What really happened ....11 september

Quote from CaptainObvious:

"You can't handle the truth" is the only thing that comes to mind when dealing with the CT'ers. They want a boogie man, or a group of boogie men to pin it on. Sorry boys and girls, it ain't that simple. You can't handle the truth of a government so inept, yet so arrogant. The complete indifference of our leaders leaves you dumbfounded. You simply cannot digest that our glorious government is so corrupt, at so many levels, that there is in fact, no solution to be found. If 2, or 20, or 200 are bad seeds, well then, we just kick them to the curb and move on. BUT, what happens when the whole crowd, top to bottom, is the problem? What then? Your simple fuckin' minds just can't conceive of just how fucked we are. You dopes actually think this is fixable. It ain't! The die is cast kiddies, and all "we the people" can do now, is observe.
More...


Um, isnt that a CT, in and of itself?
That is THE bogeyman, isnt it?
The main one no "rational" people accept?

(BTW, my original handle was going to be Mr or Captain obvious)
 
Quote from Avid_Consumer:

it's very frustrating to have a mountain of motive and largely unprovable cause in the public domain
More...

A mountain of motive does not make a case. In fact, that usually makes for a perfect decoy.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

"You can't handle the truth" is the only thing that comes to mind when dealing with the CT'ers.
More...

Your simple fuckin' minds just can't conceive of just how fucked we are. You dopes actually think this is fixable. It ain't! The die is cast kiddies, and all "we the people" can do now, is observe.
More...

i tend to believe corruption exists from the top down. at least that's how most every hierarchical culture i've ever been a part of worked. it's not like i'm looking for a solution to human nature lol

we should just be represented by our best. that's all (and i know that's inherently contradictory. technically i suppose bush does actually represent at least ..what, ~30-35% of americans)
 
Quote from traderNik:

Another thing that no one seems to have brought up.... if WTC 7 or the
twin towers were brought down by a planned controlled demolition, how is it
possible that no one working there, no one in the neighbourhood, no tourists
wandering there, no one ever saw any of this work being done? Do the
conspiracy theorists have any idea how big a job it is to rig buildings like
these to fall perfectly cleanly? Do they think that it would be possible to do
all this work without someone noticing something? When was this work done? If
it was being done surreptitiously, it would have taken several months at
least, months of sneaking around doing small bits of the job. Did they clean
everything up at the end of every shift so that there was no trace of their
being there? Rigging a huge building to fall means selectively demolishing
certain internal supports before the actual detonation, so that the building
will fall completely and cleanly. Did the crews blow up and blowtorch these
internal structures during stat holidays? When no one was looking?
More...

I agree fully with this argument. I don't consider it possible that such work
could have been hidden. It simply requires far too much precision, far too
many materials and is far too extensive in nature. You can't possibly do it
with a few guys disguised as janitors on the night shift or some such
... anyone who has ever read anything, or even watched a television show about
demolition work will be clear enough on this question.

But there are, nevertheless some interesting and peculiar considerations
associated with this line of thought, due to the particular design of the
towers. In order to cause them to collapse in a more or less symmetric
fashion, it would very probably have been sufficient merely to destroy the
supporting columns on a single floor, as long as that floor were sufficiently
far down from the top.

Free fall of the unsupported top of the building through a distance of a
single story would then have ensued, and the impact of all of that mass would
certainly produce a dynamic stress on the impacted floor which the structure
simply could not sustain.

The result would have been pretty much the same kind of collapse that we
actually saw, assuming that the explosive free theory of the collapse is
correct in its basic essentials!

Such a collapse would not be the cleanest possible, but neither were the
actual collapses anywhere near as clean as what is seen in controlled
demolitions, which are in some cases carried off without even breaking a
window in buildings that are located incredibly nearby.

So the demolition work need not in principle have been as extensive as one
might expect for a building this size. If I were a conspiracy theorist this is
certainly the way I would argue. It's strange that none of them has thought
to do so.

The problem with arguing this way, from the point of view of a conspiracy
theorist of course, is clearly that one would then have to agree that the
standard story has some very basic points in its favour: the structures are
inherently quite vulnerable to collapse given that sufficient local damage is
caused, and they do not offer a great deal of resistance to very large masses
that begin falling through the floor spaces.

