'Why?' -- What Do the 911 Truthers Believe?

[tolly]

For this threads purpose, we will assume the US Govt., Bush, Trilateral Comm., or the Tele-tubbies either, plotted, funded, committed or abetted the 911 attacks for some diabolical purposes. Convince me. Any idea is welcome and I won't ask for supporting docs or cites. Be serious, if you can.

 

[blanning]

For this threads purpose, we will assume the US Govt., Bush, Trilateral Comm., or the Tele-tubbies either, plotted, funded, committed or abetted the 911 attacks for some diabolical purposes. Convince me. Any idea is welcome and I won't ask for supporting docs or cites. Be serious, if you can.

There's a lot of different version of what actually happened. And many do not agree. I have no idea what really happened. But I think the consensus is that the official version of events is absurd.

If you want the proverbial string you can pull on to unravel the entire sweater, start by examining the collapse of building 7. It's a textbook example of a perfectly executed controlled demolition, something that's exceedingly difficult to do.

Once you believe that building 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens pandora's box. What else isn't true?

brian

 

[pgp_protector]

There's a lot of different version of what actually happened. And many do not agree. I have no idea what really happened. But I think the consensus is that the official version of events is absurd.

If you want the proverbial string you can pull on to unravel the entire sweater, start by examining the collapse of building 7. It's a textbook example of a perfectly executed controlled demolition, something that's exceedingly difficult to do.

Once you believe that building 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens pandora's box. What else isn't true?

brian

The question is "Why?" though.

 

[hollyda]

But I think the consensus is that the official version of events is absurd.

I'd also like to know why.

Conspiracy theories puzzle me. I'm still trying to figure out why Beatles fans to this day insist Paul is dead and was replaced with a double.

 

[blanning]

The question is "Why?" though.

Why was it done? I think we'll never have a complete answer. But there's two reasons I can think of. One was Larry Silverstein's insurance fraud. But the main one was the Patriot Act. With that you can throw in the justification for the "war on terror".

Look into that report from the the project for the new american century. They talk about needing another pearl harbor in order to get their agenda through in a shorter amount of time.

brian

 

[tolly]

There's a lot of different version of what actually happened. And many do not agree. I have no idea what really happened. But I think the consensus is that the official version of events is absurd.

If you want the proverbial string you can pull on to unravel the entire sweater, start by examining the collapse of building 7. It's a textbook eexample of a perfectly executed controlled demolition, something that's exceedingly difficult to do.

Once you believe that building 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens pandora's box. What else isn't true?

brian

I agree with every point you make except that I don't believe pointing to the B7 thing is very persuasive. For every 'expert' that claims it was controlled, I can find one who says is was not.

Comparisons to other building fires to support the WTC collapse is a hard sell as the examples are so dis-similar to the 911 event.

Thanks for the response.

 

[tolly]

Why was it done? I think we'll never have a complete answer. But there's two reasons I can think of. One was Larry Silverstein's insurance fraud. But the main one was the Patriot Act. With that you can throw in the justification for the "war on terror".

Look into that report from the the project for the new american century. They talk about needing another pearl harbor in order to get their agenda through in a shorter amount of time.

brian

So, 1 vote for Silverstein. How did he pull that off? It would have cost him much more money to pull it off then he would ever collect financially from the event itself.

The Patriot Act didn't exist on 911. It was post-911 legislation.

NAC would not have the political/military support or resources to execute the attacks. In any case, their membership office has a revolving door. Surely one of the hundreds of disgruntled members would have blown the whistle if such planning were in the works.

 

[tolly]

I'd also like to know why.

Conspiracy theories puzzle me. I'm still trying to figure out why Beatles fans to this day insist Paul is dead and was replaced with a double.

That's easy. The 1967 'Paul' could sing and played the bass only. The new and improved 'Paul' couldn't and plays 11 instruments.

 

[blanning]

I agree with every point you make except that I don't believe pointing to the B7 thing is very persuasive. For every 'expert' that claims it was controlled, I can find one who says is was not.

Comparisons to other building fires to support the WTC collapse is a hard sell as the examples are so dis-similar to the 911 event.

Thanks for the response.

It's difficult to trust experts either way. After all, experts back up the official version of events. But if the gov is lying, then their experts are also. So who can you trust?

I trust my own common sense and understanding of the laws of physics. Youtube is full of building implosions gone wrong and gone right. Building 7 looks exactly like a building implosion gone right. If the building were damaged, either by fire or by airplane pieces, the damage would not have been uniform. And so the collapse would not have been so nice and neat also. Why didn't the building simply fall on its side if it were damaged in an uncontrolled manner?

For building 7 to collapse the way it did, *all* of the steel framework holding up the building would have to be severed at the same time in a very controlled manner, just like a controlled demolition. If half of the framework were damaged then half of the building would have collapse, or it would have fallen over. Look at the OKC building damage for an example of that.

brian

 

[blanning]

So, 1 vote for Silverstein. How did he pull that off? It would have cost him much more money to pull it off then he would ever collect financially from the event itself.

