Jump to content

 

 

Conspiracy theories


Recommended Posts

Ok I'll simplify it

 

Out all the "experts" that have talked about it, if they were on a set of giant scales. Which way would it tip?

 

To experts you believe or those that say it was not a conspiracy that the impact of the planes caused it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gribz touched on a point earlier about the skill that it would take to fly a passenger jet at 500mph at sucj low altitude. That (along with building seven) for me is the biggest red flag...

 

The hijackers training did not include anything like the level of knowledge required to do that. To be able to hit a target only slightly wider than a plane (wingtip to wingtip) at that speed and altitude is nigh on impossible even for an experienced airline pilot with 20,000 hours under his belt.

 

They were drones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The steel bars that were sheared at 45 degree angles were at the bottom of both towers, not at the point of impact.

 

Good point, totally forgot to mention that. The bars were almost cleanly sheared at this angle which again is what happens in demolition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gribz touched on a point earlier about the skill that it would take to fly a passenger jet at 500mph at sucj low altitude. That (along with building seven) for me is the biggest red flag...

 

The hijackers training did not include anything like the level of knowledge required to do that. To be able to hit a target only slightly wider than a plane (wingtip to wingtip) at that speed and altitude is nigh on impossible even for an experienced airline pilot with 20,000 hours under his belt.

 

They were drones.

 

Again correct. The Serial numbers of the listed planes didnt even fly that day. Of course they could have been repainted as what they planed to do during operation northwoods, but as you say IMO it was likely drones of some sort.

 

Not to mention 8 hijackers are still alive so Im really not sure who was flying those so called commercial planes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Cognitive dissonance', when people refuse to believe overwhelming evidence which contradicts what they *want* to believe.

 

 

Twin Towers

Bears, I'll give you a couple of thousand experts - architects and engineers, who have put their names forward as denying the possibility of the official line. Can you come up with thousands of construction professionals who believe that an aluminium airliner, which exploded upon impact had enough remaining energy to slice through the central, concrete cores of the WTCs? Or that fire could bring down three concrete and steel buildings for the first time in history in the same city on the same day?

 

If you are an engineer, you'll know that the closer a building gets to the ground the stronger the supporting members and the higher the building goes, the less weight it has to carry therefore is lighter. If we follow your theory (the official line), the lighter tops of the buidlings crashed into the heavier floors below, causing a pancake effect resulting in the collapse.

 

However, this theory overlooks:

 

1. the fact that the upper floors disintegrated on the way down (hence the pyrochlastic dust clouds and the lack of debris we see at the base of the tower after the collapse) thereby disapating the kinetic energy required to destroy the floors below. In short, the structure of the towers was stronger than the constantly diminishing forces impacting it from the falling floors above.

 

2. the buildings fell at practically freefall speed; i.e if you threw a bowling ball of the top, it would have hit the ground at the same time as the buildings finished collapsing. Now, if there had been *any* supporting structure in the towers whatsoever this freefall speed could not have been reached; Ergo, there was no supporting structure to offer resistance;

 

What happened to the steel and concrete supporting structure? If it wasn't there, it must have been removed.

And this ties in exactluy with evidence from first responders who, on the day, reported deafening explosions coming from the basement of the towers long after the planes had hit.

http://www.infowars.com/video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-before-towers-collapsed/

There is also video evidence showing small explosions up the building preceding the collapse.

 

A couple of final thoughts; 1. don't you think it's amazing that despite the planes having the explosive power to bring down two towers made of concrete and steel, the government still managed to produce one of the hijackers' passport made of paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-QycTzwV7

2. Don't you think it's even more amazing that all 4 black boxes 'disappeared' officially, despite being built to withstand crashes more sever than hitting the twin towers? No trace was ever found officially, despite at least 3 firefighters stating, on the record that they were the ones who found the boxes. Odd, don't you think?

 

Building 7

 

If you're an engineer, you'll know what planning is required to bring down a building in its own footprint; days if not weeks of careful placing of explosives and timers.

 

If you get it wrong and if one part of the building retains supporting properties while the other parts of the building have no support, then you get a non-symmetrical demolition where one part of the building falls at a different speed and different direction from another part. In short, the building will fall over onto its side.

 

Building 7 fell straight down into its own footprint. Somebody knew how to demolish a building and they did it perfectly.

