Page 7 of 13

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:10 am
by felgekarp
rossi46 wrote:What I want to know is: what do you want from the RG forum?

Why come on to a retrogaming site and spout off about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you maybe hope that we'll all band together and march down to the Houses of Parliament, en-masse, waving our Spectrums and Amigas and Megadrives, shouting about how we're just not going to take any more of the lies?

Sorry, but maybe you should try to stir up someone who actually gives a sh1t about the theories :wink: :lol:
How cool would that be though? :D

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:35 am
by paranoid marvin
FatTrucker wrote:
R. Prime wrote:The fact that it was reported as having collapsed before it did proves that it was a planned event.
With the greatest respect it proves f**k all. With the chaos and conflicting reports coming from likely thousands of sources all at the same time on the day its entirely probable that misinformation would form a large part of that.
I can almost catagorically guarantee that if a government were involved in a plot to f**k their own economy and murder thousands of their own citizens they wouldn't collaborate with a f**king news organisation on it.

Of the many conspiracy theories out there the ones surrounding the WTC are by far some of the most tenuous and almost completely without fact or evidence. They consist of little more than suspicious people, spreading and prolificating inaccuracy and misinformation in spite of the facts, and based purely on speculative 'evidence' written by other people on the internet.

There isn't a single reason the American government or other agencies would want or need to carry out an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 on home soil. There isn't a single justification given for the need for such a massive event by the conspiracy theorists other than America wanting an excuse to get into the Middle East......for which they wouldn't have needed anything on the scale of 9/11....so why would they do it?. Not only why but how would they do it?, how do you prep 2 buildings the size of the WTC for complete controlled demolition when they are full of people and security 24 hours a day. The whole evacuation scenario is a non starter as that kind of prep work would not only be highly visible and be discovered by maintenance and security people, but would require weeks of full time effort in an empty structure.
The fact the building had already been targeted and bombed by Al Quaida in the 90's meant security procedures were tight and thorough, there is no way on earth no-one would have noticed the entire building being prepped for demolition.....its just b*ll*cks.
paranoid marvin wrote: how could a passenger airliner somehow get past the aerial defences of one - if not the- top defence installation in the world ?
You're just being Paranoid.....Marvin.
hey , I'm not saying it was a conspiracy - why would the US government want to show the world how inadequate their defences are? I just find it worrying that one of THE best protected buildings in the world could be so easily 'got at'. It makes you wonder just how prepared they would have been against a suprise nuclear attack during the Cold War

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:41 am
by R. Prime
What I want to know is: what do you want from the RG forum?
You do have a point there so I'll finish up. :D

You're always going to get people spouting off about sh!t they know nothing about on internet forums.

People see something they disagree with, and without fully understanding what has led them to believe what they believe will argue hell for leather.

As a university educated retro enthusiast who works for a major news organisation, I was interested to know whether like minded people had come to the same conclusion as me. That is with or without having looked at the evidence, footage, official statements, commentary and political aftermath.

Rather than insult people or bring up irrelevant nonsense about UFOs etc. I thought the members here might get a reasoned debate that might change some minds, there was a bit of that I suppose.

This isn't just some sh!t I "saw on the internet" and thought I'd troll about without fully understanding. When it happened I was glued to the television. The news were reporting multiple explosions before and after the collisions, and then after all the action had died down the government were saying there were no such explosions. I read the 9/11 commission report, and it didn't answer any of the obvious questions. I read critiques of the report and critiques of the critiques. I even went to ground zero in NYC. Then I started looking at what was else was going on. The US government starts slinging around the threat of "terrorism" as an excuse to do anything they wanted, like invade Afghanistan and Iraq (it wasn't just WMD) which they've wanted to do for a while. The vice president has a financial interest in the primary beneficiary of the rebuilding contracts that were awarded without bidding.
It comes out that the secretary of defence changed the NORAD & FAA protocol months before so that any scrambling of fighter jets had to be approved by him. He was unavailable when it was all going down. The US start locking up people without trial and torturing people. More recently the CIA are busted editing wikipedia articles on Iraq.

If you look at any individual thing above it's easy to say, "I'm sure it's just this", or discount it in another way, but when you look at the whole picture it really does actually add up. On the contrary, if you boil it down to only the things you can prove for sure, you still have this entirely suspicious act of apparent magic, 3 steel buildings falling into their own footprint. And don't even get me started about the vaporised titanium 757 engines at the pentagon (that's the official explanation BTW.)

If you can check out all the links in this post (and this one) and not be suspicious, then I envy you.

The more I see the more I am convinced. I don't believe everything I read, there is a lot is misguided bullsh!t and disinformation out there too. That is not to say that I can't be convinced otherwise. If anyone can give me a scientifically plausible alternative explanation as to how these buildings fell, then by all means bring it on, I'm open.

