9/11 Debate

[Orion999]

Is there any evidence for the commonly held belief here that the Bush administration was in on 9/11?

There seems to be plenty of evidence supporting Islamic terrorists as the culpritst, most of all the fact that they admit the did it? Why would they claim responsibility for 9/11 and justify the U.S. waging war on them in Afganistan if they had nothing to do with it? If Bush was in collusion with the terrorists why does he kill and capture them all the time. Why would Muslim's be in league with the leader of a country in an action used to justify invasions of their countrys?

There must be some logical reason for this belief, besides the Bush is evil proof

If 9/11 was done by the Bush admistration or anyone other than Al-Quada, why does Al-Quada publically acknowledge orchestrating it?

[Comrade J]

Why have you posted the same topic in Opposing Ideologies as well?

[The Grey Blur]

It was Al-Qaeda, anyone who says differently is a nutjob

I hope that cleared a few things up for you

[gilhyle]

I love conspiracy theory stuff (but I dont take it seriously)

- Why have the terrorists not all been named ?

- What happened the passport that supposedly fell out of the sky at the twin towers ?

- Was it really a plane creashed into the Pentagon - if so why such a small hole ?

- what really happened at the Whitehouse, where a bomb was first reported and then denied

etc etc

[MrDoom]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

YAWN.

By the way, shouldn't this guy be restricted?

[ComradeOm]

Do a search. This site is littered with idiots in tin foil hats who bring this topic up once a month.

[Mesijs]

www.911truth.org

In my opinion the US government itself staged the attacks or helped the terrorists. Do some googling and such.

[Alf]

A discussion about whether or not the US state was implicated in the 9/11 attacks would have to start by posing the question: is this state, or more precisely is any capitalist state, ready to sacrifice thousands of 'its own' citizens in the pursuit of its imperialist aims?

Certainly the slightest doubt cast upon the official version of events brings the outraged response from the politicians and the media: are you seriously suggesting that a democratic, western government would be capable of such an act of utter baseness?

[gilhyle]

I do admit the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is not as good fun as the faked moon landing :rolleyes:

[Comrade J]

I think George Bush himself flew the plane after learning how to fly using Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and then parachuted out at the last possible moment, making himelf invisible using technology stolen from the Japanese by the CIA. Then, he got in a waiting car to get away from the scene before Colin Powell flew his plane into the other tower (using the same method as Bush) and quickly drove to a school so he could pretend he was reading to children all the time.

Seriously, I think the conspiracy theory stuff is bullshit. Well, most of it, I think they probably knew something would happen around that time, but that's it.
The argument that "the structure wouldn't fall like that if a plane hit it" is utter shit, otherwise every architect in the world would be saying the same thing.

[Mesijs]

Seriously, you guys have to read up a bit. It isn't about the falling of the structure, but it is about for example the speed it fell. Also an investigator was forbidden by the top of the FBI to search on a computer before 9/11, with vital terrorist information on it. Just search up a bit and don't make non-funny jokes.

[Phugebrins]

I'm a little sceptical of this all, but I don't think it's helpful to be dimissing these ideas as 'conspiracy theories'. After all, the official line - that fundamentalist terrorists, controlled from secret bases in Afghanistan enrolled in flying schools in the US and plotted to caputre planes and fly them into buildings - is very literally a conspiracy theory.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:41 PM
I'm a little sceptical of this all, but I don't think it's helpful to be dimissing these ideas as 'conspiracy theories'.
That's exactly what they are, it isn't 'dismissing' anything. Whether it is true or not is debatable, but the fact is it is a conspiracy theory. A theory which states the American government conspired with terrorists to attact the twin towers and the pentagon.

This is quite interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory) if anyone wants to read about 9/11 conspiracy theories

[The Grey Blur]

Also an investigator was forbidden by the top of the FBI to search on a computer before 9/11, with vital terrorist information on it
The FBI warned the American Government on two seperate counts of a possible Islaimic terrorist attack. It was through negligence that the Trade Centers were destoyed, not US intention though they did utilise the disaster for their own ends.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 4 2006, 02:59 PM

Also an investigator was forbidden by the top of the FBI to search on a computer before 9/11, with vital terrorist information on it
The FBI warned the American Government on two seperate counts of a possible Islaimic terrorist attack. It was through negligence that the Trade Centers were destoyed, not US intention though they did utilise the disaster for their own ends.
No. The computer of this '20th hijacker' was seized, and FBI officials wanted to search it. It was strictly forbidden until after the attack happened, and there was data in it about 9/11.

