So the boxes were constructed then really to provide information about crashes that happen at low speeds? They just kind of disintegrate otherwise? And I thought they gave like a homing signal. I wonder if the intense heat from the jet fuel didn’t disable the homing signal in the two hour fires that powderized the black boxes and the steel supports of the building. Causing the towers to peel open and reach around WTC 5 to Tower 7. Which caused the blazing fires that
caused the mechanical tower to on top of it to collapse and then the middle to buckle in as it slid down in its own foot print.
The planes came in at what floors again? How many stories from the top in each case?
You guys have convinced me. Now it all makes sense :smack:.
No, seriously. I’m going to a party tonight and I have to go get pretty:cool:.
I think we all realized long ago that you and others captivated with the supposed conspiracy (which ever CT it happens to be) are immune to convincing. No amount of data or logic is going to get through.
The hope here is that someone following along who hasn’t made their mind up and who is actually willing to read the mountain of evidence against the CT (and who doesn’t use a YouTube video and their own uncertain understanding of what they are seeing as the basis for their assertions…well, that and their feelings of course). YOU are most likely a lost cause…but perhaps someone else will benefit from the effort (and the efforts of countless other 'dopes in myriad old threads on this same, tired subject).
Try opening up some of the links in the cites already given you, ehe? The thing is, you might not want to simply watch the videos…well, unless you are a structural engineer with access to frame by frame analysis tools with digital enhancement. Because frankly just watching the footage and making determinations based solely on that is, well, rather silly, if you aren’t.
ARE you a structural engineer with access to the necessary equipment? Based on your posts so far I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’, but it’s always polite to ask.
Nope…sorry. Nearly all of my other online persona’s on previous message boards have ‘XT’ in them somewhere. The one exception was ‘Occam’ that I used.
At any rate, I think I’m done here. I’ve seen too many of these played out not to know what the end result of THIS one will be. You will continue to ignore the mountain of cites given you, while making silly and ignorant comments that just show how little you know about the subject. You will continue to ask for cites and then debunk the debunking based on your own feelings and intuition, or what you saw on a grainy YouTube video. And it will go around and around until the thread finally winds down to one or two 'dopers who will continue to try, in the face of insurmountable ignorance, to beat their heads bloody against the wall of your intransigence.
“There was somehow a coincidental training exercise
going on the same day where planes were supposed
to be crashed into the Towers as part of the exercise.”
You have not at all shown that there was an exercise that involved simulated planes being flown into the Twin Towers. That’s a big FAIL.
Yes, there was a military exercise going on, involving Soviet bombers or maybe a hijacked plane to Cuba. This was a coincidence, but not an astounding coincidence, because when we’re not at war, our military does exercises all the time.
So what was the effect of this exercise? It didn’t confuse anyone - very early in the day, the people asked, were told it was not an exercise, and that was it. The fact that there had been an exercise did not slow down any responses that day. In fact, it made sure that NORAD was staffed up, with their best people in the room. If you were wanting to slow down NORAD, you wouldn’t schedule an activity that put all the best people at their working positions ready to go.
They started shipping it over to Staten Island, where it was carefully sorted through.
Why should they? The Commission’s job was to investigate how our intelligence let a group of terrorists attack us from the inside. WTC7 was not attacked by terrorists.
At temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 F), with plenty of fuel, after smashing into a building at hundreds of miles per hour, followed by the building collapsing on top of them. [I know, it just sounds crazy!] That’s from here, and you should probably read this anyway.
The first plane hit at about floor 93 and the second at around 81, out of 110 floors. I know, it’s amazing to think the boxes could have been damaged by the crash, extreme fire, 20 to 30 tower floors falling on them, and then a drop of hundreds of feet.
First, what the fuck is supposed to be in these black boxes that is going to prove NYC_Chic’s case? A photo of George Bush giving Bin Laden a blow job and a gross of box cutters?
I have a feeling the only data we would receive from them is a) plane go 500 mph, blow up and b) Aaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!
By ‘pipe dreams’, do you mean oil pipes, or something else
The best thing about a thread like this is that it creates an atmosphere of maximum skepticism- ideally, only the truth can survive. So far, the idea that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on bullshit has survived, no? And the concept that oil was a motive has also survived, and in fact flourished, at least in my view. Pipes across Afghanistan, buried patents for electric car batteries, etc.
But not a conspiracy? Though in the public eye, ‘they’ seem to have worked together in secret to invade Iraq, and seized on the post-911 atmosphere to advance that agenda. Merely delusional? It is so difficult for me to accept that the government is mad… as bad as a conspiracy theory actually.
I’ll grant that it was predicated on bullshit; I happen to think that Bush actually believed his administration’s bullshit. They wanted real bad to believe that Saddam had WMDs, so they accepted uncritically any reports that he did, and didn’t use proper skepticism.
A motive, sure. Not the motive, but I can’t imagine anyone arguing that we’d be messing with Iraq if they didn’t have the oil.
There’s a pipe across Afghanistan?!?
Buried patents? What are you talking about now? The car company who built a better battery would have the equivalent of a license to print money. Why would they bury that?
The proposal has stalled since we took over Afghanistan. The Taliban apparently controls the area it would run through.
Not that I know that anyone did in this case, but I understand it’s not that unusual for a company to research something just so they can patent it, sit on the patent and deny the technology from their competitors. Yes, they might make more money in the long run by using it, but in the short run they’d have to spend money on retooling factories and such. That sort of thing is why I think we need some sort of use-it-or-lose-it provision for patents.
