9/11 - what happened?

[Cloggy]

????

So I guess that means when you make personal attacks you do that just to be rude or feel superior?

Well, I'm not playing that game.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...

When I said "My "case" is supported by the lack of evidense. Your case is crumbling down by the lack of evidense.", with "your" case I mean the conspiracy theory thought of by the government.. Perhaps it was not clear... sorry....

"The non-official conspiracy theory is supported by basic science and by the lack of evidense from the official conspiracy theory. The governments conspiracy theory is supported by lies, the lack of evidense, and nature not behaving according to laws of physics."

Any personal attacks to are not "to be rude or feeling superior" but to show a point...
By the way... where did any "personal attack" start?

 

[Reba]

Somehow I missed this one.

..Yes... that would be the official version.
And to top it up .. your pope decided to put some oil on the fire and insult the muslims.... Nice going....

And don't tell me he didn't mean it... of all the texts he could have chose... he chose THAT one!!!

Sorry-... Off topic...

Yes, you are off topic.

Since you claim to be a stickler for "facts" I want to correct you on your misstatement.

The Catholic Pope is not my pope. I have no pope. I'm a born-again Christian, and independent Baptist. The Pope of the Catholic Church is no authority to me. I don't believe his words are inspired from God. Please get your facts straight.

Why do you assume I would say, "he didn't mean it"? I have no idea what he meant or didn't mean, and really, I don't care what he meant.

I hope you research your conspiracy info more carefully than the way you post about other people.

Maybe you should take heed of your own siggy.

 

[Reba]

...Any personal attacks to are not "to be rude or feeling superior" but to show a point...

And what point did this quote of yours prove?

I'm not saying you'll go to hell because you are covering up for sinners that killed 3000 people because they wanted the power.... (So much for "saved by grace")

 

[Cloggy]

Just a reaction on this

Whatever floats your boat.

If conspiracy theories give meaning to your life, so be it.

That's why I asked you "where did any "personal attack" start?"

Anyway... found any laws of nature explaining evaporating boeing 757's ??

 

[Reba]

Just a reaction on this

Whatever floats your boat.

If conspiracy theories give meaning to your life, so be it.

That's why I asked you "where did any "personal attack" start?"

If you found those statements offensive, then I apologize. They weren't meant to be.

"Whatever floats your boat" is like "to each his own", or "different strokes for different folks" or "whatever works for you" or "you go your way, I'll go my way."

When I say, "so be it" it means "that's your way, and it's important to you, so there's nothing I can do about it."

My point of those statements was that I wasn't trying to change your mind about 9/11 because I knew that no matter what I posted, you wouldn't be convinced. Therefore, whatever belief about 9/11 fits your needs, then that's the way it is. I can't change it. All I can do is post other opinions and viewpoints, and links for those people who aren't getting the other side. You post your side, and I post the challenges for others to read.

I don't agree with your reasoning but I certainly don't mean to judge your character.

 

[Cloggy]

True, Agree, Likewise

 

[Cloggy]

........... All I can do is post other opinions and viewpoints, and links for those people who aren't getting the other side. You post your side, and I post the challenges for others to read.....

And that's what I'm trying to prevent.. That you just post other opinions.
I was asking you (and others reading the thread) to THINK for yourself. Not just spit out propagande that was swollowed before.

After seeing the other theorie (the other conspiracy theory) I checked for MYSELF if the facts were correct.

 

[Reba]

And that's what I'm trying to prevent.. That you just post other opinions.

You're "trying to prevent" other opinions?

I was asking you (and others reading the thread) to THINK for yourself. Not just spit out propagande that was swollowed before.

Do you consider eyewitness testimony as "propaganda"? Is common sense logic "propaganda"?

After seeing the other theorie (the other conspiracy theory) I checked for MYSELF if the facts were correct.

Me, too.

 

[Cloggy]

It's wonderfull how you would focus on language and interpretation instead of answering questions.....

Regarding "Do you consider eyewitness testimony as "propaganda"? Is common sense logic "propaganda"?" NO..

There's still 2 Boeing 757's missing (evaporated?) and 3 buildings that collapsed on purpose without anyone being held accountable for it.. (Especially since the planes had nothing do do with the collapse, otherwise theses could be blamed..)
Any idea's?

 

[Reba]

It's wonderfull how you would focus on language and interpretation instead of answering questions.....

Without language, how can we debate the topic?

Without interpretation, the data is useless.

Regarding "Do you consider eyewitness testimony as "propaganda"? Is common sense logic "propaganda"?" NO...

Then why do you disregard it?

There's still 2 Boeing 757's missing (evaporated?)...

They aren't "missing". We know where and how they crashed, and their wreckage parts were at the sites.

