9-11 conspiracy poll
 

Does anyone believe any of the 9-11 conspiracy theories that our goverment allowed the tragedy to happen or perhaps aided in the event?

What do you think about Building number 7?





Broad Band

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/...alpreview2.wmv

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/...alpreview2.mov

Dail Up

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/...eview2_mdm.wmv

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/...eview2_mdm.mov

[

I'd put it up right there with claims that the moon landing was filmed in a studio.... not worth even arguing.

The Chicken Little Syndrome...

"The Sky is Falling...details at 11...

It'll become a small industry, like Kennedy's assassination, Watergate, Pearl Harbor, etc., producing books and movies and gossip for years to come.

Some of these late-night talk shows need guests, and these all help fill the time.

Pentagon=Concrete. The stuff they make freeways and overpasses out of.

Airliner=Aluminum. The stuff they make beer cans out of.

In a grudge match, the concrete wins everytime.

Do a test for yourself. Drop a beer can on a sidewalk and see what happens to the sidewalk. Now drop a sidewalk on a beer can and see what happens to the beer can.

Some people still thinks that Saddam was involved in Sept. 11.

What about WTC building 7 at the World Trade Center? No one ever seems to remember it, only towers 1 and 2. The government (911 commission) claims it fell due to fire that fell on it from buildings 1 and 2. But that seems strange given that a modern steel building has never colapsed from fire ... and given that building seven was located on the oposite end of the block. Steel buildings have only come down due to bombs (or in the case of buildings 1 and 2 suposedly planes). Some buildings have even burned for days or weeks without colapsing, such as the tower in madrid spain. Steel doesnt melt until about 2000 degrees.

WTC Building number 7 was not attacked by terrorists and was not hit by an airplane and had minimal fires, why did it colapse on the afternoon of 9-11?

Just some questions that I have always had... and have never been able to get any real answers.
I would appreciate your thoughts.

refer to the links in the first post for more info on building seven, or google it.

I still can't get over that so many people still think that Iraq and 9/11 are conntected.... heck even some of the exchange students that came up here still buy into that "misconception"...

There are literally dozens of options that pass Occam's Razor far better than 'governmental conspiracy theory' and still meet your bizarre recollection of steel-based buildings . . . for instance, how about a combination of heat and simple harmonic motion from two massive buildings falling nearby? Remember that shock from the plane impact and then from the buildings falling caused damage for hundreds of yards, in terms of windows blown out and debris causing destruction.

You're oversimplifying if you're only considering the melting point of steel in the conversation. Think of how little, in terms of raw explosive charge, it takes to implode a building. In extreme circumstances such as 'two skyscrapers falling on the same block' those same conditions could be met through random force interactions.

The "Flight Of The Bumble Planes" theory is still my favorite. :D

What's the theory? I've neverd herd of it.

Acording to the 911 commision, building number 7 was outside of the debris field of buildings 1 and 2. In fact, there were numerous other buildings 50-100 feet away from buildings 1 and 2 and they had light damage if any at all. Building 7 was located on the oposite end of the block. The government ( 911 Commission) wont even claim that shock from the other implosions aided building seven to fall given obvious incapabilities due to seismograph info and the fact dozens of other buildings were much closer to towers 1 and 2.

What is really crazy is that Lary Siverstein on America Rebuilds ( A PBS Documentary) said that he told the firefighters to pull the building, which is an engineering term for demolition.

here is that clip:
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Since then Mr. Silverstein denied that he meant demolish when he said pull but has never said what he did mean. Pull is a definite engineering term for demolish. Especisally in this context, I have a hard time beliving he could have meant anything else.

Please refer to the links below for other questions about building seven relateded to its inability to colapse in the manner the 911 Commision states.

Thanks for the input.


http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video...ialpreview2.wmv

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video...ialpreview2.mov

Dail Up

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video...review2_mdm.wmv

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video...review2_mdm.mov

http://www.physics911.net/media.htm --- this website was first formed by a group of physicists, engineers and other scientists who state that there is no way that the official story could be correct.

Do you also believe that no Jews died in the World Trade Center, since they were all warned at their synagogues in advance?

That's why I wasn't there....

...oh, and the fact that I was over 1,000 miles away from NYC.

Claiming conspiracy is not a racist stance. I have never heard that about the Jewish community... mainly because its not true. I dont bring up the intangables like racist theories (which I detest), only what we know to be true like the events surounding the colapse of building 7.

Please comment on the links provided in my prevoius post.

Thanks again for the perspective.

1 - Judaism is not really a race, that I know of at least.

2 - I'll try to review the materials at my leisure, but you seem to put a lot of stock in certain sites simply b/c "physicists and engineers" have placed an opinion on certain things . . . I'm sure you realize that these titles are useless without credentialing, extensive use of proofs, and etc, and thus anything titled "911physics.com" retains suspicion when the sort of 'establishing as expert' required in, say, court is averted for simply saying "I have a Ph.D. in Physics from CUNY" or etc.

The burden of proof is on the theorists.

3 - There are reasonable conceptualizations for building collapse, outside of conspircy theory, that would be outside of explanation from the 9/11 commission, and you have not served to write these off. Occam's Razor, again, and all that good stuff - this is the reason for the burden in pt 2. Simply saying "this one did this, while these three did not" is completely insufficient.

And thanks for the discussion, it's interesting.

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

If the minimum needed is what we are told by media and politicians, then yes, I am enthusiastically breaking this principle.

However, if this concept is used to look at the most logical reason that is the cause of a certain event, then that is what I am trying to do.

I am not even necessarilly claiming conspiracy, only that building number 7 (the one that has been conveneintly erased from most people's memories) was probably brought down by well placed explosives. And... that the official reason given for its colapse is virtually impossible given the evidence. (not necessarilly conspiracy, although very concerning)

Please refer to my video links in previous posts for info regarding building 7.

I appreciate all of your thoughtful responses.

The literal translation is that plurality should not be posited without necessity - I'm directing you to this concept under the scientific 'guise' of "the simplest solution is probably the best", or that it is necessary to use the simplest subset of theory that fits the given data.

Upon cursory review of the information provided, it feels as if many conceptualizations of how the damage was caused can meet the outcome of "Building 7 hits the dirt" . . . and personally, I think that introducing a new explosive element meets the very definition of pluralized assumptions.

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you - I just don't find the info nearly as cut-and-dried as you have.

The corollary to this is that you've certainly looked much deeper into this than I, so obviously take that for what it's worth.

-RC
--Boring addendum to an interesting thread.

Re: 9-11 conspiracy poll
 

Not wanting to sound like a total fool for gossip... but look into the moonlanding stuff... there is some serious stuff that is accredited that is really fishy about the whole deal. I dont think it was fake, but after really looking into this with skeptisism against it, I cant rule it out.

That's why I took my trip three weeks BEFORE 9/11. Well, that and the fact that I was in class in Indiana at the time. :D

Here's the Flight of the Bumble Planes theory. Plenty of fun for the conspiracy fan!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

this link is good for general informaion. I still however recomend the video links in my first post.

You're a fricking nutjob.

-Rudey

Thanks for your stunning intellectual analysis of the facts

OKAY!:)

Your Post are Well Spoken and Appreciated.

Other Post Uncalled For. Oh, another poster.

Just My Oppinion!:)

I was in DC 3 weeks after 9-11....drove down the highway that the plane "followed" (for lack of a better word), stopped and looked at the Pentagon damage....took pictures (if I remember to scan them in I'll post one or two).

