I know this horse has been beat many times on here but I need to post this. I have been watching Inside 9/11 on NatGeo this morning and noticed something very important that most probably dont see at all.
At 9:04 in this video there is clear footage of steel getting cut. That steel is not melting from the jet fuel fire. That is Thermite, anyone should be able to tell the difference between The fire burning and the spouting geyser of molten steel.
Then at 10:28 they go back to the same spot the steel was getting cut and the building buckles.
This isnt from loose change or some conspiracy theory video off youtube. This is a documentary made by National Geographic.
Those buildings didnt come down, They were brought down.
You are full of shit. This is an old conspiracy theory that has been floating around for a while. You can make thermite from aluminum (they make airplanes out of this) and plaster (dry wall). Just do a youtube search there are lots of videos showing how to do it. You have proven nothing.
“…truthiness is a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”
Conspiracy theories are bunk if only for one reason alone:
Government is laughably ineffective, the amount of paper it takes to build a bus stop is staggering.
A covert operation that could have been SO much simpler (simply blow the statue of liberty or a building with a truck full of tnt), that would involve SO many specialists and demand complete and utter loyality from this legion of men is a comic book fantasy.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Conspiracy theories are bunk if only for one reason alone:
Government is laughably ineffective, the amount of paper it takes to build a bus stop is staggering.
A covert operation that could have been SO much simpler (simply blow the statue of liberty or a building with a truck full of tnt), that would involve SO many specialists and demand complete and utter loyality from this legion of men is a comic book fantasy.
[/quote]
That is why these theories are so stupid. The whole thing could have been done in a simpler manner than the conspiracy theories suggest.
Plus they don’t offer any motive for why the “conspirators” would have done whatever it is that has given away their methods. ie Why would they put demolition charges in a building that they were going to fly jumbo jets into? It would make detection of the “conspiracy” highly likely with nothing gained.
The moment the airplanes hit the buildings there was massive loss of life so why risk detection just to kill a few more people. The impact of the airplanes and fires did enough structural damage that those buildings were unsafe and would have had to been brought down.
So what would have been the purpose of demolition charges?
I’d say the military-industrial complex has benefited greatly from the ongoing Iraq/Afghanistan campaign.
The way I see it, they’re just laundering tax dollars, and sacrificing lives.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Conspiracy theories are bunk if only for one reason alone:
Government is laughably ineffective, the amount of paper it takes to build a bus stop is staggering.
A covert operation that could have been SO much simpler (simply blow the statue of liberty or a building with a truck full of tnt), that would involve SO many specialists and demand complete and utter loyality from this legion of men is a comic book fantasy.
[/quote]
That is why these theories are so stupid. The whole thing could have been done in a simpler manner than the conspiracy theories suggest.
Plus they don’t offer any motive for why the “conspirators” would have done whatever it is that has given away their methods. ie Why would they put demolition charges in a building that they were going to fly jumbo jets into? It would make detection of the “conspiracy” highly likely with nothing gained.
The moment the airplanes hit the buildings there was massive loss of life so why risk detection just to kill a few more people. The impact of the airplanes and fires did enough structural damage that those buildings were unsafe and would have had to been brought down.
So what would have been the purpose of demolition charges?[/quote]
I agree it would be laughable to think the Government organized the attacks. Only the most wingnutty (cough cough Alex Jones) believe it was a CIA perpetrated “false flag operation.” It is, however, much more plausible that Government INACTION led to the attacks, for use as a pretext to invade resource rich Iraq and Afghanistan.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Conspiracy theories are bunk if only for one reason alone:
Government is laughably ineffective, the amount of paper it takes to build a bus stop is staggering.
A covert operation that could have been SO much simpler (simply blow the statue of liberty or a building with a truck full of tnt), that would involve SO many specialists and demand complete and utter loyality from this legion of men is a comic book fantasy.
[/quote]
So what would have been the purpose of demolition charges?[/quote]
To bring the buildings down onto there own footprint minimizing more collatoral damage. Im not gonna argue 9/11 i just wanted to post that video that looks pretty suspicious. Also you mention that thermite is made out aluminum and that planes are made out of aluminum so that must explain it huh, That is laughable in the least.
There plenty of videos out there of steel pouring out of both towers no where near the fires.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Conspiracy theories are bunk if only for one reason alone:
Government is laughably ineffective, the amount of paper it takes to build a bus stop is staggering.
A covert operation that could have been SO much simpler (simply blow the statue of liberty or a building with a truck full of tnt), that would involve SO many specialists and demand complete and utter loyality from this legion of men is a comic book fantasy.
