Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

Options
124678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    So what's the theory then??

    Someone in the weeks leading up to the attack, under the guise of a elevator upgrade, planted Thermate charges on the steel frames the entire length of both towers?

    Then flew two planes, drones, missiles (take your pick) into the towers to create a scapegoat and then after a period of time remotely detonated the charges on isolated floors - cause the videos suggest that the collapse happened from top to bottom, expertly demolishing both towers vertically to reduce damage to surrounding infrastructure - TWICE???

    Then in another building (Building 7) did the same thing?

    Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up. No one on the planet could plan this. It is without precedence and the theory suggests using techniques that have never been put into practice - especially on building this tall.

    Sometimes things are just what they are.

    Even NIST cannot explain what happened without using a computer model they designed but no one else can use to verify their findings


    So you're not alone :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    If ct'rs are so convinced then why not raise the money needed to build an exact replica of one of the towers, buy a plane and crash it in to it. That'll prove the point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    If ct'rs are so convinced then why not raise the money needed to build an exact replica of one of the towers, buy a plane and crash it in to it. That'll prove the point.

    When you say ct'rs you mean critical thinkers right ??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    If ct'rs are so convinced then why not raise the money needed to build an exact replica of one of the towers, buy a plane and crash it in to it. That'll prove the point.

    an exact model would be cost prohibitive to the point that its a pointless suggestion.

    mythbusters did a scale model test but had to resort to destroying the 8m wide towers in other ways because they werent coming down by plane nor fire.

    but a scale model is pointless because gravity doesnt work the same way.. and i say that despite the positive (in my eyes) outcome.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    So what's the theory then??

    Someone in the weeks leading up to the attack, under the guise of a elevator upgrade, planted Thermate charges on the steel frames the entire length of both towers?

    Then flew two planes, drones, missiles (take your pick) into the towers to create a scapegoat and then after a period of time remotely detonated the charges on isolated floors - cause the videos suggest that the collapse happened from top to bottom, expertly demolishing both towers vertically to reduce damage to surrounding infrastructure - TWICE???

    Then in another building (Building 7) did the same thing?

    Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up. No one on the planet could plan this. It is without precedence and the theory suggests using techniques that have never been put into practice - especially on building this tall.

    Sometimes things are just what they are.

    Raised the exact same points on a different thread; you won't get a reply because no one likes poking holes in their own theories.
    weisses wrote: »
    Even NIST cannot explain what happened without using a computer model they designed but no one else can use to verify their findings


    So you're not alone :D

    As your fellow truther points out building models is expensive, what would you suggest? Are you saying that the simulations used to prove why they fell, are incorrect because they can't be used to prove that airplane impacts couldn't have brought down the towers? :confused:

    an exact model would be cost prohibitive to the point that its a pointless suggestion.

    Computer simulations have been used in lieu of building actual models, although some doubt their ability to prove a point.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    Raised the exact same points on a different thread; you won't get a reply because no one likes poking holes in their own theories.

    What do you expect ??? Even the official story is based on assumptions and unverifiable computer models they keep guessing and revising their report from day one when pointed out to flaws in it ... And these are the people with access and funds, although a pathetic amount considering the impact and scale of this tragedy

    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    As your fellow truther points out building models is expensive, what would you suggest? Are you saying that the simulations used to prove why they fell, are incorrect because they can't be used to prove that airplane impacts couldn't have brought down the towers? :confused:

    One line your fellow (pseudo) skeptics keep pointing out to me over the years posting here is to use a scientific approach or to produce any kind of evidence in support of claims, But when I do that all of a sudden they stop replying .. latest example 8 posts back in this thread

    The part in bold is the crux ... they came to that conclusion ... but didn't proof anything and when asked how and if they would share their calculation methods to fellow engineers etc they refused using to the good aul national security excuse .. Its not proof period... Good example is the WTC7 model which not even closely represented what was clearly visible on video

    http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    Computer simulations have been used in lieu of building actual models, although some doubt their ability to prove a point.

