"No Planes Hit The Twin Towers" claims ex-CIA agent

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Ah, it's not really a contest. Neither myself nor Special K will walk away from this with our minds changed. Fair play to him and others for not being an arse when putting his views across.

 

Have you noticed a lack of this recently? I wonder why that is

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Farage Hitler

 

Got a nice ring to it that. Flows very nicely.

[buctootim]

You're being naughty on two points here.

 

1) You've chosen a lower floor. Fair play. You acknowledge this.

Its exactly the same. The twin towers were 110 stories high and the planes hit and weakened the structure at floors 95 (north) and 80 (south) - ie there were between 15 and 30 stories above the weakened floor - more floors in fact than in most of the buildings in those videos.

 

2) Every building in that video has explosives in it, strategically placed to weaken the entire structure.

 

Not at all. A few buildings located in tight sites where you want to the building to collapse in a certain way - eg pulling one side away from adjoining building had secondary explosives but the large majority didn't - just the single blowing out of one or two floors.

 

...

Edited 22 May, 2014 by buctootim

[Gemmel]

Ouch Pap - Buctootim has caught you flush

[pap]

Ouch Pap - Buctootim has caught you flush

 

I'm certainly enjoying the chaotic nature of the bolted-on embellishments.

 

Take the weakened floors 15-30 stories down. Fire has a habit of burning upwards, so I'd be interested in the precise thermodynamic situation that allowed it to make its way down at least 15 floors in less than an hour, and somehow manage to get hotter than the origin of the fire.

 

Perhaps it used the lift.

[buctootim]

I'm certainly enjoying the chaotic nature of the bolted-on embellishments.

 

Take the weakened floors 15-30 stories down. Fire has a habit of burning upwards, so I'd be interested in the precise thermodynamic situation that allowed it to make its way down at least 15 floors in less than an hour, and somehow manage to get hotter than the origin of the fire.

 

Perhaps it used the lift.

 

Changing the subject and bringing in debating points irrelevant to that under discussion. Got it, weak.

[pap]

Changing the subject and bringing in debating points irrelevant to that under discussion. Got it, weak.

 

When every explanation demands an explanation, how strong is your point in the first place?

[Scummer]

to make its way down at least 15 floors in less than an hour.

 

When did he say that?

[Halo Stickman]

Ah, it's not really a contest. Neither myself nor Special K will walk away from this with our minds changed. Fair play to him and others for not being an arse when putting his views across.

 

Ain’t that always the way?

 

How many times has anyone on here ever said: “Having studied your posts, I have changed my mind and now realise I was wrong about this, and would like to thank you for putting me right.”? Zero, probably.

 

Go on, be a ground zero breaker, pap.

[OldNick]

I'm certainly enjoying the chaotic nature of the bolted-on embellishments.

 

Take the weakened floors 15-30 stories down. Fire has a habit of burning upwards, so I'd be interested in the precise thermodynamic situation that allowed it to make its way down at least 15 floors in less than an hour, and somehow manage to get hotter than the origin of the fire.

 

Perhaps it used the lift.

i think you will find aircraft fuel is liquid and so would have gone in all directions, probably using the lift as well but as there was a fire it used the staircase

[pap]

When did he say that?

 

Its exactly the same. The twin towers were 110 stories high and the planes hit and weakened the structure at floors 95 (north) and 80 (south) - ie there were between 15 and 30 stories above the weakened floor - more floors in fact than in most of the buildings in those videos.

[buctootim]

When every explanation demands an explanation, how strong is your point in the first place?

 

Are you seriously putting that forward as a credible point argument? too funny.

 

Your argument is so hopelessly convoluted, self contradicting and impossible to pull off it occupies thousands of pages of garbage post up by truther nutters about thermite, shadowy mean and governments involved in mass murder against their own people in order to justify mass murder against foreign people. It needs a kafka web of explanations to hold it together, just dont look too closely or you'll see the joins and 98% of humanity mocking.

 

Mine says the building collapsed just like others do.

 

Ho hum.

[buctootim]

When did he say that?

 

Its exactly the same. The twin towers were 110 stories high and the planes hit and weakened the structure at floors 95 (north) and 80 (south) - ie there were between 15 and 30 stories above the weakened floor - more floors in fact than in most of the buildings in those videos.

 

Obtuse or dishonest? Why the **** are you talking about the fire moving? whether it did or didnt is irrelevant. The point is there were between 15 and 30 stories worth of weight resting on a weakened structure which was progressively being further weakened by the fire heating the steel supporting beams. That weight of the building above the weakened section was the cause of the collapses, and the collapses followed exactly the same patterns as happen in buildings worldwide.

