FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


the 9/11 truth






What do you think
It was the government
48%
 48%  [ 68 ]
It was terriousm
51%
 51%  [ 73 ]
Total Votes : 141

Blaster
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change

Watch the movie. Even though it is long it tells you a lot. It changed my mind for sure. Try to take a stand on the US government. Lets show them they are wrong. Its time for us to do somthing about this.

It does tell you why it may have been planed years before.

It was brought to my attention of another movie by a user named rheana

here is that movie http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml
theo
i suspect that... haha
IceCameron
I gave up on all this ranting ages ago. The endless consipiracy theories go on forever.
Take it from me. It was the aliens!
Blaster
LOL it is so worth the hour and a half. Even my parents changed there mind about it.
speedlikecy
i thinks
It was the government...
madsencarl
It was the damn terrorists. KILL 'EM ALL!!!
Mr Smith
Your all wrong, it was a plane. Machines WILL take over the world one day, I'm afraid children.
byutiful
Rolling Eyes its plain conspiracy....
Blaster
Mr Smith wrote:
Your all wrong, it was a plane. Machines WILL take over the world one day, I'm afraid children.
Yea Machines will. but it was planned and i dont' mean by osama. The evidence is in the movie.
byutiful
hi.. where did you get the video? how realiable is this source?
Blaster
friend told me. If you watch the movie you will see how reliable it is. It does prove good points.
nam_siddharth
I don't care, whether it was Osama or not. But it was good, what happened with Osama in return. He w2as a thread against India too. He was supporting terrorist in Kashmir.

He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.

The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.
n0obie4life
Give the 9/11 a rest Rolling Eyes

It has been 5 years.
Blaster
Its not anything you can forget in the US. It is somthing that no one will forget here. It was such a big deal here and still is. There was a whole movie on it. (Farinhite (sp?) 9/11)
CWFwrestling
Blaster wrote:
Its not anything you can forget in the US. It is somthing that no one will forget here. It was such a big deal here and still is. There was a whole movie on it. (Farinhite (sp?) 9/11)


While it's pretty obvious certain high ranking government figures knew 9-11 was going to happen (at least the NYC portion, I fully believe it was a predator drone that flew into the mysteriously remodeling portion of the Pentagon) Fahrenheit 9-11 was just a liberal propaganda film. If you want a literal look at the 9-11 truth, pick up some Alex Jones DVDs. He's like Michael Moore from the libertarian POV, and with talent.
Berlo
9/11 was forced to come, sooner or later. The only question was when, and not if. It still does not make the whole thing governmental.
TurkishGamer
I think it was the government. While making the twin towers fall they took insurance money, the gold, the money in itm and maybe the extra put options place on the twin towers or the plane.They also created a reason (by blaming osama) for bombing afganistan and blaming terrorist and slowly moving into iraq. Another goal they achieved was to lower the status of the muslims. They showed osama as muslim and that he was a terrorist so with the media he practically brainwashed the citizens showing that all muslims are bad (clearly wrong if you have ever met one)

If anybody knows, I heard a rumor that the license plate of NY changed from twin towers to empire state building right before 9/11. If this is true this can also be evidence (I think).Anybody know otherwise or can prove it?

P.S-Please don't reply if you haven't seen any part of the video. The evidence will probably change your mind

Edit:Have you seen a muslim that behaved unappropriate before? (not from newspaper, tv, or any type of media)
CWFwrestling
TurkishGamer wrote:
all muslims are bad


Wait, you mean they're not?!?!
dz9c
IceCameron wrote:
I gave up on all this ranting ages ago. The endless consipiracy theories go on forever.
Take it from me. It was the aliens!


lol im with you
Soulfire
Does it matter?
No. 9/11 was a huge tragedy, but there really wasn't much we could've done to stop it. We could've tried to prevent it, but when you have such radical people... the old saying holds true "When there's a will, there's a way"

And it's just a natural reaction to point straight at the government for any little thing that goes wrong. NOTHING (save 3 people) is perfect. And while the prospects of an attack might've been high, if they didn't do it by airplane, they would've found someway else to do it.

It happened 5 years ago, why are you still pulling the gov'ts chain about it? You have to move on. A bunch of third graders poking and trying to annoy each other is all that political parties have come to.
TurkishGamer
You didn't watch the video.Right?

Let me answer the question of "does it matter?".

Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything.
Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions
Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country.
Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money.

I could list more.Want me to?

(Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???)
rct_adicts
Come on guys it's obvious it was terroists. On the news at the moment there's all this rubbish about whether the terrorist they caught should be sentenced to death or not. Of course he shouldn't, he is evil Twisted Evil and should be tortured for the rest of his life! Mad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4876612.stm
Blaster
TurkishGamer wrote:
You didn't watch the video.Right?

Let me answer the question of "does it matter?".

Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything.
Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions
Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country.
Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money.

I could list more.Want me to?

(Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???)

I can tell he watched the movie. If you don't have the hour and a half just watch a little at a time. It is weird some of the events. Why was osama in the United States before hand and not captured if he was wanted since 1998?

There is too much evidence that points to the government. Before you say anything here watch the video and then you can start to tell me your opion.

Trust me you will change your mind even if it is just a little bit.
myrevolt
I'm from the US. But I think people should give it a rest. Particularly the media. Yes, it was tragic, hope it doesn't happen again. BUT it is major ammunition for the government to use against its citizens.

Big Brother: We are taking away your freedom of speech
Citizen: Uh, no.
Big Brother: If we don't, then....9/11 will happen again!!!
Citizen: oh no! I'll give in!

Yes, that was a lame example, but it happens, more subconciously of course.

Living in fear is not the answer. However, it was a good thing that it happened, simply because it opened our eyes. We aren't untouchable anymore.

Stereotyping is hurting the free American society. Someone is Arabic so they have to be Muslim. They have to be an extremist. They have to be a terrorist. Oh come on, where is your better judgement? Terrorism is just the new fear. It used to be "communism". People ratting on their neighbors, accusing them off being communist. The Red Scare. And even after looking back on it, there are many that still think of communism as this great evil. Hmm let me think. What did the US gov. tell its citizens to do in defense of a nuclear attack from the communist Soviet Union? Hide under their desks (students). Yes hiding under a thin piece of artificial wood and metal will save you from 1. the nuclear blast and 2. nuclear fall-out. Oh and everyone else should build a fall-out shelter under their house. Has anyone seen the movie "Blast From the Past" ? I do hope you realize they are poking fun of that.

Now before you accuse me of being anti-American, I want you to know, that I am just thinking outside of the box the media/government is feeding you.
The_Gamer294
terrorism, why would the united states kill its own people, and one of their biggest tourist attractions. id rather make money off tourists then blow them up.
Soulfire
TurkishGamer wrote:
You didn't watch the video.Right?

Let me answer the question of "does it matter?".

Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything.
Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions
Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country.
Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money.

I could list more.Want me to?

(Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???)

Your pointless bickering about the issue doesn't, and will not change anything. September 11, 2001 happened already - and we CANNOT change that. Even if it was the governments fault (which makes no sense, by the way... because, you know... Good ole' Bush just called the terrorists and told them to do it), that doesn't matter!
Blaster
Will people watch the video before they talk? That is why some of us really belive it. It all does make sense after a while. Just please watch the movie before you say different.
TurkishGamer
Actually if you would have watched the video there is lots of evidence showing that terrorists had nothing to with this. American media taped someone who looked like osama and made the look-alike say that he was behind this (have you ever heard of someone who stole something and admitted it but wasn't sorry for it?)

We cannot change it but we can try to prevent another one. You know U.S invaded Iraq right for no reason at all except to steal some oil? I bet you that in the next 5 or 7 years U.S will go into another middle Eastern country for a false reason and not leave their army from there (This country might be Iran or Syria).

P.S-I think some people are worse than children. They get taught something wrong early on but when they find out the truth they ignore it and don't learn from it.
Kaneda
TurkishGamer wrote:
(have you ever heard of someone who stole something and admitted it but wasn't sorry for it?)


Actually, that's pretty much been the MO for terrorists since the beginning - whether it be terrorists from the Middle East, ETA, IRA, whatever... After a terrorist attack, a group or person claims responsibility - sometimes to add new threats or make some demand, other times to "inform" the public about the reason for the attack - often retaliation. Oftentimes, groups that had nothing to do with the attack will even claim responsibility (for something like "free PR"). In either case, they're not admitting in order to show remorse. So, Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11 was really no surprise (if it was him Wink).

That said, while there are lots of things in this film that come dangerously close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact, there are also real issues that should be addressed.

I tend to severely dislike conspiracy theories (since they're most often just a way to make something very simple very complicated, when it's not really needed). And a large percentage of this is typical conspiracy nut fare - ignoring details that contradict your theory; skipping over perfectly reasonable and simple explanations; using dubious sources for information; etc. While (like the majority of Europeans) I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, I sincerely doubt the motives for 9/11 that this film supplies.

But there are questions raised in it that really demand a proper answer.
Blaster
I can tell who did and who didn't watch the movie. The people that didn't watch the movie say terriost and the people that did say government. Watch the movie before you arguee.
Jeslyn
You're all wrong.
It was a CareBear.
They plan to perform a communal attack on the states and all of Europe. Then they'll relocate us to Australia, and have killer tortoises run the world by their side.

/true story.
Petee
I watched the video last night. Honestly, I don't see how it couldn't have been the government. There was too much evidence to prove it was them. I understand that governments do drastic things sometimes under the pretense that it's for the good of their country, but this is just terrible. And we gained nothing from it (that we the general population know about anyway) other than getting an excuse to put troops in the Middle East and putting a few million dollars in someone's pocket. Sad
Blaster
I can tell you watched the video. It is our goal to get more and more people to watch the video. So start telling others to watch the video to show that our government is capable of doing stuff like this.

So please take the time to watch the movie and help out our country.
Vrythramax
I don't believe it was the goverment for many reasons I do not wish to o itno here (for fear of being flamed). Waht would thr government possible stand to gain by such an act? Possible respirsals againts [alleged] terroritsts?

The whole idea seems obsurd to me.
Blaster
Then watch the movie. People may say "why" but there is no reason to that. Our government is crocked i guess. But the point is that the evidence is in the movie.
Blaster
Sorry for the double post but i found something else. This if you stop the movie at 25 seconds and look at the right corner right at the top of the yellow thing you see a white thing. That looks to be in no way a 757. To me it looks more like a missle. Let me show you something.


That is a 757.

That is a tomahawk missile

If you notice it looks like it is a tomahawk missile not a 757.

For those that didn't bother to watch the movie. Let me show you the hole at the pentagon.

Notice the size. That whole is only 16 feet big. Show me a picture of a 16 foot plane. There is none. That is clearly the damage of a missle.

Anyhow have fun watching that. It does show a lot. Plus there is no damage on the grass from skid marks.

Ok now take a look at this angle of a camra. Stop it at 1.27 You can kind of see what looks to be the tip of something.
I circled it here to show you. Does that look like the tip of a 757? No. More like the tomahawk missile.[/img]
Tumbleweed
It does seem that if you join the dots you get a very nasty picture... BUT what can be done if this film is the gospel truth ?....Kick out the government and jail those responsible for any part however small in the deception ? (I think there would be a lot off ppl jailed) and who is going to actually do it ?...have a revolution ?...........let things carry on the way they have and hope the next government is honest and honourable ?...... erm....... the opposition was in on it ??????????

Face it if this IS true we are all screwed, isnt this a catch 22 situation ?

The original link was broken

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change
S3nd K3ys
Blaster wrote:
.


LoL!

(Sorry)
JoeFriday
I had someone forward a government conspiracy link to me a while back.. it's fairly convincing

and then I saw another link a few weeks later where a tv newscaster who was quoted in the original link explained how his words were taken completely out of context and showed that the evidence was scattered everywhere in plain sight, to the point where it's complete lies and manipulation to say that it wasn't a terrorist action

here's a link to the same general information

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1

I realize this won't change the minds of all the idiots out there who want to believe our government caused it.. but I hope there are still some who retain their grasp of reality (or at lest those who understand the concept of googling - it took me 30 seconds to find all that information again)
cfackler
Read the Wikipedia Article about the Loose Change documentary. While I thought it was a good movie, and made one think, the article certainly raises some concerns about the validity of some of the claims made by the film.
Petee
I just watched the two Judicial Watch Pentagon films. Although they are very low quality security camera recordings, you do get to catch a glimpse of what hit the Pentagon. Now, unless those cameras are very far away from the Pentagon (which they do not appear to be) then the "object" which struck the Pentagon is too small to have been a 757. It is much closer to the size of a missile, as Blaster said.

Also, in video #2, there is a bright flash at about :34. Why/how would a 757 emit a bright white flash several seconds after it impacted. It couldn't be from the fuel, because that would have burned away in the initial impact. Another thing to put into consideration.

I also took the time to read the Wikipedia Article. It made me question a lot of the things said in the film. However, being that anyone can edit it, it too may not be valid. Just something to think about.
Blaster
Joe Friday i dont' get you.

I to read the wikiarticle and agree with Petee. And yes i see what you are saying Petee. You made a good discovery.

And to all i am trying to get bondings to allow me to make a site on this.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Joe Friday i dont' get you.

I to read the wikiarticle and agree with Petee. And yes i see what you are saying Petee. You made a good discovery.

And to all i am trying to get bondings to allow me to make a site on this.


What's not to get? He posted a good article debunking major points of the theory. Do you discount that article out of hand or do you have info to dispute the article?
izimngcubes15
I don't know, but it's still a horrible thing, and I can't bare to see all those people dying.
eliasr
( MOVIE NOT WORKING )

I think it will be terroristme, why should the govoment kill alot of inecent people? I don't think it will be them, because alot of people in the goverment will not allow it, and if they not could stop it, it would get into the world somehow
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
I can tell who did and who didn't watch the movie. The people that didn't watch the movie say terriost and the people that did say government. Watch the movie before you arguee.


Has it ever occured to you that the people who say "terrorist" might actually have seen the movie, and just paid better attention than you did? I have this on DVD, for use as a very good example of the methods of misinformation - perfect because no actual propaganda film comes even close to the levels of blatant manipulation of "Loose Change" - not by being convincing, but by way of the sheer amount of BS misinformation presented in a matter of just one and a half hour.

Avery has learned a lot from Michael Moore. The only difference between them is: Moore mostly has a point, but sadly makes it easier to dismiss by his manipulation of selected footage and facts in order to emphasize this point. Avery does it constantly throughout his film and clearly in order to mislead. I'd only seen it once, when I said this:

Kaneda wrote:
That said, while there are lots of things in this film that come dangerously close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact, there are also real issues that should be addressed.


I take that back. Nothing in this film should be addressed (because the couple of things I thought should be addressed turned out to be entirely made up), and it doesn't come close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact (that was simply wrong choice of words). It is.

Methods include (just add this to the stack at wikipedia - this is only excerpts of a longer list):

Uncredited/anonymous citations and sources
- Osama Bin Laden's supposed hospital treatment in Dubai before the attack - we have one source for that: Le Figaro, quoting an anonymous informant.

Citations taken out of context
- FOX reporter Mark Burnback saying the plane had no windows on the side. Avery fails to mention that Burnback was two miles away, looking at a plane flying at 500 mph (and ignores the hundreds of other eye witness accounts from people who were closer, saying it was a commercial airliner).
- The Lamont-Doherty seismic institute citation was dismissed by the quoted person himself as "incorrect and not in context".

Dubious sources
- American Free Press (sure, if you can't find other sources, look there...)
- conspiracy theorists (like Jim Marrs)
- Wikipedia, as mentioned elsewhere
- Osama Bin Laden's testimony taken as fact?!
- Random posts on a forum (for example, as support for the "gold rings forbidden in islam" claim)
- unknownnews.net

Layman opinion or expert-in-other-field opinion disguised as expert opinion
- The "experts" who, according to Avery, claim the remaining engine part is not from a Boeing 757. One has nothing to do with planes, the other was an engine part manufacturer, who simply stated that he didn't produce this part.
- The "experts" who claim the towers could only have been a demolition. One of them, after closer inspection, admitted he was wrong a week later, which was "obviously" a part of the conspiracy.

Ignorance of obvious sources
- NORAD members
- actual aviation experts
- the actual manufacturer of 757 Rolls Royce engine parts
- structural engineers
- firemen
- demolition companies

Selective interviews
- Statements from 2 eye witnesses at Pentagon, whose accounts back up Avery's claims. Ignoring the large amount of people who say otherwise.

Selective image documentation
- "No trace of flight 77". There are dozens (maybe hundreds) of photos and videos clearly showing the wreckage of flight 77. Avery decides to show us the few where the wreckage is as disguised as possible.

Speculation derived from events which are easily explainable without resorting to conspiracies
- Why did "Emergency Response to Terrorism" feature WTC in crosshairs in 1997? I seem to recall the WTC being attacked by terrorists in 1993. Maybe that's why...
- Why don't we see the plane on the released Pentagon surveillance tapes? Because a camera going at 1 frame per second will hardly catch a glimpse of a plane going at 500 mph.
- Why was Rumsfeld working at the opposite end of the building at the time? Because that's where he usually works.
- Why are the windows next to the hole at the Pentagon completely intact? Because they're built to withstand a bombing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be intact either if a cruise missile had hit the wall next to them.
- Why did the FBI confiscate surveillance tapes from the Pentagon area? In order to investigate...

Misconceptions
- Yes, some interpretations of Islam forbid gold rings for men. In several pictures and videos of Osama Bin Laden he is wearing a gold ring, however, for example: http://www.september11news.com/Nov4OsamaJazeeraTV.jpg
- Osama is left handed, but the left hand is considered unclean in Islam. It wouldn't surprise me if he was forced to write with his right from childhood (I know some teachers did that here in Denmark until only a few decades ago). Later videos also show him not using moving his left arm or hand at all, indicating that he may have lost use of it.
- Sorry, but no demolition I've ever seen has been done by a few randomly placed charges blowing up at random intervals. I've never seen a demolition where the top of the building was blown first, either.
- It's perfectly possible to use a cell phone at flight altitude, also in 2001. Also, Avery fails to mention that not all these calls were made with cell phones (one of them even includes the mention of using an airphone - twice).

Half truths
- Yes, 14 fighter jets were "left" to protect the US on 9/11. Which was the same amount as most other days before 9/11. I fell for this one until I checked.
- Yes, a Boeing 747 MAY have Pratt and Whitney engines. However, Flight 77 had Rolls Royce engines. And yet, Avery spends the next 5 minutes comparing the remains found to a P&W engine.

Plain false assumptions
- "The fuel would have burned off immediately after impact."? No. As his own image to accompany this statement clearly testifies, the fuel takes time to burn.
- People mentioning a second explosion inside WTC means there's a bomb? No. It means there may have been a second explosion. "Explosion" has never been a synonym for "bomb". Avery spends a lot of time on eye witness accounts here. He might have spent that time on more of those eye witnesses who claimed the Pentagon attack wasn't by a commercial airliner - if there had been any more such eye witnesses.

Made up claims of second party ("straw men")
- Noone claimed flight 77 "vaporized" OR "bounced off the lawn". Yet Avery builds up a lot of debate against these nonexistant statements.
- Noone claimed the nose of the plane caused the hole in the inner ring at Pentagon. Rather, the official report says it was the landing gear.

Claiming similarity between totally unrelated events
- About 20 cases of Avery comparing the wreckage, sounds, explosions, shockwave or whatever of flight 77 (and the planes crashing into the twin towers) to crashes of other planes, which were (one or - usually - more of the following): smaller, travelling at different speeds, not smashing into reinforced concrete, crashing at different angles etc. etc.
- About 10 examples of buildings not collapsing after a fire - which wasn't caused by a 767 flying into them at top speed with a massive amount of jet fuel. Also, these buildings were not constructed in the same way.

"Sleight of hand"
I use this term to speak of instances where a documentary maker is using "magician's tricks". In "Loose Change" the main example of this is telling people what to see.
- Show two entirely different engine parts while claiming they're "identical".
- Show a Pentagon lawn with plane debris and claim there isn't any trace of the plane.
- Show a piece of plane debris ripped to shreads and claim it's not scratched.
- Show damaged and tilted cable spools and claim they're "completely untouched".
- Show footage of plane crashing and claim there's "no shockwave", in whatever way we're supposed to see that on (slow motion) video footage.
- Show footage of orange-yellow fireball and indicate that we're looking at a bright silvery flash.
- Show footage of one of the towers collapsing, yet start when the building has already collapsed about 1/5 of the way, and then claim we're seeing it collapse in 10 seconds - in spite of the fact that we can't see the actual building falling, due to dust and smoke.

Downright lying
- The outer hole was "no more than 16 feet in diameter"? Look at ANY clear photo (not that one filled with smoke and water sprays that Avery likes to use), and you'll see it's more like 70 feet wide - before the roof collapsed.
- WTC was "the first buildings in history to collapse due to a fire"? Sure, if you don't count the thousands of other buildings which have done the same.
- Giuliani shipped off debris from the site before experts could investigate? Nope, not according to anyone who'd know. Fell for this one, until I noticed the second time that there was nothing to back this statement up.

Ignorance of common sense
- Why discuss your evil conspiracy plans in publicly available documents - as Avery seems to think the US government did (see his - out of context - quotations from various government reports in the opening)).

The fact is, there's not a single thing in "Loose Change" that holds up to scrutiny - you don't even have to apply close scrutiny, and most of the time, no research is needed. Most of it can be dismissed by plain common sense. As mentioned, there's much much more. One guy did an insane amount of work in that regard:

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Knock yourself out.
awesty
i have seen this before, and disagree with it.
area547
how do you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even spell terrorism?
Get a life desktop warrior.
Thanks to Kaneda for doing the research. We appreciate it.
venkateshwarans
It's terrorism .Cleanly Bush knew it forehand long before and could have easily stopped it. There are several truths clear that it is the bush government that has actually let the planes bypass intelligence and kill people. Anyways terrorism rocks everywhere recently in Mumbai.
Kaneda
area547 wrote:
Thanks to Kaneda for doing the research. We appreciate it.


Thanks area547, but you're giving me too much credit - there's not much in my list (if anything) that you won't find elsewhere. The link provided at the end of the previous post amounts to actual research. You'll also find all the points from my post - and more - listed there. Smile

And that's really the point. The sad thing is, most of the problems in the documentary can be found by just looking at it - no research needed - and the rest can be dismissed by a few quick checks of the facts. The great thing is, the film serves as a good example for people to see how to watch a documentary critically. Wink
S3nd K3ys
TurkishGamer wrote:

P.S-I think some people are worse than children. They get taught something wrong early on but when they find out the truth they ignore it and don't learn from it.


The mental capacity you've demonstrated here at club Frihost makes it mathematically impossible (division by zero) for me to worry about anything you think is possible, or any of your claims made while trying to comprehend the physics of airplanes and shopping carts in contrast to your hollywood home videos of you and your boyfriends playing airplane.

I mean, if anyone were able to derive the math behind what 100 tons of jet packed with fuel does when it meets a concrete building of unknown construction, it sure as **** aint you pal... so just go smoke up another fatty, sit back with your birkenstock hippie loser pals, and rail away on why everything everywhere causes your bleeding heart to weep, especially over a president apparently dead set on flooding the state with more slackers (read voting block, or fellow constituants to you). Rolling Eyes
Blaster
Quote:
- The outer hole was "no more than 16 feet in diameter"? Look at ANY clear photo (not that one filled with smoke and water sprays that Avery likes to use), and you'll see it's more like 70 feet wide - before the roof collapsed.

I want you to look at the following picture.

I made the signs to show you something. Those signs are about 1.5 feet long and 2 feet high. If you count the sings the one going accross is 11. That times 1.5 is 16.5. Now it is seven from top to bottam. 7*2 is 14. Now if you are saying i put that image there then look ath the next image.

Still think i put it there. Well then seach Google Images and you will see in ever picture that it is there. So no it is not no 70 foot hole. That is totall bs. Those signs are 11 feet in height or length. How about you actually watch the movie and not read what others have to say. Then you will see that there is a lot of evidence.
HoboPelican
Anyone know what that is a pic of? Didn't I hear that there was some minor damage to the interior courtyard? Not stating, asking.

Here is a link to other pages with many photos of the exterior. It seems that the photos in the links below are not of the same section. Take a look.

Link one
Link two



[img]http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/010914-F-8006R-006.jpg [/img]
Blaster
there is no evidence that a plane hit there. That to me looks like it collapsed. I don't see any area where wings would have fallen in or anything. Give more info then that.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
there is no evidence that a plane hit there. That to me looks like it collapsed. I don't see any area where wings would have fallen in or anything. Give more info then that.


Did you look at the sites? There is a pretty decent analysis of the exterior impact. And you'd expect a collapse. What do you think those photos are if not the impact site?

Again, I ask you is that photo you posted supposed to be the main impact point?
Blaster
so you mean to tell me that the plane hit that then just disappered.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
So no it is not no 70 foot hole. That is totall bs.


Don't know why I bother with this, but... Your pictures are of the hole exiting the second ring of the Pentagon. Avery is talking about the outer ring entry hole. The outer hole is known to have been probably 70-75 feet wide (low estimate, the media reported "about 100 feet" a few days after the crash).

While we only have clear pictures after the collapse of the outer wall (the rest are covered by smoke, water, fire etc.), the chance that a 16 feet wide hole would collapse into a ca. 100 feet wide gap is slim at best. Added to that, we have the eye witness accounts of firemen etc. But I guess the evil government brainwashed all of them - or threatened them into silence.

The inner hole (your photo) is about 16 feet (which, by the way, is wide enough to even allow for the fuselage of a 757 - 12-13 feet in diameter - to pass through it - although it most likely didn't).

Quote:
How about you actually watch the movie and not read what others have to say. Then you will see that there is a lot of evidence.


Yawn. Yes, I actually bothered to write an extensive (but not as extensive as it was possible) list of errors in a film, but couldn't bother to watch it. Sure. Let's just repeat it, because it doesn't seem to sink in: I've watched this. More than once. I have it on DVD. I've shown it to media students as an example of the methods of misinformation.

How about you actually watch the movie with your brain switched on (assuming you have one)? Then you will see that there's not a scrap of real evidence (and we're not talking proof here, just evidence). If you can't use your brain critically, consider reading the massive amount of errors listed at the "Loose Change Guide" link provided in the previous message.

*sigh*
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
so you mean to tell me that the plane hit that then just disappered.


Well, everything I've read says the plane would have disintegrated. There are other photos showing small pieces strewn about. But look here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/punchout.html

It seems the photo you show is the Punchout hole on the interior courtyard, not the main impact as suggested. If you doubt the photos I posted earlier, what do you think they are pics of? I think this one is pretty hard to accept as being evidence for your conspiracy. It looks like a perfect example of misdirection on the part of conspiracy theorists.
Glaive
I don't care, whether it was Osama or not. But it was good, what happened with Osama in return. He w2as a thread against India too. He was supporting terrorist in Kashmir.