 

You'll also know that a building with an asymetrical floor plan can not implode upon itself symmetrically unless it is subject to a controlled demolition. An asymmetrical building has structural members acting in different directions. In the event of an uncontrolled collapse, those members would follow the direction of those forces ' always following the path of least resistance. This is lesson 1 on day 1 of structural engineering. I know. I attended that lesson.

 

Building 7 had an asymmetrical trapezoid floorplan.

 

This *cannot* collapse vertically downwards into itself unless all supporting members are removed at the same instant.

The only way to remove all support at the same time is by means of a controlled demolition.

 

To suggest that this could be done in a matter of hours would be fantasy - just as big a fantasy as the official line that the fire in Building 7 was so intense that it melted the supporting steel columns (melted them perfectly, mind you; melted them in just such a way that the building collapsed symmetrically and vertically, straight down into its own footprint) despite that fire being confined to a couple of floors on the mid level of the building.

 

In any event, any physical damage to 7 was caused by the falling masonary and steel from the WTC north tower which clipped only one corner of Building 7 - and was *external* damage only. Thus, the asbestos protection around the *internal* structural members remained intact and would have prevented any weakening of the steel by fire.

 

Have a look at this video showing the collapse of 7 from different angles:

at 1.00 you clearly see the central core collapsing downwards before the sides implode inwards: that's a controlled demolition

at 2.14 you can even see the multiple detonations down the sides of the building. That's a controlled demolition.

 

Final thought to ponder; if it was not a controlled demolition and if it happened naturally, as a result of fire as the official line would have us believe, why was the BBC reporting that the building had collapsed 30 minutes before it had? If this was a natural implosion, how could they have known 30 mins in adance that it would happen?

 

 

Flight 93

 

This is the flight that crashed into a field, leaving a hole smaller than my back garden? Unlike, say Lockerbie, where half of a 747 left a 40 foot crater and wiped out half a village?

This is the flight which crashed, leaving no bodies, no seats, no luggage remains, no wreckage? http://www.abudis.net/Shanksville1.jpg

This is the flight where people were able to make mobile phone calls despite this not being technically possible?

 

 

The Pentagon

 

Where a guy, who couldn't manage to fly a Cessna propeller plane in a straight line, was somehow able to pull a Boeing 757 jet liner through a series of manoeuvers that pilots with thousands of hours flying time have said they couldn't have done and which they wouldn't ever have attempted because no Boeing 757 could have survived those twists and turns without the wings tearing off and, after throwing this baby across the shy like Tom Cruise in Top Gun, he manages to fly it perfectly straight and level for 500 yards (next time you land at an airport have a look at how unstraight and unlevel a jet touches down even at slow speed) to hit the most heavily reinforced side of the Pentagon about 4 feet above the ground, makes the entire jet, wings, tail, engines and all disappear into a hole about 14 feet across and then crash through another 5 or 6 walls before punching out the other side is a perfectly circular hole.

 

So, in other words, the official line asks us to believe that a novice pilot could fly a jet liner with more ability than a seasoned professional, that he could fly with consummate skill into the most heavily reinforced part of the building,(on the opposite side from Donald Rumsfeld's office btw), that this airline would explode upon impact and then, having exploded, would then disappear into a 14ft hole, taking its engines, wings and tail assembly with it, and punch its way through the building to emerge out a hole in the courtyard, leaving no wreckage, no seats, no tail, no wings, no passengers, no luggage, no nothing.

 

On the other hand, we could believe that the Pentagon was hit by a missile designed to fly in at 4 feet and punch its way through a building. But that would make us crazy conspiracy nuts. Just like the thousands of professionals in construction, aviation, emergency service who have joined their own 9/11 truth organisations.

 

There is no longer any question in the minds of rational people that 9/11 was an inside job; the only question is who was on the inside. *That* is where the conspiracy fact changes to theory....and that's where the fun really starts :)

Edited by The Real PapaBear
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Cognitive dissonance', when people refuse to believe overwhelming evidence which contradicts what they *want* to believe.

 

There is no longer any question in the minds of rational people that 9/11 was an inside job; the only question is who was on the inside. *That* is where the conspiracy fact changes to theory....and that's where the fun really starts :)

 

Just re-read this, 2 great sentences.

 

The first is so true. But not only 'want' to hear, its what they 'can only' believe due to the way the system has been set up that anything other than the official version cant be true, it is not in their believe system so they cant believe it. When you become aware / awake you can then see this because I first hand admit when 9/11 happened and if anyone had told me it was an inside job id have dismissed it straight away. People think that for it to be an inside job then so many would have had to know, this is not the case, all you need is a few leaders at the top to co-ordinate. Then you allow what you want to be told in the mainstream media and block off anything that ruins your story.

