9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[jamesrwright3]

Yes. Planes hit a building, but its far more complex than that. You have the questions of how and by what mechanism the buildings collapsed and why they collapsed in that particular manner. These questions are important because they present a number of structural engineering issues and need to be considered when constructing other buildings.

Those issues have been studied.

Ask yourself this. If the United States government, with its Pentagon and official agencies, and billions of dollars of global military and intelligence resources was "to stupid to pull of a heist that big", then what could be said of al Qaeda whose base of operations is within a cave?

Don't be ridiculous, when people talk of conspiracy theories in terms of 09/11, they are talking about conspiracies other than those involving Al Qaeda. There is absolutely no evidence of government involvement.

 

[trunks2k]

No they do not. They may back each other up but just because MULTIPLE people screwed up does not mean they are right. Their stories are not backed up by ANY conclusive physical evidence.

If they are, then you should be able to present it. The fact that you havent makes me think that you cant

Not to mention that they could have indeed heard explosions. That, however does not mean that they heard demolition explosives or any sort of planted explosive. Considering a huge building just got hit by an airplane and is about to collapse, it wouldn't surprise me that there were things blowing up inside (i.e. electrical transformers) or that there were other very loud noises that people may describe as an explosion.

What it comes down to is that planted explosives strong enough to bring down a building would not have been heard by a handful a people. It would have been heard by everyone within the area and recorded on the multiple video cameras that were filming at the time, which did not happen.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Those issues have been studied.

And what changes have been made to building designs as a result? What mechanism caused the Towers to collapse so rapidly? Sure. There is the pancake theory, but that too, is disputed by many prominent architects and engineers. So far as those issues have been studied, further studies are still required if questions still linger. What harm could result from further study save for the accumulation of knowledge?

Don't be ridiculous, when people talk of conspiracy theories in terms of 09/11, they are talking about conspiracies other than those involving Al Qaeda. There is absolutely no evidence of government involvement.

And yet people claim that there was no conspiracy. Evidently, if they believe that a band of conspirators from al Qaeda orchestrated the attack, then that is a conspiracy theory, by definition.
Apparently, there is also a lack of "hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, according to Rex Tomb, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb offered that in response to a question as to why the 9/11 attacks were not mentioned on bin Laden's Most Wanted page.
As for there being "no evidence of government involvement" or foreknowledge, how would we know until we had an inquiry that investigated deeper than the 9/11 Commission did?

 

[jamesrwright3]

And what changes have been made to building designs as a result? What mechanism caused the Towers to collapse so rapidly? Sure. There is the pancake theory, but that too, is disputed by many prominent architects and engineers. So far as those issues have been studied, further studies are still required if questions still linger. What harm could result from further study save for the accumulation of knowledge?

Every single study done from the American Society of Civil Engineers to those done at UC Berkley and to those done in foreign lands have confirmed the OV is correct. There is not one academic journal that has said otherwise.

And yet people claim that there was no conspiracy. Evidently, if they believe that a band of conspirators from al Qaeda orchestrated the attack, then that is a conspiracy theory, by definition.
Apparently, there is also a lack of "hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, according to Rex Tomb, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb offered that in response to a question as to why the 9/11 attacks were not mentioned on bin Laden's Most Wanted page.
As for there being "no evidence of government involvement" or foreknowledge, how would we know until we had an inquiry that investigated deeper than the 9/11 Commission did?

[/QUOTE]

Regardless of whether it was Bin Laden himself of Khaled Sheik Muhammad, the bottom line is it was planned by Al Qaeda and approved by Bin Laden..that is according to Khaled Sheik Muhammad..unless you are trying to say he is in on the conspiracy too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Every single study done from the American Society of Civil Engineers to those done at UC Berkley and to those done in foreign lands have confirmed the OV is correct. There is not one academic journal that has said otherwise.

Numerous architects and structural engineers have expresses their doubts and scrutiny over the official "pancake" theory. (See here: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html)
Numerous technical articles expressing this doubt have been well-published and accessible for public scrutiny, over the Internet, for many years now. And a peer-reviewed article on the matter has been published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. (See here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm) Again, what harm could result from further study? What harm could result from an independent inquiry?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Numerous architects and structural engineers have expresses their doubts and scrutiny over the official "pancake" theory. (See here: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html)
Numerous technical articles expressing this doubt have been well-published and accessible for public scrutiny, over the Internet, for many years now. And a peer-reviewed article on the matter has been published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. (See here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm) Again, what harm could result from further study? What harm could result from an independent inquiry?

Sorry. You are wrong. Show me one peer reviewed academic journal that supports your looney bin theory.
You can't.

