If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

Originally posted by magicrat
I think that's an entirely possible scenario. Wait, why are we arguing?

You misunderstand me. My goal isn't really to argue over what we don't know. My goal is to reveal those who have vested interests in spreading falsehoods which can be shown to be falsehoods in a simple 30 second Google search. The debate at hand is who those people with vested interests actually are.

You should note that from my point of view, this describes "a government official lying through his teeth to cover up his own gross incompetence" every bit as much as "internet con artists passing off nonsense to make a quick buck off the conspiracy movement".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by magicrat
I think that's an entirely possible scenario. Wait, why are we arguing?

You misunderstand me. My goal isn't really to argue over what we don't know. My goal is to reveal those who have vested interests in spreading falsehoods which can be shown to be falsehoods in a simple 30 second Google search. The debate at hand is who those people with vested interests actually are.

You should note that from my point of view, this describes "a government official lying through his teeth to cover up his own gross incompetence" every bit as much as "internet con artists passing off nonsense to make a quick buck off the conspiracy movement".

I didn't misunderstand you - at least not on this. I was joking, and probably didn't do it well since I'm multi-tasking at the moment - which is why I want to hold off on the other part of our conversation for now.

Your goal is admirable, and I fully support you in revealing people who spread falsehoods, whoever they may be. My goal is to figure out what the hell happened. My point, despite the lame joking, is that we're really on the same team here.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Well, I'm still a little confused, and I can feel the springs on your trap tightening, so let me try to come back to this when I'm less distracted and see if I can make sense of it before committing myself to an answer. It might take a few days, but right now all I can do is read posts and throw in the occasional snarky comment, and I think your line of questioning deserves more attention than that.

Thanks for trying to clarify, though - I really do appreciate that, even if it didn't clear it up for me right off the bat.

You're starting to see the issue behind the events of the 9/11 attack now- the collapse of the towers is necessarily an extremely complex thing, involving how the towers were built, to how controlled demolitions work, to the technical details of the plane impacts, as well as the logic behind the myriad technical explanations for the collapse, as well as all the thousands of events leading up to the attack. No offense intended, certainly, but from what I've seen, the typical conspiracy proponent only wants a 30 second synopsis of such a complex thing and it simply cannot be done. If discussions of the 9/11 attack were cuisine, conspiracy theories would be junk food- they're fast to obtain and easy to consume, but they usually have poor nutritional value and are an atrocious substitute for a full sit-down dinner.

Now that you're actually sitting down to the full sit-down dinner, consider this- rather than this being a case that I'm "springing a trap on you", why can't it be the case that I'm simply presenting material and critical analysis to you that you haven't seen before?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
No offense taken, but I think you've got it backwards. My problem with the official story, which started itching in my head the afternoon of 9/11, has always been that it's a quick, simple story that's supposed to explain everything but really doesn't. In ten years of trying to talk to friends about this in person, no one who believes the bin Laden conspiracy theory wants to talk about it for more than 30 seconds. The story is Al Qaeda, box cutters, planes, crashes, fires, collapses. Period. If you spend any time looking deeper into it than that, you have no choice but to recognize that there are unanswered questions all over the place, and pieces of evidence that don't fit into the accepted narrative. That doesn't make the official story wrong necessarily, but it makes the simple acceptance of it illogical in my mind. I decided long ago not to accept the tasty, bite-sized junk food that was being handed to us via the media and government, and I've been sitting at this dinner table for ten years trying to digest every part of this enormously complex meal.

"Springing a trap" was also half-joking. I was in a silly mood on Monday. I'll go back and reread a few things now and then we'll throw ourselves into the briar patch (joke ).

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, I couldnt agree with you more with what you said. The complexities of the events on 9/11, most importantly the collapses, cannot be explained in a few minutes, especially to crowds which have little to no knowledge or background to understand the dynamics and intricacies of the construction and destruction of the towers and the other things regarding why it wasnt thermites or demolition charges, etc. I will admit, I do not have any engineering degrees, or demolition certifications, but I do have a brain blessed by the Big Guy upstairs that allows me to read and comprehend information, and see things in three dimensions. Most of what I know comes from reading technical manuals, building models, reading books, reading science text books, to even simple playing with blocks and towers from different objects and making them fall as a kid. Lots of curiosity! So I will admit, in the beginning, I thought no way the WTC Towers could have collapsed the way they did. I assumed they were built conventionally like the Empire State Building or Sears Tower. Once i learned of the design, and how the collapses began, it wasnt hard to see how they fell the way they did: Simply put, like an arrow being split by another arrow, or a banana peel being peeled open. Plus I realized if there were explosives involved, there'd have to be a ridiculous amount of explosives planted all over the place, and the resulting blasts would have shattered windows all over Lower Manhattan.

