Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking

[Marley23]

@NYC_Chic

Because we all know, all crimes and horrendous acts make perfect sense and criminals and killers are very linear and straightforward in there thinking.

So they were clever enough to plot this hoax and do a near-perfect job of keeping it a secret, but they were too irrational to think they were making their job much, much harder?

[pravnik]

@NYC_Chic

O ye of little faith!

Because we all know, all crimes and horrendous acts make perfect sense and criminals and killers are very linear and straightforward in there thinking.

When it comes to proving crimes, I’m big on evidence and short on faith. When you talk about a horrendous crime that makes no sense, you’re talking about a “senseless” crime, which is very different from a “nonsensical” crime that Lemur866 is describing.

[NYC_Chic]

@xtisme

But what is your evidence for this? I could posit a theory of mutant space chipmunks using graviton acorns dropped from orbit…but without any evidence it’s just a theory (though a good theory which I fervently believe).

Bringing down buildings that big through demolition would entail a LOT of explosives, wiring and modifications to the infrastructure. It would leave a lot of evidence. So…let’s see some of it.

-XT

Your pal Guiliani got all the evidence out there too quick for any of that. If the planes had been reconstructed like they do any** EVERY **time and the steel had been tested to see why it failed like they do EVERY other time, then we’d have conclusive evidence one way or the other. But because it was absolutely imperative to clear out an area that’s STILL CORDONED OFF and eight years later STILL not accessible to the public, all we can do is theorize and speculate or accept and swallow.

[XT]

Did you listen to the video? I’m guessing…no.

-XT

[NYC_Chic]

@Marley23

But you don’t say how often these kind of simulations are run. If they’re commonplace, it’s not even a very interesting coincidence.
:

Yet another puzzle. It may be four times a year or twice a year. Because this is not really information the public needs, I can see why its not released. It probably wasn’t released to the Arabs either which makes it a very interesting coincidence.

[Fish]

@NYC_Chic

I already said it. My theory is the buildings were rigged with explosives and brought down in some form of controlled demolition.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off. Have you any evidence for a controlled demolition at all, other than “I don’t like the official story?”

[NYC_Chic]

@Marley23

By the way, you didn’t answer my question, AND you may have overlooked this comment from the author of the story you linked to:Quote:
(The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so do I.)

It factors into my conspiracy theory. The 9/11 commision report doesn’t mention what happened to Tower 7 but it did fall, right? I have never read an article about 9/11 in a mainstream corporate media publication where the author didn’t take great pains to make sure you know they absolutely, faithfully and devoutly believe what the govt says happened 9/11/01.

[Loach]

@NYC_Chic

Your pal Guiliani got all the evidence out there too quick for any of that. If the planes had been reconstructed like they do any** EVERY **time and the steel had been tested to see why it failed like they do EVERY other time, then we’d have conclusive evidence one way or the other. But because it was absolutely imperative to clear out an area that’s STILL CORDONED OFF and eight years later STILL not accessible to the public, all we can do is theorize and speculate or accept and swallow.

Huh? Hundreds if not thousands of people have been through there. Its now a construction site. It is not a public area. What do you expect to find?

How about rebuting some of the answers you were given? Giant holes have been shot through your “theory”. You have not answered to any of them. I don’t think you have the ability.

[Lemur866]

@NYC_Chic

O ye of little faith!

Because we all know, all crimes and horrendous acts make perfect sense and criminals and killers are very linear and straightforward in there thinking.

Right, except the Illuminati were clever enough that 8 years later we still don’t have any evidence of their involvement.

Sure, stupid criminals carry out all sorts of stupid crimes that don’t make sense. But those stupid impulsive criminals tend to get caught.

Either the Illuminati are run of the mill criminals like the Russian mafia, or they’re something different.

[XT]

@NYC_Chic

It factors into my conspiracy theory. The 9/11 commision report doesn’t mention what happened to Tower 7 but it did fall, right?

Yup, Tower 7 did collapse. And it’s not exactly a mystery as to why…

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: “The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one.”

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA’s preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building’s unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

-XT

[Loach]

A more detailed debunking of building 7. With facts and pictures even. I know that doesn’t hold up against the idea that it was destroyed in order to make it into a giant paper shredder.

[pravnik]

@NYC_Chic

I have never read an article about 9/11 in a mainstream corporate media publication where the author didn’t take great pains to make sure you know they absolutely, faithfully and devoutly believe what the govt says happened 9/11/01.

So the mainstream media’s acceptance of the official version of events is evidence of a conspiracy, but if the media for the most part didn’t accept the official story, that would be evidence of a conspiracy too, right?

[XT]

Another cite on Tower 7 (with a nice picture of the debris pattern).

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn’t hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he “pulled” it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn’t hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn’t have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

Some interesting photos there too…for those will actually click the link and take a look.

-XT

[Lemur866]

@NYC_Chic

It factors into my conspiracy theory. The 9/11 commision report doesn’t mention what happened to Tower 7 but it did fall, right?

So it was all a big plot to distract us from the destruction of Tower 7, the real goal of the conspiracy.

[Marley23]

@NYC_Chic

Yet another puzzle.

It’d be interesting to know, but I don’t find it puzzling.

It probably wasn’t released to the Arabs either which makes it a very interesting coincidence.

Actually that’s the definition of a coincidence.

