UKC

Could be interesting reading for some...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories

In reply to Timmd:

That websites a laugh, brainwashed fodder for the dummed down and brainwashed. It's about as rational as Captain Simian and the space monkeys, have you not got anything a little more rational to share?

In reply to Timmd:

Why don't you read the Neocon produced one which often gets quoted as absolute proof while you're at it, with their billiard ball theory of why the floors collapsed that one's even nuttier!

In reply to John Simpson:

What about this then?

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Barnsley

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

speaks for itself dunnit.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
It needs updating as well, along the lines of the British Nazi Party made moves on the town around 2010, so a Para Reg Major got a shout from upstairs that he had a new civvy posting as a MP for Barnsley central so he got suited and booted and started his TA posting. Some locals effectively think this was a covert Military coup d'état of a Labour Party seat, however they are in the minority, and although they have this viewpoint they generally support him 100%. Most voters think he is a fantastic representative for the region and fully support him in his new chosen career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Jarvis

In reply to John Simpson:

Can you explain why in detail point by point, with counter points/counter-proof from your own point of view?

Rather than say it isn't rational and leaving it at that...

Thanks

In reply to Timmd:



Yeah course I can, am I going to just because you've started a thread about it, No of course I'm not, you're not a spoon fed baby, so why act like one. If you believe that shit on there which basically says this is how it works because we say so without providing any proof just a few little soundbites and does the usual name calling, and is at the level of detail of a junior school book, if you can't see that I'm wasting my time, they've sucked your brain out and replaced it with strawberry jelly!

If you want to find answers do what the rest of us do, read, read, watch, read, watch, read, and so on.

In reply to Timmd:

*pulls up a chair...* popcorn anyone?

In reply to John Simpson:


I 'have' been reading and watching, why do you presume I haven't been, just through me posting something which contradicts your point of view?.

With something as serious as this, and with you being so strongly of the opinion that the official account is wrong, I imagined you'd want to put people right.

You seem rather an angry type?

If you're very sure the linked website is bunkum, it can't be hard to give one or two pointers as to why I'd have thought...?

In reply to John Simpson:

>

FTFY

In reply to Timmd:


Maybe you need to carry on then because you're just watching the mind control so far.


No point, if you're brainwashed you're brainwashed


No I'm a peace loving hippy.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Loose change, is it 2003 still.

In reply to Timmd:




Pointer 1 shite, pointer 2 more shite

Good enough?

In reply to John Simpson:

No, but most of the arguments put forward by truthers are taken directly from this pile of crap.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


If you say so, most truthers would say you're talking shit and trying to put words in their mouths, which you are, but keep your blinkers on for all I care, you have a habit of talking shit on here, so it's just different day highclimber speaks the same old shit.

In reply to Timmd:


Fatal mistake, conspiracy theorist don't make evidence based arguments, they just rant that what ever the state or current most scientifically proven theory is, it must be wrong.

There is often the rather odd thing that if they doubt one theory, they doubt them all, which isn't rational either. JFK, 9/11, Moon landings, climate change...

In reply to John Simpson:


but on this thread you've post 9 out of 16 posts, but haven't counter anything the OP said with a rational evidence based comment, and you claim everyone else is brainwashed?

In reply to summo:


Were all you've done here is attack a grouping of people under a vague term whilst providing o% proof of anything.


See above point.

In reply to summo:
Yes because I don't need to provide proof to to state my opinion, have you actually read in any detail the website that the OP linked, if you can't see it's just propaganda whatever I post to counter it, you'll just find a way to disbelieve it because you've been brainwashed by the propaganda. All the proof is out there, you just need to find if for yourself.

In reply to John Simpson:


I believe the current most proven public 9/11 theory, I have nothing to counter. You don't, but are simply ranting that it's wrong, without providing any evidence based alternative. I know the conspiracy folk don't deal in hard science or evidence, as it usually wrecks your theories, but at least have a go., if you truly believe in your side of events.

In reply to John Simpson:

proof out there? don't you normally just link each others conspiracy theorist web sites, there isn't a trail to any real evidence. I think there is masses of evidence for 9/11, physical witnesses, scientific, terrorist verbal accounts, ... endless.

EDIT; ps. 11 of 22 still no evidence the OP is wrong.

In reply to summo:


So you believe a theory which is far from proven, have you read the small print of these theories, basically they say, this is just computer modelling and cannot be proved, but if you're too closed minded to read the detail there you go, then you say this wrecks the reasons of how they brought the towers down, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It's probably best is you stay to subjects what you know about like local politics.

In reply to summo:

Do we, and your proof is just what you think, I think you need to stop making gross general assumptions of what knowledge is held about this subject and what high level leaks have been made, rather than all this conspiracy theorist websites.


If you're serious about this you better get ready for a long count.

In reply to John Simpson:


Computer modelling, were the millions or even billions of folk who saw the planes crash into the towers, flown by terrorist watching a hologram projected into the New York sky? Plenty of buildings that have burnt collapse, even without a plane hitting them. No traces of explosives have ever been found, by anyone. etc. etc. it's a big list. Why don't you just start by stating and linking some hard proven evidence that counters the current most proven cause.

I know you won't, because that's not the way you work, as it would instantly discredit your theory, prove me wrong with some evidence?

In reply to John Simpson:

So where is your evidence then?
of course, because you rant about it, but post no evidence.

In reply to summo:


So far a start your first line is wrong, millions or billions didn't see planes crash into the towers, millions and billions watched a repeated TV show, 1000's saw the actual event with their own eyes, and if you watch the full spectrum of interviews, some saw planes, some saw British Airways planes, some saw missiles, some saw military transport planes, some saw nothing.


Really!

In reply to summo:


Stop been so needy and demanding the full paper chase audit, if you want to find the truth, start doing the reading.


Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

In reply to John Simpson: what would you say if you met someone face to face who said theyd lost a loved one in those attacks, or who had been on one of the planer? Would you call them a liar?

Truthing is very sinilar to Internet trolling

In reply to John Simpson:

John, you do yourself no favours at all with your line of argument.

The difference between engineers/analysts and the conspiracy theorists are that the former actively search out all possible evidence especially that which challenges the current accepted theory or knowledge whereas the conspiracy theorists simply cherry pick whatever evidence supports their current straw man.

As a case in point, someone on here posted a link to a "report that proved the 9/11 attacks were a cover-up" and insisted that hidden within the official reports were admissions to that effect. I read the report, it was actually well written with proper attributions, and I followed all the links to the relevant reports not one of which really did support the assertions made. Every single quote was taken out of context and was part of a sentence or paragraph that supported the opposite conclusion to what was claimed in the conspiracy report. It was like a movie poster that splashes "Fantastic" when the review actually read "It would be fantastic if it was any good".

