i believe its refering to the fact that the twin towers were built to sustain airplane impacts, and that it is no way that a steel building could have colapsed due to a "not so hot" fire alone
well that, and a ton of other evidence that proves demolition by planted explosives
"proves"? lol.
Yeah I have watched all the documentaries such as loose change etc, and although it does look a bit sus, i dont think it quite "proved" anything.
the funny thing is (even though it is not conclusive) there is 3 times more evidence agreeing with all the conspiracy theories, than with the actual theory that the US wants everyone to believe.
You think Osama, which is basically an actor funded by the US, wants to come on video just before 9/11? Or perhaps because the elections are coming up and the Republicans need a new win :P
Kind of sad for my age? wtf is that supposed to mean? You think I am sad because I dont think those conspiracy theories are conclusive? I agreed with you that is was all a bit sus, but simply dont buy everything they say on loose change etc. I think its you who is sad for critising me with reference to my age. wtf does my age have to do with anything?
its expected that people of your age reached a certain level of reasoning, and dont just believe everything they are being told, especially after so much given proof.
in middle ages ppl believed in religion. today everyone over 10 years understands that there is no God (at least not the kind described in the bible). i guess it'll take 500 more years until ppl will much sooner realise that they're being lied to, and that behind every action there is a motive.
and i'm not just talking about the actual phisical evidence, but rather the motives they could have. take osama for an instance. is it in his best interest to kill a few thousand ppl in america, at the cost of his own people, and the fact that he wont be able to go out of a cave for the rest of his life? on the other hand you have USA, which is thirsty for oil and world control, and it just so happens that middle east is full of oil, and iraq and afghanistan arent strong enough (politicaly and in terms of military) to endanger USA (unlike Iran, Russia and China). so basicly all they needed was a reason (with that reason came support) too liberate the oil wells. and whats a few thousand lives compared to a secure market of the entire nation.
try googling for zeitgeist the movie, maybe that will open your eyes a bit more. besides the christianity and 9/11, it reveals that such stunts were nothing new in the US politics, and that the Bush family is familiar with such actions since long ago.
Yes, as I have said in my earlier posts, I have watched many documentaries on 9/11 and bush, including all of the more well known conspiracy ones. You dont have to write half a page explaining motives to me, I understand them already.
My problem lies with you saying "proof" all the time with reference to demolition theory. Demolition theory is exactly that, a theory. Yes there is a lot of evidence to support it, and there are lots of quite plausible motives for such a an act, but there is also lots of evidence disproving it.
Now I actually agree with you and think demolition theory is a lot more plausable than fire bringing the towers down. Where I dont agree with you is when you talk about "proof".
Now you are right to expect people of a certain age to be able to reason well, and I assure you I can do just that. You however seem to have taken a totally solid standpoint claiming that the arguements you have chosen to believe have been "proven". Now either you are an emplyee of fema, with access to shit that im not, or you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, and not using a good sense of reason.
I think it's kinda impossible they even let the airplanes come so close to the towers, especially not 2, and something even more incomprehensible is that they let a plane hit Pentagon.
I think US Government backed this up, but maybe they achieved something more important than the losses
Well evidence proves stuff. Look on the evidence that US goverment acknowledged and the ones found later on. The goverment claimed, that the building fell due to a fire and that the spooky terrorists were responsible, immediately after the collapse without even getting to examine the crashsite and study the evidence. Many people found that unconvincing so they investigated, and they came up with many more plausable scenario, and hard evidence. And i find their findings (backed up by MIT engineers, the engineer who designed the towers, countless other experts in the phisics field) to be less of a theory than the scenario described in the official report.
The "it's official, so it has to be true! the rest is nothing but a theory made up by conspiracy nuts!" attitude is what the men behind 9/11 were counting on, and it worked with the majority of people.
Well, since only fema was allowed access to ground zero, and were the ONLY organisation to be given access to all of the evidence, i think its very hard to say that the investigations youre refering to are worth much more than the official one.
The evidence you are refering to doesnt "prove" anything! Yes, i agree that the demolition theory seems more plausible, but saying its "proof", is exactly the same attitude as the US official version.
Sure you can quote your "experts" etc, but dont you see that there are "experts" who disagree with you. How and why do we choose who to believe? Youre selecting evidence based on your beliefs and putting it about as "proof". This is exactly the same as what the US government has done, and you are guilty of the same thing.
Until and independent investigation is done (which will never happen) youre simply talking bollox when you talk about "proof".
I agree with you that demolition theory seems more plausable, but I simply cant agree with you that its been "proven".
I believe you are speculating, and porning it off as fact, which simply doesnt help your arguement. There are lots of questions I would like the answers to which were not given in the fema report, but I am not about to resort to picking out bits of info and claming them to be "fact".
By the way, have you actually read the fema report or just watched videos?
