9/11: What Really Happened

What mass media and the government have told us is that jet fuel weakened the steel structure and caused the pancake collapse of all 3 WTC buildings. But there is so much overwhelming evidence that shoots this theory down, that the evidence can't be discounted. Rather than take the government's word for it, how about we present a little real evidence in this thread.

I'll start by linking this website which is filled with expert accounts of studies done according to actual evidence. Before you ignore these "crazy" conspiracy theories consider that over 1600 certified, professional Architects and Engineers support a controlled demolition of WTC.

Here's a video to start you out on some basic 9/11 truths and untruths:

 

Since you're new to this iteration of TFP I'll give you a pass for not realizing how extensively this has been discussed and debated. If you want to discuss evidence, bring up specific points from the official version of events that you feel are lacking or false and we can discuss them. Throwing an entire website and 18 minute video at everyone and saying "ok, discuss." is not productive when you provide only a vague blanket accusation with overly generalized support for your claim.

 

Didn't we end the last debate by agreeing Big Foot, The Area 51 Alien and Elvis planed and carried out the attack?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.363305,-122.694204

 

The old thread, for referrence.

http://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-paranoia/67071-what-happened-911-a.html

Pretty extensive. Probably covers just about everything out there. Knock yourselves out if you want to rehash.

 

I did a thorough thread search and couldn't find any threads dedicated to discussing 9/11 theories.

Further, I posted the video and the website because it best sums up what I believe and what every Truther believes. If a person isn't willing to take a few minutes to view the evidence and the expert studies then it simply shows they aren't willing to entertain any theories outside of what the government has told us. Truthers are mocked for what we believe even though we continue to disprove the official story. We have the evidence to support our claims whereas the government does not.

The most common response to a Truther is a knee jerk reaction, like one we just saw from Tully. And while I have been hounded on TFP for not supporting my opinions with facts, I imagine I'll see a lot more responses like his. The evidence supporting a controlled demolition of WTC is overwhelming. If you can't take the time to review the evidence on the video and on the website, then you're simply not interested in the truth.

 

See, I read that as "I'm not willing to do the work necessary to prove my case, so I'll just steal it from someone who is" - but that's because I'm jaded from the last version. Everyone - other than you Eddie - who's posted in this thread posted in the other one over at 4.0 and feels like they've exhausted the conversation. That's not a great attitude, but it's the one you're dealing with. If you're not willing to do the job it's going to take to overcome that, you're probably not going to find much interest in this thread.

Just trying to help.

 

We're talking about scientific evidence, charts, chemical compounds, expert analysis, architectural blueprints, engineering simulations. And while I could spend time dragging all that out onto this forum via copy/paste, I figured it most efficient to link to the site that has compiled all this data. Maybe people are afraid to open those links because it could lead to a crack in their fragile reality. I don't know. I know that before I stopped to take good, close look at the evidence my responses to Truthers were exactly like Tully's. I know what it's like to be the one pointing the finger at the conspiracy theorists.

Look, I know what I believe and I know the evidence which supports my belief. But really, take a look at the towers freefalling and tell me that the structural steel frame didn't give way all at once. There was not even a hint of resistance during the collapse anywhere in the steel structure. Free falling into it's own foot print. It's a text book controlled demo. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....it's probably a duck. But it's not a duck if our government says it's not.

 

These are just the one who have come out. Publicly stating that, based upon your professional opinion, WTC was a controlled demolition could be immensely damaging to your career. Just the fact that over 1600 came out should be compelling.

 

I'm afraid that you're destined to be disappointed by this thread, in that case. You're simply not willing to do the work that it's going to take to get much more than fly-by disagreements. Which is what you've got so far and what's most likely to continue. You'll probably get the occassional agreement from someone, but most are going to glance and go.

 

The idea that there exists in the world an organization of sufficient competence to design, implement and cover-up a conspiracy on this order of magnitude requires significantly more credulity than any evidence I've seen provided by a 'Truther'.

 

So, you're willing to ignore scientific evidence simply because you have difficulty wrapping your head around a particular idea? Does that seem intelligent to you? Not trying to be insulting, just wondering.
--- merged: Nov 5, 2011 8:06 PM ---

I'm willing to address any comment posted on this thread. If that's not effort enough then I'm afraid I'll just never please you.

 

If that's what I said then that's what I said. (hint: It's not what I said.)

 

Ok, then let's discuss the scientific evidence. Because honestly, this thread isn't a "whodunnit" thread, it's a 'what happened to the WTC on 9/11' thread. I don't presume to know the depths of power or ability of the world's elite to conspire. I think that subject is better suited for a "Bilderberg Group, Illuminati" type thread. Of which I would be very interested in participating because I have my own theories.

 

Yet here we are, discussing it.

You may not think it's possible to cover up a controlled demolition of the WTC, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence support it.
--- merged: Nov 5, 2011 8:54 PM ---
I find it revealing that the only input the moderators have in this thread is to tell me that it's not a viable thread and not conducive to discussion. I'm starting to understand that this sort of moderator threadjacking is commonplace around here. Can we please just stick to the OP?

 

You're misunderstanding me. I love debating conspiracy theories. My response was that you're not going about this in a productive way. There's a good reason that professional publications are papers with citations rather than a smug assertion of a viewpoint and a bibliography.

 

Cyn, from the video you posted above, this statement is completely false: "Even so, the fact that no explosions can be heard in any of the videos coupled with the fact that no evidence of explosives were found at Ground Zero, makes the controlled-demolition theory an impossibility."

And how can you say that these building didn't freefall? That's exactly what they did. They freefell in to their own footprint. All 3 WTC buildings freefell. There was no resistance or tipping of the structures.

Explosions were heard and demonstrated in live video not to mention numerous eye witness accounts... and explosive material, specifically thermite and nano-thermite was found in the debris. Also, molten steel was found in the debris. Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to cause molten steel. Don't believe me? Watch the video I posted.

Here's a video compiling numerous live video accounts, news broadcasts and eyewitness accounts documenting several concurrent explosions, secondary explosions:


--- merged: Nov 5, 2011 9:38 PM ---

Your opinion is noted. Can we get back the OP now?

 

While these things were at the forefront of my mind, I didn't want to closer the door so far as to exclude specific agencies or organizations which could theoretically operate without executive knowledge.

Somewhat unfortunately for your position, the plausibility of a conspiracy vanishes when the plausibility of the existence of the requisite conspirators is so monumentally unlikely as to be a practically insurmountable barrier.