全 23 件のコメント

[–]grimwalker 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'll start off with correcting a fundamental misconception that crops up at several points and should be dealt with summarily: the 9/11 Commission report only covers intelligence and law enforcement considerations. Any technical or engineering questions are outside its purview so constant repetitions of what is or isn't in the report is completely irrelevant. For engineering and technical questions, refer to the NIST Report. Conflating the two betrays either basic ignorance or dishonesty.

  1. These are facts--but they have mundane explanations.

  2. This is easily explained by garbled communications. The alternative explanation, that the BBC were provided knowledge, makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. 2300 Architects and Engineers is a miniscule percentage of their respective fields.

  4. Molten steel would have produced steam explosions from the water sprayed on the rubble pile. Thermite doesn't produce the eutectic melting referenced. The "nano-thermite" was found to be comprised of paint and primer. Iron microspheres aren't produced soley by thermite.

  5. Eyewitness reports of explosions are scattered, inconsistent with demolition, and not corroborated by video/audio recordings (which have no audio evidence of blasting whatsoever.) Actual blasting does not produce "squibs and waves of explosions" as seen on the WTC.

  6. Hollywood expectations of jet fighter intercepts are largely fictional. There is no actual evidence of any suspicious orders given by top people.

  7. This is an argument from ignorance at best. The Citgo and Doubletree videos weren't in a position to show the plane.

  8. This is not one fact but rather several specious and highly dubious claims. In particular the claims that some hijackers were still alive has been thoroughly discredited.

  9. Every single person who had a camera had it pointed at the WTC "to document the event." It doesn't mean that was what they were there to do in the first place.

  10. Given the embarassing failures of the intelligence and the law enforcement communities to prevent the attack, it's simply not necessary to invent a conspiracy to be the cause of these quotes.

  11. Completely irrelevant. Opportunism does not equate to complicity.

  12. Again, not one fact but more than one smuggled in. The attack did not impact the accounting investigation, and there are put options on thousands of companies every day. That somebody happened to guess right is no more an indication of conspiracy than guessing the right lottery numbers.

  13. This is innuendo, not evidence.

  14. That's what happens when a plane crashes at high speed and high angle into an unyielding surface. It and nearly all of its contents basically get pulverized.

  15. They were not built to withstand fully fueled high speed suicide attacks.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The "nano-thermite" was found to be comprised of paint and primer

Yup. LaClede primer paint to be exact.

[–]BurninEpix 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Here's a good one that doesn't get mentioned much.

How did a plane made out of aluminum pierce through solid steel beams like butter? Simple science folks.

[–]Kyoraki [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Simple science folks.

Something apparently out of your reach.

Velocity counts for most of the force behind an impact, and whichever material is the most brittle usually breaks first due to shock. In this case, steel is one of the more brittle metals known to man, and it's not surprising that it would shatter like glass. It's the same reason why skyscrapers in earthquake zones use aluminium beams instead of steel, and why water can turn your bones to jelly if you hit it hard enough.

Tl;dr, harder doesn't mean better, especially when the laws of velocity are in effect. This is grade school stuff, for God's sake.

[–]stealthboy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Simple science folks.

You forgot a "simple" thing like momentum.

[–]TheHaleStorm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Same way a copper jacketed lead round will blow through 1/4" steel.

[–]Mrka12 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

are you trying to say planes didnt hit the buildings, the buildings werent made of steel, or the airplane wasnt made of aluminum?

Simple science? 767 weighs 400,000 lb, traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. Honestly its amazing that something this blatantly stupid gets upvoted. Then again this is /r/conspiracy

[–]pjvex [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Consider this thought experiment. At what speed would you need to propel an unopened aluminum soft drink can (whether the contents were under pressure or not) at a steel chain link fence for that can to breach that fence and pass through?

The fact is, you can increase the acceleration all you want to get the maximum force possible. But given the tensile strength of one aluminum can compared to the steel mesh of such a fence, the can would neck or deform before the force from the can would puncture the fence.

Similar to the fence is the exterior of the twin towers. The steel columns were independent, and each would be relatively unaffected by the force affecting the columns on either side

Those who want to bring up the titanium engines of the 767s: they alone could have possibly gone through the exterior, but they are behind the nose of the plane, and since the rest of the plane is largely aluminum, the only scenario possible (given enough acceleration) is that were would have seen two smaller holes these engines have created. The aluminum just would not have the strength to withstand any force imaginable when compared to the steel columns (or lattice) that comprised the exterior of the buildings.

[–]stealthboy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

At what speed would you need to propel an unopened aluminum soft drink can (whether the contents were under pressure or not) at a steel chain link fence for that can to breach that fence and pass through?

Please do tell!

The fact is, you can increase the acceleration all you want to get the maximum force possible.

Oh... /facepalm

[–]87329ng [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think an object as large as a plane hitting a building that fast is going to cause some structural issues, like what happened on 9/11.

[–]DarthStem 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

As much as I don't believe 9/11 was solely orchestrated by terrorists and everything listed here and more is highly suspicious I don't believe we will ever learn the truth.

We have been wondering who exactly killed JFK for 40 years and were still no closer to the actual truth. I do hope one day something will happened when our government ceases to cover these things up but I don't think that will be for awhile.

[–]Pvt_Hudson_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

We have been wondering who exactly killed JFK for 40 years and were still no closer to the actual truth.

