Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 but those long words sound so convincing...Hehe he still thinks the buildings were detonated. OK, taking that point on board for a moment, does he suggest how the charges were rigged without detection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticusFinch Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I also know, from my military career, that we simply couldn't cover something like this up. Not a hope, no way, no how, and we'd never try. I disagree with this. I haven't made my mind up yet as to whether the official explanation of 9/11 is true or not, but you have to take denial into account here. If (and it's a big if) the US government were behind 9/11, that's such a chilling concept that people simply wouldn't want to believe it. The general public simply wouldn't accept it to be true, even if convincing evidence was placed directly in front of them. It would just be dismissed as a conspiracy. For this reason, a large-scale cover-up wouldn't be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 For this reason, a large-scale cover-up wouldn't be necessary. Yes it would. Think about the hundreds of witnesses to what actually happened, and the thousands of people who worked on the sites themselves afterwards (which were not restricted to all those who had a genuine reason for access, as the documentaries would have you believe). All these people saw what actually happened, and if there was something suspect about it would have caused a lot more questioning than there has been. Anyone actually considered the alternative conspiracy theory, that Al-Quaeda might have started the conspiracy theories in order to try and implicate and undermine the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticusFinch Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Yes it would. Think about the hundreds of witnesses to what actually happened, and the thousands of people who worked on the sites themselves afterwards (which were not restricted to all those who had a genuine reason for access, as the documentaries would have you believe). All these people saw what actually happened, and if there was something suspect about it would have caused a lot more questioning than there has been. Anyone actually considered the alternative conspiracy theory, that Al-Quaeda might have started the conspiracy theories in order to try and implicate and undermine the US government? No it wouldn't. All you'd need to do would be to cover up any really incriminating pieces of evidence. As long as you had a situation where the conspiracy evidence was inconclusive (like it is now), the majority of people would still give the US government the benefit of the doubt, simply because they wouldn't want to believe the alternative. There'd be scope for plenty of unanswered questions to be present. Like I said before, I'm not claiming that I do think there was a 9/11 conspiracy (I'm still undecided). I just think that if you take denial, patriotism and fear into account, it would be (hypothetically) easier to pull such an operation off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Twig let nicely (yet again) summarises the single missing ingredient for a conspiracy.... ... reality. Daley - just to pose you the same question that I did to johnbradley - how could you rig detonation charges to 3 public buildings without being detected? (I appreciate that you haven't made up your mind, or are pushing any particular angle but I'm asking anyway ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I've also seen the Lockerbie 747 remains in a hangar at Farnborough, being jigsaw-pieced back together on a large lattice frame to piece together the order in which it fell apart and work out the nature of the bomb. Bits the size of cigarette packets. ... Collecting human remains from an air crash is usually tricky because the coroner needs a percentage of the body to classify it as being a person, and we often can’t find enough to fill a sock. ... I’ve surveyed crash sites and not found a single piece bigger than a shoebox. The Pentagon crash, like all of the other ‘evidence’, is very easily explained. And yet we are led to believe that a hijackers' passport survived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Lot's things survived. It's just that most of them weren't worth mentioning. Hardly evidence of a 'plant'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 its a tough one that. i did read an article where the author claimed to have been involved in the demolition industry, and actually contracted to produce the charges for the wtc's DURING its construction. sounds nuts, right? who would possibly risk that, thousands of people at stake? yet he claims that modern skyscrapers are designed with exactly this in mind, so they can be 'pulled' when they no longer suit the purpose they were designed for. its possible i guess, but pretty far-out, and i would want to hear more from that industry as to whether it could be done safely. so not convinced yet there...there are lots of witnesses to odd firedrills, powercuts and lots of 'engineering work' in the weeks prior to the attack. yet the awkward questions remain, check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm blink and you'll miss it, but whats the score there, it seems the puffs/squibs/whatever are uniform and travel TOWARDS THE TOP of the tower... added to that larry silverstein commenting a year later, about pulling the building (quite difficult to interpret it any other way)... hey i appear to have neatly sidestepped your socratic questioning:hihi: so heres one for you: can you explain the clip linked above? id be keen to know whats going on there - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 its a tough one that. i did read an article where the author claimed to have been involved in the demolition industry, and actually contracted to produce the charges for the wtc's DURING its construction. sounds nuts, right? who would possibly risk that, thousands of people at stake? yet he claims that modern skyscrapers are designed with exactly this in mind, so they can be 'pulled' when they no longer suit the purpose they were designed for. its possible i guess, but pretty far-out, and i would want to hear more from that industry as to whether it could be done safely. so not convinced yet there...there are lots of witnesses to odd firedrills, powercuts and lots of 'engineering work' in the weeks prior to the attack. yet the awkward questions remain, check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm blink and you'll miss it, but whats the score there, it seems the puffs/squibs/whatever are uniform and travel TOWARDS THE TOP of the tower... added to that larry silverstein commenting a year later, about pulling the building (quite difficult to interpret it any other way)... hey i appear to have neatly sidestepped your socratic questioning:hihi: so heres one for you: can you explain the clip linked above? id be keen to know whats going on there - Easy - it's the top section of the building at the start of the collapse. The air in this section was being compressed upwards when it started to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 No it wouldn't. All you'd need to do would be to cover up any really incriminating pieces of evidence. As long as you had a situation where the conspiracy evidence was inconclusive (like it is now), the majority of people would still give the US government the benefit of the doubt, simply because they wouldn't want to believe the alternative. There'd be scope for plenty of unanswered questions to be present. Like I said before, I'm not claiming that I do think there was a 9/11 conspiracy (I'm still undecided). I just think that if you take denial, patriotism and fear into account, it would be (hypothetically) easier to pull such an operation off. I'm talking about the overwhelming eyewitness evidence that refutes the conspiracy theories - people seeing the plane hitting the Pentagon etc. The safe landing of Flight 93 would also require a massive cover-up operation, hiding the fact that so many 'dead' passengers are actually alive - unless the government murdered them on landing The conspiracy theories that people put forward such as a helicopter or drone hitting the Pentagon or WTC really would require big cover ups because of the sheer number of witnesses and people involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.