One of the early conspiracy theories was that the fourth plane did not crash but was blown up mid-air. The supporting "evidence" was that parts of the plane were found thirteen miles apart whereas in a crash the remnants lie in a small area. The evidence on the ground told the true story: the plane had crashed near a lake with some debris on one shore and the remainder on the opposite shore around half a mile away. It took thirteen miles to drive from one site to the other. No admittance by the conspiracy theorists that they got it wrong, they simply moved on to the next imagined inconsistency.

A lot is made of the BBC report that WTC-7 had collapsed when it was visible behind the reporter but in the fog of uncertainty around an ongoing event things do get reported incorrectly. There was an accident close to where I work - http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/12896400.UPDATED___DRAMATIC_PICT... I was in a cafe next to the location five minutes before it happened and a workmate passed by just after it occurred. Reports during the incident stated that either two, one or no people were in the car when it went down the banking. So two out of three got a detail wrong and that's in a simple situation.

The memory of those who died in the 9/11 attacks is not best served by those out to make a name for themselves with assertions that run counter to all evidence.

In reply to Bob:


You view


It doesn't matter how analytical you get on this forum, the brainwashed carry on regardless. It's all been posted up here before. A lot of it's been taken down by threads stated in off belay which got put into the chat room but there you go.


So you've read some thing taken out of context, the brainwashed do this all the time.


Putting all conspiracy theories togehter isn't helpful nor does it prove any point like you're trying to make out


Strawman alert!


Emotional blackmail alert!

In reply to wbo:


Same with anyone who has lost a loved one, I'd offer them my condolences.


If you say so, for me people like you who don't post under there full names are trolls but there you go.

In reply to John Simpson:

I didn't read anything taken out of context except expose that put forward by the report's authors.


The point about conspiracy theories is that they are just that: theories. They always will be because there is absolutely no evidence to support them.


Not a straw man but a simpler example of confusion in an ongoing situation. Or is that still too complicated for you?


Nothing of the sort and you know it.

In reply to Bob:


well done


Conspiracy theories are the same as other theories, some of them are true, some of them are not, anyone who thinks that any theory about a conspiracy cannot be true, because the world is purer than the driven snow and conspiracies do not happen is brainwashed. I thought you have a bit more about you that to join the dummed down club and take these childlike assumptions as fact, but I guess I had you wrong.


Complicated really, so now you're on to patronizing as well, is this how you generally debate engineering matters? Are you an engineer by the way?


If you say so, I don't agree with you on that point.

In reply to John Simpson:

It was the lizard people using lasers wasn't it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I doubt it.

In reply to John Simpson:

Or did the lizards use a nuke? It's easy to lose track of which theory the mentalists currently favour.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I thought the mentalists favoured the mainstream planes crash buildings all fall down for no reason theory.

In reply to John Simpson:

OK, put up or shut up time.

Pick an element of your choosing about 9/11 for which you do not agree with the official line and provide evidence to disprove it.

I'm off to enjoy some real life, I await your fantasy upon my return.

In reply to Bob:

And what are you gonna do about it if i don't bring yer dad or tek thi ball in?



ok I don't need an element, how about all of it, pure made up hollywood science fiction!


See ya, i'm off to work.

In reply to Bob:

Unfortunately anything less than 100% crackpot conspiracy is unlikely to feature in the reading of literature regarding evidence for or against an inside job on the twin towers. It takes a special kind of idiot to think it was an inside job.

In reply to John Simpson:

I don't know what your theory is, you're rather coy about it for some reason.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Look the village idiot is back calling people idiots, that's a bit like the blind leading the blind no, lol!

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think the only credible explanation is a small yield mini nuke in the base of both towers.

In reply to John Simpson:


Planted by the lizards.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You've got a bit of a hard on for these lizards, which is you favourite? Mines a gecko usually when it's flat out like a lizard drinking.

In reply to John Simpson:


But that would have caused radiation to spread all over lower Manhatten. And also caused the towers to have collapsed from the bottom - not the upper floors, as witnessed by large numbers of people in nearby streets.

In reply to abseil:

Very dependent on the type of device used, reading about the subject matter at hand will help you to understand more.

In reply to John Simpson:

Why don't you tell us, you must be 25 plus posts, but not even one provable point yet to be made?

In reply to John Simpson:


Thank you for your reply.

In reply to Timmd:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2679/4421281232_a708d384ba.jpg

https://xkcd.com/966/

explanation: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/966:_Jet_Fuel

https://xkcd.com/690/

explanation: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/690:_Semicontrolled_Demolition

http://i.imgur.com/GCfVh1F.jpg

In reply to John Simpson:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8XBu5HCEAEPZ7H.jpgarge

In reply to summo:


Tell you what exactly?

In reply to John Simpson:


Remember on another thread you were talking about cell mutations caused by radiation like it had just been discovered? Well that exact same science would be showing thousands upon thousands of cases in the new York population had any such device been used.

That's the thing with science, fact and proven theories, what applies in one principle is universal to all. You can't pick and chose which bits you like to fit your conspiracy.

In reply to abseil:


It's no problem thank you also for a clear and calm style of online debate.

In reply to summo:



I don't know if you're new around here but it's considered poor form if you bring up a cross thread hijack to try and prove a point.

In reply to John Simpson:


You tell us, you claimed the explanation of 9/11was wrong, you've been invited to prove just one element of your choice, only one, you have chosen not to prove your own argument? Do you lack the evidence?

In reply to summo:


No, it's all there find it yourself, I've already listed the theory on here I find most plausible.

In reply to John Simpson:

Is that you saying you aren't keeping track of your lies?

You know they say when you lie, you even up telling bigger lies to cover for the first ones?

So, care to explain the total lack of radiation?

Ps. I joined the site about 10 years before you.

In reply to summo:



He can, and he does, like all Truthers do. That's just how they roll!

In reply to summo:

Do the reading Sherlock rather that this childish strategy you seem to be adopting!

In reply to summo:

I joined the site in 2003

As simmo then johnj then this one, I doublt you joined in 1993

In reply to John Simpson:

Why do think no one has read anything rather than reading and coming to different conclusions to you?

In reply to John Simpson:



Why? I have climbed since mid eighties.

Or is this theory like your other conspiracy ones, all guess work, but not fact or evidence.