    Do you believe the data used to run these simulations should be available for peer review ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I do a bit of FEA and personally struggle to see how you could faithfully recreate what happened in a computer simulation. You could broadly approximate, but the odds you'd miss key factors is relatively high and the resolution of the simulation would have to be fairly low in order to crunch the math, or it would take significant lengths of time. Supercomputers though, not desktop workstations..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Reg'stoy wrote: »

    Computer simulations have been used in lieu of building actual models, although some doubt their ability to prove a point.

    there is a video showing a glaring mistake in the Purdue sim that NSIT used. in the video a wing cuts through a steel column but the column stays intact.
    it is put to the people in Purdue and they cant explain how it happened. i will find it asap, i was only looking at it a few weeks back.

    in the meantime a few lines from a Kevin Ryan interview (ex site manager for environmental testing division of underwriters laboratories) regarding another issue with it.
    JC: So, is the idea that the sagging pulled in the sides, and then a disconnection phenomenon happened almost instantaneously in order to allow the collapse to take place?

    KR: Well, in order for the inward pull of the wall to occur, the floors would have had to be connected. Unfortunately, in the model, the disconnection occurred before the inward pull was applied, so that’s an indication of just blatant fraud in my opinion.

    JC: And is the scenario that they rely upon for their explanation?

    KR: That’s right. That’s right.

    also the letter from 911SFT to Purdue goes a long way to explaining what they see as mistakes in the simulation. YMMV!

    http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    weisses wrote: »
    What do you expect ??? Even the official story is based on assumptions and unverifiable computer models they keep guessing and revising their report from day one when pointed out to flaws in it ...

    What assumptions are you talking about? Indisputable facts are; planes hit the twin towers and the towers collapsed. Disputable facts (by some) are what caused them to fall. Following an investigation, the accepted truth is that it wasn't a controlled demolition or anything other than the result of the impacts of the aircraft. These impacts were the primary reasons for the collapse, secondary been the resultant fires and the subsequent failure of the structure of the building.

    No one has been able to offer ANY evidence of explosives been planted in the building. This evidence being someone noticing the cabling for setting off the charges and actual laying of the charges which would have involved some amount of work.
    Overheal wrote: »
    I do a bit of FEA and personally struggle to see how you could faithfully recreate what happened in a computer simulation. You could broadly approximate, but the odds you'd miss key factors is relatively high and the resolution of the simulation would have to be fairly low in order to crunch the math, or it would take significant lengths of time. Supercomputers though, not desktop workstations..

    These FEA studies you are involved with, are they carried out with an accepted industry standard margin of error? Computer simulations are used to describe everything from the birth of the universe, to the passage of fluids over surfaces. Obviously GIGO is in play as with any simulation but any doubt can be cast on anything when you don't get the result you want.
    there is a video showing a glaring mistake in the Purdue sim that NSIT used. in the video a wing cuts through a steel column but the column stays intact.
    it is put to the people in Purdue and they cant explain how it happened. i will find it asap, i was only looking at it a few weeks back.

    in the meantime a few lines from a Kevin Ryan interview (ex site manager for environmental testing division of underwriters laboratories) regarding another issue with it.

    also the letter from 911SFT to Purdue goes a long way to explaining what they see as mistakes in the simulation. YMMV!

    http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html

    I refer to the huge elephant in the room; how unknown to the 10'000's of people who worked in the towers and building 7, were charges laid along with the cabling required to set them off electronically, so that the buildings would collapse on cue. What would have happened if the hijackers failed to either take over the aircraft or had missed the towers. Was there another building waiting to be blown up considering another aircraft missed it's target. What happened to the charges set in that building?

    9/11 truthers look at the events of the day, decide that the 'official story' does not fit into their world view and so work back and choose evidence or indeed invent it to match 'their story'.

    The official investigation looked at the evidence and the events leading up to the day. I have always stated that my personal belief is, aircraft were hijacked and flown into the towers. Intelligence agencies and other branches of the US Government were aware of portions of the chain of events but failed to communicate and solve the jigsaw. Does this mean it was an 'inside job' no!!

    Truthers believe it was a plot by the US Government and so must create a chain of events to match their delusions. Personally I have more respect for those who accept the chain of events but claim that it was allowed happen with the tacit approval of portions of the US Government. They at least can cast reasonable doubt without without relying on youtube and previously debunked evidence.

    Incidentally those of us who believe the truth are not skeptics, choosing not to believe the planet is only 6000 years old does not make me a skeptic; it makes me correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    I refer to the huge elephant in the room; how unknown to the 10'000's of people who worked in the towers and building 7, were charges laid along with the cabling required to set them off electronically, so that the buildings would collapse on cue. What would have happened if the hijackers failed to either take over the aircraft or had missed the towers. Was there another building waiting to be blown up considering another aircraft missed it's target. What happened to the charges set in that building?

    So what you've done there is make your own all encompassing theory that you used to generalise those of us whose opinions you disagree with... yet most people have different theories. my own, thanks to research, no longer involves thermate/nano-thermite.

