Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, it make me think that you are gullible.

It makes me think that people like to guess and presume rather than check facts.

Why, George Bush acted like an idiot!
The only explanation for that is that he's secretly a robotic supergenius.

Obviously they needed to sneak hundreds of people inside the building, otherwise it would be impossible to hit it with a plane.
Did anyone even bother finding these workers and -gasp!- talking to them?

Also, it make me think that people shouldn't bump threads that are hella old without even reading them in order to inform us of a video that was already posted a few days ago.

 

[clarky003]

Well if you like to preach the fact's, so will I, they never proved the pancake collapse theory because there isnt enough direct physical evidence to give it credit, its mostly an omissive conclusion that is blindly backed by the mainstream media outlet's without addressing the point's im listing below. Read the NIST and FEMA report's.

A. It doesnt explain the large quantity's of yellow molten metal remaining for so long (roughly 12 weeks) under the rubble .. indicating tremendously hot remaining metal still well above any fuel fire temprature's.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg

B. It doesnt explain the white hot points on the end of metal beam's with smoke trail's coming off the ends, indicative of thermite reaction's with Iron.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg

C.It does not explain the individual squib's out of certain window's well below the compression zone

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture7 (squib1).jpg

D. Pancaking freefall does not conform with any of Newton's laws of gravity when the collapse is observed and timed, most noteably the conservation of momentum. Instead the building fell in a time exact to freefall in vacuum, offering no structural resistance.

Also the upward ejection of steel symmetrically, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.. it does not address the reaction that caused the upward and energetic explusion of steel and dust.

They do not explain why the top lost its angular momentum and disintigrated before it hit the impact zone.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture8 (sotower).jpg


E. They address but respectively ignore the large destruction of evidence at ground zero.

F. They dont anaylise the video evidence of multiple explosion's heard along with smoke rising from the base of the tower pre both collapses from across by Hoboken pier.

G. They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800 C were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials

H. They do not address how two building's of the same build and weight in pancake gravity driven freefall can create two highly different sizemic spikes of 2.1 and 2.3. 0.2 extra being 20 order's of magnitude more powerful.

I. They dont explain the symmetrical collapse

J. They ignore the indication's of forensic metallurgical test's in the conclusion which indicate the introduction of sulphur, a proponent of thermite.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on that MIT’s. Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

present a properly written and fully detailed alternative and then we'll talk.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Until it's proven that explosives were used (and god knows, there must be enough people involved in implementing this plan, or witnesses to the implementors to come forward) then the obvious explanation is that the tower collapses were caused by them being hit by fully fuelled and laden airliners travelling at high speed. Rocket science it is not.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I said a properly written alternative Clarky.

Not just photos with captions of what you assume is how gravity works.

A. It doesnt explain the large quantity's of yellow molten metal remaining for so long in under the rubble .. indicating remaining heat well above any fuel fire temprature's.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg

Compression and insulation generate and contain heat. Do you honestly think that the fuel was the only heat source?

Please write a detailed summary of how this is impossible.

B. It doesnt explain the white hot points on the end of metal beam's with smoke trail's coming off the ends, indicative of thermite reaction's with Iron.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg

Please write a detailed summary of why thermite is the only possible source.

C.It does not explain the individual squib's out of certain window's well below the compression zone
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20(squib1).jpg

Please write a detailed summary of why this must be a squib and exactly where the 'compression zone' is.

D.It does not conform with any of Newton's laws of gravity, most noteably the conservation of momentum. Instead the building fell in a time exact to freefall in vacuum.
Also the upward ejection of steel symmetrically, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.. it does not address the reaction that caused the upward and energetic explusion of steel and dust.

I guess a massive structure colliding inwards onto itself isn't a force.
Please give a detailed explanation of how this is impossible.
please indicate how you measured the exact freefall and how it is impossible that the building fell at similar speed.

E. The large destruction of evidence at ground zero, which is not very scientific.

Please explain what was destroyed and how it wasn't scientific.
Also, I propose that you should not be allowed to complain about lack of scientific procedure.

F. The multiple explosion's heard along with smoke rising from the base of the tower pre both collapses from across by Hoboken pier.

Please give detailed evidence of the noises and how the noises must have been explosions, and then how they could only have come from explosives, and then how they could only come from controlled demolition explosives and then how those would have been placed.

