Probably, but who knows, maybe somebody else will read it and it will convince them.
Nevermind the fact that it’s a complete zebra in the first place. Off the top of my head, I could give you three reasons why a British journalist would announce “Tower 9 has fallen” when it hasn’t.
- He’s part of a shadowy conspiracy involving players both big and smalls over multiple countries
- He’s made a mistake and said “7” when he meant “9” (or whatever other number)
- He’s been fed bad info that he didn’t take the time to check
What sez you, Occam buddy ?
(And besides, what, why, how would announcing the fall of a tower in advance be a “sign of allegiance” anyway ? If anything I would take that as a major fuck-up from a member of my conspiracy. I would proceed to loudly sigh that I’m surrounded by morons, ask rethorically to no-one in particular where one can find decent lackeys these days, and the failing journalist’d be shark-with-frickin-lasers-attached-to-their-heads food by now)
This is an example of something that is technically “true”, but misleading. [Actually it’s not even technically true because you’re saying Marvin Bush did it, but let’s ignore that for the sake of discussion.] EXTRA bomb-sniffing dogs were removed shortly before the attacks. Not all of them. Extra ones that were there due to a heightened security phase that was thought to have passed. The normal amount of dogs were still there, at least one of which - name of Sirius - died in the attack.
Will you acknowledge the factual errors like this in your post? I would say I’m interested to see but unfortunately I already know the answer from dealing with hundreds of your kind. You took us to task for not taking you seriously, and now that many of us have, you should give us the respect of returning the favor. Ball’s in your court.
So I guess he’s a posthumous canine celebrity now - a “dog star.”
ETA: I hope he hasn’t run away - I was looking forward to his posting that Norman Mineta testified that there was a stand-down order.
I’m personally impressed the towers remained standing for as long as they did.
Just the parts that aren’t ruled by Evil White Males ™.
One more thing. 9-11 truthers constantly claim that the collapse of the towers looks “just like a controlled demolition”, therefore, the collapse had to be a controlled demolition.
But the collapse of the towers DOESN’T look like a controlled demolition. Just watch the video. In a controlled demolition the bottom floors are blown first. What destroys the building isn’t so much the explosion as the weight of the building. Destroy the base and the building just falls straight down. It looks like it falls into a hole, the top floors are mostly intact as they fall, and as they hit the ground they crumble to bits.
But that’s not how the towers collapsed. They began to collapse from the TOP, the site where the airplanes hit. First the floor where the airplanes hit collapses, then the next, then the next, then the next, until the whole building is destroyed. The exact opposite of a controlled demolition.
The reason the WTC collapses and controlled demolitions look superficially similar is that in both cases the main cause of the collapse is gravity. Buildings that big wiegh a lot. They have to have very strong supports to avoid collapsing. Weaken those supports until they are no longer strong enough to counteract gravity and the building falls down. Since the force of gravity acts to pull things straight down, the majority of material falls straight down, “into its own footprint”.
So noting that the towers fell straight down isn’t exactly mysterious, because how else would you expect them to fall? To tip over like dominos? But they can’t do that because the forces holding the building together are very small compared to the weight of the building. Our intuitive understanding of how strong materials are doesn’t scale well. A steel beam is strong. But a steel beam ten times longer and thicker and wider is stronger, 100 times stronger. But that same steel beam is 1000 times heavier. That means it is proportionally 1/10th as strong. Now scale that up to the size of a skyscraper.
And lastly, the alleged conspiracy just doesn’t make any sense. Suppose you’re a shadowy cabal who wants to orchestrate a major terrorist attack on the US in order to stampede the sheeplike citizenry into throwing away their precious freedoms and get them into various ill-advised wars. And your plan is a spectacular attack on the WTC.
What’s wrong with the plan of just ramming the planes into the towers? Why go to any extra trouble? Why plant explosives? And even if you did plant explosives in WTC 1 and 2, why do so in WTC 7? No one gives a shit about 7! Any cabal that can spend weeks planting explosives in 7 can do anything they like to 7, get rid of any “evidence” the conventional way, by backing up black semi-trailers driven by men with black sunglasses and loading whatever you like into them. The notion that 7 was the real target and 1 and 2 just diversions is simply preposterous. And what’s up with the notion that you’d warn certain journalists in advance? Seriously, even if you have tame journalists on your payroll, what cabal in its right mind is going to warn their pet journalists in advance?
