9/11 and conspiracy theories

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.

Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:32 pm

Beto wrote: It's my personal opinion that the collapse seems a lot like an implosion. You don't see it falling straight down, without the slightest inclination? I see a slight rotation and that's it.

These building are designed to 'hold together', like any good design would. Holding together while falling is a 'symptom' of this. The twisting observed would be expected if it were damaged in an 'unpredictable' way.

Insurance fraud? While I wouldn't put it past a greedy :censored: I would need more info before I could convict.

Silverstein wanting the site demolished is a good point, but at this cost? The buildings being ugly was an issue for a long time, but this is hardly proof of destruction.

I too thought they were ugly, but I also knew they represented something great about America, and wouldn't plot to destroy them. Now the new Freedom Tower, that is one ugly building, and it represents the worst of America. (In that it is an ugly, bureaucratic nightmare)

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:43 pm

joeyknuccione wrote:My take on the videos:

'Pull it'

To me this one is only a matter of 'verbiage', lacking any further info I will benefit of the doubt it and say I see nothing to support the conspiracy theory.

'It's blowing boy"

By this time it is obvious the building has suffered serious damage, and it would be fair to say folks were concerned about it falling. To say 'blow up' could be damning if there were any other evidence. Again, looks like verbiage is to blame.

Well, there's plenty of other evidence. But like I mentioned earlier I'm reluctant to discuss testimonies, but they're plenty.

joeyknuccione wrote:Flight 93

The 'scar' is consistent with a plane going nose in into the ground. A hijacker who knows folks are coming for him, as the passengers were claimed to have done, would know that a straight, direct flight into the ground would be the fastest, and most assured path to total destruction. This is a fairly remote area, combined with the confusion of the day, and so it is reasonable to assume the fire has burned out by the time rescuers arrive.

When has an airplane ever been "totally destroyed" after a crash? Gimme one. All the others I've seen (and they were plenty) have loads of fuselage scattered in the vicinity. And also, I assume you're dismissing the pictures of the scar being there in the alleged 1994 geological survey?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:43 pm

Beto wrote:I remembered another thing.

Apparently, and I can't infer this with 100% accuracy, Bush claims to have witnessed the first plane hit, before the second one did. How could he, if footage of the first only surfaced after the second one? Never mind his posture...

You are talking Bush here. Can you honestly expect him to say anything right and proper and not be totally confused?

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:06 pm

joeyknuccione wrote:These building are designed to 'hold together', like any good design would. Holding together while falling is a 'symptom' of this. The twisting observed would be expected if it were damaged in an 'unpredictable' way.

"Good design"? Dude, they're saying internal fires brought the damn thing down in an unprecedented way.

joeyknuccione wrote:Insurance fraud? While I wouldn't put it past a greedy icon_censored I would need more info before I could convict.

What info? Profits? Well, Silverstein Properties got twice the insurance policy value because they convinced a jury each tower was a separate occurrence. Nice sum right there. The "single" policy was 3.6 billion dollars, I think. As for WTC 7, the profit was allegedly something around 500 million. But considering a joint conspiracy, some tenants would be the main reason to bring this one down. IRS, CIA, etc...

Floor Tenant
46-47 Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear

joeyknuccione wrote:Silverstein wanting the site demolished is a good point, but at this cost?

What cost? Human lives? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

joeyknuccione wrote:The buildings being ugly was an issue for a long time, but this is hardly proof of destruction.

No, not by itself.

joeyknuccione wrote:I too thought they were ugly, but I also knew they represented something great about America, and wouldn't plot to destroy them. Now the new Freedom Tower, that is one ugly building, and it represents the worst of America. (In that it is an ugly, bureaucratic nightmare)

Personally, I thought they were kinda pretty.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:08 pm

goat wrote:
Beto wrote:I remembered another thing.

Apparently, and I can't infer this with 100% accuracy, Bush claims to have witnessed the first plane hit, before the second one did. How could he, if footage of the first only surfaced after the second one? Never mind his posture...
You are talking Bush here. Can you honestly expect him to say anything right and proper and not be totally confused?

No, not really. I would expect at least one of his advisors to coach him properly in this situation.

But I'll be damned if this is "confusion". He said he saw the first plane hit, when the footage was only broadcasted in the evening, and even what his thoughts were at the time. If he didn't see it, there would be no need to lie about it. Cheney made the same "mistake".