What turned me off the "Truthers" and their "evidence" was the amount of ignorance, misinterpretations, twisting of facts and blatant lies they shoveled forth. I did what a good 99% of the true believers of the Truth Movement did not do: actually research and investigate their claims, from eyewitness accounts that were cherry picked and misquoted, to basic understanding of the human nature during a crisis. So many instances of dishonesty that I figured why are they purposely misleading us instead of giving us the truth? Why are they taking eyewitness accounts out of context, or twisting them into something else? Why are they appealing to incredulance to bolster their beliefs, rather than actual facts? Why dont they fix their errors once it is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt they are wrong? Once I worked it all out, I realized how badly I was lied to by the "Truth" Movement. So read deeper, and on my own, had many suspicions confirmed and observations confirmed when I found a few of the good "debunking" sites.

Dave, it would take hours to give a good narrative to what caused the Towers to fall the way they did, and why it was most certainly not explosives or thermite. But you need an audience that is not blinded with personal incredulity and willful ignorance. Hell you and I both know how hard it is to convince some people that planes do not break up and explode when they go 1 mile over the "speed limit", or how when a controlled demolition happens with the series of explosions going off very audibly FIRST and then the building comes down LAST. Or that thermite is not an explosive.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

All right; sitting down for (metaphorical) dinner now... I've gone back through our conversation here and pulled out your points which I think are most relevant for the logical argument you're making. Let me know if I'm missing anything.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

...I am demonstrating that the collapse of the towers from below the initial floor that failed on down (excluding the initial floor that failed, itself) could legitimately occur without controlled demolitions. I present the photo of this column to show in that at least in some areas, the impact from the falling floors was legitimately enough to cause a standing floor to collapsel. This goes hand in hand with the previous statement that since all floors had the exact same design, whatever happened to one intact floor could and did happen to all the floors. Ergo, all the floors (excluding that first floor that failed, obviously) could have legitimately collapsed from being impacted by the collapsing floors. Whatever happened to cause that initial floor to fail, I wish to show, and I think we both can agree, that it was due to a completely different reason from why the remainder of the building collapsed.

I accept the possibility that collapse below the initial floor could legitimately occur without controlled demolitions. I don't think that's proof that it did, and I still believe it's highly unlikely to have happened as symmetrically and efficiently as it did, three times consecutively, without an element of control, but I accept your premise as a possibility. I don't know anywhere near enough about engineering or demolition to know for sure about any of this; I'm just going on my instincts, a lot of reading from all kinds of sources, and trying to understand as much as I can.

I can also agree with the premise that the cause of the initial floor to collapse was likely different than the cause of subsequent floors collapsing.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Since you agree that physics necessarily apply to these conspiracies just as they apply to everyone else, and since the physics of controlled demolitions say that a building can legitimately be demolished by a chain reaction of falling floors crushing the stationary floors beneath, and since every floor was identical to every other floor so if one floor was legitimately vulnerable against falling debris then they all were vulnerable against fallign debris, do you likewise agree that from the point of impact on down, explosives wouldn't be needed to cause the systematic structural failure we saw?

I can see the logic of that, but the model at the link you posted earlier refutes that logic - they're clearly showing charges placed on both high and low floors. It seems to me like it's possible for systematic structural failure to occur due to a chain reaction of falling floors, but to collapse a building smoothly, quickly and safely, demolitions are needed to assist with the failure of floors below the collapse initiation before the falling debris reaches them. Without that assistance, the structural integrity of lower floors should slow or redirect the chain reaction as it progresses.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Before I continue to part two, let me ask you- do we both agree that regardless of what the "completely different reason" is that caused that initial floor to fail, the chain of collapse begain in the vicinity of the locations where the planes impacted the towers? As in BOTH of them? Feel free to review as many videos of the collapse that you'd like before answering.

I can't agree to that, though I'll accept that it's a possible scenario; I'd even be willing to go so far as to say it's the most likely scenario given the available provable evidence. It appears that the complete collapse began at or near the point of impact on each tower, but I do see video evidence and eyewitness accounts of explosions and damage on lower floors before the onset of collapse. I've also done a lot of reading on the debunking of that evidence, but I have not been convinced to dismiss it.

To your larger point, I feel that anyone who speaks with absolute certainty about what happened that day is being disingenuous, whether we're doing it intentionally or unintentionally (yes, I include myself in that guilty party at times - I think we all have the tendency to believe our opinions are right and others' are wrong), and I agree with you that people should be called out for that so we can all look for the truth honestly.

Originally posted by magicrat
I accept the possibility that collapse below the initial floor could legitimately occur without controlled demolitions. I don't think that's proof that it did, and I still believe it's highly unlikely to have happened as symmetrically and efficiently as it did, three times consecutively, without an element of control, but I accept your premise as a possibility. I don't know anywhere near enough about engineering or demolition to know for sure about any of this; I'm just going on my instincts, a lot of reading from all kinds of sources, and trying to understand as much as I can.

