Conspiracy theory

[Tannhauser]

If the west is so bad and our goverments so evil that they will kill there own people! why do you stay in such a bad place?

 

Noam Chomsky, the political activist, put it like this: he is not in a position to do anything about, say, the Burmese government, so his efforts would be wasted in trying to do anything about them. But as a US citizen, he can at least try to correct any perceived injustices that they are responsible for. Also, he points out that as the US government is supposed to be representing his views, it is his duty to complain loud and long if he feels they are doing something immoral in his name, and not to do anything would be complacent and wrong. I think that's completely reasonable.

 

I think most people who protest against their government's actions don't want to live somewhere else - they want to see their own country behave in a more morally scrupulous fashion - though see below.

 

So the U.S.A is the root of all evil?

 

See, I have to agree with you here that it's nonsense to lay every problem at the USA's door. They certainly have a lot to answer for in terms of foreign policy; they have propped up some ghastly regimes, and perpetrated terrible crimes in the name of spreading or maintaining American influence. In this, they are no different from other empires, western or otherwise. However, it's just too simplistic to claim that they are uniformly bad. In many situations, there have been reasons to be grateful for American money, knowhow and firepower - or the threat of it.

 

Strange how most of these major events have something in common

 

hint - country

 

The quote was with reference to conspiracy theoies. I'm not sure what you're driving at here, unless you're claiming that all these conspiracy theories are actually valid, and that the common denominator is that they are American. The point I'm making is that every great event is attended by a host of outlandish counter-theories, because that's what people love - exotic nonsense over boring truth. The events I chose are the ones most familiar to me, being a Westerner. I'm sure that the arab countries have their own versions.

 

Having said that, my suspicion is that in more religious parts of the world, there are fewer conspiracy theories and more stories about divine intervention. To me, that's what conspiracy theories and the like are - modern-day, secular versions of miracle stories.

 

 

...and of course the Holocaust.

 

Its all religions fault, in my opinion.

 

I'd take issue with this. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of secular ideologies. I'm not sure you can legitimately blame Christianity for the holocaust. Surely Nazism was centered on the social Darwinist theories in vogue at the time? And Nazism itself had very little by way of a religious component, if I understand it correctly. Also, the biggest mass murders in the 20th century, in the USSR and China were again perpetrated by secular ideologies, and profoundly atheist ones at that.

 

DE-BUNK THIS

 

I think there was some dispute about carpet bombing earlier, but we can say with some certainty that you're carpet-bombing this thread with youtube clips.

 

The thing is that all these guys who make these vids, who propagate this stuff are in a circle-jerk. They all quote each other, they never check their sources, they're all in the same little cliques. None of them have any experience about how governments work beyond what they've seen in the movies, and as such, they get a stiffy every time Cheney coughs or Bush looks uncomfortable. Body language - c'mon, give me a break. Seriously? Their ability to connect disparate facts and see some sort of pattern in them is reminiscent of a schizophrenic, dropping acid, looking at a dot-to-dot puzzle. Their arguments are like trying to catch water, as hypotheses about what actually happened are exchanged with exhausting regularity. If there isn't any evidence for some looney-tune notion, then it has of course been hidden, the naked paranoia of which deserves no further comment. Anyone who is remotely qualified to comment sensibly on the issues is -of course! - just a government patsy, thereby hermetically sealing them off from those who could shine some light through their tightly drawn-down foil hats.

 

There are many profound mysteries in the universe. 9/11 isn't one of them. What is, to my mind, is the inhuman patience and fortitude which some have shown in bothering to contradict such terminal silliness as the conspiracy theories. Those people who painstakingly find the origins of 9/11 rumours (like the flight rosters business), or spend hours of their time talking about nano-thermite. What a thankless hobby: it must be like calmly pointing out why unicorns don't exist, whilst a lunatic is shrieking in your ear: "But those aren't horse-droppings!!! If they're horse-droppings, how do you account for the fairy dust on them, EH, EH, EH???"