In reply to John Simpson:


If all the proof (sorry, I mean "proof") was out and there and so widely available to everyone, don't you think there would have been something of a bigger deal made out of it than has been beyond the certain source containing this "proof"?

In reply to MG:

1000000's of people have come to all different conclusions, the usual suspects on Ukc carries no influence.

In reply to summo:



You really have no point do you!

In reply to Byronius Maximus:


It is a very big deal, it just hasn't reached the mainstream concousness yet, it will sooner or later.

In reply to John Simpson:

You're the only one here flying the flag of irrationality and conspiracy. what does that say about you?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Does it mean I'm special?

In reply to John Simpson:

So why do you assume no one has read anything?

In reply to John Simpson:


That's one way of putting it...

In reply to John Simpson:


Rather than targeting or slagging the other posters, why not prove your theory?

In reply to MG:


He's not saying no one has read anything. he's saying no one has read the things he's read because they are what's know as a PRATT - Point Refuted A Thousand Times - therefore don't warrant reading.

In reply to summo:


Play nicely here - you're setting him up for failure by challenging him to prove his idea (I won't dignify it with the protected term of 'theory' as it implies it has some evidential merit).

In reply to MG:



I don't i assume you haven't read the right info yet because if you had you would see the obvious truth rather than believing the conspiracy theory that towers fall down because they're on fire.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Look at that the village idiot had an idea, well done village!

In reply to John Simpson:


This comment alone shows that you have failed to understand how exactly the buildings collapsed.

In reply to summo:


You live in a dream world I can't prove my theory and you and the village idiot posse can't prove yours. Don't worry the coke can posse will soon be here to back you up

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Go on then village explain it for all the forum to see then we can put this one to bed and move onto the secret moon base this afternoon.

In reply to John Simpson:

John, I guess I'm a political scientist by training, very far from a building engineer or anything like that, so let's agree on the towers being brought down by nuclear weapons as you posit for the moment. Do you have a political theory of who did it and why they did it, to go with the theory on the demolition? That's one of the things I've found fascinating on the 9/11 Truth movement - huge amount of focus on the minutiae of what happened and how, but not much on the why.

It's fair enough in some ways; I guess if a police detective can show how a crime took place and who did it to a court, it doesn't really matter why the criminal did it - but I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

In reply to John Simpson:

So this evidence is so utterly compelling no one who reads it could possibly disagree?

In reply to John Simpson:



But hang on, I thought " ..you would see the obvious truth ..." if you read this stuff?

In reply to John Simpson:

The fires were just one component of many issues that ultimately caused the collapse, they were not the sole reason for it's collapse. Take the huge gash in the side of the towers caused by a 90 tonne plane travelling in excess of 700kph as one element (probably the biggest of all); the substandard materials used to build the towers (the girders being one thing) as another. the failure of the sprinklers (for what good they would do) as another. All these things collectively brought the towers down, not a $%^&ing nuke.

In reply to TobyA:


Toby engineering is my field politics is yours, I would prefer to stay in my field and leave such speculation to those equally equipped to deal with the ramifications of such speculation


Obviously I can repeat where the speculation goes but you're a switched on guy, it's all a mouse click away.

In reply to John sSimpson:


You are still slagging other posters and avoiding proving your idea?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



So basically you can't prove anything just speculate rather poorly it seems to me as well.

In reply to summo:


Make noise dude!

In reply to John Simpson:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

You're such a big fan of reading stuff. Read this then

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



I've read most of the nist report including the small print which explains it's just a theory, which would make it by default a conspiracy theory.

In reply to John Simpson:

Excellent, let's stick to pure physics then?

So the plane; we both understand kinetic energy, can you explain how something carrying so much energy would NOT cause damage on such a scale to cause a collapse from the impact point downwards?

What about the explosive forces of the fuel onboard?

What is the engineering safety factor when constructing layers of reinforced concrete? 1:2, or fractions of? How many critical load points would need to be knocked by the plane to cause a collapse?

What are the strength properties of concrete in extreme heat? Would the steel in the structure buckle?

Nuclear devices, if you used, as you claim, why no radiation or isotopes etc. ?Or symptoms in the population?

In reply to John Simpson:


A reasonable point - although I don't think that the suggestion it was a theory was small print. It was the whole point of the report(s).

It's interesting that you don't appear to examine your own theory with the same level of intensity that you (and others) subject the various reports.

In reply to summo:

He's not an engineer REALLY, he's a car mechanic!

In reply to off-duty:


Yes but the small print makes it completely obvious that they cuffed it. I.e built to model to give the conclusions that they wanted


I do, I keep up to date with all the arguments and counter arguments

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


he's engineered some completely unproven ideas? That must count.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Come on village get it right I've told you this before it's automotive engineer.

In reply to John Simpson:


Link us one example where peer review has completely shown the 9/11 evidence to be lacking?

ps. I am waiting for you to answer my engineering points, for some one like you it should be quick and easy work.

In reply to summo:







Why don't you do you're own homework rather than trying to blag it?

In reply to summo:



See above lazy boy

In reply to John Simpson:


kinetic energy is a universal law, applies to everything car or plane - doesn't matter? Strength properties of steel and heat characteristics don't change either? Engine combustion, aviation fuel is similar to diesel so you can work that one out too.

In reply to John Simpson:

You're still not a structural engineer which is what I think the report writers were.

In reply to John Simpson:


I give up, it's you that claims the OP is wrong, the onus is on you to prove him wrong and your theories right.

Otherwise, everyone will just presume you are talking nonsense.

In reply to summo:

I thin what were a suffering from here is a classic case of the Backfire effect.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I got bored working in structural engineering i prefer the moving dynamic stuff.

In reply to John Simpson:


Which is a different allegation from your previous one "it's just a theory", now you are suggesting it's a fabricated theory.


Keeping " up to date" is not quite the same as subjecting your theory to objective scrutiny.
You don't like the official report because you believe the modelling was flawed. You appear to therefore reject it in its entirety.

Is there any aspect of the modelling of a mini-nuke explosion in the basement of the building that doesn't agree with the evidence? How about radiation? Size of explosion?

In reply to off-duty:



Well of course it's fabricated, if you've got the bones to pull this job off you can also write a fake report.




All parameters have been theorised to fit what was seen on the ground. Please note this theory isn't mine it's the one I find the most credible and it was initially leaked by the Russians in the last few years.

In reply to TobyA:


Bit of a red herring I know, but often the "why" is vital to proving the mens rea to establish that it is in fact a crime at all, as well as proving it at court.
On occasion the "why" can also be the jump off point to lead to the "who".

