Why? - 9/11

Kernel · 25-05-2008 03:16AM

Diogenes wrote: »

pithy and pointless. The fact is the 911 truth movement have had nearly seven years to come up with a coherent alternative explanation or rational for their claims. And the fact is they are recycling the same old tired mistruths dressed up as new evidence.

One man's mistruths are another man's truths. Looking over your post history, you devote a lot of your time to debunking 9/11. Anyone with a brain can see the whole thing stinks.

I accept the theories of the 'conspiracy theorists' who have posted on this thread, over the nonsense of a group of fanatics taking down the twin towers, and attacking the pentagon with hijacked planes they obtained with stanley knives. Performing aerial manouvres using their Microsoft Flight Sim skillz (at a time when luckily for them, the entire US air force of the region are off doing a training exercise), creating an instance whereby massive steel support beams melt from a fire, collapsing at freefall speed soon after. Oh, then building 7 collapses for no apparent reason. Oh, and Bin Laden is an ex-CIA man and friend of the Bush cartel. That's without discussing the administration, economics, false flag history etc. etc.

The whole thing stinks, but you will never accept that dio.

As I've mentioned, the yanks needed resources to bolster economic concerns in the face of hugely increased demand from China and India, there's no way to sell a war to the American people based on simple economic need, so they had to stage an event.

Diogenes · 25-05-2008 05:36AM

thank you kernel you've just illustrated my point for me.

Kernel wrote: »

I accept the theories of the 'conspiracy theorists' who have posted on this thread, over the nonsense of a group of fanatics taking down the twin towers, and attacking the pentagon with hijacked planes they obtained with stanley knives.

We've no specific evidence that the hijackers had any specific type of weapon. On all flight recorders knives are mentioned, people like Bettie Ong mentioned stabbings, other recording mentioned knifes, guns and bombs, we'll never know exactly what the hijackers weaponry was, what we can suggest based on what was allowed on commercial jets pre 911 is that they could easily have walked on board the planes with knives capable of sustaining the reported injuries. Furthermore as has been mentioned pre 911 airline personal were trained to go along with hijacker demands.

Performing aerial manouvres using their Microsoft Flight Sim skillz

Again this is a lie. Atta qualified for his commercial pilot license in Oct 00. Shebbi had a private airplane license. Jarrah had a single engine pilot's license.Hanjour also had a commercial pilot's license.

(at a time when luckily for them, the entire US air force of the region are off doing a training exercise),

I just cited the vanity fair article on NORAD tapes, that intercept jets were scrambled and standard operating procedure pre 9/11 was to tail a hijacked plane. Thank you Kernel you've helped my point, again.

creating an instance whereby massive steel support beams melt from a fire,

Sigh, all the steel had to be is severely weakened to initiate global collapse. Again a fact the truth movement ignore.

collapsing at freefall speed soon after.

Incorrectamundo

Oh, then building 7 collapses for no apparent reason.

Aside from the being hit by debris from a collapsing sky scraper and having fires raging uncontrolled for hours, you means, aside from those reasons?

Oh, and Bin Laden is an ex-CIA man and friend of the Bush cartel.

You have evidence to support this do you? Prince Edward was a mate of the Nazi's in the 30s that doesn't mean the prince charlies sings detuchland uber alles.

That's without discussing the administration, economics, false flag history etc. etc.

Three subjects you know sweet FA about.

The whole thing stinks, but you will never accept that dio.

As I've mentioned, the yanks needed resources to bolster economic concerns in the face of hugely increased demand from China and India, there's no way to sell a war to the American people based on simple economic need, so they had to stage an event.

So the yanks did this to bolster economic concerns. Hang on? Isn't the dollar tanking and the US in recession.

Congratulations Kernel, the words "stanley knife" are the only things that dare wander near the shoals of accurate in your post. The rest is made up gibberish.

Kernel · 25-05-2008 03:48PM

Diogenes wrote: »

We've no specific evidence that the hijackers had any specific type of weapon. On all flight recorders knives are mentioned, people like Bettie Ong mentioned stabbings, other recording mentioned knifes, guns and bombs, we'll never know exactly what the hijackers weaponry was, what we can suggest based on what was allowed on commercial jets pre 911 is that they could easily have walked on board the planes with knives capable of sustaining the reported injuries. Furthermore as has been mentioned pre 911 airline personal were trained to go along with hijacker demands.

We've no evidence of a lot of things that are part of the 'official story mythos'. Read the 911 commission report, it's in there, it's the official story.

Diogenes wrote: »

Again this is a lie. Atta qualified for his commercial pilot license in Oct 00. Shebbi had a private airplane license. Jarrah had a single engine pilot's license.Hanjour also had a commercial pilot's license.

If you want to know about the 9/11 hijackers then read this: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ You incorrectly said that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the alleged hijackers was alive? Also, Hanjour trained to fly a cessna, considerably different to a commercial airliner, and was described as a poor pilot by instructors. The only Boeing 737 training he received was a simulator. Jarrah and Shebbi? single engined cessnas also.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

More info on the level of flight training here.

Diogenes wrote: »

I just cited the vanity fair NORAD tapes, that intercept jets were scrambled and standard operating procedure pre 9/11 was to tail a hijacked plane. Thank you Kernel you've helped my point, again.

Claiming false victories is immature and smacks of your desperation to prove your side of the argument. I think we all know about the USAF training programs from watching loose change. Bit of a coincidence no? If somebody wants to read a timeline of military training programs leading up to 9/11 then check this out.

Diogenes wrote: »

Sigh, all the steel had to be is severely weakened to initiate global collapse. Again a fact the truth movement ignore.

The steel core weakened from a fire.. lol. Please! :pac:

Diogenes wrote: »

Aside from the being hit by debris from a collapsing sky scraper and having fires raging uncontrolled for hours, you means, aside from those reasons?

How come no other buildings around the site collapsed so? In fact, how come buildings can be completely burnt out by fire and not collapse?

Diogenes wrote: »

No evidence to support this do we? Prince Edward was a mate of the Nazi's in the 30s that doesn't mean the queen mum sings detuchland uber alles.

The royal families of Europe were all interrelated, umm anyway, what is your point here?