[Alf]

There are of course some wild speculations among the 9/11 'conspiracy theorists'. But we have to recognise that the official line is that anyone who questions the official line is a conspiracy theorist, which means that even raising questions about it immediately puts you in the same camp as people who go on about Freemasons controlling the world or about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In any case, it is not necessary to delve into all the details of the way that the Twin Towers fell to pose the question: did the American state know that something was being planned by al Qaida and so 'allowed it to happen' in order to draw maximum propaganda benefits from it and launch military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq that had long been on the agenda? There is a clear historical precedent: the US also made no attempt to prevent the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, despite evidence that they had prior warning, and used it to mobilise the US population for the second world war.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 4 2006, 02:59 PM

Also an investigator was forbidden by the top of the FBI to search on a computer before 9/11, with vital terrorist information on it
The FBI warned the American Government on two seperate counts of a possible Islaimic terrorist attack. It was through negligence that the Trade Centers were destoyed, not US intention though they did utilise the disaster for their own ends.
your naivety is astounding, you ever thought that it could be possible that they either 1. knew about the attacks, and purposely let them happen, or had something to do with them. I wouldnt think a "revolutionary leftist" would have such conforming views

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Sep 4 2006, 04:09 PM--> (Mesijs @ Sep 4 2006, 04:09 PM)
Permanent [email protected] 4 2006, 02:59 PM

Also an investigator was forbidden by the top of the FBI to search on a computer before 9/11, with vital terrorist information on it
The FBI warned the American Government on two seperate counts of a possible Islaimic terrorist attack. It was through negligence that the Trade Centers were destoyed, not US intention though they did utilise the disaster for their own ends.
No. The computer of this '20th hijacker' was seized, and FBI officials wanted to search it. It was strictly forbidden until after the attack happened, and there was data in it about 9/11. [/b]
Well I read a chapter in Greg Pallast's book 'Armed Madhouse' where Pallast pretty much breaks it down to what I've said - it was Al-Qaeda

I think I'll trust the professional investigative journalist

[The Grinch]

The American ruling class has certainly discussed setting up fake terror attacks before- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

That said, I don't think there's enough evidence to seriously call stuff into doubt at the moment. And part of the problem is that the large amounts of crap flying around the 9/11 truth movement make it very hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:58 PM
A discussion about whether or not the US state was implicated in the 9/11 attacks would have to start by posing the question: is this state, or more precisely is any capitalist state, ready to sacrifice thousands of 'its own' citizens in the pursuit of its imperialist aims?


Yes, yes they are, whether its the soldiers sent to the middle east, or its civilians to control the population through fear, I feel that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and wouldnt be surprised if something happend right before the 2008 election.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 4 2006, 06:20 PM
I think I'll trust the professional investigative journalist
You mean over a lot of conspiracy nuts? How could this possibly be?!

Please. most 'evidence' for this sort of shit is so weak and/or simply points to negligence.

When a vast majority of: physcists, arctiects, pilots, government officials and other such trained specialists present this evidence as opposed to a bunch of crackpots willing to believe anything, then I will believ in this conspiracy.

Really, you conspircy theorists are an embarassment to the left.

[LoneRed]

apparently you have never seen the testimonies taken from nbc, abc, as well as the interviews with the Fdny, the police, as well as professionals in all fields. Its sad, how people call themselves "free thinkers" but in reality believe what the govt tells them

[homeo_apathy]

well it gave bush a good excuse to go get some more oil

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Orion999+--> (Orion999)Is there any evidence for the commonly held belief here that the Bush administration was in on 9/11?[/b]

Depends what you mean by "evidence", I suppose. There are certain events which, in isolation, would mean nothing; but when combined with other events make a vast web of circumstantial and speculative "evidence" about the complicity of the Bush Administration. But, as far as I'm aware, there's no "smoking gun"....nor anything that even comes close to that.

Essentially, a lot of the "left" explanations about the events, in my opinion, are based on a purely liberal explanation of how something like this could happen....and they've just been given a lick of red paint. Basically, I think a lot of people are too politically naive to just accept that the geo-political realities of the Imperialist World system lead to situations where events like this happen.

Personally, I wonder when someone is going to propose that it wasn&#39;t the IRA that was planting bombs, but the British State. Though, thankfully, they don&#39;t seem to have sunk to that level of idiocy just yet. <_<


Originally posted by MrDoom+--> (MrDoom)http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons[/b]

That&#39;s a modern day classic. :D


Originally posted by Alf
A discussion about whether or not the US state was implicated in the 9/11 attacks would have to start by posing the question: is this state, or more precisely is any capitalist state, ready to sacrifice thousands of &#39;its own&#39; citizens in the pursuit of its imperialist aims?

That would be a silly question to start with Alf, mainly because the answer doesn&#39;t tell us anything. Anything of use, anyway. A better question to start with, in my opinion, would be asking whether it is at all possible that the American Government could have conducted this kind of operation? And the rational answer is, of course, a big fat no. Unless people wish to give the American State all kinds of superpowers. Or, maybe, just maybe, Clark Kent is a real person and the American State hired him. :lol:

Of course, it&#39;s possible that the American Government knew about the attacks and let them happen. But, really, I think that line of thinking is wrong because it works on the assumption that, in some way, the Security Agencies of the State are actually competent. Which they&#39;re not.

I think it was the report on the London bombings that commented that it is simply impossible for the State Security apparatus to handle the amount of data they do and manage to interpret it efficiently in order to recognise potential threats. Rather, in order to recognise said threats they have to rely on a tremendous amount of luck.