...which begs the question, how can you determine that controlled demolitions were involved if you don't know how controlled demolitions work? It would seem to me to be the same thing as the people insisting the towers had been destroyed by nukes in the basement without knowing how nuclear physics works; it runs the risk of filling the gaps in our understanding with imaginary wanderings rather than solid research.

When I present how controlled demolitions work, I'm actually using material that comes from those who have expertise on the subject. The link for example contained material from Controlled Demolitions, Inc, one of the premier authorities on the process, so I necessarily need to apply their demolition process to the towers. Otherwise, these demolitions aren't really demolitions; they're just bombs.

Can you explain how this would be wrong?

I can see the logic of that, but the model at the link you posted earlier refutes that logic - they're clearly showing charges placed on both high and low floors. It seems to me like it's possible for systematic structural failure to occur due to a chain reaction of falling floors, but to collapse a building smoothly, quickly and safely, demolitions are needed to assist with the failure of floors below the collapse initiation before the falling debris reaches them. Without that assistance, the structural integrity of lower floors should slow or redirect the chain reaction as it progresses.

In the terminology you've used previously, "the trap has now been sprung". Here is the best video I can find of a building of equivalent size and shape of the towers. The process shown is largely the same as the animation I posted- simply take a dozen animations and put them one on top of another-



As you yourself stated, demolitions are needed to assist with the failure of floors below the collapse initiation. As you watch the video, you will notice momentary flashes up and down the length of the structure, followed soon after by much noticable flashes that initiated the actual collapse. These are the demolitions charges going off that do just that, and as you can see, they were very noticable, and the reason why is obvious- the demolitions needed to sever the outermost visible support columns to reduce the resistance of the floors as the structure collapsed.

The reason why this is relevent is because the floors in the WTC were held in air between the core columns and the columns in the outer perimeter. This necessarily means that if your supposition was correct, demolitions on the exterior columns of the WTC would be mandatory by the laws of physics...and yet as every video of the collapse of the two towers showed, no demolitions flashes on the exterior were present. Either no demolitions were actually used, or some hypothetical violation-of -the-laws-of-physics explosives that exploded invisibly and silently were used, as you agreed previously, physics necessarily would apply to the conspirators just as they do everywhere else.

Logically, either the force from the collapsing floors was enough to overcome the resistance of the stationary floors due to the unique design of the buildings, or, *nothing* actually destroyed the buildings.

I can't agree to that, though I'll accept that it's a possible scenario; I'd even be willing to go so far as to say it's the most likely scenario given the available provable evidence. It appears that the complete collapse began at or near the point of impact on each tower, but I do see video evidence and eyewitness accounts of explosions and damage on lower floors before the onset of collapse. I've also done a lot of reading on the debunking of that evidence, but I have not been convinced to dismiss it.

If you cannot agree that the initial point of collapse began at the vicinity of the point of impact of the planes in each building, then can you provide information that show this is wrong? Every video of the collapse I've seen shows this to be the case.

GenRadek and GoodOlDave are the self-appointed guardians of the disinformation cover story. They apparently bought the whole thing line, hook and sinker and now, they're a suffocating fish on the chopping block about to be chopped cooked and eaten.

So you two, what about the pools of molten steel at the bottom of all 3 tower collapses? The jet fuel that was burning was giving off black smoke and wasn't anywhere near hot enough to do that. Evidence of thermate was found in the dust. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. The hole in the side of the pentagon was too small to have been hit by a 757. But I'm sure you guys have excuses for that, being the self-appointed guardians of the official disinfo coverup story.

reply to post by RadioactiveRob

So you two, what about the pools of molten steel at the bottom of all 3 tower collapses?

That comes under the heading of 'hand waving' and 'changing' the subject.
We were reading about the impact point being the initiation point for the collapse.

But since you did bring it up. How do you discredit all the eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

reply to post by RadioactiveRob

So you two, what about the pools of molten steel at the bottom of all 3 tower collapses?

Prove it. Prove there were pools of molten steel.

The jet fuel that was burning was giving off black smoke and wasn't anywhere near hot enough to do that.

Prove it. I want you to prove that jet fuel buring with black smoke can't melt steel.

Evidence of thermate was found in the dust.

Send me a sample.

WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane.

Thats one thing you got right.

The hole in the side of the pentagon was too small to have been hit by a 757.

Prove it. I want exact dimensions.

But I'm sure you guys have excuses for that, being the self-appointed guardians of the official disinfo coverup story.