He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.

The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.

Its funny that he is hated by so many people and yet he is still alive???
Blaster
ok well i want to know one thing. Does korosene really get hotter then 3034.4 degrees F? There is no ****** way that that will get hotter then that. 3034.4 is the burning point of titanium. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001826.html That is the chart of metles. If you put that to fehreheit it makes 3034.4. So don't tell me that korosene is going to burn hotter then that. I couldn't find the actuall heat it gets up to but it is something like maybe 1000 degrees.
Petee
Hm, I'm starting to change my mind now a bit. There is a lot of good evidence being posted here that actually goes against the conspiracy video.

Also, in regards to what you just said Blaster. Airplanes are often made of (at least partially) Aluminum. I checked that table in your link and found the melting and boiling points for Aluminum. They are much lower than that of titanium.
Melting: 660.32 °C 1220.576 °F
Boiling: 2519 °C 4566.2 °F
It could be possible then, that the heat from the jet fuel could have at least melted the aluminum of the plane. However, I don't think that it would make the entire plane just disappear.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

EDIT-

I just found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel) on Wikipedia. It's a entry on Jet Fuel. However, as I posted earlier, because anyone can edit it, it may not be accurate.

Quote:

Flash point: 38°C
Autoignition temperature: over 425°C
Freezing point: -47°C (-40 °C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 degrees C
Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
ok well i want to know one thing. Does korosene really get hotter then 3034.4 degrees F? There is no **** way that that will get hotter then that. 3034.4 is the burning point of titanium. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001826.html That is the chart of metles. If you put that to fehreheit it makes 3034.4. So don't tell me that korosene is going to burn hotter then that. I couldn't find the actuall heat it gets up to but it is something like maybe 1000 degrees.


Before we move on, are we agreed that the photo of your 16 foot hole is the punchout hole on the interior of the courtyard and NOT the impact site? That claiming that was too small for a 757 was a gross misrepresentation? I see no point in refuting "fact" after "fact"and then haivng you just move on like it never happened. So let's all agree on this before moving on, ok?
Petee
Quote:

Before we move on, are we agreed that the photo of your 16 foot hole is the punchout hole on the interior of the courtyard and NOT the impact site? That claiming that was too small for a 757 was a gross misrepresentation? I see no point in refuting "fact" after "fact"and then haivng you just move on like it never happened. So let's all agree on this before moving on, ok?

I agree to that HoboPelican. I didn't even think about that being the inside hole until it was said here. I always thought it was the hole on the outside of the second layer, right behind the impact site. Now I realize that doesn't make much sense. Laughing
Blaster
i can agree on that now i am saying where did the plane go. even if it did just varish it wouldn't have that fast. So why can't see see pieces of it in any of these pictures.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
i can agree on that now i am saying where did the plane go. even if it did just varish it wouldn't have that fast. So why can't see see pieces of it in any of these pictures.

Actually, there are lotws of pics. Try this site

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
eldarian
Well, it depends from point of view. For Muslims, its government, for Americans - terrorism.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
3034.4 is the burning point of titanium.


And titanium makes up about 6% of a Boeing 757:

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/385503-1.html

Quote:
Since the early 1980s when Boeing engineers unveiled the 757 and 767 models, which respectively contain 6 and 2 percent titanium, metallurgists have worked steadily to improve titanium alloys.


It's not as hard as Avery claims to get information on what materials are used for a Boeing airplane. Of course, in this single case, he insists on conveniently "doing things right" and doesn't look further than simply asking Boeing. Convenient, because it allows him to focus on titanium.

The majority of the 6% is to be found in the landing gear, which is why:


Wheelrim


Main landing gear

It's not hard to find "new" images of more debris:






The problem is simply that the web is crowded with conspiracy sites, and for some reason, those sites like to focus on the same couple of pictures... So those are the only ones you'll see on page after page of Google search.

What happens to a 757 flying into a reinforced concrete wall? It's never been tested. What has been tested is what happens to a Phantom F-4, smashing into a concrete wall equivalent to the ones used at nuclear plants. Not the same. The plane is (obviously) much smaller, it hits straight on, the new Pentagon wall (which had been built at that particular wing) was not likely to be reinforced in the same way (which is why the plane actually managed to penetrate the wall) etc. However, the Boeing also carried almost 9000 gallons of fuel to help the process. Well, anyway, watch what happens:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745&q=f4+phantom

The only pieces left of the Phantom were the points of the wings - which could pass the wall unobstructed.

And this is what happens to the fuselage of a Boeing MD-11 hitting water (Swissair 111, crashing in the ocean at Nova Scotia, killing 229 people):



98% of the plane was recovered from the bottom of the ocean, and other than bits of the engine and landing gear, it all looked like that. After hitting water.

Noone's saying the plane melted or vaporized. Except for Avery.

EDIT: Replaced some images with local copies, so as to not suck the bandwidth from the poor hosts who supplied them.
Kaneda
eldarian wrote:
Well, it depends from point of view. For Muslims, its government, for Americans - terrorism.


Hardly. Don't generalize. I'm not an American, I see overwhelming, undeniable evidence that it was terrorism. I have several muslim friends who say the same. Clearly, some Americans like to think it's their government.

And you can be sure even if every single picture, video, sound recording and document would be released (and more of them have than Avery is willing to admit), conspiracy nuts would still be crying "CONSPIRACY!!!!" They'd continue saying that, if a surveillance tape showed very clearly a boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon (it would "obviously" have been manipulated).

Because how much more evidence is needed when hundreds of eyewitnesses, and even more "earwitnesses" (hearing the plane before the crash) say it was a plane? When hundreds of people died at the Pentagon and even more at WTC? A lot more evidence, according to these nuts.

Danish TV has a correspondent in Washington, as do most media. I know her personally. I also know that 15 minutes after the Pentagon crash, she was on TV, standing at the Pentagon, telling how she was nearby when it happened, and heard a plane flying low over Washington and then a crash. Believe me, noone would mistake the sound of a missile for a commercial airliner. Was she brainwashed or threatened to silence? I guess the CIA or whoever you want to blame are pretty quick, having silenced reporters from all over the world in a matter of half an hour.
Blaster
Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that.

Edit: This is my 2911 post Razz
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that.

Edit: This is my 2911 post Razz


You've lost me here, Blaster. There was debris scattered over a large area. They even have the black box. Are you implying that the there was not a crash? How many of these pieces of evidence do we have to discredit before
we can put this to bed?
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that.


Did it "melt too"? Nothing melted. Flight 77 didn't melt, Flight 93 didn't melt, the WTC steel structures didn't melt either. Don't put up more straw men - Avery put up quite enough as it is.

Debris, like HoboPelican said, eye witnesses, 44 passengers and crew, 33 of which were identified. And a black box.

Washington Post wrote:
The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground.

As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, [Wally] Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.


This is all very tasteless discussing, but seems it has to be done... Had there been recognizable bodies, I'd have personally started my own conspiracy theory (except that, while I'm very often crude, arrogant and respectless, I also have enough taste and situational judgment to not be the creep who'd do so), because there's no way a plane crashing vertically into the ground at such speed will leave the bodies of victims spread around like you'd see in a Hollywood movie. I'm actually surprised by the large parts of the plane they did find - about 2 meters of the side of the fuselage, engine parts etc. Of course, that's because this has all been "planted" by the government, not because the world isn't as neat and tidy and simple as conspiracy theorists want it to be[*]. Confused

Back to the Swissair 111, which crashed into the ocean - into water. Out of the 229 people killed, 1 of them could be identified visually. One. The rest were scattered into 15000 pieces.

Enough tastelessness.

[*] I say this, because that's the main basis of conspiracy theories. World doesn't make sense. There is no grand plan. So let's just make one up and pretend it does make sense and there is a plan. Because it's easier than coping with the scattered reality. For some, that's a comfort, just as it was a comfort for the US and the rest of the world to blame all our troubles on a single man (Bin Laden) - as if we'd live in perfect harmony the moment he's dead - when the truth is, he's just a very visible example of something which goes much much deeper, and is not so controllable as a single person. If there wasn't such a recognizable face to attach to these horrors, the US would have been in a much worse state after the attacks. Focus your fears and doubts into a single point, and they become less troubling.

Also, some of these theories (like "the moon landing didn't happen") are funny. This one isn't. Should be obvious why that is.
Blaster
Nah your full of it. Its not even worth arguing with you. The WTC wouldn't have just fallen at freefall speed. It probley wouldn't have feel at all. Tell me what cases. Also tell me why just randomly WTC7 feel.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
Nah your full of it.


Nope, Avery is. As has been very clearly shown.

Quote:
Its not even worth arguing with you.


Nope, because there's nothing to argue about. September 11 was an act of terrorism, not a huge conspiracy planned by the US government. End of story.

Quote:
The WTC wouldn't have just fallen at freefall speed.


And behold, it didn't. I won't bother with the details once again, they've already been mentioned, and are well documented on several sites (such as the one I linked to earlier) and in several documents.

Most conspiracy theories, including this one, only work by ignoring piles of evidence. And bothering with the details is pointless when the person you're arguing with simply ignores the arguments and evidence put forth and continues to believe in his ghosts and goblins.

Quote:
Also tell me why just randomly WTC7 feel.


Again, why bother? Other than pointing out that there was nothing random or sudden about it collapsing. It was expected by the fire department after the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Hence no people died in that collapse. I guess the New York fire department was in on the whole conspiracy thing too...

Now tell me why it shouldn't have collapsed. And what the point would have been of making it collapse anyway. Not like it changed anything - it was just another incident, which even went fairly unnoticed by most media. Where's the point? The answer is, there wasn't a point, because there didn't need to be.
Blaster
first off i want you to go and read through some of the topics here

I want you to especially look at this post. Look at the photos of WTC6 and WTC5 but then when you look at WTC7 nothing is there. So why didn't WTC5 and WTC6 not fall when WTC7 did?
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
first off i want you to go and read through some of the topics here

I want you to especially look at this post. Look at the photos of WTC6 and WTC5 but then when you look at WTC7 nothing is there. So why didn't WTC5 and WTC6 not fall when WTC7 did?


Ok, I looked. Not sure exactly what you want addressed. WTC7 was a 47 story building. 5 and 6 were under 10 apiece. . WTC5 did collapse down to the 3rd floor and 6 was badly damaged. I'm not sure what is hard to accept here.

I'm not familiar with that site, but from what I saw, it was almost exclusively pro-conspiracy posts. I even noticed a disclaimer saying "Any unsuitable posts will be removed". I could be wrong, but does that refer to posts debunking the conspiracy? The point I'm trying to make is that I am somewhat suspicious when differing opinions are not allowed.

I've spent the most of my adult life in research labs where failure analysis
was a big part of the job description. You learn early on to question everything, but not to jump to conclusions. This theory would be laughed out of any lab I've ever worked in. When you have someone over and over presenting evidence of a particular failure mode (and that evidence is repeatedly refuted), you have to consider that the person is trying to make facts fit his pet theory instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.

Anyway, if you have specific issues from that site, let's talk about them.
Blaster
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=27
That forum right there is ment for what you are talking about. But i still think it is funny that WTC7 fell. So yea there are things there. But i still think there is more evidence that it was government then terriouism.
bdoneck
I believe that it was terrorists, but I have seen many videos on it and I do not think that it was planes that crashed into the buildings. I think that the government covered something up by using the plane story.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
first off i want you to go and read through some of the topics here

I want you to especially look at this post. Look at the photos of WTC6 and WTC5 but then when you look at WTC7 nothing is there. So why didn't WTC5 and WTC6 not fall when WTC7 did?


Why should we bother, when you won't even acknowledge, much less address any of the debunking of these socalled "theories" that's been done so far? It's like speaking to a rock. We could go on and on discrediting every single thing spewed out by these nuts. Clearly wouldn't have any effect or make any difference.

The only interesting thing about the forum you link to (because reading more of this crap isn't interesting in the long run) is... that there's absolutely no discussion. People are agreeing with each other on every single scrap of "evidence" no matter how dubious the claim may be - and ridiculing (but, like you, not addressing or refuting) any critical discussion of their pet monster. Real world theories aren't created in a vacuum. These are.

One last thing, and then I'll spend my time on more worthwhile issues. When you look at WTC7 in a photo on that forum, "nothing is there". The question to ask then is, when was this picture taken? As usual, conspiracy nuts don't bother with minor details such as dates or sources, so we'll have to guess. Since there's no smoke or dust in the air, and since there's cranes and bulldozers several places on the site, and since there is a clear 10-12 stories high pile of debris in the early images (see image below, for example), I'd guess probably a month later.


At the edge of the WTC7 site a few days after the collapse. Doesn't look empty to me.

Is it so strange that the site was cleaned up? What were you proposing? That WTC7 disappeared into thin air in some kind of Philadelphia experiment? There's enough footage to prove (if it were necessary) that it didn't.

So, was it "controlled demolition"? Certainly not. None of it was. And why not? Because demolitions of buildings which are even very much smaller than these take MONTHS to prepare - planting explosive materials, weakening the structure by sawing up to 95% through pillars and beams etc. Not only would it obviously have been noticed when people are working there every day. These supposed explosives would also have been noticed by the bomb sniffing dogs that Avery makes such a point (not...) out of telling us were in the buildings due to a bomb threat - for 14 days up until only a week before the attack. And to add to that, the already weakened structure required for a demolition would render day to day work impossible. This according to several independent structural engineers (those who'll even bother addressing such an insane claim).

There's not a scrap of real evidence for these theories, there's stockpiles of evidence against them, there's no believable motive, and the additional strain on our suspence of disbelief simply continues to pile up. Not only was the entire government apparently in on this conspiracy, the fire department and police were too, as well as news correspondents from all over the world, hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses, hundreds of day to day workers at the WTC (otherwise, they'd have made a fuss out of the men in black who were planting explosives and purposefully weakening the structures), volunteers helping to clean up, engineers called in to the research as experts etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. They were all part of it.

I'll leave you to believe what you want, but don't pretend everyone else is ignorant while you see the light. This discussion started only because you insisted that anyone claiming it was terrorists hadn't seen the video. And it ends here, since it's going nowhere.
Tumbleweed
as Mulder would say " The turth is out there " Rolling Eyes

One thing that does make me wonder is , are they looking into the design of the building(s) itself ..... was that at fault in anyway ?
Blaster
Controle demolitions take that long becuase of how they fall. They are ment to damage nothing around them. Thats what makes it take so long. But this was not needed here. So it might have only took a week.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Controle demolitions take that long becuase of how they fall. They are ment to damage nothing around them. Thats what makes it take so long. But this was not needed here. So it might have only took a week.


I'm not into this conspiracy theory at all so it would help me if you explained it a bit to me. Isn't it a given that something hit the buildings? Why even suppose that the government planted munitions in the the building? This all seems so over the top, even for our duplicitous government.

You are correct, Blaster, much of the time taken to prep a building for implosion is to ensure it topples inward (or in a particular direction). But it is also necessary to weaken the structure to guarantee it's collapse. Not tearing out interior supports, not being able to get directly to support structures and still ensuring a collapse would require and even larger charge, thus increasing the risk of exposure. It all seems unnecessary if you are going to ram a plane into the tower anyway. Timing the explosions and making sure the plane hit the general area of the explosives is just to easy to foul up. It would just be simpler to load the plane with explosives.

As Kaneda and I both pointed out, item by item we've been debunking these issues and have never heard any response back from you, except for you putting forth another piece of "evidence" of conspiracy. At some point you have to reexamine your thesis, don't you? I don't believe our government is above lying to us and throwing away lives to garner support, but the evidence here is just not compelling.

So, let's summarize:
What is the theory, plane, missle, munitions or combination?
If a combination of plane and munitions, why make it so complicated?
Do you have any response to the debunking done earlier?
S3nd K3ys
Blaster wrote:
Nah your full of it. .


Shocked

Either Blaster is a really good troll, or he is really REALLY gullable. Laughing Laughing
godam64
i think it's the us government and friends.
it's impossible for muslim terrorist to have skills like that in 9/11 Very Happy
it's a professional job with a good scenario & director from hollywood.

greed always makes people blind.
they would not stop until all the universe using usa flag.
i think you should watch more movie about divide et empera
throwing the rock and then hiding the hands.

they should be more close to god, since they can't bring their power to heaven or hell. Laughing
S3nd K3ys
Hey Blaster...

Kaneda wrote:


Why should we bother, when you won't even acknowledge, much less address any of the debunking of these socalled "theories" that's been done so far? It's like speaking to a rock. We could go on and on discrediting every single thing spewed out by these nuts. Clearly wouldn't have any effect or make any difference.


?? Shocked ??
horseatingweeds
My favorite conspiracy module is the ‘proof’ that there were explosives because plumes of pulverized concrete shot out during the falls.

Silly rabbits.
Blaster
The supports of the twin towers wouldn't have all failed. The top floors might have fell but not the whole building that fast. So explosives had to have been planted. They really didnt' care if they killed anyone or damaged anything of course. In Avery's movie it clearly gives examples of buildings that have been on fire that have not fallen. One of which even was hit by a plane. So why would the twin towers fall when the other buildings didn't? Yes i am listening and reading everything you write. But i find stuff you dont' address like you do with me. So i am reading your stuff dont' take it that i am not.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
The supports of the twin towers wouldn't have all failed. The top floors might have fell but not the whole building that fast. So explosives had to have been planted. They really didn't' care if they killed anyone or damaged anything of course. In Avery's movie it clearly gives examples of buildings that have been on fire that have not fallen. One of which even was hit by a plane. So why would the twin towers fall when the other buildings didn't? Yes i am listening and reading everything you write. But i find stuff you don't' address like you do with me. So i am reading your stuff don't take it that i am not.


Sorry, why do you make the assumption that they shouldn't have fallen? FEA analysis has shown that it is a definite possibility. What makes you think only the top floors would collapse? Are you a mechanical engineer? Demo expert? A citation from an expert stating that as a fact? You have to have something to make you believe that. I don't know which airplane impact you are talking about, but the only one's I remember are a small plane recently and a WWII bomber hitting the Empire State building. Neither can be compared to the WTC. Every accident and fire is unique and you are walking on thin ice when you try to draw parallels

I'm not accusing you of not reading our posts, but I was asking why you put forth evidence and then, when it is proven wrong, you ignore that and go on to some other evidence. Are you hoping that after awhile we are going to tire of it and give up debunking and let it stand undisputed?

The concept is worth discussing, but after so many theories are shown to be wrong or highly suspect, why do you still believe in it? The fact is that Bush has never felt like he needed any reason to do what he does, so why concoct a complicated plan that has a high likelyhood of failing in a most embarassing way? It doens't make sense. Bush might be ignorant, but I don't think he's certifiable.
Billy Hill
Wow, Blaster. For as many posts as you have, you don't seem to have a realy strong grip on reality. I mean, you seem pretty convinced about something that has absolutely NO credance whatsoever. Not even a liitle bit.

I mean, "It was a a conspiracy because the building shouldn't have fell"?

That's pretty lame if you ask me. I think you just like to stir up trouble. Wink
horseatingweeds
What about aliens? Where are you alien guys? There is always a conspiracy about aliens.
Blaster
I myself am not a mechanical engineer but i have a family member who is. He said that becuase of the way the twin towers where built and modified afther the 91 bombing they reinforced it. So he was saying that the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken. Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there.

This image shows the top half of one of the towers falling. See how it fell. That weight wouldn't have made the whole tower fall.

Its things like these they i am still skeptic about.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
I myself am not a mechanical engineer but i have a family member who is. He said that becuase of the way the twin towers where built and modified afther the 91 bombing they reinforced it. So he was saying that the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken. Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there.

This image shows the top half of one of the towers falling. See how it fell. That weight wouldn't have made the whole tower fall.

Its things like these they i am still skeptic about.


I dont' understand this - "the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken"

Just a couple of points though. First, ask your family member if he thinks they reinforced the entire building or only the lower floors. I don't see how you can reinforce the upper structure without basically rebuilding the whole thing. I could be wrong here, so if someone has better info, let me know. Secondly, that is a crack in the outer sheeting, not solid steel.

For the sake of discussion, can you list the three most compelling pieces of evidence for this theory? If we can refute those, would you stop believing in it?
valkyrie-heavens
It's all just a bunch of paranoid idiots who have nothing better to do than make up conpiracies... move on. Terrorism does exist, and although I agree that it should be stopped, it happens.
NatetheGreat
dz9c wrote:
IceCameron wrote:
I gave up on all this ranting ages ago. The endless consipiracy theories go on forever.
Take it from me. It was the aliens!


lol im with you


Ditto. Rolling Eyes
Ghost Rider103
....
Blaster
hobo hes not really sure if they did reinforce the upper floors. But i'm sure the twin towers where ment to withstand planes being flown into them. I say this becuase they are so high up in the air and on foggy days a plance could not see it and crash into it. So i am sure they are ment to with stand things like that. The steal was rapped around a fire proff material ment to withstand fires. The top levels of this might have been destroyed put i doubt the lower levels would have too.
S3nd K3ys
Your whole idea is based on speculation. All of it.

Blaster wrote:
But i'm sure the twin towers where ment to withstand planes being flown into them..



The buildings DID stand up to the planes hitting them. BUT, the fires that burned afterwards eventually melted the steel that held the floors above that area up. When the floor or two collapsed, the combined weight of the other floors higher up was MORE than enough weight to keep the floors below it collapsing all the way down. I'm sure if the planes hit the top 3 to 5 floors of the buildings, they would not have fallen. Anything below that, and the sheer wieght of the floors above would easily crush the steel below as it fell and gained momentum. It's basic physics.
Kaneda
Gah, can't pass up this discussion. Even if it leads nowhere, it's still somewhat interesting.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The buildings DID stand up to the planes hitting them. BUT, the fires that burned afterwards eventually melted the steel that held the floors above that area up.


Please don't feed the conspiracy nuts Wink The steel didn't melt. It was merely weakened to less than half its strength - as steel tends to be, when in high temperatures. Other than that, you are, of course, correct. Smile Fire proofing... Since WTC was built around the peak of the asbestos hysteria, inferior fire proofing materials were used for the majority of both towers - with only the North Tower having asbestos from around the 64th floor and down.

Older buildings would have stood much longer (a good asbestos coating should withstand fire temperatures for several hours). And yes, weakening the steel is enough to make a floor collapse, with the rest following it (as S3nd K3ys said, due to the weight above). That's why the steel was fire proofed in the first place. However, analysis showed that the used proofing material had simply fallen off in flakes - as the inventor of the asbestos spray method had predicted decades before:

Herbert Levine wrote:
If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.


(but yes, he was very biased Wink)

Several structural engineers have even criticised the NIST report, because it takes the planes crashing into the buildings to be a necessary factor. According to these engineers, the fire alone, with no damage caused by the planes, would have been enough to make the building collapse.

Quote:
Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there.


Please point out those "cracks" to me, maybe do a screen grab of the image and circle them? If you mean the black spots/lines at the edge of the dust cloud, I see no cracks, only falling debris.
horseatingweeds
It wouldn’t even have to melt it. If enough of the members where heated not even significantly they would fail. Steal looses a lot of strength quick when it is heated.
S3nd K3ys
Bad choice of words, sorry. I used "melt" because I figured it was beyond the scope of comprehension of those individuals with the tin foil hats.
Blaster
Hobo already said somthing about the image.

Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Hobo already said somthing about the image.

Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.


All of those statements might care some weight (I just reread this, no pun intended) if you where a structural engineer with experience in high-rise construction and demolition. Failure modes in something as complex as a 100+ story structure is something I don't think anyone here is an expert on.

I've spent a big part of my career testing how objects fail under stress and, without a thorough understanding of ALL aspects on each test, predicting how and when something will fail is a total crap-shoot. Even with great experience about all you can do is predict general probabilities of how things are going to happen.


(BTW-my experience was with ceramics, corrugate, packaging and simple 2x4 fire walls, so I am no expert on high rises either.)
joxang
To anyone who watches the video and believes in a massive conspiracy theory: how about researching the other side a bit more? Are you that gullible and easily led that one well made video can persuade you to accept a completely ludicrous and ridiculous story?

Here's a decent place to start reading: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

'Wanting' to believe something doesn't make it true. It's an insult to the memories of those who died that some people deny huge amounts of evidence to satisfy their own whims and grudges.
joxang
Blaster wrote:
Hobo already said somthing about the image.

Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.


?!?!??!?! Taken a long time to fall? ??

What on earth does that mean?

If you drop a ton of concrete off the top of a building, it won't fall slowly, it'll go straight to to bottom accelerated by gravity.

If the structural supports of a building weaken to the point where they buckle, then the entire thing will just *collapse*. It won't fall a bit and linger in midair to ask for directions on where to go next.
S3nd K3ys
joxang wrote:
Blaster wrote:
Hobo already said somthing about the image.

Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.


?!?!??!?! Taken a long time to fall? ??

What on earth does that mean?

If you drop a ton of concrete off the top of a building, it won't fall slowly, it'll go straight to to bottom accelerated by gravity.

If the structural supports of a building weaken to the point where they buckle, then the entire thing will just *collapse*. It won't fall a bit and linger in midair to ask for directions on where to go next.


Not to mention the fact that while the building will hold the weight of the upper floors, when you drop that weight from even a couple of feet, the building's ability to hold that weight goes out the window, no pun intended, and it will collapse.
Blaster
i'm saying that it should have taken longer for the steal to weeken and fall. Thats what i mean by that. Yea it might have fell but not as so soon. It takes a long time for steal to do that even under that amount of heat. It would have taken at least 3 hours to fall.
S3nd K3ys
Blaster wrote:
It would have taken at least 3 hours to fall.






OMFG!!!

Coffee. Nose. Monitor. Boss asking what the ****** I'm laughing about.

That's funny ****ing shit right there, blaster! Real funny shit! Laughing How the ****** do you know that??? Laughing Are you a structural engineer? A metallurgist? An accident investigator? Or did you just pull those three hours out of your anus? (The latter includes pilfering it from some tin-foil hat web site)

3 hours to fall, LMAO!!!

HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
i'm saying that it should have taken longer for the steal to weeken and fall. Thats what i mean by that. Yea it might have fell but not as so soon. It takes a long time for steal to do that even under that amount of heat. It would have taken at least 3 hours to fall.


Not sure where you get the 3 hours. As I said earlier, structural failure is a very unpredictable thing. If you have a quote from a knowledgeable source, we can consider it, but until then it's just speculation.


Conspiracies are fun, but this one just doesnt hold water. All the points are pretty simple to refute and the whole concept just doesn't make sense. Bush doesn't give a rat's patootie what the American public thinks, so why would he create this huge, complicated plan to get support? I'll say it again, he's an idiot, but not that big of one.
Blaster
I dont' believe bush was the head man. I think it was presented to him so that he could go to war with Afganistan for something. Oh and i just estimated with 3 hours. So s3nd k3ys you better watch your back.

