9/11 Conspiracy Theories!

Great Debates
202

[quote]
The reporter says “there is a large crater on the ground” at the point that the camera, which is swinging around, focuses on what might be a burn mark on the ground or a hole; it’s hard to tell. It’s impossible to say if that is in fact the place the airplane crashed or if it’s the "official site."quote]

It’s probably a crater like she says it is. And sorry, this is supposed to be a crash site that extends over a wide area. The debris is scattered around, but what the hell made that smoking crater and blew those garage doors in? Also you can hear the people commenting on how there weren’t any large pieces of debris found at the official crash site, which is the second site they show you. These are all the people who were on the scene first saying “Man, hardly anything there…”

No, you’re misinterpreting the reporter’s words, she specifically says “the most horrifying aspect of this particular crash scene is how little debris is visible.” She’s not saying “Oh man I see all kinds of debris! It’s everywhere!!!” She comments on how little there is, and how small it all is.

Please, if they’re lying about the official story of Flight 93, is it implausible to believe that they might be lying about the rest of 9/11?

203

Thing is, you’ve got your building all with explosives. You’re ready to press the button and kill everyone. Then some idiot rams a plane into the building. What if he cuts your wiring? What if the fires set off some explosives ahead of time? What if with all the cops and firefighters running around, somebody notices your demolition preparations? What if they notice your prepared explosives and decide to try cutting the blue wire…no, the red one! What if a cop stops you and asks why you’re sitting there holding a radio controller with a big red button labeled “press this to destroy WTC”?

If you’ve wired the building for demolition you’d have to be insane to smash a plane into the building and possibly ruin everything.

Wait, they had to smash a plane into the building for a cover story, and we know they did this because a plane smashed into the building, so therefore the plane smashing into the building had to be the cover story? Why not something simpler, that doesn’t risk your plan failing utterly? You have a sinister cabal that can sneak into the WTC and wire it up with explosives, but they can’t come up with a better cover story? What’s wrong with “terrorists parked a truck filled with explosives in the basement parking garage, but this one was 10 times more powerful than the 1993 bombing”? The closer the cover story is to the truth, the better.

See, a reasonable conspiracy theory would be: A sinister cabal wants war with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or whatever. It doesn’t matter the reason, maybe they want a pipeline, maybe they want to destroy our freedom, maybe they want juicy Iraq reconstruction contracts, whatever, motivation is unknown. So they hijack 4 planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon, and blame the hijacking on Al Qaida. The cover story is virtually identical to the real story. See how simple that is? See how much sense that would make? See how few loose ends that leaves? It’s a fucking bulletproof conspiracy. So why didn’t the cabal…which we know was capable of flying planes into at least two buildings (stipulating for a second that the Pentagon was ambigiuous, which it wasn’t, but let’s stipulate that it was)…why didn’t they just leave it at that?

Even in Bin Ladin’s tape he says he didn’t neccesarily expect the buildings to collapse, but he was happy they did. Why wouldn’t framing Al Queda for killing hundreds of people be good enough to invade Afghanistan and build the goddam pipeline they want, although the cabal still needs to get around to it 5 years later.

So why do we need the horrendous extra risk, when the simple plan gets you everything you need? The cover story is GOOD ENOUGH. Like the JFK assassination, a lone gunman killing the president from a sniper’s nest is GOOD ENOUGH. It doesn’t have to be Oswald in the sniper’s nest, but why not Oswald? OK, Oswald was a patsy (not that he was, but stipulated). You don’t need to involve anyone else except one guy with one rifle in the right place at the right time. You don’t need to get warmongering generals on board, you don’t need to compromise the Warren Commision, you don’t need anything except one guy with a rifle. The simplest plan is the best plan. The simplest consipiracy is the best conspiracy.

So if your conspiracy has the ability to fly airplanes into the WTC, why do you need anything else?

204

Because they also needed all those buildings blown up, for whatever sinister reason.

Must…contain…insults!!! Would it not be possible that the building isn’t “wired” but that they have radio detonators? With all the cutting edge stuff we got nowadays, I’m sure they can think of something. Besides, the planes probably crashed pretty close to where they wanted them to.

Then you whip out your badge, phony or not, and say “FBI punk, move along.”

I mean, wasn’t it the FBI who discovered Satam al-Sugami’s passport a couple blocks from the World Trade Center.

Oh man… my mind is blown. Hold on… let’s see if I can get this straight:

  1. The fireballs of the WTC attacks melted structural steel that was designed to withstand heat of 2000 degrees F.

  2. The fireballs of the WTC attacks completely destroyed both airplanes cockpit voice-recorders (situated at front)and the black-box data recorders (located in the rear of the aircraft).