In reply to John Simpson:

OK, fair enough, although I thought you might be interested to discuss this further because you obviously aren't interested in having an argument about the physics of the events with others currently.

It is interesting though that of course if you don't have any particular theory of who and why, it's not really a conspiracy theory is it?! Just a theory.

On the technical side though, in my old job I did look quite a lot at nuclear weapons both in terms of deterrence and arms control, but also because of the debate around the possible non-state use of WMDs. Anyway, from all I learnt back then I find it incredibly hard to believe nuclear weapons could ever have been used without it being very obvious very quickly.

In reply to John Simpson:

Don't you mean to not fit what was seen on the ground?

Zero excessive heat
Building collapse from top down, not bottom up
Nothing melted that shouldn't
No radiation
No isotopes
No symptoms of radiation poisoning in population

but, you claim it matches?

In reply to TobyA:




It was very obvious very quickly.

In reply to summo:









Your assumptions are way off maybe try finding the theory rather than asking me to correct you assumptions which you have got wrong

In reply to John Simpson:


Unfortunately this suggests an awful lot of independent scientists are part of the "conspiracy". It also suggests it is a state-organised conspiracy, and much as you might not want to address the political aspects, holding this view does make you responsible for addressing the "why" and the "who" questions, as legitimate legs of your theory just as much as the "how'.


That suggests the hypothesis - "How can we explain this event in a way that does not involve aeroplanes hitting the buildings" which seems a flawed start point.
In addition - not knowing this theory - I would imagine it must discuss the use of a bomb with characteristics that have never been seen before or since?

In reply to John Simpson:

So where is this Russian information exactly? You said it's a mouse click away, I've found things like http://www.storyleak.com/911-truth-goes-nuclear-massive-download-in-progres... or other truthers arguing against it: http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm

I've found Russian news stories quoting Putin as saying it's clear 9/11 wasn't an 'inside job'.

In reply to off-duty:


The "it's just a theory" argument shows a huge misunderstanding of the scientific process and terminology.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Yes, I agree, but I'm trying to take it one step at a time

In reply to TobyA:



Of course other truthers are against it the truth movement has been infiltrated with disinformation agents from day 1

In reply to John Simpson:

Would you please give an example of something that you think is wrong with the version of events in official report.

In reply to John Simpson:


they aren't assumptions, they are many of the things you would definitely see if your type of device had been used. In science, you need to prove the absence of things in many cases, to prove your theories. That's what peer review often involves.

In reply to John Simpson:


I'm starting to think you might not believe any of this and are just having a laugh on a quiet day.
But if you are serious, can you point me towards the Russian evidence please? I did try searching myself like you suggest, but only found loony sites. It could even be in Russian if you read Russian, as I have some Russian mates I could ask to read it for me whose assessment I would trust.

In reply to off-duty:


Does this mean you've joined the village idiot posse, well makes sense I guess every village needs its local plod to stop the idiots from falling off the park bench as they had an idea

In reply to John Simpson:


By bringing up this argument you are, again, walking into the "why" and "who".
If you truly are just concerned with the "how" then the theories need to be challenged not those proposing them.

In reply to John Simpson:


Not at all. I am just trying to explore and understand your position.
I didn't feel this was an appropriate point for a discussion on the scientific method.

In reply to TobyA:


I'm at work trying to prep my mates merc for painting and really could do without this distraction. Try typing Sandia labs in with your query

In reply to John Simpson:
to be honest you are probably the worst conspiracy theorists I've encountered. I would ask for your training course money back. Others I've encountered on equally bizarre topics like HAARP etc. when spouting nonsense have at least tried to make up science or evidence to back up their claims, or provided links to other conspiracy folk who support the same unproven ideas.

You are saying the OP is wrong but can't even argue the point effectively. Other than trying to say it's us, the non believers who are wrong. There could be some fun in this debate, but it's futile.

In reply to off-duty:



Well maybe start a thread about it

In reply to summo:



To me this is a complement thanks for typing it

In reply to John Simpson:


No thanks. It was a bit of a side issue, generated by another poster, and I probably shouldn't have even replied to them as I thought it might lead to this sidetrack.

I'm more interested in your replies to my other posts.

In reply to off-duty:



Ok thanks for this answer, what I see and what I get told what to believe don't add up. I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm an engineer who's 30 years into his trade. And I have some very serious problems believing what I am told to believe happened on 9/11 this thread illustrates why people are not comfortable questioning a certain theory, I've long past caring what strangers think about me. I do my best to work for the situation to improve often I fall short but that's the way it is.

In reply to John Simpson:

This is probably the most rational thing you've come out with so far.

In reply to John Simpson:

OK tried that, and come up with more loon sites, some of which reference a badly written piece on Press TV's website. Ho hum.

Where is this original Russian report that leaked?

In reply to John Simpson:
I agree with the above, it's a reasonable comment.

So, stage 2, which bits don't you agree with and why?

In reply to TobyA:



If you're not Internet savvy enough to find the leak. I can't help you.

In reply to summo:



Mainly cause and effect I.e why the towers came down, current theory just doesn't do it.

In reply to John Simpson:


I would concentrate on that properly if I were you.

Do you know why he needs it painted? Are you sure it's for legitimate reasons?

In reply to John Simpson:


lacking detail; you mean top down, focused around the impact of the planes?

In reply to summo:

The whole mechanism, the start of the collapse, the total collapse, and the big cloud which looked like a nuke blast due to a EMP burst up the towers which melted the core like welding wire. I'd have expected collaspe from the top been the top falling off and finding the path of least resistance, not accelerating through its own footprint.

In reply to John Simpson:


There was no core. It was mostly empty space for the elevators. The load was mainly supported by the perimeter columns. The easiest path was downwards within the perimeter columns.

In reply to John Simpson:

OK, I can see why you might think that's not an expected way for the building to collapse. In the light of that, and suspected other causes, what's the thinking about the planes being parked in the towers? It always strikes me they were instrumental in the collapse.

In reply to John Simpson:


Can you not? Why not? I thought it was just a click away. Of course you might not want to help me, but that's not what you're saying.

In reply to John Simpson:


The big cloud, you mean the dust, heat rises etc. plus conventional bombs also produce clouds, they simply aren't on a nuclear scale. A lot of the cloud was down and out horizontally across the streets, especially the lower elements that probably were not hot.

EMP burst up? It would radiate out and all sides, the hallmarks of a nuclear blast would be impossible to miss and would still be showing up today.

Falling off, I think the collapse style is related to the design of the towers, once the upper floors buckled and collapsed onto those below the planes, the progressively heavier load would keep falling down ,floor upon floor.

The big question would be why, what was to gain?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think you need to delete this post if you don't want to be awarded the title of new village idiot.

In reply to summo:



Depends on the yield, it all there in the theory maybe you could team up and help Toby find the missing link



I'm sure you can answer that one yourself

In reply to John Simpson:

so car mechanic or an engineer ?

In reply to gribble:


That depends on it you beleive the planes were even involved in the first place because according to some truthers - there's no evidence other than video footage (quite what counts for evidence to them I don't know) that planes even crashed in to both towers in the first place!

In reply to John Simpson:


Nope. The main support of the floors was from the perimeter columns. The steel work reached out to them. As the links failed, the floors just dropped. The central 'core' was just mainly elevator shafts. The construction is well documented.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




Carry on talking nonsense village it it makes you happy

In reply to John Simpson:

you really do need to come up with some more original put-downs for people.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Why are you jealous you're not the village idiot anymore, and there's a new village. I can call you two dumb and dumber if you'd prefer?

In reply to TobyA:

Toby - are you the "Finnish military expert"?
https://norfidid.wordpress.com/part-2-of-4-were-mini-nuke-bombs-the-cause-o...

In reply to John Simpson:

Nope, there will ALWAYS be sign of a nuclear explosion, initial radiation, increase residual or background radiation, left over isotopes, and so on... even seismic measurements would pick up the blast as separate events to the actual collapse after.

If you manage to over come all these, then were can move on with your idea.

In reply to John Simpson:

You are being very ignorant.

I am an engineer who works in London on the construction, commissioning and maintenance of skyscrapers. I assume you have been in as many skyscrapers as I have and are aware that concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension, the opposite of steel which is weak in compression and strong in tension.

Skyscrapers are designed to take strong static loads not perform under dynamic stresses.

Please don't call people idiots who know what they're talking about. Particularly as you don't seem to.

Is your whole purpose on this thread just to wind people up?

It's working. Hope you're doing a better job on your friend's car.

In reply to summo:



There are all the signs you want to see, read the theory instead of asking questions that have already been answered with the same one as this one. Is it you who's really called village?

In reply to John Simpson:

Once a floor truss failed, what effect do you think that would have on the compressive strength of the perimeter columns that supported one end of it?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Really


Well done village do they pay you?



Of course not twin towers hadn't moved to LA they were in the same place





Sorry village


No you seem to be doing that all on your own. I want to know why the towers turned into a mushroom cloud.


It'll be mint, but that's why I'm working the weekend again I have a good reputation for quality work.

In reply to MG:


Local failure after local failure all potential energy is used up.

In reply to John Simpson:

No idea then? Understanding the effect is rather crucial to understanding the various collapse mechanisms highlighted by e.g. NIST. Surprised you haven't done some reading on it.

In reply to MG:


I've just answered if a beam fails a beam fails, jumping to the conclusion of total catastrophic failure has missed out a lot of stages in modelling the mechanics of failure. The nist report gets round this by cuffing the computer modelling of failure by making the answer required drive the model and it tells you this in the small print.

In reply to John Simpson:

If you had stood on a skyscraper during construction or even on the roof or around the base of them after construction you will have noted the local climatic effects of the structures. Particularly the wind strengths and directions. Most of the wind running down the streets and avenues will have been funnelled in the path of least resistance. Creating your mushroom cloud.

In reply to John Simpson:

No, I asked about the effect of a WTC truss failure on the supporting column. That you don't even understand the question shows you can not possibly judge the likelihood of the various failure mechanisms proposed

In reply to MG:


I understand the question putting Wtc or cantilever in changes nothing mechanical failure occurs because of set conditions it appears you don't understand the subject at all.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Really village the building just blew away did it.

In reply to John Simpson:


Please try to keep up with your own questions. It makes things simpler for the rest of us. At the moment the only person looking like an idiot is yourself.

You asked what caused the mushroom cloud.

Although you may have confused yourself while you were busy thinking up stupid comments.

In reply to all:

https://imgflip.com/i/kdku3

In reply to DancingOnRock:




So now we're down to insults are we village. Is your mother also your sister?

In reply to John Simpson:


Have you run out of proper questions?

In reply to John Simpson:


Well I didn't mention cantilevers and the WTC design was unusual/unique, so it does change things. If you understand basic column behaviour, answer my question. If not, fine, but don't go around calling people who do idiots. It makes you look foolish.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No I'm just getting warmed up really, you mushroom cloud answer wasn't sufficient either, so before I ask the next one I'd like to know the answer. Because I find if it looks like a nuke and destroys a building like a nuke it is a nuke, but if you want to think it was just wind feel free I'm sure a few more village idiots will join you soon then you can have a village full of idiots which all think the same as you

In reply to MG:


I've answered your question local weakness causes local failure if you don't mind me saying you seem a bit thick!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Haha! No. In my old job I managed to annoy some in the Finnish truther community; can't quite remember why now. Probably it was to do with NATO as truther communities in different counties always seem to bring their own country's specific political concerns or arguments into the discussion.

In reply to John Simpson:

That wasnt my question. I asked what effect a truss failure would have on the strength of its supporting column.

Again, if you don't know, fine. But don't call those who do thick- there are at least two on this thread who know something about structural mechanics and you aren't one of them.

In reply to John Simpson:


Ok. Well I'm off then. I've been involved in projects costing thousands of pounds specifically to reduce the updraft through building cores (stairwells and lift shafts), which at 100floors I can only guess at having witnessed it first hand in buildings upwards of 30floors.

I'm guessing you have seen nuclear explosions on the TV which puts you in a much better position to me.

Good luck.

In reply to MG:



It depends on the strength of the column in relation to the truss and relevant connections thicko. Can't you work out simple questions for yourself

In reply to DancingOnRock:





See ya

In reply to John Simpson:


I take it you mean -

If it looks like what I imagine a nuke looks like based on footage I have seen of nuclear explosions, interpreted to be what I think a mini-nuke explosion might look like, in comparison to "normal" explosions and building demolitions.
All based on my experience/knowledge of seeing a sufficient number of them to be aware of the full range of types of explosion, such that I can be sure that the twin towers collapse lies sufficiently outside those parameters that it could not possibly be explained by those causes.

Which is a distinctly shakier basis for your theory.

In reply to off-duty:




Something along those lines



It isn't my theory it was leaked by the Russians please tell me I don't have to keep repeated the same points to you like I do with the village idiots.

So using Russian theory and what I can see with my own eyes gives me the belief that the towers were nuked.

In reply to John Simpson:

Here's something I wrote on a UKC thread back in November 2007:

""Was similar to" and "was" are not the same thing. We all use similes in everyday conversations, it is not evidence or anything like evidence for controlled explosions bringing down the towers.

I came back from lunch on that day to see TV pictures of the first tower on fire whilst the reporter stated "A small plane has crashed into North Tower of the WTC". Does that mean that the first plane strike was something like a Cessna? No! It simply means that at the time of the reports, the complete facts were not known. As we were watching, the second plane struck the South Tower and it became obvious that both strikes were from civilian airliners. Thus the reporting of the attacks changed as more information became known.

Given the weight of each building (500,000 tonnes), each floor (110 of those) would weigh around 4500 tonnes. In the North tower there were approximately 30 floors above the impact zone equating to 135,000 tonnes. Do you think that that amount of material is going to collapse quietly? As it strikes the floor beneath there is going to be an almighty whallop which is going to sound like a bang. Very easy to confuse with an explosion when your secure homeland is under attack.

So similarities yes, but once you look into things from an engineering perspective (even a cursory read of the NIST report is enough) then the best explanation of how the towers collapsed is the official version. The fact that the US administration used 9/11 as a reason to attack first Afghanistan and then (amongst other reasons) Iraq does not mean that they engineered the 9/11 attacks.

Those behind the conspiracy theories are no different to those selling Snake Oil in the wild west in the late 19th century: fakes and charlatans."

Nuking the towers? Please, even with the cleanest device it would be days not hours before anyone could venture close to the blast centre. However there would still be longer lasting isotopes that would be easily detected.

You lot are way off the mark, it was Fred Dibnah, his horn was heard honking just before the first building popped.......and he's not dead neither, he's living it up on Bransons island as head of them there Illuminati bunch!!

In reply to Bob:









You need to read the theory before jumping to conclusions

In reply to John Simpson:

Which theory?

In reply to MG:

Maybe try reading the thread.

In reply to John Simpson:
I have. I don't see you putting forward anything specific. Is it the vague "they were nuked" you mean?

In reply to MG:


No I haven't linked anything other than said about the mini nuke theory, until you bother you arse to get upto speed reading about how them demolitions were carried out and the specifications of the devices used in this theory. We can't have a serious discussion so either do the necessary reading or don't doesn't matter to me how you choose to spend your spare time.

In reply to John Simpson:
There are endless theories out there. I can't read all of them. You clearly support one, could you be specific about which - if so I will have read of it.

In reply to John Simpson:

Were they nuked from orbit?

It's the only way to be sure....

In reply to John Simpson:

I might add that until you "bother your arse" about basic structural mechanics we are still stuck.

In reply to MG:


Yes well read the endless theories and sooner or later you'll find the one that is what happened. Toby had a look but it seems he was too lazy to get to the detail.

In reply to MG:

Well if you can't understand that each structure has its own properties and you can't say if this fails then that does because it does in another situation you're going to be stuck for a long time. If you feel I haven't answered your question properly maybe you should ask why rather that getting confused with really obvious things.

In reply to add6598:



It's possible they beamed a nuke down from the secret moon base

In reply to John Simpson:
Here's a rational explanation of the collapse mechanism:

The construction of WTC1 & WTC2 was that the outer walls were very strong steel pillars. There was a central column holding the lifts and service lifts The central pillar and outer walls were held together by lightweight trellised beams. The connections were basically pins in to flanges on the pillars. This construction gave the largest floor area possible - more floor area = more rent = more profit for the owners. A rough guide to the size of each floor area is an acre circa 70 metres by 70 metres. For one of the towers to "fall over" rather than collapse in on itself, its centre of gravity would have to move a minimum of 35 metres to one side.

When the planes hit they made large holes in one side of the buildings but this wouldn't have made much difference to their structural integrity though they wouldn't have been safe for use for some time. In engineering terms there was a lot of redundancy. Once the fires started they didn't really affect the main outer walls but did affect the internal trellis beams which were of much lighter construction. As these failed they had an affect on the outer pillars in that instead of having lateral support every 4 metres or so, they suddenly had 8 metres then 12 between support. (A good experiment you can do at home is with the cardboard centres of toilet rolls. One on its own is pretty strong end to end and will support substantial weight. Stack another roll on top and the whole lot becomes much more unstable.)

Once the weight above the impact zone became too much for the pillars to support as the lattice beams failed then the upper floors dropped. The outer pillars will have folded like concertinas. At this point you don't have to support a static mass but a dynamic one. When the upper floors smashed in to the first floor there's a huge shock and the lightweight beams and the pins connecting them to the pillars fail so the weight can drop to the next floor. This repeats on each floor as the forces each floor has to support both increases in mass and speed. As the volume in each floor is compressed it escapes via the easiest route - the windows. This is what looked like explosions in the side of the building as it fell.

The reason that the south tower fell first even though it was the second to be attacked was that the impact point was much lower so there was more mass to deform the supporting pillars.

Simple engineering.

In reply to John Simpson:


I'll save him the trouble, I will list all your proven ideas here;














ZERO.

There you go MG, that's you up to speed on his facts.

Personally I would give up, conspiracy theorists are no different to religious folk, they'll believe in something regardless of the complete absence of any proven evidence and won't listen to any counter arguments. They are a lost cause.

In reply to John Simpson:

teleporting stuff, interesting, evidence? the science behind it?

Do you also think star trek is really a documentary?

In reply to Bob:







No it's a simple explanation of how the towers could have collapsed if you make all the conditions fit, all it does is explain something what didn't happen.

In reply to summo:



4th dimensionally yes sci fi is sci fact

In reply to John Simpson:


He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've got a feeling MG is a structural engineer and probably has a pretty good understanding of the behaviour of different structures.

In reply to summo:





Do you really want MG to give up so easy, do you think he might find the truth and realise he's been scammed!

In reply to The New NickB:


Well I wouldn't want to go near anything that he's designed as it may collaspe when a stray firework lands on it.

In reply to John Simpson:


Why would that be?

In reply to The New NickB:
Well he seems to be he's trying to tell me if a local connection in a large structure fails, there is no factor of safety put into place and this localised failure causes complete failure of the whole structure through the path of most resistance violating newtons laws of motion and the law of entropy, and not only that it goes up like a nuke, then later another over engineered building falls down all by its self 23 minutes after the BBC said it fell down. So taking that into consideration he may be better employed in the circus as he uses magic to describe how buildings collaspe.

In reply to John Simpson:

I'm still waiting for your claim, sorry theory, and its supporting evidence.

