September 16, 2009
-
What Brought the Buildings Down?
This post was inspired by a Facebook thread.
I want everyone to participate.
What brought the World Trade Center buildings down, the planes or explosives that were planted?
This post was inspired by a Facebook thread.
I want everyone to participate.
What brought the World Trade Center buildings down, the planes or explosives that were planted?
Comments (194)
are you serious?
it was the heat from the blasts.
It was me.
I don’t know…………………….
probably a combination of both.
Gravity.
It was the explosive heat from the planes’ fuel.
@DBF21 - i agree.
Planes
what the difference does it make? the buildings came down, that was that.
Jesus
If a plane flew into a building obviously its gonna fall. Gah.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - I second that
Chuck Norris.
I don’t know I wasn’t there. Thankfully.
A massive governmental conspiracy, were thousands of Americans plotted and carried out a massive murder for no good reason that anyone can think of. And those thousands of people have held the secret now for over 8 years without a leak.
A plane going 500 miles an hour with 20,000 lbs of jet fuel in it, had nothing to do it.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - @Pink_TeaCups - I third it.
Da plane boss, Da planes
@trunthepaige - <——- That’s about as good a comment that this entry is going to get.
The planes.
I believe the engineering reports. The building design was not engineered for this kind of catastrophe.
What explosives are you talking about? The damage from the planes caused the building to weaken and eventually collapse. There were NO explosives.
religious fanaticism
The jet fuel.
No scientists here? First the explosive blast, then the heat as the fuel burned weakened the steel beams on the impact floor. When that floor collapsed, the added weight combined with the intense heat brought down the next lower floor, and so on until all the floors pancaked.
I said that starkly, but my heart is pounding in my throat as I write this. “The horror, the horror.”
If anyone responds hasn’t seen loose change they ought to before they say the jet fuel did it. Considering what the building was made of and the heat at which jet fuel burns it’s scientifically impossible for the blasts to have taken the buildings out.
From what I’ve read and studied, I’m gonna say explosives are definitely a possibility. Yes, planes hit the buildings… but further investigating shows that it’s possible that there were explosives.
@Alatariel40 - i’m an engineer and common sense should be enough to tell you that nothing but those planes brought those buildings down. first of all, the buildings were made of trusses, which are like the most unstable building structure you can use. the steel they used was bad, too.
also, consider this: they only had to take out a single floor. the floors above fall, smashing the floors below, farther and farther until it all falls down. you don’t need explosives, just a heavy-ass plane filled to the brim with fuel that burns i think well over the melting point of steel. explosions knock things loose, cause you know, that’s what happened when the plane crashed. oh and giant planes crashing into your buildings knock stuff loose too.
the people who claim it was anything BUT the planes are closed minded fools who have nothing better to do than speculate about the moon landings and stock up for the 2012 thing, cause if they believe the 9/11 conspiracy garbage they sure as hell should believe the new agers and their 2012 bullshit.
@striemmy - Yup, Loose Change talks a lot about all this. Zeitgeist: The Movie [not Addendum] does more investigating about this… and some other stuff.
@striemmy - @fLiPgUy31O - if our government did in fact do it, they would’ve covered it up much better. the government can cover things up and you’ll never know the difference, but this was not a government cover up. it is too sloppy for a government cover up, and, nonsensically, it’s just too much of a coincidence that the planes did in fact do it.
@harmonyminusmelody - Yeahhhhh, you’re right. I’m not saying that explosives were definitely used, but after watching the videos from Loose Change and Zeitgeist, I can’t help but wonder. You do make a good point though. I figured the government would have covered it up better if they really were involved.
@Alatariel40 - Agreed, but you stated it much more simply than I could have.
the planes
planes…
The planes. It still makes me too sad to even be sarcastic.
@harmonyminusmelody - Yeah, engineering was a better response. Most people seem to think that science and engineering are magic, and all they have to do is run a counter spell to negate the laws of physics. You know that a fire may ignite at a certain temperature, but it can burn much, much hotter and ignite something else that burns hotter.
@trunthepaige - +1.
@striemmy - And how is it “scientifically impossible”?
@striemmy - I saw it. it is not very convincing http://www.debunking911.com/will help you and then there is the famose Popular Mechanics articles
Gravity.
My cock.
Pure evil and hatred?
Doesn’t matter what physically made them fall…
Just what kind of evil made it happen.
That’s what really matters to me, anyway.
Not sure but it happened and it’s in the past as hard as it is we must move on. I really enjoyed this xangy entry titled “Enough with the 9/11 Spectacle”
http://chrisrusso.xanga.com/674022957/enough-with-the-911-spectacle/
Planes
Not even gonna dignify this with answering the question.
What explosives?
The fires that heating the metal framing.
The frame is supposed to with stand a plane crash, but the builders of the building didn’t take into account that much fire and heat.
