• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 Conspiracy?[W:1551]

It has been asked many times and even threads started for those who accept controlled demolition to discuss and lay out the evidence. No real takers and the conversation quickly revolves back to well the "govt is wrong".

It has been pointed out the difference explanations that have been brought forward by different authors. When asked about the different explanations, the conversation goes along the lines well it couldn't have been fire so it had to be CD. The CT folks say we need an independent investigation. Yet, they claim the "evidence" was disposed of.

9/11 CT's will never go away. Much like the JFK CT supporters.
 
I made a very good living as a journalist for 25 years; I lived on little brown envelopes with state secrets in them. I learned this. A secret can be kept between two people provided one of them is dead. There are instances where a power CAN hornswaggle to the populace, they usually involve issues where the government had all the power over information, i.e. war crimes, Kennedy assassination etc.

Having said that, and after doing a near documentary on how to demolish a sky scraper, it is simply impossible for who ever to have laid the charges in their perfect positions without being noticed. It is just too big a job. The *Vacant* building we filmed coming down took five months to set up.

Slightly off topic, but on the subject of keeping secrets in our society, did you happen to watch the award winning movie Spotlight this year? Quite interesting.

What it documented was how well the secret was kept about catholic priests molesting young boys. Not only was it kept within the church, no surprise there, but it was also kept within the community because of the great influence of the church and the fact that so many police officers and prosecutors were catholic themselves, and in a conspiracy of silence, saw to it that no priests were prosecuted for their crimes.

Yes Virginia, humans within society are actually quite good at keeping secrets. :mrgreen:
 
Slightly off topic, but on the subject of keeping secrets in our society, did you happen to watch the award winning movie Spotlight this year? Quite interesting.

What it documented was how well the secret was kept about catholic priests molesting young boys. Not only was it kept within the church, no surprise there, but it was also kept within the community because of the great influence of the church and the fact that so many police officers and prosecutors were catholic themselves, and in a conspiracy of silence, saw to it that no priests were prosecuted for their crimes.

Yes Virginia, humans within society are actually quite good at keeping secrets. :mrgreen:

Uh huh. And yet, we still know about it. Hm...........
 
Which is pretty funny because most of these conspiracy theories usually tend to contradict one another.

It doesn't make any sense to espouse any theory without first disproving the "official theory" with scientific argument. Thousands of Architects and Engineers have banded together to call BS on the "official version". Their scientific arguments cannot be overcome by those clinging to the "official theory".

What we get in lieu of debate and discussion are emotionally charged outbursts that have nothing to do with discussing the subject or debating the science.

The "official theory" is completely unsupported by science. A small portion of any structure cannot destroy the over 80,000 tons of steel and concrete that is supporting it. To say it can, especially to say it can with constant acceleration, violates 2 of Newton's Laws.

What does it say about people who cannot either accept or process simple physics??

Look at Quag's responses... he provides no argument, it is nothing but emotional outburst; and he is just like Mike, Mark, Tiger, et al... their game is to try and derail discussion and debate and turn everything into a food fight. No point in playing that game - it's like a Republican and a Democrat spending endless hours shouting at each other - what's the point to that??

False the building did not collapse at freefall. You cannot get accurate information from truther sites they all lie.

They didnt collapse at freefall

Stop getting your information from truther sites, they all lie.

I am not the one spreading truther lies about WT7 collapsing freefall. The intellectual dishonesty is a trademark of truthers.

I explained why what NIST did with Bldg 7 was dishonest, and that is easily demonstrated. They "assumed the descent speed to be constant" (their verbage), started the clock at the first sign of movement, and then came up with an average which they said was the speed of the collapse.

But what is easily demonstrated, is that they are deliberately trying to mask the fact that for approx. 2.5 seconds, the building is accelerating at freefall speed, i.e. roughly 9.8 m/s^2. In order for this to happen, all, as in ALL, of the supporting structure would necessarily have to be removed. The only logical way that can happen is controlled demolition.

As for the Towers, Chandler graphs the collapse of the roofline with velocity as a function of time. This is not complicated stuff.

It cannot be denied that the roof line comes down with constant acceleration. Again, as in the case of Bldg 7, this could not happen unless all of the supporting structure beneath it has been removed, and the only way that can happen is controlled demolition. Again, not a complicated or controversial argument.



Quag, instead of running around shouting that your hair is on fire - how about addressing the scientific arguments??
 
It doesn't make any sense to espouse any theory without first disproving the "official theory" with scientific argument. Thousands of Architects and Engineers have banded together to call BS on the "official version". Their scientific arguments cannot be overcome by those clinging to the "official theory".