But i just don't think that it would have fallen. Theres no way in hell it should have fallen. At least not that soon. That is unless it was a controled demolition.
S3nd K3ys
Blaster wrote:
So s3nd k3ys you better watch your back.


A threat!?!?

Laughing Laughing Laughing
linexpert
I think it was the government. The government got alot in return from 9/11. They got money from the insurance. The most important thing is that the goverernment got much more power to spy on people after the 9/11. The patriot act would have never been passed if the 9/11 attacks would've not occured. The government can now spy on our phonecalls if they feel there is a thread ( no need to prove anything) They can also put you in jail for up to seven days, just for suspecting you of being a terrorist. The media also did a good job making it look like there was no room for error and terrorist were after it for sure.
The movie has couple very good points. I don't understand why there was no proof of the correct plane going into the pentigon. Also what about the plane and the flame before the plane.
It's been a long time since 9/11 and we should all just give it a rest but somethings are not as easy to give rest to.
HoboPelican
linexpert wrote:
...The patriot act would have never been passed if the 9/11 attacks would've not occured. ...



That might be true, but really has little bearing as proof. As you read through this board, you'll see every (did we miss anything?) piece of evidence for a conspiracy refuted. Can you be a bit more specific as to what evidence makes you think the government had a hand in this?
mustaq
guys can you belive or not thit is true that goverment is helping to grow terriost

eg: when us attactk afgan ,pakistan helped us ,in return us pay big money to pakistan ,well those money now converted in to nuclear weapon by pakistan and some money went in to terriost camp
lunatic07
Blaster is right i seen this movie about a week or two ago and it has alot of evidence of the truth of what really happened of 9/11 everyone when your bored just watch the video youll learn alot from it.
HoboPelican
lunatic07 wrote:
Blaster is right i seen this movie about a week or two ago and it has alot of evidence of the truth of what really happened of 9/11 everyone when your bored just watch the video youll learn alot from it.


Uh, did you bother to read all the posts here? The evidence in that film has been being refuted for 4 pages now. Anything in particular you saw in the film that has not been debunked yet? The film has so many errors and so much misdirection that I don't see how anyone can believe any of it.

I love the bumper sticker that reads: Question Authority.
But don't stop at simply questioning the government. Question everyone and everything that is trying to sell a particular viewpoint. That movie is simply propaganda and has proven incredibly easy to debunk.
kung_fu_stu
Plain and simple - The united states government is a conspiracy. There are so many agencies that they can't even keep track of them. They've got coverup teams to coverup other teams. I say blame the Government for everything bucause they sure didn't ask any of up before they did anything. Democracy my Ass!
chrismen
That video really makes you think. I liked it even though I don't like thinking so much. Anyways, even with the strong points the video points out I am not really convinced. Some weird happened but what they are suggesting... it's a little out there I think.
Blaster
Just some of the things like the guy getting it and buying this huge insurece thing and all. Thats what got me. So start debunking that hobo. I just think that is ironic. So it might not have been the government but i think it was someone from the us. I dont' think it was Osama.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
Just some of the things like the guy

What guy?
Quote:
getting it

Getting what?
Quote:
and buying this huge insurece thing

What huge insecure(?) thing?
Quote:
and all.

What all?
Quote:
So start debunking that hobo.

Debunk what?
Quote:
I just think that is ironic.

What is?
Quote:
So it might not have been the government but i think it was someone from the us. I dont' think it was Osama.


Why the need to not have it be the man who had the connections, who had the knowledge (Bin Laden is a civil engineer), who had the resources, who had the will, and who even admitted to being behind it? No, it wasn't just Osama. This isn't about a single man posing a threat and the elimination of him being the end of all troubles. But until the moment someone comes up with some scrap of evidence even slightly believable, why even consider "someone from the US"?

As is usual for conspiracy theories, this has turned from a "theory" into a belief structure. The believer will keep on defending it, no matter if it makes no sense. If something is shown not to fit, the interpretation will simply be modified. If the very bounds of reality need to be stretched to support the belief, they will be. You cannot disprove a belief to the believer (just as you cannot disprove the existance of God), because the "theory" is flexible - the resources available to get around the debunking are infinite.

If a plane is clearly visible, it's video and photo manipulation. If dead bodies are identified, they were planted or the government paid off the coroners. If we have sound recordings of victims, it's a matter of voice synthesis. If we have hundreds of eye witnesses, they're silenced by the government or "seeing things". If we have expert opinions, they're all just wrong, unlike the believer, who is, of course, an expert on everything. If a demolition simply doesn't work the way the conspiracy nut wants it to, the government has secretly developed materials, unknown to the public, to make it work as he wants to.
HoboPelican
Thanks for saying it all for me, Kaneda.

Blaster, I don't follow the theories, so I haven't a clue what that was all about. All the debunking I've done is common sense and maybe 2 minutes on Google, not close experience with these theories. If you want something refuted, you have to give us more info.

Actually, What is the theory? Can you lay what is really supposed to have happened according these theories in a short paragraph? I asked before, but it probably got lost in the mess.
twisthigh
I just think it's too late to talk about it... what's done is done whether or not we establish that it was all the government, the people who passed will not return. We owe it to those people to let them rest and let what passed be in the past, we can't keep bringing it up and turning it into an ugly controversy.... oh and, the terrorists never denied a thing.
Soulfire
Funny what a cleverly-done project can make people believe (DaVinci Code ringing a bell to anyone else?). It would make a great FICTIONAL movie though.
tuncay
There is nothing called terrorism today, it's money whatever is committing a crime. And plainly I believe it was an inside operation by the US government.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
Funny what a cleverly-done project can make people believe (DaVinci Code ringing a bell to anyone else?). It would make a great FICTIONAL movie though.


Off topic response, but I can't resist Wink How could anyone relate that book to reality? I guess you're right, people just want to believe that the world is not as simple as it really is and have to look for intrigue and secrets in everything.

Maybe, not that far off topic. I suppose addressing the need to find conspiracies is just as valid as debunking them.
Reyntjensw
i think it was a reaction on a reaction on a reaction, I was shocked when i heard it, i hate it really, why did they do it?
i feel really sorry for the people who died,and i hate terrorism! i've seen united 93, and the terrorists are just pathetic!
izimngcubes15
There was news about this on TV, they said that people like that about 9/11 and such have these "theories" or whatever, because they go on wacky websites or have been influenced somehow in life, and whatever it was is not true. I think the "truth" is just something someone made out of boredom or they're insane?
Blaster
I do think it was an inside job still. But i guess your right with the da vinci thing. A lot of people believed that even though it is a fiction book. So i guess that is on topic. But i just still believe it. Avery made sense in the movie. So i'm still for it. Its just the trade center which got me.
toughtrio
No one believed it at that time that it was a Government Act tho, whats the use of showing now. All the curses went for the Afghanis and Talibanis, even our accepting such a fact doesnt matter much, Does it??

I just dont understand one thing even after 5 years, why, just why did Osama accept that he committed that disastorous act, when he wasnt even involved in it. That thing hapened, and the respect for muslims went down in the whole world. I need an answer.

Warm Regards,
Abdul Basit
cloudship
i have talked with one friend about that issue.

he said it was likely that Mr. Bush knew the attack in advance. But for some wellknown reasons, he risked some lives to achieve something else.

but i would rather not believe it. Not because i am fan of Bush, actually i dislike him a lot. But i think however fool a president he is, he is a human. he could run the risk of the lives of his soldiers, because they are soldiers. But he, in my opinion, would not allow bury the people in the twin tower alive just for whatever reasons. this is because what he wants to sell to the overall world is the american democracy, which aims for a society where people are free and creative and where there is one thing called law to decide who deserves what. Even the president has no right to decide the lives of his citizens. If Mr. Bush had done that, he would not have kept his faith of governing and even being an american.

and for the truth, no one will know that, and that is meaningless for the dead and also for the alive. always keep in mind, to live is not so difficult, but to live with a purpose is difficult.
cr3ativ3
Ya, I believe it was the goverment but thats my own personal opinion the video has astonishing evidence the vid makes it look like the goverment didn't do a good job of cleaning it up plus the vide of osama is cleary a differen't person then him just by the look and sound.
sibby
Another great movie to watch: Michael Moores' Fahrenheit 9/11.

Even if some things in this film aren't accurately investigated, it prooves that there's an economic relation between the Bush- and Bin Laden-families.

That's why they captured Saddam yet but not Bin Laden, and they won't capture him as long as George W. is on power.
haak_heu
TurkishGamer wrote:
I think it was the government. While making the twin towers fall they took insurance money, the gold, the money in itm and maybe the extra put options place on the twin towers or the plane.They also created a reason (by blaming osama) for bombing afganistan and blaming terrorist and slowly moving into iraq. Another goal they achieved was to lower the status of the muslims. They showed osama as muslim and that he was a terrorist so with the media he practically brainwashed the citizens showing that all muslims are bad (clearly wrong if you have ever met one)

If anybody knows, I heard a rumor that the license plate of NY changed from twin towers to empire state building right before 9/11. If this is true this can also be evidence (I think).Anybody know otherwise or can prove it?

P.S-Please don't reply if you haven't seen any part of the video. The evidence will probably change your mind

Edit:Have you seen a muslim that behaved unappropriate before? (not from newspaper, tv, or any type of media)


i think you are right it is government of usa , and who support them they are people of america so it is all done by american to american , but price is given by innocent people like afgani people children , women , now see what is in lebnan , these are all things to get muslim in trouble
Kaneda
I'm shocked and confounded and... I can't look away... The evolution of this thread is a case-in-point of what I said on a previous page. If it weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious.

Confused Surprised Shocked Sad Laughing Rolling Eyes Sad
HoboPelican
haak_heu wrote:

i think you are right it is government of usa , and who support them they are people of america so it is all done by american to american , but price is given by innocent people like afgani people children , women , now see what is in lebnan , these are all things to get muslim in trouble


<sigh> Well, you are free to believe that, but do you have any evidence? I assume you've read most of this thread and have seen all the lies, distorted facts and misdirection that has been used to to create this idea that the US government planned 9/11, right? I hope you aren't assuming it's the US out of simple bias and hatred towards the US, but actually have something to back up your thoughts.

Understand, I'm not saying the US is a shiny example of all that is good in the world. Quite the opposite. I think the US has much to answer for in how it has conducted itself in both foreign and domestic affairs. But if you start blaming them for everything, without regard to facts, you wind up looking like the boy who cried wolf. People stop listening to you. Focus on what can be proven and people will pay attention.
Mster
I don't know. I don't live in great America (although I do want to Smile ) but my opiniion is thet it was all just a piiece of crap. It's nnobbody-s fault,It's the world-s fauult
S3nd K3ys
Mster wrote:
It's nnobbody-s fault,


I knew it! The planes hit those buildings on accident!
Soulfire
The government released three possible "disaster scenarios." They were: a terrorist attack in NYC (of which they placed the twin towers in that crosshairs because anybody with much common sense would see that that is a very likely target).

And the next: a hurricane to hit New Orleans. Want to try and say that the government was responsible for hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans? Sorry Bush couldn't call up mother nature and tell her to make it hit somewhere else.

Finally, a major earthquake to hit San Fransisco (which hasn't happened yet).
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
....

Hurricane to hit New Orleans. Want to try and say that the government was responsible for hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans? Sorry Bush couldn't call up mother nature and tell her to make it hit somewhere else.
...


I'm gonna regret this, but try searching "+Katrina +conspiracy" and "+pentagon +earthquake +weapon". <sigh> People will believe ANYTHING.
Da Rossa
The annoying thing are the people that just say "these are dumb conspiracy theories from whom want to attract attention to themselves". They, in the truth, don't want to conceive the possibily that their own government screws them everyday, with the less convincent lies. They convinced you that Iraq was a threat... I'm rolling here.
Believe. Face the truth. Bush is behind this all.
HoboPelican
Da Rossa wrote:
The annoying thing are the people that just say "these are dumb conspiracy theories from whom want to attract attention to themselves". They, in the truth, don't want to conceive the possibily that their own government screws them everyday, with the less convincent lies. They convinced you that Iraq was a threat... I'm rolling here.
Believe. Face the truth. Bush is behind this all.


I guess you didn't take time to read the posts here. Let me get you up to speed. Every piece of evidence presented has either been refuted and/or shown to have been deliberately misleading. I don't dismiss the the idea as being impossible. I think our government is highly suspect and I think Bush is one of the worst things to happen to this country. That said, I am not gonna jump on any wacko bandwagon just to knock him. Show us the proof. Not just your "feeling".

But do us a favor, if you are gonna put forth evidence, try to make sure it wasn't presented and refuted already.
poisonhzkj
I believe that it was terrorists, but I have seen many videos on it and I do not think that it was planes that crashed into the buildings. I think that the government covered something up by using the plane story.
Blaster
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Mster wrote:
It's nnobbody-s fault,


I knew it! The planes hit those buildings on accident!

No it was aliens we all know it S3nd K3ys

Quote:
The government released three possible "disaster scenarios." They were: a terrorist attack in NYC (of which they placed the twin towers in that crosshairs because anybody with much common sense would see that that is a very likely target).

And the next: a hurricane to hit New Orleans. Want to try and say that the government was responsible for hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans? Sorry Bush couldn't call up mother nature and tell her to make it hit somewhere else.

Finally, a major earthquake to hit San Fransisco (which hasn't happened yet).

Don't get me started on hurricane Katria and what bush did there.

And over all i have many opions now. But i want to see what others say before i say anything else. But let me say that i want to see the new movie coming out about WTC and then tell you any oppions from that movie.
Da Rossa
HoboPelican wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
The annoying thing are the people that just say "these are dumb conspiracy theories from whom want to attract attention to themselves". They, in the truth, don't want to conceive the possibily that their own government screws them everyday, with the less convincent lies. They convinced you that Iraq was a threat... I'm rolling here.
Believe. Face the truth. Bush is behind this all.


I guess you didn't take time to read the posts here. Let me get you up to speed. Every piece of evidence presented has either been refuted and/or shown to have been deliberately misleading. I don't dismiss the the idea as being impossible. I think our government is highly suspect and I think Bush is one of the worst things to happen to this country. That said, I am not gonna jump on any wacko bandwagon just to knock him. Show us the proof. Not just your "feeling".

But do us a favor, if you are gonna put forth evidence, try to make sure it wasn't presented and refuted already.


You're right, I did not stop to read all posts here, considering this is not the only topic about this. And thank you, but I'm not re-presenting any evidence or fact or refuting anything, I need a rest in this. Reading things such as "The war in Iraq was not a break of the law, Bush was enforcing it" really makes me so sick that I give up reading any further.
HoboPelican
Da Rossa wrote:

You're right, I did not stop to read all posts here, considering this is not the only topic about this. And thank you, but I'm not re-presenting any evidence or fact or refuting anything, I need a rest in this. Reading things such as "The war in Iraq was not a break of the law, Bush was enforcing it" really makes me so sick that I give up reading any further.


LOL. I got tired of that one awhile ago. We could have agreed in THAT rant.
Bush is, in my mind the worst thing that could have happened to the US. But, this whole thing about a 9/11 conspiracy is just so over the top. The evidence presented so far is so easy to shoot down and the whole concept borders on the preposterous, in my mind.
Da Rossa
Ok, I realize you're a cool, pacienty guy(girl). All my concern is about a few things:
1 - Why are there people that love Bush, even after the atrocities;
2 - After the 9/11, everything suitable for the Bush administration began happening. The engine for his acts is the fear that covers a good part of the american society. Before that, the US used to have one priority/concern for each region of the country, for example: narcotics in Colombia and South America; piracy in China; Oil in the Middle East, while the US, conveniently, fed conflicts in that region for decades; the spacial/nuclear race against Russia; selling weapons to Africa, etc. After 9/11, they all merged into a single priority: Security. Everything convenient to the US may be argued based on the "secority": by facing the narcotical problem in Colombia, it would grant the security, by controling the ME selling weapons to Iraq/Iran that were in war, the white house would say it's for the american security, and so on.
Bush's popularity rose very quickly after it, when he came with those comments "a agression like this agains the nation will not be tolerated" <-- I would fall in love with Bush if I were american, too...

Now they can do anything even against the UN decisions because they would be doing to combat the terror, actually what he wants is oil from the middle east. Everything is according to the convenience.
HoboPelican
Da Rossa wrote:
Ok, I realize you're a cool, pacienty guy(girl). All my concern is about a few things:
1 - Why are there people that love Bush, even after the atrocities;
2 - After the 9/11, everything suitable for the Bush administration began happening. ....


Answer to item 1 and 2. I haven't a clue. Human perversity? I really don't know. His popularity tanked after that, I think, but still he just did whatever he wanted, completely ignoring what the polls indicated. I think he is convinced of his rightiousness and could care less about what anyone thinks. Just my belief, but this is also a small reason for me to NOT believe the conspiracy ideas. He doesn't care, so why fake an excuse?

I can't explain why there isn't more of an outcry here about his policies. But given all of that and my honest disgust with our prez, I can't accept the 9/11 conspiracy without evidence. Bush's benefiting from it is an unfortunate fluke, I think.
Da Rossa
HoboPelican wrote:


Answer to item 1 and 2. I haven't a clue. Human perversity? I really don't know. His popularity tanked after that, I think, but still he just did whatever he wanted, completely ignoring what the polls indicated. I think he is convinced of his rightiousness and could care less about what anyone thinks. Just my belief, but this is also a small reason for me to NOT believe the conspiracy ideas. He doesn't care, so why fake an excuse?

I can't explain why there isn't more of an outcry here about his policies. But given all of that and my honest disgust with our prez, I can't accept the 9/11 conspiracy without evidence. Bush's benefiting from it is an unfortunate fluke, I think.


I respect that you can't believe those theories, named "conspiratory", without an evidence, and unfortunately we'll never have anything concrete, as the government managed to get rid of them minutes after the events took place in 9/11/2001. One example you can see here: www.pentagonstrike.co.uk

However, I can explain why aren't there outcries about his atrocities, and this does not demand a deep analysis. Sometime ago Bush used to have 50% of popularity. The american media did not cover the entire thing, THIS is unexplainable. So the citizens, in general, don't even have a clue of what the heck is going on. Some realised, and became anti-bush. Some did not, they started supporting the president blindly instead. And even the ones who don't like him much don't have a clue of the PRECISE situation, as I don't have either.
sujan
it is true
Agent ME
Da Rossa wrote:
They convinced you that Iraq was a threat... I'm rolling here.
Believe. Face the truth. Bush is behind this all.

If terrorists who slam planes into buildings, blow themselves up with bombs in busy areas, and attack innocent people aren't a threat, please inform us what a threat is...
Shake
I think I've seen this before on tape. This is definitely illegal if its posted here anyway. If anyone from the government did plan 9/11, I would definitely classify them as terrorists. There is really no difference. It might sound like this would be something the government would do, kind of like area 51 cover ups. The government runs in secrecy...that's how it always has been. I don't really even care for these debates anymore.

Edit: Watched the video...doesn't convince me. However, I think this state of mind that the government can dispose of any civilians they wish to is wrong. I can imagine it causes a lot of family issues when your relatives die in a government planned plane crash. The governement doesn't seem to care much for or respect other people's religious beliefs either.... Also, the maps used in this video seem to be from Google Earth...lol.

You'd think if someone knew about all of this stuff it would have been on TV at the time.
Vandalyzed
I dont mind reading topics like this.........but what I do mind is the constant finger pointing that these threads end up turning into.

I'm gonna tell it like it is.......... Ready? Here we go?

EVERYONE is at fault!

Bush wasn't on the plane, or in an airport Traffic Tower direction plane traffic. It was terrorists that were executing a well thought out and well planned strike into a major icon of American Industry and Trade.

Bush was in a situational room, kicking his own ass at not believing preliminary reports of a possible strike on American soil. And why did he not believe it? Because America has kicked ass in every war on it's own soil. For the first time since the birth of this country, or truthfully since Pearl Harbor, has any nation, any individual had the audacity to attack Americans........IN AMERICA.

Sounds pretty egotistical, doesn't it? "We Kick Ass"........"They had the audacity".......... Well, I am in no way saying we deserve what happened because we didnt....no innocent life deserved that..... But our governmental officials are full of egotism that caused them to disregard hints and rumors that some major event was going to happen.

So, yes, The US Government is at fault for not properly protecting our domestic territory, and it's Middle Eastern terrorists fault for believing that their religion and "causes" put them above all other humans and can decide the fate of everyone they believe is beneath them.

I just mentioned Pearl Harbor....the only other attack on American Soil. That attack was also unwarranted........Japan made a pre-emptive strike on the US to try to keep them out of the war, when Japan decided to enter the war. Guess what? They made a bad decision...........ask Hiroshima.

They flew into Pearl Harbor with suicide bombers......men who knew they weren't going home. Terrorists flew into NY, knowing they weren't going home.

They made a mistake too. Nobody during the Pearl Harbor Era complained and said we dont belong over there........... in fact recruitment was up 150%.

To the people that feel America deserved the things that happened....I say this....

The American Spirit doesn't lie in our political officials. The American Spirit lies in those men and women that took down a plane in that Pennsylvania field and stopped more deaths doing so on that day.

The American Spirit lies in every person that grieves for the people lost in 9/11 and still carries on.

We have a right to question the actions of our government officials. And we do so.....but that doesn't give any middle eastern fanatic a right to belittle us or our government.

The USA is the youngest country in the world, and despite our foibles and drawbacks, we are still considered the most powerful nation in this world. Not because of our government, but because of our American Spirit.


So, in closing, I'd like to say........... Wtf are you people arguing about? It dont matter who's fault it REALLY was........ The action was done. And the same actions or similar actions are executed all over the world.....so are ALL governments at fault because terrorists decide that human lives, including their own have no value next to the symbolism of a bomb?
Blaster
Da Rossa that movie just gave me a new wind. Thank you. Now hobo lets hear it. What about it. Tell me why that happend. I want to see some videos from these other camaras. Show me that a plane hit it then i will give up on that. I still need to see that movie and tell you what i have to say but yea.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Da Rossa that movie just gave me a new wind. Thank you. Now hobo lets hear it. What about it. Tell me why that happend. I want to see some videos from these other camaras. Show me that a plane hit it then i will give up on that. I still need to see that movie and tell you what i have to say but yea.


Just tried to load both english versions, but they froze. Can you give a breakdown of what it says? If it's facts, what are they? If it's actual film from 9/11, there should be another source for it I can see.
Kaneda
HoboPelican wrote:
Blaster wrote:
Da Rossa that movie just gave me a new wind. Thank you. Now hobo lets hear it. What about it. Tell me why that happend. I want to see some videos from these other camaras. Show me that a plane hit it then i will give up on that. I still need to see that movie and tell you what i have to say but yea.


Just tried to load both english versions, but they froze. Can you give a breakdown of what it says? If it's facts, what are they? If it's actual film from 9/11, there should be another source for it I can see.


It pretty much says exactly the same as Loose Change says about Pentagon and draws the same conclusion. Including the same omissions, factual errors, rhetorical questions and selective images, witness testimonies etc. No new material (correct me if I'm wrong, but I truely can't see a single thing that's new). Which is why I didn't bother with it. All of it has already been adressed here - just another example of replying without reading the thread first Razz

EDIT: Oh, it also, like Loose Change, fails to explain the physics that allow a missile warhead to explode when hitting a wall, and yet the missile continues to plow through the building, destroying everything in its path, and making an exit hole in another wall hundreds of feet into the building.
[FuN]goku
screw the video but... tbh i think it was both.. government and terrorists... reason: the government did something that the terrorists didnt like..
Blaster
Watch the video all the way through. It does show pictures of the hole before it colasped. You must watch the movie before you say it is bull shit.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
Watch the video all the way through. It does show pictures of the hole before it colasped. You must watch the movie before you say it is bull ****.

As I said, Blaster, I can't seem to load that movie. Let me repeat:

Quote:
Can you give a breakdown of what it says? If it's facts, what are they? If it's actual film from 9/11, there should be another source for it I can see.


Tell me what you find so compelling.
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
Watch the video all the way through. It does show pictures of the hole before it colasped. You must watch the movie before you say it is bull ****.


Loose Change shows pictures of the hole before it collapsed too. So does a Google image search. And we already discussed it. What we see is a 50-80 feet wide hole largely covered in fire, smoke or water:










Those are all the pre-collapse images in "Pentagon Strike" (except for a few taken from very very far away). Now tell me what's new in them.

Let's go through the video... This will be lengthy... I don't know why I bother, but let's just pretend someone could learn from it...

Some quotes, I've expanded (the parts in red), to show the omissions. This is every single claim of the film, refuted. Like Loose Change, there's not one piece of evidence in it.

- "9/11"
Correct...

- "Pentagon Strike"
Err... right...

- "At 9:38 a.m."
Yup.

- "American Airlines Flight 77"
Yeees.

- "A Boeing 757 weighing 80 tons"
Probably, wouldn't know - "dry" it weighs 60, so yes, it's likely.

- "flew into the Pentagon"
Exactly.

- "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found".
Perhaps not in your reality. In the reality the rest of us inhabit, large pieces and an infinity of small ones were found. Didn't expect to find the entire plane intact either.

- "Shortly after impact"
Yup, as evidenced by the large fireball from burning jet fuel.

- "Minutes later... One hole in the Pentagon and no Boeing 757".
How many minutes? And if you've got a method of looking through smoke and firehose water, I'd like to learn it.

- "Undamaged cable spools"
As mentioned in the Loose Change commentary, it's clear from the photo you show that they're bent and tilted. Might want to take a look at the closeup you provide us with later. Also, what's your point?

- "Intact windows"
Yup, they're blast proof. That was part of the renovation you conspiracy nuts keep yappering about.

- "The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - described something "like a missile" or a craft much smaller than a 757."
About 2 such accounts exist. Out of at least a hundred. None of them were "the very first". The interesting thing is, not a single eye witness at Pentagon actually said they saw a missile.

- "Comments on the Pentagon Strike", Quantum Future Group
If you can't get expert opinion, just get opinion from other conspiracy nuts. At least I'm happy to see you quote your sources.

- "Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City..."
Steve Patterson also said the plane flew 20 feet above the ground about 150 yards away. How did he then see it from his 14th floor apartment, while watching TV?

- "The plane which sounded like the high pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395..."
First it was a commuter jet, now the "director" wants us to think it's a fighter jet.

- "'The plane, which appeared to hold 8 to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a non-existant runway, Patterson said.' - Washington Post"
Waiting to hear how he even noticed it - or saw it for that matter (see above).

- "'I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ...' - Don Wright"
Woohoo. That's the 2 actual testimonies I've ever HEARD of which say it wasn't a commercial jet. Let's hear the other eye witnesses. No? OK.

- "'it just went 'pfff'. It wasn't what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me' - John O'Keefe"
Not what he "would have expected". Probably because John O'Keefe also said: 'I saw a silver plane. I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet'.

