On 9/11, what/who brought down the World Trade Center?

brianL · 10-16-2017, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet

While I totally recognize that the US government has sanctioned some truly heinous acts, firstly so has every government. You don't imagine yours is exempt do you?

No, I don't. Our government/intelligence agencies have been doing it for centuries. Since, as far back at least, Francis Walsingham - Elizabeth I's spymaster. Those professions, politics and intelligence, attract psychopaths. People who don't recognise limits to what they can do to achieve their ends. And they've got allies in the military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower warned everyone to beware of. Bigger atrocity = bigger backlash = bigger profits.
I'm not saying they definitely were involved, but it's a possibility that needs considering.

enorbet · 10-16-2017, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianl

I'm not saying they definitely were involved, but it's a possibility that needs considering.

It is indeed but in the case of 9/11 I contend that it would be far more likely for a few powerful individuals in the know to monitor progress and simply decide whether to let it happen or not based on odds for success at achieving their own ends. As has been pointed out it wouldn't have taken very much. It is very difficult to gauge what is more personally shocking, a building far away hit by a plane with thousands of faceless people killed or a single individual being beheaded. It doesn't take a lot to spread FUD and cause a reaction. It often doesn't even have to be true.

jsbjsb001 · 10-16-2017, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet

... It is very difficult to gauge what is more personally shocking, a building far away hit by a plane with thousands of faceless people killed or a single individual being beheaded. It doesn't take a lot to spread FUD and cause a reaction. It often doesn't even have to be true.

Absolutely enorbet! Right on!

nigelc · 10-16-2017, 08:08 AM

This is what happened.

http://911research.wtc7.net/

jsbjsb001 · 10-16-2017, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigelc

This is what happened.

http://911research.wtc7.net/

That site you cited is just a bunch of theory's that may or may not be true. Where's the evidence for any of them?
Sorry, still not convinced.

brianL · 10-16-2017, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

That site you cited is just a bunch of theory's that may or may not be true. Where's the evidence for any of them?
Sorry, still not convinced.

Did you read any of the articles linked to on that site? Doesn't look like it.

jsbjsb001 · 10-16-2017, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

Did you read any of the articles linked to on that site? Doesn't look like it.

You mean:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/.../pentagon.html

Linked to the site, you say?

1) Don't they ALL look like one of the SAME site? Ah, YES!
2) Yes, I did read them.

brianL · 10-16-2017, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

Linked to the site, you say?

Linked to on that site, I wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

1) Don't they ALL look like one of the SAME site? Ah, YES!

Did anyone mention they were from DIFFERENT sites? Ah, NO!

jsbjsb001 · 10-16-2017, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

Did you read any of the articles linked to on that site? Doesn't look like it.

And we should trust one guy, who has several 9/11 "truth" sites, should we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman

Maybe we should also believe any one of the following sites too?

911truth.org
rethink911.org
rememberbuilding7.org

Other than a few details, like when the domains were registered (not necessarily by Jim Hoffman), well see below;

Code:

Domain Name: 911TRUTH.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D93963989-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2017-09-07T11:13:01Z
Creation Date: 2003-01-14T03:26:01Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-01-14T03:26:01Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: C74312644-LROR
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: 911TRUTH.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Admin ID: C74312650-LROR
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: 911TRUTH.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Tech ID: C74312647-LROR
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: 911TRUTH.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
Name Server: NS.INMOTIONHOSTING.COM
Name Server: NS2.INMOTIONHOSTING.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2017-10-16T15:32:40Z <<<

Looks like the same person owns these domains. Interesting, do your own domain search; https://whois.icann.org/en

ondoho · 10-16-2017, 01:25 PM

dugan, thanks for opening this thread, i learned a lot.
i think it would be naive to fully believe in any explanation (official or not), but "Something else" seems to be the sanest answer.

brianL · 10-16-2017, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

And we should trust one guy, who has several 9/11 "truth" sites, should we?

The ownership of that website is irrelevant, what is important is the evidence presented on it. Has anyone disproved the existence of traces of thermite in the ruins?

enorbet · 10-16-2017, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

The ownership of that website is irrelevant, what is important is the evidence presented on it. Has anyone disproved the existence of traces of thermite in the ruins?

Actually ownership gives insight to bias if not full blown agenda. The major organizer of of disbelief in Natural Collapse (including proponents of controlled demolition) is Richard Gage and his organizations. There is no direct evidence of thermite. Disbelievers claim that tiny melted steel spheroids are evidence of thermite (and not the original construction welders). If you want detailed further discussion to decide what is and what is not actually in evidence please see any or all of the transcripts or videos of the Gage vs/ Mohr debates. They are readily available as are the backgrounds and lists of studies of each man.

dugan · 10-16-2017, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

Has anyone disproved the existence of traces of thermite in the ruins?

Not my problem. It's his problem to convince me that he didn't just make it up.

Seriously, you should know by now that this is, in fact, how the burden of proof works.

sundialsvcs · 10-16-2017, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet

Actually ownership gives insight to bias if not full blown agenda. The major organizer of of disbelief in Natural Collapse (including proponents of controlled demolition) is Richard Gage and his organizations.

No, not really. I'm certainly not working for anyone, and I think it is rather interesting that "Natural Collapse" is implicitly described as the "right answer" such that someone has to sow "disbelief" in it, and that there must be an "agenda."

The frank reality of the situation is that, even on that day and the days immediately following, I looked at what I saw, put two and two together, and formed my own opinion ... an opinion which has never wavered since that fateful day. It never will. Furthermore, I know that I am not alone.

"How are they gonna 'cover story' this one?" I wondered. And when the story came out, I thought, "Oh, you have got to be kidding."

To me, there is exactly one explanation: demolition. Three times in a row, and perfect. This is my own self-drawn conclusion, and it will never change nor be changed. No one gave it to me.

I'm not a demolition expert. I don't pretend to know the state of the art in high explosives nor in detonation techniques. I can plainly see what they did, but I don't know how they did it. I don't feel the slightest need to know, technically speaking, "how they did it." And furthermore, I don't expect to ever know "who they are."

There are many gaps in my understanding of what happened, and I do not wish for these gaps to ever be filled. As I have stated, these are things that I believe should remain Secret. Neither do I fault the existence of a cover story, or ask for one whit more. "Yes, you certainly know more than what you are telling. This is War, not 'an act of terrorism.' Keep your mouth shut."

jsbjsb001 · 10-17-2017, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho

dugan, thanks for opening this thread, i learned a lot.
i think it would be naive to fully believe in any explanation (official or not), but "Something else" seems to be the sanest answer.

Now that we finally know where you stand in this debate; why is it "naive" (as you keep saying) to believe in "any explanation"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL

The ownership of that website is irrelevant, ...

Ah, no it isn't, mate. It's HIGHLY relevant, as I'd like to be able to trust the source of said "evidence". Otherwise it's just silly to believe anyone, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

...what is important is the evidence presented on it. Has anyone disproved the existence of traces of thermite in the ruins?

Has anyone PROVED it?? If so, SHOW US the prove! And NOT from a questionable 9/11 "truth" site either!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD

The question then is: How do you take into account the alterations of structural design that occur by a large plane hitting the building, not only changing the structural design by just hitting it, but also by randomly weakening points in the metal skeleton of the building by burning jet fuel, before the plane actually hitting the building, so that you can plan where the explosives have to be placed?

Anyone care to rebut this? anyone?