How many of you believe that...

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

How many of you think that Bush created 9/11 as a way to keep americans frightened into doing anything he tells them? Or do you believe that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 which let Bush do anything we wanted? I have read parts of the 9/11 commission report and conspriacy theories on the net. I think its way too far fetched to believe that Bush could have thrown 9/11 so he could have an excuse to start just about any war he felt like having but I wanted to know if any of the people here really believed that.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 6 2004, 07:21 PM
How many of you think that Bush created 9/11 as a way to keep americans frightened into doing anything he tells them? Or do you believe that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 which let Bush do anything we wanted? I have read parts of the 9/11 commission report and conspriacy theories on the net. I think its way too far fetched to believe that Bush could have thrown 9/11 so he could have an excuse to start just about any war he felt like having but I wanted to know if any of the people here really believed that.
I believe that there were no credible sources within the vicinity of those incidents to belive anything much that I hear about them. Whether it was a sneaky move by Al Queda, or whether the Bush Gov't knew ahead of time, almost doesn't matter except for symbolic purposes. The fact is that the incidents are being used to sway public support in favour of fascism.

[T_SP]

I believe the Bush administration knew more than they let on, and that this was something that went to far, like when someone pushses the fat kid over for a laugh to make themselves look tough, but the fat kid hits his head on a rock and dies and then they just feel like a ****.
A bad example but you know what I mean! :o

[Skeptic]

If you believe that ragged left over remnents of Al Qeada, (A creation of the U.S. Govt.) are waging a global war against the United States out of a cave in the most remote location in the world, when they can't even give their cadre aspirin, then YOU are the Conspiracy Theorists.

It's not just Sept. 11th. Fascist elements within the U.S. government waged the 'Strategy of Tension' against Italy in the 1980s, committing bombings against the population and blaming it on the Red Brigades, to keep Socialism out of Italy. These bombings were carried out on orders from Washington D.C.

Fascist elements were responsible for the Oklahoma Murrah Federal building bombing, The 1993 World Trade Center bombing (every aspect carried out by the FBI according to court transcripts), 911, The Indonesian Bali bombing, the Madrid Train bombings. Virtually when ever there is a big election the right strikes. Just look at the staged attack on the Russian School by Putin's forces aligned with Washington D.C. They just won local Chechen elections by a landslide.

From these past experiences the United States can expect a stage event before the Elections as well.

Fascism is on the rise. The United States of America is the center of hate and reaction in the world today, waging global war on the planet.

When will people wake up to this?

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

In essence, the term 'war on terrorism' is an oxymoron. There cannot possibly be a 'war' on terror as war itself is a form of terror.

Was Bush behind 9/11? I wouldn't rule this notion out. How could a plane flying so low to the ground it knocked over lamp posts, hit the pentagon which is one of the most secure places on earth?

There's so many unanswered questions...I'm not saying I think Bush was the reason behind 9/11...nor am I saying he isnt. There's too many questions, and too few answers going around, that I think nobody's really sure.

[commiecrusader]

i think al-qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 bombings, but i do also think that bush and his administration knew there was an attack coming from hijackers, just not the exact details, and did nothing to prevent it.

it was however, the key that allowed bush or rather his administration (as i believe bush is a puppet who just does what cheney, bush snr etc tell him) to wage war on whoever they wanted. they were looking for an excuse to start wars they had already planned and this was it.


It's not just Sept. 11th. Fascist elements within the U.S. government waged the 'Strategy of Tension' against Italy in the 1980s, committing bombings against the population and blaming it on the Red Brigades, to keep Socialism out of Italy

the present administration uses these tactics against the U.S. citizens. just watch FoxNews. on the bit of text that scrolls accross at the bottom, it will just suddenly come accross that there is a terror alert or whatever, without making any further justification or explanations. this keeps american citizens frightened and allows the administration to do what they want.

[Rex_20XD6]

I heard that Bush knew that terrorist were targeting the U.S. But didn’t take action because he didn’t want a nation wide panic.

[timbaly]

I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I can't say I completely rule it out. Someone just gave me an interesting link that points to conspiracy. However I must warn you that the information may not be 100% and you should take it with a grain of salt. http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1568#Main

[Skeptic]

Good animation Timbaly, thanks for the link. --Skeptic

[refuse_resist]

There is a chance that certain high level government officials might have had something to do with it. I mean you gotta wonder how those guys were able to board the planes if their names were on some sort of international terrorist list.

But in reality, the ones who benefitted from this were the bourgeois. There's no doubt about that.

Bush, bin Laden, etc. are all one and the same.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I feel that the U.S. govornment staging something like that is unprobable, the people in charge aren't that bold, and they are too stupid to stage it without various leaks (on the other hand, the public is stupid enough that they might just go for it)

This is much like Pearl Harbour, I believe this could have been prevented, and the U.S. govornment knew more about it then they let on. Like in Pearl Harbour, however, they let it go, and perhaps set things up so the disaster was worse off then could have been

With a little encouragement these disasters occoured, and afterward the public waved thier flags and cursed the enemy with fervor and nationalism not seen since
the 13th century when the Last Crusade marched to Saladin.

With today's proletariats and the Medieval serfs waving flags (every time I see one of those damn yellow ribbons, I scream) and cheering on thier masters, today's George Bush and yesterday's Richard the Lionhearted, Tony Blair and Frederick Barbarossa drain the national treasurys to fund thier conquests of the Muslims. Unfortunately, this time there isn't a Saladin to turn away the invaders.

[commiecrusader]

that animation is pretty convincing if all they say is true.

[Invader Zim]

I dont know if Bin Laden is head of AQ, nor do I really care, but I think that they are behind the 9/11 attacks. Though how much Bush and co new about these attacks prior to the event is the 6 million doller question.

[Sabocat]

Quite a while ago, I had read somthing along the same lines. The principle piece of evidence they said was the lack of damage to the building from where the wings of the aircraft would have hit the building.

I have also read that a lot of pilots find it highly improbable that an inexperienced pilot could bring the plane in that low and that fast. Apparently it is a very tough procedure for an experienced pilot in an airplane of that size, let alone someone with almost no training.

[Exploited Class]

With no cold war, with no major enemies, an economic recession with no apparent bottom, dropping poll ratings for the President, there is plenty of room to believe that it was in this current administration's best intrest to do nothing to stop the attacks from happpening.

We are talking about an administration that was dug up from the cold war porfolios.

Extreme Religious figures put into key places like Ashcroft.

All of this before a fight it out with muslims.... It just seems like everything was in place and ready for this.

I wouldn't say that Bush or his cohorts at all assisted in the attacks.

I just don't think they cared, "So what? And if it does happen it would be the best thing ever for me. I might even get re-elected unlike my daddy."

