9/11

[DarkCrusade]

Why has youtube deleted and censored some of the 9/11 videos?

Proof for this statement? Sounds interesting enough

[Veritas]

And then wonder why the official story is told so often? Ironic.

how is this irony

Also, could someone explain why is the conspiracy theory that "terrorists hijacked planes and flew them to the towers with amazing accuracy" more believable than the conspiracy theory that "explosives were used".

because the former isn't a conspiracy theory

@Veritas
Why has youtube deleted and censored some of the 9/11 videos?

probably due to DMCA requests, just like every other deleted video

[ValiS]

Also, could someone explain why is the conspiracy theory that "terrorists hijacked planes and flew them to the towers with amazing accuracy" more believable than the conspiracy theory that "explosives were used".

because the former isn't a conspiracy theory

LOL... u just proved my whole point spectacularly! Thank you. But still it seems to me you are just playing with words 

About the censoring though: I dont remember exactly, but it was a couple of users who's videos about 9/11 or their whole accounts got deleted. It was more than a year ago so I cant give the details sry.
Some kind of "dont use youtube" movement got started from that if I remember right.

PS: just to stay clear, I am not saying I KNOW what exactly happened.. but for example the whole business about the 7. tower... you know it just isn't adding up..

[Veritas]

LOL... u just proved my whole point spectacularly! Thank you. But still it seems to me you are just playing with words.

please explain how the official explanation for something is a conspiracy theory tia

[DarkCrusade]

please explain how the official explanation for something is a conspiracy theory tia

Good point. But I think he meant something like the official was a fake.

[ValiS]

LOL... u just proved my whole point spectacularly! Thank you. But still it seems to me you are just playing with words.

please explain how the official explanation for something is a conspiracy theory tia

Well, I just think one should not believe some explanation more than another, ONLY because one is official. If you or your parents and grandparents had lived in the Soviet Union, like me, maybe you would agree with me on that. My home town Tallinn was bombed (just randomly one night in 1944, there was no one invading or smth so BASICALLY this happened during peace time) by soviet planes, and the official version was that these were german planes. Also the Molotov-Ribbendtrop pact "did not exist" etc. Oh and also the radio was invented by a soviet scientist..

I agree that "official explanation" is not "conspiracy theory" but then again these are just words, and there is no logic that says that the former can't be the latter at the same time as well. Or is there?

[croat1gamer]

Every year that 9/11 comes around, paranoia is renewed. Simple, necessary paranoia.

Why necessary?

@ Valis- Yes, the official isnt trustworthy, bla bla bla...
They did some serious security flaws, and it cant be denied, but that it is a government conspiracy is the biggest shit i have ever heard.
There is surely something behind that someone wanted an 'excuse' for the invasion of Iraq and that, but that it was an full inside operation. REEEEETTTAAAARRRDDEEEED.

I had to emphasize it.


ot:
Rednecks.

[Veritas]

I agree that "official explanation" is not "conspiracy theory" but then again these are just words, and there is no logic that says that the former can't be the latter at the same time as well. Or is there?

I agree with the definition of a conspiracy theory being:
A theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by two or more individuals or various secretive powers or conspiracies.

The common current understanding of the events is the official explanation in this case.

Well, I just think one should not believe some explanation more than another, ONLY because one is official.

I don't disagree, it's just that the official explanation is actually backed by reputable sources.

They did some serious security flaws, and it cant be denied, but that it is a government conspiracy is the biggest s**t i have ever heard.
There is surely something behind that someone wanted an 'excuse' for the invasion of Iraq and that, but that it was an full inside operation. REEEEETTTAAAARRRDDEEEED.

9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq you dunce

[croat1gamer]

Im pretty sure it was one of the arguments for it.

[Veritas]

All rhetoric at that time was couched in references to 9/11, but never was it used as the justification

[ValiS]

Every year that 9/11 comes around, paranoia is renewed. Simple, necessary paranoia.

Why necessary?