@NYC_Chic

It factors into my conspiracy theory. The 9/11 commision report doesn’t mention what happened to Tower 7 but it did fall, right?

It wasn’t hit by the attackers, no. Do you think they left it out in the hopes nobody everbody would forget it fell down?
How was it possible to hide all of these explosives in WTC 1 and 2 with nobody noticing or blabbing, and that the rigging of the explosives was not damaged when the buildings were hit by planes?

I have never read an article about 9/11 in a mainstream corporate media publication where the author didn’t take great pains to make sure you know they absolutely, faithfully and devoutly believe what the govt says happened 9/11/01.

Perhaps they don’t want to be mistaken for a bunch of dribbling lunatics? In any case this is the same kind of logic Kennedy assassination theorists generally use. They talk and talk about how the media suppresses The Truth, meanwhile half the population believes there was some kind of conspiracy, the internet is full of it, Oliver Stone made a major motion picture about it, and even the History Channel reruns that “Men Who Killed Kennedy” garbage pretty often, so what’s been suppressed?

[Loach]

@xtisme

Another cite on Tower 7 (with a nice picture of the debris pattern).

Some interesting photos there too…for those will actually click the link and take a look.

-XT

Thats the page I linked to a couple of posts ago. What you are forgeting is that building 7 was destroyed to get rid of some papers. Get with the program.
I much prefer the Pentagon missile theory. We saw planes hit the towers. Everyone seems to be on board with the fact that a plane went down in PA. But somehow the cabal thought it was a better idea to use a missile instead of a plane to hit the Pentagon. Where the logic there? And where did the plane go? It is fantastically nutty.

[Der_Trihs]

@Marley23

They talk and talk about how the media suppresses The Truth, meanwhile half the population believes there was some kind of conspiracy, the internet is full of it, Oliver Stone made a major motion picture about it, and even the History Channel reruns that “Men Who Killed Kennedy” garbage pretty often, so what’s been suppressed?

That Elvis was the mastermind behind it all, on the behalf of his secret masters the lizard people. Kennedy was secretly collaborating with the Grays and had to be dealt with.

[Fish]

Try to follow the logic here:

1. Assume that the goals of the conspiracy were to
   …a) destroy the buildings
   …b) start a war in the Middle East
   …c) use Muslim terrorist hijackers as a scapegoat
2. Assume that a plane is not powerful enough to destroy the WTC.
3. Therefore, assuming 2 is true, then something else destroyed the WTC.
4. The WTC destruction has been compared to a controlled demolition; let us assume that the WTC was destroyed in this fashion.
5. Therefore, the conspiracy set out to
   …a) rig the buildings with explosives, at great cost and in secret,
   …b[sub]1[/sub]) coordinate the explosives precisely with real airplanes, or
   …b[sub]2[/sub]) create false eyewitness accounts and special-effects footage showing airplanes hitting the tower; kidnap all eyewitnesses who claim there was no airplane; seize every camera in New York City that was aimed even vaguely in the direction of the WTC,
   …c) comb through millions of tons of wreckage disposing of, covering up, destroying, or concealing evidence of step 5a,
   …d) coerce, bribe, convince, or brainwash thousands of people in the media to pretend that 1c is true,
   …e) suppress all evidence and discussion that the WTC was not destroyed by airplanes and yet they haven’t come for you.

Doesn’t that sound much more complicated than it needs to be? Doesn’t it sound like it would have to involve billions of dollars, thousands of people, and have a high probability of discovery? Compare to this:

1. Assume that the goals of the conspiracy were to
   …a) destroy the buildings
   …b) start a war in the Middle East
   …c) use Muslim terrorist [del]hijackers[/del] bombers as a scapegoat — namely, the same bombers that tried to bomb the WTC last time.
2. [unnecessary]
3. [unnecessary]
4. The WTC destruction has been compared to a controlled demolition; let us assume that the WTC was destroyed in this fashion.
5. Therefore, the conspiracy set out to
   …a) rig the buildings with explosives, at great cost and in secret,
   …b[sub]1[/sub]) unncessary
   …b[sub]2[/sub]) unnecessary
   …c) unnecessary
   …d) unnecessary
   …e) unnecessary

Doesn’t this sound much more reasonable? If the conspiracy wanted us to believe terrorists destroyed the WTC the airplane cover story was not needed. There would be no need to hide millions of tons of wreckage. No black box. Thousands of co-conspirators could be eliminated. Blaming it on airplanes increases the complexity, cost, and risk of the conspiracy by several orders of magnitude.

If your ultra-rich, super-intelligent, vast secret conspiracy was sitting around the table proposing the first version, surely somebody said, “Hold it, guys, let’s just say they bombed the Towers. That’s a shitload easier to pull off, and safer too.”

[Loach]

@Fish

If your ultra-rich, super-intelligent, vast secret conspiracy was sitting around the table proposing the first version, surely somebody said, “Hold it, guys, let’s just say they bombed the Towers. That’s a shitload easier to pull off, and safer too.”

Especially since it happened before.

[XT]

@Loach

Thats the page I linked to a couple of posts ago.

Yeah, I think we were probably looking it up at the same time. I had to search back through some of my old links from the last time we had one of these loony 9/11 CT threads to find the right link.

What you are forgeting is that building 7 was destroyed to get rid of some papers.

In an outrageously bad accent Papers?!?!? We don’t neeeeed no steeenking papers!

-XT