9/11 Conspiracy

wiredtiger10 said:The funniest part about this whole thing—seriously—is how people still ignore the facts. You bring in the experts, the pilots, the engineers who actually designed those buildings, aviation pros, even people trained specifically to fly... and they all say the same thing: those alleged hijackers could barely handle a Cessna. One of them supposedly hits a skyscraper just a few stories up? Look, I’m no pro, but from my experience messing around in Microsoft Flight Simulator, that kind of maneuver would be a massive stretch even for a top-tier pilot—maybe even impossible. There are just way too many holes in the official story. Like, how do you blame a handful of guys when they're clearly still alive and well? Or why haven't they released the footage from all those dozens of security cameras? Where's the plane debris? Not at the Pentagon, not at any of the four crash sites. And then there's the sheer absurdity of three planes hitting the Pentagon and both WTC towers right here in the USA—the most heavily defended nation on Earth. You've got experts swearing it's physically impossible to bring down the WTC towers like that, saying it looked exactly like a controlled demolition. We're talking about three WTC buildings going down, and one didn't even get hit by a plane!

This is just one documentary I've watched on the subject, but I honestly don't get how anyone can see all this evidence and still swallow the official narrative. I just can't wrap my head around people believing these fairy tales.

Anyway, peace out.

wiredtiger10 said:Look, I already wrote a post about this and it got nuked, so I really don't feel like going in circles explaining myself to you. As far as MS Flight Simulator goes—that’s about the closest thing anyone gets to actually handling a Boeing 747. You probably have a couple of those parked in your backyard anyway, so you can just go out and test those maneuvers yourself. What I'm saying isn't just my opinion—it's backed by experts, veteran pilots, and basically any sane person with a brain. Slamming a plane like that into a building that low during a turn like that, especially while descending? It's nearly impossible—especially if the guy at the controls is some incompetent Arab who can barely handle a Cessna.

Maria Thompson2 said:If you want to maintain consistency and keep your credibility as a moderator, northerncrane4, then you should probably delete this too. There isn't even a single word here about a documentary; this is strictly about a conspiracy.

Or are you planning on leaving it up?

And please, everyone, take note of that bolded part, because that is exactly how every conspiracy theorist operates: "Look, I'm not a physicist, and I actually failed physics in high school, but I'm telling you the physics at the WTC doesn't match what the government is selling us because..."

northerncrane4 said:It does—in the final paragraph.

Maria Thompson2 said:Alright then, you're the moderator, so go ahead and moderate.

What I just can't wrap my head around is how you expect to prevent this from bleeding straight into conspiracy theories. To me, it feels a bit like trying to have a discussion about movies like "300," "Spartacus," or "Gladiator" while simultaneously demanding that nobody mentions any of the historical inaccuracies.

Maria Thompson2 said:I mean, it's like if people started discussing "300," "Spartacus," or "Gladiator"—we wouldn't even touch on the historical inaccuracies.

Maria Thompson2 said:If you had paid a bit more attention to actual films rather than just scrolling through silly anonymous websites, you would see that none of those planes were performing any wild maneuvers at all. In fact, they were approaching the skyscrapers almost like projectiles; even the one that looks like it is "turning" is barely deviating from its path. It was a very clever way to make it look like the plane was struggling or trying to AVOID the building, rather than making it obvious that it had been hijacked.

But hey, once you provide me with the exact names of these "experts," seasoned pilots, and "rational people" who explicitly claim the same thing, then—and only then—will I believe you.
Until that happens, I can certainly point you toward a whole bunch of fascinatingly "true" websites where people claim that nothing happened at Auschwitz, that the Srebrenica lie is real, that merfolk exist, that the Russian administration is working with Orion, and that Anderlon is actually run by Stipe Mason.

Now, we eagerly await the reaction from the little fan girl regarding how a company should properly be managed.

wiredtiger10 As stated by:
I actually poured my heart into that previous post, writing an entire page just to lay out all my perspectives, but for some reason I can't fathom, the moderator decided to scrub it from the board. There wasn't a single offensive word in there; it was nothing more than direct responses to your points and a sincere expression of my own views. Honestly, I don't have the energy to sit here and type the exact same thing twice, so you'll just have to find another way to get the message.

It seems my posts are being deleted while your insults are allowed to stay up. In that previous thread, I clearly explained that I operate as an independent contractor; I don't maintain a permanent staff of my own, though I frequently hire specialized firms to execute specific projects. When you questioned whether I issued direct orders or sought to dodge liability, I was quite transparent: yes, I have issued directives because I've overseen the construction of several residential buildings, but I have never once attempted to shift or evade my responsibilities. I would kindly ask that you stop disparaging people you don't actually know, as it strikes me as both incredibly rude and entirely unnecessary.