What the families of the people who died want is a proper, unbiased explanation of the truth.

After all, if they were demolished, or at the least if the government knew about it and let it happen, wouldn't you want to know about it?





That's all from me, let's rock. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:41 am
by FatTrucker
paranoid marvin wrote:hey , I'm not saying it was a conspiracy - why would the US government want to show the world how inadequate their defences are? I just find it worrying that one of THE best protected buildings in the world could be so easily 'got at'. It makes you wonder just how prepared they would have been against a suprise nuclear attack during the Cold War
I know, I was just looking for an excuse to use the play on words with your username. :D

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:46 am
by FatTrucker
R. Prime wrote:What the families of the people who died want is a proper, unbiased explanation of the truth.
What most of them want is a reason why their loved one's died. Most people dealing with unexpected death look for some kind of justification or reason for what happened rather than them simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It has to be someone's fault.

Fact is that they are probably getting a proper unbiased explanation of the truth i.e. several terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into the World Trade Center. Its the most rational and likely scenario. Unfortunately that doesn't leave a lot of room for rationalisation or finger pointing which makes people want to look for alternative answers and other still living people they can aim their grief and anger at.

Irrational but perfectly natural.

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:05 am
by paranoid marvin
FatTrucker wrote:
paranoid marvin wrote:hey , I'm not saying it was a conspiracy - why would the US government want to show the world how inadequate their defences are? I just find it worrying that one of THE best protected buildings in the world could be so easily 'got at'. It makes you wonder just how prepared they would have been against a suprise nuclear attack during the Cold War
I know, I was just looking for an excuse to use the play on words with your username. :D
:lol: not the first , and not the last!

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:09 am
by TMR
R. Prime wrote:After all, if they were demolished, or at the least if the government knew about it and let it happen, wouldn't you want to know about it?
This all implies that the American government (or any government for that matter) can actually keep a secret... since we all know what Clinton got up to in the Oval Office or how much a peerage costs, that's the bit i find impossible to believe and it precludes just about every conspiracy going.

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:17 am
by Opa-Opa
TMR wrote:
This all implies that the American government (or any government for that matter) can actually keep a secret... since we all know what Clinton got up to in the Oval Office or how much a peerage costs, that's the bit i find impossible to believe and it precludes just about every conspiracy going.
Or - While we are all busy looking at (distracted by?) the right hand "NOT having sexual relations with that woman" nobody is watching the left hand doing all sorts of nasty, unpopular things..

It's possible...

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:47 am
by TMR
Opa-Opa wrote:
TMR wrote:This all implies that the American government (or any government for that matter) can actually keep a secret... since we all know what Clinton got up to in the Oval Office or how much a peerage costs, that's the bit i find impossible to believe and it precludes just about every conspiracy going.
Or - While we are all busy looking at (distracted by?) the right hand "NOT having sexual relations with that woman" nobody is watching the left hand doing all sorts of nasty, unpopular things..

It's possible...
Well yes it's possible... but again, considering how frequently that right hand is rather publicly not having sexual relations/selling peerages/having it's picture taken in a "massage parlour"/selectively quoting strategic reports as a basis for an invasion/rigging an election/shagging the left hand's wife or whatever, the odds are that they're not being all darkly machiavellian and instead they're just not very good at hiding stuff but that sometimes one botched attempt to hide indiscretion might obscure another. =-)

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:45 am
by Havantgottaclue
If the argument is that the collapse of the WTC was necessary for persuading the American public to support mobilsation against terrorists, why was it necessary for them to have planted explosives to make the towers collapse? Would it not have been enough for planes to have left gaping holes in the buildings for the public to have been convinced that there was a real threat from terrorists, and that they should support a war? Or to put it another way, which person, or group of persons, would conclude, 'Planes crashing into buildings? That's not going to be seen as an act of war ... better blow the buildings up too?'

To me, the physics of whether the buildings could have collapsed just from the impact or not are irrelevant ... I can see no additional political benefit for the bulidings to have fallen to the ground rather than just being left with holes in the sides.

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:19 am
by Emperor Fossil
R. Prime wrote:As a university educated retro enthusiast who works for a major news organisation...
Oh please, this is just getting embarrassing. Is that news organisation Sky News? Or maybe The Sun?
R. Prime wrote:Rather than insult people or bring up irrelevant nonsense about UFOs etc. I thought the members here might get a reasoned debate that might change some minds, there was a bit of that I suppose.
The UFO thing wasn't irrelevant. It succinctly stated my feelings about the attitude of conspiracy theory junkies like yourself. You want to believe crazy bullshit. Even with terrorist organisations flying planes into buildings, reality doesn't offer enough drama and intrigue for your tastes, so you have to take on wild theories (or should I say beliefs) about planted explosives. You happily reject plausible explanations in favour of far less likely ones, and when certain absurdities are pointed out, such as "Why would the government need make the buildings collapse? Why wouldn't the planes alone be enough to suit their needs?" you just kind of tune out.