In reply to John Simpson:


Science has broken and rebuilt some very small particles in different place(metres not even km), but not moved a physical item.

In reply to John Simpson:


Where? Come on John, be a pal. Just one link. I'm not too bad at this research malarkey, but I can't track this one down. Who do you mean by "the Russians"? The Russian government? Some Russian news source?

In reply to John Simpson:

Now you're just being unnecessarily rude. I couldn't get back further than a PressTV report (more of a column than a report really) which didn't name any sources at all.

In reply to John Simpson:


Who,in their right mind,would want to trawl through that lot.

Do you lot not have the great outdoors/sunshine/better things to do ,than sit doing this all day?

In reply to John Simpson:

I don't think he is!

To Thread, am going out, no doublt there'll be lots of red numbers next to this when I next look, I may answer some I may not

Stay cool y'all and wear yer tinfoil wit pride

In reply to John Simpson:

All I asked was about the strength of a column...!

In reply to MG:


Don't worry about the column strength. If you apply enough heat the links to it buckle and the floors just drop. Especially if the fireproofing is over 30years old and was not applied properly in the first place.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



The fireproofing was not applied properly? I smell a rat!

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Possibly. It's a few years since I last watched this:

youtube.com/watch?v=mcaz6N75mjM&

There have been other more detailed programs since.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Great share shows the nuke money shot about 1 minute in, if you think that's how a building fails because it's been on fire you live in la la land!

In reply to John Simpson:

to be fair, and giving you the benefit of the doubt - the only thing that looks anything like a nuclear explosion is the fireball at about 40 seconds, the bit at 1 minute is mostly stuff going down rather than stuff going up.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

1 minute was a guess if it's 40 seconds thanks for picking that up, yes it goes down qucker as its a mini nuke iron clad salted outer device to act primarily like an EMP device so no big fireball just exactly what you see.

In reply to John Simpson:


How many mini nukes have you seen in use? As far as I am aware the last detonation of that sort of thing in the west was the yanks use of a Davy Crockett in 1962 and I dont think they invited random conspiracy bods to have a look when they did it. Whilst I wouldnt rule them out testing some more recent ones I cant help but think again they wouldnt be inviting people to view it especially with those tedious treaties against it.

I wasnt aware that they specifically built nukes for EMP usage either. As opposed to just setting them off at high altitude to bugger everyone up.

In reply to dissonance:

Intresting that you mention Davy Crockett
, the Intel dump mentions remanufactured Davy Crockett pits


Yes the iron clad outer effectively turns the mini nuke into an EMP device, which accounts for the thermite. The theory is all there for those with an open mind. If the brainwashed can't find it, it says more about them than this statement

In reply to John Simpson:

Are you using some cuckoo variant of the Daily Mail headline generator?

In reply to John Simpson:


I still can't find the Russian leak though. Please help John! You said it was easy.

In reply to John Simpson:


What!!!!!


plus the fact a great big f*cking jet aeroplane planted itself into the building.

You're either taking the piss, which I suspect you are, or you are truly one awesome basket case.
Amusing thread though.
You're almost as funny as my mate who believes David Ike and that aliens are walking amongst us...at this very moment! Hahahaha

In reply to Lusk:





"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."

In reply to Timmd:

I feel we've had all the fun out of the crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorists that this thread has to offer.
Can we do chem trails now please?

In reply to Bob:

Amazing that the undetected nukes were timed to go off at exactly the times required by the 'planes-buildings-fireball-structural-weakening-collapse' official version.

Uncanny.

In reply to John Simpson:


Why not something a tad newer? Would have thought a highly radioactive weapon wouldnt be the best choice.


Dont suppose you have any decent evidence to support this claim do you? Lets ignore your EMP claim for now and just look at exactly how you will produce thermite.
Although whilst you are explaining. Do you care to provide a theory on how nuking the bottom of the towers would make them collapse from the top down?

In reply to John Simpson:

Are you perchance the poster formerly known as "Woolsack"?

Just askin' like!

In reply to TobyA:

It is easy to find Toby, and now you say I'm been rude, it's a bit rich don't you think, can't you see whats happening here anyone who has a different scientific view of this situation is effectively ganged up on and bullied by a group. The reason I called MG a thicko because there's an old score to settle there, he's belittled folk on here before about this, and if he's such a fine engineer maybe in future he should try to educate rather than pick on. One been a good friend of mine, who's had some mental health problems (Andreas). So if people like Bob (who until now, I held in high regard) can only use idiotic terms like Cuckoo generator, well its open season. Look at the odds it's about 15 to one and all Bob and his gang of village idiots are doing is name calling because I don't believe their non scientific brainwashed shit!

In reply to dissonance:


I said re-manufactured weapons pit not the whole weapon, because if you think its easier to manufacture such a device rather than modify a decommissioned device you quite clearly don't know what you're talking about



It's all in the theory what Toby can't find, maybe you could join him and find these answers what you're looking for, I could explain all this to you, but you'd have learnt nothing if I spoon fed you like a likke ikkle baby

Have a nice day

In reply to Rob Naylor:



No Rob, Colin or Woolly is not me, you know that anyway, I'll let you get away with this one as your just askin' like, anymore state the obvious type questions and I might start to group you with village and his crew

In reply to Timmd:
Come on folks. Stop feeding this nonesense now.

If it wasnt such a serious subject matter, this would be one of the funniest threads for ages.

In reply to Lusk:






Yes you're right, the building never went up in a cloud of dust just like a tactical nuke had gone off in the basement and sent an EMP blast straight up the steel core like a fuse to create a top down dust cloud.

A plane just crashed into it and it just fell down and disappeared. Maybe all along the Army Generals have been wrong, we don't need Trident as a defense, just get the old commercial jets, rig them up to fly by wire, and if those naughty rouge states like North Korea or the once Mighty Ruskies get a bit lairy we can fly our secret weapons division at them and all their main buildings will just fall down like magic. Good plan no need for Trident or Nukes or even depleted uranium rounds, just a few cans of DPM paint.

In reply to John Simpson:


Can you explain why your EMP blast didn't radiate out and exhibit all the typical EMP damage in surrounding buildings and of course their electronic contents? I believe emergency service radios etc. kept on working just fine?


Whilst a plane will have major effect, 90 tons of aircraft is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of steel and concrete, it wasn't Hollywood, were you expecting a complete fuselage at the bottom?

ps. Most planes are fly by wire already.

