Point 1: Thousands of people from the President down would need to be involved for the US government to have done 9/11. Not one person did anything to stop the attack, nor has a single person come forward, nor has any evidence been found. All this one an administration that leaked secret information like a sieve. Point 2: The buildings would have to be filled with explosives, all wired together (maybe by wifi!). This would take weeks if not months. People would need access to areas that would likely not be accessible. By the "theory" not one person thought anything was going on while people brought in and wired explosives all over multiple buildings. Point 3: Planes had to be flown into the buildings. Why? Why not just blow them up? Point 4: According to some "theories" the passengers were let off these planes and are still alive. Why? What would the point be if you're about to kill thousands of people? Point 5: According to some "theories" the BBC was given a script which they misread and announced one of the buildings had fallen before it had. This would mean that the BBC for some reason cannot be trusted to report on major events like 9/11 thus needed a script. It also adds to the pool of people who knew about 9/11 yet have said nothing for over a decade. I honestly do not understand how the hell there is a strange conspiracy theory out there. BTW no one has paid me to post this, but if you conspiracy nuts know someone who is paying people to post this kind of thing over the net, hook me up with them. I'm unemployed at the moment.
You made it more difficult to quote your post so: 1) Highly doubtful. Such a thing would require a lot of compartmentalization and would still require overseers, none of whom came forward and not one of the underlings has come forward yet (the 'painters' for instance). 2) Thermite paint would not cause the controlled explosions that are being accused of happening. 3) Terrorists already blew up the parking garage back in the 90s. A much less involved plot could have easily worked and would have been much less likely to fail (i.e. shove more explosives in the garage and take out the base of the buildings). 4) Who. 5) By stating this you are saying that the BBC, a major world news organization, would have been unable to cover the 9/11 events without a script. You are also saying that every reporter in that room, their bosses, and likely more people knew about these scripts and not one of them has stepped forward. This is highly doubtful at best. To the last two I have the information and I've been accused of being a 'paid government shill' before. If I can be paid I would like to. Of course then I'd have to be part of the conspiracy...
Highly doubtful. Such a thing would require a lot of compartmentalization and would still require overseers, none of whom came forward and not one of the underlings has come forward yet (the 'painters' for instance). 1. So that fact that no one (to your knowledge) has come forward, that negates the possibility altogether? Yes..it would require a lot of compartmentalization. "a lot" isn't possible? 2) Thermite paint would not cause the controlled explosions that are being accused of happening. 2. It wouldn't? And you know this....how? What's your source, your background? It can happen, and it did. Nanothermite, with other additives in the paint (which was found at the site) certainly could have. 3) Terrorists already blew up the parking garage back in the 90s. A much less involved plot could have easily worked and would have been much less likely to fail (i.e. shove more explosives in the garage and take out the base of the buildings). 3. Again, the black ops incident was to be the pretext for preemptive war. Fire up the people and tell everybody cave dwelling Arabs did it, and invasion of another country (that did nothing to us) and under the pretext of false intelligence. Remember the false intelligence? 4) Who. 4. Who what???? 5) By stating this you are saying that the BBC, a major world news organization, would have been unable to cover the 9/11 events without a script. You are also saying that every reporter in that room, their bosses, and likely more people knew about these scripts and not one of them has stepped forward. This is highly doubtful at best. It may be highly doubtful to you, but, nevertheless, it happened on live television. I'm sorry you missed it. Perhaps you can google "BBC WTC7" and see it for yourself. To the last two I have the information and I've been accused of being a 'paid government shill' before. If I can be paid I would like to. Of course then I'd have to be part of the conspiracy... Yeah...me too. Keep going along with the "official" version of everything, and who knows, maybe they'll look you up. Good luck to you.
Compartmentalization might help carry out the attack, but not cover up the facts after the attack. This is the part where the claims of compartmentalization fall flat on their face. You would need thousands of people in on the conspiracy just to cover up the facts, much less carry out the attack. Once again RWAF ignores the evidence and likes to pretend he is some kind of expert. Here are the flaws he continues to run from. Thermite of ANY kind can't be mixed with a foreign substance and still work. Thermite has to be in direct contact with itself in order to react and propagate. This is the whole reason for nano-thermite; smaller particles can be packed closer together for a better reaction. Mix in paint and you can't have ANY reaction. It would require numerous tons of thermite in one area to cut a beam or heat it to the point of failure. Even numerous coats of "thermite paint" would do nothing more than heat the columns a little. Welding equipment reaches temperatures several times higher than thermite, yet you can't just pass a welder over a two inch thick steel beam and expect it to fail. Ignition would have happened shortly after the fire began and it would be different all over the place. Not only that, but the whole reason truthers claim it was a controlled demolition is because they believe the towers couldn't have fallen as fast as they did without explosives cutting the columns on the way down. Fires were only at the point of impact. How does one explain all the other columns supposedly being cut in a highly coordinated fashion from thermite paint being ignited by flames? Were there fires all over the place? And how do you get the timing down? There is a good reason why thermite isn't even an option in controlled demolition. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). My Fing ID has an excellent point. Imagine the impact watching the towers suddenly collapse without warning and while everyone was in them would have had. You're going to have to dream up a much better excuse than that, RWAF. So where are they? Its been over a decade and not one of them has shown up to contact loved ones or resume their former lives. I could see finding one or two people willing to do this, but hundreds? The fire department announced HOURS before the collapse that WTC 7 was probably going to collapse. Strange? No. It is their job to know that kind of thing. They also reported this information to the press. So how is it strange that someone got it wrong? Oh right. Paranoid delusions.