    9/11 truthers look at the events of the day, decide that the 'official story' does not fit into their world view and so work back and choose evidence or indeed invent it to match 'their story'.

    or those who believe the official story are so afraid of the opposite, will agree with anything thats laid before them with the word official attached. it kinda works both ways with 100% of CTs.

    The official investigation looked at the evidence and the events leading up to the day. I have always stated that my personal belief is, aircraft were hijacked and flown into the towers. Intelligence agencies and other branches of the US Government were aware of portions of the chain of events but failed to communicate and solve the jigsaw. Does this mean it was an 'inside job' no!!

    and what if being aware, they added to the chaos? why is your theory so believable but anything beyond that has to be the ideas of crazy people. are you so self assured that you'll make a claim like that?

    Truthers believe it was a plot by the US Government and so must create a chain of events to match their delusions. Personally I have more respect for those who accept the chain of events but claim that it was allowed happen with the tacit approval of portions of the US Government. They at least can cast reasonable doubt without without relying on youtube and previously debunked evidence.

    personally i have more respect for those that allow questions to be asked, no matter how silly, without feeling the need to insult a wide ranging bunch of people who have various different theories on what could have happened on the day.

    Incidentally those of us who believe the truth are not skeptics, choosing not to believe the planet is only 6000 years old does not make me a skeptic; it makes me correct.

    you're right, those of you who believe the official explanation are not skeptics. those of us that question it are. previous US government form is enough reason to be skeptical.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Incidentally those of us who believe the truth are not skeptics, choosing not to believe the planet is only 6000 years old does not make me a skeptic; it makes me correct.
    In this forum all it makes you is - sound kind of like a dick. Also insinuations about delusions, etc. are not on. Please read the charter /Mod
    These FEA studies you are involved with, are they carried out with an accepted industry standard margin of error? Computer simulations are used to describe everything from the birth of the universe, to the passage of fluids over surfaces. Obviously GIGO is in play as with any simulation but any doubt can be cast on anything when you don't get the result you want.

    Normally components are tested to meet tolerances for pressure/force within a standard factor of safety (4.0 or more typically). Eg. a component must accept and hold an internal pressure of 800 psi with a FOS of 4.0 (so really it should only fail beyond 3200 psi internal). GIGO definitely get's seen, parts "fail" because the computer can't conceptualize some of the forces around some of the geometries (ribs, fillets especially). And that's on relatively basic stuff, small hand sized components not an entire building, its superstructure, sources of heat and fuel etc. and normally most suites will only be able to simulate forces, pressures etc. OR heat, fluid flow, vibration etc. and trying to simulate all factors at scale of a full assembly (A skyscraper and a million-components airliner colliding) I just can't fathom especially in 2001, even with supercomputing, that they would have been able to iron out that much complication and uncertainty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    So what's the theory then??

    Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up. No one on the planet could plan this. It is without precedence and the theory suggests using techniques that have never been put into practice - especially on building this tall.

    Sometimes things are just what they are.

    You could use the exact same argument for the mass extermination of the Jews. A: either you believe the entire German populace was aware of and condoned the extermination, or b: the Nazis hid the extermination from the majority of Germans. I am sure if you were a German in 1942 and you said to your fellow citizens 'you know, I heard that they are secretly exterminating the Jews in Gas chambers' many Germans might have said something along the lines of 'that's crazy, you are a crazy conspiracy theorist'. When you showed them photos of the trains full of people they would say 'they are going east' or something.

    They might eventually when the evidence becomes harder and harder to ignore resort to 'Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up.'

    Yet the Nazis did do it, on a massive scale, involving thousands of people. Perhaps all they needed to enact the plan was the right combination of ideologues and opportunistic sociopaths...they aren't actually all that hard to find.

    So, I would ask you to be critical when approaching 911, do not work from the basis that 'they could never pull off a lie that big'. I imagine it is precisely that kind of thinking that let the German people turn their face and ignore the reality of their leadership.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    What assumptions are you talking about? Indisputable facts are; planes hit the twin towers and the towers collapsed. Disputable facts (by some) are what caused them to fall. Following an investigation, the accepted truth is that it wasn't a controlled demolition or anything other than the result of the impacts of the aircraft.