Diogenes wrote: »

Three subjects you know sweet FA about.

sigh.. still making those ridiculous assumptions. I've read extensively on 20th century history, 9/11, false flag operations, economics and the Bush family. I've been interested in conspiracies for over a decade now. However, I wont stoop to your level of personal insults.

Diogenes wrote: »

So the yanks did this to bolster economic concerns. Hang on? Isn't the dollar tanking and the US in recession.

Indeed, and the seizing of those resources will not be enough to stave off the rot, that's why 9/11 was only the start of things to come. The Project for a New American Century and all that.

Diogenes · 25-05-2008 06:58PM

Kernel wrote: »

We've no evidence of a lot of things that are part of the 'official story mythos'. Read the 911 commission report, it's in there, it's the official story.

I have and don't see your point, please give examples of how the 911 commission report supports conspiracy theories.

If you want to know about the 9/11 hijackers then read this: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Oh the same tired crap. Yes someone had the same name as Mohammad Atta trained on a US military base, doesn't mention the fact that it's a common name and several people

You incorrectly said that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the alleged hijackers was alive?

Really present to, you'd better do better than post to some incorrect stories in the chaotic weeks and months after 911.

Also, Hanjour trained to fly a cessna, considerably different to a commercial airliner, and was described as a poor pilot by instructors. The only Boeing 737 training he received was a simulator. Jarrah and Shebbi? single engined cessnas also.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

More info on the level of flight training here.

http://911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

Claiming false victories is immature and smacks of your desperation to prove your side of the argument. I think we all know about the USAF training programs from watching loose change. Bit of a coincidence no? If somebody wants to read a timeline of military training programs leading up to 9/11 then check this out.

Whats your point military carry out training excerises is supicious? There isn't a single example of any military exercise impedding the response.

Oh and if you're going to refute me at least have the decency to response to specific points with specific links, rather than to vague claims.

The steel core weakened from a fire.. lol. Please! :pac:

A fire fuelled by tens of thousands of gallons of jetful brought into the buildings by two jet airlines flying at over 500mph, you keep letting that part slide.

How come no other buildings around the site collapsed so? In fact, how come buildings can be completely burnt out by fire and not collapse?

Several other building in the world trade complex were so badly damaged they later had to be pulled down. The WTC 7 was an unusually structured complex, housing a power susbstation, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were stored inside. It also was extensively damaged by falling debris. You need to consider all those factors.

The royal families of Europe were all interrelated, umm anyway, what is your point here?

You claim that Bush and Bin Laden had ties, Bin Laden is estranged from his family a wealthy Saudi construction firm, suggesting Bush and Osama have ties, because the Bush family and Bin Laden family work together. It's like suggesting Charles is a nazi because Edward is a Nazi.

sigh.. still making those ridiculous assumptions. I've read extensively on 20th century history, 9/11, false flag operations, economics and the Bush family. I've been interested in conspiracies for over a decade now. However, I wont stoop to your level of personal insults.

If you're interested in conspiracy theories, you'd approach them with a open mind, you're only interested in cherry picking facts to suite your own bias.

But please Kernel explain why if the US carried out 911 for economic reasons why is the US recession happening?

Indeed, and the seizing of those resources will not be enough to stave off the rot, that's why 9/11 was only the start of things to come. The Project for a New American Century and all that.

Oh FFS.

Kernel · 27-05-2008 01:00AM

Bah, here we go again another black hole hijacked thread by diogenes. I could usde my time to try to 'convince' you of how we think, but I'd be wasting my time - and the universe only gives me so much for a lifetime.

Go ahead and claim false victories, it bothers me not. Susceptible People Annoy me.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 27-05-2008 01:05AM

that is so ironic i think I just developed Hemochromatosis

congo_90 · 27-05-2008 01:18AM

My theory:

It boils down to money and greed. We all know that around this time the media were getting serious about global warming. I think that the Americans are trying to get hold of the oil in iraq.

Bot just this but I strongly believe it was part and parcel that it would happen. Bush and his crew wanted to have a hero reputation to keep him in office now up to two terms. what better way than to give a nation full of patriots and guns a war with some foreign country?
in order to start the war i also believe they have binladen secretly in america as part of the deal. where he is being looked after, not a prisoner.

Perhaps as another poster has said, The EU could be somehow ivolved in similar conditions. There's money to be made by having Americas economy crash. Since 2001 the exchange rates or what was pounds and, not the Euro are trading heavily compared to where the rates were closer to equal.

Diogenes · 27-05-2008 01:54AM

Kernel wrote: »

Bah, here we go again another black hole hijacked thread by diogenes. I could usde my time to try to 'convince' you of how we think, but I'd be wasting my time - and the universe only gives me so much for a lifetime.

Go ahead and claim false victories, it bothers me not. Susceptible People Annoy me.

Kernel, out of curiosity what evidence could be put forward by the "official conspiracy believers" that would satisfy you to the coherent theory held in general regard by humanity? What's it? What evidence would convince you , that you were wrong?

For me, to start to believe the truth movement, I'd like for example

-Attorney general of NY, Washington, or PH, announcing charges against senior levels of this administration.

-A major scientific report in a reputable engineering journal, that actively questions the NIST investigation's results.

-A interview with one of the supposing living hijackers.

These are three corner stones of the truth movement,1) this administration is guilty. Well if it's obvious to a bunch of people with access to youtube, and google, are you trying to tell me that every journalist, every prosecutor, every federal employee, are all these people bought off? Nixon couldn't bug the Democratic party's election campaign without finishing his career, yet Cheney pulled off 911?

Don't try Architects and Engineers for truth, Richard Gage's crack pot organisation. If the WTC were obviously CTs why aren't more people kicking up a fuss, why didn't this get exposed by architect and engineers in countries like Iran and China (both of whom have had universities publish accounts of the collapse that accurately mirror the NIST account.

C) See this is just a bug bear, if Kernel even bothered to look beyond the self congratulation ouroboros. Conspiracy theorists, citing claims that the hijackers are alive, and then reposting them, and then other cters copying them and reposting them.

