It's not a conspiracy

[Nick H. Supervisor]

When did I make that claim? Never! The only one trying to prove their conspiracy theory is you.

States instead of theorizes?! I don't wish to argue semantics, thank you. If you state something that you can't prove you are theorizing. Without a recording of the conspiring taking place all theories are just that, theories!

Gotta love the censorship btw! Now I'm not even allowed to choose my own topic title, LOL!

Alright, I will concede on that point. Even with their "proof", the United States Government's statement is a theory, just the same way that gravity and evolution are. To quote my theory of knowledge teacher, "We know nothing. We can't even be sure if what we see with our own eyes is real."

However, do you agree on the point of where the conspiracy potentially lies? The official story is still the official story, it is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is either that the American Government covered up what really happened and told the official story to hide their plan to illegally hijack and crash the planes, or that muslims planned to hijack and crash the planes. Either one would be conspiracy theories, but not the official story issued by the US Government. At most, the official story could be part of the conspiracy theory, but it is not a conspiracy theory on its own.

If we're trying to have a proper, civilised debate, the semantics end up mattering. Otherwise a person's point and meaning could be misinterpreted.

[s1k3sT]

Alright, I will concede on that point. Even with their "proof", the United States Government's statement is a theory, just the same way that gravity and evolution are. To quote my theory of knowledge teacher, "We know nothing. We can't even be sure if what we see with our own eyes is real."

However, do you agree on the point of where the conspiracy potentially lies? The official story is still the official story, it is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is that the American Government covered up what really happened and told the official story to hide their plan to illegally hijack and crash the planes.

If we're trying to have a proper, civilised debate, the semantics end up mattering. Otherwise a person's point and meaning could be misinterpreted.

The official story is a conspiracy, the claim is that those Muslims conspired to hijack the planes! The official story just happens the official conspiracy theory.

[Stetson]

What topics? All I see is the original topic, yet they changed my name of the topic to the opposite of what it originally was, no censorship there!

The topic with the subject "It's not a conspiracy" was started after the original, they were two separate threads. They were merged just a few minutes ago, I noticed because I refreshed the page from the original thread and it came up as a bad link.

[Mr. Gibs]

I wonder how a building falls a near free fall speed if it still has the majority of it's support.

Got proof of a freefall done by legitmate scientists like I asked you before? Got proof of the simulation using a proven computer program? Got proof by building your own model of the building and testing it out?

No you haven't. And none of the 9/11 truthers have either. 10 minute long youtube videos with some program that took 5 minutes to code and analyzing a video you posted don't count.

There were buildings that were closer to the towers that didn't collapse, but that's just a coincidence, right?

On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 p.m.[1] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, causing at first the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 p.m.

What topics? All I see is the original topic, yet they changed my name of the topic to the opposite of what it originally was, no censorship there!

There was another topic with the name of the current one that someone started last night. Because the 2 topics were similar they were merged.

There was absolutely no reason to destroy the evidence like they did! It doesn't matter how many hours of research you do, if you don't have the evidence you won't come to the right conclusion.

LOL so what evidence is 9/11 truthers basing their stories on then? Videos of falling buildings?

Nice shooting yourself in your own foot. Since you have now admitted that because there apparently wasn't any evidence, no conclusion could have been right hence it couldn't have been planes, or controlled explosions it had to have been aliens. And the aliens have been captured and are currently living inside Area 51 where they play chess with Bush every morning.

[s1k3sT]

Got proof of a freefall done by legitmate scientists like I asked you before? Got proof of the simulation using a proven computer program? Got proof by building your own model of the building and testing it out?

No you haven't. And none of the 9/11 truthers have either. 10 minute long youtube videos with some program that took 5 minutes to code and analyzing a video you posted don't count.

There was another topic with the name of the current one that someone started last night. Because the 2 topics were similar they were merged.

I could show you a video of Cheney pushing the button and you wouldn't believe me. How about trying to "debunk" the video I posted instead of dismissing it because the creator of the video doesn't fit your idea of a "legitimate scientist". Let me guess, unless it fits your opinion they aren't legitimate, right?

