Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax

Spin numbers. Yeah, here's the numbers. A plane 150ft long hitting the ground at 500mph and exploding cannot scatter debris more than additional plane length away.

Its moronic. Fascinating that you would rather chew your own hand off than admit something so obvious. No, with your last dying breath you would defend the conspiracy theory no matter how spectacularly, mind numbingly, ridiculously stupid.

Yep one plane length. You and the "experts", together in asinine solidarity to the end.

 

The "Conspiracy Theory" single by PB and the Perpetual Denial Factory now at a record shop near you.

 

agreed - on plane does seem to be a bit moronic

8 miles however is IMPOSSIBLE

a former co-worker of mines family home was the closest residence to the site. Within 10 minutes of the crash, scores of FBI agents overtook his home, removed his family from the property and they weren't allowed to return for 10 days. His mother was at home and heard an explosion before the crash.

I met Jarrod 2 years after 9/11 and was told this story. I thought the 9/11 conspiracy theories were a bunch of bull shit prior to hearing this. In part because my college roomate died in the WTC and I simply didn't want to listen to or read anything about the event at all - I wanted to put it behind me. When he told me this, it was then that I started reading what I could and became skeptical.

 

The link is actually a good repository of pics, video and other info. However, the conclusions they draw are way off base.

Most of the content is criticisms of reports by the professional community, universities, NIST and FEMA. They also make many baseless accusations of those groups. Criticisms are ok, but all the nitpicking of reports doesn't prove that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

For example, they will try to downplay the damage done to the south tower and claim the plane only grazed the south tower and didn't damage the core; yet they don't account for where all the energy went or where the plane went. In reality, nearly all of the plane didn't come out the building; therefore, it's energy went into destroying the plane itself, the perimeter, floors, and core; the damage was considerable. Read the MIT article about building damage if you want a quantitative result based on science and engineering. The conspiracy sites simply claim that MIT and other groups misled people, used bad drawings as a basis for their work, etc.

The 911 conspiracy tactics are similar to groups that believe the Apollo missions were faked. They come up with yet another item that they perceive as not explainable, such as a squib coming out the side of a building or that someone used the word 'pull', and then claim that proves controlled demolition. The Apollo conspiracy groups will point out what looks like a hair on the negative of a photo of a moon rock and then claim that the missions were all faked. Creationists use similar tactics: pointing out an endless stream of what they perceive as unexplainable items about evolution and then claim that the creationist view must therefore be the correct one. What they don't do is support their own theory. They also ignore all the points of contention of their own theory and instead focus solely on contention points of the theory that conflicts with their ideology.

.

 

This is the sort of lie used by those who question nothing and convince themselves that because NIST and FEMA have put out a report endorsing the ridiculous and historically unprecedented notions of global collapse by fire and "pancaking" (despite the bulk of the structure not being weakened by the hit or any fire), the "official" line must be true. Of course, again the bugbear of WTC 7 which had no plane hit and the most limited of scattered fires on only two floors is simply lumped into the overall treatment by these administration shills.

What the independent 911 research reports point out and do well is that those THEORIES dont stand up to empirical visual record (and recorded testimony of firefighters present in the towers themselves) nor do they stand up to basic logic. The questions therefore that remain alongside the broader range of unanswered inconsistencies all demand an honest investigation. Nothing more nothing less.

Talk of moon landings, etc. is the typical intellectually dishonest mis-association of those either with vested interest in maintaining this WoT status quo (and the gravy train it has created) or too in denial to allow themselves to believe that those with the means, motive and most plausible opportunity to orchestrate and conduct just such an attack are to be found within our own governing institutional infrastructure.

Nice PB-styled dismissal but the debunking of NIST's clearly sanitised report is far more logically and referentially consistent than your slanted synopsis suggests.

 

Statements such as those are why people don't take the conspiracy advocates seriously. It's good to question things, but jumping to conclusions about controlled demolition is a problem.

.

 

The 911 conspiracy groups like to point out what they perceive as inconsistencies and then conclude it must have been controlled demolition. But they don't support this claim with evidence or grapple with all the contention points associated with such a claim. Jones is a good example of claiming intentionally placed thermite while not considering all of the possible thermite reactions due to building and aircraft materials. It's a case of jumping to conclusions without doing one's homework.

.

 

And your federally dependent theoriticians tout fancy calculations which ultimately depend upon a preconceived refusal to allow for controlled demolition, despite the total implausibility based on historic behaviour of steel structures of such a global collapse after so short a period of time with oxygen starved smoldering conditions pertaining rather than the repeatedly and fraudulently asserted "raging infernos".