    I'll keep this nice and short

    You answered your own question I highlighted the parts there for you


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,664 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    You could use the exact same argument for the mass extermination of the Jews. A: either you believe the entire German populace was aware of and condoned the extermination, or b: the Nazis hid the extermination from the majority of Germans. I am sure if you were a German in 1942 and you said to your fellow citizens 'you know, I heard that they are secretly exterminating the Jews in Gas chambers' many Germans might have said something along the lines of 'that's crazy, you are a crazy conspiracy theorist'. When you showed them photos of the trains full of people they would say 'they are going east' or something.

    They might eventually when the evidence becomes harder and harder to ignore resort to 'Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up.'

    Yet the Nazis did do it, on a massive scale, involving thousands of people. Perhaps all they needed to enact the plan was the right combination of ideologues and opportunistic sociopaths...they aren't actually all that hard to find.

    So, I would ask you to be critical when approaching 911, do not work from the basis that 'they could never pull off a lie that big'. I imagine it is precisely that kind of thinking that let the German people turn their face and ignore the reality of their leadership.

    Honestly, that's a ridiculous comparison. The Nazis didnt need to cover anything up - they had fear as an ally to ensure no one spoke. They may not have publicly communicated what they were doing but they hardly put any effort into keeping it hidden.

    9/11 was somewhat unique in that the events over the course of the day were broadcast and viewed by millions as they happened. 21st century reporting. Not discovered at the end of a conflict.

    If an inside job was unfolding, it wouldn't take much more than an anonymous call to CNN to unearth the truth. A little more detached from a German citizen standing up to the Nazi's in an occupied country with no support.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Honestly, that's a ridiculous comparison. The Nazis didnt need to cover anything up - they had fear as an ally to ensure no one spoke. They may not have publicly communicated what they were doing but they hardly put any effort into keeping it hidden.

    9/11 was somewhat unique in that the events over the course of the day were broadcast and viewed by millions as they happened. 21st century reporting. Not discovered at the end of a conflict.

    If an inside job was unfolding, it wouldn't take much more than an anonymous call to CNN to unearth the truth. A little more detached from a German citizen standing up to the Nazi's in an occupied country with no support.

    An an anonymous call to CNN, seriously? And you think CNN would report it? I might try that. I will make an anonymous call to CNN and tell them it was an inside job and I was involved. It will be all over the news tomorrow :) And that assumes that CNN isn't already intricately tied to the US government. Just do even some preliminary research into the dubious practices of CNN, for example, faking footage in the first Iraq war.

    And as much as you might like to think the German people were oppressed by evil Nazis, you might find that a large section of the German public supported the Nazis but at the same time did not believe that they were capable of mass extermination. Perhaps today though, they are less willing to admit they did support them. When everything was going well and you had just defeated poland and france, hell, Germany, f*%k yeah!

    And by the way, the Nazis did a lot to keep it hidden, probably the reason why some people even deny it happened. Lack of documented evidence. Certainly you can find intention in the documentation, but references to things like 'the final solution' were hardly documented statements saying here is our three step plan to mass murder. If you want to find intention for 911, just read the project for the new american century.

    As for fear, just google Barry Jennings. He went on camera and said he was stepping over dead bodies in building seven and witnessed a 'big explosion'. After that he went quiet and wouldn't respond to requests for interviews. Two days before the 911 commission released its report on building seven, he killed himself. He must have been really upset he made the mistake about dead bodies and an explosion, right!? because nothing about what he said turned up in the 911 report.

    Or what about Deborah Jeane Palfrey, she said “There’s information that they have that would have been very important for the 9/11 Commission to know having to do with intelligence they picked up about 9/11 before it happened.” Unfortunately, before she got a chance to testify in court and even after she went on the air saying she would not commit suicide, she went and hanged herself in her garage.

    There are more, should I go on? So if you had evidence that contradicted the official reporting of 911 and you knew you could go on air and say you would not commit suicide and still you might be found hanging in your garage, might you not think twice about coming out and saying anything? So, when you talk about fear, even if there deaths are totally innocent, you might certainly suspect the worse. Who knows, maybe there is some money in it too if you just shut your mouth.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    And by the way, the Nazis did a lot to keep it hidden, probably the reason why some people even deny it happened. Lack of documented evidence. Certainly you can find intention in the documentation, but references to things like 'the final solution' were hardly documented statements saying here is our three step plan to mass murder. If you want to find intention for 911, just read the project for the new american century.