Edited 22 May, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

Are you seriously putting that forward as a credible point argument? too funny.

 

Your argument is so hopelessly convoluted, self contradicting and impossible to pull off it occupies thousands of pages of garbage post up by truther nutters about thermite, shadowy mean and governments involved in mass murder against their own people in order to justify mass murder against foreign people. It needs a kafka web of explanations to hold it together, just dont look too closely or you'll see the joins and 98% of humanity mocking.

 

Mine says the building collapsed just like others do.

 

Ho hum.

 

You're entirely entitled to your views, Tim - cheers for being gracious enough to allow me to have mine - even if your stats are a little off. This is an interesting graph of opinion polls from 2008.

 

 

I'm definitely in a minority. I can live with that.

[Gemmel]

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php

 

)

 

WPO_911_Sep08_img.jpgA WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations found that majorities in only nine of them believed that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

 

(Photo: Tamara Beckwith)

 

In no country did a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cited the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.

 

On average, 46 percent said that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four said they do not know.

 

"Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there was no international consensus about who was behind them," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

 

Even in European countries, the majorities that said al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-seven percent of Britons, 56 percent of Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cited al Qaeda." However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) said they did not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cited the US government, as did 15 percent of Italians.

 

Publics in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda. In Egypt 43 percent said that Israel was behind the attacks, as did 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The US government was named by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians. The numbers who said al Qaeda was behind the attacks range from 11 percent in Jordan to 42 percent in the Palestinian Territories.

 

WPO_911_Sep08_graph.jpgThe only countries with overwhelming majorities citing al Qaeda were the African countries: Kenya (77%) and Nigeria (71%). In Nigeria, a large majority of Muslims (64%) also said that al Qaeda was behind the attacks (compared to 79% of Nigerian Christians).

 

The poll of 16,063 respondents was conducted between July 15 and August 31, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percent.

 

Interviews were conducted in 17 nations, including most of the largest nations--China, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The nations included represent 38% of the world population.

 

Respondents were asked "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?" and their answers were categorized into four response groups: "Al Qaeda," "the US government," Israel," or "Other." Any answers that approximated al Qaeda, such as "bin Laden" or "Islamic extremists," were categorized along with those who said al Qaeda. Those who simply characterized the perpetrators as "Arabs," "Saudis," or "Egyptians" (3% on average) were included in the "Other" category.

 

Respondents in Asia had mixed responses. Bare majorities in Taiwan (53%) and South Korea (51%) named al Qaeda, but 17 percent of South Koreans pointed to the US government and large numbers in both countries said they do not know (Taiwan 34%, South Korea 22%).

 

Majorities of Chinese (56%) and Indonesians (57%) said they do not know, with significant minorities citing the US government (Indonesia 14%, China 9%).

 

A clear majority of Russians (57%) and a plurality of Ukrainians (42%) said al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But significant minorities identified the US government (15% in both cases) and large numbers did not provide an answer (Ukrainians 39%, Russians 19%).

 

Out of all countries polled, Mexico had the second-largest number citing the US government as the perpetrator of 9/11 (30%, after Turkey at 36%). Only 33 percent named al Qaeda.

 

Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education were only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda. Steven Kull comments, "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information."

 

A stronger correlate of beliefs about 9/11 were respondents' attitudes about the United States. Those with a positive view of America's influence in the world were more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%). Those with a positive view of the United States were also less likely to blame the US government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%).

[pap]

Obtuse or dishonest? Why the **** are you talking about the fire moving? whether it did or didnt is irrelevant. The point is there were between 15 and 30 stories worth of weight resting on a weakened structure which was progressively being further weakened by the fire heating the steel supporting beams. That weight of the building above the weakened section was the cause of the collapses, and the collapses followed exactly the same patterns as happen in buildings worldwide.

 

So we're back to dispersed mass suddenly being more destructive than intact mass?

 

Are you seriously arguing that:-

 

a) 15 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 95 intact floors underneath it?

b) 30 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 80 intact floors underneath it?

 

EDIT: just an answer to a) will do.

[Whitey Grandad]

Ah, the old "people design skyscrapers so they go down like a house of cards" theory

 

Good luck explaining the bottom floors.

 

The bottom floors were progressively crushed by the kinetic impact of all the upper floors falling on them. Most of this was not turned to dust until the actual impact. About 200,000 tons of steel were recovered from the debris pile and some of the concrete dust ended up spread across Manhattan.