- "'My brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.' - Steve DiChiaro"
He's not questioning it's a plane (like he says, "the fact that it was a plane"). Actually, his story was about why they stayed out of the building for 15 minutes in fear of another plane.

- "'I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.' - Lon Rains"
The film conveniently leaves out the bits that show that Rains didn't see anything, he just heard the crash. "It came in so fast" because you don't expect a plane to go at 4-500mph at such low heights.

- "'I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.' - Kirk Milburn"
I added in the parts the documentary conveniently left out. Milburn "heard a plane". And saw it.

- "'Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. It sounded like a missile,' - Michael DiPaula"
Again, added in the missing part. DiPaula crawled out from among the debris, covered in jet fuel (his own testimony), after having been assumed dead.

- Don Perkal-quote
Already addressed in the Loose Change part.

- "'Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground... Where are the parts?' - Skarlet
Who the hell is Skarlet? His girlfriend? What's she an expert on?

- "'I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, "holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car" (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible.' - Christine Peterson"
The parts in red are left out of the "documentary". One making clear that she saw the plane, the other putting the stupidity of conspiracy nuts into perspective. Wink

- "Airplane crashes leave wreakage"
As did the Pentagon crash. The photos of other crashes shown are irrelevant - none of these planes flew at 4-500mph into a reinforced concrete wall. Look at the image I posted earlier of pieces from a plane that hit plain, soft water.

- "They mess up the ground"
If they touch the ground.

- "Not at the Pentagon"
Yes and no. See the two previous answers.

- "'Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building.' - CBS News"
Aw, let's hear those eye witnesses...

- "'It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question...It hit the ground ... That's what it appeared like' - Tim Timmerman"
Added a bit... Timmerman is a pilot. Like others, he also describes very vividly what he saw, "I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames". How come we don't get to read that part?

- Pentagon architecture.
We know this.

- "The impact occured in Wedge 1 which had been under renovation since 1999. Work was a few days away from completion."
Define "a few days" and "completion". Workers had already started to move back into the wedge in February. Also, what's the point?

- Impact description
We know this.

- "Can a Boeing 757 punch neat holes throughsteel-reinforced concrete walls?"
Answer: Yes
Question: Can a missile punch neat holes through those three rings?
Answer: No. It explodes once it hits the first wall.

- "'I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there' - Terry Mitchell"
Terry Mitchell also says: "[It] reminded me of being like in a coal mine filled with metal shards all over the place".

- "What happened to 60 tons of plane and 5,300 gallons of fuel?"
They were smashed to pieces and burned up respectively. You've even shown us the fireball.

- "What do these small pieces belong to?"
The airplane. And that's just a few of them, but don't bother telling your viewers that. Don't bother showing them the huge parts of landing gear and engines - plus scraps of fuselage with the AA logo on them - found inside and outside the Pentagon either.

- Pentagon camera recordings
No, you can't tell whether it's a plane from 6 macroblocked pixels. So don't try. You can tell from the look and extent of the fireball that it's not an ordinary missile, though.

- FBI/CIA/whoever confiscated surveillance tapes.
Guess what. That's what you do to make an investigation.

- Complain about not releasing surveillance tapes.
I don't feel a need to see them. Conspiracy nuts apparently do. Too bad for them. As if they'd change their mind.

- "The Boeing was flying at 530 MPH"
Yes

- "2 feet above the ground"
No. It hit (around) 2 feet above the ground. Before that it was descending from 2200 feet. It wasn't flying 2 feet above the ground.

- "Incompetent Pilots"
Hani Hanjour got a commercial pilot rating in Arizona in 1998 and a commercial air license from the FAA in 1999. His instructor has said that while he got low marks, "there's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.". In February 2001 he took flight simulator training. Enough said.

- "Incredible Stunts"
Your assumption. No pilot or instructor I know of has called the "stunts" incredible. Noone has actually been quoted as saying it was even skilled.[/b]
HoboPelican
Whew.

No matter which way you believe, you have to applaud THAT kind of committment.

I wanted to double check the expanded quotes just to forestall any questions.
Pretty easy to find the quotes all over the place. I found this one first.

Blaster, I gotta ask this. Even if those quotes were accurate, which apparently they weren't, why would you believe 2 or 3 eyewitnesses and not the scores (hundreds?) of others who saw an airliner hitting the Pentagon?

It is really unfortunate that the conspiracy buffs can post a link to a propaganda film and say "watch this" and expect the reality buffs to waste time going over it point by point. At this point, just to be fair, I suggest any cospiracy buffs read the Popular Mechanics debunking article and refute that. After that, I would like them to read this article and refute it. Or if Kaneda has better sites, I'll defer to his choice. It's only fair, right?
Ducksteina
I think it were terrorists. And no, nobody will ever convince me with their conspiracy theory. It sounds just too absurd for me.
S3nd K3ys
This is just silly. It went way past comical a long time ago when I realized you kids were serious and that gullable and that ignorant to the plethora of facts and eye witness accounts of hundreds or thousands of people, including cameras up the ass, that clearly showed what happened. It's sad to think there are people in this world so easily misled.

Nothing personal to all the freaks out here that think this was done by the US, but grow up and find something important to worry about.
Kaneda
HoboPelican wrote:
No matter which way you believe, you have to applaud THAT kind of committment.


Before some nut starts claiming I'm a CIA/NSA/FBI agent out to spread misinformation (it's happened before with 9/11 debunkers...), I guess that ought to be explained Wink

As I said from the get-go, other than working jobs as bartender and programmer, I'm a student - and sometimes teacher - of film and media studies. So examining propaganda and misinformation is part of my work Smile

Other than that, at the moment there's roadwork, including pneumatic drills and whatnot, just outside our window - until 5 in the morning(!!!) - doing roadwork is quite illegal in Denmark after, what? 8 in the evening? Now there's a government conspiracy for you. Wink Anyway, infernal noise, windows have to be open since it's a hot Summer here, and while the girlfriend managed to fall asleep around 3, I couldn't, no matter how tired I might be. Smile

Off-topic... Anyway, don't expect it to happen again. Rarely have this kind of free time. As you can see, I also got bored with it after the eye witness quotes, so shortened what could be shortened Smile

Quote:
I wanted to double check the expanded quotes just to forestall any questions.
Pretty easy to find the quotes all over the place. I found this one first.


Probably the most complete one is also on that site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
That's where I got all of them from. It's actually a conspiracy nut site too, so don't even bother saying their quotes are tampered with to fit with the official story Wink
mceejaydee
Wow. Really changed my mind. It's the government I tell you!! The part with the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Wow, no scratch on the lawn WTH!?!?
victoryutong
I think it was really done by the terrorists.
MDCNK
Good post man, I've got this Loose Change on DVD and its sure true, all the resource done right there, I really give respect to this dude because he's one of the little people trying to spread this, I think a lot of people shut just consider watching it, we all have busy lives but this is something worth watching if you care about your country...I think.

I love the hiphop in the movie too hehe.
todabeat
I have the theory that since Wars help the US economy, it might have been the goverment. It might have been a good, "no questions asked" why they should go to war, Since they have been trying to get that oil for the longest time, and the 911 incident helped the goverment, convince the people.
Soulfire
I have a theory:

We're too gullible and easily mislead.

It's on plain film what happened - passenger airplanes colliding into the twin towers. But, ignorance is bliss. And people believe this...
CompactHaven
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

The video had me worried when I saw it for the first time about 4 months ago, but then I read the first link. You should really get your facts straight before you go spreading things that have already been proved false.
CompactHaven
todabeat wrote:
I have the theory that since Wars help the US economy, it might have been the goverment. It might have been a good, "no questions asked" why they should go to war, Since they have been trying to get that oil for the longest time, and the 911 incident helped the goverment, convince the people.


Adam Smith wrote:
Myth #2: The Beneficence of War

A second fallacy is the idea of war as an engine of prosperity. Students are taught that World War II ended the Depression; many Americans seem to believe that tax revenues spent on defense contractors (creating jobs) are no loss to the productive economy; and our political leaders continue to believe that expanded government spending is an effective way of bringing an end to a recession and reviving the economy.

The truth is that war, and the preparation for it, is economically wasteful and destructive. Apart from the spoils gained by winning (if it is won) war and defense spending squander labor, resources, and wealth, leaving the country poorer in the end than if these things had been devoted to peaceful endeavors.

During war, the productive powers of a country are diverted to producing weapons and ammunition, transporting armaments and supplies, and supporting the armies in the field.

William Graham Sumner described how the Civil War, which he lived through, had squandered capital and labor: "The mills, forges, and factories were active in working for the government, while the men who ate the grain and wore the clothing were active in destroying, and not in creating capital. This, to be sure, was war. It is what war means, but it cannot bring prosperity."

Nothing is more basic; yet it continues to elude the grasp of our teachers, writers, professors, and politicians. The forty year Cold War drained this country of much of its wealth, squandered capital, and wasted the labor of millions, whose lifetime work, whether as a soldier, sailor, or defense worker, was devoted to policing the empire, fighting its brush wars, and making weapons, instead of building up our civilization with things of utility, comfort, and beauty.

Some might respond that the Cold War was a necessity, but that’s not the question—although we now know that the CIA, in yet another massive intelligence failure, grossly overestimated Soviet military capabilities as well as the size of the Soviet economy, estimating it was twice as large and productive as it really was. The point is the wastefulness of war, and the preparation for it; and I see no evidence whatever that the American people or their leaders understand that, or even care to think about it. An awareness and comprehension of these economic realities might lead to more searching scrutiny of the aims and methods that the Bush administration has chosen for the War on Terror.

Only a few days after 9-11, Rumsfeld declared that the war shall last as long as the Cold War (forty plus years), or longer—a claim the administration has repeated every few months since then—without eliciting the slightest notice or questioning from the media, the public, or the opposing party. Would that be the case, if people understand how much a second Cold War, this time with radical Islam, will cost us in lives, treasure, and foregone comfort and leisure?

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1568
Blaster
Yea i read some of those links and i don't really know what to say. They made no sense to me.

http://break.com/index/evil_state_of_union.html

I want you to watch that. Its showing that bush is crooked. So if he is why wouldn't he do something like this? There are certain things in the movie he says that show that he could be responsible for something like this.

I want to talk to dylan avery and see if he will sign up and talk to you all too. That would lead to some interesting things here. Very Happy
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:

http://break.com/index/evil_state_of_union.html

I want you to watch that. Its showing that bush is crooked. So if he is why wouldn't he do something like this? There are certain things in the movie he says that show that he could be responsible for something like this.


No, I won't watch that right now. But I will restate the following, since no one responded.
Quote:


Blaster, I gotta ask this. Even if those quotes were accurate, which apparently they weren't, why would you believe 2 or 3 eyewitnesses and not the scores (hundreds?) of others who saw an airliner hitting the Pentagon?

It is really unfortunate that the conspiracy buffs can post a link to a propaganda film and say "watch this" and expect the reality buffs to waste time going over it point by point. At this point, just to be fair, I suggest any cospiracy buffs read the Popular Mechanics debunking article and refute that. After that, I would like them to read this article and refute it. Or if Kaneda has better sites, I'll defer to his choice. It's only fair, right?
Kaneda
Blaster wrote:
Yea i read some of those links and i don't really know what to say. They made no sense to me.


That's just sad. In two sentences you summarized the result of having lost all common sense.

Quote:
http://break.com/index/evil_state_of_union.html

I want you to watch that. Its showing that bush is crooked. So if he is why wouldn't he do something like this? There are certain things in the movie he says that show that he could be responsible for something like this.


Ha ha ha Laughing You're funny Blaster Smile I really do hope you're joking, but I wouldn't count on it anymore... Enough said.

Quote:
I want to talk to dylan avery and see if he will sign up and talk to you all too. That would lead to some interesting things here. Very Happy


Good luck with that. I'm quite sure that would be interesting. However, Avery has already been confronted with all the debunking done here and elsewhere. None of it has been even addressed (much the same way things seem to work in this thread...). Actually, his reply to the guy doing the "Loose Change Viewing Guide":

Dylan Avery wrote:
To put it gently, you are simply a waste of my time.


Yeah, it's not fair, people confronting you with facts... Takes so much time to build up a new foundation for your house of cards.

When confronted with all the problems with his film, his partner-in-crime, Jason Bermas (who provided most of the information in the film, and incidentally also believes the moon landing was a hoax and that George Bush Sr. was a key person in the assassination of JFK) simply replied, and I quote: "Why don't you go collect your government paycheck?"

I'm still waiting for my US government paycheck. Apparently any person with some common sense gets one.

Avery, Bermas and Rowe also likes to make up even more dubious "facts" on the fly, when confronted with questions from the few sensible radio interviewers they've been willing to meet (or the few who have the courage to risk their credibility by even considering having them on their show). Of course, when Avery meets with someone like Jack Blood, he won't have to. Then he can spend his time openly mocking and laughing at the victims of the horrors of 9/11 instead.

And obsess about how much he looks forward to this September 11, where he'll do his best to disrespect as many grieving victims as possible by screaming out his "truth" at the top of his lungs at the 9/11 memorial. Such a trooper.

And to top it off, he's complaining that a lot of people won't listen to him because they see him as a kid?! I wonder why... Maybe because he's a 22-year-old acting like he's just entered the early stages of adolescence? Frankly, I'm still a kid in my late twenties, but at least, when the situation calls for it - when I want to be taken seriously - I try to behave like an adult. And when I don't, I don't expect people to view me as one either.
Blaster
first off court tv at 10 (where i live atleast) there is something about this. Hobo and Kaneda if you can and its on watch this because me i want to see it. Before i give anything else on the matter i would like to see this show so tomorrow i will comment more on this matter.
Da Rossa
Agent ME wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
They convinced you that Iraq was a threat... I'm rolling here.
Believe. Face the truth. Bush is behind this all.

If terrorists who slam planes into buildings, blow themselves up with bombs in busy areas, and attack innocent people aren't a threat, please inform us what a threat is...


That's exactely what they (US Government) wanted you to think. The sense of insecurity is convenient to the republican and the Bush policy. As you can see, everything has improved in your country from 9/11 on, except for 2 things: the profit of the flight companies and the frightening atmosphere that fell on the american society. Even the sexual life of the new yorkers have improved.
Da Rossa
Shake wrote:
This is definitely illegal if its posted here anyway.

Why?? I don't understand why it is illegal. Neither an extract from the original tape nor the flash hosted in Britain.

Vandalysed wrote:
just mentioned Pearl Harbor....the only other attack on American Soil. That attack was also unwarranted........Japan made a pre-emptive strike on the US to try to keep them out of the war, when Japan decided to enter the war. Guess what? They made a bad decision...........ask Hiroshima.

It's already been proven that Hiroshima was an unfair raid, with no effects on the ww2 at all. That was just to Show the URSS their nuclear capabilities and commence the Cold War. The bad decision was from the americans: today they want Japan to get armed, and Jp has no interest. Japan had been forbidden to have an army as part of the resignation text in ww2.
Da Rossa
Vandal wrote:

So, in closing, I'd like to say........... Wtf are you people arguing about? It dont matter who's fault it REALLY was........ The action was done. And the same actions or similar actions are executed all over the world.....so are ALL governments at fault because terrorists decide that human lives, including their own have no value next to the symbolism of a bomb?


Man, wake up! THIS action is done. And things like that you DON'T see every day in other places. By saying that you're being conformed by your corrupt government's actions. And don't blame other governments, please.

Blaster wrote:
Da Rossa that movie just gave me a new wind. Thank you. Now hobo lets hear it. What about it. Tell me why that happend. I want to see some videos from these other camaras. Show me that a plane hit it then i will give up on that. I still need to see that movie and tell you what i have to say but yea.
Unfortunately, as you can see, some FBI agents were ordered to apprehend those videos, then give'em to the interested ones, that managed either to destroy it or place behind lock and key. Just use the logic from now on. There were not 4 hijacked planes, but 3, at most. The terrorists would not be stupid to hit the pentagon, which is strong enough to minimise the damage made by an airplane.

Hobo wrote:
ust tried to load both english versions, but they froze. Can you give a breakdown of what it says? If it's facts, what are they? If it's actual film from 9/11, there should be another source for it I can see.

No, there aren't. Read above.

Kaneda wrote:
It pretty much says exactly the same as Loose Change says about Pentagon and draws the same conclusion. Including the same omissions, factual errors, rhetorical questions and selective images, witness testimonies etc. No new material (correct me if I'm wrong, but I truely can't see a single thing that's new). Which is why I didn't bother with it. All of it has already been adressed here - just another example of replying without reading the thread first Razz

EDIT: Oh, it also, like Loose Change, fails to explain the physics that allow a missile warhead to explode when hitting a wall, and yet the missile continues to plow through the building, destroying everything in its path, and making an exit hole in another wall hundreds of feet into the building.
What is missing there? This site is a light for al you, as the worldwide media concentrated the tragedy on the WTC destruction and almost 'forgot' the pentagon. No media cameras spotted the "airplane" that hit the pentagon. And NO! The pentagon walls, if I know enough, is reinforced with steel and concrete. And it penetrated a little. It would be like having a firearm bullet penetrate into a wall. It hits at a big speed, and penetrate a few centimeters.

goku wrote:
screw the video but... tbh i think it was both.. government and terrorists... reason: the government did something that the terrorists didnt like..
Share your thoughs with us!

Tomorrow I continue, I'll reach the bottom.
Hobbit
Me and a friend talked to the ASB rep, and they might play this video in a pep rally (almost 2000 will attend).

I rawk.
Kaneda
Da Rossa wrote:
Man, wake up! THIS action is done. And things like that you DON'T see every day in other places.


Vandal's point, as far as I can tell, is that yes, terrorist attacks happen every day all over the world. Terrorist attacks in Israel, Syria, Northern Ireland, Spain, England, France, Indonesia etc. The only reason this one in particular has turned into a conspiracy theory is that 1) it was in America - the home of conspiracies, and 2) it was planned (by terrorists) to be as attention-grabbing as possible. Because media attention is what power in this world is about.

Quote:
By saying that you're being conformed by your corrupt government's actions. And don't blame other governments, please.


No, by wasting your time on these wild theories, YOU are being ignorant to the very real questionable actions of your government. Conspiracy theorists like to say "question authority", but 1) they're questioning them on the wrong grounds, and thereby failing to address real, pressing matters, and 2) you should never limit your questioning to authority. The one thing conspiracy theorists don't question are their own sources.

Quote:
Unfortunately, as you can see, some FBI agents were ordered to apprehend those videos, then give'em to the interested ones, that managed either to destroy it or place behind lock and key. Just use the logic from now on. There were not 4 hijacked planes, but 3, at most. The terrorists would not be stupid to hit the pentagon, which is strong enough to minimise the damage made by an airplane.


We're talking about a symbolic act here. The goal isn't to kill or destroy as much as possible, it's to make people notice - whether that requires killing and destroying as much as possible or not. It's not that hard to figure out. Hit the monetary and military center of the world's only remaining super power.

Quote:
Hobo wrote:
ust tried to load both english versions, but they froze. Can you give a breakdown of what it says? If it's facts, what are they? If it's actual film from 9/11, there should be another source for it I can see.

No, there aren't. Read above.


What Hobo is asking for here, is the new footage that one would assume was inthere in order to, as Blaster put it, "give [him] a new wind". He doesn't say there are other sources, but since conspiracy theorists clearly don't hesitate to blatently manipulate their evidence, if something "new" turned up in a conspiracy nut's videos, it requires another source (as does just about any fact finding). Alas, in this case it doesn't matter at all, since there is no new evidence. "Pentagon Strike" is all a rehash of Loose Change's Pentagon segment, and to boot, it's amateurish in comparison.

Quote:
What is missing there?


Already said what is missing. The majority of witnesses that back up the official story. The common sense explanation of every single "peculiar thing" to do with the crash. The images showing the exact opposite of what the conspiracy nut wants us to believe. Etc.

Quote:
This site is a light for al you


Light? No. There's no light in flocking like sheep into a theory which has been disproven down to the last teeny details. There's no light in blindly accepting a film which does misinformation in a more blatent way than even the third reich's propaganda on Jews.

Quote:
as the worldwide media concentrated the tragedy on the WTC destruction and almost 'forgot' the pentagon.


No media here (in Denmark) "forgot" the Pentagon. They went back to it all through the day to get those darned witness testimonies that Loose Change and Pentagon Strike apparently didn't know of.

The reason why media concentrate on WTC isn't a matter of clever analysis either. News value is generally measured in 4 dimensions (many more, but these are the important ones): distance, tragedy vs. happy incident, posterity of people involved, number of people involved. It's the simple reason why CNN doesn't report about a murder following a petty theft in Shanghai. Unless the person murdered is the prime minister of a western country. It's also why they'll still report about earth quakes and tsunamis in the far east - because it involves many people, the tragedy seems bigger. No different with the WTC vs. the Pentagon.

Quote:
No media cameras spotted the "airplane" that hit the pentagon.


No, just as no media camera has spotted pretty much any plane crash in the history of mankind. And because most of the media had already been flocking to New York.

Quote:
And NO! The pentagon walls, if I know enough, is reinforced with steel and concrete. And it penetrated a little.


No, it didn't penetrate a little. As I said (and showed on countless photos), it penetrated through hundreds of feet of building in order to exit at the C-ring. A fact not even the wildest conspiracy nut questions. Now show me a missile (as opposed to a plane) that will do that.

Quote:
It would be like having a firearm bullet penetrate into a wall. It hits at a big speed, and penetrate a few centimeters.


Yes, except a bullet rarely explodes at impact (as a missile does), and this didn't penetrate a few centimeters, but rather (again) hundreds of feet. I think you missed the point. Neither a missile, nor a small private airplane would do the damage we've seen - and that even conspiracy theorists acknowledge.

Also waiting for the reason why this shadow government would hit WTC with two planes, and use a missile for the Pentagon. I know the actual reason for the theory, though. It's just somewhat opposite. Simply that it's hard to put into question something the entire world saw happen live. No footage from the Pentagon crash, so conspiracy nuts feel free to fantasize as much as they want.

The Pentagon crash is the only case where it's easy to come up with alternate means of destruction. And things have to be easy, because conspiracy theorists don't like to actually think. Because they know, as any dictator doing propaganda knows, that the moment intelligence enters into your ideas, those ideas will always seem less convincing than the ignorant ones.
Blaster
The government did it for the money. Thats why they did it. But i want to know why they don't just show us the tapes from other areas. Also Da Roses is right they are really tough and would have withstood. And if they didn't where did the plane go. If it was melted by fire then why can't you see it in any pictures with it on fire.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
...Also Da Roses is right they are really tough and would have withstood. And if they didn't where did the plane go. If it was melted by fire then why can't you see it in any pictures with it on fire.


This has been answered over and over. I'm not gonna waste time on this subject again. Go back and reread the topic. If you have issues with the answers, post that. Don't just repeat the issue.
Da Rossa
The very problem of this all is that you all name it a "Conspiracy Theory" simply because it is ackward for most of you that your government did this to you and to your fellows who were in that buildings at the wrong time. It is easy to misjudge this line of thinking as a conspiracy theory just because it hurts even starting thinking about it. Then, the reluctant ones label us (the ones who share this thoughts with me) in the same category as those ones who think that:

- The planes that hit the WTC where charged with explosives, being the original ones destroyed in the desert with its passengers;
- The towers had been set up with dynamites to implode like a card castle;
- The pentagon was hit by an alienship that accidentaly came to Earth;
- Bush had been in meetings with representatives of other planets;
- New Orleans's walls were detonated so the water would decimate the black population;
and so on.


Kaneda, you seem too concerned about this, and I don't know why. Honestly I thought, for one moment, that you are one of the ones who have interest in keeping this story 'as the original reports'. Very similar to that guy that once posted a BIBLE here with tons of void arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq. And, objetively, those quotes are void too. How can confirm them? Where they filmed? If so, there must be a reachable source for us.
Quote:
- FBI/CIA/whoever confiscated surveillance tapes.
Guess what. That's what you do to make an investigation.
Police often releases the suspects/evidence after it proves to be irrelevant. What kind of threat to the national security do those tapes pose to the society? Let us see them, if they still exist!
Quote:
- "'My brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.' - Steve DiChiaro"
He's not questioning it's a plane (like he says, "the fact that it was a plane"). Actually, his story was about why they stayed out of the building for 15 minutes in fear of another plane.

No tails, no wings.... means no plane. Also, the pilot would have had to train his entire life to throw the plane exactely in there. It is known that the terrorist pilots were inexperient.
Quote:
- "'I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there' - Terry Mitchell"
Terry Mitchell also says: "[It] reminded me of being like in a coal mine filled with metal shards all over the place".

Missles leave metal shards too. But not tails or wings. There were no wings or tails at all in there. So convince me it WASN'T a missle.

Quote:
"The Boeing was flying at 530 MPH"
Which one? The one that crashed into the North Tower or the second, in the South? Lack of info here.

To sum up: None of those quotes seemed to be enoughly consistent. And believe me, I'm not looking for horns in horses head.


=========

Edit #1

=========

Ducksteina wrote:
I think it were terrorists. And no, nobody will ever convince me with their conspiracy theory. It sounds just too absurd for me.

That's exactely the problem.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
This is just silly. It went way past comical a long time ago when I realized you kids were serious and that gullable and that ignorant to the plethora of facts and eye witness accounts of hundreds or thousands of people, including cameras up the ***, that clearly showed what happened. It's sad to think there are people in this world so easily misled.

Nothing personal to all the freaks out here that think this was done by the US, but grow up and find something important to worry about.


Come on Send Keys, you're in a high-level discussion. Don't say it is silly, please. I'm serious from the beginning. Eye witnesses... as I stated, in 5 years of curiosity about this fact, I haven't had the happiness to find an eye witness that described with precision the "plane" that came in the Pentagon yet. Others describe too precisely, what is suspicious. 'Clearly show what happened'? Please write a letter to the FBI/CIA/NSA/DHS/CTU(lol) wharever to release those *DAMN* (with your pardon) tapes. Then we can see it CLEARLY. So far it's nothing but smoke, a hole in the wall, some firemen, people around in the photos, but no evidence about an airplane.
Again: 'freaks' is not suitable here. 'Grow up and find something important to be worried'? This is about me, you, all here in this forum and the world. Your government did this because it was convenient. 'It's sad to think there are people in this world so easily misled'? I had been mislead before. Not anymore.
Kaneda
Da Rossa wrote:
The very problem of this all is that you all name it a "Conspiracy Theory" simply because it is ackward for most of you that your government did this to you and to your fellows who were in that buildings at the wrong time.


No, we label it a conspiracy theory because that's what it is.

wikipedia wrote:
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.


American Heritage Dictionary wrote:
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


This is a theory seeking to explain the ultimate cause of 9/11 as a secret, and deceptive, plot by the US government rather than as a, by now, overt attack by terrorists. In some definitions, 9/11 as terrorist attack is a conspiracy theory too. The only difference being, this one is actually grounded in evidence, common sense, and the consensus of 99.9% of the scientific community.