 

And with that, I'm out of this one. Peace.

[imi]

Scotty - just viewed all of the Videos that you have posted in this thread, many thanks for posting.

 

I must say that anyone wishing to indulge in a debate about the "conspiracy" of 9/11 or 7/7 should perhaps watch this media content first, I feel we would have more of an intelligent discussion.

[imi]

A typical example of a ridiculous statement to make.

 

How on earth can you make a comparison with other buildings when they haven't had an airliner crashing into them at high speed full of fuel!

 

Scotty's video on 9/11 addresses this and so do plenty of readily available information such as this.

 

Also makes for interesting reading regarding Larry Silverstein, the guy who owned the buildings.

[scotty71]

Tannhauser.

 

It was a comparrison video. George Bush has stated an many occasions he had seen on TV the image of the first plane going into the WTC (Naudet Brothers Clip) while waiting to go into the classroom to read "Billy The Goat" Then inside the classroom he is told of the second plane hitting by his Chief of Staff.

 

So you want facts? These are FACTS

 

Fact: The first hit captured by the Naudet Brothers wasnt aired for Bush to see.

 

Fact: So what GW Bush is saying cant be true

 

Fact: So De-bunking my de-bunking post ?? YOU CAN NOT

 

So I post clips...............Is that an issue to you?

 

ahh I got it youre one of those ridicule people are you not??

[j_jza80]

OR

 

The neo-conservative movement is the largest current threat to world peace, the way that millions of people around the world are coerced into believing that they are somehow targets for their way of life is completely wrong and that the illegal invasions, effectively terrorism that these Govts are instigating is wholly barbaric, inhumane & unacceptable. I'm glad that there are people out there around that world (inc the west) that are not afraid to stand up and question this evil movement.

 

The thing is, you may say this, but you are responsible. Your taxes are funding our wars abroad. If you disagree with our foreign policy so much, your taxes should go to a country that opposes our actions.

 

I would say that the British way of life is at threat, but that is wholly the fault of past governments, and their ridiculous immigration policies. It isn't the immigrants per se that are the problem, it's the quantity of them that has resulted in the mass over population of the mainland. Then, trying to keep everyone happy has resulted in a complete lack of direction for our population, and has the british ethnic population discriminated against in every manner possible, just to avoid the possibility of offending one of the minorities.

 

Unfortunately, they won't tackle these issues, for fear of being branded racists.

[j_jza80]

I'd take issue with this. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of secular ideologies. I'm not sure you can legitimately blame Christianity for the holocaust. Surely Nazism was centered on the social Darwinist theories in vogue at the time? And Nazism itself had very little by way of a religious component, if I understand it correctly. Also, the biggest mass murders in the 20th century, in the USSR and China were again perpetrated by secular ideologies, and profoundly atheist ones at that.

 

Communisms skeleton closet

 

It is often believed that Stalin killed even more Jews than Hitler, and Mau has been accused of killing tens of millions.

[AJI]

Blimey, this thread has jumped a few pages since I last visited.

 

What we need here is to have a bullet-point list from the people in this thread who think it is a conspiracy; on this list simply state in one line headlines what evidence you have to support the US government bringing down the twin towers.

 

Because the whole aftermath of what happened in Iraq is a result of the twin towers falling. So to be discussing Iraq without fully 'agreeing' on the twin towers is just going to get 'messy'.

[scotty71]

What evidence have you got that they did not?

[AJI]

Well as this thread is titled 'conspiracy theory' then it follows that the News channels reporting on the day and subsequently the US government told their story of events and then come the following weeks, months and years a group of people formed an alternative opinion and so arise the conspiracy claims.

 

So I would say that to start off, the onus falls on behalf the conspiracy claimists to put their bullet points forward as to what caused the twin towers to collapse.