Did building 6 collapse as well?

[hdood]

I wonder how a building falls a near free fall speed if it still has the majority of it's support.

None of the buildings that collapsed had the majority of their support.

There were buildings that were closer to the towers that didn't collapse, but that's just a coincidence, right?

Actually, 6 WTC (the building between 1 WTC and 7) was destroyed. It was only 9 stories though. 3, 4, 5 and 6 WTC were also destroyed. Several surrounding buildings were also heavily damaged (a few condemned). Even the Verizon building next to 7 WTC was damaged by the debris, although it had a very different construction from 7 WTC which meant it did not collapse and could be repaired. There's a reason why the new 7 WTC building has a much more traditional design.

What topics? All I see is the original topic, yet they changed my name of the topic to the opposite of what it originally was, no censorship there!

Someone started a topic earlier today called "it's not a conspiracy" that was also about 9/11. The two were merged, although it probably should have been done the other way around so your thread remained.

Also, please respond to post #243 in your own time.

[Tews]

You sound like a pair of five year olds .... did not .... did too... did not ... :pinch:

[Mr. Gibs]

I could show you a video of Cheney pushing the button and you wouldn't believe me. How about trying to "debunk" the video I posted instead of dismissing it because the creator of the video doesn't fit your idea of a "legitimate scientist". Let me guess, unless it fits your opinion they aren't legitimate, right?

There were no facts in that video apart from a few quotes and the video of the building falling. I don't care who made it, I wasn't disputing that.

The video you posted couldn't even pass an 8th grade science assessment. If he had actually posted the evidence he obtained from the ground, the strength of their steel rods, the tensile strength of the cement, showed the calculations he did, used an actual computer simulation program (go download one from bitorrent if you're too cheap to buy one for all I care) I would be more trusting of it. But since he failed to do all of the above, it doesn't say a lot for that videos credability

I could show you a video of Cheney pushing the button and you wouldn't believe me

I would if that was what actually happenned and Cheney admitted to it.

Did building 6 collapse as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_World_Trade_Center

[hdood]

My earlier posts compiled into one so it's less work for s1k3sT (who is after all being bombarded by tons of people):

What do you mean? What report is it you want? This? This? This?

The last one might be of interest to Razorfold too. I think he was talking about phones earlier. It shows that the calls from United 175 actually came from airphones.

By the way, do you dispute my earlier explanation of how the collapse occurred?

[...]

The conspiracy theorists like to treat everything as isolated, when it was actually a series of events that caused the collapse. The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down.

[...]

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen. Isn't it more interesting to learn the facts? I think so.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

The official story is a conspiracy, the claim is that those Muslims conspired to hijack the planes! The official story just happens the official conspiracy theory.

Alright, once more:

The official story cannot be a conspiracy. It is a statement (or theory, if you like) from the American Government that muslims conspired to hijack and crash a plane.

Let's work through it together:

Did Muslims conspire to hijack and crash planes?

According to the official story, yes they did. If we go with that idea, then the conspiracy is between the muslims that hijacked the planes and crashed them.

Did the American Government conspire to hijack and crash planes?

If you think they did, then the conspiracy is between the members of the United States Government. As part of their conspiracy, they created a cover story which we have come to know as the official story (since it is their official word on how the events unfolded).

However you look at it, the official story is either what really happened or a cover-up for the American Government's conspiracy. The story on it's own is not the conspiracy.

[Stetson]

Did Muslims conspire to hijack and crash planes?

According to the official story, yes they did. If we go with that idea, then the conspiracy is between the muslims that hijacked the planes and crashed them.

I do agree with him here that this technically makes it a theory about a conspiracy, thus you could call it a "conspiracy theory."

As I posted at the beginning of the original thread though, there is a difference between individual definitions and the combined connotation of the phrase. The whole is more than the sum of its parts etc.

Usually the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in current times carries a connotation/implication of a conspiracy to cover up what really happened, usually by the government.