[/quote]
That is why these theories are so stupid. The whole thing could have been done in a simpler manner than the conspiracy theories suggest.
Plus they don’t offer any motive for why the “conspirators” would have done whatever it is that has given away their methods. ie Why would they put demolition charges in a building that they were going to fly jumbo jets into? It would make detection of the “conspiracy” highly likely with nothing gained.
The moment the airplanes hit the buildings there was massive loss of life so why risk detection just to kill a few more people. The impact of the airplanes and fires did enough structural damage that those buildings were unsafe and would have had to been brought down.
So what would have been the purpose of demolition charges?[/quote]
I agree it would be laughable to think the Government organized the attacks. Only the most wingnutty (cough cough Alex Jones) believe it was a CIA perpetrated “false flag operation.” It is, however, much more plausible that Government INACTION led to the attacks, for use as a pretext to invade resource rich Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]
You mention the CIA, Did you know that Rumsfeld was against the CIA and on Sep 10 he made statements against the CIA.
That is a theory I could accept.
However, secret agencies are notorious for being confusingly organized, with overlapping motivations, directives and bureaus. There are moles and countermoles. Other agencies (there is no shortage!) want to run the show and are jalous of new laws or budgets. By far most agents are just pure bureaucrats, real field agents who have some practical skills & knowledge are an exception. Think police, just much, much worse.
A whorehouse is more likely to run a competent conspiracy like 9/11.
The biggest problem I have with these theories about 9/11 is that there is no and I mean no information on how a building like that would behave when hit by an airliner. There is also no information on what demolition on a building like that would be. It has simply never been done. Nothing even remotely close to anything like a demolition on a building remotely resembling the towers has ever been done.
The notion that a plane strike would or wouldnâ??t do this or that is retarded. The notion that a building would or wouldnâ??t fall like that is equally retarded. No one has any idea how it â??shouldâ?? have fallen.
there is two kind of Truthers :
-people who failed at life and refuse to acknowledge that US territory has been violated by an outside force.
-people who failed at life and want to blame America for something
the first is a classic case of cognitive dissonance
the later is not uncommon among european leftists.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The biggest problem I have with these theories about 9/11 is that there is no and I mean no information on how a building like that would behave when hit by an airliner. There is also no information on what demolition on a building like that would be. It has simply never been done. Nothing even remotely close to anything like a demolition on a building remotely resembling the towers has ever been done.
The notion that a plane strike would or wouldnâ??t do this or that is retarded. The notion that a building would or wouldnâ??t fall like that is equally retarded. No one has any idea how it â??shouldâ?? have fallen.
[/quote]
Actually we do have some idea of what it should look like. The problem however is there are a lot of idiots who have no idea but they try to put it into the context of something that they are familiar with and then start jumping to conclusions.
ie When they have seen a tree chopped down it fell in a direction instead of coming straight down. So they don’t understand why buildings would come straight down instead of tipping over like a tree would. The reason why that didn’t happen is because the buildings weighed million of pounds and there wasn’t sufficient side load to overcome the resting inertia and push them over to one side. Then even if they had momentarily gone over to one side their structure wasn’t sufficiently strong enough withstand the loading and provide a fulcrum to rotate around converting the downwards inertia of all that mass into a sidewards inertia. That is why it all came straight down.
The OP is another good example of jumping to conclusions. Without someone actually sampling what was coming out of that window there is no way to say definitively what it was or how it was produced. It could have been a combination of the materials in building and airplane that produced it.
Molten metal can also be produced by a blast furnace. All you need is air and fuel to make one.
You all say im full of shit, That is fine im not gonna argue over the internet but I say you are all blind.
That steel wasnt pouring out of the building by chance, Neither were all the other spots around the buildings.
If you guys think that this country is run any different than a large corporation that lays off a thousand workers to raise there own stock with zero concern for the employee andthere families youare all fools.
This country is a corporation and all those people who were killed were the layed off employees.
Actually we do have some idea of what it should look like. The problem however is there are a lot of idiots who have no idea but they try to put it into the context of something that they are familiar with and then start jumping to conclusions.
[/quote]
Where does the “idea of what it should look like” come from?
If 9/11 really was an inside job, then there must have been hundreds of people involved in the logistics, planning and execution of this massive conspiracy. Why is it then that out of the potential hundreds of people involved, thousands maybe that there hasn’t been a peep out of any of them?
The government can barely put new pens in its offices without huge amounts of bureaucracy, wasted money and inefficiency, but somehow they managed to pull off the slickest, most efficient and convincing conspiracy ever without a shred of actually decent evidence? (not all that crap spewed on ‘truth’ sites)