And, frankly, I doubt the American State Security apparatus was either competent enough or lucky enough to know about this before it happened. After all, the Intelligence part of the initials CIA, is one of life&#39;s great misnomers.


Originally posted by Mesijs
It isn&#39;t about the falling of the structure, but it is about for example the speed it fell.

Please, use your brain for a change. Do you think that after the Structural support of a Skyscraper gives way, with all the loads that involves, the building is going to fall slowly? Have you ever thought about doing Stand Up? You&#39;d be good at it, because you certainly made me chuckle.


[email protected]
apparently you have never seen the testimonies taken from nbc, abc, as well as the interviews with the Fdny, the police, as well as professionals in all fields.

Wow&#33; "nbc" and "abc", those bastions of Structural analysis&#33; :lol:

Though, now you&#39;ve mentioned the "professionals in all fields" ("all fields"; does this mean that Professional baseball pundits have chimed in? :lol: ), I challenge you to find me just one qualified Structural Engineers, Architect or Civil Engineer who has written a report which backs up your claims. That shouldn&#39;t be hard to do if, as you say, these "professionals" have spoken out.

And, just so you know, I&#39;m not going to accept the report from that batty Physics Professor as valid. We&#39;ve already been over him in another thread related to this....and it&#39;s worthwhile to note that not a single Civil Engineer from his University recognises his conclusions as valid. In any way, shape or form.


ComradeOm
Do a search. This site is littered with idiots in tin foil hats who bring this topic up once a month.

Truth be told, I look forward to these threads. :P

[Phugebrins]

"That&#39;s exactly what they are, it isn&#39;t &#39;dismissing&#39; anything."
Oh, of course, feel free to call them conspiracy theories - so long as you do so without the implication of &#39;and therefore a load of old cobblers&#39; (e.g. Jazzratt&#39;s dismissal), since the alternative is also conspiracy. It&#39;s not the words, but the spirit in which they&#39;re meant. Personally, I prefer to avoid potentially loaded terms altogether.

[gilhyle]

Of course the USA is perfectly capable of manufacturing an incident to start a war - didnt they do it to start the Vietnam War and that war Teddy Roosevelt started over Cuba. There is weird stuff about Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the Lusitania (WW1). Remember that Korean Flight shot down .... there was good evidence about that.....OK it didnt start a war, but it might have.

The Wikipedia page cited above is great about 9/11.

Its good fun, might even be true (its unlikely)

But none of that is what is interesting. What is interesting is that whenever people look in detail at any of the many complex events in our very complex society they come up with anomalies, anomaly after anomaly caused by the way information is collected, by the way bureaucracies react to crisis and by the way people talk to each other about interesting events.

Whether its landing on the moon, the death of Marilyn Monroe, prisoners of war in Vietnam, whatever : you can easily end up with a conspiracy if you want to. And many of us do want to.

For people who believe in the intensification of democracy based on people moving from their current enforced ignorance to understanding the society around them, conspiracy theories indicate how hard that is.

People involved in politics like to think they can learn to understand things by doing the research ..... the way you and I get information is the same way the mad conspiracy theorists get information and its very unreliable - you can draw any conclusion you want using what passes for &#39;information&#39; in this society.

[3uro]

A discussion about whether or not the US state was implicated in the 9/11 attacks would have to start by posing the question: is this state, or more precisely is any capitalist state, ready to sacrifice thousands of &#39;its own&#39; citizens in the pursuit of its imperialist aims?
Read up on Operation Northwoods and how they were planning on hijacking planes and crashing them, and blaming it on Cuba in order to ignite war. It was approved all the way up the chain of command up till Kennedy. He personally rejected it.

[tecumseh]

Bin Laden has come posted a video recently where he admits to being behind 9/11.
He said it was retribution for among other things Israels and America&#39;s interference with Lebanon and the Bekaa valley.

[red_rich]

There is alot of evidence to suggest 9/11 was planned and executed by the bush admin.

evidence such as the only buldings to ever collapse in that way due to fire are the twin towers No buildings have ever collapsed due to plain crash etc, the claims that demolition charges were heard by firemen in the buildings, the sightings of demolition explosives etc etc.. there is so much evidence..

Even the physics of the downfall, sich as the temperature that the buildings would even collapse was not even close by the fire cause by the plains, Have any of you ever seen a builind collapse like that by any means OTHER than demolition?

to call it a conspiracy theory is wrong, this is evidence that plains did not cause the collapse, and as lefty&#39;s we should use this to show the corruption of the capitalist state.

History has shown us what states can do, (stalins murders, hitlers concentration camps etc) the american state is just as capable of such atrocities.

Open your eyes.