I saw it on TV, a special about 9/11
the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 were built to withstand a plane crashing into them because of what happened to the Empire State Building. Also, jet fuel doesn’t burn that hot and certainly not that long once exposed to air. They say it was a pancake affect that brought the towers down, but I’m unsure of what eventually brought it down, especially when it had been closed for repairs weeks before 9/11 happened. Too many unknowns. Whatever brought it down, we should seek to know the absolute, unaltered truth. Has no one found it odd that 1) we don’t have the full story 2) we also went to war with Iraq and 3) both Bush and Obama have told us not to question the 9/11 commission but to accept what came out as the final truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI
That’s the video I watched not too long ago. I chose to believe this, cause logically, I believe that there is no way a plane could bring down TWO towers exactly the same way.
the planes i think
its ashame if anyone really says bombs
Planes! You’ve got to be kidding. Tin foil hat wearing moonbat conspiracy theories constantly amaze me. They make crazy claims without any evidence and place the burden on the rational person to defend reality. That’s just insane.
I posted on this a long time ago: http://herzog3000.xanga.com/495049610/loose-screws/
They brought themselves down?
“Baby, are you down, down, down, down, down~?
Dowwwwwnnn, Downnnnnn?”
if a plane were to bring a building down like that,, it would have done it on impact,,, thats when the most weight would have been in play,,, besides throwing the building off balance with the impact,,,
beyond that,,, it all got lighter,,, things fell to the ground,,, several people jumped,,, the plane and all flammable parts of the building burned at the impact point. intense heat causes things to go up in smoke,,, hot air rises,,, adds no pressure to gravity,,,
i saw someone suggested the base collapsed,,, hahahaha,, that would cause the buildings to crumble from the bottom up,,, ive never seen that version on any video… and even your posted pic suggests it collapsed from the top down…
preset explosives brought the buildings down in an orderly manner,,, and the explosions werent put in place during the aftermath of the planes flying into the buildings…
wasnt that admitted on live tv at the time of the happening?? i was in fact deep,,, well,, not deep,,, in mexico at the time watching it on tv… maybe i was watching the mexican version…
and ive yet to see any evidence of a plane even being near the pentagon… does anyone know where i could find a pic of a piece of plane?
look at the pic again,,, you can see weight falling away,,, at some point,,, it would cease collapsing,,, if it were weight causing it,,, i believe it collapsed all the way to the ground,,, hahahahaha,,, give me a break…
and there is no evidence of damage below the cloud of ash,,, and dust,,, and i suspect there is more building intact in the picture that is clouded by the falling debris…
Planes driven by terrorists, fueled by an overdose of religion.
There were not any planted explosives in the towers.
@trunthepaige - will help me with what? I have no interest in thermite explosion theories but the question raised was a sound one.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
@QuantumStorm - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Read that, make the determination for yourself whether the math and principles at work are okay and then, if you agree that they are, question why, under the conditions stated, a building would fall within 4.8 seconds of it’s free fall speed in a vacuum and if the explanation for that matches up.
@striemmy - between the two of them there are no arguments left
@striemmy - Can you clarify your request?
@fLiPgUy31O - Zeitgeist is a part of somebody’s agenda that has nothing to do with telling the truth about things. I’ll agree that it raises good points but when you consider the fact that it goes after religion first and then jumps into the other relevant data it becomes apparent that it was sociologically designed to create a split in the group of viewers that watch it. No one that’s a christian is going to put much stock into the movie if they watch the first part.
@harmonyminusmelody - Who said our government did it?
@trunthepaige - When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer.
@QuantumStorm - Read it and get back to me. That’s the gist of my request lol.
@striemmy - If you think what happened in plan sight was improbable then ok
@striemmy - Oh, lol. Well, I’ve already read it several years ago, so… what about it?
@trunthepaige - I don’t know about you but all I saw was planes slam into buildings and buildings fall. That in and of itself is not an explanation. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, right?
@QuantumStorm - Any thoughts on the section about the fire?
@striemmy - I skipped the first part (about religion) and just watched the second and third.
@fLiPgUy31O - And that’s precisely what I tell people to do when I first instruct them to watch it because if you watch the first part and you disagree with what it says you are less likely to agree to anything said thereafter, no matter how much or little sense it makes.
I agree that there were NO explosives besides the aircraft themselves. When they hit the towers they didn’t just hit one floor as so many seem to think by some of the comments that I have read on here,they weakened the structure of the supporting beams and the heat from the planes caused an accordian effect with the floors falling onto the the lower floors. How many of you conspiracy theory believers also think that the moon landing actually took place in the Nevada desert? I suppose that if the govt says something happened there will ALWAYS be a group of people that claim that they know better. I never did like GWB but even I don’t think that he would have done something so horrendous as killing thousands of americans whose only mistake was going to work or getting on a plane on that day.
@Loonsounds - agreed.
Why GWB did it himself. Didn’t you see the Micheal Moore film on it?
@striemmy - Seems reasonable to me… as they stated:
“Given the thermal
expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from
one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced
distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures.
Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due
to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion
of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.”
the short answer would be the plane.
the long answer would be the weakening of the steel supports due to long exposure to intense heat from the jet fuel. steel doesn’t melt at high temperatures but it does lose strength.
GET OVER IT
GET OVER IT
GET OVER IT
@trunthepaige -
I seriously can’t believe how many people believe that life is all kittys and flowers. If our government had no clue or knowledge than I’m Peter Pan.
