WTC Conspiracy Theory

[Mister_Rik]

@PaulFitzroy

Don’t forget ISRAEL. (Israel, of course, was behind it all.) Along with the Vatican, the CIA and the Freemasons.

And the Rockefellers. Can’t forget the Rockefellers.

[Cisco]

FWIW, I think most tall structures (not just skyscrapers) are designed to fall “straight down” rather than topple over like, say, a baseball bat standing on one end would do.

[msmith537]

@Johnny L.A.

I am not a physicist, architect, engineer or scientist. How can I refute absolutely the claims he’s making?

You can’t. Ignorent people do not rely on the scientific method, logic, or reason to make their hypothesis. Any evidence to the contrary is merely part of a “cover up”.

Best you can do is tell him that you just aren’t interested in hearing his crackpot theories.
I tend to agree with a statement Bill Maher said on his show. Basically, people are lazy and stupid. Bad things happen not because a lot of complex shit comes together perfectly but because someone fucked up.

[Mister_Rik]

@msmith537

I tend to agree with a statement Bill Maher said on his show. Basically, people are lazy and stupid. Bad things happen not because a lot of complex shit comes together perfectly but because someone fucked up.

Or, as my dad used to say, “Accidents don’t ‘happen’. They’re caused.”

[Crafter_Man]

@Boyo Jim

My suggestion is to find out why this quy believes what he does. Does he follow some conspiracy “cult” leader? You need to identify and start to undermine the source of this crap.

I have a buddy who believes the same stuff. He listens to a crackpot by the name of Alex Jones.

[Tuckerfan]

Here’s what I found shuts up most of my friends who start spewing conspiracy theory crap:

Me: If the government was willing to kill 3000 people, don’t you think that they’d be willing to kill a few more to cover it up?

Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist: Well, they can’t, the secret’s out! Too many people know about it!

Me: You think that government has captured alien technology out at Area 51?

PCT: Well, yeah!

Me: Okay, then it stands to reason that if they’ve got alien technology, they’ve also got time travel.

PCT: Of course!

Me: Okay, then why don’t they simply go back in time and kill the person spouting this theory when he was like four? That way they don’t have to worry about him ever figuring out what’s going on, and no one else will know about it either.

PCT: Uh…

[iiifly]

I wouldn’t have suspected the government of doing something like this, however, the flight path of one aircraft that was “hijacked” concerned me. American 77 flew away from the pentagon for an hour or so, then the hijackers decided to take control and fly it back which didn’t make sense to me. A report to the 9/11 commission referenced that the only available aircraft to track the aircraft was a military cargo plane, this backs up the conspiracy theory of a jet did not actually crash into the pentagon and rather it was a missile. No solid debris of the aircraft was recovered, its was all charred and in a million pieces. No body saw it, no video is available…

Also the suspected voice of Mohammad Atta did not have an Arab accent to me at all on the 9/11 commision tape.

[Rick]

@iiifly

A report to the 9/11 commission referenced that the only available aircraft to track the aircraft was a military cargo plane, this backs up the conspiracy theory of a jet did not actually crash into the pentagon and rather it was a missile. No solid debris of the aircraft was recovered, its was all charred and in a million pieces. No body saw it, no video is available…

I really hate to do this to a guest and all but I call Bullshit

[MEBuckner]

@iiifly

American 77 flew away from the pentagon for an hour or so, then the hijackers decided to take control and fly it back which didn’t make sense to me.

I don’t think I understand your objection. Here is a map of the flight paths of all 4 hijacked planes. Generally speaking, in a hijacking, you get an abrupt change of course when the hijackers take control of the airplane, whether the hijacking is intended to turn the plane into a missile and kill thousands, or just get the hijacker a trip to Cuba.

Flight 77 takes off from Dulles, outside Washington, D.C. and heads west, towards the Pacific coast. (All 4 planes were bound for California.) Somewhere over Ohio or Kentucky, the terrorists seize control and turn the plane around towards their target, in Washington, D.C. (Possibly it was not originally intended to be the Pentagon, but either the White House or the Capitol; at least, I know I’ve heard speculation to that effect.)

Also the suspected voice of Mohammad Atta did not have an Arab accent to me at all on the 9/11 commision tape.

Here’s a link to the recording you’re presumably talking about.

So, what about that sounds “non-Arab” to you? And if it isn’t Arab, what is the accent of the speaker? Also, what qualifies you to make this judgement? (To me, it sounds “foreign”; I don’t claim to be able to distinguish accents with any reliability.) Are you a linguist? Do you know Arabic? Have you spent any time in the Middle East or among Arabs? Did you maybe grow up in a neighborhood with a lot of Arab immigrants?

[LuckySevens]

@iiifly

Also the suspected voice of Mohammad Atta did not have an Arab accent to me at all on the 9/11 commision tape.

That is one of the silliest things ive ever heard.
You are aware these terroists were part of a sleeper cell for the best part of 10 years? I’ve lived in a foreign country before and moved back, and its amazing how much my accent dissolves in 3 years.

[Reeder]

Not saying I buy into the conspirency theories…but some things are a little funny.

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,7280472,print.story

Coincidence?

[vanilla]

I read that too, Reed.

[msmith537]

@Reeder

Not saying I buy into the conspirency theories…but some things are a little funny.

Riiight…Because security dogs would have made a diference.

That’s how conspiracies start. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are talking about misinterprets some blurb of information because it doesn’t fit their preconceived notion of how things work in real life. Reeder is an expert on security procedures? iiifly is an expert on flight plans and a linguist? Johnny L.A.'s friend is a structural engineer?

[Reeder]

Could you miss the point by more if you’d tried?

One of the conspiracy theories is explosives brought down the towers.

Understand now?

[Hampshire]

@Johnny L.A.

He pointed out that the buildings came straight down, “exactly like a planned demolition”. I told him that the girders and rivets, weakened by fire, would have caused the structure to fall in upon itself. (i.e., since the inside is collapsing, the debris would fall inward.) No, it looked exactly like a planned demolition; therefore, it was.

?

How exactly were the buildings supposed to come down when hit by a plane?
Did he expect them to fracture at the base and tip over like a giant redwood?
Buildings are massive heavy structures that are built to overcome one giant force, “Gravity”, and when they fail they only want to go one place, “straight down”.

[msmith537]

@Reeder

Could you miss the point by more if you’d tried?

One of the conspiracy theories is explosives brought down the towers.

Understand now?

Are you freakin serious? Yeah I get it. It’s still a fucking stupid-ass theory that only an imbecile would believe. Someone secretly planted explosives in the WTC buildings and THEN crashed a couple of jumbo jets into it? Why would you believe such a thing? Because you have no idea how long it takes to prep a site for demolition? Because you have no idea how much explosives it would take to bring down a structure of that size? You think that someone told the security to stand down so some guy could walk in with a briefcase full of C-4 and blow the top of the WTC off? If they could take it down with explosives, what was the point of crashing airplanes into it? And who blew it up? Bush? The Israelis? The Freemasons?

Try not to be such a complete dupe.

Johnny LA, don’t bother trying to argue with a conspiracy nut. They can’t be reasoned with because:

1. The one piece of controvertial evidence they have supporting the conspiracy outweighs the overwhealming evidence to the contrary.
2. Their only credible source of research is other crazy people who support the conspiracy
3. They lack enough knowledge of the subject matter to understand an explanation that does not fit with their preconceived notions.

[Matt_Barry]

[QUOTE=iiifly No solid debris of the aircraft was recovered, its was all charred and in a million pieces. No body saw it, no video is available…[/QUOTE]

Calling bullshit on this one… charred and in a million pieces? COULD IT BE THE AIRCRAFT EXPLODED ON IMPACT?

Oh and how bout the secruity camera in the parking lot that caught it.

CNN Article, link on page.

[Kent_Clark]

@Reeder

One of the conspiracy theories is explosives brought down the towers.

Understand now?

Let me get this straight. The conspirators crashed a couple of planes into the WTC to hide the fact they actually planned to blow up the buildings all along.

Then the conspirators hijacked Flight 77 to cover up their blowing up the Pentagon.

So why the hell wouldn’t they have gone ahead and blown up whatever they were going to blow up (the White House? the Capitol? Camp David?) when Flight 93 went down. I mean, if I had gone to all the trouble to prepare to blow something up, and then my cover had evaporated, I’d probably still blow it up.

And even if for whatever reason, the conspirators were unable to set off that last set of explosives, shouldn’t it have been found by now?

[SilentButDeftly]

@Cisco

FWIW, I think most tall structures (not just skyscrapers) are designed to fall “straight down” rather than topple over like, say, a baseball bat standing on one end would do.

Not really, it’s just the nature of the beast – according to this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html the building would have to have gone through an enormous amount of bending to topple over instead of fall straight down:

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It’s really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don’t realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, “How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?” They said, “Oh, it’s really how you time and place the explosives.” I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that’s not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there’s no other way for them to go but down. They’re too big. With anything that massive – each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons – there’s nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

The professor quoted here is actually a pretty cool guy – I used to date his daughter in high school. There’s some good info in this interview, but sadly I doubt it’ll make it through tinfoil.

[Lemur866]

@Cisco

FWIW, I think most tall structures (not just skyscrapers) are designed to fall “straight down” rather than topple over like, say, a baseball bat standing on one end would do.

No, they aren’t designed to fall straight down. That’s the only way they CAN fall down, since the structural strength of the materials would be insufficient to hold the building together once it started to topple over. A tree is strong enough to hold together after being cut down. A skyscraper isn’t, it will pop like a soap bubble, and the debris will be pulled straight down by gravity. Even the kinetic energy of a fully loaded jet plane slamming into the sides isn’t much compared to the total potential energy of the building itself.