Is it crazy to distrust the official 911 story?

Here:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Feel free to explore other areas of the site too. It may enlighten you. Amazingly, it links constantly to actual peer-reviewed scientific articles, while your sites link us to more quotes that are not peer-reviewed, not scientific, and not realistic.

The site consistently will link you to article after article actually published in peer-reviewed magazines instead of silly blogspots.

Amazingly, I hear constantly how the "right" ignores peer-reviewed science when it is "convenient"....

I linked you directly to the "first time in history" debunking. There were many firsts on that day.

Anyway, there you will find some really cool stuff like this:

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."
Click to expand...

As well as a strong well-documented and explained to the level of the layman rather than written for a bunch of structural engineers (some of the articles I have read were written at that level) explanation as to why Tower 7 collapsed and many other actually scientific articles written on almost every conspiracy theory of the day.

Enjoy!
 
I have my own conspiracy theory. Bush and Co knew the attack was coming, and let it happen. The project For the New American Century, a Neocon think tank, including such members as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz (and many others), published a policy paper in 2000, stating that they wanted to invade Iraq, but needed an attack on The US "of Pearl Harbor Proportions", if the public were to go along.

Does that sound familiar? Bush's received memos from our intelligence agencies stating that Al Qaeda was "determined to attack The US", while Bush spent the most time ON VACATION during his first year, of any US president in modern history.

Is is merely coincidence that on the first year of an administration chock full of Neo-Cons, we suffer EXACTLY the type of attack that said Neo-Cons would have wished to have seen, while the head of said administration spent a ridiculous portion of said year on vacation, WHILE our intelligence agencies were screaming about Al Qaeda wanting to attack us?
 
Damocles said:
Here:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Feel free to explore other areas of the site too. It may enlighten you. Amazingly, it links constantly to actual peer-reviewed scientific articles, while your sites link us to more quotes that are not peer-reviewed, not scientific, and not realistic.

The site consistently will link you to article after article actually published in peer-reviewed magazines instead of silly blogspots.

Amazingly, I hear constantly how the "right" ignores peer-reviewed science when it is "convenient"....

I linked you directly to the "first time in history" debunking. There were many firsts on that day.

Anyway, there you will find some really cool stuff like this:



As well as a strong well-documented and explained to the level of the layman rather than written for a bunch of structural engineers (some of the articles I have read were written at that level) explanation as to why Tower 7 collapsed and many other actually scientific articles written on almost every conspiracy theory of the day.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
there's lots more, you are just too polite to post it. Keep pushing, he will.
 
I notice his little "multi-storied" thing. It concludes, incorrectly, that first all of them are built the same, and secondly that planes crashing into a structure largely held together with bolts might not cause that building some stress.

Then it concludes, also against all reality and logic, that a building next to them, and actually sharing portions of foundation, after they fell wouldn't have been damaged to the core...
 
The Neocon BROADCAST that they wanted to attack Iraq, and only needed a serious attack on the US. Al Qaeda would have seen that as a win-win situation, as it allowed them to:

a) Attack The US
b) Have US further their agenda, as Al Qaeda has explicitly stated that they wish to form a Global Caliphate, and the accomplishment of said goal would be most easily accomplished by "radicalizing The Arab Street"
c) "Radicalizing The Arab Street" would be most easily accomplished if a western power first attacked an Arab nation
d) Iraq would be the nation Al Qaeda would have MOST WANTED The US to attack, as it was both Arab Controlled, AND secular. Two birds.
 
Damocles said:
I notice his little "multi-storied" thing. It concludes, incorrectly, that first all of them are built the same, and secondly that planes crashing into a structure largely held together with bolts might not cause that building some stress.

Then it concludes, also against all reality and logic, that a building next to them, and actually sharing portions of foundation, after they fell wouldn't have been damaged to the core...
Click to expand...

While you try to build rp up, I try to tear him down. Both of us are being diverted by others. :clink:
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
I have my own conspiracy theory. Bush and Co knew the attack was coming, and let it happen. The project For the New American Century, a Neocon think tank, including such members as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz (and many others), published a policy paper in 2000, stating that they wanted to invade Iraq, but needed an attack on The US "of Pearl Harbor Proportions", if the public were to go along.

Does that sound familiar? Bush's received memos from our intelligence agencies stating that Al Qaeda was "determined to attack The US", while Bush spent the most time ON VACATION during his first year, of any US president in modern history.

