the lead designers said himself in march 2001 on the history channel on a modern marvels special it was designed to take a hit from MULTIPLE airliners and it would remain standing. so that point of yours is moot and holds no water.

since all you do is show what a hypocrite you are throwing childish insults when asked to refute the facts and evidence of the kennedy assassination that there is no evidence oswald did it,that all you can do is engage in name calling,that irks of hypocrisy.

I would post that video of that real life designer that atually said that,but you blatantly ignored the facts and evidence I listed on the JFK thread that there were multiple shooters and all you could do is reply back to me and call me names.so seeing what a fucking hypocrite you are who feels the need to get into name calling when he cant counter facts,thats about as pathetic as you can get.

you didnt even bother to address ANY of those facts because your too arrogant to admit when you have been proven wrong as many posters here have proven to you.how patheitc is that? So no sense in me wasting my time posting that video,you wont look at it since you know its the truth.

oh and yeah, you obviously slept through junior high school science classes because while i am no architect or engineer, as Eots was pointing out to you earlier,the problems with your ramblings in defending the fairy tale collapse of the towers, is that your saying the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore.

thats what he was referring to in the problem of your rants when he mentioned the laws of conservation of momentum refute your posts. this again is something every kid in junior high school science class learns at that age. you obviously slept through those science classes. your a complete waste of time if all you can do is throw insults when you cant refute the facts and evidence oswald had nothing to do with the kennedy assassiantion and nobody here should waste anymore time with you anymore.

Im going to repeat this to you so it was posted here TWICE for you to see so you cant twist my words again.AGAIN,no if you dont believe in what "I" say,that doesnt make you close minded,But if you dont believe in what THESE credible people say in this link here http://www.ae911truth.org/
,then yes you ARE close minded and in denial,you cant get around that one there.you know it,I know it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.

some friendly advice, whenever a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "
check the origin of said term and you'll find they all come from the same source: the truth movement.

it came from the building designer you nincompoop

thats truthful information that daws troll has no interest in knowing of course even though it was broadcast all over the history channel in march 2001 and it was only one of the real life designers who died in the towers .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

btw, a plane military(?) did crash into the Empire State Building before the WTC were built.

yep it happened

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.

and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.

I did not realise I was dealing with a coincidence theorist who buys into the bizarre coincidence that all 3 towers were owned by silverstein and they were the ONLY towers that collapsed that day yet none of the others not owned by silverstein damaged far worse than it was, remained standing.

 

[Conservative]

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.

and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.

liar...

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

[TakeAStepBack]

These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.

and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.

liar...

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

your funny.REAL photos prove your propaganda from that propaganda debwunker link bullshit.another agent has penetraed this site.

 

[Conservative]

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.

and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.

liar...

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

your funny.REAL photos prove your propaganda from that propaganda debwunker link bullshit.another agent has penetraed this site.

dipshit..

the picture posted CLEARLY shows that WTC 7 was not several blocks away from the towers. Are you claiming the image is not a true representation of thr footprint of the buildings involved? If so, let's see YOUR version of the building positions.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.

that is a much more interesting topic than arguing about where wtc7 is located in conjunction with expressions of "blocks away".