There could have been no Iraq without 9-11 and there could be no oil pipe without 9-11.

Bush wins all around from 9-11, he gets every single thing he has ever wanted including large sweeping enforncement powers that the constitution does not allow.

EVERYTHING

[caliban]

There are a lot of arrows pointing in either direction, no matter what side of the theory fence you sit on. On one hand, if you believe that AQ carried out the attacks there is a mountain of evidence to support it. If you believe that it was the worlds biggest fuck-up black operation, then the arrows will point in that direction as well. Who shot JFK, where is Hoffa's body, is Janet Reno really a man.....the questions go on and on.
It is kind of interesting that these types of events always have the two sides of the fence standing off against each other in the search for the truth. It's also kind of funny to see the reaction on the faces of people when one suggests that it could have been a "powers that be" operation and not AQ. Before you get the rest of the words out of your mouth, the "nut case" opinion is already written across their face and your views are discarded like a piece of paper. Yes it is funny how those that don't believe in the status quo are quickly branded as a radical.
I don't know if Bush had anything to do with it or not, l doubt that the question will be answered very soon. If only we could have Osama on Larry King live to hear what he has to say......tell me, what look do you have on your face right now?
There are three sides to every story. Your's, mine, and the truth. All l mean is that all we are hearing is what we are being fed.

[The Immortal Goon]

No.

Bush wasn't behind it, though he could have prevented it if he wanted to.

It's the result of a dielectic synthesis that was put in motion a long time ago, perhaps unavoidably after the Soviet-Afgan war.

-TIG :ph34r:

[duk]

if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack!

[dotcommie]

i don't know speculation is not a game i like playing
it could be but does it matter?

america has and always will until capitalism dies ruled the world, its imperialist actions wouldn't have stopped if 0/11 had happened, the point is that with or with 9/11 americas imperialist action are oppressing nations and terrorists would have formed and attacked america at some point, terroism is the only way for the oppressed to challenge there oppressors wether its terrorism depends on how you look at it.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

How do you know that terrorism is the only way to fight their opressors? Its not cool to kill thousands of innocent people like what happened at the WTC. I was there a few weeks before 9/11. I can imagine how horrible it would have been like to die there like that. There must be different ways to go about this. And, Osama bin Laden is not a positive figure in the name of anti-opression. He's a islamic fundamentalist lunatic. Bush is no better.

[commiecrusader]

anyone watch the programme on Channel4 in the UK tonight bout 9/11 conspiracy theories?

i got the exact figures for the post-9/11 evac of that. it claimed that whilst all other flights were grounded, on 9/13, 7 private jets evacuated at least 140 Saudi internationals out of the U$, 24 of whom were directly related to Osama.

apparently also the official counter argument to the 'why such little damage to the pentagon' argument is that the jet was going at 500miles per hour when it hit, which they claim would have folded the wings back onto the body of the jet when they hit the wall, thus reducing the area that is damaged on the building, and due to the fuel being carried created such a large inferno as to burn up almost all of the plane.

it also claimed that the day before the attacks, several people placed MASSIVE bets that the stock market would take a hit in the next few days, and got $10 million collectively following the attack. they suggested this was members of Al-Qaeda, and that this will be pumped into further, self-financing attacks, which they will profit on in the same way, considering it only cost them about $1/2 million to perform 9/11.

they also claimed the Israeli security forces knew about the attack beforehand but didnt tell the US government because they wanted oil prices to go up or something.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:36 AM
Unfortunately, this time there isn't a Saladin to turn away the invaders.
The peoples of both Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a pretty good job so far of turning away the invader Krazyrabidsheep. They don't have correct leadership or line, but they are fighting like mad. Uncle Sam is paying for his arrogance and thievery.

[h&s]

anyone watch the programme on Channel4 in the UK tonight bout 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Yup..


i got the exact figures for the post-9/11 evac of that. it claimed that whilst all other flights were grounded, on 9/13, 7 private jets evacuated at least 140 Saudi internationals out of the U$, 24 of whom were directly related to Osama.
Well seeing as the Bin Laden family is extremely close to the house of Saud, and Osama is against the Saudis, somehow I doubt they had anything to do with the man himself. The programme also said how this flight was on the day that the skies were re-opened, not when everything else was grounded.


apparently also the official counter argument to the 'why such little damage to the pentagon' argument is that the jet was going at 500miles per hour when it hit, which they claim would have folded the wings back onto the body of the jet when they hit the wall, thus reducing the area that is damaged on the building, and due to the fuel being carried created such a large inferno as to burn up almost all of the plane.

I don't see how people an claim it wasn't a plane, as over 100 people saw it go in. Also, the calim that the passengers and crew of the plane have been given a secret life elsewhere is so rediculous, I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

[Sabocat]

they claim would have folded the wings back onto the body of the jet when they hit the wall

Bullshit. Perhaps they would have folded back after the strike, but that still would have resulted in damage from the wings on the outside of the building. However, the wings are generally held on with 4 forged titanium supports sandwiched together, 2 on each side, (which also support the landing gear) and then attached to the airframe. They would have sheared off on impact, not folded back. Also, seeing as the wing/landing gear supports, landing gear, and much of the engine turbine disks are made of titanium and incaloy with melting temperatures somewhere in the neighborhood of 1600-1800 degrees C., there should have been large pieces left after the fire as well as some strewn on the lawn. (The landing gear/wing supports in a 747 for example are 28 feet long each.) Where are they?

A kerosene fire would burn off too quickly to continually heat the titanium to melting point. I also don't think it's possible for a kerosene fire (at 875 degrees F.) to generate the heat required to accomplish that.

Keep in mind that the wings are where a lot of fuel is stored in these planes. There would have been tremendous explosion damage from the wings on the outside. Also, the bulk of the fire would have occured where the fuel exploded, which would have been outside where the wings struck.

[spook4thecia]

hahahaha you crazy commies! I'm gona have to pull out my tin hat on this one. I got it HERE (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) in case you guys want one. Oh I heard that Bush is responsible for putting Tribbles aboard the Enterprise and for tooth decay. Have you heard this? It's gotta be true because CBS reported it. I think the CIA blamed the Tribble invasion on the Vulcans when it was really that Christian hitler that's in office. yeah thats it :unsure: . If I you believed any of this you're about as cool as this guy :ph34r: Is he an anarchist? I feel bad for them. It seems the CIA has changed their vocal chords so they can only repeat Fascist! and Nazi! over and over.

[Joe_Black]

I suspect mossad involvement also. The was a well funded agency at work here.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:22 PM
I don't know if Bush had anything to do with it or not, l doubt that the question will be answered very soon. If only we could have Osama on Larry King live to hear what he has to say......tell me, what look do you have on your face right now?

Caliban, we have Bin Ladin's statement from a face to face interview with a journalist. He said that he and his forces had nothing to do with the attack and that killing innocents was not a appreaciable act and that it was against the dictates of Islam. When the U.S. government tried to produce tapes with old recordings of Bin Ladin at a wedding which inferred he did the 911 attacks and had him laughing, European experts said the tapes were obvious, cut and paisted together forgeries.

Some people in this thread are starting to say maybe the Bush Administration knew but certainly they didn't actively participate. This goes counter with the facts that we know about the attacks.


Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | September 8 2004

For almost three years since 9/11 independent researchers have stockpiled individual smoking guns which prove that the official version of events was not only a lie but operationally impossible.

However, no single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.

Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.

It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked. Click here for that article.

The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. Click here for that video clip and article. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"

Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released in August 2002. Click here to watch a video clip. Alex explains why the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.

What were the drills called and what was their nature?

1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.

2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.

5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

Another example of how air defenses were purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported by this website in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight 11 and Flight 175.

Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.

But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting the skies of the east coast.

It was only after both trade towers were hit that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft.

Now that we have established how NORAD were confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

Dick Cheney.

Cheney was initially taken by the secret service to an underground bunker in the White House called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

From there, according to CNN, Cheney directed the US government's response to the unfolding attack.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane in question hit the Pentagon, what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down the aircraft and to let it find its target.

Mineta stated that he did not know what the 'order' was because he wasn't there when it was made.

After the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was transfered to another bunker in what the Philadelphia Daily News describes as 'the underground Pentagon'.

Site R, a highly secure complex of buildings inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pa., close to the Maryland-Pennsylvania state line and about seven miles north of Camp David, is a 53-year-old facility conceived at the start of the Cold War as an alternate command center in the event of nuclear war or an attack on Washington.

The bunker is built into a mountain hillside and is virtually camouflaged to the naked eye. The location betrays itself by the vast gaggle of satellites, microwave towers and antennae that festoon the perimeter. Inside the facility there are computer filled caverns and communication and tracking technology that would put a James Bond movie to shame.

The entire facility is guarded by heavily armed military police.

Within hours of 9/11 unfolding, five choppers had landed on the facility's helipad and top officials such as Paul Wolfowitz were ushered in to join Cheney in the command bunker.

Site R - also known as Raven Rock or the Alternate Joint Communications Center is from where vice-President Dick Cheney ran the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Cheney's command superceded the orders of the Pentagon, the FAA or the White House. He is the number one suspect in the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.

The smoking guns of 9/11 are no longer disparate jigsaw pieces that serve to just raise more questions than they answer. We now have a coherent and plausible explanation of how the events unfolded, why there was no air defense response, and a prime suspect as to who executed these actions. The facts fit this version of events.

The 9/11 truth movement has just taken a giant leap towards dismantling the lies of September 11and finally offering justice for those who lost their lives on that terrible day.

---------------------------

E mail your comment on this article to [email protected] and have it posted here.

--------------------------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/sep

Read also:

The associated press has told us that fighter aircraft were scrambled and flying beside errand commercial and private air traffic within minutes of the slightest deviation some 67 times in the calendar year preceding June 1, 2001. This is one of many where the Kean Commission not only fail to look, but actually altered evidence, in the preparation of its final report.

For me, the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in, and management of, the attacks was found in a number of undisputed, yet virtually unaddressed wargames that I will show were being conducted, coordinated and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September 11th. The names of those wargames are known to include: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod II. All Have been reported on by major press organizations relying on undisputed quotes from participating military personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II had to do with hijacked airliners inside the continental United States, specifically within the Northeast Air Defense Sector where all four 9/11 Hijackings occurred.

According to a clear record some of these exercises involved commercial airline hijackings. In some cases false blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during (at least) the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because, with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance had pulled significant fighter resources away from the Northeast U.S.--Just before 9/11--into Northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were "live-fly" exercises were actually aircraft, likely flown by remote control--were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. The fact that these exercises had never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press, or publicly by Congress, or at least publicly in any detail by the so-called independent 9/11 Commission made me think they might be the Holy Grail of 9/11.

1. I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command control and communications system which was superseding any orders being issued by the NMCC, or the White House situation room. To accomplish that end he relied on a redundant and superior communications system maintained by the US Secret Service in or near the Presidential Emergency Operations Center--The bunker to which he and National Security advisor Condeloeezza Rice were reportedly "rushed" after Flight 175 struck the WTC's South tower.

Excerpt from a Speech by Michael Ruppert: "Address to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club August 31st, 2004"

[DaCuBaN]

There is substantial evidence that doesn't 'add up' about the 'terror attacks' of 11th September, and a lot of it is based on the temperature that kerosene - the substance from which jet-fuel is based - burns at (350-400celsius).

In regards to the WTC, it was constructed from eight primary steel columns running a quarter of a mile into the sky: Where did they go when the towers fell? It's accepted that the teirs arranged around these columns fell ontop of each other like plates - hence why it fell so neatly - but surely something should have been left standing in the centre? Had they melted at any point, they would have fallen like a tree in the forest - destroying buildings surrounding the WTCers

Back to kerosene, the wings of a 757 are literally full of the stuff: In regards to the Pentagon, a 757 hitting it would have cause a big hole in the centre, and a large exploision on either side of it. That's not what I saw....

On the WTC: Steel like that used to construct the centre columns melts at 1500 celsuis. Kerosene burns at 400c. Something therefore must have made up the 1100c difference to cause this.

None of this leads directly to US involvement in the disasters, and I don't think they were involved - but these unanswered questions need closer inspection.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

we have Bin Ladin's statement from a face to face interview with a journalist. He said that he and his forces had nothing to do with the attack and that killing innocents was not a appreaciable act and that it was against the dictates of Islam.

Didn't Mr. Laden say that "it is the duty of all muslims to kill americans wherever it is possilble", or something around those lines (sorry my question mark key isn't working!)

[commiecrusader]

Well seeing as the Bin Laden family is extremely close to the house of Saud, and Osama is against the Saudis, somehow I doubt they had anything to do with the man himself. The programme also said how this flight was on the day that the skies were re-opened, not when everything else was grounded.
Osama isnt as distant from the rest of the Bin Laden family as the U.$. government make out. he attended the wedding of one of the Bin Laden girls not long before (a year at most) the 9/11 attacks. the U.$. government just try to create an artificial distance to cover their close links.