Anyone who says "thermite paint" with a straight face has obviously never seen thermite burn. But forget that, how about a simpler question for a moment: How does something burning vertically, as all fires do, cut through a vertical beam horizontally?
Yes, the fact that no one has come forward means 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. Going by the list of people who knew what was going on that has been presented in the arguments on this page alone we have: *High up government *'Compartmentalized' groups (painters, 'thermite paint mixers', god knows what else *Plane passengers *BBC reporters, their higher-ups, and whoever gave them the script That's a lot of people, a lot with nothing to do directly with the conspiracy who have no reason to keep things secret. There almost certainly would have been a leak by now. My background is reality. Thermite paint, if such a thing were to exist, could not take down a building in a controlled demolition as it is claimed the building was taken down. Thermite is used to burn things and a little bit of it put into paint and applied in a thin layer to a wall just isn't going to cut it (literally). I've cut metal before. It was a part of a bridge with a bunch of little studs popping up to help keep the concrete in or something. With a cutting torch I had to hold a flame to each stud for a good 10 seconds before it was hot enough to really power up the torch and cut. The cut took time and needed to be done just right as well. Covering that thing in a paint thin layer of thermite and setting it off I guarantee would have done nothing. The thermite would not last for very long (it'd probably just go right up as if it was gun powder), would not heat the metal to temperature, and probably wouldn't do more than leave a mark. Again it could have been done with a bomb. That would be much easier and much less likely to fail. It would also require way less people to be involved thus be more secure. Who are the important people that would have told everyone about 9/11 if they died in a plane? I know it happened. It's much more likely that it was a mistake. I cannot see anyone giving a script to a news agency to tell them how they will broadcast news of a major event like 9/11. News groups are perfectly able to broadcast the news; they do it every day. They also make mistakes, much like when they said tower 7 was down when it was not. As Patriot 911 said above it was likely the announcement that building 7 was going to collapse being mis-interpreted by the time it got to the reporter (ever play telephone?) Thank you I sure hope so. I could use the money.
Yet all three tube in tube building failed exactly the same way and fell for the same reasons. Damage to the columns, fire fueled by many things stuffed into the buildings, inadequate fire retardant. Once the steel became even just a little elastic it would alter the shape and put tremendous stress on the full floor spans and once they failed, there was nothing left to hold the columns together. Thinks fall down, it's called gravity.
Theres a lot of proof of a conspiracy. Heres a link to some of it. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 How the towers fell makes it pretty clear that the government was behind it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ The fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was to small to be a 757 alone proves the government was behind it. http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm A lot of people experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial when they see this proof. http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm This is a good video for them to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4 This is also a good video for newcomers to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHN-1Yk5LI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxorz4jWDMY
When are you going to stop spamming and actually defend some of this crap, Scott? Or do you understand the utter futility of trying to defend it, and thus resigning yourself to the role of robospammer?
I just cannot understand the conspiracy Yesterdays Tinfoil is Today's Reality!. . . . The Story of Your Enslavement
Lies, no matter how many paranoid delusions you wrap them up in, are still lies. You can't defend them and you most certainly cannot explain them in any real world terms. You've never been able to explain your claims like no plane hit the towers and how there are so many videos showing a plane. What was your excuse again? Real time CGI? How did you explain eyewitnesses? Oh right. You couldn't explain that. Tinfoil is still tinfoil and will never be reality without evidence; something every one of your posts have sorely lacked.
Do you mean "official" eye witnesses, or just eyewitnesses in general? Officially acknowledged? What is the criteria?
Eyewitnesses who saw Flight 175 hit the South tower. Are they all wrong? Eyewitnesses are not the most reliable form of evidence because they're human, but if you have a large group of witnesses, looking for common elements in their testimony can give investigators a good idea of what happened. It is koko's claim there were no planes despite all the evidence to the contrary. Is that now your stance as well?
No...that is not my stance. I was trying to clarify for future reference, and you have just done so. "Eyewitnesses are the most reliable form of evidence", you just said. I was trying to determine if you would make a distinction between eyewitnesses that are "officially" recognized and those that were ignored "officially". Thank you.
Way to lie your ass off once again, RWAF. I did not say "Eyewitnesses are the most reliable form of evidence". I said the exact opposite. Every witness has credibility. Some more than others. Willy Rodriguez, for example, has changed his story more than most people change underwear. The most aggregious dishonesty, though, comes from truthers who put words in witnesses' mouths like trying to pretend the witnesses REALLY meant to say explosions caused by explosives. Thanks for once again demonstrating the level of honesty and credibility one can expect from the truther community.
I stand corrected. I misread your statement and overlooked the word "not". My apologies. Thank you for your continued respectful form of communication and I'll try to keep my "ass" on next time.
I think he means the hundreds of thousands of people who were living and working within view of the towers at that moment and were watching as the plane hit. And not one person, ever, has said they were there and did not see a plane hit. None.
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.
