9/11 Conspiracy theories and mainstream TV

34 comments

9/11 Theories will never get air time on western controlled telly. And this is threadwatch so shouldn't we point to some non-SEO threads?

This one is brilliant. Whether you believe it or not, it's great TV.

Here are some quotes from the video:

Quote:
We were told that fire caused the collapse, but no large building has ever collapsed from a fire.
Quote:
This means that the building broke apart as fast as objects fall through the air. How can debris crash through steel and concrete floors as fast as they fall through the air?

There's some great dirt in there about George Bush's brother Marvin who was in control of security on the building.

I was just reading the other day about Jed Bush. I had no idea he was in charge of Florida where the 2001 election recount was rigged. And weren't those Arab pilots trained in Florida?

hmm ... :)

Prepare to rub your eyes in disbelief.

Comments

I don't subscribe for the politics...

Get your own blog.

You don't seem to subscribe..

..to make contributions either - 6th post in a year, I note

Less noise, more signal? Not

Less noise, more signal? Not quite.

I guess you got the Bush

I guess you got the Bush supporters out of their hidings hehehe

Can I quote you?

Quote:
I had no idea

That bears repeating.

Quote:
I had no idea

1 hr 21 min 50 sec

It's 1 hr 21 min 50 sec, the label says.

I'm not going to speculate about whether this is an American equivalent of one specific "Reichstag fire".

I think I will find time to watch it anyway, as I've personally wondered quite a bit about another thing: How that kind of collapse would be possible without carefully placed explosives. Most likely it could be the extra weight of the plane (downwards pressure) but it did look very much like a standard blowup demolition to me (upwards pull) - which is *not* equal to saying that Bush did it. I don't know, perhaps the terrorists had placed explosives in advance. Or perhaps I'm just flat out wrong.

Waste of Time

Just like star wars, more baloney from the SOD. I think there are a few political forums out there but this aint one of them or didnt you know.

Engrossing...

But I agree this isn't a political forum, I know people on TW have extremely diverse political opinions(I'm a lefty so am prone to a lot of abuse!) and this can sometimes create more than just healthy debate as Wheel and I witnessed (especially when mixed with large quantities of booze!) at Boston Pubcon. I think debating whether Matt Cutts should go for the clean shaven look is a lot more on topic! ;)

Good grief

Okay, I normally don't let myself get drawn into political stuff online, but I'm going to break down just this once. Nothing personal, okay? ;)

We were told that fire caused the collapse, but no large building has ever collapsed from a fire.

That's pretty bad logic. Maybe they could tell us when a large building ever been hit by a jetliner with tons of high-octane fuel on board?

I had no idea he was in charge of Florida where the 2001 election recount was rigged.

Jeb was just Governor of Florida, which hardly means he's "in charge of Florida." And second, Bush got the most votes in Florida. It was proven what, three times? And it was a Democrat who was caught with a voting machine in the back of his car illegally under suspcious circumstances...

>> more than just healthy

>> more than just healthy debate

Sounds interesting... please elaborate ... ?

Just like star wars, more

Quote:
Just like star wars, more baloney from the SOD. I think there are a few political forums out there but this aint one of them or didnt you know.

But I don't read those. This is the community I like to read. Stuff like this will never get more widely read if it's only posted on (yawn) political forums. I guess that's why most people know nothing about it, including me.

Anyhow - threadwatch used to be 20% bollocks (on purpose - a little digression) when Nickw ran it. I guess some of the newer members don't know that.

I was the one who approved this one.

I tend to like occasionally mixing it up. It is hard to have lots of content for this site unless we create controversies or comb the web 23 hours a day. I get burned out often, and I always like to think there is at least a couple fun heated debates per month. I know that politically I am a bit of a nutter, so I try not to personally post more than like 1 every other month or so...but occasionally they are ok.

In spite of people saying they don't like SEO ethics threads, they are almost always the most interesting and have the most participation.

Not every thread is going to be for everyone...some that I thought were boring to me kept getting comments and later became rather interesting as the conversation drew out.

That's pretty bad logic.

That's pretty bad logic. Maybe they could tell us when a large building ever been hit by a jetliner with tons of high-octane fuel on board?

for what it's worth, the movie addresses this issue very thoroughly and presents a good amount of scientific data (as well as anecdotal and circumstantial evidence) as to how destruction by fire is a highly dubious argument. perhaps, though, the science they presented was misleading and/or incomplete -- i dont know my science well enough to evaluate its merits.