Kernel aside from confused reports in the immediate wake of the attacks there are no credible reports of the hijackers actually being alive. And simply put the truth movement could become incredibly relevant instead of a obscure gate crashing vocal obnoxious minority. The fact that eight years later, the truth movement is the latter and not the form is most telling as to the quality of your evidence.

Sea Sharp · 10-06-2008 10:53PM

Ooh, I forgot about this forum.

-Attorney general of NY, Washington, or PH, announcing charges against senior levels of this administration.

They'd lose their job or would be censored. Alternatively, the people in these positions were trusted by the administration to be people who would not go doing things like that.

-A major scientific report in a reputable engineering journal, that actively questions the NIST investigation's results.

That's foreseeable, so the US government would take measures to see that it would not happen.

A interview with one of the supposing living hijackers.

The US government would have sorted that out, soprano style, the second they saw that BBC report in the media. And for the record I was unhappy with your disregardation of that report in one of your previous posts.

One other thing I noticed about a lot of your arguments is that you keep demanding credible sources, and yet you seem to have no problem referencing documents released by the government, or people with links to the governemnt, that everybody knows purposly released false information so as to justify the invasion of Iraq.
i.e an uncredible source.

Diogenes · 10-06-2008 11:29PM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

They'd lose their job or would be censored. Alternatively, the people in these positions are trusted so as to not go doing things like that.

How vast do you think this conspiracy theory is? Every DA? Every states attorney is on it? Do you understand the thousands of people that would be involved, how do you achieve that silence.

That's foreseeable, so the US government would take measures to see that it would not happen.

Thats a oxymoron, essentially you're saying that the lack of evidence is evidence

Furthermore aside from the NIST, universities and engineering organisations across the globe have written papers on the WTC collapse. It is the most studied collapse in the history of civil engineering. They all support the theory that the buildings were severely damaged by the impact and subsequent fires which lead to collapse from the impact point.

Are you suggesting that the entire architectural and engineering departments of universities across the globe are "in on it"

Furthermore the finding of the NIST report have influenced the design of current and future skyscrapers, how do you marry that with your claims that the US government manipulated every engineering report in the NIST.

The US government would have sorted that out, soprano style, the second they saw that BBC report in the media. And for the record I was unhappy with how you disregarded that report previously.

Well firstly as someone who has worked for several TV news stations including the BBC, I'd be surprised if reporters were "wacked" "soprano style" without someone mentioning it in the canteen on Monday.

As your "unhappiness", I'm not disregarding this story, the BBC is

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

Now either we can accept that the BBC made an understandable mistake in the confusing aftermath of the attacks. For me I had a similar experience working on the aftermath of Katrina. Reports of multiple rapes at the superdome, and survivors shooting at helicopters were regularly cited during the crisis, and yet proved false. Or we can suggest that the BBC made an accurate report, yet somehow this slipped past the NWO censors, and then rather than removing the article and denying it ever existed, they leave it up and post a clarification.

Of course I suspect your response would be "aha they'd do the latter lest not arouse suspicion" but the obvious response is, "why even let the hijackers live, and return to Saudi Arabia before "wacking" them as you luridly suggest".

One other thing I noticed about a lot of your arguments is that you keep demanding credible resources, and yet you seem ok referencing documents released by a government that everybody knows purposly mislead people so as to get into Iraq. i.e an uncredible source.

Again there's a presumptive air to your argument. That I will be automatically believe a document because it is released by a government.

So again I'll say this. I marched against the Iraq War. I did not believe the evidence presented by the US and British government. However in the case of 9/11 I also hold the "evidence" presented by the truth movement in equal contempt, it has consistently been demonstrated that the truth movement either mislead, lie, obfuscate the facts, misquote, and deceive. I hold the word of Dylan Avary and Tony Snow in equal disregard.

As someone once said "the only thing the 9/11 truth movement got right was the date". But hey GaNjaHaN feel free to try and prove me wrong.

Sea Sharp · 11-06-2008 12:02AM

How vast do you think this conspiracy theory is? Every DA? Every states attorney is on it? Do you understand the thousands of people that would be involved, how do you achieve that silence.

People who are on friendly terms with the administration are more likely to get the job, that doesn't imply a vast conspiricy.

Thats a oxymoron, essentially you're saying that the lack of evidence is evidence

Where are you getting that from? I'm saying such a scenario would never occur either way.

Furthermore aside from the NIST, universities and engineering organisations across the globe have written papers on the WTC collapse. It is the most studied collapse in the history of civil engineering. They all support the theory that the buildings were severely damaged by the impact and subsequent fires which lead to collapse from the impact point.

I'm ill-informed. Links, Links, Links and more links please!! ooh, and what was that freefall argument all about?

Are you suggesting that the entire architectural and engineering departments of universities across the globe are "in on it"

No I'm not. There's nothing to suggest that I implyed that either.

Well firstly as someone who has worked for several TV news stations including the BBC, I'd be surprised if reporters were "wacked" "soprano style" without someone mentioning it in the canteen on Monday.

The 'highjacker', not the reporter....

Again there's a presumptive air to your argument. That I will be automatically believe a document because it is released by a government.

'Refer to' is not the same as 'beleive'. I'm saying that they're not credible references if the US governent got their hands on them.

Now either we can accept that the BBC made an understandable mistake in the confusing aftermath of the attacks. For me I had a similar experience working on the aftermath of Katrina. Reports of multiple rapes at the superdome, and survivors shooting at helicopters were regularly cited during the crisis, and yet proved false. Or we can suggest that the BBC made an accurate report, yet somehow this slipped past the NWO censors, and then rather than removing the article and denying it ever existed, they leave it up and post a clarification.

That requires a long response, alas another day shall have to do.

So again I'll say this. I marched against the Iraq War. I did not believe the evidence presented by the US and British government. However in the case of 9/11 I also hold the "evidence" presented by the truth movement in equal contempt, it has consistently been demonstrated that the truth movement either mislead, lie, obfuscate the facts, misquote, and deceive. I hold the word of Dylan Avary and Tony Snow in equal disregard.

It's unusual to say this, but I agree with you on this one :eek:

Neither side is really credible. I'm 60-40 to be honest. And I'll admit I'm rusty on the whole debate. Lost interest around 2006.
But what makes me lean towards the 'nut-job' side is the economic factors. The fact that America NEEDED to start the wars which they did.
9-11 was too much of a lucky co-incidence for me.