Is is merely coincidence that on the first year of an administration chock full of Neo-Cons, we suffer EXACTLY the type of attack that said Neo-Cons would have wished to have seen, while the head of said administration spent a ridiculous portion of said year on vacation, WHILE our intelligence agencies were screaming about Al Qaeda wanting to attack us?
Click to expand...

Yes, this has been my conclusion for years now. And it's not "crazy talk". In fact, if you look at what was going on that summer, to conclude that these guys didn't know something was about to happen, is naive...at best.
 
wow ya'll should start a website moronsrus.com
knew it was coming and let it happen. BHAHHAHAHA
thanks
 
I think the level of conspiracy theory belief is directly tied to lack of education.
Like gonzo said inept yet Bush co is smart enough to accomplish.
those are mutually exclusive.
But this is comical shit thanks
 
gonzojournals said:
Ah, insulting my intelligence is a great tactic for people without arguments. I have no idea whether he had WMDs or not-- I've never been to Iraq, nor was I very close to Saddam...however, from the information I have seen, he did not.

As far as 9/11 goes, is it really that hard to believe that a burning building (and not just a regular fire, but the fire from jet fuel) can collapse? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's incredibly hard to believe that. Especially building 7.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...857&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8
I don't understand how someone can look at this video and believe it's anything but a controlled demolition. If a building was going to fail due to fire and damage from debris, it would collapse at the point of damage, not a complete collapse of all the supporting structures at the same moment.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
I have my own conspiracy theory. Bush and Co knew the attack was coming, and let it happen. The project For the New American Century, a Neocon think tank, including such members as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz (and many others), published a policy paper in 2000, stating that they wanted to invade Iraq, but needed an attack on The US "of Pearl Harbor Proportions", if the public were to go along.

Does that sound familiar? Bush's received memos from our intelligence agencies stating that Al Qaeda was "determined to attack The US", while Bush spent the most time ON VACATION during his first year, of any US president in modern history.

Is is merely coincidence that on the first year of an administration chock full of Neo-Cons, we suffer EXACTLY the type of attack that said Neo-Cons would have wished to have seen, while the head of said administration spent a ridiculous portion of said year on vacation, WHILE our intelligence agencies were screaming about Al Qaeda wanting to attack us?
Click to expand...


This is essentially where I come down.
 
Heres where I come down on this issue. I do not KNOW what happened that day. I would like to know what happened that day. I dont trust this current government because it has lied repetedly.

I would like a full (which includes the building 7 collapse) accounting of what happened that day. We need to put our best independent investigators to the task to answer the questions that did not get answered. the majority of Americans do not believe the official story. That is not good for our country.
 
Damocles said:
Here:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Feel free to explore other areas of the site too. It may enlighten you. Amazingly, it links constantly to actual peer-reviewed scientific articles, while your sites link us to more quotes that are not peer-reviewed, not scientific, and not realistic.

The site consistently will link you to article after article actually published in peer-reviewed magazines instead of silly blogspots.

Amazingly, I hear constantly how the "right" ignores peer-reviewed science when it is "convenient"....

I linked you directly to the "first time in history" debunking. There were many firsts on that day.

Anyway, there you will find some really cool stuff like this:



As well as a strong well-documented and explained to the level of the layman rather than written for a bunch of structural engineers (some of the articles I have read were written at that level) explanation as to why Tower 7 collapsed and many other actually scientific articles written on almost every conspiracy theory of the day.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

:)

Enjoy I did sir.

"The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory."
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...+Center+Chicago+fire&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

"Multi-storied steel frame building" ???

Roof collapse.

Didn't find much on the Pennsylvania fire, but if was a theatre, I'm wondering how mulit-storied it was.

As for WTC7, even yhe 9/11 Commission stated that the building fell for "unknown reasons" .. which makes sense given the small amount of LOCALIZED damage it got. Buildings much closer to the towers and which sustained far more damage somehow managed to do what nearly all buildings do.

Thanks, that was fun.

Uhh .. two questions ..

Did the Bush Administration know 9/11 was about to happen before it did?

Why did the Bush Administration cover up, remove, and destroy critical evidence?
 
Last edited:
LOL. You attempt to take on all of that information with what just that? You are sad, and in denial.

As I said, I think that there is a ton of coverup, and from more than one source. That doesn't change that the buildings fell because of what happened to them, not from demolition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top