In reply to summo:


Yup, can you if not read the theory and stop been a spoon fed moron


Generally when a building fails theres a big pile of twisted steel and the bottom not a big crater (aptly named ground zero I take it you know what ground zero means) that they're pulling molten metal out of weeks and quite possibly months after they nuked it


Yes like the latest plane crash. It was crashed by the same cabal as those that took these towers down on autopilot and the supposed killer is another patsy.

In reply to summo:

Can I ask all this time that you're pestering me asking for info that you seem to be too stupid to find. Is someone paying you when and you should be contributing to your employment not acting like a needy stalker!

In reply to John Simpson:

Just for the record John, how would *you* expect a large building to collapse after a plane strike?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Hi Andy every case is different but what I would have expected to see in the case of the twin towers due to energy added to the system as in extra weight, impact forces, and fire, would be localised failure, and possible partial collaspe. Like when part of the Dru broke away, it found the path of least resistance in accordance with the laws of motion and law of entropy. It didn't destroy the whole of the mountain and the verte didn't fall down some time later either. I understand this comparison isn't a building the same forces act on both.

In reply to John Simpson:

http://www.cracked.com/video_19296_the-truth-behind-every-internet-conspira...

if you can't handle reading stuff, maybe a video is more your thang.

In reply to John Simpson:

Does "partial collapse" and "localised failure" essentially mean that you'd have expected the top to fall off, leaving the lower bit standing?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



Morning village all I need to read is the title to understand the video is guff for brainwashed idiots

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Yeah or maybe the top not falling off, just doing an impression of the leaning tower of Piza.

In reply to John Simpson:

. The reason I called MG a thicko because there's an old score to settle there, he's belittled folk on here before about this, and if he's such a fine engineer maybe in future he should try to educate rather than pick on.

A score?? Anyway, I was trying to ask some questions about your understanding, which you completely avoided. I would happily educate about these points if you engaged at all but if instead you go around calling everyone morons and idiots it is a bit tricky. Similarly it is a bit difficult to discuss your preferred theory or learn about what you think if you refuse to discuss it all but expect people to guess what it is by "reading".

BTW Are you liking your own posts? A lot of them seem to have one like.

In reply to MG:



Yes a score you've got history on here for ganging up on people and bullying them. I'm happy to leave it at that if you are willing to pick up village and his crew once they get out of line. If not I'll continue to call a spade a spade and likewise. I'd rather we took the debate forward like professional engineers.


Are you really so stupid to think I'd only set up one more second profile to like my own posts and not a 3rd 4th 5th etc.

In reply to John Simpson:

Have we done the stuff about the directed energy weapons yet? That's always good for a laugh.

In reply to John Simpson:

Out of interest, how does one person "gang up" on anyone?

In reply to John Simpson:


There wasn't a big crater, in fact there wasn't any kind of crater at all. There was a big pile of twisted steel though.

In reply to Thread:

I'm too busy today to reply to anyone at present I 'll have a look at replying to relevant points tonight and ignore the usual bullshit

Have a nice day y'all

In reply to John Simpson:

I think you should watch the whole of the video I posted yesterday. It goes into detail about the construction.

I think once you understand the construction, you'll understand why the whole thing just collapsed.

One thing to be aware of is that eye witnesses within the towers confirm that the planes were banking steeply and took out multiple floors when they hit.

It's an office building not a concrete bunker. Not designed to have aircraft crash into it. Building passenger aircraft and using them as tactical weapons isn't exactly cost effective and unlikely to do any more than very localised dammage.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



No, John won't won't be persuaded about anything apart from his own closed-mind world view. That's the thing about conspiracy theorists - anything other than the prevailing conspiracy is either the product of the state, or whatever nebulous group of baddies they choose, or is the product of some sort of brainwashing. It's kind of ironic that they tend to display all the characteristics of having been brainwashed themselves into believing any stupid bollocks as long as it disagrees with the 'official line'. Still, it keeps them off the streets ...

In reply to tony:

It's all clear to me now! This static in my ears isn't tinnitus but brainwashing communications from a secret worldwide organisation that is continually governments and financial institutions to serve its own goals.

In reply to tony:

I suspect so.

The irony is he's quite happy to listen to an unconfirmed Russian source. Obviously the Russians don't currently have any agenda!

In reply to John Simpson:

You should be ashamed of yourself, a lot of internet nutjobs have put a lot of time and effort into proving that the official 9/11 story is a cover-up. Now you come online and make a mockery of all their hard work. You're probably being paid to discredit the real truthers, probably by Mossad.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ha - that's what he wants you to think! You're just one of those simple-minded agents of the state who's been brainwashed to believe the internet nutjobs! The truth is out there!

In reply to TobyA:


I think this might be it?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nucl...

Perhaps John Simpson could confirm if this is the theory to which he is alluding?

I have had a skim of this massive thread and JS's position appears to be that the twin towers were brought down by nukes?! How magnificently, gloriously bonkers - or he's tweaking everyone's tail...

What's his line on the aircraft? That they hit the towers as well, a few hours before the nukes went off? Or that all the eyewitness accounts and film from lots of angles was all faked too in a ginormous conspiracy and there were no planes?

In reply to ericinbristol:


That's pretty much the size of it. Given his previous with other threads of a similar ilk (he keeps changing his username BTW), I think he's a fully paid up member of the church of crazy and has a picture of David Ike above his bed and a shrine to him too.

In reply to Timmd:

Not again. What *were* you thinking Tim?!
jk

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Thanks for that. Which one is his line on the planes?

In reply to ericinbristol:

So far I think he's avoided that huge elephant-in-the-room. He seems preoccupied with this low-yeilding nukes that apparently left no detectable trace but brought down at least one of the buildings on 9/11.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Seriously? 254 posts in and he has managed to avoid talking about
(a) whether or not planes hit the twin towers?
(b) what happened to the radiation from the nukes?

wow...

In reply to ericinbristol:






I have missed a bit of it but I think that's correct.
He keeps telling people to do their own research as he's done his.

Wow indeed,

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

That actually sounds rather boring if he absolutely refuses to engage with fundamental issues. I might look back in on this thread if it hits 500 posts...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

No, the real elephant in the room is building 7, no one's talking about that are they?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


oh, you've gone and done it now - there's another 300 posts.

In reply to Timmd:

The planes flying into the buildings never happened it was just a film made by Stanley Kubrick. If you watch Dr Strangelove there are numerous clues and references to what really happened.

In reply to ericinbristol:

No, in fairness he did allude to the planes earlier on being a hollywood movie effect. He mentioned that billions had seen the event on TV but very , very few saw it happen "live" with their own eyes.

All of us saw it on TV, and that was a special effect is what I took from his post.

In reply to ericinbristol:





You forgot the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon