Author Topic: 9/11 [split topic]  (Read 5913 times)

9/11 [split topic]
« on: May 14, 2020, 11:23:18 PM »
The latest conspiracy I read was that this was all a government plot to gain extra power. Now I hate this government as much of the next man and I wouldn't put it past them to take advantage of the situation to their own ends but deliberately tanking the economy and putting millions of people out of work is a bit much even for them. It is the same is with 9/11 conspiracy theorists; it is much too big a thing to do when something much lesser would allow the same things to happen.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle


The evidence against the official 911 narrative is actually overwhelming. Most of this evidence (some presented below) is verifiable with an understanding of basic physics, and simply watching the collapse of the buildings themselves.

Furthermore, 911 has nothing whatsoever to do with the rampant disinformation being disseminated online (by bots and shills in most cases probably) nor nonsensical conspiracy theories such as Flat earth or 5G. It just gets lumped in with all that bullshit so to a casual observer, it will be indistinguishable from the rest of the (crazy) crap.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is weaponized, and is used now, in almost any situation when someone questions the integrity of the US, or other western governments.

It is quite permitted to call these governments, and their minions, stupid, bungling, or incompetent (or to blame it all on Trump) but to even suggest for one moment, that they may be capable of carrying out evil acts, upon other nations, or even upon their own peoples, is prohibited, and the person doing the questioning, will immediately be branded 'conspiracy theorist' or nutjob, and to hell with the actual evidence.

People are quite able to believe that the men hanged at Nuremberg were capable of incomprehensible callousness, of sitting down and thrashing out, the mass starvation of Russia over coffee and scones, and yet it is unimaginable to them, that our own leaders, could potentially be every bit as callous and psychopathic.

We are quite able to believe the Nazis capable of orchestrating false flag attacks in order to perpetrate wars of aggression, and erode civil and democratic liberties, but never our own leaders. Never...

This, despite the countless middle eastern wars (where the US/UK followed the old empire's policy of divide and conquer/terrorism) Guantanamo bay, Abu ghraib, abundant evidence of torture, Julian Assange, as well as a seemingly complete, and utter lack of effort or will, to actually contain Covid-19 despite having months to prepare.

Calling something a 'conspiracy theory' is merely a very cunning way to ridicule, but more importantly discredit anyone who should dare to question officially sanctioned narratives. It also helps if most conspiracy theories that are being pushed out onto the public are genuinely ludicrous!

Millions of sane and rational people dispute the official narrative of 911. I personally don't claim to know the truth about COVID-19. But I sure as hell am not listening to the mainstream media! They have lied and concealed the truth about 911 and propagated the lie that is the War on Terrorism, for years.

Now more than ever people need to be questioning authority as well as the supine media's complicity.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

    Rapid onset of collapse
    Sounds of explosions
    Symmetrical structural failure
    Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
    Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
    Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
    Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
    Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

    FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
    Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
    Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

    Slow onset with large visible deformations
    Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
    High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

    Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
    Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
    Extremely rapid onset of destruction
    Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
    Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
    Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
    Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
    1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
    Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
    Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
    Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
    Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
    Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

    Slow onset with large visible deformations
    Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
    High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed


____

Here is a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology speaking out against the official story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmTY2slpXAY

Here is Richard Gage (the leader of architects and engineers) on Cspan presenting the evidence to the American public. C-span resisted putting AE911 truth on the air, but eventually gave in due to overwhelming public demand. The idea that people demanding a new investigation for 911 are all irrational 'conspiracy theorists' is just nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGhjzI9rw4











Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2020, 12:08:01 AM »
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle


The evidence against the official 911 narrative is actually overwhelming. Most of this evidence (some presented below) is BLAH BLAH BLAH TRUTHER CRAP JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS, TERRORISTS HAVE NEVER EVER HIJACKED PLANES BEFORE MUCH LESS CRASHED THEM ACCIDENTALLY OR ON PURPOSE

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2020, 12:11:33 AM »
Wolf8312 - I don't think you've said why they did that. So can I ask...why?

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2020, 12:16:29 AM »
Wolf8312 - I don't think you've said why they did that. So can I ask...why?
for oil and money and perpetual war of course

and naturally the US government paid off absolutely everybody, every single demolition expert, all the passengers on United 93 which didn't actually crash, all the NTSB personnel who definitely didn't pick up all the bits of plane that crashed into the Pentagon cos that was really a missile, all the families of all the passengers who were/were not on the planes depending on what flavour of Kool-Aid we're drinking today, EVERYBODY so that 19 years later only a handful of people are brave enough to say it was all a hoax.

That's much more believable than 19 terrorists hijacking four planes and deliberately flying them into buildings.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2020, 12:18:41 AM »
So they did it to enable them to do things that they could have done, and do, anyway?

