911 Truth Movement

[Harry]

;D

Fair enough, I accept that Clinton has caused you untold mental damage. Greg Miller said Oakley-Nicholls orchestrated the whole thing, he saw footage of it on the internet.

;D

Yep, Clinton, Miller and Wallace ensuring us all that we were locked and loaded and that JON was just about to explode on the scene, and that our poor performances were due to injuries and a young list, and that Miller and Wallace were the right people to lead us to our next flag. ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Footage such as?

It's the height of arrogance to laugh at such a large number of people, as Harry points out many of whom are expert in their field with no vested interest or alterior motive, just because they don't share your opinion and are calling for a proper investigation. Not surprising though as this is the classic apologist's response in any argument.

Come now, you can't blame people for being amused by wild conspiracies. While many of these experts may have diplomas or degrees or masters in architecture or engineering, none of them have expertise in the events of Sept 11. No one really understands the forces and chains of events because there is no way to study them. Physicists might understand the forces but they can be certain about the structure, and no one truly knows what damage the planes did, nor what subsequent damage was caused when the towers came down.
They can speculate, but they can't know.

 

[Harry]

Come now, you can't blame people for being amused by wild conspiracies. While many of these experts may have diplomas or degrees or masters in architecture or engineering, none of them have expertise in the events of Sept 11.

no-one has expertise in the events of 911, yet we are expected to believe the official findings. engineers and architects would be best placed to analyse and explain what happened.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

no-one has expertise in the events of 911, yet we are expected to believe the official findings. engineers and architects would be best placed to analyse and explain what happened.

No, believe what you want. I watched much of it live. I didn't see anything that gave me reason to search for a conspiracy. Two of the largest steel and concrete structures in the world swallowed to full size jet liners and then collapsed. Seems logical to me. Some of the buildings near by suffered huge damage and eventually came down too. Still nothing. As Baloo has pointed out while people might not like the official report th3re are just as many if not more experts who dont see any reason to question. I see your experts and raise you more experts.

 

[Harry]

No, believe what you want. I watched much of it live.

then you would have seen wtc7 fall like a deck of cards when smaller and closer buildings to the towers were torn apart and stood firm. you are satisfied that an office fire caused a symmetrical collapse at free fall. If you are then that's fine, but I can see why many others question it.

 

[AngryAnt]

Let's have a moon landings conspiracy thread next, that's always good for a laugh.

 

[Baloo]

Let's have a moon landings conspiracy thread next, that's always good for a laugh.

Do we have a UFO thread ?

 

[tigertim]

Footage such as?

It's the height of arrogance to laugh at such a large number of people, as Harry points out many of whom are expert in their field with no vested interest or alterior motive, just because they don't share your opinion and are calling for a proper investigation. Not surprising though as this is the classic apologist's response in any argument.

im allowed to laugh at whatever I wish. Just as others may laugh at my non belief of ghosts, Santa Claus, Elvis sighting, 9/11 conspiracies, UFO sightings, alien abductions, moon landing conspiracies, star signs, psychic mediums and other made up fantasies.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

then you would have seen wtc7 fall like a deck of cards when smaller and closer buildings to the towers were torn apart and stood firm. you are satisfied that an office fire caused a symmetrical collapse at free fall. If you are then that's fine, but I can see why many others question it.

No I'm not satisfied that an office fire caused it. I fully understand the authorities not wanting to put out a "we don't have all the answers" statement at a time of panic. Perhaps I have been unclear. I don't think anyone knows exactly what brought down wtc 7. But I'm unconvinced that means there is a conspiracy. The WTC towers almost fell on it, why is it surprising that it fell too? To me it isn't.

 

[evo]

There is another clip where a conspiracy theorist said there wasn't even a plane crashing into tower 2 (and therefore proved it was an explosion and therefore a conspiracy) but it was later simply shown as poor quality footage (because there definitely a plane crashing into tower 2!)

What about the 'hologram theory'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_x9NsxJlg


Rather careless of the holographic artist to go to all that trouble then forget to paint windows and stickers on the plane. ;D

 

[bowden4president]

No I'm not satisfied that an office fire caused it. I fully understand the authorities not wanting to put out a "we don't have all the answers" statement at a time of panic. Perhaps I have been unclear. I don't think anyone knows exactly what brought down wtc 7. But I'm unconvinced that means there is a conspiracy. The WTC towers almost fell on it, why is it surprising that it fell too? To me it isn't.

To me, its not the fact that in fell, but the way in which it fell.

Damage and fire to one corner of a building will cause weakness on one side which may cause that side of the building to collapse. Now that may bring down the rest of the building, but it certainly won't fall straight down virtually on its footprint the way WTC7 did.

 

[brigadiertiger]

Can you imagine how complex it would be to wire up two of the biggest landmarks in the world without anyone noticing?

Maybe there are explosives planted in all really tall buildings across the planet and we the average person just doesn't kow about it. Yes sounds implausible buut maybe they are there so if a building is severly damaged in anyway they can be brought down in their own footprint to avoid further loss of life and structures.

Apparently fires brought the towers down, not the impact WT. There have been plenty of fires in large steel framed buildings and none outside the WTC trio have ever collapsed.

How many of those buildings also had a very large plane with lots of jet fuel fly into them?

 

[Baloo]

Maybe there are explosives planted in all really tall buildings across the planet and we the average person just doesn't kow about it. Yes sounds implausible buut maybe they are there so if a building is severly damaged in anyway they can be brought down in their own footprint to avoid further loss of life and structures.

Switzerland have planted explosives in most of their major bridges so that if they are ever attacked in a land battle they can retreat over the bridge and blow it up instantly.

 

[evo]

I'm rather disconcerted to learn that all skyscrapers can be bought down at the whim of the powers that be.

Makes me glad I live in the suburbs.

 

[Baloo]

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

Haven't read all of it but it was nice to find a site addressing all the tin foil hatters points without invoking GOD.

 

[evo]

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

Haven't read all of it but it was nice to find a site addressing all the tin foil hatters points without invoking GOD.

It was interesting what the firemen said about the bulge in WTC7 3 hours prior to collapsing., I hadn't read that before.

The other day I was looking for this footage that shows the WTC7 fire wasn't small, but couldn't find it on utube. Happily it was in that article you posted.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

While I must admit WTC7 collapse looks somewhat like a demolition, it seems plausible that a fire like this raging on multiple levels for 7 hours on top of the hole already caused by the debris ( the article says it amounts to 20 story hole) could weaken the building enough to fall.

 

[U2Tigers]

Let's have a moon landings conspiracy thread next, that's always good for a laugh.

I actually think the moon landings are a big hoax.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I actually think the moon landings are a big hoax.

I put it to you that if you "believe" that the moon landings are a hoax, then there is very little "thinking" going on at all.

 

[U2Tigers]

I put it to you that if you "believe" that the moon landings are a hoax, then there is very little "thinking" going on at all.

no doubt.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

To me, its not the fact that in fell, but the way in which it fell.

Damage and fire to one corner of a building will cause weakness on one side which may cause that side of the building to collapse. Now that may bring down the rest of the building, but it certainly won't fall straight down virtually on its footprint the way WTC7 did.

I think you are speaking with a certainty that is misplaced, many things "may" have happened but I doubt you know what really did happen even so just on the balance of probabilities the least likely scenario is that it was a secret and advanced plan to pointlessly and spectacularly demolish a building and then pretend you didn't.