Million Dollar Contest!

[greedygretchen]

Any takers? (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm)

[QueenAdrock]

We learned in my Nazi Germany class yesterday that conspiracy theorists always have lots and lots and lots of "evidence" but most of the time they're just crackpots.

I don't buy it.

[greedygretchen]

Well as David Icke is fond of saying, "Today's nut is tomorrow's mighty oak." Also, this is scientific and video evidence not some sort of "crackpot" rant.

I watched a fire near where I live a few weeks ago...The house that was burning had a wooden frame and the house still didn't completely collapse. It was an enormous fire too, i personally watched it for about 15 minutes. But for a 216 story steel framed building to collapse in 8.4 seconds due to a fire?

Refute this evidence and get $1,000,000. I'm sure the brains in your class could certainly do that if you put your brilliant minds together...

[Funkaloyd]

David Icke thinks lizards did it.

[Funkaloyd]

If one claims that there is an elephant in a room and we enter the room to find that it is empty, that proves there is not an elephant in the room.
But you cannot prove that there isn't an invisible elephant in the room. That's what's they're asking for: the falsification of the unfalsifiable. It's not a scientific request.

[ms.peachy]

But you cannot prove that there isn't an invisible elephant in the room. That's what's they're asking for: the falsification of the unfalsifiable. It's not a scientific request.
Exactly. One of the fundamental tenets of scientific investigation is that you cannot prove a negative. Period.

For example, no one can prove that God does not exist. (Not for lack of trying, I'm sure.) However, the fact that no one has proven God doesn't exist doesn't mean that he/she/it does.

[Funkaloyd]

For example, no one can prove that God does not exist.
Damnit, I knew I should have taken photographs of the corpse!

[QueenAdrock]

I watched a fire near where I live a few weeks ago...The house that was burning had a wooden frame and the house still didn't completely collapse. It was an enormous fire too, i personally watched it for about 15 minutes. But for a 216 story steel framed building to collapse in 8.4 seconds due to a fire?

They have a whole thing on the Discovery Channel about it that they show every so often. It wasn't just a fire or just an explosion, they picked out the jumbo planes loaded with fuel. It didn't collapse due to the fire. It was built to withstand a plane crash. But the amount of fuel they had coupled with the immense impact actually weakened the inside frame (not the outside) and it collapsed from the inside out. If you watch the video, you can see how the inside collapses before the outside. They have all the logistics of it.

Debunking the myths. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

[greedygretchen]

But you cannot prove that there isn't an invisible elephant in the room. That's what's they're asking for: the falsification of the unfalsifiable. It's not a scientific request.

An invisible elephant? Are you kidding? If there was an invisible elephant in the room couldn't you throw paint on it? and despite that it was invisible couldn't you feel its mass in the room? Now who's not being scientific?And it is a scientific request "Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds."

It didn't collapse due to the fire.But the amount of fuel they had coupled with the immense impact actually weakened the inside frame (not the outside) and it collapsed from the inside out.

First of all you contradict yourself by saying "It was built to withstand a plane crash." If it was built to withstand a plane crash, don't you think the builders took into consideration "immense impact" -dur, if a plane crashes into a building it's gonna have some immense impact, and "jet fuel" um, never heard of a plane not having fuel.

Secondly, a rock thrown from the 96th floor of the North Tower will hit the ground approximately 8.4 seconds later. So the question remains, how can objects (the above floors) crash through concrete and steel (the lower floors) as fast as they'd fall through air?

And what about building 7 across the street from the Towers? No plane hit that..No jet fuel no immense impact...So how did it collapse?

From the link QueenAdrock provided:
"In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense." Read: What we don't have proof of is covered by a "healthy dose" of common sense and if you don't believe us you have no common sense.Puh-lease...

This is the "scientific" "hard" evidence "debunking" the explosives "myth" (from the Popular Mechanics article):"The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." (bold emphasis by me)

A lot of if's, still no facts, and I thought you said that fire didn't cause the collapse? According to your expert it did. Or am I to read fiery destruction as something else?


By the way, QueenAdrock...
"Media giant Cox Enterprises Inc. owns The Discovery Channel (which is received in 66 million homes and is co-owned with Tele-Communications Inc.), The Learning Channel, part of the E! Entertainment Network, Rysher Entertainment, six television stations (which covers 8 percent of the United States), 16 radio stations,18 daily newspapers, and several weekly newspapers. It also operates Cox Cable which (after a merger with the Time Mirror Co.) posted a 1994 revenue of $736.4 million and has 3.2 million subscribers."

Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Corporation.

So no- I'm not going to take what they say about 9/11 seriously. That's mainstream, corporate-owned media. How to fix an engine or how bugs mate, well that's a different story

[QueenAdrock]

First of all you contradict yourself by saying "It was built to withstand a plane crash." If it was built to withstand a plane crash, don't you think the builders took into consideration "immense impact" -dur, if a plane crashes into a building it's gonna have some immense impact, and "jet fuel" um, never heard of a plane not having fuel.

Did you read what I said? JUMBO JET FUEL. No one expected that. The AMOUNT of fuel they had was astonishing. The towers were built at a time when planes did not have that amount of fuel. It WITHSTOOD the impact- dur, thus it not collapsing right away- but that COUPLED WITH THE AMOUNT OF FUEL AND THE COMMENSING FIRE was what melted the inner constructs. There was more than just ONE factor involved.

A lot of if's, still no facts, and I thought you said that fire didn't cause the collapse? According to your expert it did. Or am I to read fiery destruction as something else?

First off, everything in this situation is an "if" and there are no "facts". No scientist was in there, watching it happen. Therefore, the only evidence they do have is physics, engineering, fire science, and THEORIES. The fire was what caused the meltdown. It did not collapse JUST due to the fire. The impact shattered the outercore, the fire and tons of fuel caused the inner collapse.

"In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense." Read: What we don't have proof of is covered by a "healthy dose" of common sense and if you don't believe us you have no common sense.Puh-lease...

Actually, I saw "We were able to debunk each of these asssertions with hard evidence AND a healthy dose of common sense." Read: We have proof for each, and it's coupled with common sense. If you don't believe us, you don't understand our proof NOR are able to reason.

So no- I'm not going to take what they say about 9/11 seriously. That's mainstream, corporate-owned media. How to fix an engine or how bugs mate, well that's a different story

That's just one website that I googled as a reference. If you want to see the whole science of the impact, I suggest finding the Discovery Channel documentary, which I could not find.

Or you can stick to your fabulous, non-mainstream media because I'm sure they aren't one of the thousands of nutjobs that have conspiracy theories, they're the real deal. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

Here's some more science of the impact:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html

In analyzing the disaster, most engineers and architects assume that the top floors gave way when fire melted the steel structures that support the towers. The resulting collapse of the upper floors triggered a chain reaction that few buildings of any height could have withstood, several experts said.

When the crumbling towers thudded to the ground, they created ground tremors equal to earthquakes of magnitude 2.1 and 2.3, as measured by a seismic station in Palisades, New York, 21 miles (34 kilometers) north of Manhattan.

So there's your answer for the surrounding collapses, and gravity questions.

[Funkaloyd]

If there was an invisible elephant in the room couldn't you throw paint on it?The elephant's clearly magical. That you can't through paint on him just proves how devilishly clever he is.

And it is a scientific request "Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds."How exactly would one go about doing that?

[greedygretchen]

First off, everything in this situation is an "if" and there are no "facts".

Oh really then how is it that...

Read: We have proof for each,

Again with the contradictions...
and it's coupled with common sense. If you don't believe us, you don't understand our proof NOR are able to reason.

So I was right in reading that common sense line "and if you don't believe us you have no common sense..." Nice how you just worded it a little differently. So let me get this straight, because I don't believe you, I have somehow either lost my ability to reason or never had it in the first place...wow, great Limbaugh/O'Reilly tactics!


And, oh hey- fantastic job on the second article you found refuting the 9/11 questions...an article written eight days after the attack with more assumptions and language like "The impact of the hijacked jets could have created a vibration..." and "He said that it's possible, though speculative to say so given scant evidence, that the higher frequency might have damaged the building to the extent that it would have ultimately toppled." This is your "proof"? This is the "answer"?

Now, does it really make sense to you that a 2.1 tremor would make a building completely collapse? I live in Los Angeles and have been through several earthquakes with much stronger seismic ratings and never has a building been reduced instantaneously to dust by an earthquake. I have seen earthquake and seismic damage and it doesn't look like ground zero. And it takes a hell of a bigger jolt to damage buildings than a 2.1 or 2.3 And what about Larry Siverstein's comment to "pull" building 7? (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm) I'm sure it's some conspiracy "nutjob"-as you so eloquently put it - imitating Siverstein's voice?

to save you the trouble, here's more theory on how the WTC collapsed without explosives (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html) Now in this interview, MIT engineer Dr. Thomas Eagar states "The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis." Hmmm, interesting considering the melting temperatures of steel (http://www.auto-ware.com/techref/meltpoint.htm)

so...
How could briefly burning fires from two airliners, each carrying the same fuel load each skyscraper was specifically overbuilt to easily withstand, so quickly have melted massive high-grade steel girders impervious to the hottest temperatures burning jet fuel can generate? (from http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/WTC.htm)



the video-it's about 10 minutes long (http://reopen911.org/video/AreTheCriminalsFrightened.wmv)

How exactly would one go about doing that?

