Sometimes when you're not sure what to do in life amidst the chaos, doing the opposite can often be the best approach.

The official story guys on here sure seem both immature and threatened. Almost 6 pages of sarcastically overexaggerating truthers.

Yeah, <3 how he goes through the whole rigmarole of telling the guy what to do to become a great scientist if he want's to prove then and then says "now I think there's a reason to not do that..."

Pwned.

yeah...but what else??!?

yeah, I can't figure out why this thread has remained open. If I started a "lol israel lizard people secret jewish control" thread it'd be locked w/in 10 minutes.

conspiracy brah

also, Noam Chomsky, really?

And my point remains that saying the towers fell within their own footprint isn't a reflection of reality.


Source

Even if true (since some were just stills with no video), a likely explanation for that is the particular architecture of WTC7. You can read more about the how 7 was constructed online.

I don't doubt your memory. The south side of the building is where you can see smoke pouring out of the building and it makes sense that you can't the fires from most pictures and videos when you think about the geography on that day. The south side was the most damaged side and it was facing the collapsed towers so there wouldn't be nearly as many pics/vids from that angle. Firefighters at the scene described the fires as fully involved on a large number of floors, extensive structural damage to the lower floors on the south side, and noises coming from the building before they pulled their rescue operations back.


No. That said though, what we do know is probably enough to come to the correct conclusions regarding the collapse or at the least dismiss most alternative theories.


My wild ass guess is it's a combination of CYA plus there are probably some things considered "too sensitive" that gov't officials don't want civilians looking through.

True enough.

Never said it was. I think most truthers suffer from it moreso than an average scientist.

Seems like BCPVP is doing yeoman's work of responding to the Truther inanity, which is a horse that's so beaten to death on 2p2 and over the rest of the internet the thing is practically dust at this point.

So I think my response is that the conspiracy guys sure seem illiterate, illogical, and ignorant of basic facts about the world, be they physical or political. Almost 9 years of overexaggerating truthers has prompted most of the rest of the world to just give up trying to engage on any rational level and mock you with pictures of professional wrestlers terrorizing New York City. It's probably fair to call it immature, but you shouldn't mistake that response for feeling threatened.

It's self-serving Truther nonsense to pretend as if the scorn heaped your way is a testament to how threatened people are by you. Sometimes a spade is just a spade. People like to mock and have fun with other people who they think are stupid. Twas ever thus.

Thanks for the actual response, I'll check this out. I went down this rabbit hole a couple of years ago and some threads where Borodog went back and forth with Neilso really helped, but the WTC 7 stuff never really sat well with me. I know I am a plebeian noob, but the video of WTC 7 falling down just looks like santa claus to me.

I think we need to have a real time conversation between Mr. Musicrecorder, Fedorfan, DVaut, and BCPVP. skype it up and record it, it would be fun

I liken it to how hate groups are ridiculed for being stupid and ignorant even though they are run by very intelligent people. Once someone enters that world and finds their leaders to be well thought out highly literate people it is easier for them to accept the drivel they spew out. When someone like you wastes everyone's time and talks mad **** about truthers like they are scum then you serve their purpose by create an image of them that is not true in the slightest and allow them great ability to peddle their fiction.

Sorry guys, didn't realize my Hogan jpgs were "wasting everyone's time" and empowering the Truther movement and allowing them to peddle their fiction. Kind of like how I empower the KKK by impugning their brilliant leaders. Was almost done uploading my "Macho Man Randy Savage did 9/11" images onto imageshack too.

I'll try to mature. Step up to get your rep up!!!

Wow, I have not been reading this thread, why didn't someone tell me what I have been missing???

humdrum conspiracy thread is
<-------------- way

Are you referring to WTC 7 or the Twins?

Well....

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections—which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

This is as of '09.


I'd rather you explain.

The pics/vids of the south side that do exist look nothing like those shown in the video you linked, though.

What we do know is almost exclusively the result of what the government has released to us. There reluctance to be transparent with this only adds to people's distrust.

That said though, this business of how exactly the buildings collapsed is rather secondary to the main point: for what reason would the government have for being dishonest about this event? Let's say that this whole thing was not the result of any controlled demo or any such thing. There still remains a whole bunch of other questions to be answered.

CYA? What do they have to cover? Negligence? If it were simply a case of that, why hasn't anyone(s) been held responsible for the thing? There has been almost zero political backlash from the ordeal. And what about this whole event could possibly be "too sensitive" for civilians to find out about? These are all very important questions, I think.

Even under the best case scenario in this whole thing, this demonstrates our federal government is completely negligent and a massive lol fail when it comes to things it has sworn to do/protect. At worst, it is....very scary...in what its willing to do for certain political gain.....

Well that alone sends up a huge red flag for me. This, coupled with their continued insistence of not cooperating with any outside inquiries about the deal, just screams "Hai citizins! we r hiding sumthin importint frum j00! suck it!"

I don't think the average scientist really has anything to do with this situation, though. I'm not doubting the science, I'm questioning the politics.

I thought the Hogan jpgs were brilliant, tbh. I lol'd.

Pls post Randy 9/11 jpgs so we can say that an atomic drop/Savage elbow drop is what really destroyed the towers once and for all. Or you could do the Pentagon. Tag team Savage/Hogan ftw.

Maturity is overrated.

I don't see how anyone whos being objective could not be suspicious of the process of investigating 911. Why would they be so against any kind of investigation of one of the biggest events in american history? I dont see why the govt would try to keep independent experts from trying to figure out what happened.

