I've posted this before but it bears repeating:

My 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Some religious fanatics decided they wanted to kill a bunch of people in the name of their god. They decided to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

The W Bush administration was obsessed with Saddam and discounted the threat of Al Qaida. Certain intelligence reports were overlooked due to negligence and distraction by key US leaders. When 9/11 happened, it was more due to negligence of the Bush administration than the tactical genius of the terrorists.

Note that I say "negligence" and not "complicity".

Anyway, after it all happened, some in the W Bush administration were willing to take advantage of the situation to stoke fear into a shocked public, that they might be uncontested as they push their internal and foreign policies. All the controversy about W's theft of the 2000 election was forgotten. All the political resistance to his then radical agenda (now centrist by today's GOP standards) disappeared. W had 8 years of nearly absolute power.

However, shocked as the public may have been, they couldn't attack Iraq right away. They weren't able to find or successfully fabricate any evidence to pin the attack on Saddam. So they put some minimal effort into Afghanistan, dropped a few bombs, collapsed the government and called it a day. Bush even said on video that he didn't care about Osama. It wasn't important to his agenda.

Enough phony evidence was fabricate and assembled to convince the public that Saddam was in league with these terrorists (he wasn't) and that he was making WMD (he wasn't). Any in the CIA who dared to contradict or debunk the case for war with Iraq had their career's ruined and they were made examples of. A reporter in the White House Press Room finally had the temerity to ask W Bush a pointed question about Iraq ...in 2006. Her career was subsequently destroyed.

Today, we have a spineless media that is completely owned by corporations and cowed against reporting any information but rather into sticking to being stenographers and "reporting the controversy". At most, reporters today reviewing serious problems with our political system are allowed to say "both sides..." and "Washington (in general) is broken". This fake and compulsive centrism provides cover for an increasingly radical right wing and a GOP that has gone completely insane.

That's my conspiracy theory. I think it's supported pretty well by the facts.

(October 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Again, lies put out by the truther crowd...which is certainly an ironic name for this bunch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-fire.html


I knew people who were working in Building #7 on 9-11. One was a pregnant attorney who worked for the IRS' General Legal Counsel and was a frequent opponent in labor cases. I had the chance during a break in a case some months later to speak to her about that day. After the towers were hit the workers were gathered on the ground floor but they could not evacuate right away because of debris falling around them. Finally the upper floors of the building caught fire and there was no choice. She told a harrowing tale of dashing for safety towards the IRS district HQ on Church st. a block north.

So this nonsense that building #7 was undamaged is simply bullshit.

Sorry, I should have emphazised more when I said "hardly touched". I know that a few floors were on fire, but the most critical flames (on the south side I think it was) wouldn't cause an even collapse. Rather, the building should have leaned onto the weakened side.

(October 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Rather, the building should have leaned onto the weakened side.

How do you know this? Are you qualified to make this assertion?

I'm only asking, because there are thousands of fire investigators, demolition experts, architects, structural specialists, and engineers who disagree with you.

(October 13, 2013 at 12:18 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I also don't know how they would've set the charges. The only thing that definitely gets to me (after a day of thinking about it..) is that WTC 7 collapsed... and in such a "clean" manner as well. The somewhat straightfoward collapse of the tower next to it hardly touched WTC 7, yet it cleanly collapsed in 7 seconds. It doesn't make any rational sense.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm.

It's quite laughable to think that the failure of one "critical" column triggered the building into a perfect free-fall collapse. As a civil engineering student, I can guarantee you NO building is desgined with a self destruct button in the form of a "critical beam". That's just ridiculous. You make it so that the building has no way of collapsing even if a few members have failed. Over-compensating is key in civil engineering.

Quote:WTC 7 wasn't "hardly touched" by the North Tower. Go to YouTube and search for "debris hitting WTC7", and you'll find plenty of videos of large projectiles falling off the North Tower and hitting WTC7.

The building should have collapsed unevenly - towards the debris-struck side - if that's what caused it to collapse.

Quote:I'm not so sure I understand the meaning of the word "clean" you use to describe the collapse. Buildings generally collapse downwards in the manner WTC7 did, just as the North and South towers did. This is due to the fact that the structure holding parts of the building up fails, and once the top of the building starts falling, the rest of it collapses underneath.

Except the bottom gave way and fell evenly at basically a free-falling acceleration. It's quite the miracle for random debris, fire and just the overall uneven damage to do that.

Quote:If you were expecting the towers to fall over to one side, or for WTC7 to fall over to one side, then you don't quite understand the mechanics of what went on that day.

Then not only explain the mechanics to me, but the physics of how uneven damage to one side causes the building to free-fall.

---

(October 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Rather, the building should have leaned onto the weakened side.

How do you know this? Are you qualified to make this assertion?

I'm only asking, because there are thousands of fire investigators, demolition experts, architects, structural specialists, and engineers who disagree with you.

Engineering/physics 101: columns provide vertical resistance. Half a building giving way means that the structure above the failed columns now begin to accelerate. This however doesn't translate as a horizontal force. The other half of the columns are still supporting the weight above them. The end result is that half the building gives way, and given the benefit of the doubt, the side that is falling might actually pull the other side *horizontally*, hence why I say it should've fallen towards the weakened side.