If I knew don't you think I'd be claiming the prize money?

[QueenAdrock]

Oh really then how is it that...

Again with the contradictions...


So sorry you're not able to understand. How about this. Evolution is not fact, but we have proof for it. So just like that, the theories they have are not fact (there is NO way to truly know what happened), but we have evidence that points to one theory. You can have proof but not have 100% fact. Thus it being a THEORY.

So I was right in reading that common sense line "and if you don't believe us you have no common sense..." Nice how you just worded it a little differently. So let me get this straight, because I don't believe you, I have somehow either lost my ability to reason or never had it in the first place...wow, great Limbaugh/O'Reilly tactics!

Want to talk about contradictions? You didn't read it as "if you don't believe us you don't have common sense," YOU read it as: "Read: What we don't have proof of is covered by a "healthy dose" of common sense," word for word. They never once said "Uh, hey, we don't have proof for this or that, so um, just believe us or else you don't have common sense." Let me break it down for you exactly what they are saying: "Here is our proof. We came to it using science, and common sense." Not science OR common sense, like you so believed.

And, oh hey- fantastic job on the second article you found refuting the 9/11 questions...an article written eight days after the attack with more assumptions and language like "The impact of the hijacked jets could have created a vibration..." and "He said that it's possible, though speculative to say so given scant evidence, that the higher frequency might have damaged the building to the extent that it would have ultimately toppled." This is your "proof"? This is the "answer"?

Yeah, just keep ignoring how I say they're theories. Everything with 9/11 is a theory, and no one truly knows the real answer. They have to use language like that, because saying "This DID happen" is never used in the scientific world. I'm offering you different viewpoints as to what people believed may have happened, that DOESN'T point to bombs. If you want concrete answers, go to a structural engineer who can explain to you exactly what happened. I just think a lot of the conspiracy theories are a load of crap, and if YOU really want to know the truth, go to someone with expertise who can offer you different explanations, and not some douchebag who's offering people a million dollars if they can prove him wrong.

Now, does it really make sense to you that a 2.1 tremor would make a building completely collapse? I live in Los Angeles and have been through several earthquakes with much stronger seismic ratings and never has a building been reduced instantaneously to dust by an earthquake. I have seen earthquake and seismic damage and it doesn't look like ground zero. And it takes a hell of a bigger jolt to damage buildings than a 2.1 or 2.3 And what about Larry Siverstein's comment to "pull" building 7? (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm) I'm sure it's some conspiracy "nutjob"-as you so eloquently put it - imitating Siverstein's voice?

"This Serendipity website is based on a libertarian (in the sense of J.S.Mill) perspective and is opposed to Fascism, Zionism and the New World Order." Yeah, good non-biased research there. With that being said, I have heard that they were going to pull the building. I wouldn't doubt it either. But I do think the reason if and why they decided to pull it would be due to structural damage caused by the ensuing earthquake. They wouldn't just pull it for the hell of it, that's what we call a stupid conspiracy.

so...
How could briefly burning fires from two airliners, each carrying the same fuel load each skyscraper was specifically overbuilt to easily withstand, so quickly have melted massive high-grade steel girders impervious to the hottest temperatures burning jet fuel can generate? (from http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/WTC.htm)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel.

Will Thomas doesn't know what he's talking about, because there is proof that there was MORE than the usual amount of fuel on board those planes, which the WTCs weren't built to withstand.

But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.

The protective concrete cladding on the cores would have been no permanent defence in these extraordinary circumstances - keeping the intense heat at bay for only a limited timespan.

...According to the engineers of the WTC, nothing could have withstood the ensuing fires. The columns AND FLOORS would have melted, and it would have collapsed in on itself. It wasn't just the girders as you have said, it's much more complicated than just one factor involved.

[EN[i]GMA]

Well as David Icke is fond of saying, "Today's nut is tomorrow's mighty oak." Also, this is scientific and video evidence not some sort of "crackpot" rant.

No, it's pricisely a crackpot rant, just with an AVI tacked on.


