Originally Posted by Finnster (Post 347109)

I'll prolly regret this later but...

The biggest flaw I see in these conspiracy theories is that they assume there is a binary choice in the versions of truth. There is the public "truth" A, and the "real" truth B. That's it. The theorists then attack A as a proxy for proving B, because ultimately B is poorly supported by evidence and logic and cannot stand under its own weight.

-How can you say that B is poorly supported by evidence when there is significantly more evidence and motive for truth B. Also, how can you say I was only attacking truth A... I may mention couple things occasionally, but I mostly stick to what I am observing, observation is science, not speculation, which is what truth A is based on, it is, don't deny it. Everything from what happened inside the towers when the planes hit, to the "terrorists" that they blamed that ended up ALIVE.

This is the same strategy of argument that exists for anti-evolutionists, and even global warming deniers to a degree. Oh look, we think there should be more transitional fossils, ergo creationism/Intelligent Design is true. Usually the weaker the counter argument, the more vicious the attacks.
No no, truth doesn't work that way.
This is another argument altogether, but "Global Warming" is a scam as well, the biggest hoax played on society. Why do you think so many scientists had denied it for so long? Then there was a brief acceptance of it, now again, there is worldwide scientific agreement that is was science fraud.

So, please humor me in explaining exactly how this alter 9/11 scenario occurred?

Please don't do that, I cannot answer every question, and obviously I can't...

How long did it take to plan? How many people were involved? Bush was in office 8mos by 911, did he have enough time to order up and sneak all those explosives in there? Let alone plan out the massive operation, all of which would need to work flawlessly unless the biggest treason and lie in the nation's history be exposed... He was pretty busy passing tax cuts for the wealthy then.

Bush, just like any other president is a puppet.

Was the 1992 WTC bombing by terrorists a clever rouse or only co-incidence? How did they recruit all these thousands of people into mass murder of their fellow countrymen? How did they keep them silent?

1993 bombing... what mass murder? Do you know what you're talking about? Not attacking you.

What was the end goals? War? Really? This was the easiest way of bringing that about? They couldn't figure out some simpler plan?
Lastly, you are staking this on a level of competency of gov't officials, politicians and other middling humans that I'm not sure anyone possesses, let alone George W F'ing Bush, probably the dumbest and most incompetent president we've had in this nations history (including you Millard Fillmore.) A serious weak link in a chain if there ever was one.

Again, Bush is a mere puppet, you really think Government FBI, CIA, etc would allow such a stupid human into office if he actually had any power at all? Just think about that.

These too are gov't officials who have since let two idiot terrorists on planes with explosives, who also only failed due to their shear stupidity and incompetence, not because they were stopped by people who knew them to be coming. I think you are giving people far too much credit.

So please, try to make a sensible argument, esp w/o insulting people. I don't think there is one to be made. Evidence needs to be stronger than "d00d, no way, that $hits crazy." Prove that steel heated to many hundreds of degrees retains a necc strength rating. Prove that a truss structure can withstand the massive weight of a 40 story building falling on it and not fail w/o explosives. Show how such explosives can be rigged throughout a 110 floor building and no one notice all the wires and charges or anything. How much is actually needed btw? Where was the guy w/ the timer watching and setting them off?

Again, I can't answer those questions, but it doesn't matter because there is overwhelming evidence for demolition from the mere FACT that there are clean cut steel center columns at ground zero, all cut at angles. There were large pools of molten steel for weeks after they came down under the core structure would have been, in the basement. AS well as there being not Thermite, but Thermate, a patented NANO-Thermite with a special sauce added to the mix, Sulfur, which lowers the melting point of steel... ground zero was absolutely littered with it.

You need to be able to better explain every shred of "planted" evidence, account for every act of deception, every person in the massive chain of deceit in a way that is at least plausible to a reasonable person.
In your own words please, not some kooky utube vid or some CnP from some nutty website. Of course, I don't mean all in one post, but at least something better than the nothing you've put forth so far.

Originally Posted by Finnster (Post 347144)

With all due respect man, I don't think you have the expertise to say that. Its your opinion that it doesn't seem like the buildings should have fallen like that, but that has little bearing on the actual truth of the matter.

I can't wrap my head around parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and how going faster slows the passage of time. That does not mean its not true.

This is Newtonian physics were are dealing with here man. Sry, but that is a bad analogy.

Anyway, my post was more aimed at the OP. But as an example of my point as you were the (un)fortunate one to respond. If it was Silverstein's master plan, how did he get a hold of hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, get people to secretly rig them in his building (which 50000 people worked in, and hundreds of tourists visited every day) manage to hijack to 4 separate planes, all the while not getting caught and having enough money left over after the payoffs and materials to make the mass murder worth it? As far as insurance scams go, seems a bit complicated. Really, why bother bombing the pentagon then? One more chance to get caught, and get set on fire and shoved thru a woodchipper by an angry mob.

No one said Larry Silverstein was the "master planner". Again, you are asking questions out of the scope of this thread, and are quite frankly, redundant.

When looking at the implications and totality of these theories, it just doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by PBO (Post 347154)

"I'll prolly regret this later but..."

Why do most conspiracy theories originate in the US?

Originally Posted by Freezebyte (Post 347153)

Who keeps feeding this fvcking troll? :whip:

Originally Posted by zeropointbug (Post 347156)

How do you know they started here? Highly likely that THIS one did as the event happened here.

Originally Posted by JThiessen (Post 347146)

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

Again, Theissen, first, those temperatures MAY be likely in an open air environment, but not in an enclosed area of around 100 feet to the core columns, there is only so much air to fuel the fire, you can't just add other combustibles in that situation and expect the temps to increase. Second, the buildings are over engineered by more than 2 times. Speculating on my part... I am trying to fathom how a jet liner slowed by the outer walls, then the mass in between the plane and the core columns didn't reduce the planes inertia enough for the plane to severe 30% of the core columns... which is outstanding speculation on their part. (9/11 commision report... well if you have ever read that book, it reads like a novel, I kid you not.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down.
What do you mean by that? They DID fall straight down...

They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Now just think about what you are saying... the core columns would have to be taken out INSTANTLY floor by floor perfectly timed for the building to come down in a pan cake manner, ANY deviation from that would cause it to topple over. It is impossible for a building with a structure of it's magnitude to fall as virtually free fall speed without some external force removing the massive resistance of the core columns, not even taking into consideration each floors strength (more resistance), then all the internal material (non-load bearing walls, cubicals, furniture, it all adds up). To support the demolition conspiracy, there were rivers of molten steel pouring out where the planes hit the towers. This is most likely what melted the infamous fire truck below the Twin Towers... the truck had the whole front of the truck melted down to a few feet, much like you would see with a Thermite (or Thermate) ignition.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Originally Posted by PBO (Post 347161)

Pleased to see you drop the red font - thanks. It was a rhetorical question

Before you flame me for having an opinion that differs to yours, take a few deep breaths & consider a few points that I think can be applied to most theories...

- The truth is rarely what is presented but often a long way from the vivid imaginations of the conspiracy theorists

- One of the most direct routes into a concerned mind is to evoke further fear...who is pedaling the fear & for what gain?

- Humans have traditionally created answers & theories to the facets of their lives that they can't easily explain

- I'm not aware of conspiracy theories that indicate or promote benefit or betterment....aint no wildfire story in that!!

- Most conspiracy theories are so convoluted & rely heavily on exact outcomes that they are unlikely to really happen - or be seriously considered

As has been said previously, there are many questions relating to 9/11, most will probably go unanswered but it's a bigger stretch for me to consider the conspiracy theories as viable answers & at some point you've just got to let bygones be bygones & get on with your life

Originally Posted by _paralyzed_ (Post 347157)

So what do you make of building 7 going down? If anybody can make sense of that to me I am going to have to re-think my entire life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inform me.