9/11 doubts and/or questions

I personally don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories and think 9-11 was pulled off by Bin Laden and his animals. That said, after watching the video, I can see why some people could be compelled by their theories. Assuming what the video says is true, which is a huge assumption, I can see why people would have questions. That doesn't make them insensitive, stupid or the like.

 

boobie, you're just spouting nonsense.

look at every notable event that's ever happened since the beginning of time. seriously-from the titanic to the holocause to the hindenbergh to 9-11 to katrina, you can find someone claiming to be an expert (or who technically is an expert because he has the advanced degree in a relevant field that you and i don't have) who spews an alternative theory that contains strains of scientific (or historical) truth, but that goes so far against conventional wisdom that rational people know is wrong.

this is not a "very complicated issue" as you suggest. two planes crashed into the world trade center, killing everyone aboard. metal contracts or expands when it heats up. that happened. the buildings collapsed. do you understand how much debris is involved when two 110-story (or however many) buildings collapse? much of the debris hit building 7. as for the pentagon, no reasonable person thinks that the plane should've created a cartoon-like outline of itself on the building. real life is not a cartoon. in shanksville, the people took over and crashed that plane. are you telling me the skyphone operators who heard everything that happened are government operatives planted by dick cheney?

 

look. just because soemthing is on TV, online or on video doesn't make it any closer to being true. you can raise questions about anything. a gullible enough person would suddenly have doubts as to what happened in the accident he just witnessed in front of him moments ago if you put enough theories in his head. that doesn't make the doubts any more likely to be true.

 

The book "City in the Sky" (which I heartily recommend) is about the building and ultimate collapse of the Twin Towers. Fascinating reading. They talk about the lack of adequate fireproofing and how the impact of the planes knocked loose a lot of what fireproofing there was. There's also extensive discussion about the truss system and how the building was constructed. It was built to withstand the impact of a 707 (the largest passenger plane made at the time it was built) but the effect that the resulting fire would have was not considered.

 

So your reasoning behind building 7 imploding perfectly seven hours after the collapse of the buildings is that it was hit with a lot of debris? I'm sorry that's not a good enough explanation. I've also seen many places, that there wasn't a huge amount of debris that hit building 7. From all I've heard the official reason given was extensive fire damage, and IIRC in the 9/11 commission's report they said they didn't have enough information to determine why the building collapsed.
I'm hesitant to continue this debate because I feel people take it too personally, and will think I'm against our country, etc. This is not the case, but I just feel like some of the explanations from that day don't pass the smell test. If they do for you, that's fine, I'm not hear to attack anyone else's point of view. I readily admit that I do not know anywhere close to everything that happened that day, and for that reason I find it important to think and question, rather than just accept what I've been told.

 

A conspiracy of this magnitude would never work. Too many people would have to be in on it.

 

Somebody else mentioned this earlier and it should be repeated again.

When you have an administration in place that consistently and purposely lies over and over again about important events and decisions, it fosters this kind of nonsense.

I mean, really, are the questions being asked here that much harder to read than the truths we now know about the war in Iraq or the domestic spy program? Doesn't it make it easier to beleive that our moronic president and his moronic administration could have had a hand in this, since they've proven with the Iraq war that they place so little value on American life? Isn't a little easier to believe that this group has no regard to our rights, our freedoms and our liberties, given the number of times they've blatantly violated the US Constitution? Doesn't it make it awfully easy not to trust these people when they've lied so many times about so many, many things?

I don't believe the conspiracy theories, simply because Inky's right, too many people would have to be involved. But I understand how these feelings could pop up in people. And it never hurts to ask the questions. Many times, the conspiracy theories turn up other answers to other questions.

 

I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy--I believe it was strictly an Al Queda operation. However:

I'm not convinced that flight 93 was not shot down

I do believe there could be government operatives serving as or representing Skyphone operators. All of our spies and agents aren't necessarily combing foreign soil.

I do believe that John Kennedy was killed via a conspiracy of a number parties that were suffering as a result of his presidency--those wanting to free Cuba, organized crime, his move to pull military advisors out of Vietnam, the plan to virtually shut down the CIA.

And some of those conspirators agendas' called for a long and costly war in Vietnam that cost many, innocent American lives. So, before one says there aren't those out there who would sacrifice American lives to advance their evil objectives, well, all I'll say is it's happened before, and in greater numbers.

One of the base tenets of this country is the ability of the common citizenry to be able to challenge the government, conventional wisdom and common practice. We shouldn't be throwing arrows at those who are asking these questions--they are simply asking the questions that challenge to make sure we hold those accountable to a degree of integrity and honesty as best we can.

 

No. 3 -- They probably didn't have a precise second as to when the buildings would collapse. So were the fire fighters supposed to say, "Nah, those buildings are coming down eventually. I don't want to go near that. Better them than me."?

 

a lot of respected scientists think that book is utter bullshit. /boobie

 

No need to take unwarranted shots Leo. I've tried to be respectful and tactful throughout this thread and engage in an intelligent debate. If you don't agree with what I've said (and I have never really made a direct statement on what I think happened, just raised questions and doubts) that's fine.
And I don't even get your "shot." I would contend that many scientists would debate that finding. I'm not even saying those scientists are right, I'm just saying that they do in fact exist.