Start from a faulty premise and the conclusions will naturally suit the "official" conspiracy theory farce.

Funny how the naysayers will advance Occam's Razor until they are faced with the demand to question their own government as possible mass murdering traitors. Then cognitive dissonance kicks in and any number of tortured computational theories will suffice to avoid acknowledging the total illogic and multiple coincidences upon which the "official" explanation rests.

 

Statements of empirical truth which are evident from the visual record and from firefighters and other eyewitnesses present at ground zero on the day?

Its statements like yours which actually show how deeply in denial and desperate for any dodge the establishment shills are.

 

They don't refuse to allow controlled demolition theory. And they are not all federally dependent. The calculations aren't 'fancy', although they sometimes get complex. They are based on science and engineering.

Historic behavior of building collapses doesn't dictate the outcome of the WTC buildings. It's a matter of the conditions that the buildings were in (the damage and temperature), their materials, and their structure.

.

 

It's those same calculations that allow us to build skyscrapers in the first place. People don't question the validity of those equations when they are used to put up buildings successfully. But suddenly that same science and engineering is scoffed at by certain groups when it can explain an event in a way that is not in line with that group's ideology.

.

 

Ideology has nothing to do with it friend, its about holding a stonewalling administration accountable to the nation it swore to serve. Basic logic and the precedented history of skyscraper collapse are sufficient starting points for any rational mind to see that there are vested interests in supporting the lie after the fact. Federal funding, once again for the chronically intellectually dishonest, is a powerful lever for forcing the suits and ties to endorse the company line.


These calculations are hypotheses related to the fall of the buildings and parading themselves as fact when they are mere supposition based on a predetermined starting point of endorsing the official explanation out of all relation to the evidentiary facts on the ground, both visual and testimonial, on the day itself. They are not blueprints for the construction of a building, false comparative.

When buildings collapse supposedly due to "asymmetrical failure" yet collapse perfectly symmetrically in accord with visually verifiable demolitions, its time to question the official line in a big way.

Since you prefer to believe in the official conspiracy farce of 19 hijackers from the nebulous Al Qaeda boogeyman group managing to evade US air defences for an absurd amount of time, despite the fact that none could fly so much as a cessna or piper cub, etc.. etc.. by all means you continue to delude yourself and believe those who have shown nothing but contempt for due process of law and public accountability throughout their tenure. Real credible cabal you align yourself with.

 

Calculations aren't hypotheses. They are based on physics and engineering. As I said earlier, one can't simply wipe away the energy of the planes that hit the towers. The energy had to go somewhere. It went into destroying the plane and parts of the building. It's not dependent on ideology or who funded the study. One can try to downplay the amount of damage to the buildings for whatever reasons, but it doesn't stand up to the laws of physics.

The demolition advocates haven't showed any real evidence for controlled demolition. What they have shown as evidence are misinterpretations.

In any event, I never said there wasn't a govt coverup or stonewalling. I've been arguing that it wasn't a controlled demolition. No matter what explanation people believe, the U.S. govt looked pathetic on 911 and there was no consistency from the White House regarding the investigation. There aren't many who would disagree with that. The White House also altered documents from the EPA to try to downplay the problem with the air quality in NY after 911. There aren't too many people who can look at the overall situation and say the govt performed well for us on that day.

.

 

if they, the government, had performed "well" that day, they would have shot down 4 airliner's "atleast".....a no win situation....

 

Bush did nothing but sit and bite his lip at that grade school. You have to at least try to do something. He didn't even try.

These people in govt are totally incompetent. There was the McVeigh bombing, the bombing of U.S. embassies; the bombing of the USS Cole, the 1993 WTC bombing, the person who ran his Cessna into the White House, the Egyptian co-pilot who downed a jumbo jet off NY, incidents of unruly rock stars on jumbo jets. No one did anything about these problems. Instead, we get pleas of ignorance from people like Condi Rice claiming that there was no way we could have known about these kinds of attacks. It's pathetic.

.

 

So in one thread you gloat that the reports admit they are hypotheses, and in the next thread, you accuse them of claiming to be fact.

This raises the question - do you actually have any coherent views, or do you just pretend to have them so you can hurl personal abuse at everyone and preen your ego feathers?

 

No PB, once again you dont read what is written but only what you want to twist my words to say to fit your ridiculous non arguments.

I said that those who wave these HYPOTHESES around, like yourself, do so as if they were fact.

Time to go back to school since your reading comprehension appears severely lacking.

A statement that defines you and all you ever do here to "T".

Stop transferring your own psychoses onto others.

 

Well, you didn't say that actually, as anyone can see from the quotes.

Still, better to lie than admit something people have already figured out anyway?