@ Valis- Yes, the official isnt trustworthy, bla bla bla...
They did some serious security flaws, and it cant be denied, but that it is a government conspiracy is the biggest s**t i have ever heard.
There is surely something behind that someone wanted an 'excuse' for the invasion of Iraq and that, but that it was an full inside operation. REEEEETTTAAAARRRDDEEEED.

I had to emphasize it.


ot:
Rednecks.

Thank you, you finally made clear the difference between official version and conspiracy theory:
1)believers of official version are automatically right, they don't have to prove their beliefs.
2)doubters of official version are automatically RETARDED, and they have to prove their doubts, and if they do that proof too is automatically retarded and false, because it is a "conspiracy theory". and then for good measure they get called a retard again.

You can call it paranoia, but then I would call you naive.

From: September 06, 2010, 04:06:15 pm

I agree that "official explanation" is not "conspiracy theory" but then again these are just words, and there is no logic that says that the former can't be the latter at the same time as well. Or is there?

I agree with the definition of a conspiracy theory being:
A theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by two or more individuals or various secretive powers or conspiracies.

The common current understanding of the events is the official explanation in this case.

This is still just words for me. Call it what you wan't it doesn't change what it is about. Don't you agree?
The chances of 3 buildings (and one of them wasn't even hit by a plane) falling neatly in their footsteps to me seem astronomical. These chances exist mathematically speaking, but saying that it was just a coincidence is harder to believe than explosives to me. If that makes me a crazy conspiracy theorist then so be it. I don't change my mind based on what others call me.

BTW (speaking of conspiracys), I believe that the moon landing was real, because I have not come across anything to really make me seriously doubt it. Not the case with 911 though.

[croat1gamer]

1) Never said that. But i must admit that it is much more convenient that a plane crashed in the twins than, e.g. explosives were set up in the building.
2)

Occam's razor.

[Veritas]

This is still just words for me. Call it what you wan't it doesn't change what it is about. Don't you agree?

No, definitions are extremely important in any debate.

The chances of 3 buildings (and one of them wasn't even hit by a plane) falling neatly in their footsteps to me seem astronomical. These chances exist mathematically speaking, but saying that it was just a coincidence is harder to believe than explosives to me.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

It looks like this site is explaining the results of the NIST report, so it's probably worth taking a look.

[ValiS]

Maybe, but it just seemed to me that you said the "inside job" thing is retarded, just IS. No arguments.

Actually occam's razor sais the most simple explanation is LIKELY true. The simplest and likeliest cause of skyscrapers falling in their footsteps is usually controlled demolition. So I don't get why you brought in occams razor, and i don't think it applies to humans' actions as well as to scientific problems. Humans are known to arrange all kinds of crazy schemes that look like something else, that's why chess is so popular, also why women are so popular  .

I would be happy to admit defeat (it would be much nicer if the bad guys were bad guys but ..), if someone showed WHY the inside job theory is retarded, and WHY the building collapsed the way they did. Showed it without discussing semantics etc...

[Veritas]

If only I had posted a link discussing why the tower collapsed the way it did

What a world that would be huh

[demoniac93]

If only I had posted a link discussing why the tower collapsed the way it did

What a world that would be huh

The only true statement I've read in here so far.
If you want to let YT videos rule your life, go throw a puppy into a lake right now.

[ValiS]

If only I had posted a link discussing why the tower collapsed the way it did

What a world that would be huh

Chill man, i posted and then saw your post, but i guess you clicked post a second earlier or smth 

I read the page, but what I dont get is why does none of the diagrams show all the columns at once? Like the pancaking picture only has the core columns and note the side columns. Then the pictures of the floor sagging have only the side columns and not the core.. the floor sagged in the middle like it was not connected to the core columns?

And this does not explain why tower 7 fell!

I will read this further as i am interested.
But do you not agree that IF (theoretically) it wants, a group of experts can tell pretty much any theory to the public, and since the public has very little knowledge about construction and the physics involved, then the main thing that convinces them of that theory is rather the fact of the groups expertise, rather than the common people's own understanding or analysis of the theory. That basically they agree with the experts rather than the agree with the theory.

I work in an engineering bureau, I will ask around what the people there think, and see if I get any interesting answers .