I don't see how people an claim it wasn't a plane, as over 100 people saw it go in. Also, the calim that the passengers and crew of the plane have been given a secret life elsewhere is so rediculous, I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.
i dont know, i dont really know whether the conspiracies are true or not. however it is claimed that the very first witnesses, before emergency services got there reported seeing a much smaller plane than a 757 or possibly even a missile.

another whole element of the conspiracy theory is that it is standard practice to scramble fighter jets if a plane goes off course, even if there is no confirmation that it is hijacked. it must be asked why this didn't happen on 9/11.


On the WTC: Steel like that used to construct the centre columns melts at 1500 celsuis. Kerosene burns at 400c. Something therefore must have made up the 1100c difference to cause this.
the official story is that the WTC had been constructed to take a fire, or a plane crashing into it, and not collapse. however, both of these happened together, and they claim that the WTC couldnt take it and thus collapsed. with regards to the centre columns, i doubt they were all one piece, although i don't know, because surely this would have made the structure too rigid. i thought skyscrapers were designed to have a certain degree of flex in them, so they could take high winds etc. its like a thin bendy tree is much less likely to be blown over than a non-bendy one.

[DaCuBaN]

i thought skyscrapers were designed to have a certain degree of flex in them, so they could take high winds etc. its like a thin bendy tree is much less likely to be blown over than a non-bendy one.

These buildings were a quarter of a mile high: At the top (If I remember correctly) they moved no more than three feet in the highest of gales.

As to the centre columns, they were quarter mile long columns of steel - they were single solid objects, and there were eight of them (as I understand it).


the WTC had been constructed to take a fire, or a plane crashing into it, and not collapse. however, both of these happened together

So a plane carrying lots of combustable fuel wouldn't have set fire? Does that not seem a little odd to you? I don't dispute that some of these effects could have weakened to the links between the beams and columns, causing a floor to collapse - but each floor was designed to carry six times it's maximum registered weight, and take the weight of three collapsed floors above.

What I saw didn't tally up with that...

[h&s]

The thing with the WTC was that the fire-proofing on the steel structure wasn't just inadequate, it was terrible. All of the steel structure was meant to be covered in copius ammounts of fire-proofing, but this was hardly the case - the steel was just covered in token ammounts of the stuff. This meant that the extreme heat of the fire melted the steel, so that floors began to fall 'like plates' onto each other, and as the ones in the fire zones were already weak, it would have been more than 3 floors falling on the unburnt ones, making them collapse, and thus continuing the domino effect. As this fell down the middle, it would have partially ripped the outer, and inner steel structures inwards with it, meaning that they didn't remain standing.

[DaCuBaN]

Kerosene - jet fuel - burns at less than 400 celsuis
Steel - without any kind of fireproofing - melts at 1500 celsius. We're not talking liquid steel here either - that is the chewing gum temperature.

Forgive me if this does not compute...

[commiecrusader]

hmmmm that does seem pretty weird. however, something must have broken up the steel supports, since it would be impossible for the FBI or whatever to conceal 1/4 mile long supports... but then again would explosives have blown up the pillars? i dont know enough about them.

with regards to the kerosene, i expect that wasnt the only thing burning, surely there would have been other things such as gas, paperwork etc. surely all this adds up?

also whilst it is ridiculous that they didnt consider a plane crashing into them and starting a fire, that is apparently what the chief engineer and architects didnt consider, just one or the other. of course, this could just be part of the cover up...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 11 2004, 10:00 PM

we have Bin Ladin's statement from a face to face interview with a journalist. He said that he and his forces had nothing to do with the attack and that killing innocents was not a appreaciable act and that it was against the dictates of Islam.

Didn't Mr. Laden say that "it is the duty of all muslims to kill americans wherever it is possilble", or something around those lines (sorry my question mark key isn't working!)
It's hard to know what Osama Bin Ladin says Bird because so much false stuff is made up about him by the bourgeois press and govt. agencies. All I can quote to you is from a face to face interview with him reguarding the attacks on 911. He said he didn't do it. The U.S. govt. was caught making up a fake tape saying he did do it.

[commiecrusader]

a thought just struck me with regards to those supports in the WTC.

is it possible that the impact of the plane could have in some way shattered the supports?

i know it was supposed to have been designed to take an impact, but since the fire proofing was shite maybe the construction was too?

just a thought.

[DaCuBaN]

Frankly, I think it was detonated. Not necessarily by the US, but deliberately felled from within. I can think of no other way that the quarter mile high steel supports could have fragmented to perfectly as to not show a single sign of their remains amongst the rubble.

A plane-crash does not do this.

This is strictly hear-say, but I heard mention that the WTC's insurance policy was renewed only just prior to the disaster for the tune of 2,500,000,000 dollars...

[commiecrusader]

if that is true then i can't believe the insurance company paid out without investigating the circumstances, or in fact that there hasnt been a proper independent investigation, although i guess that is probs too much to ask for lol

[h&s]

This is strictly hear-say, but I heard mention that the WTC's insurance policy was renewed only just prior to the disaster for the tune of 2,500,000,000 dollars...

That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.

[Bruntovelli]

Lets not get to "lefty" on this topic.
what a I sertainly do belive is that bush knew more than he maked out to be. i sertinly think he knew a major attack on the US would happen.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:27 AM
I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I can't say I completely rule it out. Someone just gave me an interesting link that points to conspiracy. However I must warn you that the information may not be 100% and you should take it with a grain of salt. http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1568#Main
I just started reading this forum and was going to ask if anyone had seen that. I saw it on Ebaumsworld.com, but I guess it pissed too many people off so they removed it.

President Bush knew that Al Queda were planning an attack on the US. I think in the report they even had a day: Sept 11th, 2001. So we know the Bush administration had knowledge that something was going to occur. And in Farenheit 9/11, we also know that Bush had stocks in Haliburton (fromerly known as Lockheed-Martin). So I'm definately not ruling out the idea that it is a Bush "conspiracy."

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:27 AM
I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I can't say I completely rule it out. Someone just gave me an interesting link that points to conspiracy. However I must warn you that the information may not be 100% and you should take it with a grain of salt. http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1568#Main
I just started reading this forum and was going to ask if anyone had seen that. I saw it on Ebaumsworld.com, but I guess it pissed too many people off so they removed it.

President Bush knew that Al Queda were planning an attack on the US. I think in the report they even had a day: Sept 11th, 2001. So we know the Bush administration had knowledge that something was going to occur. And in Farenheit 9/11, we also know that Bush had stocks in Haliburton (fromerly known as Lockheed-Martin). So I'm definately not ruling out the idea that it is a Bush "conspiracy."

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:27 AM
I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but I can't say I completely rule it out. Someone just gave me an interesting link that points to conspiracy. However I must warn you that the information may not be 100% and you should take it with a grain of salt. http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1568#Main
I just started reading this forum and was going to ask if anyone had seen that. I saw it on Ebaumsworld.com, but I guess it pissed too many people off so they removed it.

President Bush knew that Al Queda were planning an attack on the US. I think in the report they even had a day: Sept 11th, 2001. So we know the Bush administration had knowledge that something was going to occur. And in Farenheit 9/11, we also know that Bush had stocks in Haliburton (fromerly known as Lockheed-Martin). So I'm definately not ruling out the idea that it is a Bush "conspiracy."

[Valkyrie]

<<I can think of no other way that the quarter mile high steel supports could have fragmented to perfectly as to not show a single sign of their remains amongst the rubble.>>>

there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

[Valkyrie]

<<I can think of no other way that the quarter mile high steel supports could have fragmented to perfectly as to not show a single sign of their remains amongst the rubble.>>>

there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

[Valkyrie]

<<I can think of no other way that the quarter mile high steel supports could have fragmented to perfectly as to not show a single sign of their remains amongst the rubble.>>>

there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

[commiecrusader]

Bush aint clever enough to create the whole thing himself. If it is a conspiracy, it is more likely to have been run by someone else like Cheney or Rumsfeld or whoever. Bush is a moron (am I allowed to say that?)

[commiecrusader]

Bush aint clever enough to create the whole thing himself. If it is a conspiracy, it is more likely to have been run by someone else like Cheney or Rumsfeld or whoever. Bush is a moron (am I allowed to say that?)

[commiecrusader]

Bush aint clever enough to create the whole thing himself. If it is a conspiracy, it is more likely to have been run by someone else like Cheney or Rumsfeld or whoever. Bush is a moron (am I allowed to say that?)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:46 PM
That is true, but that is only because a new 99-year lease was taken out on the WTC in April 2001 which needed the insurance.
I think you will be interested to know that Alan Silverstien, the quy who took out the lease on the WTC just before it was attacked (and tried to get TWO insurance pay offs for the attacks)--and also admitted on PBS that he ordered Building 7 &#39;pulled&#39; (that&#39;s construct talk for demolished) I&#39;m talking about the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5 PM in a pancake fashion for no appearent reason. Anyway, Silverstien recently purchased a lease on the Sears Building in Chicago. Go any idea where the &#39;foreign terrorists&#39; will strike next...

[redtrigger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:32 AM
if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

I&#39;ve said it before and I will say it again. At its core Farenheit 9/11 is Hollywood. The only thing Hollywod cares about is money. That movie was released because the higher-ups knew it would play on the emotions of the people. It is capitalism at its worst, using the death of innocents to make a profit. If you agree and support this fillm you might as well have helped Bush by carrying the oil back from Iraq with the burning corpses of civilians lining your road home acting as beacons for your path back to Washington. It is one and the same. If you want the facts you do private study of credible resources. This does not include conspiracy theory sites on the web unless they are accredited, even then you should proceed with caution.

[redtrigger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:32 AM
if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

I&#39;ve said it before and I will say it again. At its core Farenheit 9/11 is Hollywood. The only thing Hollywod cares about is money. That movie was released because the higher-ups knew it would play on the emotions of the people. It is capitalism at its worst, using the death of innocents to make a profit. If you agree and support this fillm you might as well have helped Bush by carrying the oil back from Iraq with the burning corpses of civilians lining your road home acting as beacons for your path back to Washington. It is one and the same. If you want the facts you do private study of credible resources. This does not include conspiracy theory sites on the web unless they are accredited, even then you should proceed with caution.

[redtrigger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:32 AM
if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

if we watch fahrenheit 9/11 we can find some evidences that bush and bin laden have both a relation with the attack&#33;

I&#39;ve said it before and I will say it again. At its core Farenheit 9/11 is Hollywood. The only thing Hollywod cares about is money. That movie was released because the higher-ups knew it would play on the emotions of the people. It is capitalism at its worst, using the death of innocents to make a profit. If you agree and support this fillm you might as well have helped Bush by carrying the oil back from Iraq with the burning corpses of civilians lining your road home acting as beacons for your path back to Washington. It is one and the same. If you want the facts you do private study of credible resources. This does not include conspiracy theory sites on the web unless they are accredited, even then you should proceed with caution.

[DaCuBaN]

http://www.constructiontimes.co.uk/editorials%5Cimages%5CWorld%20Trade%20Centre.jpg


there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

We&#39;re talking about steel here: 1500 celsuis is required to start melting it. Blowtorches wouldn&#39;t even make a dent. Hell, it&#39;d barely even get it glowing&#33;

Steel is a fair electrical conductor, and the other attribute it shares with other conductors is it&#39;s ability to transfer heat. This means that all the intensity of that fire, all that heat was being essentially pumped around the building along the steel framework: This means that the intensity was constantly being undermined.

There is little way enough heat could have been developed to naturally fell the buildings.

As I said about the columns before; look at the picture at the top. You can clearly see that the small and weak columns that surrounded the buildings - the ones that didn&#39;t hold the weight and weren&#39;t designed to do so, managed to survive a quarter mile fall back down to earth, yet the big, robust central columns did not.

If you hadn&#39;t guessed, this whole thing pisses me off immensely: Whilst the &#39;conspiracy&#39; aspect of this doesn&#39;t add up, neither does the &#39;real&#39; explanation

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/01/14/sept11.records/story.wtc.site.jpg

Really though, this is all picking hairs. A large part of my desire to propogate these theories is based on my detestation of &#39;self-righteousness&#39;. 9/11 certainly brought us enough of that <_<

[DaCuBaN]

http://www.constructiontimes.co.uk/editorials%5Cimages%5CWorld%20Trade%20Centre.jpg


there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

We&#39;re talking about steel here: 1500 celsuis is required to start melting it. Blowtorches wouldn&#39;t even make a dent. Hell, it&#39;d barely even get it glowing&#33;

Steel is a fair electrical conductor, and the other attribute it shares with other conductors is it&#39;s ability to transfer heat. This means that all the intensity of that fire, all that heat was being essentially pumped around the building along the steel framework: This means that the intensity was constantly being undermined.

There is little way enough heat could have been developed to naturally fell the buildings.

As I said about the columns before; look at the picture at the top. You can clearly see that the small and weak columns that surrounded the buildings - the ones that didn&#39;t hold the weight and weren&#39;t designed to do so, managed to survive a quarter mile fall back down to earth, yet the big, robust central columns did not.

If you hadn&#39;t guessed, this whole thing pisses me off immensely: Whilst the &#39;conspiracy&#39; aspect of this doesn&#39;t add up, neither does the &#39;real&#39; explanation

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/01/14/sept11.records/story.wtc.site.jpg

Really though, this is all picking hairs. A large part of my desire to propogate these theories is based on my detestation of &#39;self-righteousness&#39;. 9/11 certainly brought us enough of that <_<

[DaCuBaN]

http://www.constructiontimes.co.uk/editorials%5Cimages%5CWorld%20Trade%20Centre.jpg


there was structure of the WTC still standing. Remember, the WTC did not immediatly fall. Anything burning for a length of time will become hotter, it was like a furnace -- melting down metal. Like what happens to metal when you work with a blowtorch or a blacksmith&#39;s forge.