  3. The fireballs of the WTC attacks vaporized human bone and flesh.

  4. And yet those same fireballs somehow weren’t strong enough to do anything to a pair of surviving passportsfound in pristine condition. No surface scratches, scuffs, abrasions or burns. Perfect.

I think they need to rewrite that one joke. If a plane ever crashes you won’t find me sitting on top of the black box, you’ll find me gripping a Saudi passport.

205

Is the reporter looking at the scene live or just watching the video feed? Has the reporter actually been to the entire site? Is she at the main crash site, or just as one debris impact point? We don’t know what she’s seen or what she hasn’t seen.

Do you have any direct, objective evidence that establishes either than the WTC was destroyed by demolitions or that Flight 93 was shot down?

Yes or no?

206

Sure…though I’ve never heard of a building being brought down by radio controlled explosions before. You’d need a LOT of them…one for each charge. Do you have any EVIDENCE that this was so? Do you, say, have evidence of the detonators? As I say, there would be a hell of a lot of them.

If the building was traditionally wired, well, there would the physical evidence of all those wires, the detenators, explosives, etc. Got any of that?

Or perhaps the building was knocked down by a series of psychic shocks…in which case you wouldn’t need any of that pesky physical evidence. It seems nearly as plausable to me that a psychic dropped the building as that it was dropped by radio controlled explosives (leaving aside the whole ‘air plane crashes into building’ thingy).
Do you know what Occam’s Razor is by chance? Because by attempting to hold onto this ridiculous series of events things are getting a bit complex now…and there is STILL that pesky lack of physical evidence.

BTW, are you going to address some of my points from the previous page about why there would have been (purportedly) a series of explosions (after the plane crash of course), then a wait, then (after a fairly long elapsed time) ANOTHER series of explosions (what were the first ones for?) finally bringing down the building? I’m curious how this will fit into this increasingly complex explaination.

-XT

207

I think you just wrote Season 6 of 24.

208

The 9/11 Commission itself says his passport was “clearly doctored.” Question: was it really on the plane, doctored by the person who turned it over to the NYPD, or doctored by someone else before being found on the street?

209

The wreckage of the buildings was accomplished with a fine-toothed comb. So CTs can’t say “they missed it”. And CTs should stay away from any nonsense that the hundreds, if not thousands of people, searching the wreckage were all part of the cabal keeping the truth from our unseeing eyes.

Lastly, bigpappadiaz, stop with the inane " Must…contain…insults!!!" Every conspiracy loon, whether it’s the moon landing or flouridated water or the CIA scanning brain waves says the same damn thing. They’re so smart and we’re stupid for not seeing the truth. Unrecognized geniuses, the lot of them.

210

Whatever they’re showing at 17:25 in that video, I don’t think it’s the impact crater. It’s some blurry shape on the ground in front of someone’s garage.

The crater I see is at 18:51, and it’s like I would expect from a high-speed impact.

211

Yes, thats the point I’ve been trying (in vain appearently) to get across to the CT’s. There were literally thousands of rescue workers, investigators (from myriad organizations), police, and other volunteers literally crawling over the wreckage (including my brother in law…fire fighter from DC who volunteered with his buddies to go down and help out). Yet…where is the physical evidence? Were all these folks (including my brother in law…who myself I wouldn’t trust with the key to my dogs house, let alone a secret THIS big) in on it?

Its like these folks figure that there wouldn’t be physical evidence. The building fall down and go boom, right? They don’t seem to realize that there is ALWAYS such evidence…especially for something this big.

For a moment, lets suspend reason and logic and buy into this thing. For some convoluted reason, some one gets the wild idea to frame AQ (and Afghanistan) for killing a bunch of American’s. They decide that the best way to do this is to stage a plane crash and then bring down the buildings with explosives (Steady there! We are in suspended believe mode!). To do this they would need precisely timed explosions set throughout the building on all the load bearing members…and would probably have to over engineer too boot because none of the usual prep work could have been done (I’m fairly certain folks would have noticed drill holes, bared structural supports intentionally weakend, long snakes of det-cord going to a central location, etc).

Fast forward. They crash the plane into the building (for gods know what reason), then set off a series of isolated explosions that are (supposedly) heard by the fire fighters on the scene. I suppose, since we have suspended reality and logic here, it could be that these initial explosions were to weaken some of the supports (though again, gods know why they would weaken them, then wait, then let off the next series of explosions). Then set off the terminal series of explosions that ultimately brings it all down.

But…where are the detenators? Where is the explosive residue? I mean, it would take a LOT of them to bring down BOTH buildings, right? It certainly takes a lot of explosives (in very precise locations) to bring down buildings on The Discovery Channel (cool to watch though). Where are the clear signs that structural members were in fact blasted with explosives (again, it would be a LOT of such structural members that would need to be taken out to bring it down per the CT’s own description of what it would take)? Were these magic explosives? Were they detonated by thinking bad thoughts? I can only suspend reality so far…it just won’t bend to magic explosives that leave no trace, of detenators (wired or wireless) that leave no trace, etc etc.