Plz... I dont want to put another UK guy of you to my idiot list. I said that the evidence gathered later, shows that goverment most likely stood behind the attacks. And yet you say it doesn't "proove" anything. So basicly what you're saying is that the "official" evidence can proove stuff, and "nonofficial" cant. I really hope you're not educated or going to be educated in law.
Evidence against the US goverment are the same that against the terrorists. FEMA reported that they found a passport of one of the hijackers. It was just laying under the upper layer of debre, after sustaining a violent explosion, steel melting flame, and tons of debre crasing on top of it. Officially the black boxes on the airplanes werent recovered, yet a passport made it out without a scratch. Not to mention hundred of witnesses who heard other explosions in other parts of the building (and they dont have a motive to lie, while the goverment has). Also: how do you intend to perform a official investigation against the office itself? It would never have been allowed. Turning the system against itself isnt really possible is it? Thats why all these movies are made. The only way to reform the system is to change it, and only a majority of population has the power to do that.
It was admited that the sinking of an ocean liner with 600 casualites, was intentional so the US could enter the war, and the federal banks would profit from loaning huge amounts of money under a certain interest to sponsor the war.
Anyways I'm not going to convince you any further. You can try to do some research on your own, and you'll see where things stand, instead of just blindly believing everything that is "official". It's people like you who kneeled down when the 10 commandments were delivered, supposedly by mr. God. And it's people like you who supported slaughter of supposed witches, because the kind reverend said that they were performing witchcraft.
Hmm where to start? Firstly, I am highly educated, and I am qualified in Law so I’m sorry if this upsets you. Secondly please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said the official version proved anything either, and suggesting I think that, after I said the demolition theory is more plausible, is simply retarded.
Also you seem to have your facts wrong. You said fema found this passport which is incorrect. Maybe you should go back to your videos, because that passport was found by the FBI, but I forgive your ignorance.
You do keep going into great detail about some of the info mentioned in the conspiracy videos. Can I say AGAIN, that I have seen these videos, and I know what you’re on about. You don’t need to waste more time explaining shit to me again. I have fucking watched the same videos as you! Please understand this before you start explaining them again.
As for your bullshit about the 10 commandments, I am not in any way religious, and I believe I have broken several of them already and don’t care, so please don’t put me into groups when you know nothing about me. As for your witchcraft quote, don’t you see that it is you who is on a witch-hunt? You are the one who is saying things are certain and not in question. I am simply arguing the more investigation would need to be done before you can say anything has been “proven” either way.
And you failed to answer my question about the fema report? I can only assume that you in fact haven’t read it, but only seen the highlights in your favourite videos.
Because you seem unable to grasp the points I am making, I will summarise the main ones…
I agree with you that demolition theory is more plausible.
As far as I am concerned NEITHER side has come close to conclusive proof of anything. All we are left with is a bunch of unanswered questions, and that’s a long way from what you’re claiming. Don’t you see that making arguments in the way you do, without any tolerance on argument only strengthens the official line? You look like a crazy conspiracy nut when you go about harping how demolition theory is “proven”.
A final note, you can put me in your idiot book if you wish. I simply don’t care, and it won’t effect my day in the slightest, so feel free.
No more crazy than people who claim the official report is "prooven".
Somehow the goverment doesn't want more investigations, while these "conspiracy theory nuts" keep on diging. Thats weird: people who had nothing to do with the official report are more interested in discovering the truth, than the people who released the report.
I made those assumptions about you since you seem like a "if its official then its true" guy (it's what kept the religion alive, and what keeps such goverments in power; i make comparison to religion based on the fact that the both are based on bullshit, and it makes people, who cant think for themselves, belive in it). The only way to convince you would be a confession, which we all know wont come for so long as everyone involved or their family members are stil alive.
I'm sure you wouldnt believe that your queen comited suicide if she was found with a rifle bullet in her head, and a bullet trajectory coming from somewhere outside; if the goverment said so. They only need to confiscate the window, plant a gun and the bullet, and there you have the entire england beliving it. Hm not huh?
Yes that exactly my point. You are EXACTLY the same as people who believe the official version has been “proven”. You are unwilling to at least accept that demolition theory might not be true, while crisising others who are unwilling to accept that the official version might not be true. This is hypocritical, but I forgive you.
Have you ever read the fema report fully? Im betting you havnt, so until you have read both sets of evidence your just talking out of your arse saying stuff is “proven”.
Yes, so far you have made a lot of assumptions about me. You have assumed I am deeply religious and stick to the 10 commandments, and also assumed I would burn witches if I had the chance (I wont go into how burning witches breaks several of the 10 commandments). You have also made assumptions about my age and level of education. Yet in all this time I haven’t made a single one about you!