The biggest problem the truthers have is that they cannot offer a coherent explanation for what really happened. All they do is raise “doubts” about the “official story”. Except the doubts they raise are easily refuted, like the canard that fire cannot melt steel. And so they are left with nothing.
I don’t believe, but could imagine, a conspiracy theory that fits with known facts about what happened on 9/11. A conspiracy where the 9/11 hijackers were secretly under orders from Dick Cheney isn’t exactly plausible, but at least it doesn’t violate the laws of physics. And to allege that the numerous mistakes made by all sorts of people on 9/11 have to add up to conspiracy is just laughable. A cabal doesn’t have to arrange for mistakes in advance, they merely have to rely on human fallibility.
A soldier is suing Cheney and Rumsfeld for failure to order evacuation of the Pentagon as soon as the danger was known – but that, I think, is a question of incompetence/negligence/dereliction, not complicity.
Where do these people come from? This guy thinks Bush or anyone in the administration is smart enough to pull something like this off and not get caught in seven years is way beyond delusional. People talk. Clinton couldn’t even hide a blow job but Bush can somehow hide this vast conspiracy?
For me, the big question for conspiracy theorists is, if the government did such a good job covering up their involvement in the 9/11 attacks, how and/or why did they pull such a 180 on their ability to come up with a believable reason to attack Iraq? I am just not comfortable believing the Bush administration had enough on the ball to pull off a hoax of this scale.
Apart from the convincing refutations already posted (good job, men!) I’d like to know what the cunning ‘conspiracy’ was about anyway.
Bush blamed Al-Qaeda, then invaded Iraq.
As a direct result, Bush and his party (and similarly Tony Blair in the UK) have become incredibly unpopular.
What was the point of killing all those Americans?
I instinctively distrust any conspiracy theorist who tells me what happened was physically impossible. Obviously something happened - the World Trace Center collapsed, Kennedy was shot, the Jews are dead - so what happened was physically possible. But the conspiracy theorists will claim that the official story was impossible.
So my question is why did the Illuminati use that story? There’s hundreds of people already involved in their conspiracy - wouldn’t they have found a few physicists and engineers of their own and have them look over the cover-up plans and pronounce them plausible?
“Well, professor, here’s the plan. We’re going to put bombs in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and blow them up. Our cover story will be that a terrorist group called Al Qaeda flew commerical jets into the buildings and the jet fuel caused the explosions. What do you think?”
“Sorry, it won’t work. Jet fuel doesn’t explode like that.”
“Wow, good catch, a smart guy like trumpsahead would have seen right through our cover-up. So here’s the new plan - we’ll still go with the bombs but we’ll say that Al Qaeda planted them. How’s that?”
“That would work.”
“Great, professor, thanks for your help. Just initial these review forms here and we can get started.”
trumpsahead logged on around noon today, so you figure he’s seen this thread. (Anybody can see this, I’m not snooping.) Not to try to embarrass him into posting, but I hope he’ll respond.
What was the point of invading Iraq? They simply expected it would work out a whole lot better than it did.
Of course, it was that giant oil pipleline to the Caspian that runs across Afghanistan, or something. I think it also runs through Iraq, right after Afghanistan.
What do you mean?
It’s been an unqualified success! Mission acomplished!
:rolleyes:
9/11 tinhatters love to start out by accusing everyone of being Bush lovers. I wonder if trumpsahead has any idea how unpopular the Bush administration is around here.
See, trumpsahead, most members of this board would love to believe Bush was behind 9/11 and see him hang for it. What does it tell you that they don’t?
Maybe I’m being whooshed here. But Afghanistan and Iraq don’t border each other so no pipeline could run directly between them. And neither borders the Caspain Sea.
Just to play devil’s advocate:
Consider the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Tens of thousands of people were “in” on the attack.
The military pilots trained for several months. Weapon designers and technicians, who are civilians, had to come up with a torpedo that would run in shallow water after being dropped from an aircraft.
(I don’t know if the military cabinet kept the specific operation secret from the civilian cabinet. Probably. But the civilian leadership sure as heck knew war was coming, and on which date…)
A large (for the time) task force of rather prominent (well known and usually tracked by military intelligence) navy capital ships had to gather, in secret, and sail across the entire Pacific, without getting spotted by American Navy or civilian merchant ships, for surprise to be acheived. (And surprise was necessary to ensure the targets would be available to be attacked.)
And it worked…
While the Americans suspected some kind of military operations was in the works, the PH attack was a complete surprise (and tactical success).
