Do controlled demo collapses fall at exactly free fall speed? I haven’t looked into that, but I would think they probably fall slightly slower- timing the explosives to cut all supports out at exactly the right moment to not impede a complete free fall seems like it would be incredibly and unneccessarily hard. The fact that these buildings fell anywhere close to free fall speed is a red flag.
Did they fall close to free-fall speed, though? I have yet to see any evidence. And “close” to free-fall speed? How close? A matter of a couple seconds can have a huge influence. 12 seconds would be enough time for a building nearly twice the height of WTC 1 to fall down at free-fall.
So is the fact that the concrete in the towers was pulverized into a rapidly inflating cloud of dust; my experience dropping concrete from buildings and my intuition tell me that concrete and steel structures falling on same don’t quickly inflate into a dust cloud; it’d be more like a car wreck; the concrete and steel would break, shatter- but not explode into a dust cloud.
Why not? There were apparently plenty of thin sheets of concrete used as insulation in the buildings. Having thousands of tons of rubble fall onto that would be enough to result in plenty of dust, I would think, and of course the air displancement caused by all that debris would force the dust outwards. And who says all the dust was concrete?
Again, the controlled demo evidence is just one of the many red flags;
A controlled demo would still have had the same resistance from the floors that a progressive collapse caused by the fires would have, so the building would have fallen in about the same amount of time either way. The only ways for the building to have fallen faster would be to have some sort of force actively pulling or pushing it down, to have a hollow building, or to completely obliterate every single floor with explosives. Obviously none of those options other than the last was even remotely possible, and the amount of explosives needed and the amount of time and effort to place the explosives for the latter option would have been too great to have gotten away with.
Decades of warnings and preparations for planes as missiles that were lied about.
Actually, no. There wasn’t really much warning about using airplanes as missiles, and certainly nothing specific.
Standard Operating Protocol for air defense grossly violated 4 times;
How, and says who?
War games, at least one mimicking the exact 9/11 attacks;
Again, says who? And how “exact” of a “mimicking”? If it only sort of vaguely resembled some of the aspects of the terrorist attack, then that wouldn’t mean anything. War games are supposed to simulate possible events, after all.
more lies from the Bush Administration/DoD- FAA is gagged
Insider trading
$100,000 wired to Atta by ISI Chief Ahmad, who was in DC meeting w/ the NSC the week of 9/11
No, it’s not. And while the CIA has had some involvement with it in the past, all that I’ve actually seen shows that it wasn’t even direct involvement.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook died mysteriously shortly after he said Al Qaeda is basically the “database” of terrorist contacts the CIA uses for trafficking in drugs/arms
Okay, now that really is getting a bit silly.
Here’s what Cook said in his article. What he’s saying is that the CIA had (in the far past) had some connections with Al Qaeda. That was hardly a revelation, as that information had been floating around everywhere already by the time Cook wrote that article. He didn’t make any new announcements, or give any indication that he was going to do so. He did not say that the CIA uses Al-Queda to traffic drugs or arms. He only talks about what happened in the 1980’s during the fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan and repeats what is already widely known.
Whatever hit the Pentagon, it wasn’t Hani Hanjour flying- all his instructors said he couldn’t fly a Cessna
It doesn’t take much skill to keep an airliner airborne once it’s already in the air, it’s taking off and landing that’s tricky. You have to admit that the pilot did a rather poor job of the landing. And his flying technique as he was maneuvering around to hit the Pentagon was very poor as well.
Why didn’t the anti-missle batteries at the White House and Pentagon take out “flight 77”?
Umm, what anti-missile batteries?
How can they expect us to believe they couldn’t track it on radar, when they have systems that can track multiple incoming ballistic missiles?
Well, for one thing, the radars that tracking incoming missiles are all pointed outwards from the country. . .
World history of falsified attacks and threats used by US govt and many govts in history as pretexts for imperialist conquests and suppressing dissent
As well as much history of actual attacks and threats against governments and nations.
Nobody here doubts that conspiracies exist (or if they do, then they haven’t told me about it). After all, what do you think a group of terrorists plotting to take over airplanes and fly them into buildings is? It’s a conspiracy.
There was obviously some sort of a conspiracy committed by some persons. The question is who those persons were and what the conspiracy entailed. Many people feel that there are problems with the government’s findings and reports on the matter. And there probably are many such problems. But there is a major difference between the government making errors, the government overlooking things, and the government running a conspiracy.
For those of you who are interested in the truth and not a justification to believe what you want to believe, I highly recommend looking at the 40 questions of 911 link posted earlier.