I watched a fire near where I live a few weeks ago...The house that was burning had a wooden frame and the house still didn't completely collapse. It was an enormous fire too, i personally watched it for about 15 minutes. But for a 216 story steel framed building to collapse in 8.4 seconds due to a fire?

Was the house immensely tall? Was the fire caused by jet fuel? Was the building made of steel?

No? Well then it isn't relevent at all.

It's like me lighting a marshmallow on fire and saying it's evidence.


Refute this evidence and get $1,000,000. I'm sure the brains in your class could certainly do that if you put your brilliant minds together...

Do you know how many creationists run these schemes?

'Prove evolution and get $10,000!'?

I see them all the time. I, no expert, could probably 'win the prize' but guess what? They won't hand it out.

There is no amount of proof you could hand them that would make them say they're wrong.

This is the same thing.

Here, I'll give you one BAZILLION dollars if you can prove the sky is blue.

But you know what I can do? Deny it. And you what you can't do? Make me give you jack shit or concede that I'm wrong.

This is the same situation.

[EN[i]GMA]

First of all you contradict yourself by saying "It was built to withstand a plane crash." If it was built to withstand a plane crash, don't you think the builders took into consideration "immense impact" -dur, if a plane crashes into a building it's gonna have some immense impact, and "jet fuel" um, never heard of a plane not having fuel.

Obviously they didn't.

And even if they did, could they have built it so it wouldn't have been susceptiable to fire?

I truly don't know.

That didn't really expect a plane to crash into it, it wasn't a likely thing, so they probably just ran a cursory check to see if a plane would knock it over: It didn't.

THey didn't run intense diagnostics for every single possible thing that could ever happen to the building.


Secondly, a rock thrown from the 96th floor of the North Tower will hit the ground approximately 8.4 seconds later. So the question remains, how can objects (the above floors) crash through concrete and steel (the lower floors) as fast as they'd fall through air?

How could it have fallen any faster with explosives attached?

WATCH IT FALL.

You can SEE the floors crashing into one another. It's obvious. Watch it.


And what about building 7 across the street from the Towers? No plane hit that..No jet fuel no immense impact...So how did it collapse?

Good question.

If the buildings WERE set to denonate by design, would they have allowed this to happen?

Isn't it a pretty big fucking clue?

IF they can take down a building, I think they can prevent one from falling. Why didn't they?


From the link QueenAdrock provided:
"In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense." Read: What we don't have proof of is covered by a "healthy dose" of common sense and if you don't believe us you have no common sense.Puh-lease...

Your cynical doubt does little to dissuade mine.


This is the "scientific" "hard" evidence "debunking" the explosives "myth" (from the Popular Mechanics article):"The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." (bold emphasis by me)

Sounds good to me.




A lot of if's, still no facts, and I thought you said that fire didn't cause the collapse? According to your expert it did. Or am I to read fiery destruction as something else?

She clearly meant the impact of the plane. Anyone other than a deluded, pedantic ideologue would be able to see that.


By the way, QueenAdrock...
"Media giant Cox Enterprises Inc. owns The Discovery Channel (which is received in 66 million homes and is co-owned with Tele-Communications Inc.), The Learning Channel, part of the E! Entertainment Network, Rysher Entertainment, six television stations (which covers 8 percent of the United States), 16 radio stations,18 daily newspapers, and several weekly newspapers. It also operates Cox Cable which (after a merger with the Time Mirror Co.) posted a 1994 revenue of $736.4 million and has 3.2 million subscribers."

Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Corporation.

So...what?

Is this some attempt to poison the well? It isn't working.


So no- I'm not going to take what they say about 9/11 seriously. That's mainstream, corporate-owned media. How to fix an engine or how bugs mate, well that's a different story

How fucking convenient.

Just throw out the evidence that proves you wrong via a logical fallacy, and you're immediately right!

If only it were that easy.

YOu can't prove any of that article wrong, so you ignore it. What a deft evasion.

If Viacom tells you that 2 + 2 =4, are you going to deny it?

[EN[i]GMA]

So I was right in reading that common sense line "and if you don't believe us you have no common sense..." Nice how you just worded it a little differently. So let me get this straight, because I don't believe you, I have somehow either lost my ability to reason or never had it in the first place...wow, great Limbaugh/O'Reilly tactics!

No, simple logic.

2 + 2 is indeed 4, and that is indeed common sense.


