100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Was 9/11 an 'inside job?' - Poll | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TWO STRUCTURAL EXPERTS TESTIFY THAT 911 TWIN TOWERS WERE BLOWN UP This man was fired for asking questions about the official scientific computer simulated evidence for 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZghnS3n3E 
Truther logic: "It looked exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect, so it can only possibly have been a controlled demolition, and the fact that it didn't actually look very much like a controlled demolition at all just showed that it was an unconventional controlled demolition, because the conspirators wouldn't have been stupid enough to make it look exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 10/25/12 01:38 PM
|
|
Nutty 9-11 Physics
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here. No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science. 9-11 conspirators seem to be a mix of liberals still smarting over 2000 and ultra-conservatives angry that George Bush Jr. hasn't opened the national parks to a land rush. But if Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it. Cause and Effect We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't. In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship. It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition What else is a large building collapse going to look like? Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives. One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center? Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it. Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it." So according to the world experts on building demolition: * It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall * They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition. Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other. Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down. Implosion World, a site dedicated to controlled building collapse, agrees http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm) DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” Check out the videos of the demolition of the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas. Fireworks. Big pyrotechnic countdown clock. None of that on 9/11. Not even remotely similar. Silly? Yes, but still above the intellectual level of most 9/11 conspiracy theories. I mean, the similarities the conspiracy buffs point to are on the same level of superficiality as whether or not there were fireworks. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nutty 9-11 Physics Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here. No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science. 9-11 conspirators seem to be a mix of liberals still smarting over 2000 and ultra-conservatives angry that George Bush Jr. hasn't opened the national parks to a land rush. But if Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it. Cause and Effect We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't. In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship. It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition What else is a large building collapse going to look like? Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives. One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center? Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it. Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it." So according to the world experts on building demolition: * It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall * They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition. Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other. Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down. Implosion World, a site dedicated to controlled building collapse, agrees (http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm) DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” Check out the videos of the demolition of the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas. Fireworks. Big pyrotechnic countdown clock. None of that on 9/11. Not even remotely similar. Silly? Yes, but still above the intellectual level of most 9/11 conspiracy theories. I mean, the similarities the conspiracy buffs point to are on the same level of superficiality as whether or not there were fireworks. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm But wait! Two engineers say otherwise. Count 'em-two! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/11 is a highly emotional subject. And people react to it in a highly emotional way. If all we have read and/or seen about September 11 are the images fed to us by the mass-media, and all we know about the story that those images tell is the framing of the events offered by the U.S. Government, then it is perhaps reasonable to think that 19 Arabs, under the direction of a crazed lunatic in a cave in the Middle East, used box cutters and guile to thwart a multi-trillion dollar defense apparatus. But any thorough consideration and investigation into the hard facts of 9/11 will unearth evidence that makes the 19 Arab hijacker narrative a wholly unreasonable consideration. But even so, this highly emotional subject proves difficult to discuss rationally and seriously. There seems to be some kind of emotional investment we have in believing what we have been told by our 'leaders', by the people in positions of authority over us. Or, perhaps, we do not have the emotional fortitude to bear the implications of being lied to and duped so easily and horrifically.
A typical example of the common reaction people offer on the subject of 9/11 comes from a professor of physics from BYU. Steven Jones, perhaps the leading scientist actively involved in researching and debunking the government's official 9/11 story, presented to one of his colleagues for review a paper he wrote detailing a mountain of evidence suggesting U.S. government involvement in 9/11. The colleague responded by saying to Professor Jones, 'I do not believe in conspiracy theories and UFO's.' This type of strongly opinionated, demonstrative response is common. Perhaps even understandable. http://www.911hardfacts.com/docs/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a whole matrix of information pointing to U.S. Government involvement in the planning and execution of September 11th. From the ominous writings of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), to the scores of so-called 'intelligence breakdowns', to the lack of military response and the comprehensive dismissal of standard operating procedures in reaction to a declared emergency, to the bizarre collapse of WTC 7, to the freefall speed and explosive collapse of the Towers, to the miraculous aeronautical maneuvering of the jets, to Dick Cheney's suspicious behavior in the underground bunker, and on and on. The incriminating data is there, and has been presented at length in this paper. The only thing keeping the truth about 9/11 from emerging is our collective desire to continue to spin the fairy tale we have been fed.