Oh, I have been looking. And yes, I do see a lot of serious problems with many of those questions. Some are simply based on incorrect information. Some are based on irrelevant information. Some are based on nothing at all. Some just distort things. And of course, some I don’t know much about.
if you can actually look at the wealth of evidence and see absolutely no reason to question the official tail
There’s always reason to question. But there is also reason to question the unofficial tales as well. Especially since the unofficial tales have so many obvious problems with them, while the only problems I’ve seen with the official tale really only seem to be problems of omission (and I don’t always know if the omission is by the government, or by the media, or just due to my not having found the information).
Just as a side note, and I don’t mean any disrespect with this, but “tail” is the thing on the end of a dog, and “tale” is a story. People will have an easier time listening to you if you don’t have them wondering why you’re constantly talking about physiology!
Accipiter- you are a masterful Devil’s Advocate. Keep in mind, there are plenty of visitors who are just reading the comments- they’re following the links as well as my logic. You present a plausible-seeming, possible alternative for many of the questions I raise and evidence I present. You’ve asked again for proof I already offered with previous links; I take it you are not curious about why 42% of Americans suspect a coverup- it seems you enjoy trying to discount the reasons for skepticism of the official account, and the need for real answers. You are trying too hard to find ways to continue accepting the official story. False-flag terror is nothing new to the CIA, FBI, DoD and the elite class that controls the media and both parties. Of course they conspire to create wealth and power for themselves, just like any bank robber. Do you believe they lied us into war? They lied about the air being safe to breathe after 9/11; more people will die from that than got killed in the attacks- the first fireman already did. So do you think they care about using the deaths of 3000 people to advance their fascist, imperialst agenda? Do you think they exploited 9/11 to drum up support for Iraq? The Dems are the same- Kerry is a Skull and Bones member, frequent Bilderberg attendee- how come every president since Ford has had some connection to this group? How come 9/11 happened, when if they did nothing, the patsies wouldn’t have been able to get VISAs, and the jets would’ve been intercepted? David Schippers, one of the attorneys prosecuting Bilderberg Clinton’s impeachment, said FBI agents came to him months before 9/11 and told him the date, place, method of the attacks, said this info was widely known in the Bureau, and that they had been threatened with prosecution if they went public. Schippers tried repeatedly to talk to Ashcroft and the White House, but they wouldn’t take or return his calls. Now he’s representing FBI Agent Robert Wright in his fight to get the FBI to let him publish his book about the FBI’s obstruction of his investigation pre-9/11 into terror financing. Search Cooperative Research for mainstream documentation of what I’ve said- just search “Schippers” or “Ashcroft” and see what comes up.
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Here are the links again documenting the other things you asked about:
I’ve nailed my tinfoil hat on with a sledge; you’re wasting your energy trying to reshrink my mind. The world is not the way it’s presented on TV. Why don’t you put some of your mental power into understanding why the unanswered questions and the evidence presented has made 42% of Americans suspicious there’s been a coverup? Or into investigating how they did it and covered it up and are not getting away with it?
Yes, warnings from 11 different countries about impending attacks and some mentioned planes as missiles, the FAA received 52, Pentagon planned/drilled for planes as missiles. Suspicious now? Follow the links down the rabbit hole, if you want the truth.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=warnings+9%2F11&btnG=Search
You are fellow Americans and I posted here specifically because the posters here are skeptics.
No we’re not, and (where I come from) it’s spelt ‘sceptic’.
The difference between a skeptic and an ideologue is the ability to absorb information that may threaten your world view. Believe it or not, conspiracies do exist.
Some real conspiracies have even been documented on this site. But no fact I have seen, read or heard is in anyway inconsistent with the conclusion that the WTC towers were brought down by the combined effects of the impact of the plane and the subsequent fires.
Even if every nasty little suspicion directed to your government in relation to 9/11 turned out to be true, I doubt it would make my opinion of it any lower. I would dearly love you to be right, if only because it increases the chances of an angry mob dragging GWB and his cronies out of the Oval Office by their testicles and hanging them from a lamppost a la Mussolini, which I think would be very funny*. I see no evidence that you are.
This is a typical shtick routine used by believers and sceptics alike. As to claim the money you have to convince someone with an opposite ideological belief to, and vested interest in not accepting, your proof, the fabulous payout is safe. I will pay $1million to you if you can just prove to me that you even exist, does the fact that the prize is unclaimed prove to you that you do not?
[* Obviously, I will not now be visiting America anytime soon!]
Why don’t you put some of your mental power into understanding why the unanswered questions and the evidence presented has made 42% of Americans suspicious there’s been a coverup?