Kernel · 11-06-2008 04:00AM

Diogenes wrote: »

How vast do you think this conspiracy theory is? Every DA? Every states attorney is on it? Do you understand the thousands of people that would be involved, how do you achieve that silence.

I've heard this nonsense of thousands of people needing to be involved in a 9/11 conspiracy, and I'm interested as to how you deduce that figure??? A dozen people could have carried out such a conspiracy through selective orders and string pulling. It's simply about planning several moves ahead, like in a game of chess - albeit on a more grandiose scale.

Diogenes wrote: »

Well firstly as someone who has worked for several TV news stations including the BBC, I'd be surprised if reporters were "wacked" "soprano style" without someone mentioning it in the canteen on Monday.

You worked for the mainstream media. What a surprise. You do realise that when the longest serving Reuters employee was leaving, she stated that she was often shocked at how news feeds relating to the Iraqi war were often conveniently omitted. No, I cannot link to that, I watched the interview with her on MSM, but since I've no link it must be a lie....

If I may ask, what was your function with these news agencies?

Diogenes · 11-06-2008 09:37AM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

People who are on friendly terms with the administration are more likely to get the job, that doesn't imply a vast conspiricy.

Do you really think people are going to ignore evidence that their "mates" are complicit or carried out mass murder because they are "friendly" with them?

Where are you getting that from? I'm saying such a scenario would never occur either way.

You're saying the US government to engineer a vast cover up among architects and engineers. Based on?

I'm ill-informed. Links, Links, Links and more links please!! ooh, and what was that freefall argument all about?

What freefall argument, thats a conspiracy theorist red herring.

No I'm not. There's nothing to suggest that I implyed that either.

Er yes there bloody well is.

I said

Diogenes wrote:

-A major scientific report in a reputable engineering journal, that actively questions the NIST investigation's results.

You said

That's foreseeable, so the US government would take measures to see that it would not happen.

Clearly suggesting that the US government would be able to subvert any report in any engineering journal.

Like the following

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php - 35k

www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2002/May/hour1_050302.html

www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

The 'highjacker', not the reporter....

And again why leave the him alive in the first place?

'Refer to' is not the same as 'beleive'. I'm saying that they're not credible references if the US governent got their hands on them.

Once again you're suggesting that US government as a monolithic entity that can control everything and everyone they work for to an absurd degree.

That requires a long response, alas another day shall have to do.

I wait with baited breath

It's unusual to say this, but I agree with you on this one :eek:

Neither side is really credible. I'm 60-40 to be honest. And I'll admit I'm rusty on the whole debate. Lost interest around 2006.
But what makes me lean towards the 'nut-job' side is the economic factors. The fact that America NEEDED to start the wars which they did.
9-11 was too much of a lucky co-incidence for me.

American needed this? For economic reasons? You do understand they are on the brink of the worst economic recession since the depression?

Kernel wrote:

I've heard this nonsense of thousands of people needing to be involved in a 9/11 conspiracy, and I'm interested as to how you deduce that figure??? A dozen people could have carried out such a conspiracy through selective orders and string pulling. It's simply about planning several moves ahead, like in a game of chess - albeit on a more grandiose scale.

Nonsense? Nonsense? The poster is suggesting that DA's, FBI agents, journalists, and engineers have been bought off or silenced. That ordinary hard working people can be threatened or bribed in submission, history would disagree.

You worked for the mainstream media. What a surprise. You do realise that when the longest serving Reuters employee was leaving, she stated that she was often shocked at how news feeds relating to the Iraqi war were often conveniently omitted. No, I cannot link to that, I watched the interview with her on MSM, but since I've no link it must be a lie....

Your point is? Reuters is often the only source for many stations covering the Iraq war. Stringers from local news agencies provide the pictures for hundreds of tv stations across the globe. It is incredibly frustrating for Reuters for their staff to risk their lives for VT that isn't used.

This isn't a conspiracy theory Kernel, I'd suggest you read the excellent "flat earth news" to get a better understanding of how TV and Print media work.

If I may ask, what was your function with these news agencies?

Freelance Video Editor.

Sea Sharp · 11-06-2008 10:19AM

Do you really think people are going to ignore evidence that their "mates" are complicit or carried out mass murder because they are "friendly" with them?

No, they wouldn't ask 'unpatriotic' questions of the administration so to speak.

You're saying the US government to engineer a vast cover up among architects and engineers. Based on?

No, no and no. 'unAmerican'/controversial articles won't be released.

What freefall argument, thats a conspiracy theorist red herring.

I'm treating this as discussion. I'm ill-informed. Please give the links. Keeping in mind I'm particularily interesting in the whole 'freefall' ordeal. Presumably you've stumbled across a proper explanantion. Where is it? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, it's a simple request. What's the problem?

That's foreseeable, so the US government would take measures to see that it would not happen.

//to be edited in an hour or 2. Train to be caught.

And again why leave the him alive in the first place?

A mess up, poor information, whatever.

I said,

'Refer to' is not the same as 'beleive'. I'm saying that they're not credible references if the US governent got their hands on them.

Once again you're suggesting that US government as a monolithic entity that can control everything and everyone they work for to an absurd degree.

No, I'm saying information from the US government, or people who are funded by the US goverment, are not credible sources.
Stop 'reading between the lines' and proposing incorrect, belittleing elaborations of what i said. The fact that most of my replies to quotes are becoming 'no I didn't say that' is becoming annoying.

American needed this? For economic reasons? You do understand they are on the brink of the worst economic recession since the depression?

They still need to invade Iran. The economic recession would have hit earlier had they not gone into Iraq.

Diogenes · 11-06-2008 10:55AM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

No, they wouldn't ask 'unpatriotic' questions of the administration so to speak.

What about people like Valarie Palme? Plenty of outspoken criticism of the current administration exists in the US. To suggest that 10,000s of US government officals wouldn't investigate their governments complicity in the WTC attacks is patently absurd.

No, no and no. 'unAmerican'/controversial articles won't be released.

Er what? The articles I linked to include on by a Sheffield university.

I'm treating this as discussion. I'm ill-informed. Please give the links.