What we get in lieu of debate and discussion are emotionally charged outbursts that have nothing to do with discussing the subject or debating the science.

The "official theory" is completely unsupported by science. A small portion of any structure cannot destroy the over 80,000 tons of steel and concrete that is supporting it. To say it can, especially to say it can with constant acceleration, violates 2 of Newton's Laws.

What does it say about people who cannot either accept or process simple physics??

Look at Quag's responses... he provides no argument, it is nothing but emotional outburst; and he is just like Mike, Mark, Tiger, et al... their game is to try and derail discussion and debate and turn everything into a food fight. No point in playing that game - it's like a Republican and a Democrat spending endless hours shouting at each other - what's the point to that??



I explained why what NIST did with Bldg 7 was dishonest, and that is easily demonstrated. They "assumed the descent speed to be constant" (their verbage), started the clock at the first sign of movement, and then came up with an average which they said was the speed of the collapse.

But what is easily demonstrated, is that they are deliberately trying to mask the fact that for approx. 2.5 seconds, the building is accelerating at freefall speed, i.e. roughly 9.8 m/s^2. In order for this to happen, all, as in ALL, of the supporting structure would necessarily have to be removed. The only logical way that can happen is controlled demolition.

As for the Towers, Chandler graphs the collapse of the roofline with velocity as a function of time. This is not complicated stuff.

It cannot be denied that the roof line comes down with constant acceleration. Again, as in the case of Bldg 7, this could not happen unless all of the supporting structure beneath it has been removed, and the only way that can happen is controlled demolition. Again, not a complicated or controversial argument.



Quag, instead of running around shouting that your hair is on fire - how about addressing the scientific arguments??


2.5 seconds for part of the building at near freefall is not a building collapsing at freefall. No building collapsed at freefall speeds on 911.
You have made no scientific argument just nonsense based on untrue statements.
 
It doesn't make any sense to espouse any theory without first disproving the "official theory" with scientific argument.

Codswallop.

While I reject the CT notion that 9/11 was about a few buildings, if you an explain in detail the collapse initiation mechanisms and subsequent collapse progression of any failed structure on 9/11 that explanation will stand and fall on its own merits. No official story is required. NIST-picking and otherwise wasting time trying to poke holes in what they perceive as the official story is an intellectual crank yank CT's do to deliberately avoid having to explain themselves.

I can explain the collapse of 1, 2 and 7 WTC in detail up to and at initiation and during progression (even though I find the progression phase most uninteresting).

Can you?
 
2.5 seconds for part of the building at near freefall is not a building collapsing at freefall. No building collapsed at freefall speeds on 911.
You have made no scientific argument just nonsense based on untrue statements.

Oy vey, lol...

Here, this is more in keeping with your indoctrination ;)

 
Codswallop.
True

While I reject the CT notion that 9/11 was about a few buildings,..
Agreed
if you an explain in detail the collapse initiation mechanisms and subsequent collapse progression of any failed structure on 9/11...
Can and have for WTC1 and WTC2 - I'm not interested in WTC7 for reasons posted many times.
that explanation will stand and fall on its own merits.
True - the usual limitation is finding a member - either side - good enough to engage in reasoned discussion. Silly tho it may seem Kokomojojo was the last member here to offer me a mental challenge. I needn't remind members of his "Trolling Poe'' strategy. (EDIT: Ooops - I forgot that I recently had some interesting discussions with Stundie. They were mostly procedural in the "grey area" - bemoaning the nonsense of "two sides" polarisations when neither side is correct.)
No official story is required. NIST-picking and otherwise wasting time trying to poke holes in what they perceive as the official story is an intellectual crank yank CT's do to deliberately avoid having to explain themselves.
Fully agreed - my strategic choice since Nov 2007. Explaining the collapses is totally independent of whether or not NIST wuz rite. And deflecting to NIST picking is a truther debating trick well past its "use by date".

I can explain the collapse of 1, 2 and 7 WTC in detail up to and at initiation and during progression (even though I find the progression phase most uninteresting).
Me 2 on WTC1 and WTC 2. I'm still interested in both because so many debunkers don't understand "initiation" and wont debate the "Third Mechanism" of progression.

I'll avoid the temptation to say "Yes!" - the question wasn't directed at me. ;) Can and have explained the "Twins" collapse can but choose not to explain WTC7.
 
Last edited:
Oy vey, lol...

Here, this is more in keeping with your indoctrination ;)



Silly videos dont change the fact your premise is based on a lie.
 