 

And yes when you start to ask the questions on why that as you say is where you realise you are only scratching the surface of who was involved. As you say people then have theories but what is not a theory is debunking the official tale.

 

Like so many, Building 7 is the smoking gun and seems to always end the debate as there is no engineer who can come forward and defend that being anything other than a controlled demolition.

My own smoking gun is that 8 hi-jackers are alive and were never replaced, so if there was 19 hijackers who the hell flew the planes with there is 8 of them alive and not even in the US that day! But I just look at the evidence on the Pentagon lawn and the supposed crash site in Pennsylvania and realise - there was no planes. The is no wreckage, not one left over from any part of a commercial 757 plane at either site. Science proves the materials of the planes cant evaporate in seconds!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like so many, Building 7 is the smoking gun and seems to always end the debate as there is no engineer who can come forward and defend that being anything other than a controlled demolition.

My own smoking gun is that 8 hi-jackers are alive and were never replaced, so if there was 19 hijackers who the hell flew the planes with there is 8 of them alive and not even in the US that day! But I just look at the evidence on the Pentagon lawn and the supposed crash site in Pennsylvania and realise - there was no planes. The is no wreckage, not one left over from any part of a commercial 757 plane at either site. Science proves the materials of the planes cant evaporate in seconds!!

 

Bud, there are so many 'smoking guns" in the official line that it looks like fucking Stalingrad.

 

There"s the 19 muslim hijackers who were such fanatical muslim jihadiis that they spent their last nights in a lap dance joint, knocking back the chivas regal before flying the hijacked planes into Martyrdom - from which 8 apparently survived and ended up working in the motor vehicle licensing office in Jeddah or somesuch.

 

There's the magically disappearing black boxes, made of indestructible composites and the magically appearing hijacker's passport, made of paper. (Maybe instead of using the virtually indestructible material that they use for Black boxes, they should just wrap them in the same paper used to make passports? )

 

Then there's the magically imploding buildings that fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance

Then there's the magically disappearing US Air Force, who were all magically elsewhere that day

Then there's magic 757 which managed to punch its way through the rings of the Pentagon building *after* having blown itself up on impact but which magically ensured it left no debris behind.

I could go on..and on..and on….

 

 

One fundamental mistake made by those people who believe the official conspiracy theory is to think that this was all organised by the *US Government*. They see the USG as one joined-up, organic entity with a single all controlling mind. It is, of course, no such thing. Like all governments it's a collection of individual departments, most of whom have no connection to each other. The USG is as flawed and incompetent as any other. *Of course* the USG didn't organise 9/11.

 

However, that's not to say that some people who were in the USG didn't conspire with some people who were not in the USG to plan and execute 9/11. You wouldn't need thousands of people 'in the know'. All you would really need would be a handul:

A couple at the top of the US military, to make sure that the entire USAF was up in Canada that day doing excercises. You might want a couple at the top of the security services to ensure that all video evidence from all the video cameras around the Pentagon and surrounding buildings 'disappeared',

 

You might also want a couple of others. Say, for example, the people who owned the buildings.

 

Now, I wonder who owned the buildings. I wonder when he bought them. I wonder if he took out a $3.5bn insurance policy on each building a few weeks before the 'attacks'. I wonder what sort of friends and alliances this owner might have? You might also want to have the people in charge of the security at the WTC. Now, I wonder who was in charge of WTC security in the period before the attacks. Once you have collected this motley crew, you can then join the dots and see what objectves they have in common.

 

It would indeed be difficult for any American, who wasn't a psychopath, to plan the murder of thousands of his/her fellow countrymen and then, afterwards to keep it quiet.

However, what if those who planned and executed 9/11 were not only Americans? What if they were fanatics whose loyalty lies with another state? (You'll notice I don't say 'country'). What if there was no chance that these foreign/dual nationals would ever tell what they knew because to do so would be to betray their real homeland and the result of this betrayal would be the withdrawal of US support for this state and its subsequent destruction? What if the objectives of these people coincided with the objectives of the extremist, pyschopathic American members of this cabal?

 

 

I think the problem here is not that people are stupid, but that having to fully accept what happened on 9/11 requires such a shift in your belief system that many people just aren't willing to make that amount of effort just to make themselves more uncomfortable.It's much easier just to keep taking the medicine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.