    Lack of documented evidence seriously? Even though the Nazis destroyed a lot of their documentation as the war was ending a hell of a lot of it survived and what did survive showed exactly how meticulously they recorded everything even down to the colour, quality and weight of a victims hair. It's also well known the German population surrounding the camps knew full well what was happening (you couldn't mask the smell) but the German propaganda machine showed the population at large completely different videos such as jews playing in playgrounds in the camp and having picnics and do not forget dissenters where often arrested and executed for even mentioning a tiny doubt in the "final victory".

    Oh actually while I'm at it, the term "final solution" appeared plenty in German official documents as well. A simple Google will show you the first result of a letter from the German ambassador asking for help towards the final solution, Im fair certain you can't get much more official than that but if you did you could always read the reams of letters between Himmler, Heydrich and Goring (kind of high ranking people in the National socialist party) discussing preparation of submitting the plans for the final solution.

    Then there are the well documented speeches from Himmler where he openly spoke of the final solution during these speeches or how about the officially named army operation called Operation Reinhard (extermination of the Polish jews and liquidation of the ghettos) which again is well documented in correspondence and orders between Globocnik, Höfle, Thomalla, Lambert, Wirth, Himmler and Stangl to name but a few.

    If you are going to try and put down or counter peoples points at least try to know what you are talking about and come up with points and facts that are not so easily disproved in all of 5 seconds :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax



    Oh actually while I'm at it, the term "final solution" appeared plenty in German official documents as well. A simple Google will show you the first result of a letter from the German ambassador asking for help towards the final solution, Im fair certain you can't get much more official than that but if you did you could always read the reams of letters between Himmler, Heydrich and Goring (kind of high ranking people in the National socialist party) discussing preparation of submitting the plans for the final solution.

    Then there are the well documented speeches from Himmler where he openly spoke of the final solution during these speeches or how about the officially named army operation called Operation Reinhard (extermination of the Polish jews and liquidation of the ghettos) which again is well documented in correspondence and orders between Globocnik, Höfle, Thomalla, Lambert, Wirth, Himmler and Stangl to name but a few.

    I tend to agree that comparing the 2 doesnt really work. Two very different situations.

    I will however point out something regarding the part of your quote that i bolded.

    There is a paper called 'Project for a new American centuary', devised by a think-thank that went on to become Bush's administration (Cheney himself set it up), that basically sets out the plan for 911. Going so far as to suggest that the US needs a new pearl harbour event (exactly how Bush referred to it after the event).

    just another coincidence in the mix.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-neocons-project-for-the-new-american-century-american-world-leadership-syria-next-to-pay-the-price/5305447

    http://self.gutenberg.org/article/whebn0000198193/project%20for%20the%20new%20american%20century

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Lack of documented evidence seriously? Even though the Nazis destroyed a lot of their documentation as the war was ending a hell of a lot of it survived and what did survive showed exactly how meticulously they recorded everything even down to the colour, quality and weight of a victims hair. It's also well known the German population surrounding the camps knew full well what was happening (you couldn't mask the smell) but the German propaganda machine showed the population at large completely different videos such as jews playing in playgrounds in the camp and having picnics and do not forget dissenters where often arrested and executed for even mentioning a tiny doubt in the "final victory".

    Oh actually while I'm at it, the term "final solution" appeared plenty in German official documents as well. A simple Google will show you the first result of a url a letter from the German ambassador asking for help towards the final solution, Im fair certain you can't get much more official than that but if you did you could always read the reams of letters between Himmler, Heydrich and Goring (kind of high ranking people in the National socialist party) discussing preparation of submitting the plans for the final solution.

    Then there are the well documented speeches from Himmler where he openly spoke of the final solution during these speeches or how about the officially named army operation called Operation Reinhard (extermination of the Polish jews and liquidation of the ghettos) which again is well documented in correspondence and orders between Globocnik, Höfle, Thomalla, Lambert, Wirth, Himmler and Stangl to name but a few.

    If you are going to try and put down or counter peoples points at least try to know what you are talking about and come up with points and facts that are not so easily disproved in all of 5 seconds :rolleyes:

    Firstly, you need to read what I said. I said "but references to things like 'the final solution' were hardly documented statements saying here is our three step plan to mass murder", in other words they did reference the 'final solution' but they did not specifically say they were setting out to commit mass extermination. That was the point.

    As for the Nazis recording everything meticulously, again, that doesn't point to mass murder. The NSA are apparently (although they have lied to congress about it) recording everything we do online, what does that mean? So I don't see your point. My point was that they didn't explicitly spell out their plan to exterminate the Jews, but of course if you read what they were saying, it becomes patently obvious that the intention to rid the world of Jews was there.