 

Some numbers to play with:

 

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

[Whitey Grandad]

So we're back to dispersed mass suddenly being more destructive than intact mass?

 

Are you seriously arguing that:-

 

a) 15 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 95 intact floors underneath it?

b) 30 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 80 intact floors underneath it?

 

EDIT: just an answer to a) will do.

 

If you look at the collapse again you will see that the upper floors crush the lower ones. The upper mass is not 'dispersed mass' in the initial phases of the collapse.

 

Which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?

[pap]

If you look at the collapse again you will see that the upper floors crush the lower ones. The upper mass is not 'dispersed mass' in the initial phases of the collapse.

 

Which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?

 

You're making part of my argument for me. The state of solidity is there only briefly, disappearing near the top of the building. After that, it's dust and some other debris, we're not dealing with one large object anymore. That's really a bonus argument.

 

Even if it were one solid detached lump, how far did it have to fall? Where would it get the acceleration from to produce such crushing downward forces?

[OldNick]

You're making part of my argument for me. The state of solidity is there only briefly, disappearing near the top of the building. After that, it's dust and some other debris, we're not dealing with one large object anymore. That's really a bonus argument.

 

Even if it were one solid detached lump, how far did it have to fall? Where would it get the acceleration from to produce such crushing downward forces?

But it was not just the weight of the sides of the buildings that caused the collapse, it was also the floors that dropped that weakened the structure as they fell

[CB Fry]

Stop engaging Pap on miniscule details he can half argue with his ragbag of artificial assertions and strawmen.

 

The planes never done it. Fine. Pap wins that one hands down.

 

Who dun it, Pap? Who was in the meeting room when they flip charted options for mass civilian murder, and who made the final decision of "yep, lets go with the sky scraper plane thing. I like it better than the subway gas attack. Better for TV. Right, who is project managing this one then? Oh, and don't tell a soul or nothing, remember. "

 

Who dun it? And why?

[pap]

Stop engaging Pap on miniscule details he can half argue with his ragbag of artificial assertions and strawmen.

 

The planes never done it. Fine. Pap wins that one hands down.

 

Who dun it, Pap? Who was in the meeting room when they flip charted options for mass civilian murder, and who made the final decision of "yep, lets go with the sky scraper plane thing. I like it better than the subway gas attack. Better for TV. Right, who is project managing this one then? Oh, and don't tell a soul or nothing, remember. "

 

Who dun it? And why?

 

Hehe. Nice one, mush. That's a score of 4. Try to step it up, if you can.

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

[aintforever]

You could still always offer your theory Pap.

 

If you even have one...

[pap]

You could still always offer your theory Pap.

 

If you even have one...

 

[Whitey Grandad]

You're making part of my argument for me. The state of solidity is there only briefly, disappearing near the top of the building. After that, it's dust and some other debris, we're not dealing with one large object anymore. That's really a bonus argument.

 

Even if it were one solid detached lump, how far did it have to fall? Where would it get the acceleration from to produce such crushing downward forces?

 

Do you mean acceleration? That would be 9.81 m/s/s of course. What it did have was a lot of ' was 'potential energy' which was dissipated in the collapse and would be manifested as heat and noise. As the collapse progressed downwards the mass progressively increased floor by floor so the crushing forces increased linearly. Have a look at the link I gave earlier and reconsider the numbers.

[buctootim]

 

I guess thats a no then. Much easier to 'float ideas' in the interests of open mindedness and discussion eh? That way the gaping holes in the theories don't get blown apart and atrtibuted to you personally.

[CB Fry]

Hehe. Nice one, mush. That's a score of 4. Try to step it up, if you can.

 

You are right. I am asking for impossible proof, or as it is known on earth, the utter fantasy land guff you and your conspire - idiots **** into a sock about.

 

So you have no theory whatsoever about why the American government would wilfully kill its own people, and no theory whatsoever about how they planned, executed and subsequently completely covered up that heinous crime.

 

Maybe you and your chums should start there instead of blathering on about dust particles and bags of sugar.

 

It's called having some perspective.

 

So, lets start thinking.

