• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Thoughts regarding 9/11

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
This is in response to a passing comment in another thread:
IshChayil said:
Just like the goofy 911 conspiracies ... like the gov't could do all that and keep it from leaking.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the response to an off-topic comment, but I can't help but point you to this very sound paper in European Physics News last year, which concludes that "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition." Now I don't claim to know who was behind it, or why. But I'm a scientist and pay more attention to hard data than the stories of anyone (whether official or otherwise). Don't dismiss very serious concerns as "goofy" just because they don't fit the official narrative, in this particular case the official narrative has more holes than a colander, and it's an extremely serious matter given the number of deaths involved, and the far-reaching subsequent actions of governments around the world in response to that questionable narrative.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
Sorry for the response to an off-topic comment, but I can't help but point you to this very sound paper in European Physics News last year, which concludes that "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition." Now I don't claim to know who was behind it, or why. But I'm a scientist and pay more attention to hard data than the stories of anyone (whether official or otherwise). Don't dismiss very serious concerns as "goofy" just because they don't fit the official narrative, in this particular case the official narrative has more holes than a colander, and it's an extremely serious matter given the number of deaths involved, and the far-reaching subsequent actions of governments around the world in response to that questionable narrative.
Click to expand...
It is off topic, and maybe others want to take it to another thread, but I can't go there with you. Maybe in 30 years I will feel foolish, but I still believe evil Muslim terrorists want to create havoc on this country.

I believe Sandy Hook was real too.
I believe the Texas shooter acted alone
Oklahoma City bombing was not a government conspiracy either.

I do have my suspicions about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but haven't concluded that in my mind yet.

Naive? I'll wear that.
 
FollowingHim said:
Have you read the paper?
Doesn't mean evil Muslim terrorists aren't also real.
Click to expand...
I didn't read it word for word, but I did scan it. The questions and suppositions it raises are not new. I've heard them before. I'm not a structural engineer, and I'm not about to pretend I know more than I do. I just have common questions and thoughts.

1) 9/11 was not the first attempt to take down the towers. Garage bombs failed years earlier
2) do we know what potentially combustible materials were stored in the building?
3) Did the hijackers bring explosive devices on board, or in luggage?
4) how did impact compromise the steel structure?

The article keeps referring to "fire" not historically taking down a steel building as proof there must be an explosive cause. I realize that is the "official" cause, but that might just speak to incompetence, not government conspiracy.

Passenger Planes had never been flown into a structure like this, so there is no reliable data. Just because something looks like something else we've seen before (demolition charges) it doesn't mean it's the cause of something new.

Is it possible it was pre planned and staged? Yes. I'm not confident it was.
 
I'll shift this to a new thread when next at the computer, on phone now.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane. So none of those hypothesis about what the planes might have been carrying apply to it. Scientifically the facts clearly point to controlled demolition of that building, there is just no other theory that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

Even in regard to the primary towers, the points you raise have answers - but it is building 7 that really shows there is something incredibly fishy about the whole affair.
 
FollowingHim said:
Sorry for the response to an off-topic comment, but I can't help but point you to this very sound paper in European Physics News last year, which concludes that "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition." Now I don't claim to know who was behind it, or why. But I'm a scientist and pay more attention to hard data than the stories of anyone (whether official or otherwise). Don't dismiss very serious concerns as "goofy" just because they don't fit the official narrative, in this particular case the official narrative has more holes than a colander, and it's an extremely serious matter given the number of deaths involved, and the far-reaching subsequent actions of governments around the world in response to that questionable narrative.
Click to expand...

Well before we believe the paper was "very sound" let's examine how sound the editors felt it was shall we? The article is NOT peer reviewed first off because it would never pass review as it mostly just repeats old defeated claims.

Just look how your article begins "NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation".
I love the last line "...content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
Clever of them to try to distance themselves from the speculative nature of the piece. That's messaging for "our liberal euro-owners are pushing this on us and that's just the way politics works in the "scientific" community these days-especially in Europe where it's trendy to hate the US". Just track actual real peer reviewed articles in this journal and see if the editors put such disclaimers in there...homeboys are obviously embarrassed

Snopes tags the writers of this article as buzzing the conspiracy circuits and exposes the article as the pseudo-science it is. "by a group of scientists who have long been involved with the promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. "
It's an easy read guys and you'll see how agenda driven the 4 guys who wrote this "speculative" article are.
I do love that they got a Mormon, Brigham Young guy in there though to put in his 2 cents. Don't see much Brigham Young contributions these days in engineering or scientific journals.

Here's the snopes article explaining how this thing was NOT peer reviewed ... and full of agenda-driven-holes. I didn't mean to offend by my use of the word goofy because I never met a believer who believes this stuff. This is the stuff of the left usually. If I'd known people on this site buy into this stuff I wouldn't have brought it up... it's just too annoying/time consuming to have these kinds of discussions about conspiracy theories which have been well hashed out already.

If you guys want some hard science / engineering, here is the article from Popular Mechanics which absolutely debunks the myth that USA was behind bombing our own buildings in 911 .
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
It is off topic, and maybe others want to take it to another thread, but I can't go there with you. Maybe in 30 years I will feel foolish, but I still believe evil Muslim terrorists want to create havoc on this country.

I believe Sandy Hook was real too.
I believe the Texas shooter acted alone
Oklahoma City bombing was not a government conspiracy either.

I do have my suspicions about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but haven't concluded that in my mind yet.