As for all that shit about the Queen, I simply have no clue what you are on about really. Your arguments are put together so badly, I really cant be bothered to figure out your point. I would add though that I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU FROM THE START THAT DEMOLITION THEORY IS THE MOST PLAUSABLE FOR ME!
You fail to see that I actually agree in general with the points you make about demolition theory. I am not saying the official line is the right one, and I never have, but you seem to attack me as if I was. Your unwillingness to accept that you could ever be mistaken only makes you look like a complete conspiracy nut. You are just as pathologically set that you are the only one with the right answers as the US government itself. In fact, you are so unwilling to accept any form of argument on this, that it would actually help you own cause if you just didn’t say anything at all.
What argument have you delivered so far? I'm trying to show a better picture what this kind of act would look on a smaller scale (like in a single murder case: they have the means, they have a motive, and they delivered a suspect), but ok if you dont want to be bothered, why even continue this discussion?
You claim that there is no proof about the attacks from either side. The only way to get proof would be by an official investigation, but there wont be one. So how does this mess get cleaned up?
And you're making assumptions about me not knowing shit about fema reports, and the debunking of the conspiracy theories. I've read some of it (it too much bullshit to go through it all). Basicly they are trying to convince people into believing their report, no hard proof to go along with it, and they keep ignoring some of the facts pointed out by the "stupid conspiracy nuts". Not to mention that they claim they have thousand of witnesses supporting their theory, but everytime those "experts" try to debunk something they come up with an even less likely theory.
Edit: However we're still forgeting the most important thing about 9/11. US attacked Afghanistan as a response to the "terrorist attacks". It's funny how even due to lack of the evidence, people mostly dont compare US to Germany during the WW2 (staged attack of polish forces on the german radio station - hm where is the doubt here? It seems to be common sense that it was staged.) Comparing Hitler to men behind the 9/11 attacks is pretty sensible.
And how does that affect us? Well if it wasnt for the attacks on the oil rich Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/11 wouldn't be as popular. But last time i checked my car doesn't take in vegetable oil, but the same oil the US is providing freedom to. Oil companies and the way they use their power to keep the revolutionary patents off the markets and out of the public, would be a topic for another discussion, but lets leave that for another day.
My argument is that, despite what you say, the facts are not all in. Regarding 9/11 you have taken a lot of speculation and put it forward as fact, which is just not the case. The evidence put forward in the conspiracy documentaries isn’t even close to conclusive, although I agree that it does hold a lot of weight. M point is that you cant take a speculative argument and put it forward as fact. That’s exactly what the US government has done, and its exactly what you are doing.
Well I honestly don’t think what really happened on that day will ever be found out fully. The fema report only looked at fire as a possible cause for the collapse and didn’t consider anything else. Because the US government takes this report as conclusive means there wont be further official investigation. I would point out that this stance by the US govt is exactly the same stance as yourself. Both you and the US govt are unwilling to even consider that they might be wrong.
No, I didn’t assume that. You said fema found the passport which is wrong. You also admit that you haven’t even read the report, so its not an assumption that you know shit about it, it’s a fact! Im always shocked when people put forward arguments like yours without actually reading the evidence from the scene. Now before you witter on, I am not saying that the fema report came to the right conclusion, all I am saying is that you haven’t even looked at it, but still seem to make arguments about the “facts” of the day.
Its hard to convince people like yourself because you wont even read the thing! How do you know there is no proof? If you haven’t read it then I find it hard to see how you can say there is no proof in there?
I am not saying there is proof in the fema report, but I am saying that if you are so certain of demolition theory you should of at least read the official version, and not just watched conspiracy movies. You are taking evidence from one side only, and not even considering for a second that the other side might have an argument equally as persuasive.
You went into great detail about the after effects of 9/11, which I know probably better than yourself. There is no need to explain them, and furthermore, it has nothing to do with what I am saying. My argument is that there are 2 sides to this story, and although I agree with you that demolition theory is more plausible, your lack of willingness to even consider that you might not have all the facts makes you just as guilty as the US government. You accuse them of not listening to all the facts, yet you yourself are guilty of just that!
You really don’t seem to understand what I have been saying to you over and over again. I personally believe that the towers were probably brought down by explosives or something similar, but I don’t think its “proven” or ever will be. This whole event needs level headed arguments and a look at the facts. You don’t deliver level headed arguments, and by your own admission you refuse to look at all the facts.
Before you claim that your side has conclusive “proof”, you need to at least take the time to read what the other side is saying. With an attitude like yours you would be perfectly placed to work in US government; you fit the profile perfectly.
I read about the passport being found on the scene, some time ago and i couldnt quite remember wether it was fbi or fema. Also how come fbi could find it if:
?
I'm willing to accept any reality, if it convinces me (by phisical evidence, and the motives). What's your explaination about the motives behind the 9/11, and whats convinced you?
