9/11 [split topic]

[pupshaw]

can't believe it's been nearly 20 years since them slags smashed into the twin towers still freaks my nut out to this day

Just spare a thought for all those hundreds of people walking around thinking "That was me. I made that happen. I put those explosives in the towers. I pushed the button that blew up thousands of innocent citizens. I faked those reports."

[honeychile]

To Wolf8312, can i ask what your source is for your lists of the symptoms of various types of collapse? Such as the below:

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[/i]

For example, when i google "slow onset with large visible deformations", apart from pointing me to Joe Biden's campaign page, the results on the first few pages all seem to be mutually-reinforcing "truther" pages. Is there a page which lays these things out for the layperson to understand? For example, i recall the second plane crashing into the building and exploding out the other side - so i'd have thought the fire was burning across the whole floor, or most of it? And in the video of the collapse of the second tower, it shows the spire leaning over to the side of where the fire was burning brightest on the upper floors (most obvious content warning in history) before the weight of the collapse brings the whole upper section down. To this layperson that sounds like exactly what i'd expect.

Earlier you addressed my response regarding the pointlessness of chroeographing the whole day's events as a "philosophical" objection. But isn't it a valid question that needs addressing? If you have a path to engineering a surveillance society and resource wars which involves either:

(a) Crashing an airliner full of passengers into the middle of nowhere, or a (relatively) low level target which would nevertheless induce widespread panic and fear; or
(b) Crashing two airliners full of passengers into the heart of the world's biggest financial district, rigging two of the world's tallest buildings with explosives beforehand, even though there would be a chance that the plane strikes alone would achieve all the desired objectives, and also rigging a building which no cunt had ever heard of or cared about and which would contribute nothing to the terror "spectacle" with explosives, and demolishing that, and attacking the Pentagon, but not with a hijacked airliner like in New York but with a missile instead, just for... what, to mix it up a bit?... and crashing another plane into a field, and having to close the stock market and the whole of Lower Manhattan, and causing an economic contraction when one of the central premises is to cement economic control, and the whole thing involves making thousands more people complicit in the cover up and therefore at risk of spilling the beans

which would you choose? Do you think it's odd to choose (b) over (a)? Which would you choose?

I have no trouble attributing the nefarious intentions you mention - the US and Britain were happy to kill millions of iraqis with sanctions as "a price worth paying". It just seems so serpentine to do it the conspiratorial way, rather than accept that the US' rampant destruction of much of the world might in the end yield the most shocking blowback.

[pupshaw]

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

Not exactly writing within his domain of expertise, is he?

Seems to have a Partridgian outlook

God is something like a cosmic hydraulic jack, exerting the same pressure always and everywhere

[Cold Meat Platter]

Remember, thoughts don't matter, only cold, hard facts.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Poland is where the extermination camps were

Why don't you think it was Middle Eastern terrorists? are we to assume you don't think they can fly planes? sounds a bit racist

[honeychile]

can't believe it's been nearly 20 years since them slags smashed into the twin towers still freaks my nut out to this day

I still can't believe (in the rhetorical sense) this happened. It's so eery seeing photos of New York with the World Trade Center still standing. The footage of it, in the heart of one of the world's most electric and pivotal cities, the home of the UN, is so utterly fucking apocalyptic. I wonder what kids today too young to remember it think about it, if it's the same kind of ancient history that the fall of the Berlin wall was to me (which actually happened when i was already a kid). Seeing the smoke on the skyline, and those people covered in dust and in total shock, and then that gaping hole in the Manhattan skyline. Then those rainy days of trying to recover people from the wreckage. There's a part of me which still goes into shock when i think about it.

[pupshaw]

Here's another question.

If there is "no reason" why WT7 "should" have fallen because of fire, why did "they" fail to attempt to provide one? That is, where was the plane that was supposed to fly into WTC7?

[Wonderful Butternut]

Here's another question.

If there is "no reason" why WT7 "should" have fallen because of fire, why did "they" fail to attempt to provide one? That is, where was the plane that was supposed to fly into WTC7?

Reptillians got it.

[jobotic]

What if they had detonated the bombs to coincide with the planes hitting the towers but the planes had missed and just carried on flying and then towers just blew up? Boy their faces would have been red.

That explains why there was a delay.

[Cold Meat Platter]

Could they not have just exploded bombs and gone "some bad men exploded bombs get them lads"?

[jobotic]

Or just get them lads?

[Cold Meat Platter]

Probably just pointing would be enough.

[idunnosomename]

druids did 9/11? right. im gonna rough up the whitebeard cunts round here tomorrow with the lads. dirty old mass-murdering fuckers

[Cold Meat Platter]

druids did 9/11? right. im gonna rough up the whitebeard cunts round here tomorrow with the lads. dirty old mass-murdering fuckers

Fucking Getafix sickle cunts, I'm with you man fuck them into camps and force them to make magic potion for are brave boys

[idunnosomename]

Getafix??? more like Getingrave!

[Dex Sawash]

the only way to resolve this would to be fly two planes into two similar towers and see what happens.

The trick is finding a pair that aren't already wired up

[idunnosomename]

fred dibnah did 9/11

[Cerys]

Wolf8312 judges you.

[Cold Meat Platter]

In better days:

[evilcommiedictator]

Wolf8321

Wolf is a reference to Sniper Wolf from Metal Gear Solid, a Kurdish sniper who in MGS joined in on a revolt against world governments.

8,3,2,1

2 = The Two towers

8 + 1 = 9
8 + 3 = 11

This is clearly a message from Q that The Kurds did mastermind 9/11 and are looking to create a superweapon that will bring (((armageddon))) with nuclear missiles

[Utter Shit]

I love the idea that everyone deserves the right to have their shit opinions heard and discussed at length.