OK cool

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2020, 11:24:21 AM »
Where the conspiracy theorists generally fall down is in the leap from "There isn't sufficient evidence to support the official record of events" to "I know exactly what really happened, and it was this," usually supported by considerably shakier evidence than the official record.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2020, 11:26:07 AM »
They're putting in 5G masts so they can monitor us.

Yeah I think they can do that anyway.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2020, 12:03:42 PM »
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle

Isn't this, if not a non-sequitir, at least unhelpful in deducing anything? How do you know when you've eliminated all the impossibilities? What if eliminating what we think are the impossibilities still leaves several or many possibilities?

It's true that "conspiracy theory" is a weaponised epithet; something being a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true - conspiracies happen all the time, and sometimes the "theory" is demonstrable fact. "The media, capitalists and politicians confected a narrative about the last Labour government crashing the economy by spending too much money in order to attack the state" is demonstrably true. It's also true that mainstream reporting refuses to allocate bad intentions (rather than incompetence) to the british state and its allies. I don't think this is news to most posters here though.

I absolutely believe the government would like to exercise greater control over the public, and will use the coronavirus to try to do so. I just think that - from their own nefarious perspective - crashing the economy by historic levels would be an undesirable means to do so. Much as if the US wanted to stage attacks on their own soil to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and usher in an increasingly militarised security state, they could have done so in a far cheaper, simpler, less risky, less costly manner - ie by crashing an airliner in a field (or even into some little building on the outskirts of New York) rather than levelling some of the financial world's prime real estate, closing an entire financial district, killing hundreds of their own ("their own" being financial services workers, not americans in general) and generating a contraction. I don't put all that past them from an ethical point of view - they'd already been doing much worse in other countries - it just seems practically unnecessary for the same ends.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2020, 02:19:54 PM »
Isn't this, if not a non-sequitir, at least unhelpful in deducing anything? How do you know when you've eliminated all the impossibilities? What if eliminating what we think are the impossibilities still leaves several or many possibilities?

It's true that "conspiracy theory" is a weaponised epithet; something being a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's not true - conspiracies happen all the time, and sometimes the "theory" is demonstrable fact. "The media, capitalists and politicians confected a narrative about the last Labour government crashing the economy by spending too much money in order to attack the state" is demonstrably true. It's also true that mainstream reporting refuses to allocate bad intentions (rather than incompetence) to the british state and its allies. I don't think this is news to most posters here though.

I absolutely believe the government would like to exercise greater control over the public, and will use the coronavirus to try to do so. I just think that - from their own nefarious perspective - crashing the economy by historic levels would be an undesirable means to do so. Much as if the US wanted to stage attacks on their own soil to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and usher in an increasingly militarised security state, they could have done so in a far cheaper, simpler, less risky, less costly manner - ie by crashing an airliner in a field (or even into some little building on the outskirts of New York) rather than levelling some of the financial world's prime real estate, closing an entire financial district, killing hundreds of their own ("their own" being financial services workers, not americans in general) and generating a contraction. I don't put all that past them from an ethical point of view - they'd already been doing much worse in other countries - it just seems practically unnecessary for the same ends.

Respectfully, but I think you are focusing on the philosophical aspects regarding 911 (motive etc) but not tackling the scientific evidence presented.

I think if people are able to believe that 2 planes were able to bring down 3 buildings (3-2=1), and when you consider that one building, not even touched by an airplane, went down like this.....>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiuFpuOsksc

....then we really have to pose the question if it is not the case, that on some level maybe some people just don't want to know!

The 'impossible' with 911 would be the official narrative which is indeed demonstrably impossible if you apply the scientific method to the collapses themselves. All you need to do is watch the buildings come down and think to yourself (squinting incredulously) one word- fire?

What's left if we eliminate the (impossible) idea that the attack was not actually one crazy individual declaring war on the might of the American empire?

Perpetual war, carried out for dominance of the earths dwindling resources (which inevitably at some point will probably mean world war). How lucky then that these pesky terrorists are always popping up in places with an abundance of these very same resources!

It's an old game...

The increasing tendency towards intolerance and fascism did not start with Donald Trump, but with 911 and vilification and dehumanization of Muslims.

I highly recommend a book called The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by doctor David Ray Griffin. Towers of deception by Barrie Zwicker is another great one (might be a bit dated in some respects now) which deals primarily with the media's role in the cover up. You have to remember there are thousands of qualified people speaking out about this, they just don't get any air time.   

« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 02:48:14 PM by Wolf8312 »

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2020, 02:22:30 PM »
The evidence against the official 911 narrative is actually overwhelming. Most of this evidence (some presented below) is BLAH BLAH BLAH TRUTHER CRAP JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS, TERRORISTS HAVE NEVER EVER HIJACKED PLANES BEFORE MUCH LESS CRASHED THEM ACCIDENTALLY OR ON PURPOSE



The base of the pyramid!