We&#39;re talking about steel here: 1500 celsuis is required to start melting it. Blowtorches wouldn&#39;t even make a dent. Hell, it&#39;d barely even get it glowing&#33;

Steel is a fair electrical conductor, and the other attribute it shares with other conductors is it&#39;s ability to transfer heat. This means that all the intensity of that fire, all that heat was being essentially pumped around the building along the steel framework: This means that the intensity was constantly being undermined.

There is little way enough heat could have been developed to naturally fell the buildings.

As I said about the columns before; look at the picture at the top. You can clearly see that the small and weak columns that surrounded the buildings - the ones that didn&#39;t hold the weight and weren&#39;t designed to do so, managed to survive a quarter mile fall back down to earth, yet the big, robust central columns did not.

If you hadn&#39;t guessed, this whole thing pisses me off immensely: Whilst the &#39;conspiracy&#39; aspect of this doesn&#39;t add up, neither does the &#39;real&#39; explanation

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/01/14/sept11.records/story.wtc.site.jpg

Really though, this is all picking hairs. A large part of my desire to propogate these theories is based on my detestation of &#39;self-righteousness&#39;. 9/11 certainly brought us enough of that <_<

[Valkyrie]

The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable, ---bending and changing shape and burning off alloys. Along with the fuel and other building materials and elements, would make it extremely incendiary and combustible, which then, yes, would produce enough heat to collapse the buildings, --that, and compounded with the massive weight the columns were holding up. That&#39;s what happen to the steel columns at the WTC. It buckled. They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw, thus making it even easier to contain heat within, weakening the structure.

I live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE. A regular fire probably would have done much of the same thing.


I haven&#39;t been able to view this, yet, But, it&#39;s the theory of what happened structually to the WTC.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.

[Valkyrie]

The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable, ---bending and changing shape and burning off alloys. Along with the fuel and other building materials and elements, would make it extremely incendiary and combustible, which then, yes, would produce enough heat to collapse the buildings, --that, and compounded with the massive weight the columns were holding up. That&#39;s what happen to the steel columns at the WTC. It buckled. They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw, thus making it even easier to contain heat within, weakening the structure.

I live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE. A regular fire probably would have done much of the same thing.


I haven&#39;t been able to view this, yet, But, it&#39;s the theory of what happened structually to the WTC.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.

[Valkyrie]

The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable, ---bending and changing shape and burning off alloys. Along with the fuel and other building materials and elements, would make it extremely incendiary and combustible, which then, yes, would produce enough heat to collapse the buildings, --that, and compounded with the massive weight the columns were holding up. That&#39;s what happen to the steel columns at the WTC. It buckled. They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw, thus making it even easier to contain heat within, weakening the structure.

I live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE. A regular fire probably would have done much of the same thing.


I haven&#39;t been able to view this, yet, But, it&#39;s the theory of what happened structually to the WTC.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.

[DaCuBaN]

live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE.

I&#39;ve only visited NY the once (September &#39;99) and I do agree - they were too big. I remember standing in the square between the two of them and staring up - in pain. However, I&#39;ve read that the towers only moved a total of 3ft in a high wind, and certainly underneath there was that mall - so the foundations were well secured.

I seriously would dispute that it was going to &#39;come down any minute&#39;: They were a marvel of modern engineering.


They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw

It was no flaw: Tubular steel bears far more weight than it&#39;s solid counterpart (given the same quantities of materials). Similarly, the whole thing didn&#39;t fall down at once: The structure &#39;gave&#39; at a single point, and cascaded down. If the heat had been transferring around the building (and if it was actually hot enough) then you&#39;d have again more likely seen the tower fall like a tree.

Something is not right&#33;


The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable

Yes: It takes over 1500 degrees celsuis to achieve this. That&#39;s something like 3000f&#33; If you wish to bend steel, you&#39;ve got to start using bottled oxygen and acetylene torches because it requires such amazingly intense heat to work with. The BBC has the temperature of the fires in the first tower - the one that is alleged to have fallen &#39;naturally&#39; at reaching 800 celsuis (1600 something f). That&#39;s a little bit short, no?

A fire from a jet, nor anything that would have been in that building is sufficient. Had the space shuttle (with it&#39;s tanks strapped underneath) gone into the building then I would agree that it was possible - that much compressed oxygen would&#39;ve easily melted the support columns when it combusted - and taken out half of the city too, but I digress.

There is no doubt in my mind that those towers didn&#39;t "fall", but were "pulled". The attacks themselves certainly seem genuine - I have no evidence to the contrary, and there is plenty to support that claim - but watch the towers again: The first tower was the cleanest falling, the second nearly toppled sidewise as it came down. Yet the first fell on it&#39;s own, and the second was detonated? What the hell was the second tower doing filled with explosives anyway?

Now where&#39;s my tin-foil hat gone....

[DaCuBaN]

live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE.

I&#39;ve only visited NY the once (September &#39;99) and I do agree - they were too big. I remember standing in the square between the two of them and staring up - in pain. However, I&#39;ve read that the towers only moved a total of 3ft in a high wind, and certainly underneath there was that mall - so the foundations were well secured.

I seriously would dispute that it was going to &#39;come down any minute&#39;: They were a marvel of modern engineering.


They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw

It was no flaw: Tubular steel bears far more weight than it&#39;s solid counterpart (given the same quantities of materials). Similarly, the whole thing didn&#39;t fall down at once: The structure &#39;gave&#39; at a single point, and cascaded down. If the heat had been transferring around the building (and if it was actually hot enough) then you&#39;d have again more likely seen the tower fall like a tree.

Something is not right&#33;


The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable

Yes: It takes over 1500 degrees celsuis to achieve this. That&#39;s something like 3000f&#33; If you wish to bend steel, you&#39;ve got to start using bottled oxygen and acetylene torches because it requires such amazingly intense heat to work with. The BBC has the temperature of the fires in the first tower - the one that is alleged to have fallen &#39;naturally&#39; at reaching 800 celsuis (1600 something f). That&#39;s a little bit short, no?

A fire from a jet, nor anything that would have been in that building is sufficient. Had the space shuttle (with it&#39;s tanks strapped underneath) gone into the building then I would agree that it was possible - that much compressed oxygen would&#39;ve easily melted the support columns when it combusted - and taken out half of the city too, but I digress.