[Amusing Scrotum]

As much as I enjoy it when you guys crawl out from under the floorboards, I think I should save a set of answers that answer the fallacies you bring up. It would certainly be less time consuming than repeatedly answering them point by point. Anyway, fallacy number 1:


Originally posted by red_rich+--> (red_rich)evidence such as the only buldings to ever collapse in that way due to fire are the twin towers[/b]

To collapse fully, yes. However, the fire in Windsor Torre building in Madrid showed that Steel framed buildings Structural performance when subjected to fire is something we know little about....and, additionally, what we know may well be wrong. That is, Steel may not be as safe as we once thought. [More on this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49764&view=findpost&p=1292072819).]


Originally posted by red_rich+--> (red_rich)No buildings have ever collapsed due to plain crash[/b]

Name one other building that has been hit by a Commercial Passenger Jet. Can you do that?


Originally posted by red_rich
the claims that demolition charges were heard by firemen in the buildings

Yet no charges were found.


Originally posted by red_rich
the sightings of demolition explosives

That&#39;s a new one. Source?


Originally posted by red_rich
sich as the temperature that the buildings would even collapse was not even close by the fire cause by the plains

Yes, it was high enough. The temperature doesn&#39;t have to be hot enough to make the Steel melt, just high enough to make it buckle. In the thread I linked, I discussed this a bit more....and ComradeOm has also discussed this further in threads on this topic. In more depth than I have. For instance:


Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:20 PM

Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 05:58 PM
The general consensus is that the fires caused enough heat under which the steel frames buckles...."Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." (Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Structural_and_civil_engine ering_research)) Now, without proper fire proofing, that scenario (fire causing the collapse) seems very plausible.
If that article is correct and the temperatures inside the towers did reach 1000°C in places… well steel does very strange things at those temperatures. Over 723°C and steel, assuming its plain carbon, starts to undergo changes to its crystal structure as its atoms shift to a different configuration. Now just what impact that would have on load bearing beams in a skyscraper I don’t know. I’m fairly certain however that I wouldn’t want to anywhere near the building when it did happen.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292072836 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49764&view=findpost&p=1292072836)


red_rich
Open your eyes.

Better yet, why don&#39;t you remove the tinfoil?
________

Another thread on all this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53670&view=findpost&p=1292131258).

[red_rich]

im not sure how to use this quote thinggy yet, so ill imprivise.

&#39;To collapse fully, yes. However, the fire in Windsor Torre building in Madrid showed that Steel framed buildings Structural performance when subjected to fire is something we know little about....and, additionally, what we know may well be wrong. That is, Steel may not be as safe as we once thought.&#39;


in other incidents, steel has been subject to fires of similar temperatures for up to 19 hours and still remained strucutally strong. 911 fires burned for less than an hour.

&#39;Name one other building that has been hit by a Commercial Passenger Jet. Can you do that?&#39;


in the early 1940s a b52 went into the empire state (just as big as a comercial plaine)

and the bilding remains.


&#39;Yet no charges were found.&#39;

realistically, charges were always unlikely to be found, however, evidence that saverely heated metal was found in what was the basement levels of the buildings suggesting charges went off.


slowed down footage of the collapse shows the puffs of smoke charges result in, all the way down the building far below the falling rubble during the fall


&#39;&#39;Yes, it was high enough. The temperature doesn&#39;t have to be hot enough to make the Steel melt, just high enough to make it buckle. In the thread I linked, I discussed this a bit more....and ComradeOm has also discussed this further in threads on this topic. In more depth than I have. For insta&#39;&#39;

again, the fire raged for less than an hour, where other steel structures have been blazing for many hours and kept their strength. also, it should be noted the plain on the tower that was hit second, was hit in the corner, dont you think it would have buckled and collapsed at a slant, rather than straight down?.... just like a demolition.

the government released information is unreliable and insufficient in explaining the collapse, many experts in the feild of demolition and building design suggest there is no way the plains took those buildings down.

again, open your eyes.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Was it planned by the United States government? I doubt it. Was the U.S. government choosing to ignore a threat to the American people for personal gain? I wouldn&#39;t be surprised.

[LoneRed]

you many doubt it, we all did, but after tons and tons of things ive read and seen about 9/11 it is bullshit that bush and admin. couldnt have been involved in some way

Also that video were Bin laden supposedly confessed, look at bin laden, he&#39;s wearing jewerly which is against the rules of Islam, and is using his right hand to write, when Bin laden (According to CIA files is left handed) also check out his nose in that picture. In all other Bin Laden pictures he had a much bigger nose, as well as looking completely different, why not now, what, did he get a nose job?

[T Man]

I heard Al-Quada was just something made up by the government, and that they don&#39;t actually exist.

[EneME]

"Conspiracy theorists insist the U.S. government, not terrorists, staged the devastating attacks" from the SF Chronicle this past Sun on Sept. 3rd (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/03/INGR0KRCBA1.DTL)


Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham&#39;s actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that "some of us here are going to try to do something." Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer -- possibly a government official -- called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 -- and Bingham -- became part of Sept. 11 lore.

"The cell phone calls were fake -- no ifs, ands or buts," Avery says in "Loose Change," a film he wrote and directed that&#39;s one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. "Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise."

Avery is one of perhaps millions of Americans who believe the U.S. government -- or rogue elements within it -- either orchestrated the attacks or tacitly supported them for nefarious reasons....

