Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11

[danmand]

1. The hijackers were dedicated fanatics willing to do a suicide mission (it's always easier to achieve your goal if you don't have to worry about getting away afterwards.) The plan exploited real vulnerabilities, though it was pretty much a "one shot deal" - remember that in literally minutes between when the first plane hit, the passengers on plane #4 prevented it from reaching it's target. no prior warning, no weapons, no nothing.

When I ran large organizations, I would have set a low probability on 4 teams all getting up early, getting to the right airport, getting on the right airplane and successfully taking over the airplanes. I would have been happy, if 2 of the teams had succeded.

2. Sorry, I'm neither a structural engineer or a demolitions expert. I would, out of plain common sense though, ask just what bringing down an empty building after the towers fell was supposed to accomplish in the first place. Seems an obvious weak point for that specific theory.

I am not giving any theory for why?, because I have no clue, and I don't see a motive either. But looking at the evidence presented, no other explanation than a controlled demolition seems plausible to me.

3. The people "at the top" - Bush, Cheny, Rice, etc. were much more intent on replacing people who actually knew what they were doing with politically vetted loyalist underlings than with protecting the citizenry. Cheny had even more or less expressed the wish for something like 9/11 to occur. Those "lower down the ladder" were largely intent on defending turf and covering their own asses. Add to that the fact that conspiracies are generally SUPPOSED to be kept secret (DUH!)

I don't see any motive for creating such a massive catastrophy.

 

[viking1965]

WTC was a controlled demolition. Its the only plausible solution. But i don't want to argue this with anyone. They have to do their own homework. Start with the engineers and architects.

BTW, have you even seen up close, in the flesh, of a controlled demo of a large office building in a down town core? Just wondering. Some people have, i am one, but that's beside the point really.

Are you familiar with the preparations necessary for such a demolition?

In buildings of that size it would involve the drilling of literally thousands of holes at architecturally strategic locations, the placement of properly sized charges in those holes, the wiring of the charges, (this takes weeks in a "gutted" building; how long do you think it woud take in a still "finished" and actively occupied building?) followed by the perfectly synchronized detonation of those charges.

Even if you could explain your way past the "setup" logistics, the explosions created by the crashes themselves would have disrupted the "choreography" of the alleged controlled demolition.

Did you personally witness the WTC site after the disaster?

Trust me, it looked nothing like any results I've seen of "controlled demolition". The jagged ten story high gash in the neighboring Deutsche Bank building (where I worked) is just one indicator of this, as was the subsequent fire and collapse of 7 WTC (ooops, I forgot, that was a "controlled demoliton" too, NOT!!!!).

Engineers have explained that the "pancaking" effect of the the towers' collapse, which many people mistake for a "controlled demolition" was simply a factor of the "center core" design of the buildings.

 

[viking1965]

When I ran large organizations, I would have set a low probability on 4 teams all getting up early, getting to the right airport, getting on the right airplane and successfully taking over the airplanes. I would have been happy, if 2 of the teams had succeded.

Please remember that these were highly motivated, quasi-military operatives who were ostensibly hand-picked and trained for the better part of a year; not corporate pencil pushers on a weekend "team-building" exercise.

 

[Mcluhan]

Are you familiar with the preparations necessary for such a demolition?

In buildings of that size it would involve the drilling of literally thousands of holes at architecturally strategic locations, the placement of properly sized charges in those holes, the wiring of the charges, (this takes weeks in a "gutted" building; how long do you think it woud take in a still "finished" and actively occupied building?) followed by the perfectly synchronized detonation of those charges.

Even if you could explain your way past the "setup" logistics, the explosions created by the crashes themselves would have disrupted the "choreography" of the alleged controlled demolition.

Did you personally witness the WTC site after the disaster?

Trust me, it looked nothing like any results I've seen of "controlled demolition". The jagged ten story high gash in the neighboring Deutsche Bank building (where I worked) is just one indicator of this, as was the subsequent fire and collapse of 7 WTC (ooops, I forgot, that was a "controlled demoliton" too, NOT!!!!).