@Xcholo4u - So how is Tinker bell doing?
George Bush planned it all…what a schemer he was. Played the dummy but was brilliant!
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer!
She’s fine, Paige. Like you. ; )
Steel I-Beam + heat (from burning fuel in airplane) = poor structural support. The top floors collapsed and the dynamic forces destroyed the lower structure.
I’m going to laugh if someone says “The Arabs.”
The heat from the jet fuel, vaporized the steel supports, (which makes me wonder if I should ever fly again) resulting in a puddle of molten metal at the base of the buildings two weeks later. That was all there was to it. The buildings fell at free-fall speed, sure, but they were heavy. Just about everything was incinerated, leaving most of the plane to burn, but luckily, someone found the passports of the pilots intact, or we’d never know who they were. Nevermind the bogus claims that some of them are still alive. Rumor. The military grade explosive compounds found all over Manhattan, were simply the same material used in building materials. Probably a compound in gypsum board. I can’t remember if the airplane engines were found or not, but they were likely vaporized too, like the ones from the Pentagon, that were so lightweight, they didn’t even break the windows on either side of the crash entry site, since they were only made from several tons of titanium and steel, they probably burned pretty fast. The only residue left at all that is of any use to anyone was the aluminum salvaged, and sold to us tin-hat people, and we adore them!
These hats keep out nearly all of the alien signals, except for the ones in Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 Investigation, which cost 91 million dollars less to investigate than Bill Clinton’s & his chubby humidor.
@QuantumStorm - Cool. So we can agree on the reasonableness of that scenario, discounting superheated jet fuel as an argument for any outrageous variables we may come across later in the discussion. What do you think about the models created relating to the pancaking effect and the collapse time?
Will no one give any respect to the real culprits? It’s the squirrels. It’s totally the squirrels.
@trunthepaige - You’re one to talk. You have to believe in magical passports and terrorists that know how to teleport to be in line with the official story surrounding the building collapse.
@Dare2BDiferentt - Indeed.
o____o
@striemmy - Why would we discount the kerosene?
By the engineering of the buildings, it would be the explosives that took them down not a couple planes that could only partially damage them.
That talking serpent in the garden of Eden. If he didn’t fuck with Adam & Eve, none of this would have ever happened.
@QuantumStorm - “Thermodynamically,
the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat
capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property,
meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat
is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material… Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors
of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. ”
I’m not discounting it in general. I’m discounting it as being a specific variable involved in any of the other weirdness that may come up in our discussion that others may relate to super hot jet fuel fire.
@Dare2BDiferentt - agreed. what else could it have been?
What explosives? I watched a documentary on the whole thing. The extreme heat caused the steel beams to collapse. Structurally, it was flawed and no one realized that. So because of that, it was the planes…the fire, jet fuel, whatever.
same as everyone else is saying, it was the heat
My dad (an old school aerospace engineer) took some time explaining it to me, as he understood the construction of the building, its materials, as well as the plane. There’s no conspiracy, but don’t you just love theorists?
All evidence of the truth was melted down, and sold as commerative coins.
@ShamrockLover - I watched that too. Did you see the one about marijuana, called Reefer Madness? Good one too.
@striemmy - Ah, okay. So which model are we addressing in particular?
the planes..the heat!
The question is a pointless distraction. What is the purpose of believing in a vast conspiracy without any meaningful convincing evidence? What you find when you look at the history of conspiracy theories that the proponents develop a huge list of “evidence” designed to provide “doubt” but nothing that conclusively proves anything. It’s easy enough to find convincing sounding evidence that seems scientific for almost any proposal. There are people who make really convincing sounding arguments that the Earth is Flat or that the Moon Landing was faked. But that doesn’t make those claims any less ridiculous.
Once experts look at the evidence deeper though you can almost always find very good reasons to discount it. The problem is most people don’t have the expertise to factcheck the conspriacy theorists so some of them take their odd outlandish claims as truth or they find themselves doubting and wondering if they have been lied to. Often the experience who do have the expertise to discredit the conspiracy theorists don’t even bother to take the time to do so or do so publicly, knowing as they do that the claims are ridiculous and never having bothered to take them seriously or seriously analyze them.
On top of that in cases of conspiracy theories there are often are actual legitimate questions the conspiracy theorests raise. Uncertainties often still exist. And the legitimacy of these questions lends an appearance of legitimacy to the conspiracy theorist which they use to increase the level of doubt in their audience. Even so, the conspiracy theorist often overreaches, since there is no logical rational reason to jump from the fact that not everything about an event is perfectly explained to the conspiratorial conclusion promoted (in the case of 9/11 conspiracies, the conclusion that US Government planted explosives deliberately for the purpose of staging a 9/11 incident to justify going to war in Iraq). And the fact that there are uncertainties really ought not to be a surprise at all. When complex real life scenarios happen there are a lot of difficult to explain phenomena involved. Even in controlled experiments in the classroom lots of things often happen that scientists have a hard time explaining and that take a long time to analyze. Have a hugely physically complex event occur you should expect there to be a LOT of confusing and even weird seeming things happen. You don’t get much more physically complex than having planes hitting buildings. Rather than take those weird phenomena as evidence of a a vast scary conspiracy, the good scientist actually examines those phenomena in order to better understand the physics of what happens when planes hit buildings and so increase their understanding of physics in general.