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2020, 02:30:16 PM »
Graham's Hierarchy is actually:

Groomer
Incel
MRA
Beard
Handmaiden
Disgrace to gays

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2020, 02:35:17 PM »
Graham's Hierarchy is actually:

Groomer
Incel
MRA
Beard
Handmaiden
Disgrace to gays

Not sure what to do with that! :)

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2020, 02:56:18 PM »
I'm not gonna get drawn into a broader exchange on 9/11 itself, because (a) i know the square route of fuck all about science and engineering; and (b) this is a covid thread in a covid forum so anything we think we can learn from 9/11 should be made germane to the subject at hand rather than derailing the thread. The only point i will make is that this

All you need to do is watch the buildings come down and think to yourself one word- fire?

would not be me applying the scientific method.

I agree with your points about american imperialism and vilification of muslims, and again i don't think those ideas will meet much resistance on these boards.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2020, 03:00:24 PM »
Respectfully, but I think you are focusing on the philosophical aspects regarding 911 (motive etc) but not tackling the scientific evidence presented.

I think if people are able to believe that 2 planes were able to bring down 3 buildings (3-2=1), and when you consider that one building, not even touched by an airplane, went down like this.....>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiuFpuOsksc

WTC7 WAS ON FIRE, you absolute dolt.

https://youtu.be/o_QPNvKVBEk?t=1503

Quote
The 'impossible' with 911 would be the official narrative which is indeed demonstrably impossible if you apply the scientific method to the collapses themselves.
Virtually every single demolition and engineering expert utterly disagrees with you. Did the Government pay or threaten all of them for their silence?

Quote
All you need to do is watch the buildings come down and think to yourself (squinting incredulously) one word- fire?
Well, that AND THE TWO MASSIVE PLANES THAT HIT THEM AT HIGH SPEED.

This is why your post wasn't worth any more than an ad hominem.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2020, 03:02:25 PM »
Thanks for the book recommendations.
yeah they're lies and conspiracy nonsense, don't read them

Zetetic

  • Worrying the carcass of an old song.
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2020, 03:26:48 PM »
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle


Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2020, 03:32:45 PM »
WTC7 WAS ON FIRE, you absolute dolt.


Where did I say Building 7 wasn't on fire? I said it wasn't hit by an airplane. So in order to demolish a steel framed high rise, from top to bottom, just set it on fire?

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2020, 03:39:20 PM »
I'm not gonna get drawn into a broader exchange on 9/11 itself, because (a) i know the square route of fuck all about science and engineering; and (b) this is a covid thread in a covid forum so anything we think we can learn from 9/11 should be made germane to the subject at hand rather than derailing the thread. The only point i will make is that this

would not be me applying the scientific method.

I agree with your points about american imperialism and vilification of muslims, and again i don't think those ideas will meet much resistance on these boards.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

Okay dude, nice to see we can at least have a civil conversation!

Though I do personally think that 911 and COVID 19 are inextricable, as if you cannot trust the governemnt/media on one, I see no reason whatseover to trust them on the other. Anyway please pursue the evidence with an open mind.


Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2020, 03:44:29 PM »
The way the towers went down does seem odd though, just sayin'.

Sin Agog

  • Dogs fucked the pope; no fault of mine
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2020, 03:50:43 PM »
Okay dude, nice to see we can at least have a civil conversation!

Though I do personally think that 911 and COVID 19 are inextricable, as if you cannot trust the governemnt/media on one, I see no reason whatseover to trust them on the other. Anyway please pursue the evidence with an open mind.

I don't trust the government, either.  Their entire raison d'etre is the Free Market.  Not in anyway stifling private enterprise, even at the detriment of huge swathes of people.  That's why this virus is probably even more serious than most of us are willing to fathom.  Because they have been forced to interfere with their One Nation Adam Smith philosophy.  We need to take any advice this government offers us, factor in their root agendas, and be a dozen times more stringent.

Also try to be open-minded about your brain's need to see patterns in everything. Conspiracy theorists and O.C.D. sufferers probably have similar brain patterns, in that their head tells them to step in and implement some kind of order to counteract the unbearable flakiness of being that governs us.  They attach a string to the puppet because otherwise existence to them feels like being in a state of freefall.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2020, 04:35:54 PM »
Where did I say Building 7 wasn't on fire? I said it wasn't hit by an airplane. So in order to demolish a steel framed high rise, from top to bottom, just set it on fire?
Did you watch my videolink? Where it was explained that the sprinkler system had been knocked out and the fire burned for 7 hours? And the heat caused expansion of the steel structure to the extent that it destabilised it near the ground floor, causing a collapse of the inner structure and finally the exoskeleton? There's nice small words and diagrams for you.