The films referred to in that article on youtube.com:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zUht6cLkMc)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-guQaYgrWqI)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by red_rich+--> (red_rich)im not sure how to use this quote thinggy yet, so ill imprivise.[/b]

Do the following:


&#91;QUOTE&#93;Insert the things you want to quote.&#91;/QUOTE&#93;

If you do that without the Code tags, you&#39;ll get the following:


Insert the things you want to quote.

To add a name to the quote, like I&#39;ve done above, you simply do the following:


&#91;QUOTE=Name&#93;Insert the things you want to quote.&#91;/QUOTE&#93;

Once again, if you remove the Code tags, you&#39;ll get the finished product. Like this:


Originally posted by red_rich+--> (red_rich)in other incidents, steel has been subject to fires of similar temperatures for up to 19 hours and still remained strucutally strong. 911 fires burned for less than an hour.[/b]

Well, "fires of similar temperatures" aren&#39;t the same as fires of the exact same temperature and intensity....taking place under the same conditions. An analysis based on simple impressions, would know doubt lead to the conclusion that these similar incidents in some way show there was an anomaly with regards the Twin Towers. However, Science just isn&#39;t that simple.

There are, for instance, numerous variables that would differentiate between these, as you term them, "incidents". And it&#39;s the process of meticulously examining these variables and how they impact on said event that denotes a fundamentally Scientific approach to certain phenomena. Where as the simple impressionistic analysis you present, is about as Scientific as Sports punditry.

If you&#39;d looked over the last link I provided, you would have seen that I talked, at some length, about the low level of understanding we have with regards Steels performance under fire. Indeed, I even quoted the following extract from the New Civil Engineer:


Originally posted by Dave Parker
This is hardly surprising, says NIST. Its fire tests on replicas of the floor trusses used in the Twin Towers showed wide diversions from the performance predicted by current codes. NIST says this proves that the small scale furnace tests which have formed the basis of fire safety design for nearly a century give little or no information on how a real building will react to a real fire.

[....]

Now leading UK engineers and designers are calling for Cardington to be re-opened and more tests to be carried out. They say that the NIST investigation together with evidence from a handful of tall building fires which have occurred since 9/11 have highlighted the serious gaps in the profession’s understanding of the behaviour of buildings in fire. The first Cardington tests were extremely significant, but the results can not be extended to cover all types of buildings, especially those with long span floors and beams. The computer models which form the basis of modern structural fire engineering must be validated against large scale realistic tests, the experts say.

http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_res...m=0&channelid=6 (http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=7012&report_num=0&channelid=6)

Do you see the difference in approach here? That is, the difference between those who aspire to implement a fundamentally scientific method and those who simply wish to rely on basic impressions and disregard the countless variables involved. I mean, to start with, you&#39;ve only mentioned "incidents" involving "steel" in your post....you&#39;ve not even begun to discuss whether the "incidents" you reference are at all Structurally similar to the Twin Towers.

But hey, it&#39;s not like a serious Scientific analysis of the data matters; not when you&#39;ve got a conspiracy to "prove"&#33;


Originally posted by red_rich
in the early 1940s a b52 went into the empire state (just as big as a comercial plaine)

and the bilding remains.

I didn&#39;t know about that, but now that you&#39;ve brought it up, why don&#39;t we look at a few of the specifics to see if the examples are comparable and relevant? The first short summary of the event that I found, mentions that "An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement." [Source (http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm).] So, straight off, we have a variable there that differentiates this "incident" from the event in question. A variable which, perhaps, renders any possible comparison useless.

Secondly, although both you and the document I linked mention a B-52, that is indeed wrong. "The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is a long-range strategic bomber flown by the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1954." [Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B52#Specifications_.28B-52H.29).] What hit the Empire State building in 1945, was in fact a B-25 Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B25). And if you look at the Specs for that particular bomber, given on the wikipedia page linked, you&#39;ll see that it is, in fact, a much smaller than any of the Boeing 767 family. Which, once again, makes a comparison between the two events worse than useless.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. And even if this is all lost on you, I&#39;m sure the readers of this thread will get the point I&#39;m making.


Originally posted by red_rich
realistically, charges were always unlikely to be found....

Perhaps. But the types of explosives needed, would have left a chemical residue. Yet no one seems to have found said residue.


Originally posted by red_rich
....however, evidence that saverely heated metal was found in what was the basement levels of the buildings suggesting charges went off.

Could you provide a source for this? Because the point you&#39;re making, is a bit lost on me....and I&#39;d rather deal with a clear and coherent claim.


Originally posted by red_rich
slowed down footage of the collapse shows the puffs of smoke charges result in, all the way down the building far below the falling rubble during the fall

I&#39;d like to see a picture of this. Just for shits and giggles.


[email protected]
also, it should be noted the plain on the tower that was hit second, was hit in the corner, dont you think it would have buckled and collapsed at a slant, rather than straight down?