 

Someone had an idea. Let's see if we can kill hundreds of New York Civilians on one day. That person takes that idea to his boss. His boss says good idea, I like it, but we need to check with x. X says yes, I like it but have you thought about Y and Z and by the way A is an expert on this kind of thing you'd better speak to them. A gets involved and says yes great idea, I like it, but I need a meeting with B and C because I'm not sure those bits are feasible. C says he isn't sure but has a chat with D and after D checks back with the guy with the original idea and his boss, just for clarity on the timings and resources needed. And suggests F might be a good help. F also brings in his deputy G to help out. G mentions casually to B about how lucky it is that all these people in the early planning stages of staging a mass murder of hundreds of millions of new yorkers by flying planes I to the world effing trade centre have not for one second thought it was a bad idea or considered trying to stop it. B agrees and hastily writes "don't tell ANYONE " and circles it in his notebook.

[aintforever]

It's always the same with conspiracy theories, it's easy to pick holes, point out things that look weird etc. When you start to drill down into what they are suggesting you end up with some unbelievable Hollywood style plan involving hundreds of people that would be impossible to implement.

 

If it was the US that did it the plan could only realistically involve a handful of people. The crime is so bad you could only involve people you trusted 100% who were willing to commit mass murder. The only possible scenarios I could entertain IF there was any concrete evidence is;

 

a: Part of the US secret services knew Bin Laden was planning something big and let them get on with it, or encouraged it, knowing it would aid their cause in the middle east.

 

b: Everything happened as per the official account except the planes were controlled by some rogue US/Israeli agents.

Edited 22 May, 2014 by aintforever

[pap]

I guess thats a no then. Much easier to 'float ideas' in the interests of open mindedness and discussion eh? That way the gaping holes in the theories don't get blown apart and atrtibuted to you personally.

 

aintforever has consistently proven himself unworthy of any sort of substantive response. I only deal with original content.

[aintforever]

aintforever has consistently proven himself unworthy of any sort of substantive response. I only deal with original content.

 

You just know I will drive a motor-cycle display team through the holes in your theory.

 

Seriously, what is the point in picking holes in one theory when you can't even offer up a cohesive alternative of your own?

[Gemmel]

aintforever has consistently proven himself unworthy of any sort of substantive response. I only deal with original content.

 

Ok so here is my question;

 

Lets say the Americans did it, We will leave you to fill in the blanks as to why, but lets just assume they did.

 

Why did they use planes? If the towers were pre loaded with explosives (Given your assertion that the planes couldn't have done the damage) or this energy weapon you talk about, what use were the planes? The result would have been the same and if (Apologies if this is incorrect) you think it was to scare the American people and justify strikes against Aq, muslims in general or Islamic states, then the planes don't make sense. The risk of failure, is multiplied by millions with there inclusion into this plot, not to mention the additional tens of thousands of points of failure / news leaks that would have been incurred to get everybody onboard and stay silent.

[View From The Top]

I'd love to hear Pap's theory of how the US Govt/Secret World Govt/Rogue Elements/Mossad pulled off 9/11 and why no top investigative journalist has unearthed the greatest conspiracy the modern world has ever known.

[CB Fry]

Ok so here is my question;

 

Lets say the Americans did it, We will leave you to fill in the blanks as to why, but lets just assume they did.

 

Why did they use planes? If the towers were pre loaded with explosives (Given your assertion that the planes couldn't have done the damage) or this energy weapon you talk about, what use were the planes? The result would have been the same and if (Apologies if this is incorrect) you think it was to scare the American people and justify strikes against Aq, muslims in general or Islamic states, then the planes don't make sense. The risk of failure, is multiplied by millions with there inclusion into this plot, not to mention the additional tens of thousands of points of failure / news leaks that would have been incurred to get everybody onboard and stay silent.

 

You are wasting your time. Pap is only interested in splitting pointless hairs about manufactured inconsistencies in stuff he knows nothing about: the conspiro - idiots' failsafe "a skyscraper wouldn't fall down like that" routine.

 

The bigger picture - the how and why - he will swerve and run.

[Whitey Grandad]

What I find more intriguing is that so many people want to believe in a conspiracy rather than accept the obvious explanation.

[CB Fry]

What I find more intriguing is that so many people want to believe in a conspiracy rather than accept the obvious explanation.

 

Because they're not sheep brainwashed by the evil mainstream media like what I am and you is. They're, like, special and clever and freethinking and stuff.

[pap]

Ok so here is my question;

 

Lets say the Americans did it, We will leave you to fill in the blanks as to why, but lets just assume they did.

 

Why did they use planes? If the towers were pre loaded with explosives (Given your assertion that the planes couldn't have done the damage) or this energy weapon you talk about, what use were the planes? The result would have been the same and if (Apologies if this is incorrect) you think it was to scare the American people and justify strikes against Aq, muslims in general or Islamic states, then the planes don't make sense. The risk of failure, is multiplied by millions with there inclusion into this plot, not to mention the additional tens of thousands of points of failure / news leaks that would have been incurred to get everybody onboard and stay silent.