I've given you several links already.

Keeping in mind I'm particularily interesting in the whole 'freefall' ordeal. Presumably you've stumbled across a proper explanantion. Where is it? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, it's a simple request. What's the problem?

The problem is that you keep saying the "freefall ordeal" without elaborating. You keep demanding links, provide a link to what you are referring to. I've no idea what you are blithering on about at this point. Aside from poorly researched dubious claims from conspiracy theorists there's no ordeal.

//to be edited in an hour or 2. Train to be caught.

A mess up, poor information, whatever.

Come again? Whatever? You've just completely the most meticulous and
incredibly criminal conspiracy in human history, and you leave your patsies to warn around Saudi Arabia to be documented by the BBC. Then you as an afterthought murder the patsy, and leave the BBC article in place for five years

How retarded do you think the US government is?

I said,

No, I'm saying information from the US government, or people who are funded by the US goverment, are not credible sources.

And what about those who are not? Furthermore are you proposing that every engineer who takes a federal pay check can be bought off.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you were a reasonably well paid employee (say on $100k a year) and you discovered your employer had murdered 3,000 people, would you be willing or able to keep silent about it?

Stop 'reading between the lines' and proposing incorrect, belittleing elaborations of what i said. The fact that most of my replies to quotes are becoming 'no I didn't say that' is becoming annoying.

I'm sorry I asked.

Diogenes wrote:

Once again you're suggesting that US government as a monolithic entity that can control everything and everyone they work for to an absurd degree.

And you said

No, I'm saying information from the US government, or people who are funded by the US goverment, are not credible sources.

You clearly believe that anyone who takes a federal paycheck cannot be trusted as a reputable source of information.

They still need to invade Iran. The economic recession would have hit earlier had they not gone into Iraq.

No the current recession was held off because of a slash of interest rates and a boom in the housing market.

But pray do tell, why do they need to invade Iran?

Sea Sharp · 11-06-2008 12:31PM

What about people like Valarie Palme

I was unawear that she made any statements along the lines of the Bush administration being responsible for 9-11.

Plenty of outspoken criticism of the current administration exists in the US. To suggest that 10,000s of US government officals wouldn't investigate their governments complicity in the WTC attacks is patently absurd.

Regarding 9-11? It is a differnt situation. Calling your government incompetent is one thing. Accusing them of mass murder is another.

Keeping in mind I'm particularily interesting in the whole 'freefall' ordeal. Presumably you've stumbled across a proper explanantion. Where is it? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, it's a simple request. What's the problem?

I was refering to the fact that the buildings fell almost at freefall (9.8m/s). Which wouldn't make any sense if there was undamaged stories below to resist, the fall. But I'm ill-informed, I'm admitting that, what's the explanation. I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm curious to know.
And I didn't find an explanation form you, or in the links you provided.

Come again? Whatever? You've just completely the most meticulous and
incredibly criminal conspiracy in human history, and you leave your patsies to warn around Saudi Arabia to be documented by the BBC. Then you as an afterthought murder the patsy, and leave the BBC article in place for five years

If an article was released then subsequently withdrawn, that would be retarded. As many people would have read, and made reference to the document.

And what about those who are not? Furthermore are you proposing that every engineer who takes a federal pay check can be bought off.

Not bought off. Fired, and subsequently censored.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you were a reasonably well paid employee (say on $100k a year) and you discovered your employer had murdered 3,000 people, would you be willing or able to keep silent about it?

If there was nothing I could do about it, I'd keep my mouth shut, yes. And who are they gonna report it to? The government?

You clearly believe that anyone who takes a federal paycheck cannot be trusted as a reputable source of information.

Any release made by a 'federal employee' would be seen/reviewed by their supervisors before being released to the public?

No the current recession was held off because of a slash of interest rates and a boom in the housing market.

But pray do tell, why do they need to invade Iran?

The dollar being used as the international oil currency. A switch to other currencies inevitably devalues the dollar. Would the recession be happening now if the 1 dollar was exacty 1 euro?
I do think that the value of the dollar decreasing contributed to the situation they're in now. Do you disagree?

Diogenes · 11-06-2008 01:28PM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I was unawear that she made any statements along the lines of the Bush administration being responsible for 9-11.

This is getting tiresome. You've stated that you believe US officials wouldn't speak out about 911 because doing so would be "unpatriotic".

It was the current US administrations claim that Saddam had WMD and was trying to procure them.

It's your logic that no one would challenge the US administration over their "version" of the 911 narrative. How do you marry that with the numerous American officials who challenged US claims in the run up to the Iraq war.

Regarding 9-11? It is a differnt situation. Calling your government incompetent is one thing. Accusing them of mass murder is another.

So your rational is this, people are happy to accuse their government of incompetence, but people will ignore evidence of mass murder.

I was refering to the fact that the buildings fell almost at freefall (9.8m/s). Which wouldn't make any sense if there was undamaged stories below to resist, the fall. But I'm ill-informed, I'm admitting that, what's the explanation. I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm curious to know.
And I didn't find an explanation form you, or in the links you provided.

You looked at all of them did you.

Your "fact" isn't true. The buildings didn't fall at 9.8m/s. Perhaps you'd provide a link to prove your "fact".

If an article was released then subsequently withdrawn, that would be retarded. As many people would have read, and made reference to the document.

Again, outside of conspiracy theorists no one subscribes to it. Articles fall off websites all the time. Anyone refering to it would see a broken link and the BBC could deny it ever existed.

If the story was true why haven't these conspirators gone to greater length to hide it?

Not bought off. Fired, and subsequently censored.

How could they be censored? In fact wouldn't the fact that someone had fired them be a motivation to expose the government?

If there was nothing I could do about it, I'd keep my mouth shut, yes. And who are they gonna report it to? The government?

The media? Never heard of deepthroat?

Any release made by a 'federal employee' would be seen/reviewed by their supervisors before being released to the public?

You're a federal engineer you find damning evidence that the collapse was caused by explosives, you take it to your boss and he changes it.

You're not going to kick up a fuss?

The dollar being used as the international oil currency. A switch to other currencies inevitably devalues the dollar. Would the recession be happening now if the 1 dollar was exacty 1 euro?
I do think that the value of the dollar decreasing contributed to the situation they're in now. Do you disagree?