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:41 pm

joeyknuccione wrote:These building are designed to 'hold together', like any good design would. Holding together while falling is a 'symptom' of this. The twisting observed would be expected if it were damaged in an 'unpredictable' way.

And another thing. If the building is designed to "hold together" as you say, it wouldn't fall straight down like it did, it would distinctly topple over the part that collapses first, or in this case the part that was allegedly hit by the debris.

melodious · Post by **melodious** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:22 pm

Hey Beto

Lots of good stuff here that you presented. I have to say that I agree with you. The whole 9/11 event was an "inside job" - a dirty, nasty, and very typical government conspiracy. If it looks like it, sounds like it, feels like it, and smells like it, well... it probably is it!!! The same goes with the religion issue. America is merely carrying on the very old Roman tradition of "snowing" the people in efforts to fulfill a political agenda.

"There are many things that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise." - St. Augustine, City of God

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:49 pm

Beto wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote:These building are designed to 'hold together', like any good design would. Holding together while falling is a 'symptom' of this. The twisting observed would be expected if it were damaged in an 'unpredictable' way.
And another thing. If the building is designed to "hold together" as you say, it wouldn't fall straight down like it did, it would distinctly topple over the part that collapses first, or in this case the part that was allegedly hit by the debris.

No.. you are wrong. What happened is that the beams were very weakened due to the extremely high heat that jet fuel burns at... and it was a 'pancake effect'.. which is precisely what we saw in the videos.

One floor collapsed, and the entire weight of the building that was above it hit the next floor , which then collapsed, etc etc etc.

C-Nub · Post by **C-Nub** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:57 pm

I agree with much of what has been said, but I do not feel there is enough evidence to point to any one party and say 'you did it!'

That said, on the rate of 'pancaking'

First off, there's no way to explain the fact that it didn't at some point or another topple sideways.

But in response to the question of the rate of dissent, adding new material to the 'bulk' of what was coming down would definitely not help it maintain its speed. That new material would have to be accelerated, from a relative speed of zero, to the speed of that which was allegedly pushing down on it. During the entire length of the fall, according to the official explanation of what happened, the crushing-force blamed for the total collapse would be encountering resistance, that of an entire skyscraper designed to hold all of that weight quite steadily. Since only the superstructure towards the top of the building was (supposedly) damaged, the rate of descent should have been many times lesser than what we all witnessed, multiple times. Each tower fell straight down in around ten seconds, which is a free-fall drop. There was no resistance at all. That's incredibly unusual and as of yet, totally unexplained or even addressed by theories outside of those involved a controlled implosion of a building.

There is no single event that makes 9.11 suspicious, but rather the culmination of dozens upon dozens of strange coincidences and scientific inconsistancies that can't be ignored.

I think the most telling of these is the strange impact-site at the pentagon. The damage to the building was in no way what you'd expect of a plane (at least one with wings) crashing into it. It looked, and apparently sounded and smelled, according to military men on the scene, like a missile.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:03 pm

goat wrote:
Beto wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote:These building are designed to 'hold together', like any good design would. Holding together while falling is a 'symptom' of this. The twisting observed would be expected if it were damaged in an 'unpredictable' way.
And another thing. If the building is designed to "hold together" as you say, it wouldn't fall straight down like it did, it would distinctly topple over the part that collapses first, or in this case the part that was allegedly hit by the debris.
No.. you are wrong. What happened is that the beams were very weakened due to the extremely high heat that jet fuel burns at... and it was a 'pancake effect'.. which is precisely what we saw in the videos.

One floor collapsed, and the entire weight of the building that was above it hit the next floor , which then collapsed, etc etc etc.

I was just talking about WTC 7 there.

But about the "pancake effect", there are more alleged debunkings than I can count. They usually point out a gross simplification of the WTC architecture to allow for the explanation, and they go into a lot more detail than the NIST ever bothered to. The animation typically used to demonstrate the effect takes many factors out of the equation. I will post more on this later.

A fact usually referred as incontrovertible is the time the building takes to collapse even taking the alleged effect into account.

Another thing I think is hard to explain is the following beam:

http://worcester.indymedia.org/uploads/ ... t_beam.jpg

Any guesses?