Quake3World

Dukester wrote:I choose to believe the engineers on The History channel no matter what.

As opposed to the people who want it to be a conspiracy so bad they can taste it.

i've never "wanted" it to be a conspiracy. i thought it was 19 al-qaida loonies for years, and frankly it makes no difference to my estimation of current US foreign policy whether the whole thing was planned or just taken advantage of

I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

By the same logic, why orchestrate massive fabrications and conceal evidence if everything happened as you say it did? It is completely unneccessary, isn't it? And it exposes you to large unneccessary risks. Why do that?

I think that there's quite a large plausibility gap between tap-dancing (read: lying your fucking ass off) to cover up foreknowledge of a plot that will facilitate your slimy goals involving world resource domination and actually taking steps to make sure said plot happens.

Nightshade wrote:This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

The money factor? The new owner of the buildings had just closed a mindblowing insurance against destruction, which he promptly cashed after 9/11.

Ryoki wrote:

Nightshade wrote:This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

The money factor? The new owner of the buildings had just closed a mindblowing insurance against destruction, which he promptly cashed after 9/11.

That he got just days before 9/11 :icon14:

In the documentary you can see where the bombs exploded... any questions?

Nightshade wrote:I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

there's some stuff here about the WTC collapse:

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

as for the risk involved if such a plot were true: sure, there's a risk, but the extent of the risk depends on a whole bunch of factors, such as

* how willing is the media to go along with official pronouncements and accept them as truth?
* how much credence is given to conspiracy theories generally? (think JFK, moon landings, area 51, roswell and other nonsense)
* how concentrated is media ownership?

when you think about the (fairly obvious) answers to those questions, it seems pretty clear - to me anyway - that you have a perfect environment in which to pull off a very risky operation like this without too much difficulty

on the other hand, if the media were more independent, if people assessed conspiracy theories rationally by weighing up the evidence (rather than dismissing them outright), and if media ownership were widely distributed, such an operation would be impossible to carry out without being found out and brought to book. clearly none of that applies in the case of the US - or much of the western world for that matter

lol, check this out, from the so-called 'confession tape' found in Kandahar:

Bin Laden:...Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1709425.stm

leaving aside that this is the same explanation as the official version, are we supposed to believe that bin laden's 'experience' as a construction engineer led him to think that a) the WTC was constructed of iron ( )? and b) that - in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary - the upper floors would have collapsed?

nigger please

Nightshade wrote:I think that there's quite a large plausibility gap between tap-dancing (read: lying your fucking ass off) to cover up foreknowledge of a plot that will facilitate your slimy goals involving world resource domination and actually taking steps to make sure said plot happens.

If you've got so much at stake, then how much difference is there between allowing 3000 people to die when you can prevent it, and helping to make sure it goes as planned? Hell, is there any difference at all?

seremtan wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

there's some stuff here about the WTC collapse:

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

ROFL! Tell me you're not seriously putting that pseudoscience idiocy forth as a cogent argument for demolition of the WTC. Please? It's a GROSS oversimplification. He's basically saying that it should have taken much longer than 10 seconds for the towers to collapse because of the undamaged floors beneath the impact area. Mmm, yes, let's just ignore the impact of twenty-some-odd 3000 TON floor slabs coming down on to the floors below, far exceeding the load ratings for the structural members.
Dude, I believe the government knew the attacks were going to happen. I just can't see any evidence to suggest that there was demolition.

Toxic, you're a fucking idiot. I've seen lots of video of the buildings coming down, and there's no evidence of explosives whatsoever. You think there is because you're a goddamned retard and someone in the documentary is telling you there's explosives.

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I think that there's quite a large plausibility gap between tap-dancing (read: lying your fucking ass off) to cover up foreknowledge of a plot that will facilitate your slimy goals involving world resource domination and actually taking steps to make sure said plot happens.

If you've got so much at stake, then how much difference is there between allowing 3000 people to die when you can prevent it, and helping to make sure it goes as planned? Hell, is there any difference at all?

Why is it so hard to accept that what you're proposing was completely unnecessary? Planes smashing into buildings or planes smashing into buildings and then buildings falling down, the end result is the same.

No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

Nightshade wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I've never gotten a bit of information about what happened to the Towers from any sources connected to the Bush Administration.
And Rook, we've had this discussion before. I don't think that there was no demolition because it's ridiculous and implausible. I don't think there was any demolition because I've seen shitloads of buildings come down in documentaries and I saw absolutely nothing to indicate that there were any explosives going off before or when the towers came down.
Look, if there were credible evidence that there was demolition, I'd be inclined to believe it. Bush et al are lying, warmongering cocksuckers, and I wouldn't put much of anything past them. This, however, simply makes no sense and was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. The planes hitting the WTC were plenty enough to rally people around the war flag. Why expose yourself to immense risk by blowing up the building?

there's some stuff here about the WTC collapse:

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

ROFL! Tell me you're not seriously putting that pseudoscience idiocy forth as a cogent argument for demolition of the WTC. Please? It's a GROSS oversimplification. He's basically saying that it should have taken much longer than 10 seconds for the towers to collapse because of the undamaged floors beneath the impact area. Mmm, yes, let's just ignore the impact of twenty-some-odd 3000 TON floor slabs coming down on to the floors below, far exceeding the load ratings for the structural members.
Dude, I believe the government knew the attacks were going to happen. I just can't see any evidence to suggest that there was demolition.