And, oh hey- fantastic job on the second article you found refuting the 9/11 questions...an article written eight days after the attack with more assumptions and language like "The impact of the hijacked jets could have created a vibration..." and "He said that it's possible, though speculative to say so given scant evidence, that the higher frequency might have damaged the building to the extent that it would have ultimately toppled." This is your "proof"? This is the "answer"?

No, but it's a possible answer, just as 'God knocked it down' is a possible answer.

But if we review all the possible choices...


Now, does it really make sense to you that a 2.1 tremor would make a building completely collapse? I live in Los Angeles and have been through several earthquakes with much stronger seismic ratings and never has a building been reduced instantaneously to dust by an earthquake. I have seen earthquake and seismic damage and it doesn't look like ground zero. And it takes a hell of a bigger jolt to damage buildings than a 2.1 or 2.3 And what about Larry Siverstein's comment to "pull" building 7? (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm) I'm sure it's some conspiracy "nutjob"-as you so eloquently put it - imitating Siverstein's voice?

So then what fucking DID knock it down?


to save you the trouble, here's more theory on how the WTC collapsed without explosives (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html) Now in this interview, MIT engineer Dr. Thomas Eagar states "The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis." Hmmm, interesting considering the melting temperatures of steel (http://www.auto-ware.com/techref/meltpoint.htm)

Hmmm, interesting given the fact that it wasn't only the fuel that was on fire, but the carpet, the drywall, the plastic, the building materials, the office materials and the thousands of objects in the building that burn hot enough WEAKEN steel (Not melt it).


so...
How could briefly burning fires from two airliners, each carrying the same fuel load each skyscraper was specifically overbuilt to easily withstand, so quickly have melted massive high-grade steel girders impervious to the hottest temperatures burning jet fuel can generate? (from http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/WTC.htm)

Because it wasn't the just the jet fuel that did the burning, it was the things ignited BY the fuel.

Add the jet fuel with everything else burning, and you can EASILY have a flame that WEAKENS steel enough to buckle under thousands of tons of weight.

And the steel was not melted, that's a complete strawman and a fabrication.

The steel was WEAKENED.


the video-it's about 10 minutes long (http://reopen911.org/video/AreTheCriminalsFrightened.wmv)

I'll watch it and respond in the next post.

[EN[i]GMA]

About the video:

First of all, I refuse to be harangued by this funny talking fucker.

I watched it, and laughed the entire way through.

There is nothing in this video that remotely holds up to scrutinty.

Bring up any point you want, I'll refute it.

[QueenAdrock]

From what I saw, they give no reasonable explanation as to why the U.S. government would EXPLODE the Twin Towers. Because they're jerks? They were bored? The only explanation I can see the conspiracy theorists have is that the governement wanted to start a war in Iraq, which seems a little extreme that they would kill all those people on the planes, plus the people in the buildings JUST to start a war. Plus, why assign blame to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden if we were to start a war against Hussein? Bush struggled so hard to find a "link" between Bin Laden and Hussein, you'd think it'd be easier in the first place to say that Hussein was the one responsible for the attacks, so we could go into Iraq right away and take him down.

Plus, the whole idea that the media doesn't want to report it because they're frightened is stupid. They went after Karl Rove, the mastermind behind Bush, and went after Scooter Libby. They're not afraid of what the administration can do to them because they're going after them for scandals right now and getting them in trouble.

[fucktopgirl]

did you gou see the movie from micheal more,yes its is sensationalist but ,in there there is a lot of fact that suspect that the governement take advantages of the world trade center disaster.

its a boost for the economy:war on terrorist(raison to take control in the mean time of theoil),construction.That could be a good raison why they kinda knew about the world trade center ,where somewhat involve.
they dont give a damn about people dying,look how many people usa kill over the years in useless war.



I believe there is something hiding ,that its not just terrorsit fault.
How come the day of the crash,all plane where none operating,they send a plane with the laden family back to their country?why?
How did they manage(terrorist)to crash plane in the world trade center,pentagon,washington in tonly couple hours of intervall.
I found myself that is hard to believe that its a conspiracy but in the same time,no.the usa governement(republican) is fucking insane.


i heard another raison about the world trade center,but i dont really be;live it:the tower where done,and to fix them it would cost a lot of dinero$,so why not crash them and built a new bulding
i know this theory is a little bit extreme but
The day of the crash,in some statistic,they said that almost half of the people from the tower did not show!

by the way all the media are control by those big corporation that own oil,t.v channel.
so they gonna control what is show and said.
there is some good media who are not under the corruption regime but they are struggling!

[franscar]

Did the government blow up the Twin Towers?