See, this is what I meant by actually thinking Clarky.
It doesn't take a genius to tell you that quoting a disreputable website verbatim isn't going to create any new believers.

Concentrate on actually thinking logically Clarky!
Concentrate! Clarky, Concentrate!

 

[Ome_Vince]

the fuel didnt "melt the steel", it just weakened it.
If you look at some building collapses, sometimes the weakening of 2-3 support collums can cause the collapse of all the support collums (chain reaction).
This due to bad construction, overweight etc.
As for the twin towers, no discussion there, the jets + fuelburning caused it to come down.

 

[clarky003]

the fuel didnt "melt the steel", it just weakened it.

Thats exactley what NIST and FEMA concluded.. but that 'assumed' conclusion brings up the glarring question.. where did the large quantities of molten steel and Iron come from?

This due to bad construction, overweight etc.

NIST and FEMA both overuled bad construction, as there was no evidence.

As for the twin towers, no discussion there, the jets + fuelburning caused it to come down.

There is plentiful discussion as NIST and FEMA did not prove or provide and clear evidence for pancaking, they simply created theoretical temprature's and condition's and havnt even gone on to produce a simulated global model to try and replicate the collapse under pancaking, they have not addressed the key point's that are layed out in the previous post.

 

[Direwolf]

I kinda gave my two cents on this, but that was ten pages and a few months ago, so I thought I'd chime in and say I agree with Pimurho on this one. Taking it from a logical standpoint, theres not enough there to disbelieve the current explanantions

If this whole thing was a puzzle, all the theories have are bits and pieces of sky. First find some corners, and then move from there.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Thats exactley what NIST and FEMA concluded.. but that 'assumed' conclusion brings up the glarring question.. where did the large quantities of molten steel and Iron come from?

NIST and FEMA both overuled bad construction, as there was no evidence.

There is plentiful discussion as NIST and FEMA did not prove or provide and clear evidence for pancaking, they simply created theoretical temprature's and condition's and havnt even gone on to produce a simulated global model to try and replicate the collapse under pancaking, they have not addressed the key point's that are layed out in the previous post.

large quantaties of molten steel? I must have missed something for i remember twisted steel support bars not molten :S? There are plenty of examples of total structure pancake collapses due to several support collums failing.
On National Geographic there are some nice documentaries in which the experts explain exactly how they collapsed and also how+why the Pentagon had such little damage compared to the WTC.
Even stuff like reinforced bomb-proof windows makes alot of difference.

There was no evidence of bad construction? Perhaps several support collums had been weakened, or were weakened by large debris or fires who knows.

It also sounds a little star wars to me that this was deliberate, why? If you're going to pull this off, arent those the Nr1 things you'd think about?
Crater holes, damage, collapse, heat etc.
You wouldnt detonate WTC7 and "hope nobody notices it"...
or let billions see the WTC twin towers collapse and "hope nobody notices the pancaking is fake"...

 

[clarky003]

Well whatever happened no one really cares anyhow,

I suppose people would rather believe those large sound compression waves recorded in 911 eyewitness 9 seconds before the collapse, in conjuction with smoke at the base.. was mecha farting or something.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

See, that's the spirit. It's way easier to make a fart joke than to actually put forward a compelling argument using scientific proof.
Since you're not too good at this conspiracy stuff, you could take up a career as a comedian!

In the meantime, I'd like to thank you for demonstrating exactly how unfounded these theories are.

Just don't blame people for not caring. It was up to you to give us something tangible to care about.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Another thing: if it's so obvious that pancaking is impossible why did They have the building pancaking and not just ensure that what happened was totally plausible?

 

[kirovman]

Another thing: if it's so obvious that pancaking is impossible why did They have the building pancaking and not just ensure that what happened was totally plausible?

Because then it wouldn't make for such a good conspiracy, silly!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

A: Reptilians.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think you guys missed this -- the Terrorists had bombs on the planes they hijacked.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50 At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00243.htm

What you guys are also discounting is the fact the metal framing holding the towers had been melted molten. The fires that burned must've been insanely hot, otherwise if bombs had been detonated, then the metal would'nt have been melted but blown apart.

Its a fact when something takes in heat, it expands. In this instance, a fire burning constantly well above the normal heat nessecary to melt a human into a puddle of liquid (1200 Fahrenheit) on the structure of the towers, would've surely have crippeled the structure enough for a collaspe.