Just because you don't like to be called a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean you aren't.

DaRossa wrote:
It is easy to misjudge this line of thinking as a conspiracy theory just because it hurts even starting thinking about it. Then, the reluctant ones label us (the ones who share this thoughts with me) in the same category as those ones who think that:

- The planes that hit the WTC where charged with explosives, being the original ones destroyed in the desert with its passengers;
- The towers had been set up with dynamites to implode like a card castle;
- The pentagon was hit by an alienship that accidentaly came to Earth;
- Bush had been in meetings with representatives of other planets;
- New Orleans's walls were detonated so the water would decimate the black population;
and so on.


Yes, all of them just about as proven as yours. And no, some may have the reason you give, but from my experience, it's rare. I certainly don't, since 9/11 never influenced my life in any direct way. However, a similar reasoning is likely to be the ultimate, subconscious, reason for the brewing of a conspiracy theory in the first place. We'll get to that.

DaRossa wrote:
Kaneda, you seem too concerned about this, and I don't know why.


That's just one example of you not actually reading half of the posts before replying. For several reasons, most already mentioned:

1. Might as well post about this as anything else.

2. It's part of my work in media studies.

3. Conspiracy theories (and again, yes, that's what this is) are arguably the foundation of a way of thought which is not at all beneficial to the individual OR society as a whole. Totalitarian states are built on these kinds of theories. They reflect minds of sheep.

4. It saddens me to see a youth who think they're "questioning authority", while at the same time buying into propaganda of the worst kind. And it saddens me to see such lack of common sense and critical mind when supplied with an "easy" solution. So, I try to inform, because these films get more "airtime" on the web than the actual facts.

5. It also saddens me to see people with as little regard for human life and the tragedy of others as Avery et al. get support from people who seem to sincerely think they're doing the victims a service. More than that. It disgusts me.

6. I'd like to try to understand how the hell someone gets so far out. If nothing else, then because I've met a few paranoid schizophrenics in my lifetime, and this seems on the brink of their kinds of delusions.

DaRossa wrote:
Honestly I thought, for one moment, that you are one of the ones who have interest in keeping this story 'as the original reports'.


Woohoo, yes, let's start on that one. If I don't agree, I'm probably in on it. If you thought that seriously, honestly for one second, the discussion ends here (happy?), because if I ever saw a point in keeping up a discussion with ignorants and seeing every refutation consciously ignored with the very clear purpose of maintaining their delusional belief system, I can see none in discussing with people who'll go to this kind of length to maintain it.

But yes, as I said earlier, I'm still waiting for a pay check from the US government - might be delayed on its way over the Atlantic.

Also waiting for an actual refutation (other than "I think that's rubbish") of anything Hobo and I have posted here, rather than people (often the same people) restating their refuted claims over and over and over.

Quote:
Quote:
"The Boeing was flying at 530 MPH"
Which one? The one that crashed into the North Tower or the second, in the South? Lack of info here.


Which, like above, shows that you clearly missed the point, or skimmed the post (or, which is likely by now, read it selectively). "The Boeing was flying at 530 MPH" is a statement from the flash video you yourself linked to, speaking about the Pentagon "strike". Just to make the point clear again: The post you've been quoting from refutes everything in that film. That was its purpose.

Quote:
To sum up: None of those quotes seemed to be enoughly consistent. And believe me, I'm not looking for horns in horses head.


In the post you quoted, I'm not arguing a case, I'm arguing against one - made in the piece of crap you yourself provided the link to. Smile That's why it's not consistent - because these theories aren't. Is it so damn hard for you people to actually read? Razz

Let's try again, just to make sure:

Kaneda wrote:
Let's go through the video... This will be lengthy... I don't know why I bother, but let's just pretend someone could learn from it...

Some quotes, I've expanded (the parts in red), to show the omissions. This is every single claim of the film, refuted. Like Loose Change, there's not one piece of evidence in it.


DaRossa wrote:
Come on Send Keys, you're in a high-level discussion. Don't say it is silly, please.


Actually, for once I'm beginning to agree completely with S3nd K3ys, and wish I had a long time ago. It is silly. Because, as Hobo also said (several times), we're refuting everything, only to see new "facts" or repetitions of the same refuted "evidence" - often by the same people - two posts later.

Quote:
'Grow up and find something important to be worried'? This is about me, you, all here in this forum and the world.


No it's not. It's about you, and your psychological need to see easy coherence in something which may or may not have hurt you on a deep level. It's a way of getting emotional closure by way of assigning moral responsibility to a clear group - the government - rather than spreading this responsibility out to the inconceivable world-at-large. It's much easier to believe in the work of a few isolated evil individuals - with faces - in a government, than believing in the work of people you don't know and can't see.

The government knew this, which is ultimately why Osama Bin Laden is still the most hated person on the planet - in spite of things spanning much wider than this single man. Panic lessens when you have a few people to blame. Faces aren't as scary as vague cultural, structural and political entities. You can make fun of faces.

DaRossa wrote:
'It's sad to think there are people in this world so easily misled'? I had been mislead before. Not anymore.


You might want to pay attention to the facts, before making such a statement.

HoboPelican wrote:
This has been answered over and over. I'm not gonna waste time on this subject again. Go back and reread the topic. If you have issues with the answers, post that. Don't just repeat the issue.


Well said, as always Smile I'm done with this. I hope.

EDIT: Added a bit.
Da Rossa
HoboPelican wrote:
Whew.

No matter which way you believe, you have to applaud THAT kind of committment.

I wanted to double check the expanded quotes just to forestall any questions.
Pretty easy to find the quotes all over the place. I found this one first.

Blaster, I gotta ask this. Even if those quotes were accurate, which apparently they weren't, why would you believe 2 or 3 eyewitnesses and not the scores (hundreds?) of others who saw an airliner hitting the Pentagon?

It is really unfortunate that the conspiracy buffs can post a link to a propaganda film and say "watch this" and expect the reality buffs to waste time going over it point by point. At this point, just to be fair, I suggest any cospiracy buffs read the Popular Mechanics debunking article and refute that. After that, I would like them to read this article and refute it. Or if Kaneda has better sites, I'll defer to his choice. It's only fair, right?


Wait a moment... this is not about quantity, but quality. First, the amount of people that can be considered reliable about the incident in the pentagon is not that big. Second, we indeed have few evidence about MY point of view. But I'm really concerned about that ones that began watching that video with disgustion on the face, looking for 'flaws' from the beginning. Then, this video can be considered a good reference since its sources are from a group of few materials that survived from the cops who got all the rest. So, the movie is 'only a movie', but so far I find it far more reliable than some fragmented quotes around. Also, the footage showing the exact moment of the impact has been showed by other tv agencies, not only from the US, so this is difficult to be considered a set up.

victoryutong wrote:
I think it was really done by the terrorists.

No one said it wasn't. I just stated that this was masterminded by the US government, being those men (Mohamed Atta and companions) the executors. Who can say they weren't?

todabeat wrote:
I have the theory that since Wars help the US economy, it might have been the goverment. It might have been a good, "no questions asked" why they should go to war, Since they have been trying to get that oil for the longest time, and the 911 incident helped the goverment, convince the people.

Someone noticed a undeniable truth: the political profit a war brings.

Soulfire wrote:
I have a theory:

We're too gullible and easily mislead.

It's on plain film what happened - passenger airplanes colliding into the twin towers. But, ignorance is bliss. And people believe this...

You did not make it clear who is ignorant or who here believe what. But you're right to say that people is easily mislead. Many think exactely what your government want to.
HoboPelican
Da Rossa wrote:


Wait a moment... this is not about quantity, but quality. First, the amount of people that can be considered reliable about the incident in the pentagon is not that big. Second, we indeed have few evidence about MY point of view. But I'm really concerned about that ones that began watching that video with disgustion on the face, looking for 'flaws' from the beginning. Then, this video can be considered a good reference since its sources are from a group of few materials that survived from the cops who got all the rest. So, the movie is 'only a movie', but so far I find it far more reliable than some fragmented quotes around. Also, the footage showing the exact moment of the impact has been showed by other tv agencies, not only from the US, so this is difficult to be considered a set up......


Da Rossa, we've been at this a long time and so far not one conspiracy idea has been able to hold up to inspection. And it gets very annoying when we go to some lengths to explain why this or that is not a rational concept and the only response we get is "Wait, look at this new movie!" The amount of time someone like Kaneda puts in debunking this stuff is astounding and then for the conspiracy theorist to to demand more time without investing their own is just rude.

So let me ask you this. Describe what YOU think happened. Go through the items that we have shot down already. Then list, say, 3 pieces of evidence that you think are compelling.

Don't make us sit though more movies. You've seen them, tells us what convinces you that there was a US plot (or whatever).


BTW-I am an American. I also think Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country since Nixon. He is doing things that will take a decent President years to undo. There is nothing that I would like more than to see evidence that he was guilty of something heinous. So don't assume I am disbelieving this concept to support Bush. I am disbelieving because, as an engineer with years of experience in failure analysis, none of the ideas put forth make any sense.
girlcalledjay
The truth is that innocent people died that day and the world changed forever.

Mourn the loss of life and the loss of innocence and the loss of trust. Don't use it as an excuse to hate. Don't use it as an excuse to blame the Government.
Soulfire
I personally believe we are looking too much into this - the fact of the matter is that it happened. It does not neccessarily matter, at least now, who did it, just that it happened.[/b]
reddishblue
Your video does not work
turbohead
I don't care it was the government or terrorist. Many people died of this, it's sad. Confused Sad
Da Rossa
Quote:
Vandal's point, as far as I can tell, is that yes, terrorist attacks happen every day all over the world. Terrorist attacks in Israel, Syria, Northern Ireland, Spain, England, France, Indonesia etc. The only reason this one in particular has turned into a conspiracy theory is that 1) it was in America - the home of conspiracies, and 2) it was planned (by terrorists) to be as attention-grabbing as possible. Because media attention is what power in this world is about.

This is almost other discussion: I actually don't think that terrorist would be a proper label for those guys, in ME, Spain, Israel, Northen Ireland and so on. Hezbollah for example is said to be a terrorist group, but they don't call themselves like that. They must defend themselves with what they have at hand. And it is a international agreement that every country has the right to defend itself. And an attack in this proportions (as the wtc) does not occur everyday.

Quote:
No, by wasting your time on these wild theories, YOU are being ignorant to the very real questionable actions of your government. Conspiracy theorists like to say "question authority", but 1) they're questioning them on the wrong grounds, and thereby failing to address real, pressing matters, and 2) you should never limit your questioning to authority. The one thing conspiracy theorists don't question are their own sources.
My government? What do you know about the Brazilian governmment? Don't decrease the level Kaneda, you're no one to say I'm ignorant. And I don't know much of those conspiracy theories, everything I know about'em is that you and some others here seen in this expression, "Conspiracy Theory", a convenient way to name my line of thinking. As it is now a "CT", so convenient are the adjectives you've applied to it: wild, for example. It's disgusting, but wild is a matter of perspective. So, tell me what are those "CT sources" you said the theorists do not question.

Quote:

We're talking about a symbolic act here. The goal isn't to kill or destroy as much as possible, it's to make people notice - whether that requires killing and destroying as much as possible or not. It's not that hard to figure out. Hit the monetary and military center of the world's only remaining super power.
I agree.

Quote:
What Hobo is asking for here, is the new footage that one would assume was inthere in order to, as Blaster put it, "give [him] a new wind". He doesn't say there are other sources, but since conspiracy theorists clearly don't hesitate to blatently manipulate their evidence, if something "new" turned up in a conspiracy nut's videos, it requires another source (as does just about any fact finding). Alas, in this case it doesn't matter at all, since there is no new evidence. "Pentagon Strike" is all a rehash of Loose Change's Pentagon segment, and to boot, it's amateurish in comparison.
.
Really, they do. THEY do. I'm not a 'Conspiracy Theorist". All I say is based on my feelings and analisys of the facts and some logical conclusions. Everything I've said so far is very simple to understand, yet impossible to buy. I'm not entirely based on that video, and actually I wish it wasn't necessary to put it in this discussion. But that is convincent for me, I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way. Forums are for that Very Happy

Quote:
Already said what is missing. The majority of witnesses that back up the official story. The common sense explanation of every single "peculiar thing" to do with the crash. The images showing the exact opposite of what the conspiracy nut wants us to believe. Etc.

I already asked you to stop calling this and me as a conspiracy thing, even less kind of your part is adding "nuts" to it. And as for the real conspiracy theorists, they do not agree in many points, so a photo cannot be the opposite of them all. Ouside the scope of CT's, Those photographs do not show the opposite of what I'm saying; I just said there is no signs of a plane in ANY of them. So, feel free to take any of them and highlight the part of the tail or wing or body with a red circle, and repost.
Also, you're not qualified to say that work is amateurish. New evidence? Please, it is black on white. Those are the photos and footage we have available, those ones that were kept from the FBI, and, AGAIN (I'm getting tired) there is NO PLANE IN THE WRECKAGE. So, how are you expectating new evidence?

Quote:
Light? No. There's no light in flocking like sheep into a theory which has been disproven down to the last teeny details. There's no light in blindly accepting a film which does misinformation in a more blatent way than even the third reich's propaganda on Jews.

Scroll up this topic, maybe in page 6, and you're gonna find some members that enjoyed this movie and began adopting new thoughts. "It's been disaproven"... who by? By you, for sure. Misinformation? Count the characters in the whole video and you're gonna find that there are less information than in half a post like this. That's about the quality of the information. So far I think that those information are plausible. And a piece of advice: the less adjectives you use, the more reliable are your ideas.

Quote:
No media here (in Denmark) "forgot" the Pentagon. They went back to it all through the day to get those darned witness testimonies that Loose Change and Pentagon Strike apparently didn't know of.

The reason why media concentrate on WTC isn't a matter of clever analysis either. News value is generally measured in 4 dimensions (many more, but these are the important ones): distance, tragedy vs. happy incident, posterity of people involved, number of people involved. It's the simple reason why CNN doesn't report about a murder following a petty theft in Shanghai. Unless the person murdered is the prime minister of a western country. It's also why they'll still report about earth quakes and tsunamis in the far east - because it involves many people, the tragedy seems bigger. No different with the WTC vs. the Pentagon.


Here in Brazil the media rarely talks about the pentagon. And I watch CNN and BBC world via my cable TV, as I read articles around the internet. The pentagon is not mentioned very often. And don't be that argumentative, you cannot rate the importance of individual facts. What I got from it is that you claim that the pentagon is less mentioned in the 9/11 aniversaries because rather few people - 850 - died. Puting aside the casualities, it is not every decade that you see something like the pentagon strike happen to a military complex, specially if it belongs to the most powerful nation in the world. So, yes, the pentagon has been forgotten.

Quote:
No, just as no media camera has spotted pretty much any plane crash in the history of mankind. And because most of the media had already been flocking to New York.

A camera was headed to the pentagon at the time. And the polemic video is not the only place i've seen the explosion. You see no plane right before the explosion. That's what you been tryin' to evade.

Quote:
No, it didn't penetrate a little. As I said (and showed on countless photos), it penetrated through hundreds of feet of building in order to exit at the C-ring. A fact not even the wildest conspiracy nut questions. Now show me a missile (as opposed to a plane) that will do that.
Missles ARE made to do that, man! And you insist calling me a conspiracy-defender... find another name please. Missles are more solid than airplanes, faster (at VERY least 300m/s) and filled with explosives. Besides the sharp edge. Missles are more capable of penetrating than a rather slow airplane that has more air than anything inside. And the fuel cannot neither help nor effectively do open that crater in the wall.

Quote:
Yes, except a bullet rarely explodes at impact (as a missile does), and this didn't penetrate a few centimeters, but rather (again) hundreds of feet. I think you missed the point. Neither a missile, nor a small private airplane would do the damage we've seen - and that even conspiracy theorists acknowledge.
No, I didn't miss that point, that was just an analogy. Obviously a missle does not penetrate a few centimeters. It penetrates deeply, as happened with the pentagon. No airplane could do that, be it a small private cesna or an Antonov 225.

To be continued...
Kaneda
Da Rossa wrote:
Hezbollah for example is said to be a terrorist group, but they don't call themselves like that.


And they aren't, as such.

Quote:
They must defend themselves with what they have at hand. And it is a international agreement that every country has the right to defend itself. And an attack in this proportions (as the wtc) does not occur everyday.


The difference enters when you deliberately target civilians to "defend yourself". Which has happened plenty of times in the countries I listed - and more.

Quote:
No, by wasting your time on these wild theories, YOU are being ignorant to the very real questionable actions of your government. Conspiracy theorists like to say "question authority", but 1) they're questioning them on the wrong grounds, and thereby failing to address real, pressing matters, and 2) you should never limit your questioning to authority. The one thing conspiracy theorists don't question are their own sources.


Quote:
My government? What do you know about the Brazilian governmment? Don't decrease the level Kaneda, you're no one to say I'm ignorant.


You don't want to go into that discussion, at least here. A history of the government's disregard for human rights and huge amount of poverty. Corruption. etc. But that's beside the point (somewhat), and off topic. If you look at the posts in this thread, you'll find that most who agree that the government did it are Americans themselves. S3nd K3ys wasn't replying to you specifically, and neither was I. English doesn't have a different word for "people in general", like many other languages do. Hence "you" will have to suffice.

And I challenge you to show where I'm being ignorant. Decrease the level? It can hardly be decreased more, when people keep going on the same "evidence", claiming it's not been disproven, yet they can't bring up a single reason why the debunking doesn't hold. We're waiting.

By your logic:

Quote:
The very problem of this all is that you all name it a "Conspiracy Theory" simply because it is ackward for most of you that your government did this to you and to your fellows who were in that buildings at the wrong time.


"You". Me? Didn't think so. I'm quite sure the Danish government didn't do this to me. So now, by your logic, you're being ignorant? I never started going there.

Quote:
everything I know about'em is that you and some others here seen in this expression, "Conspiracy Theory", a convenient way to name my line of thinking.


It's not convenient. It's objective truth, and already discussed. CONVENIENTLY, you didn't address that discussion. You fit the definition. Live with it.

Quote:
Wild, for example. It's disgusting, but wild is a matter of perspective.


"Wild" is a matter of the amount of resources needed to pull this off. Thousands of experts, government officials, the fire department, the police department, thousands of victims. Again, we're not speaking about YOUR theory, because... You've never stated in any detail what your theory IS.

Quote:
So, tell me what are those "CT sources" you said the theorists do not question.


*Sigh* Done that. It's all in the posts above. Don't ask us to waste more time going through it all over again.

Quote:
Quote:
We're talking about a symbolic act here. [blah blah blah] Hit the monetary and military center of the world's only remaining super power.


I agree.


And yet:

Quote:
The terrorists would not be stupid to hit the pentagon, which is strong enough to minimise the damage made by an airplane.


Yes they would, because it's a symbolic act, not a question of damage. You're still evading the discussion.

Quote:
Everything I've said so far is very simple to understand, yet impossible to buy.


Again, you haven't actually said what your theory is. Only pointed to a website, which is, yes, simple to understand, with completely skewed "facts", and therefore impossible to buy, except for the gullible.

You've never actually said what you think happened, which isn't in the official story. You've said what the result is - Bush having power to turn the US into something which (these are my words, I know) is approaching a totalitarian state. And on that, we completely agree.

But since you don't say what you think actually happened on 9/11, all we can assume is that, since you're posting in a thread which discusses "Loose Change", you agree with that - or you agree with the Flash presentation you yourself posted.

Quote:
Already said what is missing. The majority of witnesses that back up the official story. The common sense explanation of every single "peculiar thing" to do with the crash. The images showing the exact opposite of what the conspiracy nut wants us to believe. Etc.


Quote:
I already asked you to stop calling this and me as a conspiracy thing


And I already told you why I don't stop calling it that.

Quote:
even less kind of your part is adding "nuts" to it.


The "nuts" enter when the critics leave. I'm not calling you a "nut" (I can't, because again, waiting for you to say what you believe Wink). But it's not my own opinion, that people like Avery are clearly nuts. Smile They've abandoned all critique and common sense in order to keep defending things long ago disproven.

Quote:
And as for the real conspiracy theorists, they do not agree in many points, so a photo cannot be the opposite of them all.


Never said it was. But the fact remains, not one of them have had any evidence which held up. And don't start asking me what doesn't hold up. It's already in this thread.

Quote:
Ouside the scope of CT's, Those photographs do not show the opposite of what I'm saying; I just said there is no signs of a plane in ANY of them.


And a few pages back I showed about 10 photos with plenty of signs of a plane in ALL of them. Noone disagreed with them. They just ignored them and kept on believing Wink

Quote:
So, feel free to take any of them and highlight the part of the tail or wing or body with a red circle, and repost.


No need for highlight. If you actually look at the photos, it's all over the place. Parts of the fuselage, landing gear, engines, parts of the wing. Those were only a few of the photos. You can find plenty more on the web - if you actually bother to look beyond page 1 and 2 on Google, which tend to be dedicated to conspiracy sites (they get more links, hence higher page rank). Even the images Loose Change shows, claiming there's "no sign of wreckage" have clear examples of wreckage on them.

Quote:
Also, you're not qualified to say that work is amateurish.


By all means, I am. I make films myself, and I've seen a huge amount of propaganda. I teach it. Even if I didn't, and hadn't, I'm qualified to have an opinion. The film making, compared to Loose Change, is amateurish, and it shows a subset of the same "facts", which were already skewed, selective, and plain wrong in Loose Change. Hence, yes, it's amateurish by comparison.

Quote:
New evidence? Please, it is black on white.


Again, it was all there in Loose Change. No new evidence compared to that one. Which was what I said.

Quote:
(I'm getting tired) there is NO PLANE IN THE WRECKAGE. So, how are you expectating new evidence?


You're getting tired? You're talking to the person who already showed photos of the wreckage, and yet people keep going on about there being none. You can claim for as long as you want that there isn't, experts (and even laymen people who aren't blind) can see it - and confirm that it's parts of a Boeing 757 from American Airlines. If you don't think there's enough wreckage, I refer you to the image of the SwissAir wreckage posted earlier. I'm getting tired.

Quote:
Scroll up this topic, maybe in page 6, and you're gonna find some members that enjoyed this movie and began adopting new thoughts.


Just as Germans began adopting new thoughts by watching propaganda during the 30s. People adopting new thoughts doesn't make the thoughts true. And when they do it with no criticism at all, yes, they're sheep.

Quote:
"It's been disaproven"... who by? By you, for sure.


And by countless witness testimonies, experts, photos in plain sight, plus Occam's Razor, use of bad methodology, and the sheer amount of whistleblowers needed to make it work. It's an uneconomical theory based on bad methodology, skewing of facts and plain lying. And it's been shown why that is. So far, noone has actually bothered to discuss that. Saying "I don't think so", doesn't make it not so.

Quote:
Misinformation? Count the characters in the whole video and you're gonna find that there are less information than in half a post like this. That's about the quality of the information. So far I think that those information are plausible.


There are two kinds of "qualities" of information. The quality determining how much the information supports a given angle. And the quality determining the objective truth value of the information. For the former, yes, the film has "good quality information" in terms of, the information supports the angle the film maker wants it to.

As for the latter, since it's already been shown (in the post you quoted clearly without knowing what you were quoting) that the film maker left out vital bits of the information, and deliberately edited the statements to make them support his angle, the film's information has extremely bad truth value. All those statements referring to there not being a plane? As I showed, with the full quotes, every single one of them actually said they saw or heard a plane.

THAT's misinformation.

Quote:
And a piece of advice: the less adjectives you use, the more reliable are your ideas.


Adjectives don't change inherent truth. The objective discussion requiring neutral language ended a looooong time ago for this thread, for reasons given plenty of times.

Quote:
Here in Brazil the media rarely talks about the pentagon. And I watch CNN and BBC world via my cable TV, as I read articles around the internet. The pentagon is not mentioned very often. And don't be that argumentative, you cannot rate the importance of individual facts.


Sure you can. News agencies and media outlets do it every single day. It's their job.

Quote:
What I got from it is that you claim that the pentagon is less mentioned in the 9/11 aniversaries because rather few people - 850 - died.


850? Is that another part of the theory? 189 people - including the terrorists - died at the Pentagon.

Quote:
Puting aside the casualities, it is not every decade that you see something like the pentagon strike happen to a military complex, specially if it belongs to the most powerful nation in the world. So, yes, the pentagon has been forgotten.


It's not every decade that you see what was once (in the 70s) the world's tallest buildings being hit by two airplanes, trapping thousands of people inside. All distaste aside, the image of the WTC was more spectacular, just as it had been planned. The media decided on their priority, as they always do, based on news criteria. Nothing suspicious about that.

And just yesterday, I saw a lengthy documentary collecting news footage from the Pentagon crash. There was more there than I've ever seen from the Oklahoma City bombing and the Madrid Train bombings combined. Forgotten? Hardly. It's just that other events on the same day took priority.

Quote:
A camera was headed to the pentagon at the time. And the polemic video is not the only place i've seen the explosion. You see no plane right before the explosion. That's what you been tryin' to evade.


Evade? It's discussed a few pages back. 5 frames of pixelated video taken with a 1/2 second interval won't reveal much of a plane flying at over 500mph.

Quote:
Missles ARE made to do that, man!


Some missiles are specifically made to penetrate a concrete wall, yes. Not two. Or three. They're not made to break light poles at a highway (as evidenced by both photos and eye witness testimony), and tilt giant cable spools 20 feet to the right of their impact point (as evidenced by photos) either. Etc. etc. We've already been through that. Disprove it, rather than throwing out new stuff.

Quote:
And you insist calling me a conspiracy-defender... find another name please.


Again, not as long as you are one Smile

Quote:
No airplane could do that, be it a small private cesna or an Antonov 225.


Says you against hundreds of experts on the matter. We'll just take your word, I guess.

In the meantime, this is indeed a waste of time, so until we stop going in circles and bending semantics, I'll find a better use for it.
malcolmiles
I allways used to ignore conspiracy theories but of late I feel that Mr Blair as lied to us so many times I starting to believe them.

My favourite Tony Lies please add more

1 We know there are WMD's in Iraq
2 The americans are not using British bases to take Prisoners to other countries
Da Rossa
Ok, Kaneda, let's get finished:

My concern about being considered a "defendant of CTs" is simply because they, including you Kaneda, would consider me one of those freaks that I mentioned. The name is the least important, actually. I just wanted to prevent being considered a 'freak'. And no, although the presence of aliens in this plot is plausible, as no human being is qualified to describe their capabilities, both you and I agree that this is out of question. So as those theories about the explosive loaded plane, blablabla. They haven't been proven, and probably never will. Neither will my points be proved, and you seem not to have understood that I'm not here to convince anyone, as from the beginning I know it won't be possible, as it's about your heart. However, the official report contains a description of the plot that yet cannot be really proven. All information you know and the media divulgues and what the US government says is inacurate. None describes the fact in a manner that can be read by a educated scientist 1000 years in the future in such way that desmisses the questionings.