There was definitely an airplane sized hole there. I'm no physicist, but based on what I've read about the trajectory of the plane, and by standing there looking at where it came from and how it hit, it didn't have the same velocity as the Twin Towers planes because it didn't have time to get to the same speed as they did and it made a sharp right turn (I believe it was right) in order to hit the building. So it didn't "penetrate" like the Twin Towers planes did. Not only that, but the Pentagon probably was less windows and more concrete at the site of impact (not to mention the "ring" design leads to more concrete) than the Twin Towers did (Towers probably had large floor to ceiling windows). So I'm guessing/observing that the plane exploded as it hit the concrete (which leads to more damage on the outside of the building instead of internally), rather than penetrating further into the building before catching fire like the Towers (leading to more internal structural damage).

If I remember, I'll post a few pics this weekend. They are rather eerie.

PsychTau

Interesting. I would love to see those photos.

I really havent had any complaints with the official story (stated by the 9-11 Commission) as it invovles the Pentagon crash, although I understand the concerns of those who question what happenned there. My real point of contention still rests in what happenned to building number seven and how its colapse is related to towers one and two. (see links in previous posts).

You know...if there really was a group of people that organized to do such things as kill a preisdient or carry out massive direct attacks....the people who make up conspirary theories should stop giving them ideas.

I am not fond of "conspiracy theory" either for many reasons. However, what I am concerned with is truth. And, some of what the government (9-11 Commission) is trying to claim is true actually is not. Also, much of the lack of truth from this commission isn't merely manipulated data, but rather selective information coverage.

Popular Mechanics - 9/11 Debunking the Myths

sites internet publications and conspiracy theories, and addresses the theories expressed here, and on "alternative news" and "investigation" websites.

One of the many things that bother me about the conspiracy websites:

If the extent of your research is watching the video, you could at least site a credible source. e.g. an expert on any relevant subject other than blogging.

if lifesaver can debunk the Pentagon/plane/missle conpiracy theory with a beer can and a sidewalk, then the theory didn't hold much water in the first place. (the PM link also addresses that theory, in case you don't believe in beer cans and sidewalks.)

i support anyone out there trying to find "the truth," but just throwing out ideas (really bad ones,) does a diservice to everyone who actually puts out facts. even googling for facts on this was needle/hastack, turning up a googolplex of material to sift through.

however, some theories turn out to be true. Mets' relief pitcher, Roger McDowell spit on Kramer and Newman.

The March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. Popular Mechanic's senior researcher, 25-year-old **Benjamin Chertoff**, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, Popular Mechanics answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

The **Chertoff** article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

Important:

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? He is none other than the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Source of info above from American Free Press. Or just call Popular mechanics and ask for yourself.

I still maintain the concerns associated with building number 7 and am repulsed by the whitewashing propaganda by Chertoff that provides no real explaination of what happened - and unfairly labels free thinking people like myself and others an "extremist" or "conspiracy theorist." Chertoff, of course being the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/ - this is a good essay explaining Chertoff's propaganda, although I don't agree with all of it.

Did you even read the PM story? Here's their take on WTC 7:



Now, this is an actual hypothesis, with actual physical data to support it.

Do you have any data to support your hypothesis, namely that explosive devices were used to drop the building?

If not . . . well . . . why are you bumping this?

And how freaking specious is your link between DHS and this article? Simply awful logic.

the PM pages i linked answer that and site sources. here's part of the NIST response to WTC 7 (from
here. )

Page 8 of the PM link also has all of the reporters listed, and page 9 has the sources used.

PM feedback reply

Everybody has cousins. Maria Shriver was a Kennedy cousin and NBC anchor. It doesn't mean anything.

*Please refer to the video links I have made available earlier in which Larry Silverstein (the owner of building seven) admits on camera that he told firefighters to pull the bulding.* - also Dan Rather corroborated this story live as the building fell.

The article makes no mention of the most cited evidence of the fact that building number seven was destroyed via controlled demolition.

The building colapsed precisely in vertical fashion.

The building had the classic crimp as it was falling that any demolition engineer will tell you is part of a controlled demolition.

The building colapsed at almost the rate of free fall.

The building colapsed into a tiny pile of rubble.