 

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy.

 

Apart from a bit of gentle ribbing, you've been alright on this thread, so here's a bit of an expanded timeline. 9/11 was exactly the event the neo-conservatives needed to further the aims of their policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was essentially a blueprint for achieving and retaining US supremacy in the 21st century (summary | full).

 

Highlights:-

 

Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

 

They speak about the problems of change, though.

 

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

 

Three years later, there is a highly disputed election that many suspect was stolen. 9/11 happened, and public shock and anger allowed much more aggressive foreign policies to be pursued, such as pre-emptive invasion. The hawkish aims in the PNAC policy document could now be pursued, and so they were. After the New Pearl Harbor, we got the multiple theater wars and by going to war with a nebulous concept like terrorism, we're actually in an unending war and it's all getting a bit 1984.

 

My biggest problem with all of this is the way that 9/11, and events like it, have been used to justify draconian and frankly terrifying legislation. Since 2007, there has been a mechanism in place that could turn Britain into a dictatorship with a few amendments - no Parliamentary debate required. We have specific, separate anti-terror legislation which means due process can be suspended if I accuse you of being a terrorist instead of a murderer. We've seen, especially in America, the militarisation of the police to the point where they look as if they are ready for war with their own people, the demonisation of certain groups based on their faith, and the constant reminders that terrorists are amongst us.

 

They said the terrorists wouldn't change the way we lived; they were right - we did that to ourselves, or allowed it to happen with fear.

 

9/11 was a catalyst that sent the world down a very dark path, seemingly with no resolution. Whatever your view on the culpable parties, I think that's inarguable. Look at the way it allowed groups like the EDL to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the thus self-fulfilling prophecy of radicalisation.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic objectives. Like PNAC's document said, there is no way the US public would have signed up for either if 9/11 had not happened. They got their New Pearl Harbor, and their way.

Edited 22 May, 2014 by pap

[Sour Mash]

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy.

 

Apart from a bit of gentle ribbing, you've been alright on this thread, so here's a bit of an expanded timeline. 9/11 was exactly the event the neo-conservatives needed to further the aims of their policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was essentially a blueprint for achieving and retaining US supremacy in the 21st century (summary | full).

 

Highlights:-

 

 

 

They speak about the problems of change, though.

 

 

 

Three years later, there is a highly disputed election that many suspect was stolen. 9/11 happened, and public shock and anger allowed much more aggressive foreign policies to be pursued, such as pre-emptive invasion. The hawkish aims in the PNAC policy document could now be pursued, and so they were. After the New Pearl Harbor, we got the multiple theater wars and by going to war with a nebulous concept like terrorism, we're actually in an unending war and it's all getting a bit 1984.

 

My biggest problem with all of this is the way that 9/11, and events like it, have been used to justify draconian and frankly terrifying legislation. Since 2007, there has been a mechanism in place that could turn Britain into a dictatorship with a few amendments - no Parliamentary debate required. We have specific, separate anti-terror legislation which means due process can be suspended if I accuse you of being a terrorist instead of a murderer. We've seen, especially in America, the militarisation of the police to the point where they look as if they are ready for war with their own people, the demonisation of certain groups based on their faith, and the constant reminders that terrorists are amongst us.

 

They said the terrorists wouldn't change the way we lived; they were right - we did that to ourselves, or allowed it to happen with fear.

 

9/11 was a catalyst that sent the world down a very dark path, seemingly with no resolution. Whatever your view on the culpable parties, I think that's inarguable. Look at the way it allowed groups like the EDL to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the thus self-fulfilling prophecy of radicalisation.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic objectives. Like PNAC's document said, there is no way the US public would have signed up for either if 9/11 had not happened. They got their New Pearl Harbor, and their way.

So you're saying that the American Govt blew up the Twin Tours so that the EDL could maintain a veneer of legitimacy? Sounds plausible to me.

[pap]

So you're saying that the American Govt blew up the Twin Tours so that the EDL could maintain a veneer of legitimacy? Sounds plausible to me.

 

Yay. Way to cherry pick long post.

[igsey]

You're making part of my argument for me. The state of solidity is there only briefly, disappearing near the top of the building. After that, it's dust and some other debris, we're not dealing with one large object anymore. That's really a bonus argument.

 

Even if it were one solid detached lump, how far did it have to fall? Where would it get the acceleration from to produce such crushing downward forces?

