What really happened on 9/11?

[saltydancin]

That is precisely the point of my post #26, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Take a look at this short video by David Chandler, a prolific propagandist for AE911Truth:

He is saying that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered zero resistance. Hence - he says - the collapse took place at free fall speed (actually it didn’t). In so far as there is a “truther” theory of controlled demolition, this is it.

I put some numbers to that, which Chandler and his colleagues should have done but never did. I conclude it would be impossible to set this this up without detection.
For this and other reasons I am NOT a 9/11 “truther”. What are you?

Apparently guess we should all be honored with those SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court & crooks on Capital Hill suicidal super egos Christiananality Mohammed pedophilia Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement compulsive obsession proving Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam for their national religion of just way too dang lily brilliant white as "one nation under God with equal justice under law" thieving National Archives purchased US Constitution Bill of Rights - President Eisenhower presented old glories to Holocaust survivors for economic excellence - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists presence.....

 

[IBDaMann]

He is saying that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered zero resistance.

Why believe this? The falling mass did not need to encounter zero resistance. The falling mass was far more than enough to snap the support of the floor below.

Occam's Razor.

No explosions were necessary.

 

[saltydancin]

Why believe this? The falling mass did not need to encounter zero resistance. The falling mass was far more than enough to snap the support of the floor below.

Occam's Razor.

No explosions were necessary.

Like not being a fan of the not so master plan of their not so master race of Christiananality Mohammed pedophilia Christian Nation national religion SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court more perfect union of "serve the Pope or die" and Islam "death to the infidels" crusade - jihad space is the place for the human race tautology of Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam according to their Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement ....

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Why believe this?

I don't believe it! That's what David Chandler says, and most "truthers" follow him without a thought of the implications.

The collapse started when the support columns on two or three stories buckled, following airplane impact and an hour or so of fire.

Once the collapse started (and indeed before), NO explosives were necessary. Bang goes the mainstream truther argument.


There are alternatives, of course. One is that the towers were destroyed by high-energy beams from an orbiting space station. I hope I don't need to explain that I don't believe that either.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The only part of 9/11 I find hard to believe is not being able to see the plane flying in to the pentagon.

I mean they have video of the hit but you never see a plane.

Did the government cover some things up, probably, as they do in all major issues they don't want the people to know about but did the government have any role in the attack?

No

Bush had nothing to gain from it, he was already going good in his presidency.

Besides, pretty much everyone believes Bush was a good guy, they may think he was stupid but he wasn't evil like Joe Biden is.

9/11 absolutely trashed Bush's reputation because of the Iraq War.

And for any conspiracy to have validity you need to have a solid reason of why something happened. There was no reason for the government to concoct this scheme.

People say that Bush and the government planned it so they could go to war in Iraq but if that's what they wanted they would have just grabbed some Arab guy, planted a dirty bomb on him and set it off in downtown NY.

There is no way something this elaborate would have been considered a good plan, too much could go wrong with it and the amount of people who would have to know about it would increase the risk that someone would say something or frankly that it wouldn't work.

 

[Scott]

I imagine you know that the notion that WTC 7 was just collateral damage, rather than the result of a controlled demolition is something that still hasn't been settled.

Provide your evidence that it was a controlled demolition. That means you need to tell us when the charges were place. Until you can provide evidence of charges being placed your argument is that of a conspiracy nut.

You frequently seem incapable of not engaging in personal attacks -.-. You also seem to not understand the concept of evidence. Evidence simply suggests that something is true. What you're asking for with this bit about "when the charges were place[d]" is for a very specific piece of evidence. I've never claimed to have that specific piece. I'm not even completely sure that WTC 7 was taken down by charges in the building, although I strongly suspect that this was the case.

As to the evidence that it was a controlled demolition, there's plenty of that. This page has a fair amount:

What Caused Building 7's Collapse? | wtc7.net

 

[Scott]

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com

Wow... Look at all those claims and then the conclusion that is pretended to be a fact. The report wasn't released until a month after it was originally supposed to be complete. That doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest. It also doesn't mean it was delayed since there was no requirement to finish by a certain date. Almost all investigations are not completed on time because of factors that don't prove a conspiracy.

Neither I nor Corbett said that the the investigation report taking an extra meant that a conspiracy was proven. Corbett doesn't actually mention the completion time of the report at all in the quote above. He -does- mention that the investigation was delayed, however, and he links to an article with evidence that this was happening. The article is here:

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation | cryptome.org

I'll quote the introduction:

**
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation
[snip]

Tell us how this delay affected the veracity of the report.

Neither I or James Corbett claimed that the delay affected the veracity of the report. As to what -did- affect the report, you'd have been better off at clicking on the link about the report being "a coverup from start to finish". It's a link to the following article:

“The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush | Democracy Now!