    If you are going to try and put down or counter peoples points at least try to understand what they say before you embarrass yourself :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If you are going to try and put down or counter peoples points at least try to understand what they say before you embarrass yourself

    I just got done warning another user for needless personal injections into the conversation. The above is also an example. Please, everyone, stop with the schoolyard talk/one-upmanship


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    .
    Then there are the well documented speeches from Himmler where he openly spoke of the final solution during these speeches or how about the officially named army operation called Operation Reinhard (extermination of the Polish jews and liquidation of the ghettos) which again is well documented in correspondence and orders between Globocnik, Höfle, Thomalla, Lambert, Wirth, Himmler and Stangl to name but a few.

    lol I just had to follow this up. Here is what a wikipedia has to say about Operation Reinhardt - "Operation Reinhardt was the codename given to the secretive Nazi plan to mass-murder most Polish Jews in the General Government district of occupied Poland."

    Firstly, you reference something which was an army operation "officially" named Operation Reinhard but was in fact a codename (as if that suggest an open honest dialogue) and in the very first line on wikipedia it is described as secretive.

    Then you say that it was "well documented in correspondence and orders". Oh yeah, I forget, they were publishing their correspondence and orders daily in the newspaper for everyone to read.

    It even goes on to say in wikipedia -

    "to cover up the mass murder of more than two million people in Poland during Operation Reinhard, the Nazis implemented the secret Sonderaktion 1005, also called Aktion 1005 or Enterdungsaktion ("exhumation action"). The operation, which began in 1942 and continued until the end of 1943, was designed to remove all traces that mass murder had been carried out."

    How many times do they have to talk about cover ups and secretive actions before you understand my point?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Overheal wrote: »
    I just got done warning another user for needless personal injections into the conversation. The above is also an example. Please, everyone, stop with the schoolyard talk/one-upmanship

    Were you the guy who warned me about become a back seat moderator? But point taken, I wont respond in kind to childish taunts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    Were you the guy who warned me about become a back seat moderator? But point taken, I wont respond in kind to childish taunts.

    Oh, I see, you are a moderator...must have been someone else. No harm so :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Rabo Karabekian


    lol I just had to follow this up. Here is what a wikipedia has to say about Operation Reinhardt - "Operation Reinhardt was the codename given to the secretive Nazi plan to mass-murder most Polish Jews in the General Government district of occupied Poland."

    Firstly, you reference something which was an army operation "officially" named Operation Reinhard but was in fact a codename (as if that suggest an open honest dialogue) and in the very first line on wikipedia it is described as secretive.

    Then you say that it was "well documented in correspondence and orders". Oh yeah, I forget, they were publishing their correspondence and orders daily in the newspaper for everyone to read.

    It even goes on to say in wikipedia -

    "to cover up the mass murder of more than two million people in Poland during Operation Reinhard, the Nazis implemented the secret Sonderaktion 1005, also called Aktion 1005 or Enterdungsaktion ("exhumation action"). The operation, which began in 1942 and continued until the end of 1943, was designed to remove all traces that mass murder had been carried out."

    How many times do they have to talk about cover ups and secretive actions before you understand my point?

    I wouldn't say that conspiracies or cover ups don't happen, but when you get to the scale of 9/11 (or the Holocaust) it's very, very difficult. The German operations in Poland (and other parts) are different as I would imagine the primary reason for secrecy with regards to exterminating Jews, Gypsies, Communists, etc, was to prevent an outbreak of panic and uprising (although they failed in some respects with this in certain areas, particularly Warsaw). The fact that the Holocaust is broadly accepted as fact, with documentary evidence, is testament to that.

    A point that conspiracy theorists often dismiss (or dip into bizarre and fanciful arguments) is the amount of people needed to be involved for it to work. And this isn't just the people involved in the planting of the explosives, the manning of the drones/military aircraft, the government officials, but all the actors employed to grieve for their lost ones, their family members, friends, everybody else. This is in no way similar to German actions in WWII: accounts from normal Germans about what was going on in the camps, allied bombing to prevent transportation of people to the camps.

    Another point is that something like 9/11 (and all the other 'false flag' operations) would require a serious level of communication between government departments. Obviously these would be highly classified, and yet we have heard nothing from the likes of Wikileaks about any sort of conspiracy with regards to 9/11 (remember, for something like the Holocaust, as well as all the other genuine conspiracies like coups and assassinations, we have documentary evidence). I've no doubt that conspiracy theorists will then argue that Wikileaks is actually an inside job to try and undermine their arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    So what's the theory then??