 

I know I'm a bit late on this, but have a play around with this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html

 

It's a simple calculator to show the energy that would have been transferred to the supporting structure below, using a few physical laws. Various sources put the mass of one WTC tower at around 450,000,000 kg; dividing that by 110 and multiplying by 15 gives you the mass of 15 floors as 61,363,636 kg, not including the bit on the top which would have been a few more tons.

 

Let's say a floor is 2 m high; these figures give you a value of 1,202,727,265 Joules of energy transferred by the 15 stories collapsing down, or 1.2 gigajoules. However, that doesn't take into account the penetration and momentum of the structure - it assumes that the towers land with no momentum and energy just stops, which clearly it doesn't. 1.2 gigajoules in a fraction of a second landing on already-damaged support struts is a lot. It is, somewhat coincidentally, approximately the energy required to take 1000 kg of steel from room temperature to melting point (actually about 1.4e^9 J, but the point stands).

 

Your other point about it being dispersed is irrelevant; in the time period the collapse took, even if every brick were to turn to dust, it would not be able to dissipate quickly enough - there's just too much volume with such a small surface area to escape from. To use your excellent analogy from earlier, the building becomes a bag of sugar, and the sugar cannot move out quickly enough because it's all moving at the same speed.

[buctootim]

The increase in military spend post 2001 was relatively minor. Certainly less than Reagan's in the 1980's. Like most conspiracy guff, this one doesn't survive even cursory inspection.

 

[Gemmel]

Apart from a bit of gentle ribbing, you've been alright on this thread,

 

Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic objectives. Like PNAC's document said, there is no way the US public would have signed up for either if 9/11 had not happened. They got their New Pearl Harbor, and their way.

 

I generally am - You (As you know) pished me off with the Lee Rigby stuff which I found offensive. Which maybe makes me a hypocrite for indulging in this thread, but 911 isn't quite so raw.

 

So anyway thanks for your reply (genuinely) but it doesn't really answer the question.

 

Again - Let's assume that everything you posted is correct (In your reply) - What difference did the planes make?

 

After 911, the rules of flying changed, the skies were and are policed in a very different way post 911 and Jo public can feel safer than they ever have being up in the air.

 

Imagine if it was just explosives? That fear would live forever, AQ getting into the heart of America and blowing up two of it's most important building? What would be their next target, who would be safe? That strikes me as having more of an impact than a boxed off, new form of terrorism.

 

Then there is this energy weapon (I wont pretend to have a clue what this actually is) lets say that's how it was done - Can you imagine the hysteria around the world if terrorists were thought to have such weapons - The whole world would have fed out of the Americans hands to hunt them down and punish them.

 

I could be wrong but the idea of hysteria, panic and retaliation strikes would have been better served without the planes.

[CB Fry]

Yay. Way to cherry pick long post.

 

Your long post was entirely cherry picking from your usual grab bag of random geo-political/national security issues and rolling them up to the spurious conclusion that the US Government decided to brutally murder hundreds of its own countrymen purely to then bring about an apparent police state.

 

If they wanted to bring about a police state, why not just do it. Why blow up the twin towers? You can quote that "catalyzing event" quote for the umpteenth time but it is just disingenuous and frankly dumb to suggest that means the US government were planning on carrying out the "catalyzing event" themselves.

 

Unless you can bring about how the US state planned, organised, executed and then covered up that catalyzing event with not one person, not one single person at any point speaking up "umm, I get that we want to increase police controls on the people, but remind me again why we have to blow up the twin towers and kill hundreds of New Yorkers to do it? It kinda doesn't sit right with me. Seems a bit sledgehammer to crack a walnut to me". Not one person in the decision making chain of this state organised mass murder "catalyzing event" has ever spoken up. Every person involved in the initial idea, the brainstorming of what the best catalyzing event should be, the deciding on the city or the landmark to go after, the decision to do explosives and planes, not one or the other, the man who contracted the explosives person to lay explosives all over the WTC, the man and his team of other men who actually did lay explosives all over the WTC, the people tasked with finding people to hijack the planes, and so on. All these people. All brought together to construct a "catalyzing event" and how lucky that every single contact, every single person went along with it, not once did anyone of the tens, probably hundreds of people involved not once did any of them think "this isn't right".

 

I wonder why?

 

As with all conspiro-idiocy, it only makes sense backwards.

 

It never ever hangs together going forwards from before it happens.