Yes I know you will have read some of the fema report. Some of it is in the documentaries etc, but my point it that you listen to ALL of the information about the demolition theory, yet by your own admission you haven’t read all of the fema report. This means you are selecting evidence which you base your conclusions on. Exactly the same as the us government.
You asked me how could the fbi find the passport if fema was the only organisation allowed access to ground zero. Well I will explain if I must. Lots of organisations were given access to ground zero, the NY fire dept being the most obvious one. Fema was the only organisation given unrestricted access to all of the evidence, and was the only organisation to be allowed to take samples, run tests on the hard evidence on the scene. Usually in a case such as this its expected that you bring in an international body to conduct an investigation, and in this case the US govt chose not to. Again this looks suspicious, but its not “proof” that they are hiding anything. The passport apparently landed on the street, and was found by an FBI agent. It has nothing to do with my comment about fema being the only organisation allowed to conduct investigation on the scene. You completely misunderstood me on this one.
You asked for my personal opinion about what happened and what I think the motives were. I will start by saying I have watched all the major conspiracy movies, as well as the ones supporting the official version of events. I have also read most of the fema report (I couldn’t understand the science bits in places).
For me, the evidence does seem to suggest that there is very little chance of fire bringing down the buildings. The fema report was ONLY investigating fire as a possible cause, and if you look at their conclusions they say that fire is “unlikely to cause the collapse”. Most people, including yourself, seem to think that the fema report backs up the official version of events, when in fact it doesn’t. I tend to agree with the scientists from fema who say fire was unlikely to be the cause and more investigation is needed.
Since I think fire was unlikely to be the cause, what do I think brought the towers down? Well demolition theory does seem to fit the evidence I have seen and read, but I don’t think its proven. I think it’s the most likely cause, but without more investigation, I could not say for certain. I am not a structural engineer nor a molecular scientist, and with so many top scientists argueing for BOTH sides, I am unsure who to believe. The demolition theory seems to have more weight and be more convincing, but its not strong enough for me to shout about how its been “proven”.
Without knowing for sure what brought the towers down, I can only speculate motive. Since the US administration, and certain investors seem to have gained greatly from the attack, I can assume it was motivated by either economic gains or foreign policy gains, but that’s assuming the attacks were aucastrated by the US, and not binladen. Without knowing for certain what brought the towers down, the argument about motive is very weak and very speculative.
I will add that I have very little faith in the US version, and I don’t think we will ever know what really happened.
It just annoys me when people talk about events as if all the facts are known. You talk about how demolition theory is “proven” and use motive as part of the evidence for this. Motive is not proof, and the science around what actually happened is sketchy at best.
I agree with you that the US had a lot of motive to plan out such attack, and I agree with you that demolition theory is the most plausible, but where we disagree is when you talk about “proof”. We don’t know exactly what happened on that day, and we sure as shit don’t know “why” it happened, we can only speculate. The conspiracy theory videos deal in a lot of speculation, and portray it as fact. This is exactly what you have done, and exactly what the US government has done. Putting forward speculation and presenting it as fact, is not something which I would not want to do.
They DID sustain the impact. Or did you you see the towers collapse right away?
The temperatures created by the fire were not high enough to melt steel [pure iron starts melting at round about 1400°C and they said the fire must've been around 1000°C; see Fe-Fe3C diagram], but you don't need such high temperatures. Steel will lose strength with higher temperatures. And that's just what happened. The steel lost so much strength that it wasn't able to hold its own weight and therefore the weight of the construction and the construction collapsed.
Furthermore only one building had a somewhat proper fire protection. That's the one that stood twice as long (I think the second collapsed after only 45 mins?).
Engineers actually did a simulation and came to the conclusion that every building built like the WTC (and they still seem to build buildings like that) will collapse, if it's burning on at least one floor. Yes, one floor is enough, that's how wrong the whole construction was (only steel and gypsum; no concrete).
i said they were built to sustain the impact, meaning that the impact alone wasnt enought to bring it down. then they said that the fire was the cause of collapse. but the fact is that kerosine can produce heat to about 1/2 of what the steel melting point is - at best conditions, meaning that there is enough oxygen being fed to the flame. the flames inside the building couldnt be burning at great heat, since they didnt have enough oxygen - you can see that from the thick black smoke indicating a lot of carbon ashes. so that makes it impossible to melt the steel, but the firemen saw pools of molten steel, when the towers came down.
also there was a fire in madrid, which was much more intense that the one in wtc towers, and it lasted for 20 hours, leaving the steel frame intact. and even if the fire in the wtc was weakening the steel, there is no way it could heat up such amount of steel to the flames temperature in just 20 minutes.
the goverment and their actions just encourages the disbelief by hiding evidence, and coming up with silly explainations (like that pancake theory).