If the density of the metal expands, then its ability to maintain the weight of those extra few floors and its connection with the below plus 87, would've been seperated. The bars would've been weakened, and if bombs were on those planes which caused that demolition, then the blast would've had to have been more noticable.

Instead, what we see in the videos is the glass on the windows break before the tower collaspes -- heat causes such bursts, but not an explosion. An explosion, nessecary for the force that caused the towers collaspe, would've been far more devastating, and in the event of the plane crashing at an angel inside of the tower, would've ment that the explosion would've occured at one angle and visibly so.

This is not the case in the video which is provided here. Fires break glass, and perhaps the structure giving in on itself is what crushed the glass. After the structure lost its shape, the windows would've gave because windows cannot support the tonnage that was now crushing down on them do to the bending of the metal.

If the metal was heated and began to bend, it would'nt have nessecary have broken the metal. But bent metal expanding, not keeping its shape, is not going to keep the shape of the building that well.

I believe it collasped in its normal circumstances. One thing we have to ask ourselves is this -- its possible that if something is burning at above 1200 Fahrenheit, that the heat itself could've destroyed any bombs nearby. Phospherous grenades are used to destroy munitions of +400lb bombs or missle tonnage.

Any heat above 1,000 degrees would've disabled some bombs, but the heat nessecary to bend the entire shape of that tower, would've rendered them useless. Heat is not electricity. Heat does not detonate bombs, electronic signals do.

Again, no evidence of the bombs used, nor is it provided the weight of the bombs nessecary for a controlled explosion.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I've made it about half way through the article and read the arguments to page 4 when they started repeating.

So far this demolition theory is compelling to say the least.

 

[clarky003]

What you guys are also discounting is the fact the metal framing holding the towers had been melted molten. The fires that burned must've been insanely hot, otherwise if bombs had been detonated, then the metal would'nt have been melted but blown apart.

Well its true the theory about bomb's is inconsistant with the physical sign's.

It points more towards thermobaric charges such as thermite driven reaction's which do create molten steel, otherwise we are supposed to believe that somehow a constant and insanely hot 800 C fire fueled by office material's and left over jet fuel managed to conduct all its heat and more into the steel to melt it and leave 1000 degree plus pools of molten metal, that would of been even hotter when first created since when they where discovered they had time to cool down somewhat... how can that be so when even NIST's and FEMA's final conclusion was the fire can only weaken the structural steel at the temprature's it specifies.. IF there is enough spreading of the heat, and IF enough steel is exposed, it may cause some floor supports to buckle but those are some big if's.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh noes zombie Clarky!

Anywho, you're now arguing things that have been specifically explained earlier in the thread.

-Jet fuel does burn at 800c without the help of furniture.
-Prove that molten metal (insulated under the rubble) wasn't caused by the insane amounts of compression and friction.
-The steel was partly exposed thanks to the crashing.
-The fuel spread quite a bit, since it is a liquid.

Do I really need to ask you to concentrate again, Clarky?
Concentrate!

 

[clarky003]

Thats NIST's and FEMA's job still. They havnt even investigated the causes :/ as they specifically say in the report the fire isnt enough to create the temprature's to melt steel, friction wasnt even mentioned in the report's as they didnt really adress the collapse, your infering that on your own.. friction and compression cant liquify or raise the temprature of metal to 1000 degrees plus thats an obsurd claim, thats would be an astounding revelation seeing as it came down gradually rather than a mass of weight suddenly compressing what was left, that and 80 % of the building's make up is concrete which was pulverized to dust.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Alright, so we've finally narrowed it down to one point.
Molten steel needed more than friction.


Too bad you missed the large word 'compression' there.

Concentrate plz.

Edit: Sneaking things into your post after the fact is annoying.

What I am assuming is not far-fetched. The steel was already at at least 800 degrees and then was furthermore twisted, pulverized and then buried. That sort of stress causes heat. Bend a paperclip repeatedly and then touch the bend. It's hot to the touch.

Now when you have that on a massive scale, I assume there would be heat generated.
Concrete is not the only thing that experiences friction.

 

[clarky003]

Too bad you missed the large word 'compression' there.

Concentrate plz.

friction and compression cant liquify or raise the temprature of metal to 1000 degrees plus thats an obsurd claim, thats would be an astounding revelation seeing as it came down gradually rather than a mass of weight suddenly compressing what was left, that and 80 % of the building's make up is concrete which was pulverized to dust.