Maria Thompson2 says:
Look, if you actually want people to take you seriously, you’ve gotta look at the other side of the argument too!

1) You claim you build houses—and honestly, as an economist and political scientist, I’d be dead serious offended if you told me how to frame a house. But what these documentaries do is tell YOU how a house is built! And you don't get offended by that—you think it's great!

Residential buildings, not houses.

These shows don't show opposing views—I didn't hear a single dissenting opinion in them. Not one lone engineer stepped up and said, "Hold on, that's wrong, those columns CAN melt from kerosene if they're wrapped in it, provided the concrete casing takes a massive hit first!"—no, they just give you one specific perspective. That's it!

That's not it. In a few documentaries, I saw a statement from someone who designed the World Trade Center saying those towers were built to withstand multiple hits from a Boeing much larger than the ones that struck the WTC. Isn't that credible?

Btw, interesting thing—everyone in that film keeps saying, "You can't melt a reinforced concrete column at those temperatures," but NOBODY MENTIONS THAT AFTER THE IMPACT, THE COLUMN ISN'T EVEN THE SAME COLUMN! Nobody accounts for the fact that because of the impact from a plane with massive mass, those columns LOST A HUGE CHUNK OF CONCRETE and the steel rebar inside was EXPOSED! And once that happens, it takes WAY FEWER DEGREES to make that steel—not MELT, just HEAT UP!
Because remember how swords are forged? You don't melt the steel into liquid, you just heat it up! And then the weight of the floors above it CRUSHES that heated steel, and that's when the cascade starts!

What about the statements from demolition experts? They all agree it was a controlled demolition using explosives. Now, the easy way out is to say: "Oh, they're just pseudo-experts or mercenaries." That's how you can dismiss any evidence as just being part of a conspiracy.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that data before.

If everything is a conspiracy, then I'm really curious how many serious builders would actually TAKE INTO ACCOUNTi>I mean, man, as a builder, you know how much that spikes the budget. Does it go up by half? By 90%? You think anyone is just going to swallow that cost?

I build residential buildings, but not skyscrapers, so I haven't run into that issue yet.

3) If you’re actually in private business, then you KNOW EXACTLY what kind of chaos ensues when you try to organize even the smallest thing! How things leak from every side and how the final product ends up heading in a totally different direction!

I know. I also know that one person can manage 20 people during highly complex jobs without a single mistake happening.

And NOT ONE of these shows asks the simple question: how is it possible that in a conspiracy that had to involve HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE—not a single soul whispered to anyone else, "Hey honey, tomorrow I'm killing 3,500 people on orders from George Bush! Oh, btw, prep some roast beef for tonight, I'll be hungry."

I don't believe that many people were directly involved. I'm not talking about the people who instigated it—there were probably hundreds of those. I mean the people who did the actual work to prevent a response—like blocking military jets or missiles. This is just a guess, maybe 25 people, but it's unconfirmed and could be totally wrong. Within agencies like the CIA, FBI, NORAD, NASA, the military, etc., there's a hierarchy and a chain of command. So, if the person running NORAD was involved—and they had to be if this scenario is true—they could have engineered the situation. Lower-ranking officials don't need to know anything about the operation; they just do their jobs.

You and these shows keep saying it’s ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE to pull off a perfectly orchestrated crime involving hundreds of people—administration, radar, NORAD, intelligence agencies—and have everyone just stay dead silent!

Look, I just don't buy that you need that many people. In my book, you only need the top brass in each agency and maybe a few guys right under them to plan and execute something like this.

My theory—that the Arabs just struck and took advantage of how massive the administration is, and then the hawks all jumped on it together—that's just not happening.

No, it isn't. That's probably one of the least likely scenarios out there. The problem is there's way too much evidence pointing the other way.

I mean, sure, it’s totally human—because whether you want to admit it or not, people EXPLOIT tragedies or other people's ignorance, and that happens all the time—so it's possible.
But no, it's still not probable. It's way more likely that a conspiracy involving over 200 people went down, nobody said a word, and everything went exactly according to plan.

Why 200 people? I don't get why such a huge number would even need to be involved in this.

Why doesn't any of these shows say something like: "Look at Watergate, for example—way fewer people were involved, maybe 20 total—and it came out. So can someone explain to me how WTCgate could possibly stay hidden with all those players involved?"

Like how that General got caught hunting and they tracked him down when there were maybe only 5 or 6 people involved. 😁 What does that prove? Nothing.

4) And just because YOU are honest and don't run from responsibility—can you honestly tell me that NOBODY here is dodging accountability? Especially those high-paid suits sitting in cushy positions?