well that would be good point indeed if the WTC towers had collapsed after, say, 24 hours of raging fire on more than 3 or 4 floors. but for steel designed to withstand 2000degF for 20+ hours to collapse after little more than an hour (from a fire on only a few floors, and given the fact that much of the jet fuel clearly went up on the initial impact as can be seen in all the videos) - that's pretty bizarre, not to mention unheard of. the doc gives the example of a similarly constructed building in madrid where the top floors collapse after about 24hrs of continuous burning, but it didn't bring the rest of the building down

furthermore, while clearly a load of concrete falling would probably exceed the load-bearing capacity of the floors below, nonetheless those floors would have present resistance to that falling concrete greater than the resistance of air to a falling object - in other words, even taking the weight of the falling upper floors into account, the thing would still have collapsed more slowly that 10-11 seconds (9.2 secs would be the freefall-in-vacuum speed)

i guess we can argue the toss about whether such a controlled demo was necessary or not to provide the pretext needed by the neocons. without a scenario identical in every way but for the total collapse to compare it to, we'll never know

i mean look, i have no particular *need* for the controlled demo theory to be true to loathe everything the bushies did using 9/11 as a pretext, and have up until now dismissed these kinds of 'bush knew' theories as probable horseshit, but the evidence just doesn't support the official line. (i mean ALL the evidence, not just about this, but about flight 93, the pentagon, the fake bin laden 'confession' tape, the withholding of evidence from both the public and the 9/11 commission that could have cleared things up and so on.)

R00k wrote:No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?

nevermind 9/11 how about focusing on all the atrocities which are easily provable? After all, Satan in in G. W.'s heart.

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?

Now you're conveniently ignoring all the other benefits that have been derived from 9/11 - that you've even talked about yourself - to try to make it look like I'm implying the whole event was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I see what you did there.

they should set loose a team of physicists and mathematicians to calculate the chance of structures of that calibre to collapse when hit by planes.
that would clear some shit up

seremtan wrote: ...i mean ALL the evidence, not just about this, but about flight 93, the pentagon, the fake bin laden 'confession' tape, the withholding of evidence from both the public and the 9/11 commission that could have cleared things up and so on.

Mr. Stone, I smell a comeback.

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?

you're referring to the larry silverstein thing? frankly, i thought that was the weakest part of the argument, and mostly circumstantial. there was also some suggestion of illegal trading going on from the WTC just prior to 9/11 but i *seriously* doubt this is a causal factor

tbh i wish people with alternate explanations would stick to what can be demonstrated from the real evidence instead of indulging in speculation based on circumstantial evidence, which only damages their case in many people's eyes

MKJ wrote:they should set loose a team of physicists and mathematicians to calculate the chance of structures of that calibre to collapse when hit by planes.
that would clear some shit up

ironically the WTC was designed to withstand a plane crashing into it :icon26:

Hannibal wrote:

seremtan wrote: ...i mean ALL the evidence, not just about this, but about flight 93, the pentagon, the fake bin laden 'confession' tape, the withholding of evidence from both the public and the 9/11 commission that could have cleared things up and so on.

Mr. Stone, I smell a comeback.

lol, please no. that's all we fucking need

It's becoming more and more obvious by the day that there are huge international wheels being set in motion - most of them in one way or another coming down to oil or the lack of it.

One of these days, years from now, we are going to look back through the fog of multiple wars that were fought over resources and national economies. And from that perspective, it's not going to look improbable at all that major players in the world decided they needed a reason - a justification - to be the first ones out of the gates. And they needed to do it in a way that didn't look like obvious naked aggression -- they couldn't have anyone realizing what they were up to until it was too late.

This took cooperation from a lot of people, many of whom needed to see it as in their bests interests.

seremtan wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?

you're referring to the larry silverstein thing? frankly, i thought that was the weakest part of the argument, and mostly circumstantial. there was also some suggestion of illegal trading going on from the WTC just prior to 9/11 but i *seriously* doubt this is a causal factor

tbh i wish people with alternate explanations would stick to what can be demonstrated from the real evidence instead of indulging in speculation based on circumstantial evidence, which only damages their case in many people's eyes

I would like that too. But it's hard to stay away from that aspect when the "Yea, but why would anybody do that," argument is used. Sure you could just say there are hundreds of reasons it might have been done, but that is even harder to support than a single fringe theory.

The point of the discussion though, in my mind, is that there are a lot of things that need to be investigated - but even simply pointing that out meets with strong resistance for some reason.

If some loony bastard went on a rampage and murdered 100 people with a flame thrower, then somehow disappeared, you can bet everyone in the country would be crying for the largest investigation in history.
But when 3000 people get killed, all it takes is a "commission" of several career politicians to get involved and dissemble, and everybody's attitude changes to "shut up, we know everything we need to know about what happened here," and people who insist on a REAL investigation are somehow despised.

Politicians fuck everything up.

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:No. Planes smashing into buildings without buildings falling down means people lose billions of dollars they were banking on. Not the same at all.

WTF? So now you're saying it's a glorified insurance scam?

Now you're conveniently ignoring all the other benefits that have been derived from 9/11 - that you've even talked about yourself - to try to make it look like I'm implying the whole event was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I see what you did there.

No, I'm asking you to explain your point, you bonehead.

BTW, I was not only referring to Larry Silverstein when I talked about billions being made.

There were record numbers of put options placed in the two days leading up to the attacks, which miraculously only happened to the companies that were severely affected by the attacks. Put options are basically a way of betting that a certain company's stock is going to be negatively impacted in the near future. For record numbers of these to be placed days before the attacks, and only targeting American/United Airlines, and companies with offices in the WTC, that seems pretty obviously suspect to me. But investigations into these transactions were stopped and no one knows who profited from them.

Not only that, but watching the stock market for this kind of activity is one of the ways the CIA watches for terrorist attacks to begin with. It's a common sign that something bad is about to happen.