No. Because the impact of the Commercial Jets is not what caused the Tower to collapse. So the loads exerted by the impact of the Jet, had no affect on the way in which the Tower fell. Rather, it was the buckling of the Steel trusses that caused the Towers to collapse....and the loads they supported directly above them. Hence, the "straight down" collapse.


red_rich
....many experts in the feild of demolition and building design suggest there is no way the plains took those buildings down.

Both yourself and LoneRed have made these claims about "experts" disputing the "official" version of events, yet a recurring theme of these threads, is me simply asking that one of you "open eyed" fellows point to just one qualified Engineer who supports your version of events. And I&#39;m still waiting....

Indeed, I reckon that you won&#39;t be able to find one, that&#39;s why your "many experts" remain unnamed. Funny that.

[The Grey Blur]

Please trash all these threads related to the staging of 9/11 before the FBI come and mind-wipe us

[Physco Bitch]

Where as it would be nice to be able to say definatley say that no goverment would sacrifice their own people for their own means - it is also a bit ignorant to do so. It would not really be that suprising to find out they did now about it - or were warned about it before hand. As it is just a conspiricy then i decide not to choose sides- but i always question everything - and this being just one of them. I have heard a lot of diffrenet versions about who did the 9/11 attack - and any number of them could be true. But you have to remember that the goverment are capable of anything they want no matter how evil or desgiusting it might be. Having read up so much about goverments and what they have all been doing to their own country - people and others over the years i find it hard not to see why they wouldn&#39;t do such a thing, say if they had been warned - like many many sources suggest then why didn&#39;t they do anything about it? So many questions that we will never have answers to - that why it has been made such a great conspiracy. I suppose everyone will have their views (as everyone should be able to express) but mine is nothing any governent anywhere do would suprise me they are all evil, after all they have their own bunkers to ecsape to if things start going seriously badly - if they are willing to leave all their own people out in the open to die while they sit in safety is just another point. But still the question mark will remain - most likely forever :blink:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Physco *****
But you have to remember that the goverment are capable of anything they want no matter how evil or desgiusting it might be.

The important word here, is "capable". That is, does the American State have the logistical capabilities to carry out a planned and controlled demolition of the Twin Towers? The answer, of course, is no. It would simply be too hard to pull off an operation of this size and not leave behind any evidence (there is no concrete evidence of an implosion, just impressionistic claims made by people who&#39;ve never had any experience in the Engineering fields) or have someone "blow the whistle".

Essentially, the scale of the cover up needed here would be akin to worldwide version of The Truman Show. And that&#39;s simply not possible....or plausible.

[Pirate Utopian]

people who dont believe bush did it should watch 9/11 the road to tyranny

[wad1224]

i agree. i saw a conspiracy theory movie as well and wont rule it out. The thing about the cia warning i also agree with. they just ignored and let it happen. They needed a reason to start shit with the middle east and used this as a launcing point for their secret agendas. Lets face it, the american government is filled with right wing, fascist, war hawks, who only care about the survival of capitalism and eventual destruction of the world as we know it. People have to start waking up and realizing the bullshit that surrounds them everyday. It stares them right in the face and has infultrated every nook and cranny of our society. It&#39;s time to wake up and see the corruption&#33;

[3uro]

Bin Laden has come posted a video recently where he admits to being behind 9/11.
He said it was retribution for among other things Israels and America&#39;s interference with Lebanon and the Bekaa valley.
He was also a CIA tactician. Trained, supplied, and deployed by the United States in Afghanistan.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Jeepers creepers. This is really like talking to devout Christians; no ones willing to engage my arguments, yet you lot continuing asserting that it was a "conspiracy". And if that wasn&#39;t bad enough, now you&#39;re referring to some video as if it&#39;s the fucking Bible?&#33;

Really, if the video is that convincing, present the claims made and the evidence provided in this thread. That&#39;s not to difficult a request, is it? Or does the "evidence" lose all its validity when it&#39;s deprived of the flashy videos and the well chosen music? Wouldn&#39;t surprise me. After all, as I&#39;ve commented before, these claims are about packaging....and not substance.


Originally posted by wad1224+--> (wad1224)....used this as a launcing point for their secret agendas.[/b]

Uh, "secret agendas"? :huh:

Since the end of the first Gulf War, there have been various groups that have openly argued that the American Government should employ a policy of "regime change" in Iraq. There&#39;s nothing "secret" about this particular "agenda"


Originally posted by wad1224; emphasis [email protected]
Lets face it, the american government is filled with right wing, fascist, war hawks, who only care about the survival of capitalism and eventual destruction of the world as we know it.

Honestly, could you employ any more liberal rhetoric? Yes, the present Administration is "right wing"; yes it consists of "war hawks" and yes, the individuals who compromise it "only care about the survival of capitalism". But in no way is it "filled with .... fascists" and nor does it "only care about [the] eventual destruction of the world as we know it".

Stop trying to scare monger and, instead, try placing your arguments within a rational framework. A framework that is, hopefully, free of Democratic Party nonsense. You simply don&#39;t need to paint the current Administration as "Devils" in order to create a platform from which you can present revolutionary politics.