More or less, everyone dodges responsibility. They drive company cars, live in rentals, everything is on credit. Why bother caring about the company car or how a job gets done? It's not like they're losing money directly, right? That's just the mindset most people have these days.

Which brings us back to these shows again—can someone explain WHY everyone thinks the US administration is built like the Borg? This super-efficient fusion of man and machine that takes orders from a "collective mind" and is so superior it's unstoppable? Because that’s exactly what these shows push—that the Borg rules America and every single move is perfectly calculated, leaving zero room for anything else to happen.

I don't see it that way. It's obvious they can't actually cover up the truth. Just look at the Vietnam War. From the initial cause of that war to all the testimonies from people directly involved, it was run specifically to drag it out rather than actually win. You probably know more about this than I do, so feel free to weigh in.

Robin Sanchez3 said:Does anyone recall the name of that documentary they aired on Sunday night on PBS?

I happened to catch a few documentaries recently where an individual involved in the actual design of the World Trade Center claimed that those towers were engineered to withstand multiple impacts from aircraft significantly larger than the Boeings used in the attacks. When you consider that level of structural expertise, doesn't that strike you as a pretty credible point to weigh in the conversation?

What about all those statements from experts specializing in controlled demolitions? They seem to be in total agreement that we’re looking at a precision explosive job. Of course, the easiest way to brush that aside is to simply label them as nothing more than pseudo-experts or paid mercenaries. It’s such a convenient way to dismiss any evidence presented; you can just claim that any proof someone offers is merely another fragment of a massive conspiracy.

I’m well aware of that. I also know for a fact that a single individual can effectively oversee a group of twenty people even during the most intricate, high-stakes operations, ensuring that not a single mistake slips through the cracks.

Just as a thought experiment—and mind you, this is purely speculative and could be entirely off base—let’s say we are looking at a group of maybe 25 people. While there's nothing to confirm that specific number, it's interesting to consider how such an operation would function within the massive machinery of our national security apparatus. When you look at agencies like the CIA, the FBI, NORAD, NASA, or even the various branches of the military, you aren't just looking at a collection of individuals, but rather a highly structured hierarchy governed by a strict chain of command. If we follow the logic of this particular scenario, for something of this magnitude to actually occur, someone at the very top—perhaps even the individual overseeing NORAD—would have to be directly involved to facilitate the situation. It creates a sort of domino effect where the vast majority of personnel, those lower down the ranks, wouldn't need to have any inkling that such an operation was even taking place; they would simply be focused on their daily duties, completely unaware of the larger picture unfolding above them.

Why 200 people? I just don't see why such a massive number would need to be involved in something like this.

Think about that General who went hunting and got caught; there were maybe only five or six people involved in that. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Take the Vietnam War as an example. From the initial cause of the conflict to all the testimonies from those directly involved, it seems the entire war was managed to drag on as long as possible rather than being won. You probably know more about this than I do, so feel free to chime in with anything interesting.

It simply isn't possible that the impact from the aircraft caused that kind of damage. I just can't wrap my head around it. You're looking at a massive hole through both the front and the rear of the structure, which defies logic. Furthermore, we have to consider the individual accused of piloting that plane; his own flight instructors have gone on record stating he barely possesses the skills to handle a basic Cessna. What you’re characterizing as a simple, gentle turn was actually an incredibly complex and difficult maneuver to execute. This isn't merely a question of a slight bank or a sudden dive; the real issue lies in how the plane struck a building several stories high and managed to completely compromise those support columns.

It strikes me as absolutely unbelievable that anyone who claims to stand by the official account of the events surrounding the Pentagon wouldn't have any issue with the lack of released video footage showing exactly what hit the building. If someone truly has nothing to hide and is innocent of any wrongdoing, why on earth would they feel the need to keep those recordings under wraps?

Now, I haven't actually sat in the cockpit of a real aircraft myself, but I have to say that Microsoft Flight Simulator feels incredibly authentic to me. It’s a sentiment shared by a vast majority of actual pilots out there, too; many of them spend their downtime "playing" on MSFS just like the rest of us, which is something you can easily verify if you take a quick look through various flight sim forums.

I put a lot of thought into my previous post, but it seems to have been scrubbed from the board. At the end of the day, I realize we aren't exactly singing from the same hymn sheet, but I have absolutely no interest in getting into a heated shouting match just because our perspectives diverge. In my view, an argument like that doesn't produce a winner; it simply leaves two losers standing there empty-handed. It is much more productive to engage in a civil dialogue where we can hopefully reach some sort of middle ground. After all, you can learn quite a bit from these kinds of exchanges if you approach them with the right mindset.