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Really? This is still an issue? Fine.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

The above article is a response to Loose Change, the video which I assume is responsible for putting these ridiculous lies in your head.  The particular page in question deals with the collapse of the towers: WTC 1, 2, AND 7.

If you're not interested in reading a lot, here are the two biggest arguments (in my mind) against a controlled demolition.
1) Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to prepare.  A LOT.  We're talking months, or for a building at large as the twin towers, upwards of a year.  Thousands of explosives would have to be planted precisely, and NO ONE could've ever seen any signs of them.  That's just not even remotely feasible.
2) Watch a controlled demolition sometime.  Do it.  Note how the building in question is destroyed from the bottom up, so that it looks as though it's sinking into the ground.  Now watch the towers fall.  See how they fall from the top down, completely opposite of a controlled demolition?  I don't remember the details, because I stopped caring about this sort of thing (debunking CTs, that is) years ago.

As for WTC 7, it was burning for quite some time before collapsing; so long, in fact, that they were able to evacuate everyone and there were no casualties.  I believe the fires were attributed to the 4 inch gas lines in the building, the massive diesel tanks, and the electric substation in the area.

[ValiS]

Really? This is still an issue? Fine.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

The above article is a response to Loose Change, the video which I assume is responsible for putting these ridiculous lies in your head.  The particular page in question deals with the collapse of the towers: WTC 1, 2, AND 7.

I have not seen loose change.

But have YOU read any of the articles doubting the unprecedented progressive collapses, before you declare them ridiculous lies?

If you're not interested in reading a lot, here are the two biggest arguments (in my mind) against a controlled demolition.
1) Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to prepare.  A LOT.  We're talking months, or for a building at large as the twin towers, upwards of a year.  Thousands of explosives would have to be planted precisely, and NO ONE could've ever seen any signs of them.  That's just not even remotely feasible.
2) Watch a controlled demolition sometime.  Do it.  Note how the building in question is destroyed from the bottom up, so that it looks as though it's sinking into the ground.  Now watch the towers fall.  See how they fall from the top down, completely opposite of a controlled demolition?

I read a lot BTW, and I like to read, otherwise I would not be having this conversation.
As opposed to you, I don't start debating someone, if I am not familiar with their counterarguments.
I know how controlled demolition works, it means making a building collapse following the PATH OF MOST RESISTANCE - that is straight down. If it is done from the top or bottom doesn't change the principle. Here is a link for you, had you done ANY research, you would have seen it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

According to you, this demolition is the complete opposite of controlled demolition, you don't know what you are talking about.

And yes, rigging WTC-s with explosions is a timely task, but usually during controlled demolitions everything is checked and checked and checked again, geotextiles are wrapped around ALL the columns (to minimise debris flying out laterally) everything of value and flammable s**t is carried out ETC, all these steps would have been skipped in the case of WTC, reducing the time required to blow it dramatically. Because you see, the ones who demolished would not be held responsible in the eyes of the public - and that fact changes a lot.

I stopped caring about this sort of thing (debunking CTs, that is) years ago.

No you didn't... stop caring. Debunking you have never done i'm afraid.

As for WTC 7, it was burning for quite some time before collapsing; so long, in fact, that they were able to evacuate everyone and there were no casualties.  I believe the fires were attributed to the 4 inch gas lines in the building, the massive diesel tanks, and the electric substation in the area.

And why did WTC 7 fall EXACTLY like (from the bottom!) controlled demolition?
You do know that 911 was probably the first time steel frame buildings imploded due to fire? First time in 100 years, and 3 in one day, talk about precedence..

[Boblekonvolutt]

I don't see why people get so hung up on the actual act. What went on within CIA is so much more interesting. And of course how that later connects to the huge mercenary industry we see today, built around the occupations that followed 9/11. And how they have now dug in like a tick in the US war machine and intelligence. I really wonder what we'll see in 30+ or so years. We're going into such interesting times.

Really, anyone who is stuck on the actual buildings (whichever side you're on) is a moron. Conspiracy theories or not, we're never going to find out. It doesn't even matter. Had it not been 9/11, there would have been some other halfassed casus belli.