This website seemed to substantiate the idea that a string of administrations had sought an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, and that Bush’s efforts were merely the latest.
And- you didn’t know that Chevron is sitting on patents for electric car batteries? NiMh to be exact- not as good as the lithium-ion batteries you hear about, but since nickel costs a fraction compared to lithium considering it’s wild abundance (or lithium’s relative scarcity), a workable option for mass-produced electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Can I cite later? Please look for it yourself. It is late.
The other day a friend mentioned, “It could not have been a conspiracy, the ruling class had too many chips on the table and the danger of being caught was too high.”
NYC_Chic, since you mentioned WTC7 here’s my previous thread on it after NIST finished up their analysis of what happened. Please take a look at the summary of that report and the FAQ which answers many common questions.
As in all of these threads I think it’s important for people raising technical issues to say what their background is in the related areas. I feel somewhat qualified to comment on structural questions based on my education; I have a BS and MS in structural engineering from one of the top civil engineering schools in the country with an emphasis on steel & concrete construction. I’ve also got some experience with thermite (I throw that in due to the number of people who insist that some or all of the WTC structures were brought down using the stuff) - one of my fellow students did his graduate dissertation on its use in repairing steel rails so we had plenty of it being lit off in our crane bay and I know first-hand what it does.
You have expressed your opinion that some or all of the WTC structures were demolished with set charges. May I ask what your background is in structural engineering, construction or demolitions?
On the other topic, FWIW, this is the best 911 conspiracy video I have seen: 911 Mysteries -though it will take a while to get through all the links in this thread. Thanks for all the info everyone. The evidence against the demolition theory does seem to be overwhelming IMHO, though there are still some unanswered questions. Specific to the video- how did some of the structural steel get deformed as if by a bomb? Why was the site cleared so fast, seemingly with a shoddy investigation-or is that a misconception? Don’t get me wrong, these are unanswered questions- I can’t buy that it was a demolition in the face of the counter-arguments.
To me it looks like his team just wanted to go to war and built their case around that- they wanted the public to believe it real bad. For example, informant in the yellowcake uranium story was thought to be not credible before the war, and the story considered unreliably flimsy by the intelligence community. Remember, the expert inspectors were all saying ‘There are NO WMDs, and trust us, we’ve looked everywhere’. The WMD theory then is really a conspiracy theory, right? Bush believes that, undetected by the whole world, in Saddam’s garage or something, a nuke is being built! How could someone with so much access to information believe that? But it seems the story served the war motive and so they went with it anyway.
Hmmm… do you think what Bush believed pre-war is a question that can be settled at all?
What are your qualifications? Logic is not one of them. Maybe some training?
The fact that anyone with one bit of knowledge has debunked anything you have said. You have no knowledge of what it would take to set up a controlled detonation. When anyone gives you facts you ignore them.
It did not fall down into its own footprint. It fell straight down because of the way that building happened to be made and because of this weird thing called gravity. If you look at the aerial photos of #7 in my cite you will see that even though most of it fell straight down as expected it also toppled so that part of it landed on the surrounding buildings. There are diagrams on that site from qualified people explaining in great detail what happened. You have your feeling that it doesn’t look right.
Early on you put great stock on the fact that someone claimed to have seen the black boxes. When he was pointed out to be a liar, a thief and a fraud you don’t have anything to refute it. I’ll say it again. What could possibly be on the flight data recorder that would be a shocking revelation?
I’d be interested to know how many “official theory” thinkers have religious beliefs, and how many “twoofers” are atheists? It would seem to me that if you can buy the lie of religion, buying some government bullshit should come naturally.
Can anyone explain why it was “necessary” to blow up the towers? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks it wouldn’t have been sufficient to just fly some planes into them and leave it at that?
Would the end result have really been different as far as The Wishes Of The Evil Cabal?
Actually, it seems to me that the critical thinking skills used to come to atheism/rejection of organized religion are the same that can be used to realize what a load of bullshit 9/11 denial is.
-Cisco, atheist. Compare to David Ray Griffin, professor of theology, and Steven Jones, Mormon.
The regulars here are not exactly representative of the nation as a whole, but it’s nearly unanimous here that 19 muslim terrorists were responsible for 9/11, and almost everyone here is atheist/agnostic. I think they go together - they’re both the result of good critical thinking skills, like Cisco said.
I’m not familiar with that - what steel was deformed as if by a bomb? And how do bombs deform steel? I’d think the steel would be ripped out right at the blast location, but otherwise intact. And the image I get from the word “deformed” is what would result from a fire and weight. But a link would be nice.
Well, I’ve seen several theories (I’m not going to bother looking them up…I try and avoid crazy whenever I can). One of them was that it was Israel (or some other requisite Jewish Cabal, etc etc), and the purpose was to get the US to attack Israel’s (or said Jewish Cabal’s) enemies. Another theory is that it was Bush and the neo-Cons, and the purpose was to give them an excuse to take the US to war in the ME in order to further the PNAC plan. This one is similar to the CT concerning Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. A sub-theory was that it was Bush et al in conjunction with Big Business™, and while the neo-con agenda was involved it was really all about American Imperial ambitions and stealing the oil in the ME.
Then there was the slightly more plausible mutant space chipmunks variant…