51% of Americans believe in ghosts, why not ask one of the ghosts from 9/11 what really happened?
68% of Americans believe in the Devil, who had both the motive and the means to cause the collapse. Have you reasearched this possibility thoroughly enough to discount it?
48% of Americans believe UFOs are visiting the Earth. Their hyperatomic gravity wave technology could explain the sudden implosion of the buildings; why won’t the US government give a straight answer about extraterrestrial involvement?
60% of Americans believe in psychic powers. Were the planes ‘remote controlled’ by telekinetics, and the fires directed by pryokinetics, from a hostile psychic ‘hit-squad’? And why didn’t American psychics predict the event? Was it incompetence? Psychic interference? Or was it collusion?
45% of Americans believe that lasers work by focusing sound waves. Did these sound waves literally ‘bring the house down’? Would this explain why witnesses in the towers said they heard “something like a heavy freight train approaching”?
54% of Americans believe in psychic healing. Why weren’t psychic healers rushed to the site of the collapse to tend to the wounded? Was no-one meant to survive?
33% of Americans believe in evolution. Did they anger God (who 90% of Americans believe in)? Did he bring his divine punishment down on NYC to remind us who exactly is the boss?
How much mental power have you put into the above questions? After all, more people believe in these possibilities than in your conspiracy.
Sorry about the misspellings--too much work--too little rest--but, if you guys want to hang your hats on misspelled words, that is of course your choice.
One other little thing for you SCEPTICS to chew up and spit out about the official TALE.
June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
So the story is official--it was certainly justification for attacking Afghanistan and it was close enough for a reason to attack Iraq and the 911 Commission Report wrote it down--so, it must be true. And yet, there is no hard evidence connecting this evil man with the evil. I guess the FBI has their tin foil hats on too tight.
It’s okay for you to say ‘skeptic’, you’re American so we let you misspell a few English words as part of the special relationship.
What you are describing is a procedure. Even Osama sending a tape saying he planned it isn’t evidence enough to lay charges against him for 9/11 as it’s mere hearsay. Remember, if he were ever caught alive he would have to be tried for 9/11 in a court of law; would you really want him getting off on a technicality?
Besides, this would be a double standard on your part. There’s no physical evidence tying 9/11 to OBL, so he can’t be responsible for it; there’s none tying it to GWB either, so there must be a cover-up.
The thing with scepticism is that it’s based around the idea of evidence. Cash rewards aren’t evidence. Popular beliefs aren’t evidence. Questions aren’t evidence. From your first post in this topic (where you used a false dichotomy to shore up an evidence poor argument), evidence is what your conspiracy theory is greatly short of. I’ve read as many of the links as I can stomach and the same appears to be true of them.
Arguments may be won by rhetoric, but truth is never the victor. Truth (as in the objective standard of, rather than a consensual interpretation of) requires evidence. Find some.
On the spelling thing; I much prefer your spelling of ‘perpetraitors’ to the official one. It’s a punchier portmanteau term than ‘perpetrators’.
After some research - The towers fell in about 13 seconds - if you count from the time they started falling until the first large debris hit the ground. Calculate it using not just free-fall but deflection, reflection, mass, etc. - it oddly comes out with a prediction of about 13 seconds (wanna see the calcs - do a search, it’s way too complicated for posting here.) Can anyone PROVE it? No, you can’t prove something to someone who won’t believe anything but their own opinion - ie: evolution. Plus, do the calcs on something like Chernoble to find out how long it took for the hydrogen to ignite - the number of assumptions that have to be made (pressures, temps, volumes, etc) make it impossible to know for sure without having measured everything before, after and during.
WTC 7 was heavily damaged by tons of falling debris - it didn’t just have a couple of small fires. It’s been said people discussing the building used the term “pull,” which means to implode in the demolition field. None of the people were in the demolition field so probably weren’t aware of the term. The term “pull” is also used in the field of taffy making - so maybe they were saying they should make taffy out of the building. Now that would indicate a true conspiracy. “Pull it” is also a reference to masturbating, so maybe they just decided to give up and go off to get off. (I know, this paragraph is really out there!!! But no more than the claim that it proves controlled demolition).
Here’s my challenge to you - I will pay you 1 million dollars to prove there was a conspiracy by the U.S. government, including a list of all of those involved. Hmmm, I guess since you can’t prove it. It’s not true. Next, I will give a thousand bucks if you prove to me that you are not a bank robber. If you accept this challenge, you have to pay me 5,000 bucks if you can’t prove that you aren’t a bank robber.