Naive? I'll wear that.
Click to expand...
exactly.
It always cracks me up how people can imagine our government can keep such a scheme a secret yet as I said we periodically loose huge swaths of classified information to our enemies. Just imagine the players who would need to be involved in such a thing. Cooperation across agencies, airlines, etc.. it's so monumental. But no leakers. Best kept ssecret. Every one of em are evil bastards; because there are no spiritual people in any of our gov't agencies.
Not a one.
Even if you don't look at the Popular Mechanics article debunking this stuff, just do some thought experiments about how crappy the gov't is at EVERYTHING.
YEt we are to believe they are suddenly experts at such a complicated operation as this?

Often the simple solution is the correct one.
a billionaire radical Muslim did it to us just like he'd tried previously with a car bomb.
If at first you don't succeed .... get the US gov't to do it for you, no wait that's not what I meant to say!
 
Last edited:
Any body here like the show Myth Busters?
They had prepared a whole show to debunk the 911 conspiracies then the network leftists crushed it.
We never got to see it :(
I used to enjoy that show it would have been neat to watch them debunk that stuff the way they debunked the lunar landing conspiracies
 
Wait, has anybody claimed building 7 was part of the attack? Much of this is ancient history for me, but wasn't 7 scheduled for demolition anyway?

Lots of structures across the country get demolished each day, and probably several that day in different cities.

The golden rule of study is that correlation does not equal causation.

Finally, to what end was the plan put in place?

War? We had already won one in that area 10 years prior, so people weren't afraid.
Oil? Fracking was already in place to undermine their oil.
Al Quaeda Counterterrorism? Black Hawk down was an easier rallying cry.

Too many holes to fill the holes created by a conspiracy theory.

Love y'all! Happy Thanksgiving!
 
FollowingHim said:
I'll shift this to a new thread when next at the computer, on phone now.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane. So none of those hypothesis about what the planes might have been carrying apply to it. Scientifically the facts clearly point to controlled demolition of that building, there is just no other theory that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

Even in regard to the primary towers, the points you raise have answers - but it is building 7 that really shows there is something incredibly fishy about the whole affair.
Click to expand...

I really wish scientists would be forced to take engineering courses like "mechanics of materials" and "differential equations". If you did, my eyes wouldn't be hurting right now.
No the facts do not "clearly point to a controlled demolition".
 
You're assuming that because you don't think the govt could have done it, that it wasn't a controlled demolition, but these are two separate things. It is possible it was a controlled demolition, and the govt didn't have to have anything to do with it. Don't dismiss something because of an assumption.
As for mythbusters lunar landing episode, well I could pull that apart in seconds, they gave no real proof whatsoever, and I'm a person who believes they actually went to the moon. I don't know why they didn't do any decent, real, experiments when they could have. That was an opportunity lost.
 
As for snopes, you have to remember that it is only a website that is run by a group of people. What they say is simply their opinion. They may have links to correct facts, and those links may be valid and worth looking into, but I have found that they have their own agenda many times. They tend to twist the facts to put forth whatever they believe should be right, or what they want people to think. They are not always wrong, but what they do say in either direction should be looked at with caution.
 
Its interesting to note the periferal events surrounding some of these incidences.

I did not live in Oklahoma at the time of the OKC incident, however, I have had conversations with multiple people who were in city that day, who were some of the people helping with the rescue/first response and kept close abreast of the real time events surrounding it.

To say that it was engineered by Feds might be a stretch and one I’d not like to entertain. To say that certain elements within the Feds had full knowledge of the event before it happened and facilitated both its occurring and coverup is for me undeniable, especially once the Branch Davidian Clinton/Reno fiasco disappeared from the news following the event.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
More recent examples would be Ben Gazi and Fast and Furious Scandal as well as Hillary’s sale of nuclear materials to Russia while S of S.

All conspiracy, no theory.
Click to expand...
Exactly that makes the point.
Connsiderably fewer players and interagency stuff involved in those events and BOOM everybody knows about it.
Now take the number of players required to bring down the towers in secrecy ... no way there isn't one G-d fearing whistle blower / patriot who comes forward.
 
If any one can relate this conversation to salvation or a deeper understanding of the L-rd which helps us to grow in our relationship with Him im all in. We all have our own opinions and personal experiences about this just like the guest who read these threads. Maybe this discussion should be taken to a more private setting.

As I finish typing this you had to bring up Obadiah. Lol
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
More recent examples would be Ben Gazi and Fast and Furious Scandal as well as Hillary’s sale of nuclear materials to Russia while S of S.

All conspiracy, no theory.
Click to expand...
These examples prove the point that things eventually see the light of day, as @IshChayil observed, and prove incompetency.

The 9/11 events were a huge conspiracy, I agree. They were conspired by people who wanted physical destruction, massive loss of life, and financial destruction of our economy....radical Muslims.

Maybe we don't know now the reasons for such an "inside job" as folks here are inferring, but to what purpose was it set in place?

Other potential conspiracies at least had a glaring purpose:
The Maine- War with Spain
Pearl Harbor- War with Japan, but war then declared on Germany too...strange.
Lusitania- War with Axis
JFK assassination- Mafia revenge or CIA takeout of a compromised, incompetent or potentially rogue president?


In 1991, the nation was afraid of a foreign entanglement like Vietnam. Bush Sr. didn't need a domestic disaster to mobilize Desert Storm. We won, and the nation felt invincible ( "shock and awe"? ).

What necessitated the OKC bombings and the Twin Towers that couldn't have been accomplished by other, less violent domestic means?

While we sit and debate the towers, the Muslims have probably killed more civilians in car bombings, runaway trucks in crowds, shootings like Ft. Hood than in the tower attacks. Are those inside jobs too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top