 

Try it Pap. Just try it. It's January 2001. The Neo-cons are all in a room planning how they can invade Iraq and Afganistan and increase police controls on people. They are struggling to agree the best way of approaching it. Then someone pipes up and says "what we need is a catalyzing event, and I have had a brilliant idea....".

 

Then what happened?

Edited 22 May, 2014 by CB Fry

[Sour Mash]

Yay. Way to cherry pick long post.

Sorry.

 

I don't quite get your point though, yes some things have changed a bit after 9/11, a few would have made some money as a result, so what, what does that have to do with the fact a few terrorists flew planes into the twin tours?

[saint si]

So we're back to dispersed mass suddenly being more destructive than intact mass?

 

Are you seriously arguing that:-

 

a) 15 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 95 intact floors underneath it?

b) 30 floors of dispersed mass was able to crush 80 intact floors underneath it?

 

EDIT: just an answer to a) will do.

 

Logic fail, sorry.

 

The only question is, can 15 falling floors crush 1 static floor? If so, then the whole thing cascades logically from there.

[pap]

I generally am - You (As you know) pished me off with the Lee Rigby stuff which I found offensive. Which maybe makes me a hypocrite for indulging in this thread, but 911 isn't quite so raw.

 

So anyway thanks for your reply (genuinely) but it doesn't really answer the question.

 

Again - Let's assume that everything you posted is correct (In your reply) - What difference did the planes make?

 

After 911, the rules of flying changed, the skies were and are policed in a very different way post 911 and Jo public can feel safer than they ever have being up in the air.

 

Imagine if it was just explosives? That fear would live forever, AQ getting into the heart of America and blowing up two of it's most important building? What would be their next target, who would be safe? That strikes me as having more of an impact than a boxed off, new form of terrorism.

 

Then there is this energy weapon (I wont pretend to have a clue what this actually is) lets say that's how it was done - Can you imagine the hysteria around the world if terrorists were thought to have such weapons - The whole world would have fed out of the Americans hands to hunt them down and punish them.

 

I could be wrong but the idea of hysteria, panic and retaliation strikes would have been better served without the planes.

 

Yup, I was fúcking stupid on the timing of that thread. Lessons were learned.

 

Returning to 9/11 and your questions on planes, I'm honestly not feeling a need to expand on my previous answer. They were decoys; this very thread is about a chap claiming they never existed. I guess he's going for the "ultimate decoy" theory.

 

However, in the spirit of generous debate, I could speculate on numerous other reasons why planes may have been used. For starters, it's a big first world problem, guaranteed to fit into the "could happen to anybody" category of any Westerner's mind. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the use of planes hit certain cultural keystones; how many people said "it was like a film" around the time? It was something none of us had seen before, and I'd lay money that the vast majority of this forum watched at least six hours news that day.

 

So what else do planes give us that other scenarios don't? Convenient patsies and quick resolution would be one. I think we can both agree that either of the other scenarios would have mandated a lengthy investigation of some kind. Planes give us hijackers and resolution.

 

I take a bit of issue with your "just explosives" point. I'm assuming that you're a little bit older than me (39), but I remember the 1980s-1990s when we actually had a bombing campaign happening in this country. There was almost universal sadness when you heard of something happening, and some were particularly hard to bear, but we didn't live in fear of it. Maybe that's just me and my cohort, and I invite different opinions, but I never remember a time during that bombing campaign where I was worried of getting blown up by the IRA, just as I don't live in fear of getting done in by Islamic extremists now, despite the fact we had 7/7 here.

 

We just get on with it. So do the Americans, so do the Iraqis and every other nation that has a bomb that goes off in their country. These events are exceptions, one-offs and aberrations - you don't introduce an enabling act when one occurs.

[pap]

The increase in military spend post 2001 was relatively minor. Certainly less than Reagan's in the 1980's. Like most conspiracy guff, this one doesn't survive even cursory inspection.

 

 

Yeah, it's weird what the eye lingers on.

 

I'm seeing the end of a period of declining spend and the biggest increase in spending since the end of the Cold War, which backs up my point entirely.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Pap, I'm sorry to interject, I know you are occupied with others here.

 

But I see two separate points here.

 

1) the OP - planes never hit the WTC

 

2) 9/11 was not an act of AQ and instead carried out, or at least initiated by the US itself.

 

Forgive my naïveté, I see the two as separate. So, for clarity, is this discussion on whether the planes hit (separate entirely to if they bought the towers down)? If so, are you saying planes were or were not involved?