Quote:
The only difference being, this one is actually grounded in evidence, common sense, and the consensus of 99.9% of the scientific community

Evidence: some are solid, some are fabricated, some are inacurate, and some has been hidden. When 100% of them are solid then I agree with you.
Comon Sense: this is suspicious. Most of the society think exactely what the US government wants to: it was a terrorist cell led by Osama Bin Laden that did this... then they could start the invasion they planned for more than 12 years before.
Scientific community? I never believe when one says it's about "99,9% of something". You don't know that.

Quote:
That's just one example of you not actually reading half of the posts before replying. For several reasons, most already mentioned:

1. Might as well post about this as anything else.

2. It's part of my work in media studies.

Of course I do not read all the posts, none of us has time to do so. Many good things had been missed, but when I detect something interesting, like your, until short ago, respectful ideas (I gave you no reason to call me ignorant; that happens when one is running out of patience or arguments), I stop and read them.

Quote:
4. It saddens me to see a youth who think they're "questioning authority", while at the same time buying into propaganda of the worst kind. And it saddens me to see such lack of common sense and critical mind when supplied with an "easy" solution. So, I try to inform, because these films get more "airtime" on the web than the actual facts.

Are you provoking? Hope not. If you're talking about that idiot movie about the 22yo boy that directed talking about the explosive planes, the implosion of the wtc and so on, you're wrong. I learnt about that movie in this thread and early in this sunday, in a Brazilian TV program. So I'm not buying 'propaganda' of any kind, these are all my ideas. Some may think similarly, but noone had influenced me. And again, the pentagon movie was a reference, not a basis for anything. And you still can't point me where are the parts of the airplane in those photos somebody posted before.

Quote:
5. It also saddens me to see people with as little regard for human life and the tragedy of others as Avery et al. get support from people who seem to sincerely think they're doing the victims a service. More than that. It disgusts me.
What are you talking about????

Quote:
Woohoo, yes, let's start on that one. If I don't agree, I'm probably in on it. If you thought that seriously, honestly for one second, the discussion ends here (happy?), because if I ever saw a point in keeping up a discussion with ignorants and seeing every refutation consciously ignored with the very clear purpose of maintaining their delusional belief system, I can see none in discussing with people who'll go to this kind of length to maintain it.
I'll pretend you hadn't lowered the level. Did I miss something about you last posts? Not that I remember. About your self called "delusional belief system", that's your perspective.

Quote:
In the post you quoted, I'm not arguing a case, I'm arguing against one - made in the piece of crap you yourself provided the link to. Smile That's why it's not consistent - because these theories aren't. Is it so damn hard for you people to actually read? Razz
It's becoming clear that that innocent video has awoken the worst of your feelings: perhaps the pride.

Quote:
Actually, for once I'm beginning to agree completely with S3nd K3ys, and wish I had a long time ago. It is silly. Because, as Hobo also said (several times), we're refuting everything, only to see new "facts" or repetitions of the same refuted "evidence" - often by the same people - two posts later.

Put the pride aside, if you really think this is silly, then you should have felt it from the beginning. As for me, I thought this topic was getting you entertained, as you were providing the most polite, moderate, detailed, and calm posts. And what evidence what you talking about my brother!!! I'ts been a long time since I asked you to point the evidence of a plane IN THE PHOTOS (don't dare thinking about the video, as you don't wanna hear about it again). And please don't think about discussing physics with me.

I'll continue after, I've been awake for several hours by now, and even if you're tired up of this, Kaneda, I'll finish this post, with or without your attention. This is about much more than discussing with you, also I do this 4fun as I find it exciting debating in a language other than my 'born language'. Also, this may be a training for me, too, as I'm considering leaving my physics course and join the law course. Besides this and our lack of agreement, I hope we find each other in some other topic, in other subject.
Kaneda
We're getting somewhere, and yet not exactly out of the circle. I'll mainly address the personal "concerns" here, because we're still waiting for any intelligent in-depth discussion (rather than monologues) of the topic itself.

Da Rossa wrote:
My concern about being considered a "defendant of CTs" is simply because they, including you Kaneda, would consider me one of those freaks that I mentioned.


Again, can't consider anyone a freak who hasn't actually said yet what he believes, since apparently, the flash presentation you posted, you never believed at all (or you'd have reason to argue with the lengthy refutation).

Quote:
Neither will my points be proved, and you seem not to have understood that I'm not here to convince anyone, as from the beginning I know it won't be possible, as it's about your heart.


How would I think you're here to convince anyone? You can't convince anyone when not actually saying anything to convince them of?

You're very right that noone can be convinced, since these theories are bordering in religion. Every single thing can be refuted, and yet the theorist will keep believing, and insist he's right - without bothering to explain why. You can pull in a hundred experts, and the theorist will simply say "they're not reliable". You can show video and photos of what happens when a plane crashes into a concrete building or plain ocean water - and the theorist will simply say "I don't think that's what happens".

With a government with imagined infinite resources, anything is possible. Just as you can't disprove God's existence, since the "theory" is flexible enough to ignore any actual evidence. In this case, 80% proven fact doesn't live up to 5% belief.

Quote:
Evidence: some are solid, some are fabricated, some are inacurate, and some has been hidden. When 100% of them are solid then I agree with you.


We're talking relatives here. The film you posted, as well as Loose Change, consist of 85-95% fabricated (gold under WTC, lack of evidence of plane), inaccurate (incompetence of pilots, incomplete quotes from eye witnesses, logical fallacies) and hidden (as in, ignored/not mentioned - for example witness testimonies) evidence.

Quote:
Comon Sense: this is suspicious. Most of the society think exactely what the US government wants to: it was a terrorist cell led by Osama Bin Laden that did this...


And why does society think so? Already mentioned, but let's reiterate just some of it. Maybe because Bin Laden took the responsibility and still refers to this act in his occassionally released videos; because the terrorists had known links to Al Qaeda; because he had a motive that he himself supplied; because he had the means. Because the alternative requires a huge amount of whistleblowers, and implies that the US government is powerful and amoral enough to pull this off, yet can't figure out how to plant a few WMDs in Iraq.

Quote:
Scientific community? I never believe when one says it's about "99,9% of something". You don't know that.


I know that in spite of two years of working on a film on 9/11 (Loose Change), Avery didn't manage to find one (1!) actual expert in a relevant field, who'd say anything to support just a single "fact" in his film - which encompasses pretty much the entire body of "alternative theory" ideas (to avoid the word you dread). After a year following this movement on and off, and students doing the same, I've come across a total of nine experts who've publicly supported the possibility (not the fact) that some of these ideas could be correct. Two of them (including ones which Avery quotes in lack of any better) have since disclaimed their statements after further investigation.

That's compared to the hundreds, if not thousands, of experts who support the "official story". Of course, you like to say it's about quality, not quantity. Problem here being, the top physicist (and he is a real physicist, I'll admit) who supports one of the "alternative theories" also wrote a thesis attempting to prove that Jesus visited America as claimed by the mormons. Quality? Maybe in some people's minds.

Quote:
Of course I do not read all the posts, none of us has time to do so.


There's the reason why this is going in circles, then. I spend probably 20-30 minutes on this forum per day, every other day, and I managed to read "all the posts" of this thread.

Quote:
(I gave you no reason to call me ignorant; that happens when one is running out of patience or arguments)


Running out of arguments? Certainly not, although that would actually be understandable, after listing hundreds of them - all unrefuted, while the other party has listed none that weren't refuted. Not running out compared to people who have made no arguments at all (and again, not speaking of you specifically). Patience? Probably. That's what happens when you waste time on arguing a case only to see people reply stuff like:

Quote:
Yea i read some of those links and i don't really know what to say. They made no sense to me.


... and then demand more arguments.

And behold, I never called you ignorant. So stop being paranoid. The general state of this thread is one of ignorance, for reasons given numerous times by now, hence:

Kaneda wrote:
because if I ever saw a point in keeping up a discussion with ignorants and seeing every refutation consciously ignored


That's the state of this thread. "Fact" -> refutation -> ignore + (sometimes) new "fact". That's ignorance in action. Not necessarily from you.

Kaneda wrote:
No, by wasting your time on these wild theories, YOU are being ignorant to the very real questionable actions of your government.


As already explained, that was a statement on "people in general", not you specifically, since, once again, we're still waiting for you to say what you actually think...

Quote:
Are you provoking? Hope not. If you're talking about that idiot movie about the 22yo boy that directed talking about the explosive planes, the implosion of the wtc and so on, you're wrong.


Would you stop thinking everything is about you? Smile I tend to be not afraid to provoke some people in real life, but rarely on the internet. You asked for my reasons for being (your words) "too concerned" about this thread, and I gave them to you. Since you supposedly agree about Avery's film, you should also be able to agree that there are people here who think they're questioning authority while buying into his propaganda without any critique or common sense. That's what it says, nothing else.

Quote:
And you still can't point me where are the parts of the airplane in those photos somebody posted before.


And you're still ignoring that I already did. Circle, circle, circle, circle.

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-374048.html#374048

What do you want me to do? Circle the entire photo of the landing gear, and tell you it's a landing gear? Circle the part of the wing on the left side of a photo inside the Pentagon? Circle all the bits of crumbled up aluminium from the fuselage - which also have parts of the AA logo on them? Circle the wheel in the center of one photo? Need more?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine1.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine3.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine4.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery_debris_other.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery-debris-backshot-sm.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/carry_away.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/debris_firetruck.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/fireman_heliport.jpg
etc. etc. etc.

I also refer you to the post linked above to know why you don't find entire
wings or tail sections of a plane that crashes into a concrete wall at over 500MPH... But again. Circle.

Quote:
What are you talking about????


Exactly what I said.

Quote:
I'll pretend you hadn't lowered the level.


Lowering the level is still your perspective (to use your own phrase). I haven't even started approaching the level that the majority of posts here are at (again, not yours).

Quote:
Did I miss something about you last posts? Not that I remember. About your self called "delusional belief system", that's your perspective.


And the perspective of the large majority of people who have looked into this critically and without any agenda. And I'm waiting to be proven wrong about that perspective.

Quote:
It's becoming clear that that innocent video has awoken the worst of your feelings: perhaps the pride.


Pride at what? Nope, I've merely reached a point where, as mentioned, this thread is simply silly.

Quote:
Put the pride aside


Put your psych 101 aside. There's no pride involved. Simply interest in seeing some counter-arguments (why that's important to me, we'll get to at the bottom of the post) which have yet to magically appear. Hence, loss of neutral interest.

Quote:
if you really think this is silly, then you should have felt it from the beginning.


Things can turn silly over time. That's called "change".

If people don't understand the polite, moderate language (and they clearly don't, since they don't reply to it), no actual discussion occurs, so I'll turn less polite and moderate, if that'll wake them up. I'm not a believer in politeness for politeness' sake.

Quote:
And what evidence what you talking about my brother!!! I'ts been a long time since I asked you to point the evidence of a plane IN THE PHOTOS (don't dare thinking about the video, as you don't wanna hear about it again).


And it's been long since I told you I did, and yet I tried it once more in this post. And it's also been a long since I asked you what your theory is. And we're still waiting. Sorry, but Hobo is right. Why the *bleep* do you and others feel the need to waste our time debunking and arguing only to say "OK, please waste some more time - hope you don't mind I'll not waste mine actually addressing what you just said". That's not discussion, that's monologue to sheep. I do think I have a justified reason for saying that.

Quote:
And please don't think about discussing physics with me.


Why not? Might make a change if you actually provided some actual counterarguments with logical or scientific backup rather than just saying "this is impossible, that is unlikely". I don't need to discuss physics, there are plenty of experts for that. Who generally seem to agree on the "official story".

Quote:
This is about much more than discussing with you


If you mean this is a matter of universal importance, it really isn't. Smile Two major blows to the wellbeing of the world came out of 9/11: People got more scared, and Bush stayed in power and got more of it.

The former won't change no matter who did it. The latter won't change unless people start paying attention to what Bush and his administration is doing. And even if that were "masterminding 9/11", we'll never know. Why is it important to me that people actually discuss and show some critical mind and common sense? Because that's a matter of universal importance.

When seeing comments on Loose Change all over the web, there's a very disturbing gap. Some people are able to point out the (literally) hundreds of fallacies in it. Others hail it as the documentary masterpiece it never was and never will be. And when the fallacies are pointed out to the latter group, they'll ignore that, and keep believing the "basic idea", without knowing why.

It's that kind of mentality that sent Bush into - and kept him in - the White House in the first place. Not like it wasn't obvious to those who looked closer that he was unfit as president of the world's last superpower. I'm sure a lot of Americans agreed and still agree with him. But I refuse to believe that all of those (slightly over) 50% were "informed voters".

The world is in severe need of people with a critical mindset. People don't have to believe in the official story to have such a mindset. But as long as they fail to provide any irrefutable reason for their belief, they're not questioning authority - or anything. They're simply being led by the hand into yet another grand illusion, which they blindly accept. That's a waste. And that's what annoys me. I'm also happy to know I don't think that way. If you want to call that pride, sure, I'm proud of a lot of things in my life Smile

Quote:
also I do this 4fun as I find it exciting debating in a language other than my 'born language'.


That's a 7th reason for my list of reasons for being "too concerned". But alas, there's scarcely much debate left.

Quote:
Besides this and our lack of agreement, I hope we find each other in some other topic, in other subject.


Sure, hopefully one that's less about belief Smile
KickTabBabies
I'm convinced that it was the government, i've seen this video before. I am all for it. The government MADE money because of 9/11. Seems logical.
The Czar
Movie was old ... I have it in my harddrive and is currently spreading it through pen drives ... Sue me for spreading truth ... Laughing
HoboPelican
KickTabBabies wrote:
I'm convinced that it was the government, i've seen this video before. I am all for it. The government MADE money because of 9/11. Seems logical.



Logical?

Did you read any of this thread? Did you see how it misrepresented the facts? How can you actually believe propaganda without giving a little thought about what it is saying? It amazes me how people latch on to an idea that has no basis in reality. Come on, Kick, read this thread and then post 3 pieces of evidence from the film that can't be proven wrong. If you are going to use logic as the basis for you belief, as you stated, lets's see some.
Kaneda
The Czar wrote:
Movie was old ... I have it in my harddrive and is currently spreading it through pen drives ... Sue me for spreading truth ... Laughing


Sometimes I wish one could. If we feel the need to invent laws to protect us from being victims of the harmful actions of others, and from being victims of our own actions, there should also be laws to protect us from being victims of the stupidity of others... Smile

I can only "hope" you'll be sued for aiding in copyright infringement Wink Since Avery doesn't have distribution rights to a lot of news clips etc. that he used - and won't get such a right.

But thanks for illustrating my point, both of you Smile
ciaran27
Here's a real simple test to gague what is going on. If all these movies surfacing bringing evidence that there was a conspiracy to commit this atrocity, why did the 9-11 commission completly ignore all of these questions, and why does the government overtly refuse to answer any questions to the subject or release the evidence they have locked away that could prove or disprove these theories?

If the government is truly innocent of everything it is being accused of....what does it have to hide?

Some of you have said leave it alone and forget about 9-11. I say that the famiies of the 3000 dead in WTC, and the thousands more that have died from the insuing wars that that event justified deserve to know the truth. I say lets keep shaking the tree nd see who comes falling out of the shadows between the branches.

It's a sad day when people in this country support a corrupt government, and turn a blind eye to possibly credible evidence all in the name of patriotism.

The people in the US need to wake up and start thinking for themselves. They need to realize that the true meaning of patriotism means supporting the people of this country who build and maintain it day by day with the sweat of their brows, not the government that lives off of manipulating the masses.

On a side note....

nam_siddharth wrote:
I don't care, whether it was Osama or not. But it was good, what happened with Osama in return. He w2as a thread against India too. He was supporting terrorist in Kashmir.

He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.

The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.


If Osamma Bin Ladden was so horrible.....why did he eliminate 90% of the opium crop from Afghanistan, and try to build an economy based on real trade rather than the drug trade?

What would you rather have in the world? A statue, or a scourge that causes millions of deaths, distroys families, and helps spread disease through drug use, and puts the power in the hands of a few fanatical drug lords that rule with an iorn fist and realy do support and fund terrorism to further their buisness efforts?

Thanks, but I would rather have the distruction of a statue than one country fueling it's economy at the expense of filling the rest of the world with it's illegaly traded drugs.

I don't know one way or the other about his support for terrorism for sure, but I can say that I don't believe what the US government has to say on the subject. Bin Ladden was not trying to distroy the spirit of Afghanistan.....he was trying to take it back from the drug lords and give it back to it's people.

Just take a look at what happened when the US went in and took him out of power. The fields full of food and cash crops were plowed under and opium planted in their place. To this day Afghanistan remains the number 1 country in producing opium and heroin shipped world wide. The single year they lost that title was in 2001 after Bn Ladden's government passed a ban on the growing of opium in 2000.

Also goes to show you what the US' meddeling in other countries affairs gets them, and the US it's self. Over the years since the US's war in Afghanistan that country has come to supply 60% of the US intake of poium/heroin, and 90% world wide. The opium trade now makes up more than a third of the countries economy. How good can it be for a country to have almost 40% of it's income in the hands of a few drug lords?
Da Rossa
HoboPelican wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:


Wait a moment... this is not about quantity, but quality. First, the amount of people that can be considered reliable about the incident in the pentagon is not that big. Second, we indeed have few evidence about MY point of view. But I'm really concerned about that ones that began watching that video with disgustion on the face, looking for 'flaws' from the beginning. Then, this video can be considered a good reference since its sources are from a group of few materials that survived from the cops who got all the rest. So, the movie is 'only a movie', but so far I find it far more reliable than some fragmented quotes around. Also, the footage showing the exact moment of the impact has been showed by other tv agencies, not only from the US, so this is difficult to be considered a set up......


Da Rossa, we've been at this a long time and so far not one conspiracy idea has been able to hold up to inspection. And it gets very annoying when we go to some lengths to explain why this or that is not a rational concept and the only response we get is "Wait, look at this new movie!" The amount of time someone like Kaneda puts in debunking this stuff is astounding and then for the conspiracy theorist to to demand more time without investing their own is just rude.

So let me ask you this. Describe what YOU think happened. Go through the items that we have shot down already. Then list, say, 3 pieces of evidence that you think are compelling.

Don't make us sit though more movies. You've seen them, tells us what convinces you that there was a US plot (or whatever).


BTW-I am an American. I also think Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country since Nixon. He is doing things that will take a decent President years to undo. There is nothing that I would like more than to see evidence that he was guilty of something heinous. So don't assume I am disbelieving this concept to support Bush. I am disbelieving because, as an engineer with years of experience in failure analysis, none of the ideas put forth make any sense.


Ok, sorry for the long waiting, I'll try to be as objective as I can. Let's put the videos asside, I mean, THE video, as I haven't watched any other related thing, specially not "Loose Change".

First, I learnt the very immediate facts after the 9/11. On Wed, Sept 12, 2001, I came to the first questionings: too many things were discovered and/or especulated in only 24 ours. Until here, you could pick randomly a 17 yo student in a group of 1000, the probability that he or she had already known about the Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden was, at best, 1% or 10 of them. I'm regarding to a ocidental group of students, from any non-African, non-MEastern, non-Arabic, non Indonesian kid. The west youth didn't know who he was. Then, his name is cast. So he is on everyone's subject in a flash. This is very strange, as the US investigators seem to have discovered so early about the plot. This suggests that the US government either knew already about it and let it happen, just like the Pearl Harbor strike, OR the government actually masterminded it, using those alleged arabics as the executors. Alleged is because Mohamed Atta's father made impatient objections to the early official explanations saying this was nonsense. I never saw him again in the media. But... I can't say, but a father may, in most cases, be considered a reliable witness about someone.
This all besides a Flying manual written in Arabic that was found in an automobile in a garage exactely in 9/12 (it may had been found in the same day, and spread the news in the following day). It's difficult to buy this a coincidence. It would be ok if this manual were an isolated element, but as stated, it's not.

Ok, if you have a already solid opinion about the fact, don't worry, nothing of this will convince you otherwise. But something to be thought is that THERE IS NO 100% RELIABLE EXPLANATION at all, as all evidence, from either sides, are potentially fabricated and/or never existed. One example: there is a fervorous political scientist in Brazil called Ivan (dunno the surname), that claims that everything besides the official reports is JUST CRAP, like states Kaneda. First, he stopped being quiet when the reporter asked him about it... and finished saying 2 things: "pentagon?? missle??? that's bullxit, they found "5000" pieces of a boieng among the debris. There are no more important things to be discovered or investigated about this all." OMG, as for the pieces, a boeing is constituted of more than 1,3 million parts, if only 5000 were found then were are the other 99,6% of the parts? The blackbox? THE WINGS? THE TAILS?? no, I'm not talking about that video. I'm talking about the cnn page that showed photographs of the pentagon some days after. don't worry. So, the "5000" there seems to be a fabricated number.

And it's too late. No much further will be disclosed or discovered, and one's believes had already became something like religion. Things were said defending both theories, and as the official theory is the more well accepted than mine, the latter is now mislabeled as a "conspiracy theory". If mine fits on the description of one, then should also the official do. Read the definitions quoted by Kaneda. What I'm doing here is to make you understand not that I'm saying the truth, as no one here is qualified to say the truth, but to expose arguments to prove that mine is the best explanation to the 9/11..

I'll continue later.
Please don't think that those details about the following days I remembered are EVERYTHING, they're just the beginning. This were the things that arose my suspicion. What happened next just made it stronger gradually, until sometime in 2002, when I said: That's it!!

Edit: Hobo, when replying, tell me something about your job. I got interested.
rheanna
"Loose Change E2" Unlicensed LIVE Footage If you bother to watch it. It will explain a lot. Probably one of the best movies on the Internet about 9/11. He shows you articles and quotes from the government. (I.E. Rumsfield) Who even stated it was a Missile. Footage of a Missile that hit an embassy that looks the same as the Pentagon damage. Live footage of multiple buildings burning in the same fashion as the WTC towers that are still standing as of today. That were built in the 1970's. Examples of Demolition. NYFD Speaks out about the bombs in the building. A tape of a NYFD fireman before he died when a bomb exploded. The guy who owned the towers specifically put a policy out on Terrorism for over 7 Million dollars, 6 months or 6 weeks prior to the attacks. He received 2 Million. Family members haven't claimed the SSI of the victims. Why? Of the said terrorist 9 are still alive as of today. FBI took down the wanted list. Not 1 Person on those flights of the said hijacker was even an ARAB descent. How does a paper passport survive a burning Inferno but not a black box? Both Towers gave off a 2.3/2.2 Richter Scale of an Earthquake. You'll find out why.

Yes, Government is behind it

They know more then what their saying.

Propaganda might butt. The people who sit there and say it's propaganda, coincidence, or not even a conspiracy. Are the people who are so closed minded that they can't take an hour of their time to view one video. Or, people who won't take the time to even bother to read what's on the Internet. Especially the facts. They believe only because of the what the government tells them to believe and for them that's good enough. All I have to say is keep living in your dream world because eventually the truth will come out and you won't like what you hear.

Yes, I've seen F 911 but Loose Change E2 was a lot better

Confused Rolling Eyes
Blaster
If you bothered to read more then the topic title you would see that i posted that link in the first post.
rheanna
that was wierd.. Sorry for the repost. Confused
rheanna
Quote:

What the 9/11 Commission Released in 2006
The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html



Quote:

The demolition of the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, Texas - 3/18/2006

Different technique, same result? Note the flashes and dust.
WMV video download (507kB)


Quote:

Video showing the collapse of World Trade Center 2.
Note the "pops".
WMV video download (447kB)


Tower 7 collapse



First Victim..Peter Jennings interviews Marlene Cruz

On September 12, 2001, Peter Jennings interviews Marlene Cruz, a carpenter injured in one of the pre-collapse explosions in the WTC sub-basement level B before the planes hit the towers. She was the first casualty of 9/11 admitted at Bellevue Hospital. Cruz is a living witness whose testimony proves that pre-planted explosives were used to weaken the foundations of the towers as part of a well-planned controlled demolition.






AUDIO Files From 911 Calls that were released

*A Marine who sees Military craft on a daily basis would know the difference between a Military aircraft and a commercial airliner.


Only Green Aircraft that I know of is a B-52 bomber, My dad was a B-52 bomber.

Commercial Airliners are WHITE with markings...

Videos don't even take 5 minutes of your time to view.

Wink
Blaster
Thanks for the more videos. I'll take a look at them when i am on a windows computer. Very Happy
The_Gamer294
ok, i watched it. wtf
rheanna
Quote:
Firefighter Richard Banaciski's Transcript


Vrythramax
Blaster wrote:
If you bothered to read more then the topic title you would see that i posted that link in the first post.


C'mon People...PLEASE play nice, that includes all....not just for the quoted text....it was a simple example.
rheanna
Were playing nice, I already talk to him ;o)

Quote:
Dr. Glenn Aseda



From my own experience when a gas company exploded a block away from my house, it sounded like a plane crashed, then when another explosion went off, it sounded like someone was dropping bombs. Each tank that exploded at this company boom boom boom...My whole house shook.

A plane hitting the building would not sound like a kitchen oven. A bomb sounds like a kitchen oven.
Wilio
I doubt it is the government that did this to their own country. The video was quite interesting, but I still think it's the terrorists.
rheanna
Wilio wrote:
I doubt it is the government that did this to their own country. The video was quite interesting, but I still think it's the terrorists.


So explain to me why bomb sniffing dogs were removed specifically?
Why all the security drills prior to the tower attack? (While these drills were going on people were not allowed to even enter that floor area)
How did all the bombs get past security?

The WTC is a HIGH Security facility! Because of the Major Corporations. Rolling Eyes
Blaster
Vrythramax wrote:
Blaster wrote:
If you bothered to read more then the topic title you would see that i posted that link in the first post.