Silly videos dont change the fact your premise is based on a lie.

Wist43 has fundamental misunderstandings of the collapse mechanisms for at least the Twin Towers (and I suspect he knows it which is why he won't answer the question I posed yesterday) and those false starting assumptions lead to appallingly bad conclusions. These things that he claims violate Newton's laws either never actually happened in the real world event or simplistic applications of Newtonian physics don't apply.
 
Wist43 has fundamental misunderstandings of the collapse mechanisms for at least the Twin Towers (and I suspect he knows it which is why he won't answer the question I posed yesterday) and those false starting assumptions lead to appallingly bad conclusions. These things that he claims violate Newton's laws either never actually happened in the real world event or simplistic applications of Newtonian physics don't apply.

Like most truthers he knows that he is lying but thinks that the ends justifies the means and as far as truther are concered the ends is conving people that the ebil govt is behind everything
 
Like most truthers he knows that he is lying but thinks that the ends justifies the means and as far as truther are concered the ends is conving people that the ebil govt is behind everything
and the silly part of that situation is that if he (or truthers or truth moment) focussed on "govt ebil IS behind SOMEthings" he would get support from some of us.

The stupidity of truth movement strategy is relying on false technical claims to support claims related to Government mis/mal/nonfeasance.

I've said it many times BUT the idiotic strategy of AE911 "We say there was CD THEREFORE we demand a new investigation" will never work...

..never work to get more investigation that is - whilst ever they base it on the claims for CD which anyone with half an active grey cell can see through/past.

And - for that reason - AE911 is probably the most effective barrier to any progress for genuine truthers. BUT still a successful strategy to support the Gage World Tours and Ego Tripping Without Real Effort Fund.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it is time to remind ourselves that most truthers cannot think - that is why most of them became truthers.
....3) Yet again truthers cannot think - as in cannot apply a converging process of reasoning which is required to arrange multiple factors and supporting evidence into a coherent argument focussed towards a single clear outcome. That is a bit wordy so I'll keep using "cannot think" as shorthand.
....

Of course trying to explain that bit of observable fact to a person who cannot think is doomed to failure.

If they cannot think by definition they cannot think about why they cannot think.

It is a "blind spot" problem - most people have blind spots where they cannot see.

I'm probably the exception - I don't have any blind spots - I've looked for them and haven't seen any.
 
Maybe it is time to remind ourselves that most truthers cannot think - that is why most of them became truthers.


Of course trying to explain that bit of observable fact to a person who cannot think is doomed to failure.

If they cannot think by definition they cannot think about why they cannot think.

It is a "blind spot" problem - most people have blind spots where they cannot see.

I'm probably the exception - I don't have any blind spots - I've looked for them and haven't seen any.

Can you see your blind spot when someone shows them to you ;-) ?????
 
and the silly part of that situation is that if he (or truthers or truth moment) focussed on "govt ebil IS behind SOMEthings" he would get support from some of us.

The stupidity of truth movement strategy is relying on false technical claims to support claims related to Government mis/mal/nonfeasance.

I've said it many times BUT the idiotic strategy of AE911 "We say there was CD THEREFORE we demand a new investigation" will never work...

..never work to get more investigation that is - whilst ever they base it on the claims for CD which anyone with half an active grey cell can see through/past.

And - for that reason - AE911 is probably the most effective barrier to any progress for genuine truthers. BUT still a successful strategy to support the Gage World Tours and Ego Tripping Without Real Effort Fund.

If they had sufficient evidence of CD (as they claim) why not prepare that evidence and send it to DOJ and have a press conference releasing said evidence to the public/press/media. DOJ can then figure out who to indict.

The calls for a new investigation is a ruse... used as a ploy to raise money and not sound too nuts.
 
Maybe it is time to remind ourselves that most truthers cannot think - that is why most of them became truthers.


Of course trying to explain that bit of observable fact to a person who cannot think is doomed to failure.

If they cannot think by definition they cannot think about why they cannot think.

It is a "blind spot" problem - most people have blind spots where they cannot see.

I'm probably the exception - I don't have any blind spots - I've looked for them and haven't seen any.

That last bit also completely lost on a certain segment of the audience.
 
Can you see your blind spot when someone shows them to you ;-) ?????

Only if he views it through a mirror with "objects may be closer than they appear" stamped on it. :lol:
 
Only if he views it through a mirror with "objects may be closer than they appear" stamped on it. :lol:

But with your comic book Xray glasses you can see da truth!
 
Back
Top Bottom