... and 3 buildings that collapsed on purpose without anyone being held accountable for it.. .

The WTC buildings collapsed as a result of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, and the subsequent fires and tons of shattering debris. The Muslim terrorists who flew the planes into the buildings, and their Muslim co-conspirators were responsible.

(Especially since the planes had nothing do do with the collapse, otherwise theses could be blamed...)Any idea's?

I have no idea why you don't understand. That's not my problem.

 

[Cloggy]

........The WTC buildings collapsed as a result of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, and the subsequent fires and tons of shattering debris. The Muslim terrorists who flew the planes into the buildings, and their Muslim co-conspirators were responsible.....
I have no idea why you don't understand. That's not my problem.

There is nothing to understand regarding your explanation, which is the official explanation. It is just the repeating of the official conspiracy theory.
Because "understanding" would involve knowledge.

Knowledge would show that the planes cause damage but would not make the buildings collapse..
- Fires due to the planes are not hot enough to weaken steel let alone melt it.
- Even if this had been possible, the towers would collapse towards the side, not vertically.
- The official explanation that the building "pancaked" is so farfetched... it would have had a column of reinforced steel standing in the middle of the pancake...
- Damage caused by the planed would in a remote situation make the building collapse ABOVE the impact zone, but not below that zone where structural integrety is maintained
- WTC-7 was never hit by a plane and debris from the other two towers hardly reached it. In fact, debris fell more on WTC 4 and 5 and they remained standing.
- Debris from WTC 1/2 that did fall on WTC-7 is proof that it did not just collapse since in that case debris would stay close to the building. Debris from WTC 1/" that fell on WTC-7 SHOWS that explosions were used which propelled steel beams over 300ft.

With the above FACTs in mind, it is obvious that your government is covering up something huge.
You are talking about Muslim fundamentalists, but this information was provided by the government. Why would this be true....???

Eyewitness have explained about additional explosions before the building collapsed. About explosions in the ground-floors when the planes collapsed....
For some reason you disregard there eye-witnesses

BUT I can see that many people are more comfortabel with the official version... Saves a lot of work, and even more important... it keeps the enemy outside!

 

[Reba]

There is nothing to understand regarding your explanation, which is the official explanation. It is just the repeating of the official conspiracy theory.
Because "understanding" would involve knowledge.

Knowledge would show that the planes cause damage but would not make the buildings collapse..
- Fires due to the planes are not hot enough to weaken steel let alone melt it.
- Even if this had been possible, the towers would collapse towards the side, not vertically.
- The official explanation that the building "pancaked" is so farfetched... it would have had a column of reinforced steel standing in the middle of the pancake...
- Damage caused by the planed would in a remote situation make the building collapse ABOVE the impact zone, but not below that zone where structural integrety is maintained
- WTC-7 was never hit by a plane and debris from the other two towers hardly reached it. In fact, debris fell more on WTC 4 and 5 and they remained standing.
- Debris from WTC 1/2 that did fall on WTC-7 is proof that it did not just collapse since in that case debris would stay close to the building. Debris from WTC 1/" that fell on WTC-7 SHOWS that explosions were used which propelled steel beams over 300ft.

With the above FACTs in mind, it is obvious that your government is covering up something huge.
You are talking about Muslim fundamentalists, but this information was provided by the government. Why would this be true....???

Eyewitness have explained about additional explosions before the building collapsed. About explosions in the ground-floors when the planes collapsed....
For some reason you disregard there eye-witnesses

BUT I can see that many people are more comfortabel with the official version... Saves a lot of work, and even more important... it keeps the enemy outside!

To save on typing and repeating myself:

http://www.alldeaf.com/637876-post37.html

Maybe you should merge your threads. We seem to be going in circles.

 

[rockdrummer]

With the pain of all the lives lost still strongly embeddedin America's society, I wonder why apart from mourning, what is done to find explanation about what happened.

Living in Norway I don't hear much about it, and just recently came across a powerful documentary with startling evidence.

What I want to find out here is: what is your opinion about the explanations given by the government?

Did that happen to be Michael Moore's Farenheit 911?? Just curious if you could share the reference to the documentary you speak of. Isn't this thread on the same topic as your debunking thread. Maybe you should combine them.

 

[rockdrummer]

WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7..... Hey.. this is YOUR history. You should know!
Why did WTC-7 collapse???

In history it never happened that a steel structure collapsed due to fire. Never... until WTC-1 and WTC-2 after getting hit by planes and WTC-7 hit by.... nothing....

Tell me in history where any of the circumstances were even remotely similar. You have to consider the facts that the heat from a fire WILL weaken a structure by compramising the structural integrity. From there, gravity and other laws of physics take over.