Self appointed? I thought they were government hires???

reply to post by hooper


No, I am not going to start a never ending argument with a couple of foolish and naive people that have a flowery-goody-good world view of a government that you guys think are not capable of and would never do a false-flag attack on it's own people to justify an endless war. Who knows who you people are and why on earth your coming to a conspiracy forum to debunk conspiracies, you would be better suited to join a forum that discusses the official story and how you think all of it is accurate and true.

reply to post by RadioactiveRob

No, I am not going to start a never ending argument with a couple of foolish and naive people that have a flowery-goody-good world view of a government that you guys think are not capable of and would never do a false-flag attack on it's own people to justify an endless war.

In other words, you know there is no evidence for anything that you presented and you prefer to remain nicely isolated in your bubble where you are free to wallow in your own paranoia without any distracting truth.

Who knows who you people are and why on earth your coming to a conspiracy forum to debunk conspiracies, you would be better suited to join a forum that discusses the official story and how you think all of it is accurate and true.

Well, actually thats pretty much the rest of human communication.

C'mon, challenge yoruself a little bit. Provide some hard core evidence for anything you just posted. Just show me some evidence that there were pools of molten steel in the rubble piles at ground zero and that how conflating that with the black smoke of jet fuel proves an "inside job"!

reply to post by hooper


An eyewitness that was actually there reports it
Another one







Jet fuel is actually refined kerosene. It doesn't truly burn hot or it would melt an engine. In an open fire, it will burn at about 500-700 degrees, while in a controlled burn it may get as high as 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The fires in the towers were open fires and not controlled burns.

I am not getting dragged into a worthless argument with a bunch of self-appointed guardians of the official story. You can reply and have the last word.

reply to post by RadioactiveRob


So where's the evidence that there was molten steel? There is none. Thats why you don't want to get "dragged in". Because you have nothing. There was red hot material in the rubble. That's not in dispute. Where you get yourself into trouble is defining it as "molten steel" and then trying to knock down your own strawman with the ridiculous notion that because jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel then the melted steel must have another, and more nefarious cause.

This presentation is very old and continues to go no where because everyone with half a brain knows that you just can't look a pile of red hot material and determine its composition and they also realize that there was more than a sufficient amount of combustible material in the rubble to burn hot enough to melt materials and that the jet fuel was not relevant.

reply to post by RadioactiveRob


They take the most extreme outcomes, of the most extreme theories, and try to convince people that it is how it always happens.

We've explained to them many times that open air fires never get to their max temperature. Or that the steel could never reach the same temp of the room, especially in an hour. Or that steel losing 50% of it's load bearing capacity wouldn't cause failure. Or that jet fuel would not make the fires any hotter, as it already burns at a lower temp than an average room fire.

Yet they still like to stick to these fallacies. It's pointless getting into arguments with them anymore. They think they've 'won' if you don't reply to them lol, silly fools. They never say anything new, that hasn't already been covered a billion times. When something is debunked, it's debunked, it's not my job to keep reminding them.

reply to post by hooper


LOL and you just want to play semantics as usual.

Red hot, or melted? Does it matter?

No, because it should be neither. Only a relatively small percentage of the towers were actually on fire and usually a collapse of that type would put fire out. There is no reason anything should have stayed, or even been 'red hot' in the first place from an open air fire.

reply to post by ANOK

We've explained....

And, of course, by "explain" you mean repeat, hoping that somehow or another repeating bull crap will make it turn into fact.

....to them many times that open air fires never get to their max temperature.

Huh? So what temperature do they get to???? That's like saying I never get to my destination, just the place I went to.

Or that the steel could never reach the same temp of the room, especially in an hour.

What a joke. A bic lighter and a pocket knife and you can prove that's wrong. Like most people do when they're just kids.

Or that steel losing 50% of it's load bearing capacity wouldn't cause failure.

I just thank God that you have nothing to do with construction or engineering, obviously.

Or that jet fuel would not make the fires any hotter, as it already burns at a lower temp than an average room fire.

Please post a photo and a floorplan of an "average room" when you get a chance.

Originally posted by ANOK
. Or that jet fuel would not make the fires any hotter, as it already burns at a lower temp than an average room fire.

So the materials doused in jet fuel remained unscathed after the jet fuel burned off? All those papers, carpets, computers, desks, office supplies, etc etc etc drenched in jet fuel survived the burning jet fuel and did not catch fire?


Oh ANOK you always give me a good laugh.......

And you wonder why we cannot take anything you say seriously.

I guess grilling food on a charcoal grill must seem like black magic to you!

reply to post by RadioactiveRob


Oh good LORD how many times does it have to be pointed out that the combustion temperatures of jet fuel do indeed reach a temp that would melt the engines were they not engineered so that there is a layer of plain air between the combustion and the actual metal components? (Yes I simplified it a wee bit, but is still accurate).

How much money did goldman sachs make off the housing bubble collapse? Trillions.
How much does Alex Jones, David Griffin, David Icke make combined, maybe a million.

9/11 truth a scam? Just the theories with UFO lazer beams.