Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Tower Seven - What Do We Think?
86 Answers
It did "fall down" quite tidily. None of that messy business where the bit that's "on fire" falls down first.
...
http://
...
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
JJ, seems you've got a healthy cynicism about the events of 9/11. There are no many improbables not just about happened Tower 7 but also the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, Flight 93, that I'm of the view that those who don't consider there was a conspiracy should perhaps do a study of the day.
Just for starters
1. Why did the air defences of the World's most protected building (Pentagon) allow a commercial plane to fly into it?
2. Air defence protocol would dictate that at least the second plane to fly into the Towers and subsequent planes would be shot down. Why did this not happen?
3. Dubya is on record as stating that he saw the first plane that morning fly into the North Tower. This footage was not seen until the following day. How?
Just for starters
1. Why did the air defences of the World's most protected building (Pentagon) allow a commercial plane to fly into it?
2. Air defence protocol would dictate that at least the second plane to fly into the Towers and subsequent planes would be shot down. Why did this not happen?
3. Dubya is on record as stating that he saw the first plane that morning fly into the North Tower. This footage was not seen until the following day. How?
zebo ...
You're right.
They could have never kept a conspiracy like that secret, unless all of the records were completely destroyed, and that would have been too big a job. Besides, all those records were safely and securely housed inside the security dept. offices in ... err ... Tower ... err, Seven.
You're right.
They could have never kept a conspiracy like that secret, unless all of the records were completely destroyed, and that would have been too big a job. Besides, all those records were safely and securely housed inside the security dept. offices in ... err ... Tower ... err, Seven.
There was also that "witness" whom they interviewed on the morning, who said he'd seen the plane hit the tower, and then reeled off almost the entire technical explanation of why the tower had collapsed ... an explanation that would not be made public until several weeks later.
If the Government are going to plant bogus witnesses, they should be careful to not give them too much info about things that are "not yet known".
If the Government are going to plant bogus witnesses, they should be careful to not give them too much info about things that are "not yet known".
Surprised to see this in the news section, to be honest - has something happened recently to revive it?
Otherwise, allegations of a conspiracy and controlled demolitions seem like zombie arguments to me - they just won't die and keep shuffling on :) 10 years on, no new evidence to support a conspiracy - quite the reverse, in fact. Just unsubstantiated allegation.
What was the conspiracy? Who was involved? Assuming it was a conspiracy, when did they place the explosives? How did they manage to plant the explosives without attracting any attention?
Why was there no evidence of explosives found during the forensic examination of the site(s)? Were all the 100s, maybe 1,000s of fire department and forensic personnel in on the conspiracy? How about all the independent laboratories who tested samples from the site?Which federal office was in WTC 7 that "contained all the records of the WTC conspiracy?"
You also have to consider the sources of information.I place little credence in allegations that shift and swirl and have no evidence base - allegations that stem largely from conspiracy theory websites.There are, around the globe with a human population in the billions, probably millions of structural engineers, all of whom have seen the videos, read the reports.If the conspiracy is true, and it was a controlled demolition, why are there not thousands of structural engineers clamouring for the truth?
And there has to be a genuine motivation for such a widespread, far-reaching, cold-blooded,expensive - expensive in terms of time, money, personnel, logistics- A tortuous, complex conspiracy and one hardly explained by any of the motives submitted by those doubting the consensus theory.
Quite apart from the distasteful notion that so many people within the govt would so readily conspire to murder 3000 civilians.
Those who assert a conspiracy are using zombie arguments, with no substance, in my opinion....
Otherwise, allegations of a conspiracy and controlled demolitions seem like zombie arguments to me - they just won't die and keep shuffling on :) 10 years on, no new evidence to support a conspiracy - quite the reverse, in fact. Just unsubstantiated allegation.
What was the conspiracy? Who was involved? Assuming it was a conspiracy, when did they place the explosives? How did they manage to plant the explosives without attracting any attention?
Why was there no evidence of explosives found during the forensic examination of the site(s)? Were all the 100s, maybe 1,000s of fire department and forensic personnel in on the conspiracy? How about all the independent laboratories who tested samples from the site?Which federal office was in WTC 7 that "contained all the records of the WTC conspiracy?"
You also have to consider the sources of information.I place little credence in allegations that shift and swirl and have no evidence base - allegations that stem largely from conspiracy theory websites.There are, around the globe with a human population in the billions, probably millions of structural engineers, all of whom have seen the videos, read the reports.If the conspiracy is true, and it was a controlled demolition, why are there not thousands of structural engineers clamouring for the truth?