The problem is the conspiracy theorist has no interest in proving or understanding anything. Their only desire is to make you, their audinece, *doubt* the prevailing point of view. And raising doubt is remarkably easier than actually providing a real and meaningful explanation.
The deeper problem here, is that the focus on the 9/11 conspiracy as a question of what took down the buildings distracts from really important discussion about American foreign policy, American security policy, Airline security, American intelligence gathering, and the social and economic order of the world that really does have a real and meaningful causal relationship with the events of 9/11 and its aftermath. It also distracts from the equally important questions about the responses to 9/11 across the world and whether they were appropriate or proportionate. The reality is, a lot of countries used 9/11 as an excuse to crack down further on human rights and become even more brutal and intolerant, justifying it on the need to “defend” themselves against “terrorists”. That’s not even to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the predator drone strikes and raids the US has carried out in numerous places around the world. These all require considerable analysis and discussion. There are real serious questions about all of this. And these questions matter a lot more than the question of whether it was planes or bombs that caused those buildings to fall.
And if there were, against all rational odds, really a vast conspiracy behind the events of 9/11, chances are your best way to unearth it would be to investigate real meaningful questions about US foreign policy and the behavior of governments around the world. Ranting for hours on end about the behavior of jet fuel will get you no where except dismissed as a kook. It’s not good strategy.
For the record, the simplest most likely explanation is that the planes in some way shape or form caused the buildings to collapse. If there was a conspiracy, the probability that it has not leaked yet and will not leak is minuscule. So I believe that there is no conspiracy and will continue to believe it until the “Pentagon Paper” like documents surface or the convincing whistle blowers start to appear. And I really really don’t think that will ever happen. If it does, I’ll apologize profusely.
And I really hope for all our sakes it never does. Because if someone has the power to pull off a conspiracy on such a grand scale, we’re totally screwed. We’d all be slaves and just don’t know it.
Scientology
@nephyo - About your last sentence… isnt’ that exactly what the conspiracy theorists are saying?
@QuantumStorm - Eh after playing 2 hours of bejeweled blitz I no longer want to discuss it lol.
@striemmy - Ah, what a shame haha. At any rate, I have homework, but if you feel like bringing it up again, let me know.
oh, ffs. Burning jet fuel compromised the intergrity of the structural steel. when the first beam let go, it caused a chain reaction of abnormal structural strain. Building framework is not designed wo withstand those types of torsionary stresses. One floor collapsed, then the next, then several, then all of them.
@striemmy - yup. And it’s true. And completely irrelevant because of everything I said prior to that last sentence.
@striemmy - You really need to do a little reading on this and not from the conspiracy web sites. And Miguel and I are old friends.
i read this > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
and suddenly i’m not so sure anymore.
I don’t know but I’ve seen enough to suspect it was more than simply plane stuff that did it.
A plane hit the Empire State Building and it burned for hours longer than the WTC was on fire and it didn’t collapse.
And explain the collapse of Tower 7 that suddenly imploded on itself.
as long as there are questions, then those questions need to be asked. Questions need answers.
@trunthepaige - It was oil.
That was the reason.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/ the collapse of tower 7 is a real good question
I think there might have been some planted.
I heard someone say that all the ‘important’ people were not there at the time of the attacks.
And that the press were not really let in or ignored that fact.
I’m not sure what he meant by important…probably corporate people who couldn’t be done away with.
Sick!
Why would ANYONE go to the trouble of planting explosives and THEN fly a big ol jet airliner into the building? I would think a Building Destruction Plan would call for one or the other. Flying planes into buildings is insane at best, flying planes into buildings into which there have already been explosives planted is BFI. And so is imagining that anything besides a freakin jet plane brought those buildings down. The engineer that designed the buildings did not wonder why the buildings fell, he marveled that they stood for as long as they did after being hit by Jet Airliners!
@Dare2BDiferentt - Enough said.
It was Jeff Tweedy
I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t there.
Omg, It is simple people! God! I can’t believe this crap! Consperacies? Fake? What the hell?! I’ll tell you what happened…Bad people, because of bad security, stole our planes and flew into just the right part of the building to where the heat from the fuel and the vibrations from the crash would warp the structure of the buildings causing them to fall! Simple! I am sooo tired of people coming up with government secrets and that americans did it or that the president knew all along…Do you know how many bogus threats that his people hear all the time? You know, I had friends who died in those buildings that day and I feel that ya’ll have disrespected me and my friends who passed! Get over it, it happened and it was horrible and face it, american was igorant until we realized that we’re not the safest country in the world or the smartest. Just stop with the conspieracy crap, you just sound stupid. You know what, I know why certain people talk about this government and conspieracy crap, it’s because they weren’t there and wanted to sound like they knew something and wanted to feel important.
Just leave it alone, and just respect those who died.
ah, so sick of those conspiracy theorists…they honestly should go back to hiding under their rocks.
Explosives.
Backlash from decades of irresponsible foreign policy.