Concentrate please

 

[NotATool]

I invoke Occam's Razor.

Aha!

Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate.

To those arguing for the conspirarcy: congratulations on amounting circumstancial evidence.

But even if Mr. A is found standing over his stabbed friend with a bloodied knife in his hand, he might have only stumbled on the dead body and picked up the knife.

You need to answer these questions first:

-What were the United State's motive for this?
-If they wished to incite a powerful response in the eyes of the people, why wasn't crashing the planes enough, why explode the building and risk people discoverin the truth?
-Why be so intelligent to mount such a scenario, but be so stupid about it that some physics proffessor in a Mormon University figure out the truth?

 

[clarky003]

I dont know, why would anyone here know and have to answer those first to gain better knowledge of the physical event.

The subject matter isnt about the motive, because when you start talking about the motive political, financial, or both then it becomes a conspiracey. This is about the quite substantial evidence that people have found that bring's in the possible use of thermobaric devices.

I support their cause because, there are quite big question's that need answering, and there is material that should be made public, and I agree with the New york public majority opinion for further investigation for those matter's.

 

[NotATool]

but the subject matter isnt about the motive, this is about the quite substantial evidence that people have found that bring's in the possible use of thermobaric devices.

Yes, it is very much about the motive. Without motive, there is no crime. This is one of the fundamental basics of criminology, if not the one.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

-What were the United State's motive for this?
-If they wished to incite a powerful response in the eyes of the people, why wasn't crashing the planes enough, why explode the building and risk people discoverin the truth?
-Why be so intelligent to mount such a scenario, but be so stupid about it that some physics proffessor in a Mormon University figure out the truth?

-The United States is a country, not an organization. Be specific.
-WTC survived a fire in the past. It is understood a simple plane crashing into it would not bring it down. It was specifically engineered to survive such an impact.
-The thermate (what have you) charges were set knowing the jets would not bring the buildings down.
This is evidenced by the fall of WTC7. The jets also provide a wonderful distraction and cover story.
Not all variables were accounted for, so "truth" at this moment is questionable.
-It doesn't take a physics professor to understand the evidence presented.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Concentrate please

Tsk tsk, Clarky!
You edited that into your post after I had replied.

You'll notice I was forced to repair my post as well:

Sneaking things into your post after the fact is annoying.

What I am assuming is not far-fetched. The steel was already at at least 800 degrees and then was furthermore twisted, pulverized and then buried. That sort of stress causes heat. Bend a paperclip repeatedly and then touch the bend. It's hot to the touch.

Now when you have that on a massive scale, I assume there would be heat generated.
Concrete is not the only thing that experiences friction.

This is at least the third time you have gone back and edited your posts after I had replied.
Please concentrate long enough to prevent this happening in the future, Clarky!

 

[clarky003]

ok ^ lol, why do try to keep making me out as a fool, when your the one making silly assumptions of friction and heat creating molten temprature's.

the steel was already at at least 800 degrees

the fire was supposedly 800 degree's in NIST's model.


Theres a difference between a fires temprature and the steel its enveloping, you have entropy through heat conduction, and fire doesnt 100% efficiently transfer all of its heat to a steel member alot of it dissapates through the air and moves away from the heated area's, the steel that was proportedly exposed would of been quite alot cooler than the fire's predicted top temprature (remember this is the temprature they assigned to make the floor's buckle in their model's), secondly its clear at ground zero that there are hardly any beams longer than 40 feet and alot of metal material early in the collapse is shreaded also, you need constant friction and heat and an instant pressure for compression to generate large amount's of heat let alone molten temprature's. How can that be right when beams are snapping into small pieces applying there small weight to different location's across the floor over a gradual period throughout the collapses.


Anyone can start discussing the motive assuming thermobaric charges where used for demolishion in all 3 building's, but its purely speculative. Although there is good arguement and evidence you have to determine the crime indefinately first.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well you can start discussing the motive assuming thermobaric charges where used for demolishion in all 3 building's, but its purely speculative. You have have to determine the crime indefinately first.

Oh great, Clarky is calling someone else's argument purely speculative.