I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Did they milk the tragedy for all the political and economic gain it was worth?

Fuck yes.

[EN[i]GMA]

From what I saw, they give no reasonable explanation as to why the U.S. government would EXPLODE the Twin Towers. Because they're jerks? They were bored? The only explanation I can see the conspiracy theorists have is that the governement wanted to start a war in Iraq, which seems a little extreme that they would kill all those people on the planes, plus the people in the buildings JUST to start a war. Plus, why assign blame to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden if we were to start a war against Hussein? Bush struggled so hard to find a "link" between Bin Laden and Hussein, you'd think it'd be easier in the first place to say that Hussein was the one responsible for the attacks, so we could go into Iraq right away and take him down.

Excellent point.

And couldn't he just have made a link up, if one didn't exist?

If he could blow up a building, don't you think he could make a stronger case for war?

How much of his case turned out to be wrong? No ties to terrorism, no yellow cake, no WMDs.

They can blow up a building but not plant a few papers here and there, not make up some evidence?

THat doesn't fly.

Why do the best tricksters that even live happen to be so incompetent?



Plus, the whole idea that the media doesn't want to report it because they're frightened is stupid. They went after Karl Rove, the mastermind behind Bush, and went after Scooter Libby. They're not afraid of what the administration can do to them because they're going after them for scandals right now and getting them in trouble.

Very true.

[greedygretchen]

"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."- Frank Zappa

I happen to agree with this. Some people might see it as a cop out, but in the end you guys will continue to believe what you believe, I'll continue to believe what I believe. You've convinced me about as much as I've convinced you. The great thing about a forum like this though is that different sides can be presented and people can make up their owns minds and express what makes sense to them. And I fully appreciate that I can still question my government openly and not get two bullets in the back of my head.

i just have been very skeptical ever since gw took office in the 2000 election. I do not believe one word that comes out of that man's mouth and I do think he is a lying hypocrite and a puppet for his father and Dick Cheney. Do I think George Bush is personally responsible for blowing up the Twin Towers, no I don't, I don't think that there's any way he masterminded this- but I believe there had to be involvement at the highest levels of government whether it was demolished by explosives or whether the official story of how the building collapsed is true. I've believed it since I first heard the report of the attack on my morning commute and five minutes later Osama Bin Laden was identified as the perpetrator. The official story has never made sense to me. I did not for one second buy that they could know who did it that quickly.

And speaking of Nazi Germany, here's Hermann Goering on how to get the masses to go along with an unwanted war:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
-Hermann Goering

Sound familiar?

This strategy-in my opinion- is the reason behind 9/11. Why didn't they initially use Sadaam as the scapegoat? Maybe somebody fucked up. or could it be that they didn't think of it until after it was done "like oh shit we should've just immediately blamed Sadaam!"- as some here have pointed out they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. What was Hitler's reason for being evil? Does there even have to be a reason behind evil acts- the person could just be crazy...maybe they want to rule the world, maybe they were spanked too hard by their mommies.

I am not a conspiracy nutjob and I don't believe the men in black are in the shadows waiting to snatch me or that shapeshifting reptilians run the White House. I believe that there are many unanswered questions and I'm just glad someone is asking them and questioning the official version of events while we still have the freedom to do so.

[sam i am]

"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."- Frank Zappa

I happen to agree with this. Some people might see it as a cop out, but in the end you guys will continue to believe what you believe, I'll continue to believe what I believe. You've convinced me about as much as I've convinced you. The great thing about a forum like this though is that different sides can be presented and people can make up their owns minds and express what makes sense to them. And I fully appreciate that I can still question my government openly and not get two bullets in the back of my head.

i just have been very skeptical ever since gw took office in the 2000 election. I do not believe one word that comes out of that man's mouth and I do think he is a lying hypocrite and a puppet for his father and Dick Cheney. Do I think George Bush is personally responsible for blowing up the Twin Towers, no I don't, I don't think that there's any way he masterminded this- but I believe there had to be involvement at the highest levels of government whether it was demolished by explosives or whether the official story of how the building collapsed is true. I've believed it since I first heard the report of the attack on my morning commute and five minutes later Osama Bin Laden was identified as the perpetrator. The official story has never made sense to me. I did not for one second buy that they could know who did it that quickly.

And speaking of Nazi Germany, here's Hermann Goering on how to get the masses to go along with an unwanted war:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
-Hermann Goering

Sound familiar?