 

[Cloggy]

Did that happen to be Michael Moore's Farenheit 911?? Just curious if you could share the reference to the documentary you speak of. Isn't this thread on the same topic as your debunking thread. Maybe you should combine them.

No, it's called "Loose change" and from there on, some others I found on video.google.com and youtube.com.
Humor me and have a look... there's too many discrepencies... From the time the planes were hijacked to the collapse of WTC-7.. Nothing is explained properly.

With all the links you provided, you still have not explained what YOU think about the fact that there is only 1 video release of the pentagon. With an explosion. Do you really believe that there was only 1 camera looking at the Pentagon?? Camera's have taped whatever happened at the Pentagon.... From the roof of the hotel, from the gas-station... These were good angles.. They were confiscated in no-time.... why not show them??

Regarding engines etc that supposingly are from a 757, experts from boeing and P&W said that these parets are not from a Boeing..
I know.. experts on both sides. But with all the silence and holding back information, destroying evidence everywhere... how can one believe the government.
* Normally planes that deviate from their course are intercepted within 15 minutes. Now, 4 planes can fly undisturbed.
* Scenarios with planes hitting the pentagon had been done (2000) still government claims it's un-imaginable
* One of the most-important buildings in USA, and most guarded I'm sure, allows a plane to come within restricted airspace without any reaction AND it captures the event on 1 camera.... showing nothing.
* A plane crashes in a field wihout any wreckage of interest. (The local coroner said that his job was done in the first 20 minutes since he found no bodies)
* Steel-framed towers collapse perfectly instead of a more explainable collapse to the side. Apart from the fact that never in history this happened (a steel-based building collapsing due to fire) and has not happened since, it happened 3 times on 9-11. And in a manner (free-fall speed) that can only be accomplished using specialised demolision.
Etc, etc, etc.

By the way.. did you have a look here? (Debunking Conspiracy Theorists)

 

[Cloggy]

Tell me in history where any of the circumstances were even remotely similar. You have to consider the facts that the heat from a fire WILL weaken a structure by compramising the structural integrity. From there, gravity and other laws of physics take over.

YOU ARE RIGHT. "....gravity and other laws of physics take over."

Plane hits, fuel explodes and is burned in the first minute, towers move 2m and get back again, keeping integrety..
Then, it suddenly collapses...

Have you thought about the 74 coulmns in the center that should have been standing after the collapse.. Because.. didn't the floors detach from the inner and outer supporting structure?

Have you thought about how a 100-floor pancake looks like? How high would that pile be?

Have you thought about how a building "pancaking" would do that in a far slower speed than what happened with WTC-1,2,7?? Even with more and more weight.. .objects fall with maximum freefall speed. A pancake collapse would start slow, with steel weakening, giving way in one direction, then toppling the buildings to the side... not vertically....

Give me YOUR thoughts on it.
You're an intelligent person.... if it pancaked.... what happened to the 74 centre columns??

 

[Cloggy]

The term "conspiracy theory" has inhearited a negative feeling. Obviously because by default it would defy the "official theory" and with that defy the organisation that is in power.

But "conspiracy theory" can also be seen as the only way to ask questions to that organisation, when official channels are blocked or simply not existing.

Have a look at the 911 comittee report... (which started investigating after 400+ days)

Instead of arguing what has been written there, one can have a look at what is NOT discussed.
Below the footprints of the three towers that came down, molten metal was present even weeks after the buildings had collapsed. Temperatures measured there were extremely high.
This important feature was not investigated by the officials... It was researched by other people who - publishing their findings - are described as "conspiricy theorists"... Only by doing a job that should have been done by the officials.

Another thing hardly mentioned is the collapse of WTC-7. The only mention it gets it that "they have no idea why it fell and more investigation is needed.." Until now, there has been no additional investigation.

And there are other questions - like, why was all the evidence removed so quickly? Normally everything would be taped off and evidence would be collected. Planes are dredged up from 100's of meters of water and reasembled in hangers... just to find out what happened.

Again, people that are looking for answers are citizen of the USA and they just want reasonable answers. No matter how ugly these answers might be.
They try to learn from history and try to prevent this from happening again. Is the possibility that answers might incriminate government officials a reason NOT to ask them. I would hope not..

 

[Liebling:-)))]

wow, very good and polite debate here... It's interesting to read all of posts here but I'm with Cloggy... He made good points and better than me...

 

[Reba]

... I'm with Cloggy....

If you agree with Cloggy's point of view, maybe you can answer the question that he cannot. What would be the motive for someone to "fake" the 9/11 attacks?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If you agree with Cloggy's point of view, maybe you can answer the question that he cannot. What would be the motive for someone to "fake" the 9/11 attacks?

Why should I repeat since I already posted in several 9/11 threads?