There is no doubt in my mind that those towers didn&#39;t "fall", but were "pulled". The attacks themselves certainly seem genuine - I have no evidence to the contrary, and there is plenty to support that claim - but watch the towers again: The first tower was the cleanest falling, the second nearly toppled sidewise as it came down. Yet the first fell on it&#39;s own, and the second was detonated? What the hell was the second tower doing filled with explosives anyway?

Now where&#39;s my tin-foil hat gone....

[DaCuBaN]

live in NY and I&#39;ve seen the WTC plenty of times before and a few times since.. and even when they were up, they looked like they were going to come down ANY MINUTE.

I&#39;ve only visited NY the once (September &#39;99) and I do agree - they were too big. I remember standing in the square between the two of them and staring up - in pain. However, I&#39;ve read that the towers only moved a total of 3ft in a high wind, and certainly underneath there was that mall - so the foundations were well secured.

I seriously would dispute that it was going to &#39;come down any minute&#39;: They were a marvel of modern engineering.


They were not solid columns to begin with but hollow tube columns, a design flaw

It was no flaw: Tubular steel bears far more weight than it&#39;s solid counterpart (given the same quantities of materials). Similarly, the whole thing didn&#39;t fall down at once: The structure &#39;gave&#39; at a single point, and cascaded down. If the heat had been transferring around the building (and if it was actually hot enough) then you&#39;d have again more likely seen the tower fall like a tree.

Something is not right&#33;


The inference is that when you apply intense heat to metal, LIKE you would observe of the same principle when a blowtorch is applied to metal, -- it begins to break down, melting and becoming extemely malleable

Yes: It takes over 1500 degrees celsuis to achieve this. That&#39;s something like 3000f&#33; If you wish to bend steel, you&#39;ve got to start using bottled oxygen and acetylene torches because it requires such amazingly intense heat to work with. The BBC has the temperature of the fires in the first tower - the one that is alleged to have fallen &#39;naturally&#39; at reaching 800 celsuis (1600 something f). That&#39;s a little bit short, no?

A fire from a jet, nor anything that would have been in that building is sufficient. Had the space shuttle (with it&#39;s tanks strapped underneath) gone into the building then I would agree that it was possible - that much compressed oxygen would&#39;ve easily melted the support columns when it combusted - and taken out half of the city too, but I digress.

There is no doubt in my mind that those towers didn&#39;t "fall", but were "pulled". The attacks themselves certainly seem genuine - I have no evidence to the contrary, and there is plenty to support that claim - but watch the towers again: The first tower was the cleanest falling, the second nearly toppled sidewise as it came down. Yet the first fell on it&#39;s own, and the second was detonated? What the hell was the second tower doing filled with explosives anyway?

Now where&#39;s my tin-foil hat gone....

[Valkyrie]

Your tin hat melted watching too many WTC vidoes and reading too many theories. :lol: Don&#39;t put much stock into marvels of modern engineering. So was the Hindenburg and the Titanic. The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Granted, It is possible the bottom structure could have been detonated. It was in the 1993 bombing. But, what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

I would still maintain that they heated up from intense heat of the fuel, elements other incidenary building materials, on the inside of the hollow tube and melted, bent and twisted over.

[Valkyrie]

Your tin hat melted watching too many WTC vidoes and reading too many theories. :lol: Don&#39;t put much stock into marvels of modern engineering. So was the Hindenburg and the Titanic. The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Granted, It is possible the bottom structure could have been detonated. It was in the 1993 bombing. But, what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

I would still maintain that they heated up from intense heat of the fuel, elements other incidenary building materials, on the inside of the hollow tube and melted, bent and twisted over.

[Valkyrie]

Your tin hat melted watching too many WTC vidoes and reading too many theories. :lol: Don&#39;t put much stock into marvels of modern engineering. So was the Hindenburg and the Titanic. The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Granted, It is possible the bottom structure could have been detonated. It was in the 1993 bombing. But, what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

I would still maintain that they heated up from intense heat of the fuel, elements other incidenary building materials, on the inside of the hollow tube and melted, bent and twisted over.

[DaCuBaN]

Your tin hat melted
:(


The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Indeed - filled near to bursting with hydrogen. Short of (perhaps) some gas pipes carrying butane/methane, I can&#39;t think what else would&#39;ve been in that building that could&#39;ve gone up so much.

The link you provided in your original post does have some interesting stuff in it - I&#39;m reading it still just now.


what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

This is what pisses me off: I don&#39;t have the foggiest idea&#33; I&#39;m no explosives expert, and so have no idea what would&#39;ve been required to pull the building - but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;) ) that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within

Do they usually add a self destruct feature to sky scrapers? :o

I don&#39;t presume to have any answers here - only questions. :unsure:

[DaCuBaN]

Your tin hat melted
:(


The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Indeed - filled near to bursting with hydrogen. Short of (perhaps) some gas pipes carrying butane/methane, I can&#39;t think what else would&#39;ve been in that building that could&#39;ve gone up so much.

The link you provided in your original post does have some interesting stuff in it - I&#39;m reading it still just now.


what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

This is what pisses me off: I don&#39;t have the foggiest idea&#33; I&#39;m no explosives expert, and so have no idea what would&#39;ve been required to pull the building - but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;) ) that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within

Do they usually add a self destruct feature to sky scrapers? :o

I don&#39;t presume to have any answers here - only questions. :unsure:

[DaCuBaN]

Your tin hat melted
:(


The Hidenburg, another steel "indestructible" invention.

Indeed - filled near to bursting with hydrogen. Short of (perhaps) some gas pipes carrying butane/methane, I can&#39;t think what else would&#39;ve been in that building that could&#39;ve gone up so much.

The link you provided in your original post does have some interesting stuff in it - I&#39;m reading it still just now.


what do you think it was detonated with that would have taken out those steel supports? Bottled oxyen and acetylene torches? I mean, what do you think happened to them, ---they obviously are gone.

This is what pisses me off: I don&#39;t have the foggiest idea&#33; I&#39;m no explosives expert, and so have no idea what would&#39;ve been required to pull the building - but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;) ) that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within

Do they usually add a self destruct feature to sky scrapers? :o

I don&#39;t presume to have any answers here - only questions. :unsure:

[Valkyrie]

>>>that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within<<<<

Well, "Mission Impossible" was always able to self-destruct in the opening credits of the t.v. series. Just kidding about your tin hat melting.. it&#39;s ok, though, because your penquin avatar is still wearing one. :unsure: :):)

Yes, the theories are intriquing, that is for sure&#33; But, they all must have a logical explanation, no matter who did it. I&#39;d like to know the science behind it.

