Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in “authority” tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11. |
Yes, that’s right. We’re conditioned to believe what those in authority tell us. That explains our unanimous support for the Iraq war and our wholehearted endorsement of Bush environmental policy.
Picking up on the way we fall in line with authority figures the way you have was very astute. Good eye.
Conspiracy theorists are just as blind in their belief of what other conspiracy theorists tell them as they claim we are in our belief of what the authorities tell us.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in “authority” tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11. |
No, we are just too conditioned to use our brains and common sense. Orchestrating 9/11 and topping that by placing explosives in the WTC foundations is the equivalent of going from New York to LA via Buenos Aires. Sure, you could do it, but why not just take the interstate?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Richard Dickson I’m getting a little tired of the “airplane fuel can’t cause a fire hot enough to melt steel” argument. It didn’t have to completely melt it to molten slag, it just had to get it hot enough to soften to the point where it wouldn’t support the weight of the floors anymore. |
They tend to ignore the difference between fire retardants being exposed to open flame as they would in your average fire and fire retardants exposed to a ball of burning jet fuel traveling at whatever speed the planes hit the buildings at. I envision it as something like the buildings and busses being knocked over in test footage of nuclear detonations, just on a smaller scale. Whoof, and the fireprotection is stripped away. It’s now busy not burning as it falls out the window and down to the street, and the support structure’s free to melt.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu Whether or not there’s any truth to any of this, do any of you even begin to realize how much you all really don’t know? All you know about this is what you’ve been told. Any point of view on this that any of you have, is for the most part, only one that has been presented to you. Do you realize that? Does it bother you? You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in “authority” tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11. |
This is stupid. Its like the “if a tree falls in the forest…” argument. Obviously I can’t “see” gravity, but I’m pretty sure that objects behind me don’t defy it when I turn my head.
I’m not saying we should close the book on all the unanswered questions of 9/11/2001. There are some very suspicious things that happened that day, and I’d certainly love to interrogate the shit out of Bushco for all the terrible things they’ve done in the past 5 years. But being so strident when the only thing you can add to the conversation is that there are “unknown unknowns”, is pretty silly.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Pop Zeus This is stupid. Its like the “if a tree falls in the forest…” argument. Obviously I can’t “see” gravity, but I’m pretty sure that objects behind me don’t defy it when I turn my head. |
Okay, so you’re equating the theory of gravitation (something that is proven in our day to day lives) with the official theory of 9/11, which is full of inconsistancies, which fails to answer alot of questions which really need to be answered, and that almost requires bending and breaking the laws of physics in order to work?
I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid.
Quote:
| But being so strident when the only thing you can add to the conversation is that there are “unknown unknowns”, is pretty silly. |
As opposed to admitting there are alot of unanswered questions about 9/11 but sitting back and doing nothing to try and uncover the full and complete truth?
You’re argument would hold a little more water if the majority of American’s weren’t spending their days flipping through the channels, sipping on their lattes and reading about what color Paris Hilton’s shit was today instead of being more concerned about very serious matters that need to be tended to. And all of this questioning of the official theory should be the least of those concerns, what needs to be focused on (and stopped) is the Neo-Con agenda, which benifited greatly from 9/11.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu And all of this questioning of the official theory should be the least of those concerns, what needs to be focused on (and stopped) is the Neo-Con agenda, which benifited greatly from 9/11. |
Let it be known that today is a special event. Uncle Cthulhu finally agrees with virtually everyone else on this board.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by DaveB Let it be known that today is a special event. Uncle Cthulhu finally agrees with virtually everyone else on this board. |
If you’d really been paying attention you would’ve noticed that I’ve been saying the same thing for quite a while.
The only point I differ on, is that these so-called conpiracy theories hold more water than the official theories, despite lacking hard evidence from the scene of the crime.
Because even if you can give an adaquate explanation for how the towers collapsed without the involvement of the only one proven method of making such buildings collapse with such precision, you’re still left with alot of problems, namely building #7, and the why the government has refused to release any of the video tapes from the surrounding buildings that captured the attack on the Pentagon.
I think it’s very important now to look into these things and demand some answers, but it’s even more important that we focus on the real horrors that are going on now in the world because of the Bush Administration, and that those things are put to an end and the responsible parties brought to justice.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid. |
New sig!
Uncle Cthulhu, are you a writer for Jack Chick comics?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid. |
Just because my analogy isn’t as apt as I would like doesn’t make your conclusions of what I believe versus what I’ve been told to believe any less “stupid.” But, whatever, I’m not gonna get into an argument about these details. And you’re not gonna stop the hyperbole.