It was a boat.
nice, just when I was starting to wonder about you, you throw this out there. I’m going to go with Dick Cheney!
I think the active ingredient everyones been looking for is “Complacency”.
de plane
Aaaaaaaaah. I’ve seen a video on this. “Proving” that there were actually explosives and it was physically impossible for the planes to have caused that type and angle of falling/destruction.
‘Course, I’m no physicist, so I have no idea.
@MonkeeAramda - Your profile photo is awesome! Haha.
none of the above, it was the gremlins
The heat from the fires caused by the planes weakened the steel supports until the buildings fell under their own weight. Certainly was tragic. Or maybe Trunthepaige was right. I don’t know.
There is no question the buildings were imploded! The BBC even reported the third building had fallen 20 minutes before it accutually happened. The steel from the beams in the core of the buildings were removed before the investigation had even started which is a federal violation and shipped off to China. Why? To cover up the cutter charge that was used to drop the buildings and to add building #7 wasn’t even touch by a plane. If you look at 911 Revisited then the facts will be quite clear. WAKE UP and don’t be sheeple.
I’m thinking a few things helped out.
It is at least worth looking in to. I found this article to be of interest: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7
You’ve got to be kidding.
Neither. They didn’t really fall. The reptilians from Niburu just put an invisible blanket over them so we think they’re gone.
@laurasaurusrex - The funny thing is the government did not claim the planes took the
buildings down: they said it was the fire, and there hasn’t been a building in history that has fallen flat to the ground by fire. Also, the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 Bomber.
the planes and resulting fires weakened the structure. Then gravity did what it does. The buildings collapsed from the top down, remember?
It really doesn’t speak well of xanga to feature this load of conspiracy fear-mongering on its front page.
Disgusting.
What about the Pentagon? There are “signs” that a plane didn’t actually crash there. Maybe the aliens did it.
i wonder if this is a serious question… hmmm…
i bet it isn’t, haha… in which case, it was me, together with @Rob_of_the_Sky , that was behind it all… i did it because i’m frustrated not being featured for a long time… he did it because he is insane…
if it is somehow a serious question, i would side with those who stand with the reasoning of “why would they wanna do such thing?” instead of thrusting my engineering and science background and go with the reasoning of “the only logical explanation based on what actually happen during the collapse/free fall…”, just because i don’t want to end up with the label of conspiracy theorist and possibly considered as a “terrorist threat”… i just don’t want to jeopardise being missed from xanga, because of those millions of xangan that depend on me for laughter…. XD
@fLiPgUy31O - i think i have to marry you now for refering to Zeitgeist.
a bunch of pissed off muslims did this.
@striemmy - Yeah thats it. I gather you are not planing on reading anything I have sent you. You just plan on asking new questions. So you want to believe it was some evil conspiracy. I’m not going to change your mind no matter what information I give you. And this far back in the comments no one is really reading anymore. So there is no third party to educate.
Another time maybe
I blame Revelife.
@OhItWontBeForever - here there no such proof at all
http://www.debunking911.com/
if you prefer videos
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934#
@trunthepaige - Exactly my point… They have no proof.
@trunthepaige - Reading on what? Either you believe in passports ejecting from plane crash explosions within enough time to get singed but not enough time to be damaged beyond recognition of the identities on them belonging to people that weren’t on the planes at the times of the crash (this would of course assume that they were in a position within the plane while it was crashing that would facilitate them being ejected quickly and safely) or you believe Saudi Arabians parading the streets of NY with fake passports planting evidence that points the finger back to their own country. Which one is it?
I’m not saying either is impossible, just improbable. Don’t know what would lead you to believe I only research one side of an argument..
@OhItWontBeForever - That was just my excuse to post those links in case people did not see then earlier in this thread
@trunthepaige - Hahaha.
Well I hope people see them, then!
@trunthepaige - 1) You only sent me one link. You speak as though you sent me the book on all objective findings from September 11th sent from the pearly gates themselves. 2) I read and quoted from one of the pages of the one link you sent me several comments ago. 3) If you were going to send me anything you probably should have linked me to the NIST final report, which, by the way, I’ve already read. 4) The word passport does not appear on the site you sent me even once so it’s a valid question even if I read the entire site, which I didn’t until looking for that word, because not all of it is relevant to the discussion.
5) I gather you’re not planning on responding to what I’ve said, as usual. Why is it always around this point in the conversation that you stop answering reasonable questions? If you can’t answer it and don’t know of a resource that can answer it then it just lends credence to the point that perhaps your answer isn’t THE answer.
you can get a good feel for how dumb people really are in this country: the planes, the fire, etc.. Do some research people and pull your big heads out of the sand
@striemmy - It was two links and your reply to the one you did look at means you did not look past the most recent entry. You are really not interested in seeing anything you do not want to see
Planes. Do a Youtube search for “9 11 conspiracy debunked”.
@trunthepaige - Ah, it was two links. I think I missed the second one when I stopped reading after the words “help you”. Condescending is on of your strong suits. My reply to the one I did read was simply that I did not care to discuss thermite explosion theories, which was what you claimed was the only alternative of two arguments in your very next comment. So, I’m really not seeing how me saying that I don’t care to discuss thermite means that I didn’t read the site, which I did. You have a real big problem with assumptions, you know that?