C'mon People...PLEASE play nice, that includes all....not just for the quoted text....it was a simple example.


yea we already talked about that Very Happy

Anyhow rhenna you brought up some of the biggest points that i belive in. Why was the bomb sniffing dogs removed? A lot is messed up about the story going on. Also thanks for reveling even more information that is helpful.
rheanna
Cool

***1969 NY Times Newspaper was found INTACT in one of the beams at WTC!!!!!! Yuh, talk about suvival of the fittest..I want to read that paper. Shocked

Quote:

Demolition of Steel/Implosions/Explosions
*Very end of the video
Who was responsible for the electronic security at Washington Dulles Airport and the WTC that were both involved in 9/11? On that day...Non other than Marvin P. Bush/The Cousin of the Bush's was the CEO Wilt D. Walker. SECURACOM
*Prior to the weekend of 9/11 there was a unprecedented power down in both towers, They were notified 3 weeks in advance from the Port Authority of the power down. That means all the lights go out.... Confused , And there is NO SECURITY!, CAMERAS ARE ALL OFF...DOORS WERE ALL OPEN BASICALLY. SCOTT FORBES even STATES!!! he saw many strangers [PEOPLE WHO DIDN"T WORK AT WTC] [HUGE TOOL BOXES] [WALKING AROUND WITH CABLE WIRING] all around the building that weekend, IN WHITE SUITS...During the power down.
*Ben Fountain-Talks about unusal evacuations at the Twin Towers
*Security*See above



*Demolitions Expert-Start at the bottom, then hit the top, then to control how a building collapses place the bombs in the middle. Core joints were damaged the same way as a controlled demolition
*Explosives at the primary joints
*History of Steel and when steel melts.
*Surviver Rodriquez says there was an explosion in the basement.
*Lobby was a disaster - windows blown out. Plane hit the 70 thd floor
*Interview with Philip Morelli Sub Basement 4
*Smoke raising at the base of the building-Planes hit the top of the building. Watch the rumble at the base before the building collapses
*Guys camera records the explosions. *Sound meter multiple explosions
*Squibs Explosion examples
*Pyroclastic Flow/Surge - *Volcano *Check the comparison with Mt. ST. Helen and the WTC cloud formation
*Thermite+Sulfur=Thermate produces accelerated results (people with that access is only military)
*Everyone was evacuated from Tower 7 (no one was hurt) *Mayor's Bunker was in Tower 7 , Why did he choose to take shelter elsewhere?


*********************
1:02:10

PAUSE THE VIDEO AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF! Video has better quality




**Notice the plane hasn't hit and already there's a fire?

***Does that look like a Delta plane or even remotely a Commercial airliner? I grew up around B-52s and that looks similar to a B-52 and is green in color.


*Government not involved?Silverstein??

*15MIL Investment turned into a 7 BIL. Investment with rights to rebuild.

Middle of the video

Wink
Blaster
Yea i agree totaly. Thanks for the links you sent me. I put them up on the mail post. Very Happy

http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml this in my mind is just as good as loose change. them two combine make the gretest point. The both show evidence that is differnt. So check this one out too.
HoboPelican
Quote:
Firefighter Richard Banaciski's Transcript



Okay, what is this supposed to prove? This seems just like a first hand account of what you can see on any video of the collapse.


I've said this before in this thread....post the details of the 2 or 3 most compelling facts in the movie. Don't make us watch more worthless junk without a little upfront info(not saying this on is...but you see what I'm saying).

You know the biggest thing working against this idea is that it is too complex and has too many possibilities to fail and expose the government. As stupid as I think the Bush Admin is, even I can't belief that. And I grew up with Trickie Dick and Watergate. There were easier, more foolproof ways to get the country behind Bush's war.

So, post the bits that you think best prove the government did it. And while your at it, tell us in your own words what you think actually happened?
rheanna
HoboPelican wrote:
Quote:
Firefighter Richard Banaciski's Transcript


Okay, what is this supposed to prove? This seems just like a first hand account of what you can see on any video of the collapse.

I've said this before in this thread....post the details of the 2 or 3 most compelling facts in the movie. Don't make us watch more worthless junk without a little upfront info(not saying this on is...but you see what I'm saying).

You know the biggest thing working against this idea is that it is too complex and has too many possibilities to fail and expose the government. As stupid as I think the Bush Admin is, even I can't belief that. And I grew up with Trickie Dick and Watergate. There were easier, more foolproof ways to get the country behind Bush's war.

So, post the bits that you think best prove the government did it. And while your at it, tell us in your own words what you think actually happened?


*Please tell me this isn't fact
Quote:
Who was responsible for the electronic security at Washington Dulles Airport and the WTC that were both involved in 9/11? On that day...Non other than Marvin P. Bush/The Cousin of the Bush's was the CEO Wilt D. Walker. SECURACOM

*Prior to the weekend of 9/11 there was a unprecedented power down in both towers, They were notified 3 weeks in advance from the Port Authority of the power down. That means all the lights go out.... , And there is NO SECURITY!, CAMERAS ARE ALL OFF...DOORS WERE ALL OPEN BASICALLY.

*Gets really interesting when the building had asbesta and was given serval waivers to remove it, because of that blast the asbestes can be removed from all the steel. No insurance company was going to even pay for the removel. It would have costed over a billion to remove the asbestes.



That's a transcript of yes 1 account that was released by 9/11 commsison and if you watch the video you'll see other people say the same thing. *Live on the street. I suppose their lying too. I gave you a link to read all the transcripts. Of the Firefighters, Doctors, And Ems. A Police officer in video even says bombs. If your too lazy to read 9/11 Commission report then don't post opinion. Or, If you too lazy to watch the movie then don't bother to comment. Is it my fault you act blind? I posted well enough for you to at least look into it. Rolling Eyes

http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml *Video
Page 7 for the links with Doctors, EMS, Firefighters TRANSCRIPTS
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
htpp://www.911podcasts.com

Look up BBC- BBC knew about tower 7 falling before it even fell...I tried to find that video again but my computer crashed.

I put the Major keypoints and topics they cover from the that video, so you would least bother to look at it. I put it in quotes because it looked neater.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:


That's a transcript of yes 1 account that was released by 9/11 commsison and if you watch the video you'll see other people say the same thing. *Live on the street. I suppose their lying yoo.

Hmmm, did I say they were lying? Don't twist words. I said it sounded like a first hand account of what any video showed. It is not any sort of proof of anything. His saying he heard an explosion is not proof of placed charges. That is just silly. I would think any structure that size would make a huge noise when the load bearing supports failed. This is not proof or even suspiscious.

Again, the conspiracy theorists will not take the time to post what THEY think are the best points of articles and videos, just commands to read this or watch that video. Anyone who took the time to read this topic from the beginning would see that we've done enough of that. Fine, if that is the best you can do, why should I try either.

For the fireman's short quote - read this.
http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf

For a general debunking go to these.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.debunking911.com/


But you won't. You will find another crackpot link and say "look at this". Misquoting us and calling us lazy is not making a good case for your POV. Show us your chops and post some real proof.
rheanna
HoboPelican wrote:
rheanna wrote:


That's a transcript of yes 1 account that was released by 9/11 commsison and if you watch the video you'll see other people say the same thing. *Live on the street. I suppose their lying yoo.

Hmmm, did I say they were lying? Don't twist words. I said it sounded like a first hand account of what any video showed. It is not any sort of proof of anything. His saying he heard an explosion is not proof of placed charges. That is just silly. I would think any structure that size would make a huge noise when the load bearing supports failed. This is not proof or even suspiscious.

Again, the conspiracy theorists will not take the time to post what THEY think are the best points of articles and videos, just commands to read this or watch that video. Anyone who took the time to read this topic from the beginning would see that we've done enough of that. Fine, if that is the best you can do, why should I try either.

For the fireman's short quote - read this.
http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf

For a general debunking go to these.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.debunking911.com/


But you won't. You will find another crackpot link and say "look at this". Misquoting us and calling us lazy is not making a good case for your POV. Show us your chops and post some real proof.


*I'll go look,

*I'm not going to read a quote from a fireman. I want the transcript of that fireman. What's his name? Because it will be on the transcript of all the firemans who were released by 9/11 commission.

* That video tells you the history of the steel and does interviews from the guys who built the towers.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
...

* That video tells you the history of the steel and does interviews from the guys who built the towers. You cannot sit there and debunk the guys who built the towers.



Not if you don't tell us what they said, no. Still waiting for a good reason to watch it...Come put the valid points in print here where we are discussing it.


EDIT
And, once you post what they said, why can't we debunk statements made by a representative of a company about their products? Are they infallible or not able to lie about their company?
rheanna
Confused Rolling Eyes

Keypoints are there your choice. Videos takes with Demolition experts.
*Squibs Explosion examples
*Pyroclastic Flow/Surge - *Volcano *Check the comparison with Mt. ST. Helen and the WTC cloud formation
*Thermite+Sulfur=Thermate produces accelerated results (people with that access is only military

Rolling Eyes
HoboPelican
Quote:

*Prior to the weekend of 9/11 there was a unprecedented power down in both towers, They were notified 3 weeks in advance from the Port Authority of the power down. That means all the lights go out.... , And there is NO SECURITY!, CAMERAS ARE ALL OFF...DOORS WERE ALL OPEN BASICALLY.


Was this supposed to be the best evidence? A power outage? No security? did all the guards go home and leave the doors open? In an interview on a pro conspiracy site, http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html, Scott says that only the upper half of the south tower went power down. The rest of the building and the other buildings had power, full security, and cameras. He mentions "several" technicians and plainly states he doesn't know if they had badges or not.
Quote:

KT: You mentioned you didn't notice them wearing any badges. Is this unusual? I take it there must be a lot of construction going on in the WTC from time to time. Do construction workers not need identity badges?

SF: They would all need to have stick-on badges, with their photo and name. I can't remember seeing those badges or not.


So several technicians had access to upper level floors (after passing security) in one tower. How did the get all those explosives past the guards and cameras on the lower floors? How about the other buildings?

See the twisted logic we have to deal with? A partial power outage leaves the buildings defenseless! In bold you yell that all cameras are off, no security existed and no cameras were working. The reality is quite different. Full security still existed on the entry levels and the power outage did not effect manually locked doors.


Again, post something decent. And, seriously, I am interested in what you think actually happened? If it was a "B-52", why place explosives in the building, just load up the bomber. Why use a B-52 when a commercial airliner would be easily obtainable and could be used without worry of people spotting the very distinctive B-52. These are all things that make no sense and only makes the "plan" goofier and more likely to fail.


Edit

We cross posted there. So, what is your point in your last post? I'm still looking for any sort of decent evidence from that movie. Tell us the 2 or three most conclusive bits, if there are any.
rheanna
Scott Forbes says that in the Video. That anyone could of just walked in and done whatever they wanted. Even Rodriguiz backs it up about the power down. Comes out of their mouths.

Quote:
In bold you yell that all cameras are off, no security existed and no cameras were working. The reality is quite different. Full security still existed on the entry levels and the power outage did not effect manually locked doors.


Quote:
Again, post something decent. And, seriously, I am interested in what you think actually happened? If it was a "B-52", why place explosives in the building, just load up the bomber. Why use a B-52 when a commercial airliner would be easily obtainable and could be used without worry of people spotting the very distinctive B-52. These are all things that make no sense and only makes the "plan" goofier and more likely to fail.


For one, I've had the chance to play in the B-52's when I was a kid. On a weekend basis. My father was a SMSGT B-52 Bomber. On weekends we got to go to work with him and play in the planes and play with the plane in the simulations. In that video it looks like a B-52 from the size, shape and color. I've been around them my whole life. I have a sense of what they look like.

From My own experience from a gas company exloding behind my house. I know what an explosion sounds like and feels.

I got a headache so..not doing much reading today.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Scott Forbes says that in Video. That anyone could of just walked in and done whatever they wanted. Even Rodriguiz backs it up about the powoer down. Comes out of their mouths.


So did what I quoted from the Scott Forbes interview on the pro-conspiracy site. So what? Are you saying he was lying one time and not the other? The link I gave is an entire interview. Is the video interview complete? And again, what does that imply about the other tower? If they had to setup a power outage for one tower, wouldn't they need to do the same for the other? And you still are not addressing WHY put the explosives in the building instead of the plane?

At least make an attempt at answering these points before continuing, please.
Is Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?
alkutob
I read many reports that tell CIA were knowing about all the 11/9 events before years and the movie explained everything .

They even helped those people to destroy and kill without moving a finger ... why ?
HoboPelican
alkutob wrote:
I read many reports that tell CIA were knowing about all the 11/9 events before years and the movie explained everything .

They even helped those people to destroy and kill without moving a finger ... why ?


Did you read anything here? There are all sorts of misquotes, partial truths and lies about this issue. Quote your source if it has any validity. Let us see what it really says.
rheanna
Still viewing the site

As for the fireman no transcript of Gregory Stevens? Why?

Quote:

At least make an attempt at answering these points before continuing, please.
Is Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?


Video will point that out. Especially after they do interviews with the demolitions experts. Forbes is actually speaking personally in the video. Come up with your own conclusion. while I go check out what he says in this video.

Quote:
I read many reports that tell CIA were knowing about all the 11/9 events before years and the movie explained everything .


What Movie?
Where are the reports?
Animal
I think that all the 9/11 conspiracy videos are excellent - whether I agree with the point they are trying to make or not. I watched the whole Believe Your Own Eyes video today and I thought it expanded on many of the points raised in the Loose Change 9/11 video. The key thing about all these videos are that they present an alternative viewpoint and make you think about things totally differently - whether it clarifies your own views or makes you question them, there's really no "correct" opinion to have.

rheanna wrote:
* That video tells you the history of the steel and does interviews from the guys who built the towers.

I think this was an excellent part of the video - it was far more in-depth than has been covered in any of the other conspiracy films I've seen. I'm an engineer to trade, and I fully understand that steel doesn't melt, it merely loses around half it's strength at temperatures around 1200F. However, what I question about the points raised with regards to the steel is the actual process that lead to the collapse of the Twin Towers themselves. When the planes hit the building, they will have damaged a significant part of the internal structure of the building. Without knowing exactly what was and wasn't damaged, the distribution of the weights could not be accurately calculated. It is therefore not known if a 50% reduction in steel strength could have lead to the collapses that occurred on that day.

With regard to the Twin Towers, you have to remember that the sheer weight of all the steel and concrete falling towards the ground would have a force that you can not comprehend as a person. The forces (if calculated) would be mere numbers on a piece of paper, but trust me when I say that these forces would be huge. I don't think it's possible to estimate what a "normal" structural reaction would be to this force.

However, since the conspiracy stories surrounding 9/11 came out, I was always uncomfortable with the "ancillary damage" claim that caused WTC7 to collapse. This was highlighted in the video expertly, showing that WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 were all far worse off in terms of damage and yet they had to be pulled down - they didn't collapse by their own accord. The clear presence of the "Crimp" in the building when it collapsed really is suspicious.



In my view, I'm still not sure whether I believe that the Twin Towers were brought down as part of a conspiracy or not. However, the collapse of WTC7 is, IMO, the real conspiracy story.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:

Quote:

At least make an attempt at answering these points before continuing, please.
Is Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?


Video will point that out. Especially after they do interviews with the demolitions experts. Forbes is actually speaking personally in the video. Come up with your own conclusion. while I go check out what he says in this video.


What is it with you and this video? Is it impossible to put it in a written form or do you get points for us clicking on the link?Wink How many times do I have to ask you to post some facts instead of just telling us to watch the video?


I say again,
Quote:

At least make an attempt at answering these points before continuing, please.
Is Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?
rheanna
Complete 911 Timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

WHOA!!!

On the night before the attacks.. The hotel that bush was staying at had SURFACE TO AIR MISSLES on the ROOF!!![In Florida] Not a normal procedure.

Video Link at 44:50



HoboPelican
Are you just going to ignore these questions and move on to more questionable allegations?

Is Steve Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the alleged explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?
rheanna
Well your ignoring me..Only fair to ignore you. Laughing I got side tracked. I find it interesting that Bush had Missles set up at his hotel the night before 9/11

Your questions will get answered in that video...I don't need to answer them.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Well your ignoring me..Only fair to ignore you. Laughing I got side tracked. I find it interesting that Bush had Missles set up at his hotel the night before 9/11

Your questions will get answered in that video...I don't need to answer them.



Sorry, what did I ignore? Something before or after the questions I asked? The only thing I ignored that I am aware of was your repeated requests to watch a clip without first seeing something convincing from it. It doesn't make any sense to run off on new "evidence" until we hash out the pieces before.

So, let me know what issue I ignored and in the same post answer the existing questions.

Is Steve Forbes lying in one interview? Did I mis-quote his words?
How did the alleged explosives get in the North tower?
Why use explosives in the building and risk getting caught, if they used their own aircraft?

And you only don't need to answer them if you don't have a good answer. Then we can accept that those are not valid points.
rheanna
Cool Sorry HoBo but your just looking for an argument and I'm not in the mood. If you watch the video your questions will be answered.

Your right I'm not going to bother going to the sites that you offered because your too lazy to go find out for yourself on the video that answers your questions.

As for Forbes he speaks in the video, I don't know what he says in the video you want me to see since you won't bother to look at the video I sent you.

IMO (Your answers)
***Money can change what people say, even a death threat.
First your on a Conspiracy site then your caught on a Debunking the Conspiracy so who the F knows.

***Powerdown-on the video

***The more confusion the less anyone will suspect the real problem.

***FYI- Commercial Airliners are WHITE with markings. NOT BLACK, GREY, OR GREEN only MILITARY AIRCRAFTS ARE THAT COLOR...If you look at that photo That aircraft is NOT WHITE.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Cool Sorry HoBo but your just looking for an argument and I'm not in the mood. If you watch the video your questions will be answered.

I'm just trying to get you to tell us what it says. Is it that complicated that you can't paraphrase?


Quote:
Your right I'm not going to bother going to the sites that you offered because your too lazy to go find out for yourself on the video that answers your questions.

I've given perfectly acceptable reasons for not viewing the video. If you can show a couple of good reasons, I will gladly watch it. You call me lazy, but I see you as being the lazy one for not taking the time to layout your arguments yourself and relying on someone else's work completely.

Quote:
As for Forbes he speaks in the video, I don't know what he says in the video you want me to see since you won't bother to look at the video I sent you.

Not a video, my dear, it is a printed transcript. If you'd like I can copy it here for you.

Quote:
IMO (Your answers)
***Money can change what people say, even a death threat.
First your on a Conspiracy site then your caught on a Debunking the Conspiracy so who the F knows.

I don't understand this section at all. Actually, the link I posted (as I mentioned in the post) is on a PRO-conspiracy site. I've never seen anything about Forbes on a debunking site. So, we have a full transcript that says the upper half of the south tower was without power, but still had lower level security and a short sound bite saying that the whole tower was shutdown, is that correct? And your explanation is that he was bought off or threatened? Seems to be a stretch, since everyone who worked there would know how much was shutdown.


Quote:
***Powerdown-on the video

***The more confusion the less anyone will suspect the real problem.

You lost me again, here. Is this your answer to why the North Tower wasn't shut down? That does nothing to explain how explosives were placed in the North Tower.
Quote:
***FYI- Commercial Airliners are WHITE with markings. NOT BLACK, GREY, OR GREEN only MILITARY AIRCRAFTS ARE THAT COLOR...If you look at that photo That aircraft is NOT WHITE.

Uh, what I see is a plane in shadow, not a green plane. You show one photo of a plane in shadow and totally ignore all the first hand reports of people who say it was a commercial airliner....NOT a military jet. As you point out, the B-52 looks nothing like any commercial airliner.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any valid points here. I would love to pin this on Bush's admin, but the facts just don't support it. And you are pushing the more absurd of several conspiracies. Turn off the power for the first time ever to plant explosives in one tower. Who knows how they got in the second. And it wasn't a commercial jet with real people (whose passengers have actually disappeared), it was a B-52, one of the most easily recognizable military jets. A bomber, in fact, that could have carried the explosives inside to make make the whole scheme look more realistic. Does this seem rationale at all?
JBotAlan
Why the hell would the government want to plan something like this? The potential for the truth to leak out would be way too great. And the media would still be crawling over the aftermath!

I'm sorry, I can't believe our government wants thousands (well, more than that now) of innocent Americans dead!

And everyone needs to let 9/11 rest. It's over. It happened. It sucked, but it's in the past.

JBot
rheanna
Confused Rolling Eyes
I don't know who is more blind. The public or the Government? Confused

If you can't see the color of that plane and want to believe it's a shadow then you need your eyes examined. That plane is not white. There are videos among videos all over the internet that show that plane. On Debunk sites and 911 sites.

Quote:
I'm just trying to get you to tell us what it says. Is it that complicated that you can't paraphrase?


I Did. I put the highlighted keywords/phrase in the quotes to make it look neater. Your right I didn't feel like going into a paragraph. So, gave you highlighted points of what the movie covered. Same thing.

Now your making no sense.
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/tower-explosions.htm
Blaster
I want to let you know that i've been reading this. And i have some things i would like to say but havn't had the time. So i'll say a little bit of what i've seen. First off why would WTC 7 fall? Give me a resonable reason why. I'm a firefigher and know that is unlikely. So i think that they wanted something gone. They wanted to hide something or get rid of it. Now being a fire fighter i've never seen a building colapse because of a fire. If i'm not mistaken he core is made of concrete. Well they make burn buildings out of that stuff. (A burn building is used for training fire fighters). So why would the core fail? Well i know that the core is what holds up the whole building for the most part. Even if the floors where to fail wouldn't there still be evidence of a core?
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Confused Rolling Eyes
I don't know who is more blind. The public or the Government? Confused

If you can't see the color of that plane and want to believe it's a shadow then you need your eyes examined. That plane is not white. There are videos among videos all over the internet that show that plane. On Debunk sites and 911 sites....


Sorry, but considering the color balance of that pic, I see a plane in shadow with no identifiable color. Look at the sky and the building. I suppose they loaded the B-52 with airliner parts? That would explain the debris found in the wreckage, but not the lack of debris from a B-52.

But, come on, think about the insanity of using a bomber. Why? Do the thinking and tell me why they would fly such an easily identifiable plane into the towers when it would be just as easy to obtain a civilian plane? It just doesn't make any sense. Why put the explosives in the building instead of the plane? This is the sort of nonsense that just makes the conspiracy theorists look ridiculous. The plan is just too complicated where simpler plans would have worked better.


@blaster - Didn't Kaneda address this before? It collapsed because it was hit by debris.
Quote:

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

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


EDIT
(oh, and Blaster, I'm an engineer whose worked in failure analysis for 30 years, and I don't consider myself qualified to determine if that building should have fallen....what sort of experience do YOU have that makes you an expert? Most of the firefighters I've worked with tell me that you can't predict this sort of thing because of all the factors involved. But maybe you know better.)
rheanna
FEMA REPORT

Quote:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reports on the World Trade Center disaster.


Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment) (0.9 MB).
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment) (2.2 MB).
Chapter 3 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 3 (0.4 MB).
Chapter 4 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 4, 5, and 6 (1.2 MB).
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment) (1.3 MB).
Chapter 6 of the FEMA WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building (0.6 MB).
Chapter 7 of the FEMA WTC Report: Peripheral Buildings (0.8 MB).
Appendix A of the FEMA WTC Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings (0.5 MB).
Appendix B of the FEMA WTC Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections (0.6 MB).
Appendix D of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Steel Data Collection (0.8 MB).
The FEMA World Trade Center Collection in PDF-document format.


http://guardian.250free.com/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/ (Mirror site) For the FEMA report


yeah, it's nonsense to blow a building up that clearly shows in the footage at the BASE of the building. And fell in less then 10 seconds! It also clearly shows Squibs. (Squibs-I.E.Bombs) Before the towers falling. Your right HoBo no bombs were involved. Keep dreaming.
Blaster
If you don't mind i'm going to invite a friend in to this topic. He is a piolit. lets see what he says.

Hobo im just talking from what i've seen. I don't actually fight fires yet as to i'm still too young. I also don't work in a city that has buildings like that. But i'm saying from what i learned in science about cores of building and that into thinking hey shouldn't the core still be somewhat intact. Thats all i'm saying.
HoboPelican
Blaster wrote:
If you don't mind i'm going to invite a friend in to this topic. He is a piolit. lets see what he says.

Hobo im just talking from what i've seen. I don't actually fight fires yet as to i'm still too young. I also don't work in a city that has buildings like that. But i'm saying from what i learned in science about cores of building and that into thinking hey shouldn't the core still be somewhat intact. Thats all i'm saying.


Sorry, Blaster, that came out more confrontational than I meant it to. The point I wanted to make is that in a failure mode, it is very hard to predict what will happen. There are just too many variables to make ""from the hip" judgment calls. Sure, invite your friend. What sort of pilot is he? I was on the verge of getting my private ticket when I had to quit.

As to 7, are you saying that it shouldn't have collapsed or it shouldn't have collapsed so completely, i.e. a concrete core should have remained? I just want to make sure I understand you.


EDIT
@rhean -
Quote:

yeah, it's nonsense to blow a building up that clearly shows in the footage at the BASE of the building. And fell in less then 10 seconds! It also clearly shows Squibs. (Squibs-I.E.Bombs) Before the towers falling. Your right HoBo no bombs were involved. Keep dreaming.

Again, your post is not making sense to me. Why did you post the TOC of the FEMA report? Are we supposed to read the whole thing? And what are you referring to about the base of the building? I really can't make heads or tales of that post.

As far as the 'squibs', what I've seen of those seem to be interior debris being forced out of windows as the floors 'pancaked'. Just think of the air pressure generated by the upper floors falling and compressing the air space below it. (Blaster, does this make sense with your knowledge?) In addition, the 'squibs' I've seen are obviously occurring during the collapse, not before. Yeah, the appear to be preceding the exterior collapse by a split second, but the effect is caused by the interior collapse, which we can't see.

Rhen, I don't think you are interested in actually discussing this. If you are, pick a point and let's discuss it. I'd be glad to discuss any point you bring up, but if you keep going off on other issues, nothing will ever get discussed fairly. Let's go point by point and see how strong the evidence is.
Blaster
He is a commercial piolet for i believe North West airlines. But what i'm saying is it could have fell. But i think there would still be evidence of a core.
rheanna
Okay Hobo, Since you know everything and read everything

*You should know that the towers were built to withstand a 767 impact without collapsing. A 767 is a smaller plane then a 707 Boeing. Towers were built to specifically withstand a 707 Boeing. But you won't understand the calculations of that either if you can't understand what I said. I only gave you keypoints to the video. Then you want jump down my throat because it's not paragraph form. Needless to say if your viewing on a debunk site then there's really no reason for you to be jumping on me. Seeing as we both believe the same thing.

*Spins head*

*Done arguing with you.




Link to other photo - sorry, it was messing up the forum layout in its full size
edit by Animal - 13 March

From this clear picture on approach is the plane white? Does it even resemble an AA aircraft? I'm not color blind. I know the difference between white and grey. Does the AA look like the Airplane in the photo? Not even close. Notice the colors of an AA and the colors on that plane. One thing you can clearly see is that it's missing the STRIPES. AA has Stripes. That other aircraft don't. AA has windows. That other aircraft there are no windows except in the front. Now examine the color of the retired military aircraft. Look, especially at the tail. Same 767 Boeing.


http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

Kaneda
rheanna wrote:
Okay Hobo, Since you know everything and read everything

*You should know that the towers were built to withstand a 767 impact without collapsing. A 767 is a smaller plane then a 707 Boeing. Towers were built to specifically withstand a 707 Boeing. But you won't understand the calculations of that either if you can't understand what I said. I only gave you keypoints to the video. Then you want jump down my throat because it's not paragraph form. Needless to say if your viewing on a debunk site then there's really no reason for you to be jumping on me. Seeing as we both believe the same thing.


