The most intriguing conspiracy theory

I'd like to add:

How on earth would an intense fire that started about 3/4 of the way up the tower cause two buildings to collapse in almost a perfect freefall?  That's not even including WTC7, of course.

I'd expect the hottest floor(s) (so the floors that were impacted first) to maybe weaken the steel beams and thus cause the floors above to collapse downwards on top of those floors.  They wouldn't cause the less hot floors below to collapse as well.  The floors (I mean the floors, walls and ceiling and the structure) would just fall sideways and slide onto other buildings surrounding it and thus cause far more devastation.

For a building to collapse as it did, I'd expect there to be controlled explosions on certain floors that would cause the floors above (as the explosives would start at the top) to fall down on top of the lower floors in a nice neat pile.  Just like what appears to have happened.

I've watched a lot of Fred Dibnah programmes to know what buildings being brought down by explosives is like.

I'm not a structural engineer or indeed a demolition expert though.  I'm just basing this on watching buildings (and chimneys) freefall in demolitions.  There's plenty of videos showing this.

I'll have to look for that one, David.

Some say the metal beams were tested at the time of construction to withstand extreme heat.  Thermite (although not an explosive) could have been used.  You'd need a lot of it though and in concentrated areas to cause fires.

If you believe the no 'planes theory (I'm not saying I do), then of course the explosives would have been in the missiles.

You could easily pack explosives into a 'plane and use some kind of timer to set them off.

In fact, the Germans did it in World War 2.  Not so much with the timer but they still tried it with their Mistel Composite aircraft which consisted of a bomber with explosives in the nose, no pilots or instruments or anything and a fighter aircraft to carry it and guide it in.


Edited by James - November 20 2011 at 19:30

has anyone mentioned 'Globalism' ?; not so much a conspiracy theory as an emerging reality some think of as conspiratorial, in fact I believe it is thought of mostly as a "conspiracy of the Left" rather than the garden variety Industrial-Military kind.   John Kennedy was considered by some to be an early Globalist, perhaps one of the things that made the Defense/Intelligence elite nervous.  

Actually, there are reports of people hearing explosions whilst on the ground floor.  So that video lies as well.

The only conspiracies that have some resemblance of probability are those where only a few people would have to be a part of.

Which means: almost none. Hell, maybe the JFK thing is the closest one to a "few people" conspiracy...

James wrote: manofmystery wrote: Saying because it would take a certain amount of explosives to demolish a building, in such a way, that a plane crash couldn't is a logical fallacy. How so?  Please do explain. Ever hear of the expression: "comparing apples to oranges" Experts is a subjective term.  In my opinion claiming, on youtube or elsewhere, that the buildings looked like they were bombed invalidates your expert status. So basically you're calling bullsh*t on anyone with a differing opinion to your own?  Whoever they claim to be.  Hold on, that's a false negative.  I could easily say the same thing about people who are experts and post something on Youtube who claim that the buildings collapsed due the 'plane crashes and fires.  Because they claim this on Youtube, it therefore invalidates their opinion and their expert status. It's the same argument you're making. I said expert was a subjective term so it's not as though you caught me here.  I even said "in my opinion". Oh and I never said they were bombed.  Do you not read properly?   The piece from the cracked article said "bombed".  I was responding to your response to that. A controlled explosion is not being bombed.  It may consist of using bombs but they're not being dropped by 'planes. Anyway you want to word it, it didn't happen.  You might not agree with the video below but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything you've thrown out there.   Do his own research?  He was writing an analysis of existing information. No.  He chose to pretty much steal information from sources that try to debunk the conspiracies.  He dismisses everything that supports conspiracies and doesn't even think before he types (sorry, copy and paste), otherwise he'd never have said what he did about there being not experts in demolition who disagree with the official story.  I suspect his source said the same thing and he just stole and it didn't fact check. Have you ever written a paper for a class?  You don't pull information out of your ass.  You gather information, piece it together in your own voice for your audience, then cite your sources.  I suspect that he probably thinks as much of your experts as I do.  Here's a little video about debunking controlled demolition, while I'm here:   Oh, and Karl Pilkington is a friend of British comedian Ricky Gervais.  Ricky finds Karl's bizarre world view and willingness to believe anything he reads online to be hilarious and has put a lot of effort into trying to make him a household name. Ah.  Ricky Gervais... urgh.  He's so up his own arse!  He used to be amusing but now he's just annoying.  He was born in the same town as my two older brothers too... oh well.

 

James wrote: It's Andy's turn now:I've watched Ripple Effect now.  It's all rather interesting, I must say.I do have a few issues with the presentation though.  The narrator (not sure if it's the same guy who researched it all and made the video but presume it is) concludes a lot of stuff but doesn't back a lot of it up with sources.  He says such-and-such said this but doesn't always show a clip, or a newspaper/online source.  So us as the viewer have to just assume he's correct.  I realise he probably wanted to fit it all into an hour but I did feel a bit like he'd rushed through it a bit.Secondly, he pretty much blatantly says that the mock terrorist threat that day turned into the real thing and thus then went onto presume all the non-terrorists didn't know they were involved in a real event and didn't show any proof of this.I still see much evidence of an inside-job though, I just feel his presentation could have been better.  I shall probably now end up looking into some of the stuff mentioned and try and find sources to back these things up.

The film maker calls himself 'Moadib' (sp?) which is a reference to to Frank Herberts Dune.

In a BBC documnetary he was tracked down to Northern Ireland, and questioned over his alleged links to a far right group, and anti Semitic literature. The BBC may have just been on a smear mission. I'm sure it wouldn;t have been the first time.

A number of the film makers claim have been de-bunked as far as I know, especially with regard to the timing of their journey into London, and the times the bombs went off.

What interests me most about 7/7 is not so much the specifics of the day, but the intel that was not share with the public inquiry. Specifically I'm interested in the link between th bombers and Haroon Rashid Aswat. You'll need to look this character up, if you're interested, but basuically the Telegraph reported, shortly after the attacks that he had been in touch with the bombers in the days and weeks before the attacks. swat had been arrested in the US in thelate 90's, in Seattle, charged with trying to set up a training camp in Oregon. The FBI caught up with him in Seattle but were 'ordered' by the CIA to release him, and send him back to Britain. Intelligence expert John Loftus believed swat to be a valuable MI6/Al Queada double agent, feeding valuable information to the UK government. The plot is very dark and complex, and I'm not going into it any further here, suffice to say there is plenty of information on the web about it, and much of that info is in the mainstream.

Henry Plainview wrote: James wrote: I believe also some of these hi-jackers have since been found alive. No, you are completely misunderstanding the situation, can you stop saying crazy things without spending 15 seconds Googling them first. There are many more words if you want. mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...

That BBC link is hilarious.  It doesn't prove anything whatsover.   It's rather a vague article and statement and you want me to seriously believe the FBI's word?

Or the BBC for that matter.