You are forgetting that a motive is required for the charge hypothesis to make any sense at all.
Therefore, you must prove motive as a part of your conspiracy theory.
Otherwise, you are claiming the physical impossibility that the charges appeared spontaneously.
You (Clarky) NEED to give us a motive.

Now what is the motive?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Emperialism.
Government ego.
Weakness of the dollar.
Peacetime is a real bore.

Pick one.

 

[NotATool]

-The United States is a country, not an organization. Be specific.
-WTC survived a fire in the past. It is understood a simple plane crashing into it would not bring it down. It was specifically engineered to survive such an impact.
-The thermate (what have you) charges were set knowing the jets would not bring the buildings down.
This is evidenced by the fall of WTC7. The jets also provide a wonderful distraction and cover story.
Not all variables were accounted for, so "truth" at this moment is questionable.
-It doesn't take a physics professor to understand the evidence presented.

-The United States Government. I apologize.
-Red Herring. You did not answer my question. Let me reiterate: Isn't crashing planes in the buildings enough to shock the populace, why bring them down completely and risk conspiracy theories + dealing a huge blow to the economy?
-You prove my point, so thank you.

Clarky, that is not that is not how crimes work. Crimes concist of three fundamental aspects: Actus Reus, Causation, Mens Rea.

We have obviously throughly discussed the causation, and perhaps dvelved into the Actus Reus. You seem to have completely forgotten about the Mens Rea. In case you missed it: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Not very complicated.

You can pile up 20 pages of circumstancial evidence from conspiracy theory websites such as prison planets, you can never prove anyone guilty unless you can prove their mind is guilty.

Simply put: The United States Government did not cause 9-11 because they do not have the motives, disregarding the fact that the physical evidence is questionable.

 

[NotATool]

Emperialism.
Government ego.
Weakness of the dollar.
Peacetime is a real bore.

Pick one.

Please explain why any of these would make sense.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Tsk tsk, Clarky.

First you're complaining that the building fell fast and now you are saying that it was all really slow and gentle.

These beams were not lying at the top. They were crushed beneath all the rubble. I don't know if you saw the rubble, but it was smoking and steaming and many metres thick.
The steel was already heated and weakened, and then forcefully crushed in an insulated environment.
You could see the steam coming from the surface. Clearly it was hotter underneath.
Show me something that makes more sense, PLEASE.

My overall point, however (beyond trying to trick you into focussing on a single topic for more than a sentence), is that you are refusing to address other explanations besides THERMITE.
I think that this is because your conspiracy websites do not list alternatives for you to copy.

 

[clarky003]

First you're complaining that the building fell fast and now you are saying that it was all really slow and gentle.

huh? what? lol, I didnt say it fell slowly .. it fell in just over 9 seconds, at roughly 10 floors a second, It still fell gradually, it didnt all hit and compress at once.

where's this almighty crushing and compressing force you postulate can create molten steel on contact?.. it has to be sudden enough to generate masses of heat that somehow transfer through the rest of the rubble and heat the base to molten tempratures only, its weight fell gradually most debris was outside of the footprint, the pools where found in the footprint's.

Nothing seems to make sense to you, so why bother? youve just flat out assumed that somehow, even though theres no evidence for it.. a compression of great enough energy happened to create 1000 plus degrees in the steel at the basement level, the weight isnt enough, you need force. and there isnt enough concentrated force observed the building is mostly dust and shattered debris by the time any of it contact's the ground or the lower structure. Steel doesnt magically become molten metal if hundreds of thousands tonnes of debris is building up ontop over time.

All the collapse theories can be found here.. http://www.911research.com/disinfo/collapse/index.html ,its quite simple if you feel strongly about this.. find the one you subscribe too and read it thoroughly and compare it with other's, the reason I agree with thermobaric devices is because they can most easily explain the demolishion characteristics and molten metal.

Please explain why any of these would make sense.

Well if you Learn about the petro dollar, and how the global economy works, what it relies on to keep going what people want it to keep going and why, and where they are positioned, that may provide you some clue's, if your going to presume that thermobaric devices where in place it's best if you try to infer it for yourself.

 

[NotATool]

Okay, my argument was left unadressed, hence it still stands.

I rest my case until it is refuted: The United States Government did not cause 9-11 because they do not have the motives, disregarding the fact that the physical evidence is questionable.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

it's best if you try to infer it for yourself.

I call COP OUT!

But hey, you're hinting. That's good.

