boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
September 12th, 2011 at 10:28:08 PM permalink
My feeling on 9/11 is that it was not a conspiracy, but the 19 terrorists got very very lucky (and the world got very unlucky) in pulling off what they did. The amazing thing to me are all of the circumstances that they were able to successfully take down the towers and subsequently caused the US to engage in two wars and embark on a complete change in foreign policy as a result.

Conspiracy theories abound because of the unlikelihood of success: being able to take over the cockpit of planes (easy) without resistance (not so easy); being able to pilot a plane into WTC and have two planes do it 16 minutes apart; slow communication from the flight controllers to the FAA to the military to not scramble the jets in time; inability to react properly to the memo; massive intelligence failures due to lack of communication between agencies; lax airport security allowing boxcutters to get through the metal detectors; the fall of the towers themselves. A pile of failures allowed this to happen.

If any of these things didn't happen as planned, the towers might still be standing today, and America and the world would be a much different path than it is today. Yet, all of these events have been explained in the 9/11 commission reports and are well documented and backed up by science and logs. Many, many television documents have been produced debunking all of the conspiracy theories and backing up the true events of the day.

Absolutely, first responders and those working around WTC at the time of the attacks are heroes and needed to be at the memorial.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
September 13th, 2011 at 2:56:33 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I know I'll come accross as cruel for sayign this, but that's not necessarily a relevant aspect of war.



Indeed, but if one of the claims is "this war will make everything better for the locals", then... well.. that's naive.

Quote:

You can look at it that way if you like. But you should acknowledge most Democrats in congress authorized the war.



What's the Democrats stance on this got to do with anything? I didn't say "and therefore vote Democrat?". Not least, as I don't vote at all in the US....

It's also true a lot of the UK parliament voted for the war. And I didn't agree with them either at the time, and didn't vote for the party's that supported the war before or after that event. I might vote for them in the future based on other issues.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
September 13th, 2011 at 6:50:22 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Indeed, but if one of the claims is "this war will make everything better for the locals", then... well.. that's naive.



It's worse than that. It's "Just War" theory.

Quote:

What's the Democrats stance on this got to do with anything?



Plenty. The spin is that Bush wanted the war, or the neo-cons, or the GOP did, and the rest of the country, not to mention the world, had to put up with the lone cowboy. When the truth si the democrats voted for it, so the country through their elected representatives did.

Quote:

It's also true a lot of the UK parliament voted for the war.



And there's that, too. Other countries also approved of the war someway and many of them sent troops.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
September 13th, 2011 at 7:06:06 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Coincidentally, about the same time when the jet-fuel-can't melt-steel theory was prominent, there was a visible accident under an overpass in (I think) California where a fuel truck exploded. The bridge's beams were structurally compromised as a result of the heat from the blaze, and the bridge had to be condemned.

That's not quite the same thing as a building collapsing, but consider the following ...



You make lots of good points. This "jet fuel can't melt steel" thing drives me crazy. The people who spout it seem to think the steel must be in a molten state to fail. I grew up meeting all kinds of former steelworkers. Heard all kinds of mill stories. One thing the public does not get is the terms. You will hear "cold mill" used. But don't get the wrong idea, these mills heat the steel to about 1300-1500F for rolling. IOW, at the temps the WTC was getting, steel is soft enough to be rolled and formed, surely it will lose structure.

One guy last week said, "but they closed a bunch of the floors." Horse Hockey, I replied. In a 110 story building there will always be tennants coming and going. Floors will be closed to all but building maintainence.

But the simplest one they miss is that to implode a building takes a huge crew weeks to do and requires many trucks of explosives and other tools. The number of people who could implode buildings like the WTC is very few, to get them all at the same time on the down-low would be impossible.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
matilda
matilda
Joined: Feb 4, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 317
September 13th, 2011 at 9:42:52 PM permalink
There is a reason there are so many conspiracy theories -- unanswered questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

  • Jump to: