WTC demolition admitted by bush

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 07 Nov 2006, 03:14

Your second point... im not sure where to begin. It's an opinion, flawed reasoning, and CAPITALISED RANDOM STATEMENTS!111!!ONE. Also i have stated before, with opinions on the issue blazing as they have been on this thread, there is no need to keep it uberdupersekrit!

I was highlighting because random bystanders with no affiliation to the government are much more likely to blab if they see a building get hit with a missle that the government says is a plane. A plane that actually took off somewhere with people on it. I guess they nuked the plane and all the people too.

#3 "operation swift justice" or "change our proxy government in Afghanistan because the last nutters we gave guns, money, and training to aren't really working out" as i prefer to refer to it was in direct retaliation to the 9/11 attacks (despite the massive delay in actually sending in ground forces as opposed to bombing population centres and media outlets, not to mention flying family Bin Laden out of the USA on september the 12th) Also in every poll of americans i have seen the vast majority believed that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was in retaliation for 9/11

But both of those invasions have backfired drastically, and now the majority of people in this country dissaprove of the president. Though I guess he probably didn't intend for that to happen. I'll give you this one.

People do stuff that they think is evil all the time. Bush has demonstrated that he does not think mass murder of civillians is "evil" (on your terms) numerous times, I think I will use my favourite example again: Fallujah

They were not americans. They were Iraqis, and it would be understandable for him to think of them as enemys, as at least some of them were harboring known enemys. Though I don't know much about this supposed mass murder in Fallujah. Could you elaborate what happened? I just thought that there was a battle, and we shot at people who were shooting at us... but I could be mistaken.

I think some people would argue legalizing torture is to be considered evil
Anyways I'm undecided, while I can't conceive of plans that big, I can't really disprove it, even whether there was a motive is disputable.

According to Mr. Bush and a majority of people in the legislature, "interrogation" is a perfectly OK means to extract information from "terrorists." I disagree with them, but that's what they think.

Felix:

A 767 is different from a 707. A building that would hold up after being smashed into by a 707 might not if it is smashed into by a 767, because even though they carry similar amounts of fuel, they are different. And it would not be too hard to imagine that there could have been a small and seemingly insignificant engineering or construction error.

I don't know which theory you're talking about, but the theory that the government knowingly allowed the attacks to happen involves surprisingly few people.

Of course, if your assertion were true, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because the plot as told in the accepted story is a "massive plan", and people would have found out, and the plot would have been stopped.

Well the theory that the government knowingly allowed the attacks requires only a few people who had information to not say it. But that isn't the main theory. The main theory is that the government caused the attacks and blew up stuff.

And got hundreds of people to lie about it.

So yes, it is possible that the government could have allowed the attacks... But remember, the government isn't a single entity. It is a huge bureocracy. It could have been a single person being negligent or malicious, and if so shouldn't be labeled as "the government"

And the official stance on what happened, with terrorists, only requires the highjackers and a bunch of people in the desert to have known anything. Terrorists are much less likely to leak their own plots than US citizens are to leak a US government plot to kill Americans. Because the Terrorists are self selected, and completely support the attack, unlike the US citizens.

About the towers collapsing...

Here's my understanding of what happened:

1)Airplane crashes into tower, doing structural damage to the top of the tower and causing a fire.
2)The fire burns and spreads, and weakens to steel support more and more (without needing to liquefy it.)
3)The fire possibly goes out.
4)The weakened steel supports near the top of the tower slowly, slowly bend more and more.
5)Eventually they bend just enough for the tower to start going down.
6)The momentum of the top of the tower going down collapses the slightly lower part of the tower, and that part collapses the part just below it, and on and on.
7)The tower completely collapses.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 07 Nov 2006, 03:29

Lindir,

Thank you for ignoring my entire analysis that proves that there is no significant difference between a 707 hitting a building and a 767 hitting it. Both are approximately the same weight, both carry approximately the same fuel load, both travel at approximately the same speed (at least at that altitude), what other variables do you want me to consider here? You can't just say "well a 767 is different" when I've considered and dismissed all of the areas of potential difference that are relevant.

All it takes is for one decisionmaker to make the decision not to act on concrete evidence that the 9/11 attacks were going to occur, for this decisionmaker's own gain or the gain of his party or other organization, for the government to have allowed the attacks to occur. I think we all know where I'm going with the "decisionmaker" label: George W. Bush. He's the one that would have had the authority to act or not to act on evidence like that.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:22

The titantic was designed to not sink, also.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:33

Felix the Cat wrote:Thank you for ignoring my entire analysis that proves that there is no significant difference between a 707 hitting a building and a 767 hitting it.

I didn't ignore that! My point was that though there are no significant differences, there are many seemingly insignificant differences which could add up to make a building which would not have collapsed after being hit by a 707 collapse after a 767 hit it. Such as different size and different shape and different density and different weight distribution and different construction materials and stuff. I'm not saying that the 767 is completely different from a 707 in all of these ways, just some of them. Enough of them to make a building that would survive being hit by a 707 not survive being hit by a 767.

There is much more to a plane than how much fuel it carries and how much it weighs and how fast it's designed to go.

And maybe the construction company screwed up, and it would have gone down after being hit by only a 707. As Decimator pointed out, the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:37

Felix the Cat wrote:All it takes is for one decisionmaker to make the decision not to act on concrete evidence that the 9/11 attacks were going to occur, for this decisionmaker's own gain or the gain of his party or other organization, for the government to have allowed the attacks to occur.

No. It takes everyone who has seen the data to be in on the conspiracy. In the US bureocracy, that could be a lot of people. All of them which didn't say anything.

The problem with these theories is they are based on speculation by people sitting at computers in places very far away from the scene of the attack. If someone actually confessed to something or said that the government bribed them, I might believe it. But nobody has, at least to my knowledge.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:44

Lindir The Green wrote: If someone actually confessed to something or said that the government bribed them, I might believe it. But nobody has, at least to my knowledge.

But BECAUSE no one has come forward its even more telling proof that the goverment killed those who woulden't cooperate! It ALL FITS SO PERFECTLY!

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:50

I love it.. they said the towers could withstand a 707, and how do you think they "know" that. Cause they obviously didnt ram a plane into the towers while constructing it to find out, no they did a simulation, more than likely on a computer. Guess what, those are NOT always correct, and DO not always take into consideration every possible scenario.

Does anyone here actually have a background in civil/mechanical engineering or physics.. or something relating to materials and structures, because otherwise I dont think anyone should listen to a damn thing you say unless you get it from a scientific journal.

If making buildings collapse in on themselves is so easy, then why do companies and cities pay highly trained specialists hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it?

I also feel I have to address this quote point because it wasnt clearly addressed and shows to me that some of the people arguing for this theory have little background in actual civil engineering.

Buildings are not all constructed in the same manner using the same materials. What caused the WTC to fail is not neccessarily possible in every building, in fact it may be impossible in some other buildings. The reason we pay specialists to demolish buildings is because they are trained civil engineers, they understand the buildings construction ( which is different for all buildings) and can demolish the building even in a crowded area with minimal collateral damage, and no loss of life. It is not just a matter of willy nilly setting off explosives in a building..

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 07 Nov 2006, 04:53

Ooo! maybe the government got all the demolitions experts and accountants and salesmen and administrators to gather in the top of the building! Then George Bush detonated it so nobody would be able to tell anybody!

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 07 Nov 2006, 05:10

So far, I have seen one arguement linking to a single article, a comparison to a ship built 100 years ago, and complete denial of the stack of solid evidence supporting an alternative to jets causing the collapse of the towers (not to mention a complete lack of addressing WTC7).

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 07 Nov 2006, 05:18

SpikedHelmet wrote:So far, I have seen one arguement linking to a single article, a comparison to a ship built 100 years ago, and complete denial of the stack of solid evidence supporting an alternative to jets causing the collapse of the towers (not to mention a complete lack of addressing WTC7).

So far I've seen you competely ignore the number of people it would take to pull it off.

FoeOfTheBee · Post by **FoeOfTheBee** » 07 Nov 2006, 06:45

It seems that tin-foil hats are a popular item among springers...

Okay, all you 9-11 conspiracy believers, check out this link, and if it doesn't turn you around I give up on you.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=1

Candleman · Post by **Candleman** » 07 Nov 2006, 07:13

Oh, don't worry, they'll say Bush paid these guys off or something. You can't convice people of anything these days.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 07 Nov 2006, 08:10

These internets are serious business!

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 07 Nov 2006, 08:41

Whoops, gmail is silly with copy pasta.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html

There we go.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 07 Nov 2006, 16:10

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=1
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html

Pwned.

Those two sites shoot down all the conspiracy theories much better than I could myself.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 07 Nov 2006, 16:24

nice link kixxe.

*puts on tin-foil hat and david icke tee-shirt*

The subliminal messages in my tv have told me that it was actually elvis flying all 4 of teh planes, having been cloned by the CIA using reverse engineered atlantean technology, at the behest of our lizard descended space-god-things.

Please keep this thread to a rational discussion with statements backed up by evidence. Leaping on the aggresive-defensive with sweeping, generalised personal insults devoid of meaningful contributions is just trolling. Besides, it reinforces the popular (in britain at least) stereotype of Bull-headed patriotic AYEMEHREEKHANS who prefer to repeat themselves louder and louder than to engage in intelligent conversation.

Somebody has a different opinion to you, deal with it; If you feel the need, contradict them with reasong debate. Just don't patronise me by falling back onto totally unrelated "conspiracy nut-job" cliches.

*takes off tinfoil hat and tee-shirt and goes to work*

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 07 Nov 2006, 18:05

So your not going to actually acknowledge that evidence, instead your going to chide us for calling you a nut-job, (which you must be if you are disregarding all that evidence to contrary of your position)..

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 07 Nov 2006, 19:28

Um, Lindir, NOONE here believes any of the planes was really a missile. What we argue about is whether the planes alone demolished the WTC (especially WTC7 which didn't get hit) or if explosives were used in addition to those. Especially since the damage didn't spread from the point of impact, instead the building started collapsing from the "bottom up" (i.e. simultaneously everywhere).

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 07 Nov 2006, 20:35

NO! We've been pwned by Popular Mechanics for Kids! Why Elisha Cuthbert, whyyyyyyy

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 07 Nov 2006, 20:37

KDR did you read any of the recently posted links by foe/lindir/kixxe.. cause they completely debunk your whole post there, the WTC collapsed from the top, no explosives were used, and WTC 7 collapsed later due to structural weakening from being hit with falling debries which also started a fire inside it, as well as its funny construction..

NO EXPLOSIVES...

NO PLOT TO LET IT HAPPEN...

NO CONSPIRACY...

Spring RTS Engine

WTC demolition admitted by bush