 

Also, I question the timeline (apologies if I'm thinking of something different) but my understanding on the impact of questionable/stolen elections in this debate is that the election was the year prior, ie the 2000 Bush vs Gore election. I understood it that there was a line of thought that saw 9/11 as a distraction from the anger post 2000, and the seemingly dodgy/stolen election which hinged on a few hundred votes in Florida, where Jeb Bush was Governor and controversially stepped in and stopped recounts when it seemed George was ahead. This was debated well into 2001 and there were numerous campaigns and groups (519 groups were they called? Sorry my memory is hazy on that).

 

As 9/11 happened, a lot of the talk about the legitimacy of GW vanished, as, the country perceived the threat of terrorism (understandably given they believed terror groups had just flown planes into two iconic buildings in one of the countries most populous areas).

 

Anyways, not trying to start a row, just you know discussing, and trying to gain a clearer understanding if where you are coming from before passing a judgement.

 

Ta.

[benjii]

Logic fail, sorry.

 

The only question is, can 15 falling floors crush 1 static floor? If so, then the whole thing cascades logically from there.

 

 

Indeed. Was about to post the same thing.

[CB Fry]

Yeah, it's weird what the eye lingers on.

 

I'm seeing the end of a period of declining spend and the biggest increase in spending since the end of the Cold War, which backs up my point entirely.

 

Your point being the only way the US government could facilitate an increase in military spending was by planning, organising, executing and covering up the greatest terrorist atrocity in the history of mankind, killing hundreds of its own innocent civilians.

 

Why couldn't they just increase military spending without doing that, like Reagan did? A few scare stories in the paper, bit of media briefing, that kind of thing.

 

You know, just a weird way of planning stuff really. At best, unnecessary and ill thought through, you know? I reckon they could have got away with buying a couple more warships without the whole organised mass murder of own people thing. But I'm a brainwashed-by-the-mass-media idiot, so what do I know?

[pap]

Pap, I'm sorry to interject, I know you are occupied with others here.

 

But I see two separate points here.

 

1) the OP - planes never hit the WTC

 

2) 9/11 was not an act of AQ and instead carried out, or at least initiated by the US itself.

 

Forgive my naïveté, I see the two as separate. So, for clarity, is this discussion on whether the planes hit (separate entirely to if they bought the towers down)? If so, are you saying planes were or were not involved?

 

Also, I question the timeline (apologies if I'm thinking of something different) but my understanding on the impact of questionable/stolen elections in this debate is that the election was the year prior, ie the 2000 Bush vs Gore election. I understood it that there was a line of thought that saw 9/11 as a distraction from the anger post 2000, and the seemingly dodgy/stolen election which hinged on a few hundred votes in Florida, where Jeb Bush was Governor and controversially stepped in and stopped recounts when it seemed George was ahead. This was debated well into 2001 and there were numerous campaigns and groups (519 groups were they called? Sorry my memory is hazy on that).

 

As 9/11 happened, a lot of the talk about the legitimacy of GW vanished, as, the country perceived the threat of terrorism (understandably given they believed terror groups had just flown planes into two iconic buildings in one of the countries most populous areas).

 

Anyways, not trying to start a row, just you know discussing, and trying to gain a clearer understanding if where you are coming from before passing a judgement.

 

Ta.

 

 

I've not really got a position on the planes. We saw planes at WTC. We were told that there was a plane at the Pentagon, and yet despite that being inbound for quite some time, there's no footage. Five frames of fúck-knows-what, but it really doesn't look like a passenger airliner.

 

As for the timeline of the stolen election, dissipating post-election anger is not really what I had in mind. I'm merely making the point that people were really serious about getting him in, and didn't seem especially concerned about him being a total fúckwit, or indeed, doing it fairly. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people's priorities changed post-911. That's a central part of my point; I argued that the change in public mood is what enabled such a bellicose foreign policy. In New Pearl Harbor circumstances, I think it perfectly reasonable that some may drop prior grievances in what's perceived to be the national interest, but that's more secondary bonus than primary objective, imo.

 

Where I'm coming from is cumulative discrepancies, and how they should stack up against what appears to be an immutable narrative. There are a few points I've made on this threat which directly contradict not only what went into the initial reports, but also what ended up in the final report of the 9/11 Commission. The insistence that there were 19 named suicide hijackers, despite the fact that at least six declared themselves alive by various means. It's such an easy thing to correct; any serious and comprehensive investigation would exclude them purely on the basis of having a correct account of things. I'm left with the impression of a story that was never investigated and can't be changed.

 

Ultimately though KRG, it just needs to be investigated. It never was. Slightly unbelievable for the crime of the century.