    Someone in the weeks leading up to the attack, under the guise of a elevator upgrade, planted Thermate charges on the steel frames the entire length of both towers?

    Then flew two planes, drones, missiles (take your pick) into the towers to create a scapegoat and then after a period of time remotely detonated the charges on isolated floors - cause the videos suggest that the collapse happened from top to bottom, expertly demolishing both towers vertically to reduce damage to surrounding infrastructure - TWICE???

    Then in another building (Building 7) did the same thing?

    Even if there were plans to execute this plan in secret, it would take thousands of people years to plan, and even then there would be no guarantee of success let alone the ability to cover it up. No one on the planet could plan this. It is without precedence and the theory suggests using techniques that have never been put into practice - especially on building this tall.

    Sometimes things are just what they are.

    Just watch this short video, then make up your mind what happened



  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Rudiger Glique


    I wouldn't say that conspiracies or cover ups don't happen
    OK.
    , but when you get to Athe scale of 9/11 (or the Holocaust) it's very, very difficult.
    But in the case of the holocaust as you state later, it is accepted (now) as a fact.
    A point that conspiracy theorists often dismiss (or dip into bizarre and fanciful arguments) is the amount of people needed to be involved for it to work.
    Of course the same could have been said in 1943 of anyone trying to describe the gas chambers.
    all the actors employed to grieve for their lost ones, their family members, friends, everybody else.
    You are assuming that everyone grieving was an actor. Highly unlikely. Google Beverly Eckert. She was among a handful of Sept. 11th relatives to reject the rich settlements offered by the government in exchange for a renunciation of all legal claims against US persons or entities, such as corporations or government agencies. She participated in a number of lawsuits around Sept 11th, with the express purpose of gaining discovery and accountability about the events of the day. Unfortunately she died in a plane crash. Pretty unlucky for those of us who were hoping she might get to the truth of 911.
    This is in no way similar to German actions in WWII:
    accounts from normal Germans about what was going on in the camps, allied bombing to prevent transportation of people to the camps.
    Of course the events are highly dissimilar. I was only talking about the ability of a government to hide things on a massive scale involving thousands of people. And just because we see now with hind sight that what the Germans were doing was obvious, at the time, especially for the German people, I imagine any talk of extermination camps was in the same realm of fanciful conspiracy theories. The argument being, 'they would never get away with it'

    we have heard nothing from the likes of Wikileaks about any sort of conspiracy with regards to 9/11 (remember, for something like the Holocaust, as well as all the other genuine conspiracies like coups and assassinations, we have documentary evidence). I've no doubt that conspiracy theorists will then argue that Wikileaks is actually an inside job to try and undermine their arguments.
    What we have or have not heard from wikileaks proves nothing. I would refer you to weisses video in the previous point if you are still on the fence. One theory remains consistent and fits the facts, and it is not the official one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Rabo Karabekian


    But in the case of the holocaust as you state later, it is accepted (now) as a fact.

    Of course the same could have been said in 1943 of anyone trying to describe the gas chambers.

    Of course the events are highly dissimilar. I was only talking about the ability of a government to hide things on a massive scale involving thousands of people. And just because we see now with hind sight that what the Germans were doing was obvious, at the time, especially for the German people, I imagine any talk of extermination camps was in the same realm of fanciful conspiracy theories. The argument being, 'they would never get away with it'

    No, that's not what I mean at all. To repeat: the Holocaust was an absolutely huge 'conspiracy' but one that was so huge, it was known about at the time (German citizens living near the camps were well aware of what was happening and allied intelligence also knew, hence focused bombing campaigns against train routes transporting people not to the front, but to camps). It's the opposite of hindsight: this was stuff that was known about at the time.
    You are assuming that everyone grieving was an actor. Highly unlikely. Google Beverly Eckert. She was among a handful of Sept. 11th relatives to reject the rich settlements offered by the government in exchange for a renunciation of all legal claims against US persons or entities, such as corporations or government agencies. She participated in a number of lawsuits around Sept 11th, with the express purpose of gaining discovery and accountability about the events of the day. Unfortunately she died in a plane crash. Pretty unlucky for those of us who were hoping she might get to the truth of 911.

    So, so many times when I ask about the logistics of thousands upon thousands of people being in on the 9/11 conspiracy (or the Boston marathon, or whatever 'false flag' event you're having yourself) people will say: what about this one person? Nothing I can see from doing a quick Google search on her suggests that she believed there was an inside job with regards to 9/11. Unless you've got some specifics? If she didn't think it was an inside job, can you tell me the relevance of pointing to her in response to what I said about the hundreds of thousands of people who would need to be payed off/silenced?