[scotty71]

Is it a conspiracy that the architects designed the building to take multiple airstrikes without the danger of collapse? No this is fact but you just see apples my friend

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G6j8kBXvQA

 

Below video recorded before 9/11 - he died on the 88th floor

 

 

Upto now there has been no reconstruction/fire testing to show that the fires caused collapse. It is down to peoples say so.

[Rob]

Good god, that'll lead to talk about nano-thermite again.

 

My point in mentioning the Holocaust as having its roots in christianity is that it was based on anti-semitism, and that came about, as I understand it, because the jews called for Jesus to be killed as they did not believe he was the messiah (oh yes, he was a very naughty boy). Ergo, the basis of anti semitism is in christianity.

[Rob]

Scotty. I've already explained why the towers fell. The guy in that video says "I believe the towers were designed..." It is not fact, the things he says, and if he died in the towers, well that's a hell of a way to be proved wrong.

Factually, the original engineers explained it was designed to take a strike from a 707, low on fuel either lost in bad weather or looking for its airstrip, hitting at a speed, iirc, of around 180 knots.

[AJI]

Is it a conspiracy that the architects designed the building to take multiple airstrikes without the danger of collapse? No this is fact but you just see apples my friend

 

Upto now there has been no reconstruction/fire testing to show that the fires caused collapse. It is down to peoples say so.

 

Are you saying that architects designed the twin towers to take an impact of an airliner of that size carrying that much fuel and speed?

Is this really fact?

Have the 'blue-prints' for the twin towers demonstrated that the design accommodates an airline of that size with that much fuel and speed impacting where it did?

 

I have no doubt that the twin towers where built of a nature that would take a low speed aircraft of a certain size impacting in to the building, but when the towers were being designed in the early 1960's I hazzard a guess that they did not envisage a 500+mph airliner full of fuel of the size of a 767 slamming in to it where they did.

If they did design this amazing sight of the future in to the equation then they obviously failed in their design.

 

I guess towers of this size are indeed designed to take an impact - an accidental one. Usually they will easily accommodate a news helicopter or a light aircraft impact with no troubles. Or even an airliner at low speeds lost in thick fog on approach to an airport if that was ever a design requirement.....I'm only able to guess here as I do not know the detailed plans of any high raised tower.

Do you know the detailed plans of any high raised tower Scotty? Or do you think these type of things are generally considered confidential material? Because you know, if it was common knowledge what could bring down a building then we could have 9/11 on a more regular basis with many rich companies being held to ransom.

 

 

One your second point.....how would one ever try to reconstruct the events of flying 767s full of fuel in to towers of that size at 500+mph?

The forces involved along with the pressures and all the materials present within the towers and the actual aricraft itself would make for one MAJOR Hollywood reconstruction effort!

[scotty71]

it was designed to take a strike from a 707, low on fuel either lost in bad weather or looking for its airstrip, hitting at a speed, iirc, of around 180 knots.

 

incorrect

[scotty71]

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)

n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

 

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture; a hypothesis

 

Ok lets leave nano-thermite.thermate alone for a second and have a look at the above. Conspiracy Theory. People look at this term and think arhhh they are all nutters and like Mel Gibson in the movie or David Ike or Alex Jones and so on and so forth. In reality dont you think there are many well educated people in society that dont believe the events of 9/11 - 7/7 - Vietnam - Invasion of Iraq etc etc. There are many people who have gone on the record that think all the facts around 9/11 are not being disclosed - Politicians, Ex-servicemen, engineers, schloars, pilots etc. No WMD were found in Iraq but we invade any way. Bush and Blair wanted to fly spy planes enblazed in UN colours over Iraq to entise Saddam to fire and start war. The UN would not let this happen

 

So lets look at the pentagon and the words conspiracy theory.

 

The attack is a reality, it happened. Something hit the Pentagon and I point out something. So this is the conspiracy "An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."