Demolition engineers have testified repeatedly about how a controlled demolition is performed. No evidence of any such explosion was found which would have included vast amounts of wiring.

Moreoever,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

it starts on the bottom....not the middle....and the whole mass settles into a pile.

Steel alloys may melt at relatively high temps, but they also weaken, warp and expand at lower temps. Jet fuel burning in a contained space can spike temperatures enough to do it. Also, aluminum, both the plane body and parts of the building, burn at...6-700°C? Now aluminum+iron+sufficient temperature= thermite. That's around 3000°...plenty hot to make metal soup. I imagine the towers' construction wasn't designed to deal with that.

(October 13, 2013 at 12:44 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: It's quite laughable to think that the failure of one "critical" column triggered the building into a perfect free-fall collapse. As a civil engineering student, I can guarantee you NO building is desgined with a self destruct button in the form of a "critical beam". That's just ridiculous. You make it so that the building has no way of collapsing even if a few members have failed. Over-compensating is key in civil engineering.

Perhaps you should learn about how WTC7 was actually built then, because it wasn't a standard construction, owing to the fact they had to build it over an electricity substation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs

Additionally, one of the theories for the collapse of WTC7 involved exactly what you think is laughable...the failure of a single column: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/200...-Nov07.pdf

Quote:The building should have collapsed unevenly - towards the debris-struck side - if that's what caused it to collapse.

It wasn't the debris that caused it to collapse. It was the uncontrolled fires that spread through the building. The debris started the fires, yes, but I don't think you'll find anyone claiming they were the direct cause of the collapse.

Quote:Except the bottom gave way and fell evenly at basically a free-falling acceleration. It's quite the miracle for random debris, fire and just the overall uneven damage to do that.

Have you ever watched a video of the collapse? Go watch it again. You'll see part of the penthouse collapse into itself before the outside starts to fall down. This wasn't a free falling building by any calculation.

Quote:Then not only explain the mechanics to me, but the physics of how uneven damage to one side causes the building to free-fall.

Fires spreading throughout the building...plus I never said it free-falled (nor does any evidence suggest it did).

Quote:Engineering/physics 101: columns provide vertical resistance. Half a building giving way means that the structure above the failed columns now begin to accelerate. This however doesn't translate as a horizontal force. The other half of the columns are still supporting the weight above them. The end result is that half the building gives way, and given the benefit of the doubt, the side that is falling might actually pull the other side *horizontally*, hence why I say it should've fallen towards the weakened side.

Again, look at the actual structure of the building. It wasn't built to a standard frame. If the fires had been put out, it's likely the building would not have collapsed at all. The building fell not due to the damage one side of it took, but due to the fires which raged for hours throughout the building.

(October 13, 2013 at 6:28 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(October 13, 2013 at 2:42 am)Minimalist Wrote: When I actually get into it I always ask the truther crowd why, if this conspiracy is so clever and well-executed, are these "writers" around printing books about it? Why aren't they floating face down in the East River with a bullet hole behind their ear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiZm0Svak0


Video description:

"An analyst says Phillip Marshall was killed to suppress surprising information he was about to release in a new book that would embarrass the official 9/11 storyline."

Oh, please!

http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/2...eased.html

Quote: Based on interviews, evidence, and other factual information developed during this investigation there appears to be several contributing factors that led to this murdersuicide. Phillip Marshall had been under the care of a doctor for several years and appeared to be battling chronic pain, drug dependency, and mental health troubles. The prescription drugs that he had been prescribed seem to be very sensitive to dosages, especially when combined with other medications, which was the case with Marshall.

A medical doctor consulted during the investigation stated that combining bupropion (anti-depressant) with hydrocodone (narcotic) can have adverse reactions in regards to mental health. Additionally, missing a dose or taking too much of one of these prescriptions could also cause adverse reactions. Research showed that the Food and Drug Administration warned that any abrupt changes in psychotropic medications (such as what Marshall was prescribed) could result in suicide, hostility, or psychosis.

There was no evidence to support a theory that anyone else could have committed this crime, or that any other persons were present at the time of the shootings. Macaila and Alex Marshall both appeared to be sleeping at the time they were shot, indicating no signs of a struggle with a possible intruder. There was no evidence of a struggle with Phillip Marshall, and no signs of forced entry into the home. Various items of value were still present inside the home, and no evidence of any additional weapons was found.
Lastly, there was no evidence that Phillip Marshall or his children were moved or repositioned after the shooting, which would indicate an altered crime scene.

Based on the final findings of the investigators, evidence shows that Phillip Marshall and not an outside fourth person, shot and killed Macaila, Alex, the family dog, and then himself. To conclude, it is determined that this case was a double murder-suicide.

Give me a fucking break, will you?

A nut blows away his kids, dog and himself. Sadly, happens all the time in the US.

This thread makes the username "FallentoReason" suddenly ironic.

I wish I could say I was surprised that the two "whistleblowers" that conspiracy theorists in this thread have named both suffered from mental disorders, but quite honestly I'm not.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they claim to be skeptical whilst throwing skepticism aside. As long as they can find someone willing to say the right stuff on camera, it doesn't matter what their credentials are or even if they are considered mentally sound.