-XT

212

Yeah, as you say. Or maybe they had one multi-frequency detonator for the whole thing?

You must be blind. Thank God the reporter tells us what it is, though. A crater.

Exactamundo. Except we don’t all say the same thing. You don’t see me harking about brain waves or flouridated water or tinfoil hats do you? 9/11 isn’t any of those things, so you’re comparing apples and oranges. :wally:

213

I’m not a demolition expert, but I’ve seen a few demolition shows on TV. One of the recurring themes is the need for the charges to go off in a precise and exact sequence. If the charges don’t off exactly as planned, the buildings do not go down precisely as planned.

Another recurring theme in the demolition is the weakening of the structure prior to setting off the charges. OK, rely on the planes to do this. But if they miss, just a couple of floors, then you don’t get this.

Now, say you had all your demolition charges set just so. And the plane hits a few floors too high (or low) and sets off a few of your carefully placed charges. Or impacts in an area away from where you set the charges. Now you have a problem.

Wouldn’t it be a terrible blow if say 1/3 of the charges were detonated by the plane impact, and the rest of the charges, now out of sync with the rest, were not sufficient to bring the building down? And say the fire was contained. And all your demolition work was found?

And you had to work around this not once, but twice? You have to be 100% certain that a highly controlled demolition has to function perfectly. How could you know before hand the extent of the damage the planes might do to your demolition charges?

And where were the charges in the Pentagon? You set charges in the WTC and in a field in PA, but none in the Pentagon? Surely you knew a single cruise missle wouldn’t do much to a reinforced structure such as the Pentagon? You have to cover your tracks, remember? You have to be certain no traces remain. So you need some charges set up in the Pentagon.

You have a fantastic scenario, straight out of Rube Goldberg, and a cover up involving thousands that relies on an exact set of actions to go off perfectly, all while dancing around the crash of a jet airliner.

Yet you dismiss out of hand that a group of terrorists crashed 2 planes in to some incredibly heavy buildings, structually weakening them (see your picture of the “lady” standing in the hole in the side. Do you have any idea how massive those beams were? Broken like pencils) and then fire further weakening them to the point of collapse.

214

And even if they do go off exactly as planned, the buildings sometimes do not go down precisely as planned. I’m referring to that hotel in Vegas that was much more solid that the plans suggested and required a second set of charges to bring down.

215

After 5 pages I don’t have much to add but why do people feel a need to debunk conspiracy nuts, urban legend followers, religeous fanatics , psychos and other ‘ignoratti’? If a crazy person runs up to me and tells me the Earth is flat, I don’t show him a globe. I smile and nod and go about my business.
The problem with the 9/11 conspiracies is that no one ever goes into relevant details - who set the charges, where did the plane go, etc. etc. etc.

216

It’s a good thing they used military-grade thermite to take those things down, which cut through the steel like a hot knife through butter. Also the weight of the building collapsing on itself helped take them all the way down.

My picture? I didn’t post that. But even so, let’s look at it. Hmmm… no raging inferno that I can see. Do you see a raging inferno capable of melting fireproofed steel? Still looks like a person standing there to me, though. I guess some people only see what they want to, though. :rolleyes:

217

I’m just bored. And my tin foil hat is at the cleaners.

218

Cite?

Wow! Just like if, you know, some planes had hit them?

I’m takling of the shattered beams. Those things were made from steel that looks to be about an inch thick, and the beams themselves were huge. They are also the main structural element of the buildings. All of this done with some high speed aluminum. So enough energy to knock out a few tons of solid steel that we can see, no telling what the damage further in was like. And you’re right. No fire. None of the pictures I’ve ever seen had any fire coming from the buildings. :rolleyes:

219

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm

Here’s footage of that “pillar”, as you called it, from the crash site waving.

220

Do yourself a favor and forget the smarmy smilies.

Yes, I personally saw a raging inferno. I personally saw people throw themselves from the window. I personally saw people on fire on the ground, presumably ignited by the debris from the first impact. I was across the fucking street from the WTC that morning. Planes ran into them. They collapsed as we were evacuating. The structural shortcomings of the buildings that led to the collapsed are well documented. Everything else, every other theory, is being wound of someone’s wet dream of massive governmental conspiracies. And yes, the people buying into this crap are absolutely no different from the people believing that the CIA controls people with their brainwaves. It’s not apples to oranges. It’s Macintosh to Fuji.

221

OoOOooOo, do I make you mad? You write us all off as the same type of loony conspiracy theorist even though there’s a lot of regular folk who think something suspicious happened as well. It’s not all crazy, use your brain, the world is changing ever so quickly and lots of important people are getting knocked off left and right. There were plenty of reasons to blow those towers.