And there has to be a genuine motivation for such a widespread, far-reaching, cold-blooded,expensive - expensive in terms of time, money, personnel, logistics- A tortuous, complex conspiracy and one hardly explained by any of the motives submitted by those doubting the consensus theory.
Quite apart from the distasteful notion that so many people within the govt would so readily conspire to murder 3000 civilians.
Those who assert a conspiracy are using zombie arguments, with no substance, in my opinion....
One should never shy away from levelling distasteful notions at people in positions of authority.
If we stop pointing fingers at them just because it is distasteful, then we give them carte blanche to ride roughshod over us.
A similar distasteful notion would be the notion that our very own government sent our own soldiers into a conflict by exaggerating the risk of weapons of mass destruction.
When our troops widows berate the government for (frankly) misleading us all, would you also tell them that they are using a zombie argument, and that the government would never play with people's lives like that?
No, of course not. Because we know that governments do do things like that. Sometimes, the consequences are worse than expected. The buildings are not evacuated fast enough, and there are more fatalities than expected.
But he tragic extent of the outcome is not evidence that the government had no fore knowledge. It we exclude that possibility because we too easily swallow the official explanations, then we betray the memory of those who lost their lives.
If we stop pointing fingers at them just because it is distasteful, then we give them carte blanche to ride roughshod over us.
A similar distasteful notion would be the notion that our very own government sent our own soldiers into a conflict by exaggerating the risk of weapons of mass destruction.
When our troops widows berate the government for (frankly) misleading us all, would you also tell them that they are using a zombie argument, and that the government would never play with people's lives like that?
No, of course not. Because we know that governments do do things like that. Sometimes, the consequences are worse than expected. The buildings are not evacuated fast enough, and there are more fatalities than expected.
But he tragic extent of the outcome is not evidence that the government had no fore knowledge. It we exclude that possibility because we too easily swallow the official explanations, then we betray the memory of those who lost their lives.
Have you ever heard of the Project for the New American Century, Lazy Gun?
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership.
Members included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, key members of the Bush Administration.
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Methinks they got their ;New Pearl Harbour' on 9/11.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership.
Members included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, key members of the Bush Administration.
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Methinks they got their ;New Pearl Harbour' on 9/11.
Thats kind of the point I was making Gromit - I am not sure quite why this was posted in news in the first place.
Jayne - you can assert whatever you like, speculate whatever you like thats what a free country is all about - but without facts and evidence it remains just that -empty speculation. And there are very big differences between committing armed forces to an overt military action, making political arguments for that action within the public domain, and sanctioning the murder of 3000 civilians on your own soil, the alleged motivation for which is still vague and unclear,using an incredibly tortuous and complex method which would require hundreds, maybe thousands of people. The paper trail alone would be all over the government machine - not, allegedly, all contained within 1 department.
Add to that the sheer complexity that such a conspiracy would mean, the sheer number of people involved it does not hold up.
The sheer complexity of the alleged conspiracy make the whole idea highly implausible, and if you expect people to take such ideas seriously, then high quality evidence needs to be presented. None has, in the last decade.
Jayne - you can assert whatever you like, speculate whatever you like thats what a free country is all about - but without facts and evidence it remains just that -empty speculation. And there are very big differences between committing armed forces to an overt military action, making political arguments for that action within the public domain, and sanctioning the murder of 3000 civilians on your own soil, the alleged motivation for which is still vague and unclear,using an incredibly tortuous and complex method which would require hundreds, maybe thousands of people. The paper trail alone would be all over the government machine - not, allegedly, all contained within 1 department.
Add to that the sheer complexity that such a conspiracy would mean, the sheer number of people involved it does not hold up.
The sheer complexity of the alleged conspiracy make the whole idea highly implausible, and if you expect people to take such ideas seriously, then high quality evidence needs to be presented. None has, in the last decade.
Jayne - A true sceptic would want to see the evidence. Carl Sagan once said something along the lines that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" - and in the absence of any such evidence, conspiracy allegations remain empty and baseless speculation..... ;)
There are people who assert the presence of a new world order or similar, and that 9/11 was some sort of catalysing event - but again, such proponents are long on rhetoric and short on evidence.
Retaining a belief in an alleged conspiracy in the absence of any factual, verifiable evidence is analogous to a religion, it seems to me...
And I still do not quite understand why this post and subsequent discussion is deemed worthy of being posted in the News section.
There are people who assert the presence of a new world order or similar, and that 9/11 was some sort of catalysing event - but again, such proponents are long on rhetoric and short on evidence.
Retaining a belief in an alleged conspiracy in the absence of any factual, verifiable evidence is analogous to a religion, it seems to me...
And I still do not quite understand why this post and subsequent discussion is deemed worthy of being posted in the News section.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Motoring16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.