This investigation happened. It took a couple of years and was in the news a lot. It's been alluded to a bunch of times in this thread and someone even posted a picture of the report that the investigation produced.

Yes, a commission appointed by by George W Bush, and not at all controversial in the least...

Anyone seen the goalposts? We've went from "Why would they be so against any kind of investigation of one of the biggest events in american history?" to "they had an investigation, but they didn't have Alex Jones chair it!" Yes, I get that the commission was controversial. It was a pretty controversial event. As we've seen, absolutely any investigation that does not conclude Dick Cheney's Space Robots blew up WTC 7 will fail to satisfy some people, ergo any investigation which does not reach that conclusion will be controversial. Conceded. But Controversial investigation != no investigation took place and the government prevented everyone from trying to figure out what happened.

Obviously I meant why wasn't there an investigation immediately. The controversy over the process is the fact that it took them over a year to create the 911 commission. In addition to that they didn't receive proper funding.

Why wasn't the 911 commission created immediately? Why weren't they given a blank check?

What they found out doesn't even matter when answering these questions.

conflict of interest ldo

Please. Your coincidence theory is growing more and more ridiculous with each appearance in this thread. It was allowed a year late, it limited subpoenas, and it was run by a close friend of Condi Rice's and an Iraq occupation policy writer for the Bush League. It also fired the only commissioner who showed outrage that no subpoenas were to be issued (Cleeland). Heck, they tried to appoint Henry Kissinger to run it at first.

Consider this passage from page 5-6 of bestseller "The Commission," by NYT's Philip Shenon:

(no link, typeset manually)

It had become clearer and clearer to Daschle and other Democrats -- and to the Washington press corps and even some Republicans -- that the White House was hiding something, perhaps many things, about what Bush knew about al-Aqaeda threats before 9/11.

To Daschle, that explained why Bush and Cheney had taken such a personal role in the campaign to try to block any outside review of September 11, especially the creation of the commission. Daschle had heard through Trent Lott, his Republican counterpart, that Karl Rove and the White House political office had orchestrated the behind-the-scenes effort to block legislation to create the commission. "It's all Rove," Lott told Daschle.

In January 2002, before Congress had scheduled its first public hearings on pre-9/11 intelligence failures, Cheney called Daschle personally to complain about any public airing of the issues. Cheney's tone with Daschle was polite but threatening. Daschle, who was being interviewed by a Newsweek reporter when the vice president's call came through, was smart enough to allow the reporter to remain in the office to listen to Daschle's end of the conversation. Daschle wanted a witness.

The vice president urged Dsaschle to shut down any additional public hearings on 9/11, warning him that a public discussion of intelligence errors before the attacks would do damage to the struggle to capture bin Laden and destroy al-Aaeda -- and would do political damage to the Democrats as well.

"Mr. Majority Leader, this would be a very dangerous and time-consuming diversion for those of us who are on the front lines of our response today," Cheney said. "We just can't be tied down with the problems that this would present for us. We've got our hands full." Daschle remembered the tone as vintage Cheney. "muffled, kind of under the breath, quiet, measured, very deliberate."

If the Democrats went forward anyway, Cheney said, the White House would portray the Democrats -- by daring to investigate what went wrong on 9/11 -- as undermining the war against terror. That was a potent political threat at a time, four months after the attacks, when Bush was riding as high in opinion polls as he ever would and Democrats were facing a difficult midterm election in November 2002 as a result.

"I respectfully disagree with your position, Mr. Vice President," Daschle replied. "It is imperative that we try to find out what happened on September 11 and why."

To Daschle, it was preposterous for the White House to argue that 9/11 should go uninvestigated. He knew that modern American history offered plenty of support for an independent investigation. From Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy assassination to the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster, "there's been a review of what happened after every tragedy this nation has experienced," Daschle said.

...

On November 27, 2002, thanks mostly to pressure on the White House from the 9/11 families and (John) McCain, Bush reluctantly signed the bill creating the 9/11 commission. The bill was not what Daschle, McCain and the families had wanted. It provided the commission with an insultingly small budget -- $3 million over 18 months, compared with more than $40 million for the federal commission that investigated the Challenger disaster. "The budget was a joke," Daschle said. And the bill imposed strict limits on the commission's powers to subpoena documents and witnesses.

The same is verified in Corn and Isokoff's "Hubris." ... Tricky Dick's actions on everything from blocking the commission to Iraq deflection scream of cover up at every step of the way. For the record, I advocate LIHOP theory, not controlled demolition (MIHOP) theory. The evidence is far more compelling for the former.

wat. My coincidence theory?

Listen, guys, READ. Some dude said there was no investigation and wondered why the US government didn't allow "independent experts from trying to figure out what happened". But in fact there was this lengthy investigation, with over 1200 interviews, many of which were with independent experts, and in fact, anyone so inclined can continue investigating it to their heart's content. That's why we have millions of internet sleuths learning about whether The Bildeberg can melt metal via telepathy these days and studying videos of WTC 7 videos looking for holograms of missiles.

I totally and completely understand that Alex Jones wasn't appointed chair of the commission was a huge conflict of interest, so I understand it's a very very controversial commission that proves all of your suspicions about everything. None of that gets you "no investigation happened" and "the govt prevented independent experts from trying to find out what happened".

It wasn't an investigation. It was a book deal.

An investigation would have issued subpoenas, and asked the relevant questions about why NORAD failed and who was in charge that day, the stock market put options and the money trail to the ISI chief. It didn't.

You've gotten enough mileage out of the Alex Jones joke for now. Please don't apply it to me, I think he's a clown.