Engineers have explained that the "pancaking" effect of the the towers' collapse, which many people mistake for a "controlled demolition" was simply a factor of the "center core" design of the buildings.

Congratulations, you have just successfully parroted the most common myth, and the big lie. Pancaking was tossed in the wastebasket back in 2003 or 04. I can't remember which year exactly, but its in there. Incidentally, it was introduced by the media in the first 25 minutes, 'on the scene', and it stuck...for awhile at least. But that's another scented trail, the introducing of 'facts' into the main media stream. I'll pass on that trail for now. Its not required to know, here and now.

Your first hypothesis on 'drilling' is out in left field.

Yes, i know my construction well, i was in the field for 20 years, commercial and res, but that's beside the point. Yes, i looked over the structural plans to satisfy myself, to gain understanding of loads, load points, and tie-ins of the floor trusses to see how the building was blown, but again, that's beside the point. Its not too complicated actually to understand, probably even to anyone without a building background. But of course you would have to spend a few hours learning the facts, which obviously, you have not done.

On the before page 5, (at 04-08-2009, 01:31 AM) I made a post, and pasted some links. Did you happen to read the post? If so, did you go to the links and look? Once you have done your homework on the subject, then come and talk to me. I made it very simple for anyone who is confused, and offered three info sources to pull from the human library and learn. That's enough help. Go do your own work. I did mine. Its all there. Gain the knowledge. Enlighten yourself. I submit, you will be in the dark until you do. Many people are more comfortable that way (kept in the dark). If they can't see it, it can't hurt them, etc.

 

[Aardvark154]

When I ran large organizations, I would have set a low probability on 4 teams all getting up early, getting to the right airport, getting on the right airplane and successfully taking over the airplanes. I would have been happy, if 2 of the teams had succeded.

I have no reason to doubt that in fact this has been your observation. However, if such things were impossible numerous military operations would never have succeeded since they were all dependent upon groups of troops, aircraft, ships whatever all successful carrying out a number of separate coordinated operations.

Further the operations themselves were relatively straightforward and simple, where things tend to go awry is when they become overly complicated.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yes, i know my construction well, i was in the field for 20 years, commercial and res

But Mcluhan are you a Civil Engineer? More particularly did you specialize in the implosion of buildings?

Further cutting to the bottom line, which are you attempting to tell us: 1) that the ASCE panel didn't know squat about engineering 2) that they were all part of the conspiracy 3) that this was all done so skillfully that they were able to fool the ASCE panel but can't pull the wool over your eyes?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Save you tin foil hats folks....

Well don't give up your tin foil caps yet people!
You will be needing to put them on for the latest 'hacking of the US Electric Grid' by the Ruskies & ChiComs!.....

 

[Mcluhan]

But Mcluhan are you a Civil Engineer? More particularly did you specialize in the implosion of buildings?

Further cutting to the bottom line, which are you attempting to tell us: 1) that the ASCE panel didn't know squat about engineering 2) that they were all part of the conspiracy 3) that this was all done so skillfully that they were able to fool the ASCE panel but can't pull the wool over your eyes?

Inevitably you come with the usual fistful of appeal-to-authority arguments.

I really don't want to discuss this with you. You are not going to learn anything here. You can't learn. You are not equipped to learn on this level, or on this subject. Your blinders are full on, and you want only to prop some false position by discrediting someone's viewpoint, but without any real understanding yourself. You cannot challenge the facts and the science, because you will not do the home work. For my part, I will not lift a finger to help you along the path toward this knowledge, more than i have already done. I'd rather you stay in the dark.

BTW, civil engineers have worked for me (for 20 years), and i have fired more than one over the years. One i physically manhandled and threw one off a job for being a complete idiot, so much did he upset me in the middle of a large concrete pour. Just because a man gets a seal, it doesn't guarantee he knows how to think straight. Maybe you haven't learned that about life yet. Same with lawyers and doctors btw..only more so.