52 years actually, and the case was solved within an hour of it happening. It was Oswald that pulled the trigger.

[–]pjvex [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

People know who killed JFK (or we know at minimum, 2-3 likely gunmen, but we know the powers that ordered it, including the order to cover it up). What you are saying is that the media and the government won't entertain the thought and won't therefore validate it.

Unfortunately, without this validation, those who require their masters or an authority to tell them what to think will not believe anything contrary to what is written in history books.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't believe we will ever learn the truth.

We already know the buildings were blown up. That's a shitload of truth.

[–]DarthStem [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course it is but its not "the truth". nobody in an "official" capacity has come out and said "yes the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11. Its no different than seeing a UFO, asking the government for answers and them telling you its a weather balloon.

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

2

Why did the BBC report the WTC Building 7 collapse twenty minutes in advance of the event?

They refuse to give their source. They also lost the footage for a few years. The BBC explanations for this on their website received much negative comment and attention as it makes sense that reporting an event before it happens, then not quoting the source and losing the footage does not bode well for good journalism, on the day "in the fog of war" as some have put it, or afterwards when questions were arrogantly dismissed.

Conspiracy or not, proper journalists would answer these questions. They are relevant as a matter of record. Ridiculing those who ask these questions begs other questions. Why so certain there is no problem with the BBC reporting on this subject? Heard of Jimmy Savile? After all, these are just questions. Since Quora is a place to ask questions and have them answered by people who know, why not try answering them before resorting to the name calling, defending the establishment as a knee jerk reaction and using dismissive language found in many answers on this question.

Whether or not BBC was part of a conspiracy or not, is not the question. The question is why did they report it all? Who knew it would collapse and why? If there was advance warning of this event it should be known. It may silence those who believe it was a conspiracy. Perhaps the forewarning will explain the conspiracy away. The fact that this is not revealed only makes matters worse.

This is relevant to understanding the event. For anyone to say "they made a mistake" is an opinion. You can't mistakenly predict the future so another, proper explanation is required. Showing the information they received will resolve this but it's not forth coming. But the "there's nothing to see here" attitude answers nothing.

In addition, for those who concede that mistakes are made in the reporting of these things, it would behoove them to apply this instant knee jerk defense to all reporting of such events in the media. There are, no doubt, many incorrect reports and it means that for those who want thorough answers we have to work harder than quoting powerful news organizations that make mistakes, as the final word on these matters.

A proper answer on Quora addresses the question and backs it up.

The answer to this question is: We don't know why, but we should.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-BBC-report-the-WTC-Building-7-collapse-twenty-minutes-in-advance-of-the-event

[–]HerrAdventure -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am accepting of the idea that 3 generations from now, maybe some truth will actually be said. Facts are present with more than enough evidence to support these findings.

The gains of what actually came from this I am fuzzy on, perhaps somebody can help me out:

(I am speculating from what I have learned over the years.)

Control of middle-east, control of US citizens, control of US finances.

What more was there to be gained from this event that I am missing?

[–]WTCMolybdenum4753 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I am accepting of the idea that 3 generations from now...

Does some estimate exist? Or are you accepting your own estimate?

The gains of what actually came from this I am fuzzy on, perhaps somebody can help me out:

(I am speculating from what I have learned over the years.) Control of middle-east, control of US citizens, control of US finances. What more was there to be gained from this event that I am missing?

Gains and losses.

Without 9/11 there would be no "war on terror".

Without 9/11 there would be no "clash of civilizations"

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iraq.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in… (insert any country classified as part of the "axis of evil" or defined as being 'with the terrorists')

Without 9/11 thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.

Without 9/11 hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.

Without 9/11 there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Without 9/11 there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.

Without 9/11 there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).

Without 9/11 there would be no Patriot Act.

Without 9/11 there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Without 9/11 there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.

Without 9/11 there would be no Military Commissions Act and no coordinated program of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence under the newly created office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Without 9/11 there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers who are suffering crippling and fatal respiratory illnesses.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in military and security spending that goes arm in arm with huge cutbacks in other key social programs (such as levees in New Orleans).

Without 9/11 there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint, which has contributed to plunging the nation into an abyss of debt and looks likely to tip the world into a deep recession if not a complete depression.

And on and on and on.

Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".

Michael Ryder Meyer, former speechwriter for UN Secretary General there would be no "war on terror".

there would be no "clash of civilizations".

there would be no war in Afghanistan.

there would be no war in Iraq.

thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.

hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.

there would be no "axis of evil".

there would be no Patriot Act.

there would be no Military Commissions Act.

there would be no extraordinary rendition.

there would be no indefinite detention.

there would be no torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.

there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.

there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.

there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).

there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence.

there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers.

there would be no vast increase in military and security spending.

there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint.

And on and on and on.

Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".

[–]HerrAdventure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

yes. thank you‼

I am accepting that by 3 generations from now I will be dead and the truth will be finally out there. But after I am gone without any closure.

I do think some estimate exists as people will begin to cycle into our bureaucracy, replacing old figures to only discover more than what they bargained for. Mouths tend to be loud sometimes. This is all hopes and speculation of decent humans being politicians...which never comes up in the same sentences ever.

again, thanks for the detailed response. I really enjoyed the list-format of which you provided.