[s1k3sT]

My earlier posts compiled into one so it's less work for s1k3sT (who is after all being bombarded by tons of people):

What do you mean? What report is it you want? This? This? This?

The last one might be of interest to Razorfold too. I think he was talking about phones earlier. It shows that the calls from United 175 actually came from airphones.

By the way, do you dispute my earlier explanation of how the collapse occurred?

[...]

The conspiracy theorists like to treat everything as isolated, when it was actually a series of events that caused the collapse. The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down.

[...]

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen. Isn't it more interesting to learn the facts? I think so.

I will respond to those three "reports" after my 1 report that I posted way earlier is addressed reasonably, and no I don't mean "It's a conspiracy!".

All your claims about the speed of the collapse seem to forget one simple rule of physics, that is for those building to fall at the speed they did there needed to be very little to no structural support. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't change the fact that the buildings came down too fast to be explained by the official conspiracy theory. Lets take your quote "As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum." How do you explain the more and more structural support that needed to give way for that collapse? More and more mass was added, but at the same time it was going straight through more and more structural support, all this support had to give way for anywhere close to free fall speeds.

Alright, once more:

The official story cannot be a conspiracy. It is a statement (or theory, if you like) from the American Government that muslims conspired to hijack and crash a plane.

Let's work through it together:

Did Muslims conspire to hijack and crash planes?

According to the official story, yes they did. If we go with that idea, then the conspiracy is between the muslims that hijacked the planes and crashed them.

How does it feel to contradict yourself so quickly?! So, "the official story cannot be a conspiracy", but "the conspiracy is between the muslims that hijacked the planes"?!

Which is it?

The official story is a conspiracy theory, which is the whole point of this topic, not to debate theories.

I do agree with him here that this technically makes it a theory about a conspiracy, thus you could call it a "conspiracy theory."

As I posted at the beginning of the original thread though, there is a difference between individual definitions and the combined connotation of the phrase. The whole is more than the sum of its parts etc.

Usually the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in current times carries a connotation/implication of a conspiracy to cover up what really happened, usually by the government.

This is what I wanted to discuss in this topic, not debate all the theories.

I wanted to point out that in the individual definitions they define about every single person in the world, while the new 1984 type connotation defines a very small segment of the population. In that way the meaning has almost became a doublethink type meaning, and it is used imho to scare everyone from looking into important topics.

[hdood]

I will respond to those three "reports" after my 1 report that I posted way earlier is addressed reasonably, and no I don't mean "It's a conspiracy!".

I was not requesting any response on them. They were just examples. It was me saying that there are thousands of documents that deal with all the various aspects of the attack and that you can't just ask someone to "give them to you" as if it was one little booklet that dealt with all aspects. You have to be specific about what you want. You do understand that the National Transportation Safety Board isn't going to write about financing for instance, right?

All your claims about the speed of the collapse seem to forget one simple rule of physics, that is for those building to fall at the speed they did there needed to be very little to no structural support.

What do you mean? I explained why there was no structural support capable of arresting the collapse.

I understand the what you are saying, but it doesn't change the fact that the buildings came down too fast to be explained by the official conspiracy theory.

Then I don't think you do understand.

Lets take your quote "As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum." How do you explain the more and more structural support that needed to give way for that collapse? More and more mass was added, but at the same time it was going straight through structural support, all this support had to give way for anywhere close to free fall speeds.

You continue to claim there was structural support, but there was no structural support that even came close to being able to handle the load. You claim there was, but there wasn't. As the collapse progressed, the floors below the collapsing mass were exposed to more mass than they could support. A lot more.

[Growled Member]

Yeah, I merged the topics. Both were about 9/11.

[s1k3sT]

You continue to claim there was structural support, but there was no structural support that even came close to being able to handle the load. You claim there was, but there wasn't. As the collapse progressed, the floors below the collapsing mass were exposed to more mass than they could support. A lot more.