3uro
He was also a CIA tactician. Trained, supplied, and deployed by the United States in Afghanistan.

:lol:

That&#39;s a good one, it really is.

Bin Laden was, at best, a peripheral figure during the anti-Soviet Jihad. Initially, he was a part of one of the more moderate factions, but he was prized away by Ayman al-Zawahiri....mainly because al-Zawahiri saw him as a "Golden Goose". Like many, his main motivation for going to Afghanistan was ideological. And it&#39;s unlikely that he ever saw any action, as it were.

Rather, during his time in Afghanistan, he was mainly seen as a Pawn by the moderate and extreme factions....and his activity was based around this. That is, he spent his time being courted by various groups because of his personal wealth. But not being the brightest rich kid, I doubt he figured out why he was wanted.

If he received any training whilst there, it&#39;s unlikely to have been very advanced, and it probably wasn&#39;t administered by the CIA itself. They just gave money and weapons to certain groups, they didn&#39;t do a great deal "on the ground", as it were. And, as I said, according to most sources, he&#39;s unlikely to have seen any action at all, so he was hardly "deployed" by the CIA.

And as for him being a "CIA tactician", that&#39;s very amusing. He&#39;s not even competent enough to be "al-Qaeda&#39;s" primary "tactician". It&#39;s al-Zawahiri who plays the main ideological and tactical role. With bin Laden being, basically, the "money man" and the Public Relations guy. He&#39;s a pretty face, not a "terrorist mastermind".

[pastradamus]

You can dismiss a conspiracy theory as it operates on the basis that it cannot be proven wrong. But in the end its just a theory and lacks real substance against the bush administration. Also I would like to add that you can say ANYTHING about somebody when they&#39;re dead .....so there&#39;s no eye witness from any of the planes still alive and the conspiracy nerds have a fucking field day.

[shorelinetrance]

OMFG GO WATCH LOOSECHANGE.

/sarcasm

[chaz171]

Was the U.S. government choosing to ignore a threat to the American people for personal gain? I wouldn&#39;t be surprised

1) no air defence.....fly anything over new york and see what happens when you don&#39;t respond to ATC. but that day all the air national guard was on the ground....

in new york and in washington....

2) US intelligence knew how many times Guevara went to the bathroom in the 1960&#39;s and they never saw this coming?

so. I agree.....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Personally, I wonder when someone is going to propose that it wasn&#39;t the IRA that was planting bombs, but the British State. Though, thankfully, they don&#39;t seem to have sunk to that level of idiocy just yet.

False flag shit like that does happen, more often than you seem to assume.. for example: Colombian military sets deadly car bomb, blames FARC revolutionaries (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?177)

[BCV`]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:24 PM
Bin Laden has come posted a video recently where he admits to being behind 9/11.
He said it was retribution for among other things Israels and America&#39;s interference with Lebanon and the Bekaa valley.
Not necessarily, look at the tapes that does not look Bin laden, He matches the overall picture of what Bin Laden looks like, but if Osama&#39;s mother was looking at those tapes im pretty sure shed say "wait, thats not my boy, thats some fat guy that has a white beard and wears the same close as my boy&#33;". Im not saying it was or wasn&#39;t osama, im just saying you shouldnt take things at face value, you should ask questions and look for the truth. Im not somebody who needs or wants a conspiracy, the Idea that someone wants to get closer to the truth, become educated about a situation from more than one side (the official side) and is looking at all the evidence without bias is not something that should be condemned by a bunch of ignorant conformists.
Is the us capable of killing over 2000 of its own people? I think so, not without a justifyable end. The amount the administration has to gain from the new terror laws and the taking away of peoples liberties and overall centralization of power to the gateway to war, money and oil and the unlimmited possibility of a free reign to go to war again in the name of terror in the coming years is a highly justifyable end.

How many people would be needed to do something like this? This is a great way for people corrupt the minds of people looking for the real unbiased truth. The people not looking for a conspiracy or a way to justify their hate for the american government, but the people that are smart enough to realise that not everything we are told is as it seems, that organisations drive for power and money can and does overule the moral and ethical implications. That most of the media is controlled by these organisations as are many government officials that are lured by the want for power and money. It is quite possible that something like this would require thousands of people to remain silent and therefore be impossible, however it is also possible that it would only requie a handful of people as small as around 50. Let us not forget the need to know basis. The military, and even the government sometimes, have created a system in which the moral deciscions are made by the people at the top. As little as three or four people are needed to aprove a war in which thousands of their people and hundreds of thousands of the oposing nations people will be killed. They give the order and the rest follow suit. They don&#39;t question, they&#39;re not allowed to question, and even if they are they have been driven into the mindset that whatever the top says is right and i will be a good american and a good soldier and do my bit for the country. George bush&#39;s brother (can&#39;t remember which one) was the head of the secruity company which was responsible for the unscheduled evacuation drills which took place in the weeks prior to september the 11th. This gave an adequate amount of time for highly trained demolition experts that don&#39;t necessarily have to be american, they could be from any country, to rig the towers with enough eplosives to bring them down. And them possibly another handful of people were needed to deal with the planes and the very few eyewitnesses of the pentagon attack. I&#39;m not saying that this is a conspiracy or that the towers were brought down by demolitions, im just trying to keep my mind open to the possibility and trying to find the truth with the use of evidence, not preset beliefs "Our government loves everyone of us and would never do anything to intentionally hurt us even if it has so much to gain".

