-edit- Furthermore, does anyone else find it odd that at the recent Arizona shooting, one of the victims happened to be a 9 year old girl that was born on 9/11? And if you wanna get really crazy about numbers, the shooting happened on 1/8/11. 1+8=9....9/11. 9 year old girl born on 9/11 killed on a date that, with minor number tweaking, becomes 9/11.

Saying shit like that makes it hard to take anything else you have to say seriously.

[deleted]

Fair enough, I don't dispute that numbers can be important. There is a difference when you have to manipulate the numbers for them to have any meaning. I was just saying, maybe not quite eloquently, that if too much effort is taken to find small coincidences... it's a bit much.

[deleted]

No, and I don't plan on it. Perhaps manipulated is the wrong word. I am referring to the sentence that OP starts with "if you wanna get crazy with the numbers". I'm in no way dismissing anything you are saying.

Agreed. It was 3 a.m. and sounded good at the time. Hehe.

Fair enough. I was also quite tired.

lol, idk though, numbers are supposed to be a big deal for masons, 8-1 is also 7, a big number if you have an understanding of the masons.

Indeed. Obviously my main purpose for this post was the BuildingWhat page. The latter is just something that occurred to me. Honestly what are the odds of there being someone at this shooting that was born on 9/11?

and that someone being 1 of 50 put in a book about people born on 9-11

Now I'm officially grasping at straws, but it's always concerned me how catchy "9/11" is as a term. What if it had been on 11/5 or 6/24.

and who came up with 911 as the emergency number anyway? think maybe they're involved?

A valid point. I'm sure there's some history on that somewhere I'm too lazy to look up.

one would think you were to tin-hatty, I say welcome to the land of just enough. if theres a chance something sketchy is going on you can bet your sweet ass there is :P

Just hashing out a random idea. If the powers that be that can fake/misdirect responsibility for the deaths of thousands, surely they can fake the death of a 9 year old girl to pull on the nation's heart strings.

You're grasping at straws.

forgive me for thinking up a conspiracy theory on the conspiracy subreddit....

I'm not trying to be rude. I just think you're over-thinking the details.

Well obviously on the numbers thing I am. Just a random thought. But I feel like Americans wouldn't care much about the shooting if there wasn't a pretty young face to plaster up on tv. And were some nefarious entity behind it all, they'd know that would be the way to get people more invested in this event. That and her being born on 9/11 just seems a little too coincidental for me. begins making tin foil hat

Well most Americans wouldn't care either way. The media on the other hand would treat a "domestic terrorism" event the same without regard to the details. It's not unfair to assume though that since the victims are (all?) Caucasian, it is all the more compelling. The only thing that I think would change the way it is reported would be if the murderer was a minority.

I grasp at straws, or connect the dots too. I just feel like it's important to choose which straws are actually worth sharing. Not that there is anything to lose here on Reddit. Which is why I subscribe to the Conspiracy section. Some shit is way-out-there crazy, but it's good to keep an open mind.

/end ramble.

Well, I should specify. The media rarely latches onto missing or murdered child stories unless the child is white. You very rarely see a black or hispanic child on Nancy Grace or one of those other shows that make a living off missing children. There's a term for it that escapes me. "Lost white girl syndrome" or something like that. Just an observation.

Sounds like you are agreeing with my reply. The only thing that would change the way the media reported on this tragedy would be if the victims or perpetrator were minorities. Obviously that is pure speculation though.

looks very much like a controlled demolition to me

This is the problem the truthers have. It looks like it. You can compare videos all day, but that doesn't mean anything.

You still haven't found evidence that a conspiracy to plant explosives beforehand existed, and that's what's necessary for your investigation to move forward.

Structural engineers and physicists saying there's no way this building fell from being on fire, especially the way it fell, is enough cause for doubt for me. Obviously if there were good solid evidence, this would be fact instead of conspiracy.

Do you have a link to a study conducted by these engineers and physicists that has been submitted through the peer review process?

Me personally, no. I haven't yet wandered through the links section of the website I posted. The science adds up though. A building fire can't melt steel. A bulding fire wouldnt cause an entire building to uniformly collapse in on itself.

This is why I would like to see a scientific study on the truther theories. Declaring something to be impossible is not the same as it being proven impossible.

Do you realize what it takes to melt steel? Thats why they use it in buildings. So in the event of a fire it can maintain structural integrity. Moreso, allowing that fire could melt steel, it would cause the building to collapse in stages as the fire spread and in that direction, not all at once and in on itself. For example, if a building has 4 main support columns, and you take out 2 on one side, the building is going to lean that way as it falls. The only way it falls straight down is taking out all 4 main supports at once and I dont think fire, even if it was hot enough to melt steel, is that organized.

Again, you don't have to melt steel to cause it to not be able to support weight. That's why they put fire proofing material around the beams.

And again, just because YOU claim a building will lean in every case like the one you've mentioned, doesn't mean it's actually fact.

The scientific method has not been followed with the controlled demolition theory yet, so everyone should be skeptical, if they were truly a critical thinker.

So, you're refuting basic, well-known structural physics. Im at a loss.

What I'm at a loss to explain is how you don't understand how bad it is that the scientific method has not been followed while claiming to parade science around.

Whatever truthers are doing, it isn't anywhere close to science.

How about this, I'll bite at your bait: Link me to an engineering document that describes every collapse scenario for a building constructed like the World Trade Center. Make sure you account for the fact that 1/2 and 7 were constructed differently with different support layout.

If this is well-known, there should be TONS of studies done on the subject, right? Or are you just repeating what you've been told by the "truth" movement?

I'm repeating something I agree with. Trust me, I was just as skeptical about truthers. Read some of the website I posted. I understand your skepticism and in the event no one has gone to such lengths as to recreate the incident in an experiment, that doesn't mean the physics don't still apply. I will do further research when I can and see what I can find. Be assured I am not just blindly following something I read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVhp5Ft4Mbs

Yes WTC 7 appears to be a demo job. It's 2011 and you never heard one speck of wtc7 conspiracies? Nearly 10 years it took you to learn/find out about that? What an inquisitive mind you must possess. Now try to learn what was actually in WTC7 at the time it was pulled.....

And you should just remove the "edit", because you can't just make up random acts of mathematics (8+1=9?) and attempt to derive causality based on it. It's worse than a straw man, it's... wait. straw? straw man? that's close to strawberry. Strawberries are grown in florida. Florida is where that terrorist trained to fly. Fly? Flies were present in NYC at the time of the attacks. NYC hmmm NYC has odd initials, perhaps they really means Now You Can (attack)? LOL stfu.

That's kinda the point isn't it? No one ever mentioned Building 7. It fell in late afternoon and that day no one said a word about it.

and as far as my edit, you don't have to agree, but you don't have to be an ass about it. Causality and a connection are not the same thing. I just thought it was interesting that the numbers added up.

point taken. I was just projecting frustration.

You never heard of WTC 7???? I mean together with the Pentagon demolition its THE FACT !!!!!! for me. To doubt the official Story. ....This is a fucking evidence!

i was thinking the same thing! i'm just glad the OP has finally heard about it.

When it happened, I was 19 and didn't particularly give a shit. I only happened on the WTC 7 story through wandering about 9/11 conspiracy vids on youtube.

hey, doesn't matter..you know now :) your eyes are open, so inform others...that's how this truther stuff works...

point taken. I was just projecting frustration.