OP hasn't made a single point that hasn't already been debunked by experts (and debunked in this thread by people who have clearly read more widely about the subject). Complain all you want about ad.hominem replies etc, with something as cut and dried as this it's just quicker to say "na, you're wrong and seem.a bit thick", particularly given the people who have bothered to engage in discussion were just met with obfuscation, point-missing and goalpost-moving.

Why would anyone bother with endless rebuttals, when they can just say "you're talking shite", safe in the knowledge that the only person who disagrees is the person talking shite.

[Cuellar]

Could they not have just exploded bombs and gone "some bad men exploded bombs get them lads"?

Yeah I don't know why they had to do both. As you say, plant the bombs then say 'terrorists got in and planted bombs', OR fly some planes into the buildings. Surely either one would be sufficient.

[Jim Bob]

I love the idea that everyone deserves the right to have their shit opinions heard and discussed at length.

OP hasn't made a single point that hasn't already been debunked by experts (and debunked in this thread by people who have clearly read more widely about the subject). Complain all you want about ad.hominem replies etc, with something as cut and dried as this it's just quicker to say "na, you're wrong and seem.a bit thick", particularly given the people who have bothered to engage in discussion were just met with obfuscation, point-missing and goalpost-moving.

Why would anyone bother with endless rebuttals, when they can just say "you're talking shite", safe in the knowledge that the only person who disagrees is the person talking shite.

Well said.

[Jim Bob]

Yeah I don't know why they had to do both. As you say, plant the bombs then say 'terrorists got in and planted bombs', OR fly some planes into the buildings. Surely either one would be sufficient.

They had to ensure that not only did the planes fly into the towers, so that they could justify their war with Iraq, but I heard from a fella in my local that they were planning on knocking down the towers anyway because the maintenance costs were extortionate, so they planted a bunch of explosives in the towers to ensure they would be obliterated.  Effectively, they decided to kill two birds with one stone.  Sorry, poor wording.

[Albert Soviets]

They had to ensure that not only did the planes fly into the towers, so that they could justify their war with Iraq, but I heard from a fella in my local that they were planning on knocking down the towers anyway because the maintenance costs were extortionate, so they planted a bunch of explosives in the towers to ensure they would be obliterated.  Effectively, they decided to kill two birds with one stone.  Sorry, poor wording.

The thing I've always wondered, why would the US need to justify going to war with anyone? ...They're America, they do what they want.

[imitationleather]

It's bizarre that this thread is happening in 2020. It's the School Disco of forum topics.

[Darles Chickens]

They had to ensure that not only did the planes fly into the towers,

There weren't even any planes; they were both holograms.

[TheBrownBottle]

How did the Americans manage to conceal the Manhattan Project? How did the Germans manage to conceal the truth of the death camps from their own people (which in Germany back then would also have been considered a conspiracy theory)?

...

An understanding of 1930's Germany and the false flag attacks (Poland, Reichstag fire ect) and enabling acts (patriot act?) and wars these attacks facilitated should at the very least give people pause, and allow them to investigate with an open mind, the stark parallels between the two eras.

After all who can deny that fascism is not again on the rise?

I don't think there's any point in trying to debate you re 9/11.  You need help, Wolf, in all seriousness - and that's unlikely to come on an anonymous Internet forum.  For what it's worth, there is no evidence of any consequence for any 9/11 conspiracy.  No serious engineer, physicist, or metallurgist would fail to point out that steel doesn't need to melt to cause the buildings to collapse - just to be weakened enough for them to do so (and burning jet fuel and the subsequent inferno will comfortably do that job).

But you do need to brush up on your history.  The Manhattan Project wasn't kept secret - Soviet spies like Klaus Fuchs passed on info re it.  It was also during wartime, over a two year period - and I'm pretty sure the end result of the project was public domain.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest widespread knowledge in Germany of the Holocaust.  I'd recommend the work of Robert Gellately in particular.  Unfortunately, this doesn't come in the form of a ten minute YouTube video, so for most conspiracy types, this may prove a big ask.

The general consensus amongst most historians is that the Reichstag Fire wasn't a 'false flag'.  All the evidence still points at van der Lubbe.  On the contrary, it makes sense that a communist would burn it down at that point, given the preceding two months.  That the Nazis took advantage of the situation is beyond dispute.

Additionally, no historian of repute denies that Gleiwitz was a 'false flag' attack.  It was laughably wrapped up as a justification for the German invasion.  Also, that was on an insignificant and small radio station.  There is yet to be a civilisation which deliberately destroys its financial centre & intelligence headquarters to justify invading areas of the world which it could have without that unnecessary act of self-immolation.

I'd leave the 'open mind' closed tbf.  Far smarter & more qualified people than thee & me have knocked most conspiracies on the head.  There's no magic bullet, no controlled explosions, no Kubrickian zero-g film studio, and the earth (to paraphrase Sepp Herberger) ist rund. 

[Paul Calf]

The general consensus amongst most historians is that the Reichstag Fire wasn't a 'false flag'.  All the evidence still points at van der Lubbe.  On the contrary, it makes sense that a communist would burn it down at that point, given the preceding two months.  That the Nazis took advantage of the situation is beyond dispute.

And in this respect, I think, better resembles 9/11. People in positions o power and influence saw a genuine and more-or-less unexpected (it's possible that some within the government and state suspected that such a thing was in the pipeline but were ignored or ridiculed) and enormously catastrophic terrorist event and thought "that's awful, but how can we use it to our advantage?"

It happens all the time.

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

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

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

Arthur Conan Doyle

It is telling the opening post started with an excerpt like this which features in a work of fiction, was not intending to provide a final summary on scrutiny and diligence but to tart up and make something fictional and preposterous seem more exciting to the reader.