It shouldn't be funny.
It's a metaphor but since average crossifre IQ is below 60 (mostly because jews of crossfire) none of you shit-brained monkeys can never properly understand it.
I am part of elite.
ow and WTC building nr5 in which some of the many lawsuit documentation for many companies who are friend with Bush lie, also crashed even though nothing of WTC 1 and 2 fell on top of that building.
There were only a few fires in a few windows.
I still like the country as in the US all together, just don't like that government and those neo conservatives.
I think that was #7 and they say it burned on ~30 floors.
Loved the fact that the BBC reported that it collapsed, 20 mins before it actually did, even though you could still see it in the background.
hmm, well will only agree with one thing (shit my head is slow atm :DDD i will NOT go up 8 tomorrow :p).
USA have a lot to blame them self on. ofc it don't justify what happened 9/11 - but history have shown America "need" a enemy. Sad part for them is that their evidence for invade a country is very crap they only do it if they can (or have to protect) thier own interests (OIL). North Korea have more nuclear weapons then the rest of Mideast, but they have no oil... so ;)
well that, and a ton of other evidence that proves demolition by planted explosives
Yeah I have watched all the documentaries such as loose change etc, and although it does look a bit sus, i dont think it quite "proved" anything.
You think Osama, which is basically an actor funded by the US, wants to come on video just before 9/11? Or perhaps because the elections are coming up and the Republicans need a new win :P
in middle ages ppl believed in religion. today everyone over 10 years understands that there is no God (at least not the kind described in the bible). i guess it'll take 500 more years until ppl will much sooner realise that they're being lied to, and that behind every action there is a motive.
and i'm not just talking about the actual phisical evidence, but rather the motives they could have. take osama for an instance. is it in his best interest to kill a few thousand ppl in america, at the cost of his own people, and the fact that he wont be able to go out of a cave for the rest of his life? on the other hand you have USA, which is thirsty for oil and world control, and it just so happens that middle east is full of oil, and iraq and afghanistan arent strong enough (politicaly and in terms of military) to endanger USA (unlike Iran, Russia and China). so basicly all they needed was a reason (with that reason came support) too liberate the oil wells. and whats a few thousand lives compared to a secure market of the entire nation.
try googling for zeitgeist the movie, maybe that will open your eyes a bit more. besides the christianity and 9/11, it reveals that such stunts were nothing new in the US politics, and that the Bush family is familiar with such actions since long ago.
My problem lies with you saying "proof" all the time with reference to demolition theory. Demolition theory is exactly that, a theory. Yes there is a lot of evidence to support it, and there are lots of quite plausible motives for such a an act, but there is also lots of evidence disproving it.
Now I actually agree with you and think demolition theory is a lot more plausable than fire bringing the towers down. Where I dont agree with you is when you talk about "proof".
Now you are right to expect people of a certain age to be able to reason well, and I assure you I can do just that. You however seem to have taken a totally solid standpoint claiming that the arguements you have chosen to believe have been "proven". Now either you are an emplyee of fema, with access to shit that im not, or you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, and not using a good sense of reason.
I think US Government backed this up, but maybe they achieved something more important than the losses
Well evidence proves stuff. Look on the evidence that US goverment acknowledged and the ones found later on. The goverment claimed, that the building fell due to a fire and that the spooky terrorists were responsible, immediately after the collapse without even getting to examine the crashsite and study the evidence. Many people found that unconvincing so they investigated, and they came up with many more plausable scenario, and hard evidence. And i find their findings (backed up by MIT engineers, the engineer who designed the towers, countless other experts in the phisics field) to be less of a theory than the scenario described in the official report.
The "it's official, so it has to be true! the rest is nothing but a theory made up by conspiracy nuts!" attitude is what the men behind 9/11 were counting on, and it worked with the majority of people.
Well, since only fema was allowed access to ground zero, and were the ONLY organisation to be given access to all of the evidence, i think its very hard to say that the investigations youre refering to are worth much more than the official one.
The evidence you are refering to doesnt "prove" anything! Yes, i agree that the demolition theory seems more plausible, but saying its "proof", is exactly the same attitude as the US official version.
Sure you can quote your "experts" etc, but dont you see that there are "experts" who disagree with you. How and why do we choose who to believe? Youre selecting evidence based on your beliefs and putting it about as "proof". This is exactly the same as what the US government has done, and you are guilty of the same thing.
Until and independent investigation is done (which will never happen) youre simply talking bollox when you talk about "proof".
I agree with you that demolition theory seems more plausable, but I simply cant agree with you that its been "proven".
I believe you are speculating, and porning it off as fact, which simply doesnt help your arguement. There are lots of questions I would like the answers to which were not given in the fema report, but I am not about to resort to picking out bits of info and claming them to be "fact".
By the way, have you actually read the fema report or just watched videos?