9/11 hard facts. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_22.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/11 is a highly emotional subject. And people react to it in a highly emotional way. If all we have read and/or seen about September 11 are the images fed to us by the mass-media, and all we know about the story that those images tell is the framing of the events offered by the U.S. Government, then it is perhaps reasonable to think that 19 Arabs, under the direction of a crazed lunatic in a cave in the Middle East, used box cutters and guile to thwart a multi-trillion dollar defense apparatus. But any thorough consideration and investigation into the hard facts of 9/11 will unearth evidence that makes the 19 Arab hijacker narrative a wholly unreasonable consideration. But even so, this highly emotional subject proves difficult to discuss rationally and seriously. There seems to be some kind of emotional investment we have in believing what we have been told by our 'leaders', by the people in positions of authority over us. Or, perhaps, we do not have the emotional fortitude to bear the implications of being lied to and duped so easily and horrifically. A typical example of the common reaction people offer on the subject of 9/11 comes from a professor of physics from BYU. Steven Jones, perhaps the leading scientist actively involved in researching and debunking the government's official 9/11 story, presented to one of his colleagues for review a paper he wrote detailing a mountain of evidence suggesting U.S. government involvement in 9/11. The colleague responded by saying to Professor Jones, 'I do not believe in conspiracy theories and UFO's.' This type of strongly opinionated, demonstrative response is common. Perhaps even understandable. http://www.911hardfacts.com/docs/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
OT. I still run into people who adhere to Velikovsky's wild claims. But then, I still meet people who believe Von Daniken. It just goes to show, that no matter how much some BS theory is shown to be false, someone, somewhere will still believe it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/25/12 01:55 PM
|
|
One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?
Witnesses tell of explosions in the basements of the buildings before the planes hit. Some people were even injured. Building 7 – clear view of explosions on building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Trj_5J02k&NR=1&feature=endscreen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm
Neither Tower went down like this! Each one started to collapse from the point of Impact,regardless of the Conspiracy-Theorists claims! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-11 was an inside job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-11 was an inside job. You Guys are making our case with everyone of your posts! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-11 was an inside job. You Guys are making our case with everyone of your posts! But you have to admit, it's great entertainment and it proves many points raised in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-11 was an inside job. You Guys are making our case with everyone of your posts! But you have to admit, it's great entertainment and it proves many points raised in the other thread.
Yep!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I created this poll because I'm really curious about the numbers, especially among people who are within my purview. Please answer it, leave a comment and pass it around! Vote here. http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/379-was-911-an-inside-job-poll.html so far its 75.7 for yes its an inside job 12.9% no it was not an inside job. and 1.5% for none of the above. The poll is current cast your vote. You should of had more options. It was a mossad job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-11 was an inside job. You Guys are making our case with everyone of your posts! I have linked to very good evidence and you have not even read it or looked at it. If you disagree with the points my evidence and links are making, then I am willing to discuss your reasoning. But just saying that my evidence or proof is "lacking" is not a discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest poll results
76.9 % yes it was an inside job. 12.4% say no The rest are the other choices. Thank you all for voting. 
Who can defend the official version of 911 and keep a straight face at this point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 10/25/12 05:25 PM
|
|
Latest poll results 76.9 % yes it was an inside job. 12.4% say no The rest are the other choices. Thank you all for voting.
Who can defend the official version of 911 and keep a straight face at this point? You just refuse to acknowledge that you're pushing a logical fallacy. Incredible. 
Btw, how are you going with this? On Farmer's supposed quotes: You know as well as I do that you lifted this quote from an article promoting Farmer's book. I was there and I remember your post, so please do not misrepresent what I said any further-it is dishonest. The quotes were merged to provide controversial copy for the back cover. It is a common sales technique where hyperbole is generated by merging quotes to create copy that entices the target audience to buy it. Have you read Farmer's book yet? If so, could you please place the merged quotes in context, for they are obviously not in their original state. I've asked this in three threads and you fail to even acknowledge the question, let alone attempt to answer it. |
|
|
|
|