 

[Steezie]

Not to mention that they could have indeed heard explosions. That, however does not mean that they heard demolition explosives or any sort of planted explosive. Considering a huge building just got hit by an airplane and is about to collapse, it wouldn't surprise me that there were things blowing up inside (i.e. electrical transformers) or that there were other very loud noises that people may describe as an explosion.

Agreed. Closets full of cleaners can combine under heat and pressure to form an impromptu chemical bomb, batteries for larger devices such as laptops can explode when heated.

What it comes down to is that planted explosives strong enough to bring down a building would not have been heard by a handful a people. It would have been heard by everyone within the area and recorded on the multiple video cameras that were filming at the time, which did not happen.

Agreed, completely. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the demolition idea

 

[joebudda]

Im gonna ask you once more

Either back up what you're saying or clear the field for someone with the stones to do so

I did. I supplied video of eyewitness testimony.

Many hearing and feeling explosions coming from the basement levels.

I tend to think the eyewitness' in this case are some of the best evidence. And on the first page of this thread I supplied video of a loud explosion caught on video. Also images of destruction to the basement levels.


And there is William Rodriguez who worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

And then there is another video testimony of Marlene Cruz who witnessed the basement explosions she made from the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfKQSv7e_Y&feature=related


I am not saying that you shouldn't deny it, I assume you will deny it. All I am saying is it is persuasive to me.

 

[Steezie]

I did. I supplied video of eyewitness testimony.

You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them. In this case there is none, therefore the witness testimonies must be considered erroneous or mistaken.

I tend to think the eyewitness' are some of the best evidence.

When their findings are backed up by physical evidence, I agree.

And on the first page of this thread I supplied video of a loud explosion caught on video.

Videos that have no confirmed sources and are completely un-verifiable

And here is William Rodriguez who worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

I want to know what his qualifications for discerning the explosion of demolition munitions versus anything else and how he's able to tell the difference.

And then there is another video testimony of Marlene Cruz who witnessed the basement explosions she made from the hospital.

I have to ask the same question about Miss Cruz

 

[joebudda]

You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them. In this case there is none, therefore the witness testimonies must be considered erroneous or mistaken.

When their findings are backed up by physical evidence, I agree.

Videos that have no confirmed sources and are completely un-verifiable

I want to know what his qualifications for discerning the explosion of demolition munitions versus anything else and how he's able to tell the difference.

I have to ask the same question about Miss Cruz

And you can deny it, so what, I wouldn't expect any less from you. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest though.
It is persuasive to me. And I have supplied some of the witness testimony and loud explosions caught on video that I have found persuasive.

I am not trying to persuade you, you mean nothing to me.

 

[Steezie]

And you can deny it, so what, I wouldn't expect any less from you. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest though.
It is persuasive to me. And I have supplied some of the witness testimony and loud explosions caught on video that I have found persuasive.

Which demonstrates how easy it is to persuade you.

I am not trying to persuade you, you mean nothing to me.

Bull, if that were true, you wouldnt have posted here

 

[jamesrwright3]

Its pointless to debate with these people. No matter how much logic and evidence you present they will still believe their insane and ludicrious theories

 

[joebudda]

Which demonstrates how easy it is to persuade you.

You sure are funny.

Bull, if that were true, you wouldnt have posted here

I don't post here for your benefit.
Just like I wouldn't be so egocentric to assume you post here for me. I understand that the world doesn't revolve around me.

 

[joebudda]

Its pointless to debate with these people. No matter how much logic and evidence you present they will still believe their insane and ludicrious theories

This is quite amusing coming from you. Very ironic indeed.

 

[jamesrwright3]

This is quite amusing coming from you. Very ironic indeed.

LOL go put on your tin foil hat and look for bigfoot and UFO's
Crazy people

 

[oldbetang]

You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them.

You should watch the videos that joebudda posted. You'll get a laugh at what constitutes "convincing evidence" for him.

 

[joebudda]

LOL go put on your tin foil hat and look for bigfoot and UFO's
Crazy people

Do you always cram people into these little boxes? You do realize it is nothing more then a collectivist illusion? Another means of rationalizing some "us vs them" mentality that only exists in the mind.

 

[joebudda]

You should watch the videos that joebudda posted. You'll get a laugh at what constitutes "convincing evidence" for him.

I would be interested what you believe caused the damage and explosions in the basement levels?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Do you always cram people into these little boxes? You do realize it is nothing more then a collectivist illusion? Another means of rationalizing some "us vs them" mentality that only exists in the mind.

They cram themselves by believing such crackpot theories. There is no evidence there were any explosions. As you know, witness testimoney is highly subjective and not always accurate. Look at all of the people that claim they see Aliens and Bigfoot..should we believe them too? There is no physical evidence of explosions.

 

[oldbetang]

I would be interested what you believe caused the damage and explosions in the basement levels?

I need you to be more specific. What damage and explosions in the basement?