No other steel building has fallen due to fire. Some have even burned for weeks.

The fires were minimal at the time of the colapase - as seen by any footage of the event(again watch links provided)* - and what Dan Rather had to say about the colpase as it happened when he said the building was "deliberately destroyed" live on air. all found in the links on the first post

The article also lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7:

"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse.

The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

The independent research (not a cousin to Secretary Chertoff, and posts all testing data and procedure) of www.physics911.net of course shows that the building was much more durable than Chertoff states and that the only thing that could have brought down the building would have been well placed explosives.

Which of course is exactly what the Building's owners said took it down, as well as Dan Rather as the Building fell - granted probably a slip of the tounge, but nonetheless I can understand why he would say building seven was deliberately destroyed as that is the most logical explaination for watching a steel building plummit to the groung like no other steel building ever has in the history of the world (except by well placed explosives).

this article is a total whitewash

Oh yeah ... and the mastermind behind this peice of propaganda, Mr. Chertoff, is none other than the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a department that rests on the legitimacy of the "official story"

The equations Derrick Grimmer sites on physics911.net find no fault at supposing information, injecting theoretical variables (demolitions ordinance/thermite) or getting close enough with their own math, but find fault, for example, in MIT and "establisment" (yes, he said "establishment") engineers failure explain everything in one report. or at least debunk the flurry of theories he has.

The PM link, page 5, reports more extensive damage to WTC 7 than just one level. not to mention it burned for 7 hours. also, recordings of Silverstein from a PBS interview are taken out of context.
"i remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. and i said, 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is-is pull it. uh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

the decision was made to "pull it," or demolish WTC 7, and then the building collapsed. but just because one happened after the other, does not mean the first event caused the second. it takes more than a couple hours to put plans together for demolition, add to that a burning building.
a building in the middle of NYC is sustains damage and is burning for 7 hrs, and it's 9/11, if Billy the conspiracy theorist leaves Syracuse on train A...will he recognize the possibility that the building collapsed sans conspiracy?

**** Derrick Grimmer ****

Derrick Grimmer ran unsuccessfully as a "Grass Roots" candidate for senate in Minnesota in 1988 and again in Iowa as a US Representative in 1994. He campaigned for the repeal of marijuana prohibition.

"Derrick Grimmer, scientist at Iowa State’s Microelectronics Research Center, believes prohibiting drug use is a method the government uses to control citizens." from Cannabis News

Grimmer: "Terror politics is the method being used to gain control over energy resources..."
(Grimmer wants to remove petroleum as a substrate for the "miltary machine")
Which is why a solar company he helped create, negotiated a multi-milliondollar contract with the U.S. Army.

For those who are not aware, "pull it" is a term for controlled demolition. All over that same video, "pull" it used to mean the exact same thing(just ask and demolition expert). The problem arises that it takes weeks if not months for experts to precisely create the mechanisms for a demolition to take place - nothing taken out of context here.

Also Dan Rather said live on air for all to hear that the building was taken out deliberately by well placed explosives. - nothing out of context here - just what he was observing

And no wonder he said this - because no other building in the history of the world has ever fallen in the manner that seven fell except by well placed expllosives. -

A steel building has never fallen in that manner due to fire:

That is what is important about the well documented work of physics911, not someone's libertarian ideology

And then we have the classic crimp pattern as the building falls, which is what any demolition expert will tell you is part of a controled demolition.

and watching any of the films of the colapse, the fires were obviously minimal - many other steel buildings have burned for weeks totally engulfed in flames and they were fine

And then the building falls at the rate of free fall in a perfectly semetrical pattern - again ask any engineer about this one

while at the same time the buildings owners says he told firefighters to pull the building and even Dan Rather agreed when he said that the building was "deliberately destroyed" - you really dont get any more obvious than that


No steel building In The History Of The World has Ever been taken out this way (excpet by explosives) - an obvious controlled demolition and one that would take weeks to plan