 

[Aardvark154]

Fascinating, the conjunction of gnosticism and conspiracy theories.

 

[Mcluhan]

Fascinating, the conjunction of gnosticism and conspiracy theories.

Just an observation. You're one of those people who just has to get in the last word. Ok, you've had it. Now bugger off and harass someone who cares.

 

[papasmerf]

Just an observation. You're one of those people who just has to get in the last word. Ok, you've had it. Now bugger off and harass someone who cares.

Yea

you tell him. Facts mean nothing to you if they do not fit your theories.

 

[Mcluhan]

Yea

you tell him. Facts mean nothing to you if they do not fit your theories.

Are you trying to pick a fight? I just got the facts on you. Shame. Shame.

 

[rama putri]

Could it be that the buildings were not engineered to withstand that large of a plane with that much jet fuel still in them.

Those buildings were never certified to withstand a fully loaded airliner crashing into them. Has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, just wrong facts and poor attention span in structural engineering class. A tin foil hat is not in order for the OP, but a dunce cap.

 

[viking1965]

Congratulations, you have just successfully parroted the most common myth, and the big lie. Pancaking was tossed in the wastebasket back in 2003 or 04. I can't remember which year exactly, but its in there. Incidentally, it was introduced by the media in the first 25 minutes, 'on the scene', and it stuck...for awhile at least. But that's another scented trail, the introducing of 'facts' into the main media stream. I'll pass on that trail for now. Its not required to know, here and now.

Your first hypothesis on 'drilling' is out in left field.

Yes, i know my construction well, i was in the field for 20 years, commercial and res, but that's beside the point. Yes, i looked over the structural plans to satisfy myself, to gain understanding of loads, load points, and tie-ins of the floor trusses to see how the building was blown, but again, that's beside the point. Its not too complicated actually to understand, probably even to anyone without a building background. But of course you would have to spend a few hours learning the facts, which obviously, you have not done.

On the before page 5, (at 04-08-2009, 01:31 AM) I made a post, and pasted some links. Did you happen to read the post? If so, did you go to the links and look? Once you have done your homework on the subject, then come and talk to me. I made it very simple for anyone who is confused, and offered three info sources to pull from the human library and learn. That's enough help. Go do your own work. I did mine. Its all there. Gain the knowledge. Enlighten yourself. I submit, you will be in the dark until you do. Many people are more comfortable that way (kept in the dark). If they can't see it, it can't hurt them, etc.

So we'll dispose of the "pancaking" discussion. that's fine.

Why is drilling "out in left field"? At the very least, the charges would have had to be somehow attached to the structural steel in such a way that no one would notice that it was being placed. This would have taken days, if not weeks, and needed to be done inconspicuously. Not to mention the subsequent wiring of the charges.

Can you simply explain to me the "logistics" of prepping the buildings for the "controlled explosion" in a way that wouldn't be noticed? I admittedly only viewed parts of the videos, but didn't see anything specifically about how the buildings were prepped for demolition. Is this explained/described somewhere in the videos? If so, tell me and I'll look for it. If not, I'd simply like to hear your explanation for how it might have taken place. Is that too much to ask? The absence of this detail certainly implodes (pun intended) your whole theory.

By the way, I've met firefighter Schroeder. He mentioned FF Paul Panzini in the video. I went to high school with Paul, and before 9/11 I would stop to chat with him outside the firehouse on a regular basis since I worked right next door. John Schroeder was usually right next to him, chatting up the ladies. John, like many New York firefighters, is "a character" (do you guys have "Rescue Me" on FX up there?). His feelings about the treatment of first responders after the event (resiratory problems, etc.) is spot on, but beyond that, his You Tube rant is simply his 15 (or 45, I guess) minutes of fame, and does nothing, IMHO, to support any conspiracy theory.

 

[viking1965]

Inevitably you come with the usual fistful of appeal-to-authority arguments.