This strategy-in my opinion- is the reason behind 9/11. Why didn't they initially use Sadaam as the scapegoat? Maybe somebody fucked up. or could it be that they didn't think of it until after it was done "like oh shit we should've just immediately blamed Sadaam!"- as some here have pointed out they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. What was Hitler's reason for being evil? Does there even have to be a reason behind evil acts- the person could just be crazy...maybe they want to rule the world, maybe they were spanked too hard by their mommies.

I am not a conspiracy nutjob and I don't believe the men in black are in the shadows waiting to snatch me or that shapeshifting reptilians run the White House. I believe that there are many unanswered questions and I'm just glad someone is asking them and questioning the official version of events while we still have the freedom to do so.

A big part of the point you miss here is that the people you are arguing with probably agree with you on most other subjects.

The wonderful thing to see is that when someone steps over the line into lunacy, there is not a lockstep agreement despite prior agreement on most subjects.

If they're calling you a nutcase, greedygretchen, it's only because on this particular subject, you are. The bolts that held the floors together were also weakened by the fires and the impact of the plane in the first place. A cascade of cause and effect caused the buildings to collapse.

Have you been to the site of the Twin Towers? I have. There are a plethora of facts and figures that explain the entirety of what occurred on that day in a LOGICAL, AXIOMATIC manner.

As for the advantage that has taken place AFTER the 9/11 attacks, well.....I'd be more than willing to bet that the vast majority of posters and readers here would agree with you that maximum political and ideological juice has been squeezed from 9/11.

The next question becomes : if terrorists AREN'T responsible for 9/11, etc., why have there continued to be terrorist attacks since then that have been claimed by Al-Qaeda and why do we have video and voice evidence of Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for 9/11?

Are they that suicidal that they are willing to give not only their own lives, but the lives of countless thousands, to prop up a lie by some global conspiracy? Are they truly just pawns? If these powerbrokers/puppetmasters are so powerful, how is it that YOU are allowed to speak while all other contrary evidence has somehow been stifled?

I mean, even the Demos in the Congress, as much as they are "in" on the conspiracy, don't question 9/11. They question what has happened SINCE, but not what happened before. AND, they have EVERYTHING to gain by doing so, as seen by their gains since questioning Bush on pre-Iraq intelligence.

[greedygretchen]

If they're calling you a nutcase, greedygretchen, it's only because on this particular subject, you are.

Oh okay.
This is exactly what I'm talking about...So because my opinion differs from yours I have stepped over the line into lunacy? Because I don't agree with you on this particular subject I am a nutcase- oh, but only on this subject. I have a different opinion-that's all. It in no way, shape, or form causes me to even closely resemble a nutcase. But I appreciate you trying to break the news to me gently.

The next question becomes : if terrorists AREN'T responsible for 9/11, etc., why have there continued to be terrorist attacks since then that have been claimed by Al-Qaeda

Continued terrorist attacks in the United States? Actually, why haven't they attacked the United States again? They obviously know how to elude the US authorities. We're like sitting ducks. They can make skyscrapers disappear in a single bound. And they know if they do it again, we'll take it out on some other country.
If Al Qaeda is so dangerous and they are for sure the culprits behind 9/11 why aren't we fighting them? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor- they got the motherfucking A-bomb twice (and I'm not saying it was right, but at least it was consistent!), not the phillippines or china.

and why do we have video and voice evidence of Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for 9/11?

We also have video and voice evidence (in a PBS documentary) of Siverstein saying that Building 7 was pulled, but that's somehow unbelievable.

Are they that suicidal that they are willing to give not only their own lives, but the lives of countless thousands, to prop up a lie by some global conspiracy? Are they truly just pawns?

Why not?
Would you say that soldiers are suicidal? They are willing to put their lives on the line for a safer America, free from threat and WMD's and for a higher ideal. Doesn't necessarily make them "suicidal" now does it?

If these powerbrokers/puppetmasters are so powerful, how is it that YOU are allowed to speak while all other contrary evidence has somehow been stifled?

I am allowed to speak because this is the beastie boys message board, not World News Tonight, CNN or Fox News. And that's why I said I appreciated this type of forum.

Now speaking of the news, ENiGMA posed the follwing question:
If Viacom tells you that 2 + 2 =4, are you going to deny it?

Of course not.
But by that same token, if Viacom told you 2 + 2= 3,would you deny it? Of course you would because you'd already know that it doesn't. Funny thing about the media though is that they're supposed to report new information- stuff you may not necessarily already know and moreover things that are not just automatically validated by "common sense".
Do you really believe that the media has never blatantly and furtively lied, misinformed, or lied by omission? Do I have to bring up Dan Rather? Do I have to bring up Stephen Glass and Janet Cooke among others? Ever heard of something called a "retraction"?