R. Prime wrote:If anyone can give me a scientifically plausible alternative explanation as to how these buildings fell, then by all means bring it on, I'm open.
Are you really open though? You've already flatly rejected the possibility that the exploding planes could have damaged the insulation on the steel supports in the twin towers. In fact, here's what I regard as a reasonable explanation of the factors involved in the collapse of the twin towers from the wikipedia entry (yeah, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still.) Do you reject all this too?
Owing to differences in the initial impacts, the collapses of the two towers were found to differ in some respects, but in both cases, the same sequence of events applies. After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of each building played a significant role in this redistribution of the loads in the structure.[17]

The impacts also dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, increasing its exposure to the heat of the fires. In the 102 minutes before the collapse of 1 WTC, the fires reached temperatures that, although well below the melting point, were high enough to weaken the core columns so that they underwent plastic deformation and creep from the weight of higher floors. The NIST report provides a useful model of the situation.

“At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. (p. 29)â€

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:42 pm
by jimbo_too
Emperor Fossil wrote:
R. Prime wrote:As a university educated retro enthusiast who works for a major news organisation...
Oh please, this is just getting embarrassing. Is that news organisation Sky News? Or maybe The Sun?
Or the National Enquirer? This is pretty much their calibre of journalism...

He's gone from "I know physics" to "I work for the people who make the news." I don't know whether I believe him, but he could be working as a tea-boy for The Sun for all we know.

FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER!!!

:roll:

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:04 am
by R. Prime
I tell you what I make a damn good cup of tea.
Owing to differences in the initial impacts, the collapses of the two towers were found to differ in some respects, but in both cases, the same sequence of events applies. After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of each building played a

...

A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer, the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter), the speed of the plane was lower (so there was less impact damage), and the affected floors had received partially upgraded fire proofing.
So you do believe everything you are told. Sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work in practice. I've checked out the wtc.nist.gov website, they've done no successful physical tests, and they admit they massaged the numbers to a "more severe" level (basically off the scale) until the simulations matched the "closest agreement with the visual and physical evidence".

Also they did not simulate the collapse, only the initial impact and fire because "the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling". I would say it's because they couldn't get it to work, because it just doesn't stand up to basic laws of conservation of momentum, and of energy. The core columns and the steel matrix that makes up the support for the building are effectively as strong as solid block. The weight that fell on them was already supported by those same columns. Then all of a sudden they give way, with no resistance, and fall at free fall speed.

Check out their FAQ.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter how many big words it uses. Power to you, if you are able to identify it. Sometimes it's easy.

Just out of curiosity Emperor Fossil, have you studied physics? I find more often than not, the people I end up disagreeing with on this have not. Or those who have, tend to read something like this and end up wholly convinced. I don't claim to be any kind of expert debater or spokesman, but the guy in that link does a pretty good job. Certainly better than me.

Something else if you are interested: contains some eyewitness testimony and news coverage from the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBOel-LyJ_E

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:24 am
by TMR
R. Prime wrote:So you do believe everything you are told.
Well, he's not believing what you're telling him so obviously not... i don't believe you make a good cup of tea either, i want proof damn it!

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:36 am
by psj3809
R. Prime wrote:So you do believe everything you are told. Sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

Propaganda is propaganda, no matter how many big words it uses. Power to you, if you are able to identify it. Sometimes it's easy.
Turning it around do you believe everything you read ? You seem to believe most of the stuff on these conspiracy websites.

You seem to knock people who dont have a huge knowledge of physics (compared to yourself) but you then seem to knock and disregard the opinions of experts in the field, people with way way more knowledge of physics than you ever will have (or any of us).

These anti-government sites often have conspiracy websites to try and get people to think the government are evil and theyre our enemy etc etc. They also use propaganda.

If you feel you have tons of great evidence etc then go to the papers, not every single paper is loyal to the government, theres independent reporters out there etc.

As i said before why havent Bin Laden and his cronies done the 'The US did it themselves....' approach as that would cause way more chaos to the western world. In todays day and age (with the net and communications) theres no way a country like the US could keep something like this under wraps if they did it.

Again how can you believe it was a conspiracy yet on the other hand (when you mentioned going to church) believe any of that ?! Surely a 'conspiracy' to create religions, cause millions of people to be killed over the years is much much bigger than 911, why dont you do tons of research into that to prove god/jesus is true ?