 

A theory is an idea, an assuption based on no evidence (a hypothesis) so with no evidence it is a conspiracy theory. Once you have some evidence or witness testomony it goes from being a theory to a possiblity. The more evidence the more probable the conspiracy theory turns to a conspiracy (not theory)

 

Pentagon: Sept 11th 2001 9:43 AA Flight 77 Hits Pentagon. (Apparently)

 

This is not theory these are facts from that day:

 

Don Parkel - Milatary Worker - Pentagon "A bomb had gone off I could smell the cordite. I know explosives had been set off somewhere"

 

Steve Patterson - Eye-witness "The plane appeared to hold 8-12 people"

 

Lon Rains - Pentagon Worker "I was convinced it was a missle"

 

Tom Seibert - Pentagon Worker "We heard what sounded like a missle"

 

5 frames released by the Pentagon gives more concern than credit

 

Credible testomony from two (still serving) Pentagon Police officers Robert Turcios and Bill Lassage that have gone on the record to say the flight path that was released is totally incorrect to their sightings which has major implications on Lioyde Englands (the taxi driver with the light pole through his windscreen) account which has proven to be uncredable and fabricated. (Which he has admitted to some extent)

 

So with all the above and many more hundred bits of evidence the accounts at the Pentagon is not a Conspiracy Theory - You can cross the theory bit out as the bits of evidence cancel out the theory making it probable/possible

 

Scotty. I've already explained why the towers fell.

 

So Rob has spoken! Folks thread closed Rob has given us all the answers

[scotty71]

Scotty. I've already explained why the towers fell. The guy in that video says "I believe the towers were designed..." It is not fact, the things he says, and if he died in the towers, well that's a hell of a way to be proved wrong.

Factually, the original engineers explained it was designed to take a strike from a 707, low on fuel either lost in bad weather or looking for its airstrip, hitting at a speed, iirc, of around 180 knots.

 

Get your own facts right Rob. He states the Towers were designed to take a fully loaded 707 which as he states was the largest aircraft at the time. I dont know why you have highlighted "I believe" ...... as he states "I believe the towers could have sustained multiple strikes" We are talking about one hit and he has already said it was designed to take that. Here are the stats of the 707 and 767. Pretty simular. The older 707 actually had a faster cruise speed

 

Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs

empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs

wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft

wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2

length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft

cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

 

And a few quotes from the designers:

 

 

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

 

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

 

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

 

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

 

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

 

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

...

4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.

...

5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

 

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

 

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

[scotty71]

Are you saying that architects designed the twin towers to take an impact of an airliner of that size carrying that much fuel and speed?

Is this really fact?

Have the 'blue-prints' for the twin towers demonstrated that the design accommodates an airline of that size with that much fuel and speed impacting where it did? could one ever try to reconstruct the events of flying 767s full of fuel in to towers of that size at 500+mph?

 

Yes its fact read above post - it was designed to take an impact of the then biggest commercial airliner the Boeing 707 fully loaded at 600mph which was faster so would have more velocity than the 767 at 530 mph. The 707 carried 1000lbs less fuel - and two your second point about the reconstruction are they really going to build a skyscraper to fly a jet into? get real. I mean the steel after the event was never tested as part of NIST's investigation to see if the jet fuel could have caused collapse as the report claims

[Rob]

No, you get your facts right.

Robinson designed the towers to withstand a 180mph collison at best, with no consideration being given to exploding fuel damaging the fire protection to the steelwork. It was never designed to take a 600mph collision. There was a disagreement based in political point scoring between the Port Authority and Robertson, some of which you have quoted above.

 

Of course, like all "truthers" you neglected to post the actual truth...

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

 

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

 

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

 

So, an exaggerated report, essentially, bull****, to make a point about the towers' robustness that remained unchallenged by the ACTUAL designer until it filtered into public consciousness.