Evidence against the US goverment are the same that against the terrorists. FEMA reported that they found a passport of one of the hijackers. It was just laying under the upper layer of debre, after sustaining a violent explosion, steel melting flame, and tons of debre crasing on top of it. Officially the black boxes on the airplanes werent recovered, yet a passport made it out without a scratch. Not to mention hundred of witnesses who heard other explosions in other parts of the building (and they dont have a motive to lie, while the goverment has). Also: how do you intend to perform a official investigation against the office itself? It would never have been allowed. Turning the system against itself isnt really possible is it? Thats why all these movies are made. The only way to reform the system is to change it, and only a majority of population has the power to do that.
It was admited that the sinking of an ocean liner with 600 casualites, was intentional so the US could enter the war, and the federal banks would profit from loaning huge amounts of money under a certain interest to sponsor the war.
Anyways I'm not going to convince you any further. You can try to do some research on your own, and you'll see where things stand, instead of just blindly believing everything that is "official". It's people like you who kneeled down when the 10 commandments were delivered, supposedly by mr. God. And it's people like you who supported slaughter of supposed witches, because the kind reverend said that they were performing witchcraft.
Hmm where to start? Firstly, I am highly educated, and I am qualified in Law so I’m sorry if this upsets you. Secondly please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said the official version proved anything either, and suggesting I think that, after I said the demolition theory is more plausible, is simply retarded.
Also you seem to have your facts wrong. You said fema found this passport which is incorrect. Maybe you should go back to your videos, because that passport was found by the FBI, but I forgive your ignorance.
You do keep going into great detail about some of the info mentioned in the conspiracy videos. Can I say AGAIN, that I have seen these videos, and I know what you’re on about. You don’t need to waste more time explaining shit to me again. I have fucking watched the same videos as you! Please understand this before you start explaining them again.
As for your bullshit about the 10 commandments, I am not in any way religious, and I believe I have broken several of them already and don’t care, so please don’t put me into groups when you know nothing about me. As for your witchcraft quote, don’t you see that it is you who is on a witch-hunt? You are the one who is saying things are certain and not in question. I am simply arguing the more investigation would need to be done before you can say anything has been “proven” either way.
And you failed to answer my question about the fema report? I can only assume that you in fact haven’t read it, but only seen the highlights in your favourite videos.
Because you seem unable to grasp the points I am making, I will summarise the main ones…
I agree with you that demolition theory is more plausible.
As far as I am concerned NEITHER side has come close to conclusive proof of anything. All we are left with is a bunch of unanswered questions, and that’s a long way from what you’re claiming. Don’t you see that making arguments in the way you do, without any tolerance on argument only strengthens the official line? You look like a crazy conspiracy nut when you go about harping how demolition theory is “proven”.
A final note, you can put me in your idiot book if you wish. I simply don’t care, and it won’t effect my day in the slightest, so feel free.
No more crazy than people who claim the official report is "prooven".
Somehow the goverment doesn't want more investigations, while these "conspiracy theory nuts" keep on diging. Thats weird: people who had nothing to do with the official report are more interested in discovering the truth, than the people who released the report.
I made those assumptions about you since you seem like a "if its official then its true" guy (it's what kept the religion alive, and what keeps such goverments in power; i make comparison to religion based on the fact that the both are based on bullshit, and it makes people, who cant think for themselves, belive in it). The only way to convince you would be a confession, which we all know wont come for so long as everyone involved or their family members are stil alive.
I'm sure you wouldnt believe that your queen comited suicide if she was found with a rifle bullet in her head, and a bullet trajectory coming from somewhere outside; if the goverment said so. They only need to confiscate the window, plant a gun and the bullet, and there you have the entire england beliving it. Hm not huh?
Yes that exactly my point. You are EXACTLY the same as people who believe the official version has been “proven”. You are unwilling to at least accept that demolition theory might not be true, while crisising others who are unwilling to accept that the official version might not be true. This is hypocritical, but I forgive you.
Have you ever read the fema report fully? Im betting you havnt, so until you have read both sets of evidence your just talking out of your arse saying stuff is “proven”.
Yes, so far you have made a lot of assumptions about me. You have assumed I am deeply religious and stick to the 10 commandments, and also assumed I would burn witches if I had the chance (I wont go into how burning witches breaks several of the 10 commandments). You have also made assumptions about my age and level of education. Yet in all this time I haven’t made a single one about you!
As for all that shit about the Queen, I simply have no clue what you are on about really. Your arguments are put together so badly, I really cant be bothered to figure out your point. I would add though that I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU FROM THE START THAT DEMOLITION THEORY IS THE MOST PLAUSABLE FOR ME!