If you don&#39;t agree with the search for truth and knowledge which can only be gained by looking at all the possibilities then i&#39;m afraid to say you are trully ignorant and your mindset is what allows so many of the worlds atrocities go unpunished and what allows them to continue to take place. If you want to say something that brings up relevent information in the form of evidence arguing a case, then i&#39;m happy to hear it, i will be as happy as anyone when this is laid to rest in one way or another. But these non amusing jokes and these uneducated and ignorant attempts at corrupting the truth and the people that want to find the truth are not beneficial to anyone.

(I know im a shit speller, no need to point it out)

[BCV`]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 10 2006, 08:52 AM
Jeepers creepers. This is really like talking to devout Christians; no ones willing to engage my arguments, yet you lot continuing asserting that it was a "conspiracy". And if that wasn&#39;t bad enough, now you&#39;re referring to some video as if it&#39;s the fucking Bible?&#33;

Don&#39;t rely on this forum to give you answers to the questions you pose that debunk the conspiracy theories, go to websites such as:
www.911research.com
www.scholarsfortruth.org
www.911eyewitness.com

There are more, but theres enough there for the time being

[Don't Change Your Name]

LOL, this thread is filled with the lamest attempts of trying to get people to believe wacky nonsense in the whole internet: a bunch of 12 years old "rebels" who can&#39;t even use capitals to start their sentences, who have no idea of what they are talking about and resort to claiming that "many experts agree with me even though i cant mention any lalala i cant hear you lalala" and posting links.


Originally posted by BCV`+--> (BCV`)but if Osama&#39;s mother was looking at those tapes im pretty sure shed say "wait, thats not my boy, thats some fat guy that has a white beard and wears the same close as my boy&#33;".[/b]

Nobody gives a fuck about what you&#39;re "pretty sure" of, "expert". And maybe Hitler didn&#39;t shoot himself and just shaved his moustache, got frozen for some decades and came back as George W. Bush after getting some facial surgery to look like him right after he got aliens to kidnap the real one :lol:


chaz171
fly anything over new york and see what happens when you don&#39;t respond to ATC.

Go ahead genius, tell us...that is, of course, if the CIA/FBI/black helicopters/evilutionists/Illuminati didn&#39;t get to you already :lol:

[BCV`]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Sep 26 2006, 07:00 AM--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ Sep 26 2006, 07:00 AM) LOL, this thread is filled with the lamest attempts of trying to get people to believe wacky nonsense in the whole internet: a bunch of 12 years old "rebels" who can&#39;t even use capitals to start their sentences, who have no idea of what they are talking about and resort to claiming that "many experts agree with me even though i cant mention any lalala i cant hear you lalala" and posting links.


BCV`
but if Osama&#39;s mother was looking at those tapes im pretty sure shed say "wait, thats not my boy, thats some fat guy that has a white beard and wears the same close as my boy&#33;".

Nobody gives a fuck about what you&#39;re "pretty sure" of, "expert". And maybe Hitler didn&#39;t shoot himself and just shaved his moustache, got frozen for some decades and came back as George W. Bush after getting some facial surgery to look like him right after he got aliens to kidnap the real one :lol:
[/b]
The true image of maturity, btw that wasnt an argument that was more of a joke, it was just showing another possibility, im glad you really looked at what i had to say and replied with something beneficial and productive to counter it. Your attitude is appalling. Im not taking any sides, im just saying get educated on the matter, truly educated and don&#39;t act like a child.

Oh and i didn&#39;t realise that posting links was to be looked down apon. Im sorry for offering a source of information in which you can become educated. Trying to show both sides of the story and all the possibilities is something people dedicate many websites to, to try and cram it all in here would do it no justice.

[BCV`]

Here is the overview of evidence that show unexplained anomalies and question the official story. Note this is merely an overview, more indepth evidence is available which will surface in discussion.

NOTE: Don&#39;t just flame or make unamusing jokes, if you take the time to read this post you will see there is enough evidence here to warrant an open debate. If you disagree justify it in your argument.

The aquisition of the truth can only be realised once all possibilities and evidence are considered and analysed. My mind is not made up.

Here&#39;s some evidence worth considering:
Overview of New 9/11 Research

1.

The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
2.

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
3.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
4.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
5.

There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.
6.

There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
7.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.
8.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
9.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
10.

Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
11.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
12.

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail&#33; Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757&#33;
13.

The Pentagon&#39;s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O&#39;Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757&#33;
14.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757&#33;
15.

If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government&#39;s official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.

This information was aquired from www.scholarsfortruth.org

[Janus]

Merged.