[Medellia]

Continued terrorist attacks in the United States? Actually, why haven't they attacked the United States again?
Read what he said again:
The next question becomes : if terrorists AREN'T responsible for 9/11, etc., why have there continued to be terrorist attacks since then that have been claimed by Al-Qaeda and why do we have video and voice evidence of Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for 9/11?
Tell me where it says "in the United States".

[greedygretchen]

Read what he said again:

Tell me where it says "in the United States".

No I think it's you that didn't get it...that these attacks haven't been in the United States is precisely my point-especially when we're so ripe for the pickins...So I guess you're of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of being the world's policeman. Except changed for modern times it might be speak stupidly and carry an AK-47

[sam i am]

Read what he said again:

Tell me where it says "in the United States".

Thank you, Medellia. My point exactly.

As for Al-Qaeda merely being puppets, which you agreed was the case in your earlier post, greedygretchen, well....you are then a conspiracy wacko nutjob.

[greedygretchen]

I didn't agree to anything...I merely questioned your version of things...does that cause you to feel righteous anger?

[Medellia]

No I think it's you that didn't get it...that these attacks haven't been in the United States is precisely my point-especially when we're so ripe for the pickins...So I guess you're of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of being the world's policeman. Except changed for modern times it might be speak stupidly and carry an AK-47
So, because I pointed out that you were putting words in the mouth of sam, that means I think we should police the world? Wow, it must be nice in your deluded little world.

[greedygretchen]

So, because I pointed out that you were putting words in the mouth of sam, that means I think we should police the world? Wow, it must be nice in your deluded little world.

get a grip, i wasn't putting words in the mouth of anybody...I was asking a question...**Were these attacks in the United States?** I didn't say he said that they were.
My point being that if there's a group that hates us so much and has attacked us successfully- why wouldn't they do it again? And then we aren't even at war with that group that attacked us?
But you're right, the world's policeman statement was a leap from your original statement. I read (past tense) too much into it.
I just think it's funny how you say something and end it with a personal insult. As if your argument wasn't strong enough by itself. Which in this case- it was.

[sam i am]

get a grip, i wasn't putting words in the mouth of anybody...I was asking a question...**Were these attacks in the United States?** I didn't say he said that they were.
My point being that if there's a group that hates us so much and has attacked us successfully- why wouldn't they do it again? And then we aren't even at war with that group that attacked us?
But you're right, the world's policeman statement was a leap from your original statement. I read (past tense) too much into it.
I just think it's funny how you say something and end it with a personal insult. As if your argument wasn't strong enough by itself. Which in this case- it was.

Maybe the reason they haven't attacked us here again is because the security forces working behind the scenes have been successful in thwarting attacks? Nooooooo....couldn't be THAT simple, could it?

Al-Qaeda, et al, have moved on to EASIER targets : Spain, Indonesia, Britain, Jordan, etc.

Notice the paucity of terror attacks on Israel? Shit, they're WAY closer than the US and the ostensible REAL reason for all this crap in the first place, in Muslims' eyes......

[Medellia]

get a grip, i wasn't putting words in the mouth of anybody...I was asking a question...**Were these attacks in the United States?** I didn't say he said that they were.
Then you should have asked what he meant by it instead of just saying "so why haven't there been any attacks in the US since then?"
My point being that if there's a group that hates us so much and has attacked us successfully- why wouldn't they do it again? And then we aren't even at war with that group that attacked us?
Because they would rather take the time to plan it out carefully and make sure that everything goes according to plan than just rush into things and botching it. Which is what WE do. Trust me, if the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11 (aside from doing absolutely nothing to attempt to stop it) there WOULD have been another atack by now, because your average Dick and Jane in Kansas City will be cheering on Our Great Leader for saving us.
But you're right, the world's policeman statement was a leap from your original statement. I read (past tense) too much into it.
I just think it's funny how you say something and end it with a personal insult. As if your argument wasn't strong enough by itself. Which in this case- it was.
Sorry if that offended you in anyway. I didn't think it went that far for a message board, but I apologize for upsetting you. I'm just tired of all the conspiracy theories that have been popping up on here as of late.

[sam i am]

I'm just tired of all the conspiracy theories that have been popping up on here as of late.


Really?

Have there been a lot of conspiracy theories popping up on here recently?

Hadn't noticed.....