You fail to see that I actually agree in general with the points you make about demolition theory. I am not saying the official line is the right one, and I never have, but you seem to attack me as if I was. Your unwillingness to accept that you could ever be mistaken only makes you look like a complete conspiracy nut. You are just as pathologically set that you are the only one with the right answers as the US government itself. In fact, you are so unwilling to accept any form of argument on this, that it would actually help you own cause if you just didn’t say anything at all.
What argument have you delivered so far? I'm trying to show a better picture what this kind of act would look on a smaller scale (like in a single murder case: they have the means, they have a motive, and they delivered a suspect), but ok if you dont want to be bothered, why even continue this discussion?
You claim that there is no proof about the attacks from either side. The only way to get proof would be by an official investigation, but there wont be one. So how does this mess get cleaned up?
And you're making assumptions about me not knowing shit about fema reports, and the debunking of the conspiracy theories. I've read some of it (it too much bullshit to go through it all). Basicly they are trying to convince people into believing their report, no hard proof to go along with it, and they keep ignoring some of the facts pointed out by the "stupid conspiracy nuts". Not to mention that they claim they have thousand of witnesses supporting their theory, but everytime those "experts" try to debunk something they come up with an even less likely theory.
Edit: However we're still forgeting the most important thing about 9/11. US attacked Afghanistan as a response to the "terrorist attacks". It's funny how even due to lack of the evidence, people mostly dont compare US to Germany during the WW2 (staged attack of polish forces on the german radio station - hm where is the doubt here? It seems to be common sense that it was staged.) Comparing Hitler to men behind the 9/11 attacks is pretty sensible.
And how does that affect us? Well if it wasnt for the attacks on the oil rich Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/11 wouldn't be as popular. But last time i checked my car doesn't take in vegetable oil, but the same oil the US is providing freedom to. Oil companies and the way they use their power to keep the revolutionary patents off the markets and out of the public, would be a topic for another discussion, but lets leave that for another day.
My argument is that, despite what you say, the facts are not all in. Regarding 9/11 you have taken a lot of speculation and put it forward as fact, which is just not the case. The evidence put forward in the conspiracy documentaries isn’t even close to conclusive, although I agree that it does hold a lot of weight. M point is that you cant take a speculative argument and put it forward as fact. That’s exactly what the US government has done, and its exactly what you are doing.
Well I honestly don’t think what really happened on that day will ever be found out fully. The fema report only looked at fire as a possible cause for the collapse and didn’t consider anything else. Because the US government takes this report as conclusive means there wont be further official investigation. I would point out that this stance by the US govt is exactly the same stance as yourself. Both you and the US govt are unwilling to even consider that they might be wrong.
No, I didn’t assume that. You said fema found the passport which is wrong. You also admit that you haven’t even read the report, so its not an assumption that you know shit about it, it’s a fact! Im always shocked when people put forward arguments like yours without actually reading the evidence from the scene. Now before you witter on, I am not saying that the fema report came to the right conclusion, all I am saying is that you haven’t even looked at it, but still seem to make arguments about the “facts” of the day.
Its hard to convince people like yourself because you wont even read the thing! How do you know there is no proof? If you haven’t read it then I find it hard to see how you can say there is no proof in there?
I am not saying there is proof in the fema report, but I am saying that if you are so certain of demolition theory you should of at least read the official version, and not just watched conspiracy movies. You are taking evidence from one side only, and not even considering for a second that the other side might have an argument equally as persuasive.
You went into great detail about the after effects of 9/11, which I know probably better than yourself. There is no need to explain them, and furthermore, it has nothing to do with what I am saying. My argument is that there are 2 sides to this story, and although I agree with you that demolition theory is more plausible, your lack of willingness to even consider that you might not have all the facts makes you just as guilty as the US government. You accuse them of not listening to all the facts, yet you yourself are guilty of just that!
You really don’t seem to understand what I have been saying to you over and over again. I personally believe that the towers were probably brought down by explosives or something similar, but I don’t think its “proven” or ever will be. This whole event needs level headed arguments and a look at the facts. You don’t deliver level headed arguments, and by your own admission you refuse to look at all the facts.
Before you claim that your side has conclusive “proof”, you need to at least take the time to read what the other side is saying. With an attitude like yours you would be perfectly placed to work in US government; you fit the profile perfectly.
Edit: also an interesting version of FEMA report on 9/11 (the black text is the original fema report, the red is the commentary): http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
I read about the passport being found on the scene, some time ago and i couldnt quite remember wether it was fbi or fema. Also how come fbi could find it if:
?
I'm willing to accept any reality, if it convinces me (by phisical evidence, and the motives). What's your explaination about the motives behind the 9/11, and whats convinced you?
Yes I know you will have read some of the fema report. Some of it is in the documentaries etc, but my point it that you listen to ALL of the information about the demolition theory, yet by your own admission you haven’t read all of the fema report. This means you are selecting evidence which you base your conclusions on. Exactly the same as the us government.
