Conpiracy Theory?

[gozzer]

Following on from Newts post about misrepresenting and manipulation of news, made me remember this item that I saw a while ago. It is about an hour long, and contains what some might find distressing scenes. But if you can, stick it out to the end. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But it made me think that some of my own theories about events in the world are not as far out, as some would believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

[GlennB]

Following on from Newts post about misrepresenting and manipulation of news, made me remember this item that I saw a while ago. It is about an hour long, and contains what some might find distressing scenes. But if you can, stick it out to the end. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But it made me think that some of my own theories about events in the world are not as far out, as some would believe.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

 

Cheers Gozzer.

 

Having never before paid any attention to any of the detail of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I've watched that film in a growing state of shock.

 

The collapses of the twin towers always looked, intuitively, as though they could be 'natural' - what the investigation called 'pancake' collapse - until you learn about the 47 steel cores that provided the main structural strength. I'd never heard about these before, or seen any analysis from architects or engineers before.

 

Personally I had never seen any film of the collapse of building 7 before. It was instantly obvious that this was a controlled demolition.

 

In fairness, this stuff might be old hat in the conspiracy world, and any major event like this will attract impressive-sounding cranks who are more than willing to go out on a ridiculous limb, not to mention make films. So I for one am perfectly willing to be put straight. For example, has it ever been admitted that building 7 was knowingly and deliberately demolished? Is there any good reason why the evidence was disposed of in such an unnatural hurry?

 

etc

etc

[Guest Ferret1959]

Pity Fred Dibnah is no longer with us, he'd have the answers.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

What valid reason would there be for causing so many deaths?

 

These are not the first structures to collapse under unusual stress, flying planes into the building fully laden with fuel would lead to secondary explosions caused by them and from other utilities within the structure.

 

The human anguish within that building at the point of impact must have been horrendous beyond any ones imagination. To say that the USA was involved in any way in such a heinous act is beyond comprehension.

 

To destroy those buildings with explosives would have taken several months to complete in front of thousands of workers who I guess would have wonder why the structure was being drilled and packed with explosives. Or are we suggesting the building was packed with explosives during construction? And no standard construction crew would not have carried that out.

 

Conspiracy is again media sensationalism and should not be given any credence what so ever.

 

It was perfectly understandable why the destroyed building were removed as quickly as possible, they represented a wound on the country and it needed to be healed as quickly as possible.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Ken Davison South Wales

[GlennB]

Indeed - guesses at answers in red ....

 

What valid reason would there be for causing so many deaths?

 

The vast oil reserves of Iraq? To rally the American people to Bush's side in whatever evil projects he and his cronies had in mind?

 

These are not the first structures to collapse under unusual stress, flying planes into the building fully laden with fuel would lead to secondary explosions caused by them and from other utilities within the structure.

 

It appears that no steel-constructed building has ever collapsed through fire. The film explains all that, and analyses the temperatures, fuel available etc, as do many other web sites. Also it seems the stucture was actually designed to comfortably survive an impact from an airliner of that size.

 

The human anguish within that building at the point of impact must have been horrendous beyond any ones imagination. To say that the USA was involved in any way in such a heinous act is beyond comprehension.

 

On the other hand, they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki by way of experiment

 

To destroy those buildings with explosives would have taken several months to complete in front of thousands of workers who I guess would have wonder why the structure was being drilled and packed with explosives. Or are we suggesting the building was packed with explosives during construction? And no standard construction crew would not have carried that out.

 

This strikes me as very true. It seems there were a number of power cuts and security evacuations in the weeks leading to 9/11, but hard to see that much work being done in secret in a short time.

 

On the other hand, have you watched the felling of building #7? It's about 15 minutes into the film and might make you wonder. #7 was not hit, and had a couple of conventional fires going on 2 of its floors. You really need to see this to appreciate it...

 

Conspiracy is again media sensationalism and should not be given any credence what so ever.

 

Generally, yep. In fact a good conspiracy theory can be so attractive it needs to be handled with care. On the other hand, have you watched the film? It does ask some important questions that the investigators ignored or glossed over

 

It was perfectly understandable why the destroyed building were removed as quickly as possible, they represented a wound on the country and it needed to be healed as quickly as possible.