    Again, I'll ask: If it was an inside job, how many people do you believe were involved in this task? This would include numerous levels of the government, probably local state involvement too, firefighters (and anybody else who had to go in to the area and buildings), the people involved with the actual explosives, 'eyewitnesses', grieving family members from the fictitious/military planes, hundreds/thousands of airport staff throughout the country and then you'd have to take into account their family members/ex family members/friends.
    What we have or have not heard from wikileaks proves nothing. I would refer you to weisses video in the previous point if you are still on the fence. One theory remains consistent and fits the facts, and it is not the official one.

    What exactly does Weisses' video have to say about my point on Wikileaks? Is this the video that s/he posted which is a fairly basic run through of the 9/11 conspiracy theory? Again, I'll repeat the question (as is so often the way here): with all the information that we have received from Wikileaks and other intelligence leaks over the last decade or so, do you not find it strange that we have heard nothing (absolutely nothing) about 9/11 being an inside job?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Snowden only had this to say about 9/11, and while the comments were edited out of a 60 Minutes interview, they aren't the conspiracy you all hope for

    http://www.rt.com/usa/162576-nbc-snowden-september-attack/


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    Again, I'll ask: If it was an inside job, how many people do you believe were involved in this task? This would include numerous levels of the government, probably local state involvement too, firefighters (and anybody else who had to go in to the area and buildings), the people involved with the actual explosives, 'eyewitnesses', grieving family members from the fictitious/military planes, hundreds/thousands of airport staff throughout the country and then you'd have to take into account their family members/ex family members/friends.

    How did you reach the conclusion thousands of people were needed to pull this off

    Its a bit strange you use one assumption to disprove another

    What exactly does Weisses' video have to say about my point on Wikileaks? Is this the video that s/he posted which is a fairly basic run through of the 9/11 conspiracy theory? Again, I'll repeat the question (as is so often the way here): with all the information that we have received from Wikileaks and other intelligence leaks over the last decade or so, do you not find it strange that we have heard nothing (absolutely nothing) about 9/11 being an inside job?

    Its a video about experts opinions/conclusions

    Did you even watch it ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Rabo Karabekian


    weisses wrote: »
    How did you reach the conclusion thousands of people were needed to pull this off

    Its a bit strange you use one assumption to disprove another

    In the bit you quoted, there is a non-exhaustive list of the amount of people that would have to have been involved in something like 9/11 being an inside job.

    This happens every single time I bring up the logistics involved in something of this scale. For CTers, the important thing isn't my point, but (for example) "how did you get that figure?" or "there was a woman who disagreed with the findings. She died in SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES".
    weisses wrote: »
    Its a video about experts opinions/conclusions

    Did you even watch it ?

    Did you read the post where I was advised to watch it? Can you tell me where it discusses Wikileaks and why Wikileaks makes no mention of 9/11 being an inside job? Because in response to what I said about Wikileaks I was advised to watch your video, which I did and, yes, it's a fairly straight re-telling of the CT viewpoint of 9/11 being an inside job.

    Actually, just looking at your post, you even quoted all the stuff I asked about Wikileaks. Talk about avoiding the issue at hand.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭weisses


    In the bit you quoted, there is a non-exhaustive list of the amount of people that would have to have been involved in something like 9/11 being an inside job.

    According to you ! You can fill in whatever number you want ..That doesn't make it viable
    This happens every single time I bring up the logistics involved in something of this scale. For CTers, the important thing isn't my point, but (for example) "how did you get that figure?" or "there was a woman who disagreed with the findings. She died in SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES".

    Then point out here the EXACT logistics involved and explain why


    Did you read the post where I was advised to watch it? Can you tell me where it discusses Wikileaks and why Wikileaks makes no mention of 9/11 being an inside job? Because in response to what I said about Wikileaks I was advised to watch your video, which I did and, yes, it's a fairly straight re-telling of the CT viewpoint of 9/11 being an inside job.

    It is a straight telling of the inconsistencies in the official story with a viable theory added

    When are you gonna show us here what is factual wrong in that video ?
    Actually, just looking at your post, you even quoted all the stuff I asked about Wikileaks. Talk about avoiding the issue at hand.

    No CT possible because Wikileaks did not mention them ..... Sure


Advertisement