@mirada - So, let me get this straight. You saw some evidence either in videos or in photographs or read in the form of testimony that was backed up by the opinions of professionals in the science field or people of an official capacity and you decided to side with that. You made the determination that what you understood of the situation was the right answer and therefore any other answer is automatically the wrong answer. And now, you’re insisting that people that support any other hypothesis than the one you are aligned with do some research, because they’ve been misinformed, and that the masses are stupid.
If I’m not mistaken, and I’m not, this is identical to the pattern of a conspiracy theorist.
My comment was directed at the people who were leaving comments that obviously came from nowhere. I don’t care if people disagree with me; in fact, I would prefer that to people agreeing with me. Difference of ideas is what makes this country what it is and leads to debate. Debate is good. I didn’t mean to come off as a conspiracy theorist. I only what people to look at situations and come to a conclusion rather than blinding commenting on things they don’t know much about. I could have worded my comment better, but, its already done. Thanks for the comment
The terrorists, obviously.
I could think of a much better conspiracy then actually killing citizens.
Theres a bomb on a fuel truck or w/e those giant cans on wheels are. The FBI learns about it and stops it, faking the deaths of several “terrorists”. Boom. you got 1) a terrorist attack 2) no one dies 3) the FBI actually stopped something before it happened. GG
Watch Zeitgeist. The architect of the twin towers and the engineers that studied 9/11 have all said that it is physically impossible for a plane to cause the collapse of the towers in the way it did. The explosives inside the towers contributed to the collapse. The other world trade center building a few buildings behind the towers-that also collapsed/exploded-had no plane hit it. It blew up from explosives that had to have been planted prior to the planes hitting the buildings. The explosives in the buildings are not a theory. Civilians IN the twin towers and firefighters that broke into the scene have been video taped telling the public that they HEARD explosions 2 minutes prior to the planes hitting. You can see the explosions on camera.
Another interesting fact:
The media released the list of terrorists responsible for the plane hijackings. Of the 19 terrorists that supposedly were on the plane or in the US, FIVE of them are ALIVE and living abroad. They have gone to the press saying that they have never been to the US and do not know how to fly a plane. They have told the press that they don’t know how anyone got their name and personal information but they have no idea why they are being pegged for this. They are living FREE abroad-they are not being held captive. They are innocent and ALIVE. Obviously, THEY were not on the plane.
@tyka_8 - Something else to consider: The reason why the hijacked planes were not detected sooner was because there happened to be a drill on 9/11 at the exact same time where they did a drill based off someone hijacking a plane to hit the world trade center. Coincidental? Something else that is also pretty interesting is the subway bombings in the UK. On the morning they happened, there was also a drill being done for the instance of someone bombing the subways. Drill was scheduled at the exact same time as when the bombings happened. Just getting the info out there. Think what you will
@tyka_8 - the list of the 19 terrorists was released fairly quickly after 9/11. it has not ONCE been edited since its release 8 years ago.
@CreativeBoho - The people who have suggested things to say that the terrorists pegged were not in fact responsible, are not trying to disrespect the dead. If you take the time to look at Zeitgeist or 911 Revisited, you’ll find out that Tower 7 imploded on itself without a plane hitting it. People that were INSIDE of the twin towers on the basement floor and the 1st floor reported to the media (although most popular news channels didn’t report it to the public) that there were multiple explosions that threw them to the walls and floors minutes before the planes even hit the buildings. You can see the explosions on camera. This is not to disrespect the dead-it is in respect to them and to the truth. Why persecute innocent lives? It is tragic that the lives lost in 9/11 can not be given back. Finding the truth does not disrespect them.
I’m sorry, but… there were explosives?! D:
It was the earth quake that happened at the exact same time as the plane hitting and the bombs going off. No one noticed it though because of the other two distractions. Everyone knows that planes and bombs can’t destroy buildings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
IF we don’t know the TRUTH of how this happened , then how do we know how to prevent it from happening again???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI can I get witness??
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/CraneAndCommonSenseByFrankLegge.pdf
common sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire
was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental
starting on February 9, 2009.
The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing
caught fire around 8:00 pm,
was engulfed within 20 minutes,
and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight.
Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors
for a period of time and
burned out of control for hours,
no large portion of the structure collapsed.
All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite
true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be
so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and
waver and will continue to think that there may be some other
explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind
it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all
expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art
of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the
basest purposes. –Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Was anybody acutally in the buildings or in the basement to confirm these “theories”. I watched 9/11 revisited and it’s a show not factual. I can look at a bank and make up how the structure can faulter and crap like that. It’s not complicated people! Simple, unless you have CONCRETE evidence then your comments have no validity.