I have no idea how he financed it. It's just circumstantial evidence. It's very suspicious that he could take over control, then rewrite the insurance policies to include that specific event, twice, then collect on the policy, all in six weeks. It could be just a coincidence, but there sure are a lot of coincidences with this.

The Patriot Act didn't exist on 911. It was post-911 legislation.

I think you misunderstood me. 911 was done so that the patriot act would be possible.

NAC would not have the political/military support or resources to execute the attacks. In any case, their membership office has a revolving door. Surely one of the hundreds of disgruntled members would have blown the whistle if such planning were in the works.

Actually, there were plenty of people complaining about it. There's video out there with people contradicting the official story. And you could argue that anyone evil enough to do this could knock off anyone trying to talk.

But who knows. Maybe the government is right. I don't care anymore.

brian

 

[Ar Cosc]

Why destroy B7 in a controlled demolition at all? Knocking down 1 and 2 would have been enough to get the Patriot Act through. If it weren't for conspiracy theories, most people wouldn't even have known B7 even existed.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's difficult to trust experts either way. After all, experts back up the official version of events. But if the gov is lying, then their experts are also. So who can you trust?

lol - nice way of affirming what you want to believe.

I trust my own common sense and understanding of the laws of physics.

How is your understanding?

Youtube is full of building implosions gone wrong and gone right. Building 7 looks exactly like a building implosion gone right. If the building were damaged, either by fire or by airplane pieces, the damage would not have been uniform. And so the collapse would not have been so nice and neat also. Why didn't the building simply fall on its side if it were damaged in an uncontrolled manner?

Like 99.9999% of the population I bet you have no knowledge of doing a controlled demolition or the structural mechanical and civil engineering skills to make your intuition sound.

For building 7 to collapse the way it did, *all* of the steel framework holding up the building would have to be severed at the same time in a very controlled manner, just like a controlled demolition.

How do you know this? What experiments/computer modelling have you done to make this statement?

If half of the framework were damaged then half of the building would have collapse, or it would have fallen over. Look at the OKC building damage for an example of that.

brian

Again, what experiments et al. have you done to "know" this? What is your relevant experience/education applicable to this area have you got that makes you so confident in your assertions?

 

[blanning]

Like 99.9999% of the population I bet you have no knowledge of doing a controlled demolition or the structural mechanical and civil engineering skills to make your intuition sound.

Ask any physics 101 teacher.


I'm done responding to this thread. And posts like yours are why. In my opinion, we're currently watching the death of the US. I give it 2 more years tops. Then we'll go the way of the USSR. There are a lot of very scary things in store for this country. And 9/11 was just the start. You can continue to pretend that the world hasn't changed. But that won't change reality. It's unavoidable at this point because 90% of Americans think the same way you do. That is, they lack critical thinking skills, and can't have an opinion about anything technical unless it's spoon fed to them by an official.

brian

 

[KerrMetric]

Ask any physics 101 teacher.

I have a PhD in physics and have been a working physicist for almost 30 years.

And all I see in this 9/11 conspiracy crap is just that - crap. Now, I haven't really looked into much in the last few years but just going by the two threads on here I have scanned, it's the same rubbish I remember from 5 years ago.

I'm done responding to this thread. And posts like yours are why.

Oh, you mean I had the gall to actually ask you for where your expertise lies in these areas. Well, sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry!

I don't know what you do for a living but I'll wager it has about as much to do with structural engineering, demolitions and physics in general as being a cable TV guy.

In my opinion, we're currently watching the death of the US. I give it 2 more years tops.

Oh come on, get real.

Then we'll go the way of the USSR. There are a lot of very scary things in store for this country. And 9/11 was just the start. You can continue to pretend that the world hasn't changed. But that won't change reality.

Gloom and doom. I bet the US is still around in 50 years.

It's unavoidable at this point because 90% of Americans think the same way you do. That is, they lack critical thinking skills, and can't have an opinion about anything technical unless it's spoon fed to them by an official.

brian

This is rich coming from someone whose posts on this 9/11 topic consist of "I think", "I know", "seems like", "has to be" etc etc.

Again your expertise to determine this is???????/

 

[circa02]

If I say water is wet, do I need a degree to back that up?

 

[KerrMetric]

If I say water is wet, do I need a degree to back that up?

No.

But if you are telling me that the triple point of water is not at 273.16K but 275K and you know this just because your spidey sense is tingling - then you'd better start trotting out your knowledge and expertise in thermodynamics before I take you seriously.

 

[circa02]

I agree with that.

 

[KerrMetric]

I agree with that.

And the world remains on its axis. Good to agree now and again. lol

 

[circa02]

Yup!

 

[tolly]

I think you misunderstood me. 911 was done so that the patriot act would be possible.
brian

I did. Sorry.