| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Double standards | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM (273 Views) | |
| jim1029 | Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM Post #1 |
|
Hello, I am a "skeptic". I do not know a ton about this conspiracy theory, so sorry if this has already been answered. Referring to the towers, many people have said that fire has never caused steel-frame buildings to collapse. This is shown as "proof" that the government explanation must not be true. (I cannot back up or refute that claim, as I am not at all qualified to do so). The claim is that explosives were used instead. However, there has never been a demolition large enough to take down even one of the towers, let alone both of them. So how am I supposed to believe your explanation, if there is no precedent for either of them? Not to mention, the impact of the plane would have without a doubt severly damaged the building by itself. Also, other people have said things along the lines of "If the government is telling the truth, then why are they afraid to release x video proving it?" Well, think about this. The government has many classified files. Possibly none of them are as important or as major as what happened on 9/11. So why would they release the classified files for 9/11, and not declassify several other, not very important files? Plus, you could argue that they already have with the 9/11 Report. |
 |
 
|
| Ross | Jul 5 2008, 05:27 PM Post #2 |
|
It's a good fair point. No steel-frame building has collapsed due to fire, yet no demolition has ever been that big. I consider skepticism to be a sign of intelligence, as long as you don't let it turn to ignorance. I never can muster up enough dedication to try to convince anyone to see things a certain way, so I'm not going to try now. lol. All I can do is show people loose change, and then tell them to think for themselves about it and come up with their own conclusions. All I know is that the government is so full of shit and tied into the mob, that I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 5 2008, 06:35 PM Post #3 |
|
no, it is given as "evidence for", it is not given as "proof", there is a big difference between the two, pseudo-skeptics often interchange the two terms in order to unfairly make the other side look ridiculous. you don't need to be qualified to research examples of building collapses. It is not double standards. explosives WILL break steel columns, building fires WILL NOT. wtc7 was NOT hit by a plane. yes, why don't they release files, photos, tapes evidence etc, why the secrecy? what is the purpose of secrecy, except to hide something? what do they have to hide? I do not follow your logic. you seem to be saying that things are kept sceret according to their importance, this is an absurdity. Kean and Hamilton state their own 911 commission report failed, do you disagree with them? |
|
|
|
| Ross | Jul 5 2008, 07:40 PM Post #4 |
|
Oh, and welcome to the forums. If you ever come back. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 01:32 PM Post #5 |
9/11 Researcher
|
Just because a demolition of that magnitude hasn't been undertaken before, doesn't make it impossible. All three WTC buildings that collapsed showed all of the signs of a controlled demolition and none of the signs of a fire-induced collapse. This is a false assumption. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded jetliner. Even the WTC construction manager suggested that the buildings could withstand multiple impacts of jetliners because the buildings were so structurally sound. Many localized exterior columns were severed or damaged in the plane impact. A few floor trusses on the impact side were also damaged. But the cores of the towers were nearly indestructable. Whatever was left of the planes after smashing through the exterior columns and floor trusses, would have been and were stopped by the cores of the buildings. There would have been only minor localized damage to the cores of the towers from the plane impacts. So, with the cores of the buildings still intact and the majority of the exterior columns intact, the buildings would have and should have never fallen. Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 01:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 10:35 AM Post #6 |
|
Welcome!
No, it is offered as a reason for you to doubt what you have been told about the bulidings. It is not offered as proof. It is a qualifying statement, nothing else.
Because the physical evidence allows for only one possibility, that explosives were used. It matters not that this had never been done before. Think of the scale. It is so large that it is hard to fathom, right? 10-50 story building demolitions are more common, in fact fairly routine. A method is known. That means, studying the method alone and duplicating it works for many of the buildings. If one of these companies, or a military specialist unit were contracted to come up with a plan to demolish a 110 story building, you'd only have to imagine it first. These planners wouldn't even need to know that this was a real thing. Just an excersize. "How would you do it, if you had to do it?" Ever seen "Shooter"? All this person or team would need to do is have the blueprints, and take the variables which are used in classic demolitions and tweak them. I am not an expert on explosives, but say a quantity of X and a destructive force of Y are needed to do a classic demolition... Then what do you do for a 110 story building? You'd take X and Y and multiply several times over. If the person in charge of the operation itself were uneasy about hte resulting model, they could just multiply it again and again. We do not know how many devices were used. WE only know THAT they were used. If you support further investigation into this matter, I"m sure we can eventually get someone to spill the beans, but the public will have to demand a new investigation first. Are you in?
Yes, in relatively small portion of the buildings. The fires died down in the first 10-20 min, and we supposedly have steel getting weaker and weaker up until the point of collapse. The steel should have been cooling shortly after the first large fires died down from consuming most of the available fuel.
Because there is no ongoing investigation about 9/11. There is no reason NOT to realease them. Think about it. Large numbers of people doubt the gov's version of 9/11. Okay, so if you wanted to pacify them, you'd come up with a video, right? But they WON'T, even when the courts tell them to via FOIA requests. Besides, it is not valid to envoke trust in government as a reason for trust in government. "They have other secrets, so why can't they have this one too?"
Read it. See if it answers ANY of the questions we raise in these films on on these forums. All it does is create the landscape of circumstances that they believe led to 9/11. For instance, they focus heavily on the hijackers. Okay, well no one these days really thinks that al-qaeda had no role in 9/11, instead we understand that this is how governments work, especially western governments. They go in with agencies like the CIA, and learn how to control terror groups by getting them to work with them to overthrow governments which the US does not like. See Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and many others. Then they come in later and say, "Hey you guys want to work with us again?" sometimes they don't wish to work with the CIA again. In the case of the Hijackers, if you study where they came from, who they've been in contact with, who they received money from, who recruited them etc... it becomes very obvious that they are only being steered by another force, that is leading them to 9/11. 9/11 is not totally 100% inside job. Yet, the best catch-phrase for when we want to shout out something in a group or put something on a bumper-sticker is "9/11 was an inside job" because it is short and right to the point, although not 100% accurate. Truth is, as you'll learn if you actually care to, is that the CIA is not a part of the USA anylonger, as it does not obey the constitution and the CONSTITUTION is what makes a thing part of the USA. They operate more or less without oversight, and many projects have no oversight whatsoever, especially since BUSH jr. Bush Sr. was CIA director. The ties run deep. The Bush family is very close to the Bin Laden family too. How can there be so many weird little coincidences and yet no one sees anything strange? Well, we do, and we aren't going to shut up about it. I hope you won't either. peace, |
|
|
|
| silverstein | Jul 7 2008, 10:48 AM Post #7 |
|
Maybe the slogan should be "9/11 may or not be an inside job, it might be, but even then we arent too sure about the percentage of its inside jobness " Not as snappy but that would be an honest representation. After all, we all want honesty, dont we? Edited by silverstein, Jul 7 2008, 10:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 11:04 AM Post #8 |
|
I said change your tone. 2nd and final warning. You are only twisting my words: for the record, not "100% inside job" doesn't mean we are unsure about whether US had involvement or not. It only means that we realize that the operation was not solely carried out by one group or another. The fact that pseudo-skeptics like "silverstein" insists on allowing people only these two "all or nothing" options should reveal to you the typical behavior of the so-called skeptics when they come here to do what they consider "debate". There are puppet masters pulling the strings of both islamic terror AND western intelligence. If the CIA is no longer within the preview of the US CONSTITUTION, so who are they serving? Sometimes they know they are working for CIA, and other times they do not. Atta probably knew, while some of the ones he led may not have known. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Nov 23