I really don't want to discuss this with you. You are not going to learn anything here. You can't learn. You are not equipped to learn on this level, or on this subject. Your blinders are full on, and you want only to prop some false position by discrediting someone's viewpoint, but without any real understanding yourself. You cannot challenge the facts and the science, because you will not do the home work. For my part, I will not lift a finger to help you along the path toward this knowledge, more than i have already done. I'd rather you stay in the dark.

BTW, civil engineers have worked for me (for 20 years), and i have fired more than one over the years. One i physically manhandled and threw one off a job for being a complete idiot, so much did he upset me in the middle of a large concrete pour. Just because a man gets a seal, it doesn't guarantee he knows how to think straight. Maybe you haven't learned that about life yet. Same with lawyers and doctors btw..only more so.

No, inevitably he comes with pointed, valid questions regarding your position, as did I.

Your lack of either desire or ability to respond to them directly severely hampers the strength of that position.

 

[Protoss]

.

Why is drilling "out in left field"? At the very least, the charges would have had to be somehow attached to the structural steel in such a way that no one would notice that it was being placed. This would have taken days, if not weeks, and needed to be done inconspicuously. Not to mention the subsequent wiring of the charges.

Can you simply explain to me the "logistics" of prepping the buildings for the "controlled explosion" in a way that wouldn't be noticed? I admittedly only viewed parts of the videos, but didn't see anything specifically about how the buildings were prepped for demolition. Is this explained/described somewhere in the videos? If so, tell me and I'll look for it. If not, I'd simply like to hear your explanation for how it might have taken place. Is that too much to ask? The absence of this detail certainly implodes (pun intended) your whole theory.

.

Hi Viking . . . the answers to these and other questions are in the video. It's a long one but I highly recommend seeing the whole thing. Very compelling stuff.

Protoss

 

[danmand]

No, inevitably he comes with pointed, valid questions regarding your position, as did I.

Your lack of either desire or ability to respond to them directly severely hampers the strength of that position.

I don't quite think you are fair to McLuhan in this. The response of several posters here,
you not included, to any data presented, is that "a conspiracy would be impossible".

Personally, I see no motive for creating such a calamity, but there are many things
that does not make sense to me, and which I wish to have explained.

So, when an occams razor's test says that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition,
I would like to se a counter explanation, not the usual "a conspiracy would be impossible".

 

[Malibook]

Can you simply explain to me the "logistics" of prepping the buildings for the "controlled explosion" in a way that wouldn't be noticed?

Since Mcluhan dismisses the pancaking effect, I suppose massive amounts of explosives and trip wire had to be laid on every floor without anybody noticing a thing.
This would have been a very long and dangerous job and impossible to hide from the tens of thousands of people around.

The buildings withstood the impacts but the fires and weight of the above floors were too much.
The buildings clearly buckle at the points of impact.
The south building was the second hit but collapsed quicker because it was hit lower.

Before 911, people had no reason to believe that a plane being hijacked meant they were all certain to die.
Even when a hijacked plane is stormed by elite forces, most of the passengers survive.
They certainly had no reason to suspect the plane was going to be used as a weapon.
Flight 93 passengers learnt what was going on and they did something about it.

The despicable fascist Bush administration treacherously exploited 911 but this does not mean that they orchestrated it.

I'd like to know why the fuck they didn't even try to get Bin Laden when they had him trapped at Bora Bora.
Now that looks like a conspiracy.

 

[viking1965]

Hi Viking . . . the answers to these and other questions are in the video. It's a long one but I highly recommend seeing the whole thing. Very compelling stuff.

Protoss

Thanks Protoss, which one is it in? (Obviously not the Schroeder one).

 

[viking1965]

I don't quite think you are fair to McLuhan in this. The response of several posters here,
you not included, to any data presented, is that "a conspiracy would be impossible".

How am I not being fair to him? I merely asked him to specifically explain the physical logistics of "wiring" the building.

If anything, he is being either unfair or irrational in positing theories and then refusing to respond directly to valid, relevant, and pointed challenges to those theories.