Details matter. The bin Laden family was helped out of the country very soon after 9/11, but the popular myth is that they flew out while the airspace was still closed on the first two or three days afterwards. That part’s not true - they flew out of the country just after the airspace was opened back up.
And after an involuntary chat with the FBI
Knew a guy who they recruited, but he was so fucked up before he was of no use. Also meant they didn’t have to pay disability, since CFU was a preexisting condition.
I was mistaken about the CIA psychic spying thing - the book was about the Army’s program.
I don’t know much about air traffic control, so I hope a professional will chime in here.
But if radar tracking difficulties seem implausible, I’ll note that this was only a factor for Flight 77. For the other three planes, there just wasn’t enough time between figuring out that a hijacking had taken place (or informing the military about it) and the crash for meaningful action.
It is hard to defend the conspiracies when they would require us to get about 20 Middle Easterners to give up their lives to carry it out. I don’t think that is a minimum wage job.
But, the Towers fell. That does not happen very often to a burning bldg. Then a 47 story bldg. next to them went down. It was not hit by an airplane and did not get a ton of airplane fuel squirting through it. That make me wonder ,at least about some shitty design and build work. At least I know why people ask what happened. It did require a few unusual things to happen in a very short time.
Wait…Ewan McGregor, you said?
Oh come on! You can’t say the entertainment value alone wouldn’t be worth a standing ovation! (I’m guessing there were at least a FEW people there for a lark)
That’s just what they WANT you to think.
Sigh, no, it wasn’t hit by an airplane. It just got a huge flaming section of Tower 1 ripping through a couple dozen storeys of it. And then, structurally compromised, it burned unfought all day. The collapse of WTC 7 is probably the least surprising and suspicious thing that had happened since the sun came up that morning. Insisting otherwise might be acceptable if this wasn’t a widely known, witnessed, and documented fact, that has been discussed and demonstrated thoroughly right here on this message board, among many, many other places.
From what I’ve seen, there is no serious positive evidence for the conspiracy view of things. They seem to always be relying on gaps, unanswered questions.
It reminds me a lot of those kind of religious people who are described as having a “god of the gaps”. Once one thing is explained well within scientific terms, they move their god onto some other place.
For example, if they accept the big bang, then they’ll say “ha, what caused the big bang? Must be God”. If they accept some multiverse theory where our universe is just one bubble in a sea of bubbles they’ll say “Ha, but where did this bubble bath come from? Must be God”.
Many of the theorists are not working in a rational manner at all. They are anomaly hunting for something to fit their preconceived notion. They’ve already decided that the Gubmint/Jews/Masons/etc did it, so once one part of their theory gets disproved, they just move onto something else, they don’t stop to consider that maybe their idea that Gubmint/Jews/Masons/etc did it is wrong,
I’m sure there are many things about 9/11 that can’t be properly explained yet, but as someone already pointed out well within the thread, a lack of evidence is not evidence for whatever you want to jam in the gaps.
It was a huge event with many actors, many of them acting in a covert manner. I’m sure there will be things that are not explained in decades to come. I see little point any more trying to convince the hardcore theorists that their arguments are faulty, the best I hope for is that we can convince more of the ‘fence-sitters’ not to jump to conclusions that aren’t supported by either facts or reason.
The B-25 that hit the Empire State building was low on fuel at the end of a flight and the entire plane weighed substantially less than just the fuel aboard any of the flights involved with the WTC/Pentagon attacks. It was flying at less than 200 mph, in contrast to the 9/11 flights that were all exceeding 400 mph.
There are structural differences between the buildings involved, but they need to be rationally examined for specific differences; a generalized comparison is, unfortunately, worth almost nothing for these cases.
In other words, a guy with a bachelor’s degree in architecture who then went on to mess around in a totally different field to make his living.
So, his architectural bachelor’s degree was at least 40 years old with no evidence that he actually kept up with modern building techniques since he invested his energies in city planning which is an entirely different field, branching into a lot of other worthy but irrelevant disciplines throughout the rest of his life.
Obviously, his post is his cite.
People want to find extraordinary explanations for extraordinary events. Things that THEY think couldn’t happen without looking into the dimensions of the event. So, absolutely not.
I wish I had more of an education in psychology than a few undergrad classes. I’ve a hypothesis-- built on interacting with enough of these people online and off-- that firm, sustained (meaning it’s not just a phase you go through) belief in conspiracy theories is some kind of mental illness.
Has anyone else ever noticed that no one believes just one of these? There aren’t any guys out there who say “yeah, 9/11 was an inside job, but Oswald definitely killed Kennedy, we went to the M-Effin moon, and Bohemian Grove is just a place for rich schlubs to blow off steam.” It’s always a package deal that seems to suggest some other-than-obvious cause.
It’s not the fact that it fell that troubles me, but the incredible symmetry with which it did so.
Goal posts never get a moment’s rest in your hands, do they?
Tower, tower, burning bright?
Cisco, of all people, starts talking about goal posts…
I was just pointing out that the “nothing hit WTC7, so why’d it fall down” is a very vague thing to say. That may or may not be suspicious. But the near-perfect symmetry of its collapse is much more telling, since it’s very hard to imagine circumstances where a large and wide structure would transmit force over the entire distance of its span within a fraction of a second, and that the force prove critical to all regions. If someone wants to be puzzled by some element of 9/11, they should be puzzled by the right thing…
Really? Of all people? I know you can’t defend this statement, but, care to look silly trying?
No, it most certainly may not be, and you know it. I trust I don’t have to explain this for the 100th time on this very message board. Just look up a few posts. I’ve posted videos of it being hit in threads you were actively participating in. I know you’ve seen them. You’re trying to engineer smoke where you know good and well there is no fire.
Much more telling of what, and where did you come by your authority on the topic? You’re not saying that just because it doesn’t look like what YOU imagine it SHOULD look like in your completely untrained mind, that it’s “suspicious” (suspicious of what?), are you?
The whole plot was just to cover up the bombing of WT7. The planes, the cruise missle, the dynamite in the the towers: all of it was just so that they could blow up WT7 because it had proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Does anyone know where Tom Hanks was on 911? So right there is an unanswered question.
While objections to the collapse behavior of the twin towers can be chalked up to “what they should have looked like,” in the case of WTC7 it’s possible to be a bit more concrete. In its collapse, you can see a crease formed in the center. The crease is leading the rest of the collapse by some small fraction of a second. If the collapse started as a chain reaction emanating from the crease, it would have to radiate a distance of up to 70 meters within that fraction of a second. For the sake of argument let us say the time delta is 0.2s. That comes out to a propagation velocity of 350 m/s, or approximately the speed of sound in air.
Likewise, the symmetry implies something else. That every point in the building was supercritically weakened. A part of the building was hit by a girder, and other parts sustained heavy fires. However all parts had to be on the verge of collapse. But none past the verge. It is like a coffee mug in a microwave, evenly heated to 101C ready to burst into vapor. Introduce non-uniform conditions, such as a scratched vessel or an uneven gas stove (or a falling girder), and you cannot attain supercriticality without some part changing phase first.
But what’s the use of arguing with you. You’re the one who took a sympathetic conclusion (“it’s difficult to say that the collapse of WTC7, in itself, is very suspicious”) and tried turning it into a point to attack me on. Really? Sigh.