You asked me how could the fbi find the passport if fema was the only organisation allowed access to ground zero. Well I will explain if I must. Lots of organisations were given access to ground zero, the NY fire dept being the most obvious one. Fema was the only organisation given unrestricted access to all of the evidence, and was the only organisation to be allowed to take samples, run tests on the hard evidence on the scene. Usually in a case such as this its expected that you bring in an international body to conduct an investigation, and in this case the US govt chose not to. Again this looks suspicious, but its not “proof” that they are hiding anything. The passport apparently landed on the street, and was found by an FBI agent. It has nothing to do with my comment about fema being the only organisation allowed to conduct investigation on the scene. You completely misunderstood me on this one.
You asked for my personal opinion about what happened and what I think the motives were. I will start by saying I have watched all the major conspiracy movies, as well as the ones supporting the official version of events. I have also read most of the fema report (I couldn’t understand the science bits in places).
For me, the evidence does seem to suggest that there is very little chance of fire bringing down the buildings. The fema report was ONLY investigating fire as a possible cause, and if you look at their conclusions they say that fire is “unlikely to cause the collapse”. Most people, including yourself, seem to think that the fema report backs up the official version of events, when in fact it doesn’t. I tend to agree with the scientists from fema who say fire was unlikely to be the cause and more investigation is needed.
Since I think fire was unlikely to be the cause, what do I think brought the towers down? Well demolition theory does seem to fit the evidence I have seen and read, but I don’t think its proven. I think it’s the most likely cause, but without more investigation, I could not say for certain. I am not a structural engineer nor a molecular scientist, and with so many top scientists argueing for BOTH sides, I am unsure who to believe. The demolition theory seems to have more weight and be more convincing, but its not strong enough for me to shout about how its been “proven”.
Without knowing for sure what brought the towers down, I can only speculate motive. Since the US administration, and certain investors seem to have gained greatly from the attack, I can assume it was motivated by either economic gains or foreign policy gains, but that’s assuming the attacks were aucastrated by the US, and not binladen. Without knowing for certain what brought the towers down, the argument about motive is very weak and very speculative.
I will add that I have very little faith in the US version, and I don’t think we will ever know what really happened.
It just annoys me when people talk about events as if all the facts are known. You talk about how demolition theory is “proven” and use motive as part of the evidence for this. Motive is not proof, and the science around what actually happened is sketchy at best.
I agree with you that the US had a lot of motive to plan out such attack, and I agree with you that demolition theory is the most plausible, but where we disagree is when you talk about “proof”. We don’t know exactly what happened on that day, and we sure as shit don’t know “why” it happened, we can only speculate. The conspiracy theory videos deal in a lot of speculation, and portray it as fact. This is exactly what you have done, and exactly what the US government has done. Putting forward speculation and presenting it as fact, is not something which I would not want to do.
The temperatures created by the fire were not high enough to melt steel [pure iron starts melting at round about 1400°C and they said the fire must've been around 1000°C; see Fe-Fe3C diagram], but you don't need such high temperatures. Steel will lose strength with higher temperatures. And that's just what happened. The steel lost so much strength that it wasn't able to hold its own weight and therefore the weight of the construction and the construction collapsed.
Furthermore only one building had a somewhat proper fire protection. That's the one that stood twice as long (I think the second collapsed after only 45 mins?).
Engineers actually did a simulation and came to the conclusion that every building built like the WTC (and they still seem to build buildings like that) will collapse, if it's burning on at least one floor. Yes, one floor is enough, that's how wrong the whole construction was (only steel and gypsum; no concrete).
also there was a fire in madrid, which was much more intense that the one in wtc towers, and it lasted for 20 hours, leaving the steel frame intact. and even if the fire in the wtc was weakening the steel, there is no way it could heat up such amount of steel to the flames temperature in just 20 minutes.
the goverment and their actions just encourages the disbelief by hiding evidence, and coming up with silly explainations (like that pancake theory).
NOT
idd
It's a metaphor but since average crossifre IQ is below 60 (mostly because jews of crossfire) none of you shit-brained monkeys can never properly understand it.
I am part of elite.
Anyone remember the name of the game?
here is the real terrorist imo
And to the haters go watch some fucking cute cats.
There were only a few fires in a few windows.
I still like the country as in the US all together, just don't like that government and those neo conservatives.
Loved the fact that the BBC reported that it collapsed, 20 mins before it actually did, even though you could still see it in the background.
USA have a lot to blame them self on. ofc it don't justify what happened 9/11 - but history have shown America "need" a enemy. Sad part for them is that their evidence for invade a country is very crap they only do it if they can (or have to protect) thier own interests (OIL). North Korea have more nuclear weapons then the rest of Mideast, but they have no oil... so ;)