I'm not trying to say they wouldn't collapse, I'm saying that they wouldn't reach a near free fall speed of collapse. I admit as the collapse progressed there would be more mass, but do you deny that all that mass went straight down though the building itself?! That building itself being in the way should have prevented anything close to free fall speeds, but it didn't...

[Nick H. Supervisor]

How does it feel to contradict yourself so quickly?! So, "the official story cannot be a conspiracy", but "the conspiracy is between the muslims that hijacked the planes"?!

Which is it?

Alright, I give up. We're getting nowhere with this, so I'll say "you're right" and leave you to it.

[Pas]

to razorfold and others who have common sense, it's extremely difficult to argue or debate with others who are idiots. you can't win the debate. it's impossible. the idiots can be proven wrong with tons of evidence and they'll never admit their error.

i had to laugh at the comment about a falling building turning to dust. i know i can use a hammer on a chunk of concrete and render it to dust rather easily. i guess thousands of tons collapsing on the floors below would not have been enough weight to pulverize building materials below.

as much as i despised the bush/cheney/rumsfield administration, i never considered them being behind a conspiracy to kill thousands of americans to justify invading iraq.

[s1k3sT]

Alright, I give up. We're getting nowhere with this, so I'll say "you're right" and leave you to it.

That's not what this is about, I wish I was wrong but that's not what the evidence proves.

to razorfold and others who have common sense, it's extremely difficult to argue or debate with others who are idiots. you can't win the debate. it's impossible. the idiots can be proven wrong with tons of evidence and they'll never admit their error.

to Howling Wind and others who have common sense, it's extremely difficult to argue or debate with others who are idiots. you can't win the debate. it's impossible. the idiots can be proven wrong with tons of evidence and they'll never admit their error.

[Growled Member]

Surely we can discuss this without calling each other idiots.

[s1k3sT]

Surely we can discuss this without calling each other idiots.

I agree, it does nothing but ruin your argument to use insults. The only reason I posted what I did was to show Pas how it feels to be insulted. Lets stop with the personal insults, please. As David Ray Griffin would say, lets get empirical!

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

s1k3sT: You calling other posters in this thread idiots is rich. Really. You are the one who's immune to reality, preferring to live in a bizarro reality world.

You ought to join a militia, move to rural Montana and prepare yourself for the fight against the evil government and its black helicopters. You should NOT try to spread your ridiculous 'truther' arguments on the internet.

[Mr. Gibs]

to Howling Wind and others who have common sense, it's extremely difficult to argue or debate with others who are idiots. you can't win the debate. it's impossible. the idiots can be proven wrong with tons of evidence and they'll never admit their error.

So 99.9% of Americans believing it was the plane crash, 99.99%+ of the world believing it too, millions upon millions of scientists, architects, experts, physicists proving it, computer simulations proving it, major media networks (National Geographic and such) doing reports and studies on it, are all idiots.

The only people who aren't are the 1200 9/11 Truthers and the Bush Administration. Not to mention the sure genius these people would have to be in order to pull this off.

1. Get explosives into building without people noticing.

2. Kill / Pay off anyone who does .

3. Pay off muslims to get on board planes

4. Muslims hijack plane

5. Planes crash into building

6. Bombs set off at the exact right time

7. Use CGI to make bomb explosions look more like plane crashes

8. Spend millions of dollars funding reports into incident.

And all that happened in just over 8 months. Not to mention if anything that gone wrong, say someone noticed the explosives, took pictures and announced it before you got to them, the muslims couldn't get on the plane, Bin Laden claims it was America etc Your entire plan would have gone to waste and the entire administration would be facing high treason charges.

Odd statistic wouldn't you agree?

[hdood]

I'm not trying to say they wouldn't collapse

Sorry, I should have said substantially slow.

I'm saying that they wouldn't reach a near free fall speed of collapse. I admit as the collapse progressed there would be more mass, but do you deny that all that mass went straight down though the building itself?! That building itself being in the way should have prevented anything close to free fall speeds, but it didn't...