Yes. The issues are far more complex that simple currency exchange rates.

Sea Sharp · 11-06-2008 02:27PM

This is getting tiresome. You've stated that you believe US officials wouldn't speak out about 911 because doing so would be "unpatriotic".

They would be told not to persue their doubts due to being 'unpatriotic'. That's just one possibility though. I wasn't trying to simplify my argument to that.

It was the current US administrations claim that Saddam had WMD and was trying to procure them.

It's your logic that no one would challenge the US administration over their "version" of the 911 narrative. How do you marry that with the numerous American officials who challenged US claims in the run up to the Iraq war.

Well a lot of people working with the FBI didn't agree with the Administration. That wasn't front page news in the run up to the Iraq war.
And remember the scientist David Kelly. Killed himself? I wasn't satisfied with that.

So your rational is this, people are happy to accuse their government of incompetence, but people will ignore evidence of mass murder.

Accusing the government of incompetence will make it into the media. Accusing the government of murdering thousands of it's own citizens won't. There is a bit of a difference there.

You looked at all of them did you.

Your "fact" isn't true. The buildings didn't fall at 9.8m/s. Perhaps you'd provide a link to prove your "fact".

Almost 9.8m/s. is not the same as 9.8m/s. Where's the evidence it fell almost at freefall?
Here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA
Sorry for having to reference the dubious site that is youtube :rolleyes:

Again, outside of conspiracy theorists no one subscribes to it. Articles fall off websites all the time. Anyone refering to it would see a broken link and the BBC could deny it ever existed.

If the story was true why haven't these conspirators gone to greater length to hide it?

Once it was out it, it was out. They couldn't have sensored it anymore. And deleting it from the database is more suspicous than not doing so. They released an explanation that it was chaotic and they got mixed up. I'd ditch this argument if they careded to elaborate on their explanation.
I'm not trying to use this as proof that the highjackers are still alive. (I actually retract what I said earlier in the forum.)
But to me it's a 'I dunno TBH'. I lost interest in the topic before an explanation was given.
I don't expect you to agree that the hijackers are still alive. And I'm no longer sure whether or not there's reason to suspect they are, or were.
Had it been proved, it would have contributed to the governemnt did it side of the argument.

Not bought off. Fired, and subsequently censored.

You ask inconvenient questions, you coincedently get fired with the explanation that you weren't working well enough. Nothing to run to the media about.

The media? Never heard of deepthroat?

In the context of 9-11, deepthroat is nothing more than a lesson that was learned WRT keeping information from going public.

You're a federal engineer you find damning evidence that the collapse was caused by explosives, you take it to your boss and he changes it.

You're not going to kick up a fuss?

Federal engineers don't sit around contemplating 911 all the time. You're not happy with the official report, you should have said something when it was been written, it's yesterdays work, now get back to todays.

Yes. The issues are far more complex that simple currency exchange rates.

Obviously it's more complicated. But I'm not going into more detail than is necessary.
I'm saying, a weak dollar is bad for the US. It definately contributed to
their current economic situation.
Oil trading countries that ditch the dollar is very very bad for the dollar. There is a more complicated explanation for someone who does not immediately see how this is the case. But I try to avoid tangents where I can.
Do you agree that 'Oil trading countries that ditch the dollar is very very bad for the dollar. '

Kernel · 11-06-2008 03:03PM

Diogenes wrote: »

Nonsense? Nonsense? The poster is suggesting that DA's, FBI agents, journalists, and engineers have been bought off or silenced. That ordinary hard working people can be threatened or bribed in submission, history would disagree.

Do you think such a conspiracy would require thouisands, or even hundreds of willing and knowing participants?

Diogenes wrote: »

Your point is? Reuters is often the only source for many stations covering the Iraq war. Stringers from local news agencies provide the pictures for hundreds of tv stations across the globe. It is incredibly frustrating for Reuters for their staff to risk their lives for VT that isn't used.

My point is that this lady was the longest serving employee of Reuters dealing with news feeds, and she said that she was surprised by the amount of selective reporting of certain stories nowadays. That implies a form of media control or censorship to me.

Diogenes wrote: »

Freelance Video Editor.

You should make your own loose change which refutes all the theories and put it on the net.

Diogenes · 11-06-2008 03:16PM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

They would be told not to persue their doubts due to being 'unpatriotic'. That's just one possibility though. I wasn't trying to simplify my argument to that.

But you did.

Time and time again Federal employees have come forward to expose their departments failings, government incompetence or deception.

But you're claiming that all these people wouldn't come forward if they knew the US government carried out 911, why? You've offered nothing but incoherent arguments to support your claim.

Well a lot of people working with the FBI didn't agree with the Administration. That wasn't front page news in the run up to the Iraq war.

But it is known about. Isn't it? And the number of FBI agents who have complained with suspicions about 911?

You cannot have your cake and eat it mate. Either the US government can cowe it's employees to silence submission on all matters or the lack of FBI officers complaining about the US administration carrying out 911 means these people don't exist.

And remember the scientist David Kelly. Killed himself? I wasn't satisfied with that.

Accusing the government of incompetence will make it into the media. Accusing the government of murdering thousands of it's own citizens won't. There is a bit of a difference there.

Thats absurd. Plenty of 911 conspiracy theorists have been published in the mainstream media. You're making a sweeping generalisation, which isn't based on fact.

Almost 9.8m/s. is not the same as 9.8m/s. Where's the evidence it fell almost at freefall?
Here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA
Sorry for having to reference the dubious site that is youtube :rolleyes:

One word. Pathetic. Well two words. Utterly Pathetic.

1. The camera isn't even trained on the tower at the moment of global collapse. So theres no way to establish the time that the collapse started from that video. So you're off to a non starter there sunshine.

2. The tower is completely consumed by a cloud of debris from around the 1m33s mark. Making it utterly impossible to figure out the time the collapse ended.

So please explain to me how you were able to chart the collapse speed when you cannot work out;

A) the time the collapse started.

the time the collapse finished.

And please show your math.

This ought to be good.