Failure Analysis

There was an indepth failure analysis on how the building failed on the History Channel a while back and the engineering issues looked very plausible.

If I remember correctly, the problem that the original architect tried to solve was that the building was designed to keep most of the interior as free space without all the normal colums and such which would've been in a traditional building. Most of the support being shared from the central columns and the exterior of the building by an interlocking design of supports between floors. When the extreme heat caused the low level fire retarding material on those supports to fail, then the supports buckled, and it caused a cascade effect and the whole thing toppled like a house of cards.

I'll take their explanation, which looked very logical, with lots of boring architects and engineers over some conspiracy theory.

>>When the extreme heat

>>When the extreme heat caused the low level fire retarding material on those supports to fail,...

Is that the same heat which wasn't enough to even knock unconscious the people pictured at the window? Nor the firemen who reported the fires were going out.

What about building 7 which fell down on it's own? No plane hit that one and it was a block away. It didn't have the same hollow structure as the other buildings. There were hardly any fires there and nobody can explain why they started at all.

My favourite bit from the video was the terrorist's passport which supposedly flew out of his pocket, out of an inferno on the exploding plane, and landed unharmed on the street. And then the guy turned up alive later in the middle east.

And NORAD being told that a drill was being run that day of the very event which happened. Which was why they didn't shoot the planes down.

And Silverstein buying the building complex just 7 weeks before the attacks and unly putting up 14 million$ of his own money and netting 5 billion$ in insurance payments.

I don't like wackos any more than anyone else. If the story is based on flawed data, then it's worthless. I'd love to know how many of these details are fabricated for the video and how much is documented. There is so much misinformation out there.

Think Seismic

When a couple of buildings of that magnitude collapse it's like an earthquake when it hits the ground. If the other building had any seismic issues, something of that magnitude could've set it off.

Living in Californy makes you think that way as I've seen lots of things collapse that wouldn't be obvious.

>>Think Seismic

>>Think Seismic

They addressed that. Building 7 was "super engineered" for government tenants. It didn't just crumble and fall down. It collapsed towards its centre in the way demolished buildings do. And Larry Silverstein cannot explain why he said they "pulled" the building down and then later changed his story.

It's odd that during and after the event only buildings owned by Larry Sliverstein fell down or were later pulled down whilst the rest of the buildings owned by other landlords had only superficial damage.

I am sorry about those people who lost relatives for whom this story is tasteless. Isn't that the very reason things like this don't get discussed? If the event was in a 3rd world country I am sure nobody would have a problem discussing it. Did anyone watch the video, and if so which "facts" are you disputing? I'd like to know what was fabricated and what wasn't.

lightweight construction and the lack of flame retardant foam

The main strength of the towers was in the outer walls with internal lightweight steel floor truss on which 4" think concrete was poured, a survey had been carried out a couple of years before 9/11 what exposed the lack of the flame retardant foam what should of been an 1" thick over all of the steel beams and lightweight steel floor trusses.

The program I watched on the Sky history channel highlighted the problem of the missing flame proof foam in many places especially where the floor trusses were joined to the vertical steel beams, this was blown on when the building was first built in the 70's and the program showed photos of the missing foam on the steel supports well before 9/11.

The building had been constructed for the impact of a 707 airliner half full of fuel but a 767 full of fuel was flown into the tower resulting in a much bigger explosion and larger fire what weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the 10 or so upper floors onto each other and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear until the tower had no choice but to fall in on itself like a pack of cards, because of the outer wall containing all the strength with a vertical steel beam every 39" the floors only had one way to go and that was down.

The so called controlled explosions when the tower started to fall I believe was debris falling a few seconds earlier blowing out windows a few floors lower down, controlled explosions take months and months to prepare with teams of explosive experts so there was no way this type of work could of been carried out in such a short time scale.

I was sent the video link a couple of weeks ago and while I did find it very interesting I think a lot of the comments are pure speculation and even if there was any truth in the video we will never be told anyway

this explains in detail what happened and why the towers fell
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks

the passport found which allegedly belonged to one of the hijackers I must admit is very strange indeed, to survive through a large explosion and fire only to be found later almost intact will remain one of life's unsolved mysteries

Retards

By far my favorite are the ass heads that think a missile hit the pentagon...

So uhhh what happened to the jet and all the people on it? Oh thats right they never existed. Be sure to notify their loved ones.

I would be curious to know

I would be curious to know where the wings went and the bit about the lamp posts.

And with stuff like this, do you really trust the government? Not sure if I do.

Send It To Myth Busters

;)

The sinking of the Titanic was an insurance ruse.

The San Francisco eathquake never happened. Politicos burned the city to get the mayor tossed.

The moon landing never occurred.

And on and on and on...

When the moon landing conspiracy theorists are offered a chance to witness the laser bounce return from the moon, they decline? Why is that?

William of Ockham is turning over in his grave.

Curious

- where did the wings and engine go on the pentagon strike? There aren't even wing imprints on the pentagon walls (you can see them on the WTC attacks)?
- why were all video recordings from gas stations etc. confiscated? Not one recording showing the attack is available?
- why do most/all of the witnesses to the pentagon attack say the jet looked like a personal business jet?

My biggest curiousity is why did WTC 7 collapse? It's fire didn't burn long or hot enough to melt the supporting structure and when it collapsed it looked exactly like it was done on purpose...

Why do people get so jacked up when common sense questions are asked about how all the surreal events on 911 played out?

Curious.

Common sense questions?

Quote:
- why do most/all of the witnesses to the pentagon attack say the jet looked like a personal business jet?

'Looked like'?

Quote:
It's fire didn't burn long or hot enough to melt the supporting structure and when it collapsed it looked exactly like it was done on purpose...

again with the 'looked like'.

For me, it 'looked like' exactly what it's claimed to be. I guess we can believe the experts and the government, or we can 'ask the tough questions' posed by SEO experts and what it looked like to them.

the experts...

Just do a search... there are *many* experts that disagree with the Governments experts.

How many skyscrapers have collapsed (in the US) due to fire?

>>It's fire didn't burn long

>>It's fire didn't burn long or hot enough to melt the >>supporting structure

It doesnt have to melt. Steel becomes very malleable when heated to surprising low temps.

The stucture of the building meant that three points (i think) rely on each other. So when the beams between the edge and middle column sag a little the entire structue then becomes very weak. Then the catostrophic results, which we all saw.

A paper passport of one of

A paper passport of one of the hijackers was found, yet the Black Boxes (All four of them), made from some of the most resilient material known to man was lost forever. :/

I call Bullshit.

[ There's a looong thread about Loose Change 9/11 over at dp if anyone's interested ~ http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=68507 ]

>>>>>>It's fire didn't burn long

ukgimp - that's the explanation we have been given. I understand that, but I'm curious as to why it doesn't appear that any US skyscraper has weakened and collapsed from fire before or since.

There have been many where the fires burned hot and much, much longer.

When it comes to stuff that

When it comes to stuff that comes out of the ground. I am in HUGE deffernce to el gimpy!

hmmm

A paper passport of one of the hijackers was found, yet the Black Boxes (All four of them), made from some of the most resilient material known to man was lost forever. :/

I call Bullshit.

Tornados rip through peoples houses and leave a couch or a refrigerator untouched and destroys everything else.

I call Bullshit.

Can't explain them all dude.

...

I wonder how many other people's passports were found, or was it just his?

It's a genuine question, the film didn't mention it.

Just his

just his. Remember, the fire was hot enough to melt steel.

The fire was so hot that no bodies from the planes were ever recovered. Instead you have this passport that flew out of the terrorist's pocket at the exact moment the plane struck the building, fell down *on top* of debris from 30 stories higher, and some how was picked up and given to authorities three days later.

If you believe that, Sieg heil! Bush is your Weltfuhrer!

I dunno...

But I'll say this - even if it wasn't a put up job, I think the powers-that-be in the US would stoop that low to further their agenda.

You gotta love that passport story though...

Some good info here on an

Some good info here on an anti-conspiracy theory website debunking the guy who comes up with the theory.

http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html

Quote:
David Ray Griffin’s fanciful tale of Bush administration complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attack is a perfect example of the kind of conspiratorial thinking discussed by George Case in Skeptic Vol. 11 No. 4. There isn’t much to be learned about the fateful events from Griffin’s silly book, but he gives us some useful insight into the origins of paranoia.

Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.

He goes on to argue against the book. Half convincing :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.