So yeah i made a comment recently on a blog asking What really happened to the towers? All I could think of was why do we always have to analyize everything when for the most part things turn out to be simple. I wrote about how I had friends who died that day and didn’t appreciate all the talk about “theories”, it’s just unamerican to start making up stories about how America knew it was coming.. Someone responded by saying that I should take a look at 9/11 revisited, which I’ve seen, and it’s believable.. But it’s on tv, 9/11 is a tv special on a theory about what happened. Unless someone was in the building and was waiting for something to happen and was studying it then how do we know what happened? Oh yeah, there were bombs that went off before the planes hit, question, then why were there no blown windows or people screaming? It’s just a bunch of bull, even if there were bombs they would’ve been destroyed in the ruble. I know, the people that belive this “theory crap” also believe everything Micheal Moore(The Attention Whore) says. ha!
I have no clue. All I know is planes crashed and buildings fell. Tragic.
Planes.
The fuel from the planes. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if terrorists–not the U.S. government–planted explosives to make sure teh buildings came down.
@striemmy - Yeah according only to loose change and no other source.
Random internet documentaries don’t constitute legitimate sources of information to me.
@FoliageDecay - 1) You’re so incredibly late to this that it would be funny if it wasn’t sad that you’re specifically responding to me.
2) Your personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate source of information have absolutely 0 relevance on the possible veracity of a source.
3) They give you the sources of their information.
Nothing is true. The only truth that exists in the world is personal truth. So, why should I care what yours is?
@striemmy - If you consider showing blurry digitally distorted images as showing their sources then you’re right. There was no citation by my memory. Nothing provided to allow us to look up the documents. Just claims they were there.
If you don’t care about any truth but your personal truth, then you are wrong cause I said so. That would be my personal truth.
But no one who sets out to make any point operates with that assumption you’d be contradicting your own viewpoint to do so.
If we’re talking about a serious issue like a conspiracy so vast then you’d better provide evidence other people can take seriously or stay inside and drool yourself unconscious.
@FoliageDecay - The citations are on the website. The website is where you’re supposed to watch the movie at. If you watched it somewhere else that’s another story.
How? Setting out to make a point is not necessarily setting out to prove someone else wrong. In fact, the very concept of making a point is an action in and of itself. You don’t even have to be talking to anyone to make a point, as so many xangans out there who don’t receive any comments on their entries know. However, my motivation for making a point is merely to lend validity to my world view, not to convert anyone. I don’t need to be right, but being considered completely invaliud as though nothing I say could possibly be right, that annoys me.
@striemmy - Um yes it is, unless you feel proud and intellectually accomplished for talking to yourself.
I get the impression you are only saying that to back away from me being right.
@striemmy - Where is the website btw.
I’d like to take a look at their citations.
@FoliageDecay - Suppose that that would make more sense within the framework of your experiences than what I really meant. However, I’m not so foolish as to set out to change minds on such volatile topics as politics and religion. Although, I am interested in raising relevant questions.
The site is http://www.loosechange911.com/, however, it appears the site has been changed or perhaps that I was mistaken from the beginning. Either way, I see no sources on the site at this point in time.
@striemmy -Okay you seem to fall into the post-modernist pit. The idea that any investigation should be pursued continuously. But I consider it hoopla. Beliefs can only be tested if there is a framework in which they must be justified. If you simply open up all questions for the sake of opening questions, you deny all frameworks and any ability to answer questions. The very act of asking questions is meaningless without some issues being considered settled for the time being.
There is a difference between raising questions and doubting ad infinitum–the latter is the post modernist point of view as I see it.
-Alexander the Zounderkite
@FoliageDecay - Reasonable doubt is the oxygen on which intellectual thought lives. So long as there are reasonable questions of course there will be investigation until there are answers that prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Put things to rest only when they deserve to be put to rest. Perhaps I just had too many teachers that said that there are no such things as a stupid question.
@striemmy - Yes, but you seemed to claim that questions were to be open whether or not there was reasonable doubt by suggesting that you had no intention to effect the point of view of others. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Reasonable doubt is when a belief has not achieved justification for teh particular circumstance.
@FoliageDecay - Perhaps you did. Reasonable doubt is subjective by it’s very nature. I have no intention of changing them, but there’s always some effect in interacting with others, even if it’s bolstering their own views in their minds. Introducing doubt, which will appear either as reasonable or unreasonable based solely on the matrix of experiences and accrued knowledge the receiving party processes information through, is what I do. Any doubt which is reasonable is reasonable doubt even in the face of a whole and complete and proven theory, which should illustrate how flimsy out species’ definition of the concept of truth is. Even unreasonable doubts can sometimes turn out to be true; Heliocentricity and Megafauna for example.
@striemmy - Absolutely, but the view that every issue must be opened at all times defeats the possibility of issues coming to a conclusion.
When evidence for an opposing point of view is revealed, that weakens the justification of a view. There was plenty of evidence of heliocentricity all around so it was reasonable to open the debate.
But what was not what we are talking about.
You said that people must read spare change. By saying that you implied that it provided enough justification to seriously consider the possibility of an astronomically large conspiracy. Impressionable minds respond to that, and often have an innate desire to feel as if they are part of something important.(e.g. fighting against a source of evil and deception. )
I’ve seen the spare change documentary and find it careless of you to promote it because it’s claims are very doubtful and unjustified. We don’t need more people looking for meaning jumping on a tenuous conspiracy theory. I can either assume, as you claim, that you believe in opening all questions all the time–which would result in the inability to come to any conclusions about anything. Or I can assume you were intentionally intending to move people toward a viewpoint I find baseless and dangerous.