But why? The top started falling, the floors below collapse and join the falling mass, repeat until you reach ground level. I think you believe the floors were actually stronger than they were. They could realistically only support a few floors falling on them. Any more and they posed no relevant resistance. The core structure made up of a series of steel columns was somewhat more resilient and much of it actually remained standing for upwards of 20 seconds while the collapse was in progress.

[s1k3sT]

So 99.9% of Americans believing it was the plane crash, 99.99%+ of the world believing it too, millions upon millions of scientists, architects, experts, physicists proving it, computer simulations proving it, major media networks (National Geographic and such) doing reports and studies on it, are all idiots.

The only people who aren't are the 1200 9/11 Truthers and the Bush Administration.

Odd statistic wouldn't you agree?

So 99.9% of Americans believing it wasn't the plane crash, 99.99%+ of the world not believing it too, millions upon millions of scientists, architects, experts, physicists proving it, computer simulations proving it, are all idiots.

Odd statistic wouldn't you agree?

We all can make up statistics, where is your evidence? I talk to people daily about this, there is a rising opinion that the official conspiracy theory is bull****. About half the people I talk with are questioning the official conspiracy theory. No I'm not talking other "truthers" I'm talking the average person walking down the street, the people I give "truther" dvds to.

Regarding your thought that any other theory besides yours is impossible, LOL! So it's really easy to believe that some idiots from a cave in the desert were able to defeat the best defense system in the history of the world, multiple times in one day?! That is the outrageous conspiracy theory!

But why? The top started falling, the floors below collapse and join the falling mass, repeat until you reach ground level. I think you believe the floors were actually stronger than they were. They could realistically only support a few floors falling on them. Any more and they posed no relevant resistance. The core structure made up of a series of steel columns was somewhat more resilient and much of it actually remained standing for upwards of 20 seconds while the collapse was in progress.

[Citation needed]

[Mr. Gibs]

So 99.9% of Americans believing it wasn't the plane crash, 99.99%+ of the world not believing it too, millions upon millions of scientists, architects, experts, physicists proving it, computer simulations proving it, are all idiots.

Odd statistic wouldn't you agree?

We all can make up statistics, where is your evidence? I talk to people daily about this, there is a rising opinion that the official conspiracy theory is bull****. Close to half the people I talk with are questioning the official conspiracy theory.

Good try at copying a method I used against you earlier. But you still failed to read my next sentences. Where's my evidence lets look at it.

Studies - Many many more studies that are credible agree with the plane crash incident.

People - This forum is proof that a lot more people agree with the plane crash one. The only supporter you could find was Howling Wind. As for everyone I know, and all my friends, agree that it was the plane crash.

Experts = Who do you think carries out the studies?

Computer Simulations - Caught you there didn't I since a computer is basing things of physics with a very low chance of error. I mean the only computer simulation you could come up with was a youtube video. Soo

I talk to people daily about this, there is a rising opinion that the official conspiracy theory is bull****

Rising opinion my ass. Most people don't even care about 9/11, its something that happenned in the past that should be left there. The only people that keep bringing it up are you 9/11 truthers.

Regarding your thought that any other theory besides yours is impossible, LOL! So it's really easy to believe that some idiots from a cave in the desert were able to defeat the best defense system in the history of the world, multiple times in one day?! That is the outrageous conspiracy theory!

1. These "cave idiots" you talk about were actually funded and given weapons by the US Government to fight off the Russians.

2. Defense system? This wasn't a military war it was a civilian aircraft at a time when airport security was (and still is) a joke. Though its just a lot more annoying now. Nobody was expecting planes to crash into buildings so what did you want the US government to do? Fire SAMs on the plane? Maybe America's missile defense technology could have helped here, I hear it can read peoples minds.

3. Those cave dwelling "idiots" in Iraq are managing to cause vasts amounts of damage and deaths to the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please stop talking about things you have no idea about. Really

[Citation needed]

I already posted a National Geographic article/video that proved that. And if you ever learnt physics in your life you would be able to understand how it works too.