Well if you Learn about the petro dollar,

So, you're saying it was an excuse to invade Iraq for oil?

They blamed Osama, not Saddam.
Fail.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

-The United States Government. I apologize.
-Red Herring. You did not answer my question. Let me reiterate: Isn't crashing planes in the buildings enough to shock the populace, why bring them down completely and risk conspiracy theories + dealing a huge blow to the economy?
-You prove my point, so thank you.

Simply put: The United States Government did not cause 9-11 because they do not have the motives, disregarding the fact that the physical evidence is questionable.

- Motives. See below.
- Answer is no. I myself felt nothing when this happened in the middle of my A+ class.
I doubt if the mass carnage was disfavored for a simple plane crash it would have had the same impact. The risks were not even considered. I believe every reason to be made for this event was on a very personal level and every national impact was unimportant to the masterminds of the operation, whoever they may be.
- I don't think I proved your point. Discovering the evidence required a few years of great scrutiny. It is presented in such a way to be compelling and and logical, and there is no reason to abruptly displace it as conspiracy. It is perfectly valid as anything else.

Please explain why any of these would make sense.

I am just putting possible motives of our (corrupt) goverment out there. I do not believe one way or another who the guilty administration is because I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, but evidence as it stands is not concrete and who's to say this is not another JFK on a gigantic scale.

This catastrophe can however be used as a gateway to greater evil. Be it their fault or not, the government and in particular the president thought it a sweet chance to mobilize the military and posture ourselves across the globe, asserting authority. If we can take over Iraq politically is it not basically entitled to us, owing us great debts of gratitude?

No doubt we will have our armed forces stationed on permanent bases for years to come.

You just have to think outside of the media's world. People in positions of power do what they want, and get away with everything.
They know this, and will attempt ridiculous things to stay powerful or become even moreso. It is nature.

 

[NotATool]

You just have to think outside of the media's world. People in positions of power do what they want, and get away with everything.
They know this, and will attempt ridiculous things to stay powerful or become even moreso. It is nature.

(First, notice that I have edited out the rest of your response because it was slippery-slope speculation. The possible motives you proposed are not beleivable, because you have made no effort to explain them.)

"Nature" is not a subject either of us are qualified to talk about. Just because people of power do what they want does not mean they will.

There is nothing simpler than what I am asking, this is what 80% of a criminal case is based on: Where was the intent? Where was the motive? You should be spending pages trying to prove this to me, not backwards scientific evidence from conspiracy websites.

 

[clarky003]

o, you're saying it was an excuse to invade Iraq for oil?

Well if you want to believe that it was required impetus for ivading the middle east sure.

but surely you just made yourself sound like a fool, this shows how little you know..

They blamed Osama, not Saddam.
Fail.

Osama lives in the middle east, so does Saddam, the oil bulk is in the caspean sea, North West of Afghanistan and Iraq... research some more and you'll find that american contractor's are building a brand new 40 billion dollar pipeline down from the caspean sea to the coast in southern Iraq, research about the war and you'll find the first operation along side the bombing's was to seize and hold all of Afghanistan's and Iraq's useful oil facilities.

You should be spending pages trying to prove this to me, not backwards scientific evidence from conspiracy websites.

why dont you go and do some research, there's lots of material in book's libraries, certain political memo's.

 

[NotATool]

Osama lives in the middle east, so does Saddam, the oil bulk is in the caspean sea, North West of Afghanistan, and Iraq, which are both in the middle east.

They are also both on the planet Earth.

why dont you go and do some research, there's lots of material in book's libraries, certain political memo's.

Because you are the one trying to convince me. Please stop with the Red Herrings. I'm starting to understand MechaGodzilla's repeated "Concentrate Clarky!"

 

[clarky003]

They are also both on the planet Earth.


Because you are the one trying to convince me. Please stop with the Red Herrings. I'm starting to understand MechaGodzilla's repeated "Concentrate Clarky!"

What? lol, do you understand geopoltical relation's, or what the basis for war was.. its because Al queda is based in Afghanistan, and they wanted to go 'get em', So naturally you go to their suspected base of operation's it was what the war was intially all about, till they got fixated on saddams WMD, does anyone here remember?.


Its not a red herring im expressing my viewpoint, no one has to try and convince you further if they dont want to, especially when the information is out there to be interpreted for yourself.