Once it was out it, it was out. They couldn't have sensored it anymore. And deleting it from the database is more suspicous than not doing so. They released an explanation that it was chaotic and they got mixed up. I'd ditch this argument if they careded to elaborate on their explanation.
I'm not trying to use this as proof that the highjackers are still alive. (I actually retract what I said earlier in the forum.)
But to me it's a 'I dunno TBH'. I lost interest in the topic before an explanation was given.
I don't expect you to agree that the hijackers are still alive. And I'm no longer sure whether or not there's reason to suspect they are, or were.
Had it been proved, it would have contributed to the governemnt did it side of the argument.

I don't suppose the fact that for example, the remains of all of the hijackers were found in the debris at the pentagon.

Out of curiousity Gan, what would satisfy you as proof the hijackers are dead?

You ask inconvenient questions, you coincedently get fired with the explanation that you weren't working well enough. Nothing to run to the media about.

Leaving aside your paranoia for a moment, getting fired for doing your job particularly in engineering.

The simple fact is that dozens of papers have been written by engineers around the globe which support the NISTs findings.

In the context of 9-11, deepthroat is nothing more than a lesson that was learned WRT keeping information from going public.

What on earth does that even mean?

Federal engineers don't sit around contemplating 911 all the time. You're not happy with the official report, you should have said something when it was been written, it's yesterdays work, now get back to todays.

Federal, Civil and Mechanical engineers actually do spend an awful lot of time thinking about the WTC collapse. You should check out the really huge 911 thread in this forum. A poster Civdef is a fire safety engineer and has attended a lecture given by NIST scientists in Dublin.

Have a guess how much credibility 911 conspiracy theories have with him?

Obviously it's more complicated. But I'm not going into more detail than is necessary.
I'm saying, a weak dollar is bad for the US. It definately contributed to
their current economic situation.
Oil trading countries that ditch the dollar is very very bad for the dollar. There is a more complicated explanation for someone who does not immediately see how this is the case. But I try to avoid tangents where I can.
Do you agree that 'Oil trading countries that ditch the dollar is very very bad for the dollar. '

I'm not even going down this inane tangent, explain to me how the US needs to invade Iran?

Diogenes · 11-06-2008 03:57PM

Kernel wrote: »

Do you think such a conspiracy would require thouisands, or even hundreds of willing and knowing participants?

Yes. You keep talking about compartmentalization. People aren't morons they would work it out.

My point is that this lady was the longest serving employee of Reuters dealing with news feeds, and she said that she was surprised by the amount of selective reporting of certain stories nowadays. That implies a form of media control or censorship to me.

Thats your paranoia talking.

I'd personally put it down to war fatigue among the viewing public. That and after spending any number of nights cutting Iraq VT there's only so many ways you can cut together a "suicide bomber kills thirty in busy Bagdad market, again" story. You can only say "the situation in Iraq is pretty much f*cked" so many times.

You should make your own loose change which refutes all the theories and put it on the net.

You cannot refute all the theories. The countering the plethora of lies, deception and deceit spewed out by the "truth movement" would take hours, and still some would say "ah they didn't mention X or Y"

besides screwloosechange, screw911mysteries, and the conspiracy files, all do an excellent job.

Sea Sharp · 11-06-2008 11:53PM

OK, lets take a few steps back here.

But you did.

Time and time again Federal employees have come forward to expose their departments failings, government incompetence or deception.

But you're claiming that all these people wouldn't come forward if they knew the US government carried out 911, why? You've offered nothing but incoherent arguments to support your claim.

Well sorry if I seem incoherent. I've been told I am guilty of writing vaguely at times. Can you write a mini-paragraph of what you're interpriting my argument as, and how it's incoherent.

But it is known about. Isn't it? And the number of FBI agents who have complained with suspicions about 911?

You cannot have your cake and eat it mate. Either the US government can cowe it's employees to silence submission on all matters or the lack of FBI officers complaining about the US administration carrying out 911 means these people don't exist.

I still maintain that there's a big differnce between accusing your government of being incompetent, dishonest, than to accuse them of mass murdering it's own citizens. Essentially the government would be a 100 times more pissed at you for the latter.

Thats absurd. Plenty of 911 conspiracy theorists have been published in the mainstream media. You're making a sweeping generalisation, which isn't based on fact.

Usually whilst not being given a chance to get their story across, and usually met with trash talk insults from the interviewer.

One word. Pathetic. Well two words. Utterly Pathetic.

1. The camera isn't even trained on the tower at the moment of global collapse. So theres no way to establish the time that the collapse started from that video. So you're off to a non starter there sunshine.

2. The tower is completely consumed by a cloud of debris from around the 1m33s mark. Making it utterly impossible to figure out the time the collapse ended.

So please explain to me how you were able to chart the collapse speed when you cannot work out;

A) the time the collapse started.

the time the collapse finished.

And please show your math.

This ought to be good.

I just randomly selected a video of the towers collapsing. Point being, whether or not the buildings fell at freefall can be seen on youtube. Any footage should do the job. Fair enough that was a poor video. It was the first one my search came across. My point, whether or not the buildings fell at freefall is pretty much there for everyone to see.

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Nist hasn't given an explanation for this.

I don't suppose the fact that for example, the remains of all of the hijackers were found in the debris at the pentagon.

Out of curiousity Gan, what would satisfy you as proof the hijackers are dead?

I don't care. I'm not taking it into consideration in the formulating of my opinion. I've allready stated this.

Leaving aside your paranoia for a moment, getting fired for doing your job particularly in engineering.

If I actually said, 'I think my boss is going to accuse me of being bad even though I'm not and fire me. But really he's going to fire me for some other reason'. If I actually said that about my own personal job that I'm working in at the moment, yes, that would be paranoia.
In this discussion, I'm hypothesizing.

What on earth does that even mean?

The watergate incident would serve the current administration as a lesson. 'What went wrong there?' 'Make sure we take measures to ensure it doesn't happen this time.'

I'm not even going down this inane tangent, explain to me how the US needs to invade Iran?