The reasons why WTC 7 fell always seemed kinda sketchy to me. That was not a poorly made structure, nor was it hit with anything.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Body Snatcher Speaking of which, how the fuck does a commercial airliner get anywhere near the heart of the military without someone noticing? |
Agreed. This reminds me of something I read a while back, something to the effect of NORAD being told to stand down on 9/11. Can anyone confirm or refute this? I just can’t remember the content of the article very clearly at this point. Also, does the Pentagon have any kind of missile defense system?
If this were conducted like a criminal investigation, with someone like Patrick Fitzgerald running things, all these questions wouldn’t continue to persist. It is, one might argue, the most heinous criminal act ever perpetrated on American soil. It merits a criminal investigation.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics WTC 7 Collapse CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: “The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one.” FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA’s preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom–approximately 10 stories–about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.” WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors–along with the building’s unusual construction–were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. |
Of course, even with this logical scientific explanation, which can’t be debunked or challenged without resorting to claims of the “well that’s what they SAY, but I just don’t believe that story” variety, there remains another, more interesting reasoning behind the WTC-7 collapse being genuine. Simply put, what else did the government have to gain by demolishing a supposedly unharmed building? What possible political motivation was there for them to destroy WTC-7, having already allegedly brought the twin towers down? There is none. The result of 9/11 would’ve been exactly the same as it always has been, with or without that extra building collapse. All WTC-7 does is muddy their theoretical plan.
Now, I don’t disagree that the government has been less than forthcoming with examining what happened on 9/11. But a far more reasonable, rational explanation for their reticence is their desire to keep that day as a nice, simple political touchstone, as well as to cover up any percieved shortcoming on their part. 9/11 was and is an incredibly complex political and social event, something which the Bush administration can do without. Their version-9/11 was perpetrated by evil terrorists and nothing we could have done would’ve stopped it-is the one that allows their policies to continue as they have over the past five years.
Cthulhu’s position is roughly the same as the fundamentalist position on evolution: if a theory has holes or grey spots, it is wrong, and we can substitute a completely batshit insane theory to replace it.
Why Havent you watched it yet?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Murrow Popular Mechanics’ ten-page, in-depth study of the WTC collapses, including the addressing of several conspiracy theories. |
Note that their research was gathered from the panel of experts who back the official explanation.
No effort was made to actually investigate any other possibilities for how and why the towers collapsed. That’s not an investigation. That’s taking a preconceived notion (that al qaeda terrorists flew planes into the buildings resulting in the subsequent destruction), and trying to figure out how it works. That’s not a fucking investigation, and it doesn’t really use the scientific method, because it assumes that they already knew the cause (the planes).
I must stress how theatrical the whole thing was and how one could not just simply overlook the planes, because they had a very dramatic effect, resulting in an emotional rather than a rational reaction from people.
Give me a fucking actual investigation of what happened. If the official theory is true, than explain to me how fucking fires obviously suffering from lack of oxygen were able to melt steel (while it seemed to have little effect on PEOPLE in the fucking building) bring down two buildings that had suffered worse fires in the past. Because it makes no fucking sense.
At the very least create a computer simulation of the Twin Towers with all of the conditions from that day, a completely realistic creation of the physics and everything. And prove to me that those planes were capable of the destruction that took place. And fucking make the WTC plans available to the public so that someone is actually capable of doing that.
You keep citing this fucking Popular Mechanics article like it’s the fucking bible on 9/11, and you don’t even realize how much investigation did not take place. You don’t even realize how many people have been censored, you don’t realize how much has not been actually proven to us.
Just because so many fucking people believe in and shove down our throats that the official cause and explanation of 9/11 is doctrine does not make it fact.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu Note that their research was gathered from the panel of experts who back the official explanation. |
You mean all the people listed in the article that they used for reference are “in” on the conspiracy?
Who are these “leading” academics, what are their credentials? Is the biggest name Steven Jones? Are there any leading engineers in their ranks, specially structural engineers, because the ones in Jones own University shut down his theories from a structural engineering point of view. Are most engineers in the country “in” the conspiracy?
What’s so scientific about speculating that WTC-7 housed a secret CIA operation and that’s why it had to be blown up? What science leads to that conclusion?
Quote:
| If the official theory is true, than explain to me how fucking fires obviously suffering from lack of oxygen were able to melt steel (while it seemed to have little effect on PEOPLE in the fucking building) bring down two buildings that had suffered worse fires in the past. |
Please cite when these buildings had worse fires. I do not remember massive fires across many floors of these buildings.
Further, where is the evidence that these fires had little effect on people? You’re going to point to a blurry picture of what looks like a person standing in what you think should be the fire zone, right?
Also, how are these fires suffering from lack of oxygen when the impact of the planes blew open multiple sides of the buildings?
Also, are you familiar with the history of building and fire codes in New York City? Are you familiar with which codes the towers were held to? Are you familiar with the fire-proofing on the steel support? Are you familiar with how it was applied? Are you familiar with what kind of tests the steel and structure underwent? I’ll give you a hint on the last one: None!