 

[saltydancin]

Neither I or James Corbett claimed that the delay affected the veracity of the report. As to what -did- affect the report, you'd have been better off at clicking on the link about the report being "a coverup from start to finish". It's a link to the following article:

“The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush | Democracy Now!

As Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin Ukraine exterminations of those who have to die for Russia's Orthodox Church sins just as Christain Nation SCOTUS thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists exterminations more perfect union of Christiananality pedophilia "serve the Pope or die" & Islam "death to the infidels" of those who have to die for the Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement national religion sins makes plenty of cents....

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

What really happened on 9/11?

Google is your best friend.

Most 5th graders know exactly what happened on 9/11- AND SO SHOULD YOU!

Next BAT-SHIT-CRAZY Conspiracy Theory PLEASE!

 

[NiftyNiblick]

One of the worst things about 9/11, after all of the casualties, is how badly we reacted to it.

Everybody got scared shitless and America made herself look like a frightened little bunny of a country.

We made air travel unbearable with the TSA.

We implemented the Patriot Act which, not having been found unconstitutional, revealed the weakness of our constitution.

It took forever to replace the World Trade Center, and when we finally did, we put up a hideous building that's all tower--
a disgrace compared to what was once there.

[I think China would have put up identical towers to what were there before only twenty stories taller,
and they'd have done it within six or nine months, tops.]

And we never made the towelheads, especially the Saudis, really pay for what they did.
A strong leader would have nuked Mecca into oblivion just to make a point. Fuck the oil.

In most ways, the America which helped the Allies win WWII died on 9/11/2001.
What's left is a fucking dumpster fire.

In every practical way, the Islamist terrorists won.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Neither I or James Corbett claimed that the delay affected the veracity of the report. As to what -did- affect the report, you'd have been better off at clicking on the link about the report being "a coverup from start to finish". It's a link to the following article:

“The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush | Democracy Now!

So if you weren't claiming it affected the veracity then you were just throwing shit at the wall when you said this?

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.
**

If you didn't mean the delay affected the veracity then nothing in your list could have affected the veracity of the report.
If nothing affected the veracity of the report then why do you disagree with its results?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You frequently seem incapable of not engaging in personal attacks -.-. You also seem to not understand the concept of evidence. Evidence simply suggests that something is true. What you're asking for with this bit about "when the charges were place[d]" is for a very specific piece of evidence. I've never claimed to have that specific piece. I'm not even completely sure that WTC 7 was taken down by charges in the building, although I strongly suspect that this was the case.

As to the evidence that it was a controlled demolition, there's plenty of that. This page has a fair amount:

What Caused Building 7's Collapse? | wtc7.net

You aren't proud to be a conspiracy nut?
Clearly you are a conspiracy nut since you have not given us any evidence of a controlled collapse.
Your link is nothing but bullshit since it contains no actual science, only speculation that isn't supported with any evidence at all. Your link doesn't even address how the building was constructed.

Where is your evidence of charges being placed for a controlled demolition?
Your lack of evidence of placed charges is evidence of you being a conspiracy nut.

 

[Concart]

I am familiar with the controlled demolition bullshit. It is all bullshit since it ignores that controlled demolitions require setting of charges on columns. There is no way to do that without being noticed in an occupied building. It takes multiple days if not weeks. It requires that all the columns be accessed. Those columns are behind finished walls. They are not out in the open.

Because there are different ways to demolish a building doesn't mean we have to choose one. We choose the one that is most likely based on ALL the evidence.
1. We know there was a fire.
2. We know that the building was damaged by other buildings falling down next to it.
3. We know that when the towers fell they created a seismic wave and we know that seismic waves can do structural damage to buildings.
4. We have no evidence of any or all the steel columns being accessed in the building in the previous 10 years.

Controlled Demolitions happen from the bottom of a building. Any fucking idiot can see that wasn't a controlled demolition. It takes a special kind of idiot not to see it.

I am so over debating the dumbest conspiracy theories in history with morons who couldn't hold a job at a McDonalds.

Why is this Russian bot continued to be allowed here?

 

[Theywillneverlearn!]

Controlled Demolitions happen from the bottom of a building. Any fucking idiot can see that wasn't a controlled demolition. It takes a special kind of idiot not to see it.

I am so over debating the dumbest conspiracy theories in history with morons who couldn't hold a job at a McDonalds.

Why is this Russian bot continued to be allowed here?

Concart. Where were you on 9/11??? How about Guno your retarded brother? Let me help you. Neither of you were serving, nor never have. Both of you wimpy fucking limp dick liberals were hiding behind the bed pissing your panties.Seriously. STFU.