[Valkyrie]

>>>that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within<<<<

Well, "Mission Impossible" was always able to self-destruct in the opening credits of the t.v. series. Just kidding about your tin hat melting.. it&#39;s ok, though, because your penquin avatar is still wearing one. :unsure: :):)

Yes, the theories are intriquing, that is for sure&#33; But, they all must have a logical explanation, no matter who did it. I&#39;d like to know the science behind it.

[Valkyrie]

>>>that the second tower is confirmed to have been pulled. It raises the whole question of why the building had the means to destroy itself within<<<<

Well, "Mission Impossible" was always able to self-destruct in the opening credits of the t.v. series. Just kidding about your tin hat melting.. it&#39;s ok, though, because your penquin avatar is still wearing one. :unsure: :):)

Yes, the theories are intriquing, that is for sure&#33; But, they all must have a logical explanation, no matter who did it. I&#39;d like to know the science behind it.

[redtrigger]

Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:

[redtrigger]

Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:

[redtrigger]

Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:

[Valkyrie]

The real question is: Why would you "pull" the Pentagon? Maybe the WTC is dispensable.... But the Pentagon?? Even if they removed every important National Security secret from there... would they still get rid of it, thus then seeming to appear vulnerable, weak and easy to attack. It&#39;s the National Defense Building&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; There are so many other landmarks to attack. This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

[Valkyrie]

The real question is: Why would you "pull" the Pentagon? Maybe the WTC is dispensable.... But the Pentagon?? Even if they removed every important National Security secret from there... would they still get rid of it, thus then seeming to appear vulnerable, weak and easy to attack. It&#39;s the National Defense Building&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; There are so many other landmarks to attack. This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

[Valkyrie]

The real question is: Why would you "pull" the Pentagon? Maybe the WTC is dispensable.... But the Pentagon?? Even if they removed every important National Security secret from there... would they still get rid of it, thus then seeming to appear vulnerable, weak and easy to attack. It&#39;s the National Defense Building&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; There are so many other landmarks to attack. This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

[Valkyrie]

http://www.september11news.com/

[Valkyrie]

http://www.september11news.com/

[Valkyrie]

http://www.september11news.com/

[DaCuBaN]

This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

The Pentagon is a different kettle of fish; Unless they are going to try and use it to justify more secretive intelligence housing, I can&#39;t see the point in hurting yourself so much.

With the WTC however, I&#39;m inclined to think corporate corruption...

[DaCuBaN]

This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

The Pentagon is a different kettle of fish; Unless they are going to try and use it to justify more secretive intelligence housing, I can&#39;t see the point in hurting yourself so much.

With the WTC however, I&#39;m inclined to think corporate corruption...

[DaCuBaN]

This to me is why the main thrust of the US-did-it-theory is discredited.

The Pentagon is a different kettle of fish; Unless they are going to try and use it to justify more secretive intelligence housing, I can&#39;t see the point in hurting yourself so much.

With the WTC however, I&#39;m inclined to think corporate corruption...

[Freedom Writer]

Hehe, odd.. I mean the animation. :huh:

[Freedom Writer]

Hehe, odd.. I mean the animation. :huh:

[Freedom Writer]

Hehe, odd.. I mean the animation. :huh:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:56 PM
Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:
In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:56 PM
Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:
In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:56 PM
Lets say they did pull the second one, why would you do that? Second of all there is one theory that no one has addressed. What if the impossibilities happened? What everything the engineers and designers and whoever else was involved in contruction said that would never happen did. No matter how well you plan or the foresight you have, unless you can see the future can you really acoount for everything? :blink: :huh:
In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:23 PM

but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;)
Don&#39;t know what you mean DaCuban, who is Bo Fowler, I&#39;m a notoriously poor speller. Who is Bo Fowler?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:23 PM

but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;)
Don&#39;t know what you mean DaCuban, who is Bo Fowler, I&#39;m a notoriously poor speller. Who is Bo Fowler?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:23 PM

but I do find it interesting to hear from Skeptic (whom by his spelling has undoubtably read some Bo Fowler ;)
Don&#39;t know what you mean DaCuban, who is Bo Fowler, I&#39;m a notoriously poor speller. Who is Bo Fowler?

[DaCuBaN]

Bo Fowler is the author of two highly anti-religious books (taken from a Neitzchean/Agnostic perspective), namely Sceptecism Inc. and The Astrological Diary of God.

Both are pant-fillingly hilarious.

My comment on your having read some was based on your spelling of &#39;skeptic&#39; - as the author notes, how do you know?

Link (http://www.powells.com/search/DTSearch/search?author=Bo%20Fowler)

[DaCuBaN]

Bo Fowler is the author of two highly anti-religious books (taken from a Neitzchean/Agnostic perspective), namely Sceptecism Inc. and The Astrological Diary of God.

Both are pant-fillingly hilarious.

My comment on your having read some was based on your spelling of &#39;skeptic&#39; - as the author notes, how do you know?

Link (http://www.powells.com/search/DTSearch/search?author=Bo%20Fowler)

[DaCuBaN]

Bo Fowler is the author of two highly anti-religious books (taken from a Neitzchean/Agnostic perspective), namely Sceptecism Inc. and The Astrological Diary of God.

Both are pant-fillingly hilarious.

My comment on your having read some was based on your spelling of &#39;skeptic&#39; - as the author notes, how do you know?

Link (http://www.powells.com/search/DTSearch/search?author=Bo%20Fowler)

[redtrigger]

In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.


I&#39;m not talking about any conspiracy. I&#39;m not saying anybody besides the people on the plane blew up anything. I&#39;m saying what if the what the engineers said would never happen did? No matter how hard you try you can never account for everything. What if it is a coincidence, everything just went wrong at the same time.

Now them demolishing No. 7 is a little fishy, but that is a question for another day. <_<

[redtrigger]

In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.


I&#39;m not talking about any conspiracy. I&#39;m not saying anybody besides the people on the plane blew up anything. I&#39;m saying what if the what the engineers said would never happen did? No matter how hard you try you can never account for everything. What if it is a coincidence, everything just went wrong at the same time.

Now them demolishing No. 7 is a little fishy, but that is a question for another day. <_<

[redtrigger]

In order to demolish a building it takes at least a week or some weeks of work to plant the explosives. The United States Government would had have to had explosives already rigged in the buildings before hand as part of a larger conspiracy. There is no way the buildings including the separate building 7 (which was demolished at 5PM with only tiny fires burning in it) could have collapsed the way the Government and their mouthpiece PBS said it did.


I&#39;m not talking about any conspiracy. I&#39;m not saying anybody besides the people on the plane blew up anything. I&#39;m saying what if the what the engineers said would never happen did? No matter how hard you try you can never account for everything. What if it is a coincidence, everything just went wrong at the same time.

Now them demolishing No. 7 is a little fishy, but that is a question for another day. <_<