The other problem is that the collapse clearly began in both towers very close
to the level where the airplanes actually struck, and it really strains
credulity to say that these levels could have been precisely known in advance
of the crashes.

Remember, in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, the fiendishly clever
government conspirators wanted it to be possible for the sheeple to think that
the airplanes were actually what brought the towers down, so it had to look as
if that could have been the case at least :p

So it simply would not have been sufficient to prepare 2 or 3 floors for
demolition, you really would have to prepare 20 or 30, and then tell the pilots
to aim for roughly the right levels. But then of course, the whole buildings
might just as well have been more or less filled with explosives. So its
better just to insist that they could never have come down the way they
did unless they were wired from top to bottom, and had lots of big bombs
inside, to boot :p
 
Quote from acronym:

Um, isn't that a CT, in and of itself?
That is THE bogeyman, isn't it?
The main one no "rational" people accept?

(BTW, my original handle was going to be Mr or Captain obvious)
More...

Not really. In my mind CT would be part of the group, not the entire group. The problem isn't that our government and all of it's agencies are sitting around planning events like 9/11. The problem is, a culture of corruption, incompetence, and worst of all, an attitude of complete indifference. They simply don't care because they are virtually untouchable. Worst case scenario is they resign with a golden parachute, then land a 7 figure job in the private sector.
 
This thread has been focused almost entirely on the way the buildings fell. The thinking is *IF* the buildings were demolished by explosive denotations it is proof 911 was pre-planned, and therefore a massive government conspiracy involving thousands of americans willing to slaughter their countrymen to justify invading Iraq and make tons of OIL money. (which Iraq has little of)

Ignoring the sheer lunacy and stupidity of the arguments of "squibs", "free fall theories", etc, etc, etc ... All I'm left wondering is WHY the so-called conspirators would go to such lengths and take such risks to control the manner in which the buildings fell.

All For DRAMATIC EFFECT?!?!

They rigged 216 stories of buildings, DOING SO UNNOTICED mind you, to make good TV.

NOW WHAT ELSE DO YOU NUTJOBS HAVE? missiles Hitting the Pentagon? Good Lord ............

(Mind rot and cultural pollution ........ I'm literally embarrassed for you and of you)
 
One more question for you NUTJOBS .........

WHY DIDN'T THEY RECRUIT IRAQI'S TO FLY THE PLANES OR PLANT WMD'S IN IRAQ ?????????????????????????????????????

The feds were able to conducting 9-11, AND YET COULDN'T SLIP A NUKE INTO IRAQ TO JUSTIFY THE GODDAMN WAR ?????????????


f'ing nutjobs
 
Quote from neophyte321:

One more question for you NUTJOBS .........

WHY DIDN'T THEY RECRUIT IRAQI'S TO FLY THE PLANES OR PLANT WMD'S IN IRAQ ?????????????????????????????????????

The feds were able to conducting 9-11, AND YET COULDN'T SLIP A NUKE INTO IRAQ TO JUSTIFY THE GODDAMN WAR ?????????????


f'ing nutjobs
More...

yet you suckers jump on the official ever changing govt fantasy that cave dwellers outsmarted a multi billion dollar air defense system and convinced our govt to hold a terrorist training exercise on the same fking exact day these arab cave dwellers were going to magically fly jumbo jets into bldgs because they had a couple of fking box cutters.

and you know who the pilots were because the govt produced a pristine passport from one of the saudi hijackers although the blast was so intense it melted steel and vaporized the plane. just fking brilliant i tell you.

it is a crime to want to see the numerous video feeds that the govt says they have to prove a jet hit the pentagon. i dont say a missile hit it... DO YOU KNOW WHY??? BECAUSE I HAVENT SEEN ANYTHING HIT IT. THE GOVT WONT SHOW US DESPITE FOIA REQUEST!!!! sorry if i just dont bend over and let these people have their way like you do.

heaven forbid you opine as to why NIST does not support the "pancake theory"... how odd..... all these great govt scientist hard at work and they avoid the collapse altogether, not to mention wtc7.

FOOLS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top