The way the towers went down does seem odd though, just sayin'.
Dude.

Two huge planes hit them at close to 500mph. The impact and jet fuel caused fires so hot that nearly 200 people jumped to their deaths to get away from them. With the structures weakened from the impact and fire it was only a matter of time before it couldn't hold the floors above the impact point, and after that weight and gravity just took over.

The US government didn't do this. To believe that you'd have to believe that they paid off, intimidated or killed:

- the military personnel involved in planning the attacks
- the security personnel at the Twin Towers
- the demolition company who set the charges in the Twin Towers and WTC7
- whoever fired the "missile" at the Pentagon
- all the eyewitnesses who said a plane hit the Pentagon
- the NTSB personnel who picked up all the bits of UAL 93 and AA 77
- all the eyewitnesses who said that UAL 93 did in fact crash into a field
- air traffic control
- virtually every demolition expert or engineering expert who's commented on the supposed "controlled demoliton" of the towers
- emergency services personnel who were present on the day of the attacks

AND YET haven't had prominent Truthers like the Loose Change guy quietly murdered in order to keep the secrets.

The only conspiracy about 9/11 was the conspiracy hatched by the 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden to hijack four passenger planes and crash them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol Building(?). If you're British or Irish and 30+ years old you should know that terrorists have hijacked planes before, have targeted financial districts before, and have murdered civilians to make a point before. These guys just did it up big.

Both things can be true. Terrorists did 9/11, and the Bush administration used it as an excuse to start a war in the Middle East because the American public were out for blood/Dubya wanted to legitimise his Presidency after a controversial election result/there was money to be had for all his private sector pals. And just because American governments have no problem enticing poor kids to join the army with promises of free education and decent pay only to throw them into a woodchipper like Afghanistan, that doesn't mean they'd happily murder 3000 civilians as an excuse to go to war.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2020, 04:39:20 PM »

Also try to be open-minded about your brain's need to see patterns in everything. Conspiracy theorists and O.C.D. sufferers probably have similar brain patterns, in that their head tells them to step in and implement some kind of order to counteract the unbearable flakiness of being that governs us.

Respectfully again though, that line of reasoning ignores any of the scientific evidence raised in the OP and instead labels me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ (a derogative term) ridiculing/discrediting the arguments put forward (without actually addressing them) by associating them with the implied mental instability (OCD etc) of the messenger(me!).

I don’t think it’s fair or an intellectually honest manner in which to debate these issues, and are the same tactics I outlined in the original post.

Wonderful Butternut

  • Summer Night City!
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2020, 04:48:05 PM »

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2020, 05:07:46 PM »
Did you watch my videolink? Where it was explained that the sprinkler system had been knocked out and the fire burned for 7 hours? And the heat caused expansion of the steel structure to the extent that it destabilised it near the ground floor, causing a collapse of the inner structure and finally the exoskeleton? There's nice small words and diagrams for you.

I am well aware of the official explanation for building 7 (fire). The original post was written on that very basis (building sevens collapse exhibiting none of the characteristics of a fire induced collapse, and all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition).

At this point I can only suggest that you watch building 7’s collapse again while comparing it to other videos of controlled demolitions.

Can we at least agree that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition?

Fambo Number Mive

  • Golden Member
  • *****
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2020, 05:08:36 PM »
Would it be better to talk about 9/11 in a separate thread? Sorry.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2020, 05:11:59 PM »
I am well aware of the official explanation for building 7 (fire). The original post was written on that very basis (building sevens collapse exhibiting none of the characteristics of a fire induced collapse, and all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition).
except it doesn't

Quote
At this point I can only suggest that you watch building sevens collapse again while comparing it to other videos of controlled demolitions.
I already have.

Quote
Can we at least agree that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition?
No it doesn't. No squibs. No flashes. No "controlled demolition".

Anyway I've had my fun and agree with Fambo that this is way off topic for this thread.

Sin Agog

  • Dogs fucked the pope; no fault of mine
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2020, 05:13:08 PM »
I dunno.  Banging on about buildings which sploded almost 20 years ago is a pretty bad response to the coronavirus.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2020, 05:25:20 PM »
i don’t believe that the twin towers were a controlled demolition but i do think there’s something to the CIA being involved in the planning of the hijackings and attacks.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2020, 05:26:16 PM »
except it doesn't
I already have.
No it doesn't. No squibs. No flashes. No "controlled demolition".

Anyway I've had my fun and agree with Fambo that this is way off topic for this thread.

No squibs? If you watch the videos (characteristic of CD I agree) those 'squibs' follow the building all the way down.



Now go now, and bask in your triumph!

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2020, 05:32:18 PM »
they aren't squibs, that's air and debris being blown out of the building as the towers collapse you tiresome fool

okay now I'm done

Tags: