|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
#6092193 - 09/22/06 11:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|

I can't help it that I try to keep debate civilized around here. You are supposed to be 18 and up to register at this site, and if you can't act your age, that's not my problem.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
#6092213 - 09/23/06 12:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sparks8 said: thats convenient.
and you showed 2 pics of single peices of debris. all told there are maybe 10 pics out there of possible debris, hardly what i would call "large amounts"
So, you don't have any evidence that the plane wouldn't break apart huh?
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
#6092711 - 09/23/06 09:08 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The part of the Pentagon that was hit by the plane collapsed. You can't see the original hole that the plane flew through (at least on the outside wall). The hole conspiracy theory is bogus and just picking at straws by those who can't survive in a normal capitalist society. The people who believe in the conspiracy theories are parasites on society and try to attack the government hoping bits of food and money will fall out so they can suck it up with their parasitic proboscus.
Edited by Luddite (09/23/06 09:13 AM)
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
#6092721 - 09/23/06 09:17 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by Luddite (09/23/06 09:18 AM)
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
#6093545 - 09/23/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
That link is really solid as well. And it comes from a conspiracy theory website.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
#6094662 - 09/23/06 11:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Luddite said: Absolute indisputable proof that a plane hit the Pentagon on 911.
everything is disputable, thats why theres a thousand sites that claim it was a missle
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
#6096514 - 09/24/06 06:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps you conspiracy theorists can do a few internet searches and watch the video of controlled demolitions. There's hundreds of old buildings being blown up and brought down on video.
Now, find one of them that the demolition started at the top, and then collapsed one floor at a time to the ground. They do the opposite, with the first floor being brought down first, then the rest of the building.
Another point: They don't just plant bombs in buildings to bring them down in a controlled demolition. They remove EVERYTHING from the building, then cut nearly all the way through the steel beams before planting the explosives. The explosives only cut the last 10% or so of each support. It would be impossible to do this in a 24/7 occupied building without notice.
As much as I hate dubya/cheney and would like to see them gone, I can't believe they were behind something like 911. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: RogerRabbit]
#6097707 - 09/25/06 05:26 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Just think a little further next time. It's OK to challenge conspiracy theories, they should be tested and questioned. But some thinking should be done before firing off objections.
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: Now, find one of them that the demolition started at the top, and then collapsed one floor at a time to the ground. They do the opposite, with the first floor being brought down first, then the rest of the building.
Of course, in uncontroversial, admitted controlled demolitions, they do it that way. But what conspiracy theorists imply, is that things were made to look like the towers fell from the plane impacts. There were several possible ways to achieve that. Either start detonations at the impact level, where the difficulty is of course to be sure of the exact impact level beforehand. Another would be to detonate the central support column at the lowest level, so that the towers would rest only on their outer steel frames, which would most probably snap at their weakest point, i.e. the impact level. It's not because the collapse of the twin towers didn't look exactly like a classical, commercial controlled demolition, that controlled demolition by explosives can be ruled out. The argument doesn't stand. If you use your argument, you have to admit WTC7 was controlled demolition, because it started collapsing from the bottom.
Quote:
Another point: They don't just plant bombs in buildings to bring them down in a controlled demolition. They remove EVERYTHING from the building, then cut nearly all the way through the steel beams before planting the explosives. The explosives only cut the last 10% or so of each support. It would be impossible to do this in a 24/7 occupied building without notice.
Same flaw here. They do this for economical reasons in commercial demolitions, to do it in a clean way and with a minimum of explosives. Does that mean it can't be done differently, without cutting the beams before and with heavier charges to do all the cutting? I doubt it.
Do try again, by all means, but refine your thinking.
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
#6099111 - 09/25/06 04:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That was quite the non sequitur rebuttal, despite your repeated afirmations of the importance of thinking things through.
Quote:
The argument doesn't stand. If you use your argument, you have to admit WTC7 was controlled demolition, because it started collapsing from the bottom.
No, you would not have to admit that. That's a glaring error of logic. RR stated controlled demolitions are initiated from the bottom. That does not mean that every building that collapses from the bottom was brought down by controlled demo.
Quote:
Does that mean it can't be done differently, without cutting the beams before and with heavier charges to do all the cutting? I doubt it.
As it is, any one arguing that a huge series of controlled demolition detonations were set off without being detected by a large number of eyewitnesses and video evidence is going out on a very long, very thin limb. But to argue that some sort of unprecedented demolition was executed in which none of the usual preparation was done, yet it still achieved the desired effect AND did not alert a large contingent of people as the hundreds of much larger than normal cutter charges detonated all around the building, that's just plain rediculous.
Furthermore, if "A New Pearl Harbor" was the desired effect of perpetrating such a heinous crime, wouldn't the planes flying into the towers have been enough? Or do you think all the sentiment that sent us to war would have been quelled by the thought that "Well, it's really not that big of a deal, it's not like the buildings collapsed. Only a few hundred people died. We'll let this one slide."
Or let me guess, they had to destroy all the computer evidence contained in the towers right?. Because none of the transactions at the WTC occur on a network. Or better yet, they had to create a big enough distraction to make a clean getaway with all the GOLD they stole from beneath the towers.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
#6101562 - 09/26/06 02:51 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Viveka said: As it is, any one arguing that a huge series of controlled demolition detonations were set off without being detected by a large number of eyewitnesses and video evidence is going out on a very long, very thin limb.
Both the large number of eyewitnesses and the video evidence do exist. If you want to look away, that's your problem.
Quote:
But to argue that some sort of unprecedented demolition was executed in which none of the usual preparation was done, yet it still achieved the desired effect AND did not alert a large contingent of people as the hundreds of much larger than normal cutter charges detonated all around the building, that's just plain rediculous.
I didn't address this above, but the alleged preparation (cutting through 90% of support beams) seems largely overestimated. I'd like some sources on that (I know, you're not the one who asserted that, you're not the one I'm asking either). Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble. Moreover, don't forget about the use of thermite or thermate, of which there are strong indications. Thermite and its variants don't detonate.
Quote:
Furthermore, if "A New Pearl Harbor" was the desired effect of perpetrating such a heinous crime, wouldn't the planes flying into the towers have been enough? Or do you think all the sentiment that sent us to war would have been quelled by the thought that "Well, it's really not that big of a deal, it's not like the buildings collapsed. Only a few hundred people died. We'll let this one slide."
Probably the planes would have been enough, that's right. There must be other reasons apart from the psychological impact of the collapses (which is real, though), and different as well from those you ironically offer. Only, I'm not going to speculate here. In my view, many aspects of the attacks are impossible to reconstruct because reality is certainly much more complex than what the official story offers, and probably more complex as well than most alternative theories imagine. I don't claim to know why controlled demo would have been preferred over just plane impacts. There is some interesting speculation going around about that, but it's still speculation. All I can see is that according to all the elements we've got (witness reports, videos, motives, opportunity, etc.), the core of the alternative scenarios (government involvement, controlled demolitions) is more likely than the official story. It's not because there are gaps in the alternative theories that the official story suddenly becomes the only possible truth. The official story is one large gap in itself.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
#6101746 - 09/26/06 05:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> but the alleged preparation (cutting through 90% of support beams) seems largely overestimated.
Actually, it is underestimated (misunderestimated for the Bush crowd). In an controlled explosives demolition, 100% of the I-beams must first be cut... twice, per beam. Also, every beam that is to be cut by explosives must have two explosive charges placed on the beam and the two charges must detonate at exactly the same time!
Before somebody decides that I am an idiot based upon the above (duh, if you cut all the beams, what keeps the building from falling), please be aware that an I-beam can be cut twice and still remain intact. The two cuts are done along the top and the bottom for the "I" leaving only the center section in tact. The explosives are used to cut the center section.
> Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble
This is true of any demolition, not just one that uses explosives. There is much more done to weaken a building for an explosives demolition than simply emptying out the easy to remove stuff.
> Only, I'm not going to speculate here.
Ok, then don't.
> but the alleged preparation seems largely overestimated. (speculation) > Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble. (speculation) > Thermite and its variants don't detonate. (speculation and incorrect) > Probably the planes would have been enough, that's right. (speculation)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
#6101769 - 09/26/06 05:40 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sparks8 said: redstorm my advise to you is the same as seuss. if your not following the discusion at hand don't jump in with your half assed, instantly rightous opinion.
You mean like how you did here after an already long string of posts:
Quote:
sparks8 said: in my opinion the pentagon attack offers the most questionable event of that day. why such a small hole? wheres all the debris? why no solid video evidence? the 5 frames released are supposed to be irrefutable? such a perfect hit, only inches from the ground. these guys were supposed to be novice pilots at best so i guess they were just really lucky?
I'm sure Ive missed all the obvious answers for these too. zappaisgod, phred care to enlighten us some more?
Or are you just being pissy because you were given blatant evidence which proved you wrong?
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
#6102483 - 09/26/06 09:52 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Anytime a crime is committed, the most logical question to ask when looking for the perpetrators is; Who stands to gain?
Now you tell me who stands to gain....|
19 hi-jackers, that will lose their lives, and create massive havoc for the Islamic world, by way of retaliation.
OR
Bush and company, who will have a pretext to invade oil rich countries, and get the ball rolling on things like the patriot act. Also, the man who owned the WTC made a considerable profit from that morning.
Not proof of anything, just another point.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6102491 - 09/26/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I would certainly say eternal salvation and making a mockery of Great Satan while killing several thousand infidels would be considered priceless.
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
#6102944 - 09/26/06 12:08 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
True, and while suicide bombings are a way of life for these people, I also question how they could pull something like this off. There is a very high level of sophistication needed, that I think such people could pull this off so successfully.
Also, why did NORAD stand down that morning?
Why were there drills going on for the exact same event that was taking place IRL.
Too many questions that I have not had answered to my satisfaction.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
#6103264 - 09/26/06 01:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Gee, I wonder why, but I'm kinda reluctant, when it comes to demolitions, to take the word of someone who once speculated, completely out of his ass, that WTC7 could have been brought down by remote controlled bulldozers. Talk about common sense...
And can you show me a link to a detonating thermite reaction please?
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
#6103340 - 09/26/06 01:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Both the large number of eyewitnesses and the video evidence do exist. If you want to look away, that's your problem.
Bullshit and bullshit. How many of those quotes are taken out of context or are something like "It sounded like a bomb" "It went boom boom boom, like explosions" etc, etc. Those aren't evidence of controlled demolition. I've read through the testimony of over 80 firefighters and guess how many said that they thought they might have seen flashes like explosives? One. He saw flashes toward the bottom of the building before it came down. Proof of controlled demolition? Honestly? 1 out of 80? And let's keep well in mind that eyewitness accounts are by far the weakest form of evidence available.
What video evidence? There is none! You mean the puffs released from a few windows? What a joke if you think that's proof of controlled demolition.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
#6103573 - 09/26/06 02:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Why were there drills going on for the exact same event that was taking place IRL.
Unfortunately, you are being mislead a bit. There were multiple drills going on that day, but they were being held by two different areas of the government.
An intelligence branch of the government, the NRO (think spy satellites) was running a drill to "explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." The drill was scenario was a small corporate jet accidentally crashing into the one of the NRO's headquarter buildings after experiencing a mechanical failure. Immediately upon learning of the events that were taking place, the NRO canceled the drill.
Another drill, known as Global Guardian was taking place in the military (SAC, AF, and NORAD). The drill is done every year, in September or October. The drills main purpose is to test the military's command and control procedures in the event of a nuclear war. At the same time, a second drill is done by the NORAD, known as Vigilant Guardian, in which a threat to North American airspace is simulated. This years scenario was an attack by a Russian bomber.
I don't know where you are getting the bit about NORAD standing down... what exactly did they supposedly "stand down" from? What does it mean for NORAD to stand down? This sounds to me like it comes from a conspiracy nut that saw the movie War Games one too many times.
NORAD immediately canceled all of the drills and switched to the "real world" when they learned what was going on. It took approximately 30 seconds for them to realize that the calls they were getting were not part of the drill. The response by NORAD was actually faster because they were running a drill. Everybody was already "in mode" when the 9/11 attack occurred and simply switched from drill to reality. Nobody had to be called in, etc, as they were already at their stations as if an attack were taking place.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
#6103596 - 09/26/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gee, I wonder why, but I'm kinda reluctant, when it comes to demolitions, to take the word of someone who once speculated, completely out of his ass, that WTC7 could have been brought down by remote controlled bulldozers.
When you can no longer support your position in the debate, you resort to ad hominem. Typical.
> And can you show me a link to a detonating thermite reaction please?
No, but feel free to google it yourself. The key is particle size and overall shape. Also, detonate is not the same as explode. Any comments I made towards thermite would have indicated explode, not detonate.
Edit: For those that are confused, I made a statement in a previous post in this thread about thermite exploding. However, as the section was not really related to the topic at hand, and because my claim about thermite exploding is difficult to reference, I immediately deleted the section from my post. Obviously, it was read within the minute or two that it took me to edit.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
Edited by Seuss (09/26/06 02:38 PM)
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6103847 - 09/26/06 03:21 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
alpharedecho said: Bush and company, who will have a pretext to invade oil rich countries, and get the ball rolling on things like the patriot act. Also, the man who owned the WTC made a considerable profit from that morning.
I just wanted to comment on this because it's been brought up time and again, despite being false.
Silverstein was able to lease the WTC site from the Port Authority for 99-years at a cost of $3.22 Billion. (You can read about this here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372 )
This was despite the fact that the Towers had a "depreciated value" of $3.5 Billion, because there was supposed to be some profit in the deal (not counting rents and such) this amount was calculated by the NYC Comptroller's office, and you can read about it here: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/impact-9-11-year-later.pdf
However, the comptroller also points out that the cost of replacing the buildings would be $6.7 Billion.
Now, if Silverstein collected the maximum standard insurance amount, based on the policies he had, he would be entitled to $3.5 billion. This, as pointed out by the NYC Comptroller, wouldn't even be enough to rebuild the towers, and if he just collected the money and left, he would be taking a loss, because he can't collect rents from buildings that no longer exist.
So, Silverstein took the insurance companies to court in an attempt to collect $7 Billion. This amount would have been roughly consistant with his initial investment (he would come out ahead about $ 0.3 Billion, only it would be 7 - 6.7, instead of 3.5 - 3.2), but he would still be able to collect some amount of rent once the buildings were rebuilt.
However, a jury decided that he could not collect the $7 billion he was asking for (you can read that here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/index.html ) and while he won an additional decision, it was only for an extra $1.1 Billion (you can read that here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/06/wtc.trial/index.html ), which is a far cry from the extra $3.5 Billion he was asking for, or even the extra $3.2 Billion he would need to reconstruct the site ( 6.7 - 3.5 = 3.2 )
As a result, Silverstein has been forced to sell bonds (i.e. take out loans) in order to finance reconstruction.
Finally, when you look at Silverstein's other holdings (he owns 4 other high-profile buildings) and you consider how much rents have decreased in NYC as a result of companies and individuals fleeing post-9/11, it's clear that Silverstein LOST quite a bit of money over the entire fiasco.
So, no, Silverstein did not gain anything from 9/11
|
|