Ok, Iranian oil bourse? Does that phrase ring a bell?
I think this is a tangent is very much so worth while 'going down'. This tangent, brings the discussion onto the topic of the motives which led to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For me, this is very important. If they needed to, would they have carried out 9-11.
Of course, there's always the explanation that the US invaded Afghanistan to catch Osamma Bin Laden and spread peace and democracy. And Iraq was about peace and democracy, and preventing Saddam Hussein from arming the evil terrorists with his mass stockpile of WMD. (Sounds a bit like a James Bond film don't you think.)
I think it is essential to establish what the motives for the wars were. And out of curiosity, what's your explanation for the Iraq war. What was the actual agenda if you agree that they lied about persuing WMD

The thing is, I'm not some gob****e trying to ram loose change down other people's throats so as to justify some sort of lizard-people, NWO, 'they're out to get me' delusions of persectution paranoia.
For example, you said that the Highjackers still being alive is a poor argument. And I agreed with you. I'm not attempting to win an argument here, with my ego being on the line. I'm trying to have a discussion about a topic I'm interested in.

bonkey · 12-06-2008 04:57AM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Point being, whether or not the buildings fell at freefall can be seen on youtube. Any footage should do the job. Fair enough that was a poor video. It was the first one my search came across. My point, whether or not the buildings fell at freefall is pretty much there for everyone to see.

You're right. Its there for all to see. THe buildings did not fall at freefall speeds.

The bulk of the buildings fell at something reasonably close to freefall speeds, sure, if we exclude the 15-storey or more core of each that was left standing for some seconds after the main collapse finished.

Can you show why the buildings should not fall at close to freefall speeds? Now, before you ask me if I can show why they should...here's the thing. They were observed falling at the speeds they fell at. Unless someone can show there is something unusual about that, then the correct position to take is that there isn't.

Nist hasn't given an explanation for this.

Why should they?

The article gives the terminal velocity for a human and a cat. Each of the twin towers were neither a human, nor a cat, so the article gives no terminal velocity for the collapses. Unsurprisingly, having given no terminal velocity, it doesn't work out what the collapse time would be, limited by terminal velocity. It also doesn't work backward, from what the stated collapse time was (not that I agree with its choice of source) to calculate what the ensuing resistance and maximum velocity could be, to show that its unreasonably high.

It additionally calculates the collapse-time from the top of the buildings, but the collapse didn't start at the top of the buildings. So thats wrong too.

It makes a statement that the structure "below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air". Note the lack of math, calculating what effect this should have had. Its just an appeal to our senses that this resistance should have had more effect than it did.

Still not convinced? OK...then lets take the simplest of all examples.

Take your chosen video of tower-collapse. Pause it mid-collapse. Now...you have to agree, I haven't chosen any specific point in the collapse, nor any video, so I can't be accused of cherry-picking information to suit my my argument here, right?

OK...so you have your video paused.

See the debris falling outside the footprint of the tower? It has nothing below it. It is unquestionably freefalling in air. There's a goodly chunk of it below the main collapse "cloud"....indicating that it is falling faster than that main collapse.

Unpause, and watch it get further ahead.

From this there is a ridiculously simple and obvious conclusion : articles verifiably free-falling in air, at the same time and general location, are falling faster than the main collapse is progressing down the tower. Hence, the tower is collapsing at slower than free-fall-in-air speeds. We don't need math to see this. We don't need appeals to what is or is not possible. We can see those pieces fall, and we can see them fall faster than the main collapse.

They are freefalling in air, faster than the main building is collapsing.

Watch it again, from the start. Watch it in reverse, if you can, and follow one of those pieces back along its trail to see where it came from. Now watch it in forward-motion again.

Watch it fall faster then the building. In the open air. In freefall.

Sea Sharp · 17-06-2008 12:52AM

Can you show why the buildings should not fall at close to freefall speeds? Now, before you ask me if I can show why they should...here's the thing. They were observed falling at the speeds they fell at. Unless someone can show there is something unusual about that, then the correct position to take is that there isn't.

Well, looking back over the posts I made previously I refered to the whole 'freefall' argument in the hope that it would imply 'The time it took the buildings to collapse argument'.
The later half of your post, I assume, is you having the assumption that I was implying that the buildings fell exactly at freefall. Poor choice of words on my behalf..

Ok, I'm in the electronic stream of engineering so my understanding of physics isn't completely up to scratch but, this is my understanding...
Taking figures from:here.

The first scenario takes into consideration is how long it would take the top 15 stories to fall had they been hanging from a crane and let loose with only air to resist. :

The conclusion is that the 15 stories won't reach terminal velocity in the particular distance so we can just use simple equations and the time to reach the ground is:8.5710seconds. 8.5710seconds.

Now for the top 15 stories falling with the mostly structurally undamaged building in it's way.

Well using the following figures:

mass = 22997520 kg //the top 15 stories
CSA = 4019.4m^2 //the CSA of the top 15 stories
Drag coefficient = 1.28 //according to the shape of 15 stories
altitude = 359.87m // (the height of the whole building minus teh 15 stories)
Density = 10.0164 kg/m^3 // (The density of the mostly intact building below)

and using this for calculations.
We get a terminal velocity of 24.096 m/seconds.

Right, I'll make a simplification (which will work to the advantage of your side of the argument)
that the 15 stories had allready reached terminal velocity in, lets just say, the gap between the 15 stories and the rest of the building. :rolleyes:

This gives a collapse time of. 359.87 / 24.096 = 14.9348seconds.

What does this actually mean..

Well obviously to treat the whole intact rest of the building as a medium with a density of 10.0164 kg/m^3 is a horrible horrible oversimplification.

The above calculations could be better thought of as how long it would take the top 15 stories to fall 359.87m if it was dropped into a liquid with density equal to that of the remaining building.

The thing is though, the above calculations don't take into consideration that the medium is well, notably solid.

Simple example, you drop a metalic ball into a glass of water, it'll sink to the bottom. You drop a metal ball into a glass containing little verticle beams of ice, will it fall to the bottom of the glass?
It might yes, but I think it's fairly obvious to say that it will take longer than had the metal ball been just dropped into water with no ice.

The point being, the above calculated fall-time is a rough ball park figure of the minimum time of a collapse would be, failing to take into consideration the resistance that is caused by the solid atomic structure of the building below.

Hope that makes sense.

Why? - 9/11

Comments