9/11 Conspiracy

[Jackinthebox]

I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.

But you can't give any proof of a controlled CT on any of the WTC buildings which is where the "Truther" Movement runs into a wall. So what was Pop Mech's agenda?

Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all.

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

 

[SAYIT]

The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.

Sooo ... you're saying the peeps at Pop Mechs were in on some 9/11 whitewash?Consider for a moment just how many would have to have been part of your CT from planning to execution to investigation to cover-up. Then consider that NO ONE has whispered a word. Remarkable, eh?

People have talked, and wound up dead. Barry Jennings is one of many examples.

Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

 

[Jackinthebox]

And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.

 

[Jackinthebox]

The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.

Sooo ... you're saying the peeps at Pop Mechs were in on some 9/11 whitewash?Consider for a moment just how many would have to have been part of your CT from planning to execution to investigation to cover-up. Then consider that NO ONE has whispered a word. Remarkable, eh?

People have talked, and wound up dead. Barry Jennings is one of many examples.

Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

 

[SAYIT]

I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.

But you can't give any proof of a controlled CT on any of the WTC buildings which is where the "Truther" Movement runs into a wall. So what was Pop Mech's agenda?

Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all.

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

 

[SAYIT]

Sooo ... you're saying the peeps at Pop Mechs were in on some 9/11 whitewash?Consider for a moment just how many would have to have been part of your CT from planning to execution to investigation to cover-up. Then consider that NO ONE has whispered a word. Remarkable, eh?

People have talked, and wound up dead. Barry Jennings is one of many examples.

Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

 

[SAYIT]

And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.

So you buy into the silliness at those 9/11 CT websites? And you attempt to demean my media sources?

Consider, if you can, the agenda of your sources. Then try to apply the same skepticism to them that you do to MS outlets like Pop Mech.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.

But you can't give any proof of a controlled CT on any of the WTC buildings which is where the "Truther" Movement runs into a wall. So what was Pop Mech's agenda?

Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all.

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

 

[Jackinthebox]

People have talked, and wound up dead. Barry Jennings is one of many examples.

Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires.

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.

 

[Jackinthebox]

And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.

So you buy into the silliness at those 9/11 CT websites? And you attempt to demean my media sources?

Consider, if you can, the agenda of your sources. Then try to apply the same skepticism to them that you do to MS outlets like Pop Mech.

I dont' take ANY media source at its word. I do my own research. Sometimes the truth gets reported accurately. Sometimes not.

 

[SAYIT]

But you can't give any proof of a controlled CT on any of the WTC buildings which is where the "Truther" Movement runs into a wall. So what was Pop Mech's agenda?

Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all.

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all.

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

 

[SAYIT]

Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires.

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.

Outright lies. So what is your agenda? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[Jackinthebox]

Computer model:

 

[Jackinthebox]

He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires.

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.

Outright lies. So what is your agenda? What are you trying to accomplish?

I don't have to accomplish anything. I already know we were lied to.

 

[SAYIT]

If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

 

[SAYIT]

Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires.

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.

Outright lies. So what is your agenda? What are you trying to accomplish?

I don't have to accomplish anything. I already know we were lied to.

Evidently you know only what the little voices in your head tell you. Loosen that foil hat a bit and let the blood flow again.

 

[Jackinthebox]

NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.

Thermal expansion has never in history caused a steel building to collapse. But without any evidence, NIST says this caused 3 buildings to collapse on 9/11. Their solution is neither reasonable nor plausible.

 

[Jackinthebox]

You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.