 

All sources to to info can be found here...http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

 

 

Now, for the record I am a UK chartered architect, unattached to any Govt in this country or the US, with a lot of experience in designing steel framed buildings, and for you info and hopefully not boasting, when I watched the towers collapse back then and spent the next few days, even weeks thinking about it, I formulated my theory of why the whole thing collapsed. That was based on experience, building knowledge and common sense and guess what, it turned out to match what the official report eventually said.

 

Maybe I'm a patsy and I don't even know it.

 

You'll note that my description of the reason the towers fell contains nothing extraordinary, apart from a massive jet slamming into the building. My description/the official report does not require anyone to make any giant leaps of faith or to assume that secret things took place that cannot be proven. It is physics and building technology, and nothing more.

 

The only thing I have to gain by changing your mind is to stop you wasting your time and your life believing nonsense or even living in some fearful paranoic existance that there is an evil force at work in the high echelons of power.

 

Once again, just look at all the bad things that governments have done over the years, they've all been leaked...Watergate, Iran-Contra, Cash for questions, the "sexed up" WMD dossier, the Blue Peter phone vote scam. Do you really think that something of the magnitude that you believe in could be kept hidden?

 

And even if there was a conspiracy to dupe the public into going to war in Iraq, the WMD dossier was enough for the UK to go to war. Why destroy central Manhatten, part of the Pentagon and 3000 of your own citizens when you could just fabricate a document saying WMDs could hit the U.S. mainland. An "evil" government could do so many simple things to convince its public it was right to invade Iraq that are so easier to hide than the nonsense you think actually happened.

[scotty71]

You stated Frank De Martini didnt state what he did state

 

Now, for the record I am a UK chartered architect.

 

............. and?

 

awaits professional UK architects WTC 7 explanation

[Rob]

I made a slight error in post 312, about the correct placement of the word "believe."

He said it was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. My above post and links prove that he was wrong in his statement. He then says he believes it could take multiple impacts. Again, he is wrong in his belief, it took one impact and within the hour, collapsed to total destruction.

 

Once again, you have done the same thing every CTer or "truther" does when slapped in the face with cold, hard facts. You have tried to jump subject. This time to WTC7.

 

I'm going to bed, I can only present you with the facts and leave you to it.

[Tony]

Was not the titanic unsinkable? maybe the designers/architects got it wrong? That simple.

[tbourner]

Was not the titanic unsinkable? maybe the designers/architects got it wrong? That simple.

The Titanic was designed to be struck by a large iceberg and stay afloat, I believe the ship could probably sustain multiple iceberg impacts and not sink.

[Tony]

The Titanic was designed to be struck by a large iceberg and stay afloat, I believe the ship could probably sustain multiple iceberg impacts and not sink.

 

must have been a american submarine then:rolleyes:

[AJI]

Yes its fact read above post

 

So, really, its not fact.

 

I can't see any building of 1960's having a design requirement for such an event that happened in 2001. (Just a personal opinion).

I also have a little building structure knowledge, not much in comparison to somebody who is in the trade, but my current job involves a component of it working with bridge structures in civil engineering and how structural strength and impacts from HGVs are considered within motorway bridge designs etc. So I have an idea of concrete and reinforcement limitations.

But I do accept to get the whole picture you need to know the actual designs of a structure to give a definitive answer to any question about its ultimate performance.

 

From the evidence available it seems that the twin towers were strong enough to not crumble immediately on impact of such a high energy collision from the airliner, but the subsequent fire compounding to the damage already caused over the length of time that it was burning was enough to weaken the structural integrety of the building in those particular number of floors.

 

 

So, to tick one of the items off the list, the INITIAL DESIGN of the twin towers can not be used to support the conspiracy theory.

 

 

What's the next one on the list in support of the US government bringing down the towers?

[tbourner]

What's the next one on the list in support of the US government bringing down the towers?

 

I'm still not sure what brought down WTC7. Don't think any major bits of plane hit it, no idea if any 'tower' landed on it, officials say 'fire' but that's not enough to bring it down unless a passenger jet happens to have destroyed all the fire proofing on the steelworks.