 

Totally disagree. This was a massive crime scene. Dumping the forensic evidence as soon as humanly possible (and exporting it to Asia for scrap) is just breathtaking.

[gozzer]

I don't know if it is just a conspiracy theory, the whole truth or part truth. It's the number of unanswered questions that got me, and the amount of investigation that went into finding the truth. It's alleged that only $600,000 was spent on an investigation, compared to $40,000,000 spent investigating into Clinton's misdemeanors. If the building was designed to withstand a greater force than the airliner, then was there some skimping on the materials used in it's construction? The denial of the existence of the 47 core supports, when they were evident during construction work was almost laughable. During the film it was stated that they decided to pull the WTC No7 building, and it was obviously a controlled explosion, but how were the explosives fixed so quickly? And the swift removal of the evidence was more than a bit 'suss'.

Did you watch the whole film Ken? If so, then how would you explain some of the questions that were asked?

[DavyR]

On the other hand, they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki by way of experiment

 

Perhaps not the best example - that was a calculated attempt to force Japan to capitulate and thus avoid what would have been an extremely costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. It not only succeeded in that aim, but also resulted in the Japanese as a nation rejecting the warrior code of Bushido that arguably prompted their entry into WWII in the first place, as well as their inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Have to admit I did not watch the film, but then I do not subscribe to so much rubbish.

 

Give you a small example of blowing up concrete foundations for a bridged two days drilling; third day POOF, job done the two piers measured 3m x 4m x 2m deep. Should give you some idea of the requirements to destroy such a large building.

 

Two planes struck the building and exploded inside causing structural damage to supports supporting the four floors above, they failed and drove the rest into the ground like a tent peg.

 

And what about the plane that went down in a field? Phone calls made by distressed passengers as they tried to revert the hi-jack, plane goes down and hits nothing.

 

Steel framed buildings collapse quite often when exposed the high temperatures, concrete has a nasty habit of exploding in extreme heat.

 

As an internal conspiracy far to many people would have been involved, where do you find suicide pilots for the planes? They don’t hang on trees, well only in Bin Laden habitat

 

There may well have been some skimpy workman ship contributing to the overall disaster, but I certainly don’t buy into a conspiracy theory.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Ken Davison South Wales

[gozzer]

I didn't think you had watched it Ken. Most of the points you raise are discussed and evidence by various physicists, demolition experts and construction engineers, still don't answer the questions.

 

Two planes hit a building each, not two planes into one building as you said. the buildings were designed to take such a collision. The third building was not hit, but someone got a lot of money in insurance when it was destroyed. The heat produced was discussed as was the exploding fuel, the results did not provide any answers.

 

I suggest you watch it before dismissing it as total rubbish. It might just surprise you.

[GlennB]

Perhaps not the best example - that was a calculated attempt to force Japan to capitulate and thus avoid what would have been an extremely costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. It not only succeeded in that aim, but also resulted in the Japanese as a nation rejecting the warrior code of Bushido that arguably prompted their entry into WWII in the first place, as well as their inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.

Not according to many, including Gen. MacArthur, not a noted 'dove'. He among many believed Japan was ready to capitulate. It would appear that the post-war status of the Emperor was an issue, but in the end he kept that status anyway (for a time at least).

So, why bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki against all laws of combat applying at the time? Even then indiscriminate mass destruction of non-combatants was "illegal".

There were channels of communication between Japan and the USA that were already well in business. I'm certain they would have been well impressed by being invited to witness a small offshore island being vapourised.

 

Was it done to impress the Russians, who were entering the Pacific war at that very time? Quite possibly.

To see the effects of nuclear weapons in the field? Maybe.

 

But we digress. Sorry if it was a provocative rather than calculated example.

 

p.s. add Eisenhower,Nimitz,Leahy,Halsey,Arnold,Spaatz,King and other *very* senior US military to the list of those believing it was a political - even experimental - rather than a military decision. Ain't Google wonderful ?

Edited August 17, 2006 by GlennB