If that latter is true I think you need to seriously consider your place in the rumor train and if that’s the kind of person you want to be.
-Alexander the Zounderkite
@FoliageDecay - There was as much evidence for heliocentricity over geocentricity as there is for a theory involving the rest of the universe functioning and moving around Earth in such a way that we would get the Doppler effect, the Coriolis effect, stellar parallax and stellar aberration. Is it explainable or verifiable using today’s philosophical and scientific technology? Absolutely not, but it’s a question worth addressing when we do have the ability to. Without the last two, geocentricity in the classic sense would
still have made sense until the invention of the telescope or
satellite.
By saying that people should watch it I implied that the questions are worth asking, which they always are. People go mad with power on a regular basis. We call them politicians. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to open a question of what a person with power or money is willing to do to get more of it. I don’t think that’s ever unreasonable, especially when it has an impact on every single person on the country. Beyond that, the fact that all of this would have to operate in secrecy would only attest to the fact that somewhere out there in said organization there was someone who has a functioning brain and the understanding that doing things of a power mongering nature in the public light incites revolts.
The idea that an issue is coming to a conclusion is subjective and even within the scope of it’s subjectivity, is still inaccurate. Even on issues surrounding events in the past continue to be examined into the future as new ways of thinking and analysis come into play. I suspect one day in the far future people will travel back in time for the explicit purpose of correcting the grand tome of human history. So, the issue has come to a close for you because you have satisfactory evidence to validate the conclusion you support. That’s fine, but what about Joe Blow over here who does not have satisfactory evidence? He finds some of the evidence suspect and there are unanswered questions he finds vital to determining a final answer. Until everyone is satisfied it’s not a closed issue for discussion. It’s never truly a concluded subject though unless it’s possible to expunge the entire issue from the memories of everyone everywhere. Like I said, new evidence and examination techniques will come as technology moves along and things must continue to be examined, questions continue to be asked, so as to verify that the conclusion reached is still an appropriate one. If we let subjects close, or ideas die (which they don’t) we would never advance as a species wherever consensus existed. Beyond that, you can’t control the thoughts and predilections of people born at a time before a conclusion was reached for the rest of the public aware at the time. Their questions will keep discussion going.
Finding viewpoints dangerous is what leads to thought oppression =)
I kinda sorta see your point though. How can you answer questions if everything is up in the air? How can anyone ever build a working hypothesis about something if they have no concrete answers? How can society and technology and humans advance if we spend all of our time asking questions? Well, pretty darn easily. We’ve all been doing it all the time, all of our lives. We operate on assumptions every day of our lives and treat them as concrete truths and that is the way in which we have found to continue existing. Is it real? Is what you know to be true really true? No. Nothing is true. However, if you were to sit and ponder that it might take you all your life to reconcile that in such a way as to live your life, or so I gather from the monks of all faiths and creeds that spend their lives devoted to study and clarity. Either that or you’d go bananas.
The word ‘if’ saves the day. It keeps us sane. It gives us the ability to continue without having to think and we use it all the time without knowing it. We all have a complex system of logic gates that we use on a daily basis. Either, you’re really awake or you’re hallucinating that you’re doing what you think you’re doing. That’s an example of an Or gate that someone encounters without knowing it. If A then [insert set of circumstance based actions], If B then [insert set of circumstance based actions] and proceed to next gate. If we all stopped to try and actually answer these questions rather than go off of assumptions, we’d all be stuck. You’re going to assume that a tiger didn’t actually just jump through the movie screen at the 3d movie you’re at with your girlfriend and that’s it’s all just special effects. Is it a logical conclusion? Sure. Could it be wrong? Sure. ultimately it’s an assumption until the movie screen goes dark or you get mauled to death and it’s really no fair judging it in hindsight as the assumption is made instantly in the moment.
We build everything on a foundation of assumptions we find reasonable and every once in a while everything we think we know comes falling down and we have to examine the assumptions we’ve made as just that, assumptions.
Everything is up for debate. Nothing is settled. Truth is an illusion. =)
@striemmy - You’ve strayed from the point to areas I would agree with you except in no form what I did was thought oppression.
I was asking you, as an individual, to be responsible with the rumors you decide to spread. You put those ideas in the form of a leading question, but you yourself obviously didn’t ask the complete necessary questions. You had no citations for the sources of spare change’s arguments. They may have never existed. Asking questions is always important, and believing what is said in the spare change document, or taking it seriously period, results from not asking questions.
Do they provide us with materials to check their information?
The answer ends up being no.
I could say “Do you really *believe* an old drug like gabapentin is the best way to treat neuropathy?”
In that instance I’m not genuinely promoting a question I’m wording it to lead the person to a conclusion.
@FoliageDecay - All this said after not reviewing the stream of back and forth commentary between me and other people who challenged me on exactly the initial comment you responded to wherein actual debate using sources ensued. =)
I merely said they ask the right questions. I did not say they spoon feed people information and sources. It is, as always, the responsibility of a seeker of information and knowledge to do their own leg work.