The thread that won't die... I'll just throw in some tidbits, and then leave it again, hoping that someday it will finally cease to exist.

1. First of all, no. The towers were not built to withstand a 767. For the fact alone, that the Boeing 767 did not exist until 15 years after the towers stood finished. They were (supposedly, we'll get to that) designed to withstand a 707. Two 767's hit them.

2. The 767 is not smaller than a 707, but of course, you know that since you're an expert on planes, right? The 767 is actually 20-25% larger than the 707.

3. In 1966, when the structure of the towers was designed, there wasn't anything near the kind of technology we use today for impact analysis - this requires an immense amount of physical simulation to calculate. Any "designed to withstand" claim from that time would be nothing but speculation.

4. But of course, that doesn't matter. Because in spite of this widely cited "designed to withstand a 707 [at cruising speed, as the claim goes]", there's actually no documentation in sight of this claim. In no document on the architectural design of the WTC is this claim made. Actually, it seems to have popped out of nowhere, and just spread and spread and spread, until every nut outthere believes it to be true without trying to find the source. And note that the claim is usually "707 at cruising speed".

Summing up: This was a 767, larger than a 707, travelling a good deal faster than cruising speed, hitting a building with no documented "design for withstanding of a 707 flying at cruising speed" claim (except from conspiracy theorists) - a claim that would even be impossible to make in 1966.

Just to pick a few others (because this is getting ridiculous): The "10 seconds" has already been argued against previously. Don't restart the argument without at least addressing what's already been said. Color of plane...

Quote:
from this clear picture on approach is the plane white? I'm not color blind.


And you clearly don't know much about photography and lighting either.
And who claims the plane was white? Maybe the terrorists painted it gr... oh wait, this side doesn't need those kind of conspiracy theorist far stretches. All American Airline planes I know of are silver in colour (with red-blue-white stripes, and sometimes blue upper part), not white. And if you take a picture of a white cat in sunlight up against the blue sky, guess what colour that will be on the photo.

Still noone actually addressing what's already been said. So like that... *poof*.. I'm gone again.
mstreet
There are so many theories about this, one can never be sure.
rheanna
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1552

So explain to me how the Empire State Building survived in 1945?

Quote:
At 9:49 a.m., the10-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.





It would of left same amount damage. I doubt it would have made it fall in it's tracks, if anything it would of toppled over left or right not straight down in 10 seconds.

BTW, All I did was give a link to a video for those who wanted to view it. If you don't want to watch it then don't watch it. I never asked for a stupid argument. All I did was provided a video too those who were interested. And I put the facts that they cover in asterisk phases.

Never said I was an expert but it sure in h*ll don't add up.

A tidbit while I was reading on another site. Thought you may be interested. The night before 9/11

Quote:

Copied from http://www.the-movement.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=27
Widely ignored facts about a security alert involving planes on Sept 10th 2001.


Security Alerts on Sept 10th -email- (June 2004) Some quotes from the 9-11 Commission hearings: 911hearing7pt2.pdf "On September 10th, 2001, aviation security in this country was on a peacetime footing." 911hearing2pt2.pdf "...But basically the comments I received from my staff was that there was no intelligence indication at any level within NORAD or DOD of a terrorist threat to commercial aviation prior to the attacks." (Major General Craig McKinley) So what about the bomb alert at San Jose airport on Sept 10th? Barely mentioned anywhere else on the Internet (could someone maybe want to keep it quiet?) it is dealt with in some depth in the following article from the Campbell Reporter which I've saved here. (Note: please use the saved link, these things tend to disappear) This article discusses a woman flying on AA Flight 299 from JFK to San Jose the night before September 11th. Some key parts: "Thinking they'd hopefully had the last of their trip's adventures, the two were surprised to find San Jose Airport teeming with security personnel and numerous planes on the tarmac, even though they arrived well after the curfew." "We did have an alert late Monday night regarding a possible bomb on a Southwest aircraft departing to LAX," says San Jose International Airport spokesman Steve Luckenbach. "The aircraft was pushed back to the gates, passengers removed and then matched with their bags, and once cleared, were put onto another flight. No bomb was found." Even more intriguing: "Editor's Note: After the limited reopening of airports to commercial travel, two separate groups armed with knives, fake identification and certificates from the same flight-training school mentioned in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorists, were arrested at La Guardia and John F. Kennedy Airports in New York Sept. 14. One of the aircraft they attempted to board was American Airlines Flight 299 destined for San Jose, the same flight Bingham took. The two airports were immediately shut down again." Some of the more suspicious among you may think that this was a good opportunity to tamper with the planes, perhaps to hide weapons or rig some sort of remote control device Another flight scheduled from San Jose to LAX that night was evacuated and the passengers removed as detailed in the following piece: http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/09/11/911_from_p.php "The airplane was towed to a remote area of San Jose Airport surrounded by the security vehicles, and the passengers were loaded on buses under the watchful eye of armed security personnel." Notice an important point that the author makes: "...the extreme nature of the events of that night in San Jose meant that someone knew something about a threat to U.S. airliners 12 hours before the hijacking began in Boston. The idea that this was an isolated event, coincidental but not linked to 9-11, seemed farfetched, since the male passengers who were separated by the guards were all of Middle-Eastern appearance." So there you have it in a nutshell. There was a serious security alert involving planes and Middle-Eastern men the night before September 11th 2001 and the next day 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack involving planes and Middle-Eastern men. www.the-movement.com More on Fight 299: 8 arrested at two NYC airports in security crackdown (CNN)

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.22
iNs@nE
Well, this is an interesting topic..

First of all, I would like to tell ask you all not to jump to conclusions based on some movie...coz even the guys who made the movie know only as much as you know and i know..

they are in the show biz and they will come up with all kinda bull to make it sound real and make their movie sell..

well, now coming to the main topic..is this all the doing of the government? well, cannot be.. coz they were teh ones who were most effected by this..!! if they really wanted to cause some havoc and then take care of it later, they would have aimed at something smaller in size than the World Trade Center..

it had to be the work of the terrorists...i can say that for sure coz they had all the reasons and motives to go ahead and plan somethin like this...
and apart from the Osama Bin Laden actually came forward and took up this blame..

and i dont think a man of that background would do this for the sake of the government of a totally different country..

but one point does amaze me totally..
the pentagon is supposed to have cameras located upto miles around its borders...

how is it that all these cameras happened to malfunction that very day and no one saw the coming of the flight...? now that is something that was totally overlooked and never answered..

if any of you know the answer to that ... do let me know so that i can clear up my doubt for good...
rheanna
I counted 3 FIREBALL Flashes then a pop in this video of a helicopter flying over the south tower before it fell. The guy recording this the N. T was still standing. You hear a military Jet fly by and he was ordered off the pier. Now explain that.

Watch the video from
19:30-19:54 Helicopter flys out of the clouds
They even freeze frame it for you.

http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=3&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=17&epi=103&typ=0&form=1


Coincidence Helicopter flys over the N.T. And then that falls as well. What's cool you even hear the explosions before the tower falls.

On Video 2 (10-10 newscaster)
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=3&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=17&epi=180&typ=0&form=1

Raw digital video that was removed from the internet when all the OnlineTV computers were seized.Despite legal attempts to recover them, they remain locked away to this day. WTC7
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=3&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=17&epi=181&typ=0&form=1

*Silverstein admits to demolitions being used to "pull tower 7" (Demolition Term)

*Discusses the Laws of Newton's Theory
*Pyroclastic surge/flow same as tower 7 as it was on tower 1/2 (Only way to have a pyroclastic surge/flow like that is through the use of explosions.
*No building has ever in USA/World history collapsed over a fire.

Only footage of the plane that hit the south tower. Same footage as the north tower. Same explosion before either plane hits the towers.
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=3&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=5&epi=54&typ=0&form=1
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
...
So explain to me how the Empire State Building survived in 1945?
....


It would of left same amount damage. I doubt it would have made it fall in it's tracks, if anything it would of toppled over left or right not straight down in 10 seconds.

BTW, All I did was give a link to a video for those who wanted to view it. If you don't want to watch it then don't watch it. I never asked for a stupid argument. All I did was provided a video too those who were interested. And I put the facts that they cover in asterisk phases.
....




The reason a small, WWII era 2 engine plane flying at prop speeds did not do as much damage as a modern commercial jet? I don't think that needs to be answered, does it?

Rhe, even a cursory glance at the posts in this topic should have been a clue that people here are seriously discussing (or arguing, if you prefer) the details of all the "evidence". Your posts are treated no differently. If you just want to post videos and not discuss them, then just post and don't reply.

If you do want to discuss it, it would be nice to focus on one point at a time. Jumping to a new point as soon as your previous point looks threatened just seems lame. Pick a point or two and stick with it.

If you really belief this idea on facts and not just gut instinct, let's talk about the facts.
rheanna
You wanted proof that demolitions were used. there's your proof...
*Silverstein admits to demolitions being used to "pull tower WTC 7" (Demolition Term) . Now how WTC 7 Tower falls in (Demolition) is crucial to the falling of the WTC1,2 because it's the same.

Just an FYI, The coins that were recovered from the WTC have the the new WTC that's going to be built on them.. Coincidence??

Silverstein 9 of Clubs
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2004/12/305695.jpg
Vrythramax
I apologize to all involved in this topic, but if it (the topic) can't be held with proper decorum.....it will be closed.

Please play nice people.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
You wanted proof that demolitions were used. there's your proof...
*Silverstein admits to demolitions being used to "pull tower WTC 7" (Demolition Term) . Now how WTC 7 Tower falls in (Demolition) is crucial to the falling of the WTC1,2 because it's the same.


That jpg was pretty unreadable. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the quote.
Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


If we agree this is the quote, what does it have to do with anything? I know I am really stupid, but I don't see anything there except a discussion about how to handle the fires during the aftermath.

Still would like to hear from you about the other points I asked you to think about.
rheanna
I already promised Max I would drop the subject so I'm done. We both pose the same views about the subject. Information is there, it is at your option if you choose to view it. Your not under duress to view the information. All I did was contribute to viewing what you want to know is true. Have fun. Over and out....
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
I already promised Max I would drop the subject so I'm done. We both pose the same views about the subject. Information is there, it is at your option if you choose to view it. Your not under duress to view the information. All I did was contribute to viewing what you want to know is true. Have fun. Over and out....


That's up to you, of course. But, implying that "what you know is true" is quite misleading, isn't? Just like most of the information about there being a conspiracy. Out of context quotes, diversions, ignoring hundreds of eye witnesses in favor of one person, ignoring "facts" proved false. It gets ludicrous after awhile.

What I know is true is that the towers fell. I also think there is preponderance of evidence that terrorists hijacked 4 airlines that day and 3 of them reached their intended targets. I also think the Bush admin is one of the most unethical and harmful to come along in a long time. But, until someone can offer reasonable evidence that Bush & team are responsible, I can't believe that they are really behind such a hair-brained plan. Not because I think they wouldn't but US lives above their own agenda, but because there are easier ways to achieve the same end with less chance of being caught.

@ Blaster - About 7 collapsing, my understanding is that the main reason it collapsed was due to debris falling on it, with fire being only a secondary factor. Is there doubt in your mind about the debris?
Animal
HoboPelican wrote:
About 7 collapsing, my understanding is that the main reason it collapsed was due to debris falling on it, with fire being only a secondary factor. Is there doubt in your mind about the debris?

This is where I start to get to thinking "Conspiracy". Here are a few screenshots:


The site layout - note that WTC7 (the taller building in the bottom right) is furthest from the towers that collapsed. The following photos show the damage sustained to WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6:





These buildings suffered massive damage because the Twin Towers collapsed entirely on top of them. However, they remained standing and had to be dismantled during the clear-up process. Compare the damage in the above pictures to a photo taken of WTC7 before it collapsed:



The damage on the other, smaller structures was infinitely worse that the damage to WTC7. In my last post on this subject, I also pointed out the "crimp" that was visible with the collapse of the building. I think that the inexplicable nature of the collapse when compared to the other badly damaged buildings is what fuels conspiracy theories. I don't really buy the conspiracy theory over the Twin Towers themselves, but with WTC7, it really makes me think. I've not yet decided whether I believe it or not, but you must admit that it is a bit strange!
skygaia
I was told a lot of conspiracy theory on 911. and I also saw the movies of 911. the movie of 911, it happend by Gov., looks very reasonable. But I can't believe it all. I think it's impossible as a human being..
rheanna
Quote:
@ Blaster - About 7 collapsing, my understanding is that the main reason it collapsed was due to debris falling on it, with fire being only a secondary factor. Is there doubt in your mind about the debris?


Fact: Larry Silverstein by his own confession "PULLED" [Demolition terms] WTC7

Quote:
I also think there is preponderance of evidence that terrorists hijacked 4 airlines that day and 3 of them reached their intended targets.


Follow PNAC-Project for the New American Century-Implemented in 1997, you find the hijackers and where they trained. And you'll also find that some are still alive and well. I'm not doing the reading for you. Follow the money trail. You follow the money trail , you'll find the real criminals.

I'm sorry Hobo, but from your statement here. Makes me believe you just scan through and don't even read what's given to you. The facts of the hijackers are online, The facts of PNAC are online. Now, if they were the said hijackers they would be dead. Considering that the planes crashed.

When you investigate PNAC - 9/11 starts to unravel...

Forgot who asked about the Osama tape?
Transcripts of both videos. Original and doctored.

Follow the money trail, You'll find the lie, How you perceive it will be up to you....
Blaster
Hobo i don't think that falling debris would make it colapse. Only because of at what time it fell. It feel way after the debris. Now fire can make a building colapse none the less. But not a steal structure with a concrete core.
HoboPelican
@ Animal - I couldn't get any of your photos to work. Just imageshack main page. Do you have links to the pages? I'm not an expert these types of buildings, but I do know that supposedly identical products (containers, load bearing walls, ceramics, etc) will fail in different ways under identical conditions. Small imperfections, dimensional differences and such will cause one item to fail while it's sister sample might maintain it's integrity much longer. That is why I don't jump on things like one building failing while others, built differently and under different forces, stand. There is just too much involved to make a judgment without the info to do a FEA or some other study. But I would like to see the photos.

rheanna wrote:
Quote:
@ Blaster - About 7 collapsing, my understanding is that the main reason it collapsed was due to debris falling on it, with fire being only a secondary factor. Is there doubt in your mind about the debris?

Fact: Larry Silverstein by his own confession "PULLED" [Demolition terms] WTC7


Show me the quote where he said that. The quote I found and that you posted was just him talking to an official discussing getting the firemen to safety and not trying to save the building. No implication of demolition at all. You are simple misquoting him and making your own interpretation.



Quote:
Quote:
I also think there is preponderance of evidence that terrorists hijacked 4 airlines that day and 3 of them reached their intended targets.


Follow PNAC-Project for the New American Century-Implemented in 1997, you find the hijackers and where they trained. And you'll also find that some are still alive and well. I'm not doing the reading for you. Follow the money trail. You follow the money trail , you'll find the real criminals.

I'm sorry Hobo, but from your statement here. Makes believe you just scan through and don't even read what's given to you. The facts of the hijackers are online, The facts of PNAC are online. 911 commission fails to omit the hijackers, FBI fail to take them off the site even though their still alive. Now, if they were the said hijackers they would be dead. Considering that the planes crashed. Very few out of the 19 hijackers, I think 9 are dead and 10 are alive. ??

Sorry, Rhe, I really have a hard time understanding what you are trying to get across. What am I supposed to read about the PNAC? All you are doing is posting vague hints but no facts here. Am I supposed to read everything about them? Come on, Rhe, if you have facts, post them. You can make this personal if you want, but I just want to see facts.

Hijackers alive??? Post a reference, please! This is the sort of random accusations that make people laugh off the conspiracy.

Please, I beg anyone who thinks there is a shred of possibility that it was a conspiracy (by Bush admin) to explain WHY they would do this in the way put forward. Announcing a power outage to hide bombs in one building, using an easily identifiable bomber instead of a commercial jet, allow the supposed hijackers to walk around (they killed US citizens, why not those terrorists), and I suppose they killed all the people on the actual planes to keep them quiet. I really would like to hear an explanation for all those dumb moves when they could have got the same effect (support for Bush's war) by a nerve gas attack in a NY subway, a truck bomb in the Holland Tunnel, bomb a dam, any of a thousand other atrocities that would have been simpler and less likely to come back on them.
rheanna
Laughing I can see where this is going. Do your own reference and look up. You choose not read the facts that's your problem. Everything is laid out for you black and white online and including the 20 year history of Osama with the Bush's. Even if I put the facts in here you would still dispute it. It doesn't matter what I say or put, the information will just zoom right by. Everything is online good luck. I've had enough American History for one week. Laughing

Quote:

1) Mohammad Atta
2) Marwan Al-Shehhi
3) Ziad Jarrah
4) Hani Hanjour
5) Waleed M. Alshehri (UA11)
6) Saeed Alghamdi (UA93)
7) Ahmed Alghamdi (UA93)
8 ) Ahmed Alhaznawi (UA93)
9) Salem Alhamzi (AA77)
10) Khalid Al-Midhar
11) Nawaq Alhamzi
12) Abdulaziz Alomari
14) Satam Al Suqami (AA11)
15) Wail Alshehri (AA11)
16) Fayez Ahmed (UA175)
17) Hamza Alghamdi (UA175)
18 ) Mohald Alshehri (UA175)
19) Ahmed Alnami
20) Zacarias Moussaoui

Hijackers

Quote:

1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2792830342831749576&hl=en-GB
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Laughing I can see where this is going. Do your own reference and look up. You choose not read the facts that's your problem. Everything is laid out for you black and white online and including the 20 year history of Osama with the Bush's. Even if I put the facts in here you would still dispute it. It doesn't matter what I say or put, the information will just zoom right by. Everything is online good luck. I've had enough American History for one week. Laughing



<sigh>
Unless you have another source, what I find is a early BBC report. A report they later retracted.
Here is the retraction:
Quote:

9/11 conspiracy theory

* Steve Herrmann
* 27 Oct 06, 11:33 AM


A graphic of the BBC News websiteA five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.


Unless you have other sources, I think we can discount this as another twisted factiod. Is there any other evidence that they are alive?

I really wish you would quit making innuendos about my ignoring facts. I've tried to discuss every single point you've brought up, but, when I do, you just change the subject. And when I've asked you to explain aspects of your conspiracy, you ignore them.

I am starting to think you don't really believe the conspiracy yourself, but are just trying to make the conspiracy theorists look bad.
rheanna
HoboPelican wrote:



<sigh>
Unless you have another source, what I find is a early BBC report. A report they later retracted.
Here is the retraction:
9/11 conspiracy theory

* Steve Herrmann
* 27 Oct 06, 11:33 AM


Your really going to take the viewpoints of a BBC report as a fact? Honestly?? I don't find any news from BBC credible. Not after them saying that the WTC 7 Collapsed while it's still standing there behind them for over 20 minutes. Then she gets cut off air 5 minutes before it collapses. What I also find so funny is how does she even know what an Atom Bomb destruction looks like? Is she an expert. She would be fried to a crisp if she was present during an Atom Bomb story.

Have you seen this video
go to 14:40

LIVE from BBC WTC 7 Collapse Story. So who told them it was going to collapse and how did they get storyline so perfect when it hadn't even collapsed yet? Forewarned Knowledge that's how...*Now you have to remember everyone is in a state of shock..Their not...(Pre written Script)
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:



<sigh>
Unless you have another source, what I find is a early BBC report. A report they later retracted.
Here is the retraction:
9/11 conspiracy theory

* Steve Herrmann
* 27 Oct 06, 11:33 AM


Your really going to take the viewpoints of a BBC report as a fact? Honestly?? I don't find any news from BBC credible......


Really? Well, the BBC is the source for the quote saying the terrorists were still alive in the first place (look at the sources quoted on pro-conspiracy sites). Of course, like I said before, if you have another source, post it. Show us all a credible source saying that they are alive.
rheanna
Look, I've proved my case numerous of times..Not making this personal but I'm done. Have fun. Cool
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Look, I've proved my case numerous of times..Not making this personal but I'm done. Have fun. Cool


You have not proven a thing, my dear. No one has. But go in peace.

I hate quoting myself, but this is something I really would like to have addressed by the pro-conspiracy faction.
Quote:

Please, I beg anyone who thinks there is a shred of possibility that it was a conspiracy (by Bush admin) to explain WHY they would do this in the way put forward. Announcing a power outage to hide bombs in one building, using an easily identifiable bomber instead of a commercial jet, allow the supposed hijackers to walk around (they killed US citizens, why not those terrorists), and I suppose they killed all the people on the actual planes to keep them quiet. I really would like to hear an explanation for all those dumb moves when they could have got the same effect (support for Bush's war) by a nerve gas attack in a NY subway, a truck bomb in the Holland Tunnel, bomb a dam, any of a thousand other atrocities that would have been simpler and less likely to come back on them.


To me this is one of the biggest flaws in the whole idea.
rheanna
Court Documents May 2001
in the 1998 US embassy bombings case.
U.S. Vs. Usama Bin Laden
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-38.htm

*looks like he silthered on by.....For those who want to read it...Deals about Usama and 4 months up to the darn attack. Rolling Eyes

Paradox:
Quote:
During the attacks, ‘President’ George Jr. was reading a book with school children about goats! (Scapegoats?)
Laughing
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Court Documents May 2001
in the 1998 US embassy bombings case.
U.S. Vs. Usama Bin Laden
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-38.htm

*looks like he silthered on by. 4 months later....


And this roughly 60 pages of court documents tells us what about the topic? I searched for various keywords in that text and only once did I see a mention of the World Trade Center.
Quote:

2 He

3 is asked explicitly, many Americans believe that fighting army

4 to army like what happened in Afghanistan is heroic for either

5 army, but setting off bombs, killing civilians and incidents

6 like the World Trade Center is terrorism.
Doesn't really have anything to do with topic, does it?

If there is something there that has a bearing on the topic, please post an excerpt or a page number.
rheanna
Cool

One Question: In your opinion who do you think is behind 9/11?
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Cool

One Question: In your opinion who do you think is behind 9/11?


Not the US government. I tend to go with Islamic terrorists, but I haven't a clue as to at what level it was planned.


Now, in fairness, answer one of mine. Why do you think they put explosives in the building they crashed a military jet into instead of using a commercial jet with explosives inside?
rheanna
HoboPelican wrote:

Why do you think they put explosives in the building they crashed a military jet into instead of using a commercial jet with explosives inside?


Be back in a couple days with that answer. Going to take me forever just to write thesis about this. Laughing There's too many people involved.

**Testimony at the 9/11 commission hearing**
"What Motivated the Hijackers"-lol they had the guy removed during the hearing. Their response
"America's Policy Choices have Consequences"
rheanna
Quote:

"Critical thinking of 9/11-Snowed to Contention"
Written by "Rheanna" Inspired by Hobopelican, I had nothing to do anyway. * This is not to be used for your homework assignments. Do your own work and study your own chit.

With the overwhelming information surrounding 9/11, I have viewed the live footage, which I consider to be the most "crucial and damning evidence surrounding the World Trade Center attacks". To my knowledge, I would inquire about the circumstances underlying the events. I won't go as far as saying that the [1] Bush Administration [Listen to his speech, then continue], CIA, and FBI were at total fault but I will say that the Bush administration, CIA, and FBI had some a foreknowledge in the situation and used it for their gain.


On this live videotape you will notice a [2] [right at the beginning-just keep replaying it and you’ll see it] an unexplained flash before the first plane hits the building. Something went off before that plane ever hit. But, the news said different. Then, an [ABC’s footage confirms Rick’s footage below. The second video freeze frame is a lot clearer.] [3] video , ([4] possible demolition ]). While the towers are still standing tall you can see flashes going off in a downward motion. Also, in another specific 9/11 footage [5] videotape by [Rick] , beginning of the video, starts at 21:25 [Freeze Frame Footage], 19:00 [For Live Footage]. It will prove that three bright flashes and two semi-bright flashes are dropped “on top” of the WTC 1 South Tower and lastly before the helicopter exits the South Tower you hear a pop. Right before you know it the South Tower crumbles to it's fate. The attacks are now were well over with. Now, I don't know about you but nothing just falls from the sky especially when it's just higher then a skyscraper. It certainly it didn't look like a bird or a meteorite to me. Hypothetical speaking, if something fell from the atmosphere like a "meteorite" per says then that would explain the collapse of the South Tower. Does that look like a flash or a meteorite? What seems more obvious then the other? Very few people noticed it. I would really like to see someone disprove the flashes coming out of that helicopter and onto the South Tower and the flashes coming out of those towers in a downward motion. If you noticed at first the news covered it but I bet it's not on air anymore. Coincidence? Now mind you the South Tower was the second tower to be hit but it was the first one to fall. It would not make any sense for the North Tower to still be standing there burning away when it was the first tower to be hit by the plane. Common sense tells you that. It doesn't make any sense that when a second helicopter passes the North tower that; that too also tends to meet its fate in the same fashion as the South Tower. From hardcore live footage that is what I observed. By, viewing these 2 photos you can see that the towers are still standing so nothing disturbed the U.S. Customs Building WTC 6 unless a bomb went off. i.e. Proof of demolitions. What ever made that building explode in that fashion had a lot to do with the molten metal found at the site. [6] Photo of an explosion of the U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 before the towers fell. This specific building got little attention from the media and was overlooked. The towers were still standing when this exploded. [7] Nothing has fell on the [8 ] Video: U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 yet and [9 ] WTC 7 is still standing until 5PM so it can’t be that building. The U.S. Customs Building WTC 6 is nowhere near the South Tower. Now Hypothetically speaking, if anything the North Tower would of crushed U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 that's if no demolitions were used. But that wasn't the case. The North tower is still standing there. Since the South Tower fell straight down then how does this U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 way over on the other side in the path of the North Tower collapse? Seeing as the North Tower is in the path of the South Tower, the South Tower would of hit the North Tower. Then would be plausible to say that if the North Tower came down first and the debris hit the U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 would this only be an explanation for this emission cloud that sprouted [10] 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6. But that's really far-fetched thinking. I didn't see a plane hit it or debris fall on it. Did you? Look again. Keep looking until you can actually say hey, you know, it's impossible for a building just to explode like that when nothing is disturbing it; Supposedly. You may notice I repeatedly inputted "CUSTOMS". CUSTOMS+FEDS+1ST BUILDING TO EXPLODE=INFORMATION TO POSSIBLE HIJACKERS? Nobody has really even ever raised this issue. Why? Guess will never know. You can’t dispute the fact that the U.S. Customs Building WTC 6 blows up well before everything else. You can't dispute the fact of that helicopter dropping flashes or the flashes coming out of both towers. I don't know about you but that didn’t look like camera flashes and sure in hell wasn’t the sun’s reflection. Now let's get familiar of what a [11] Controlled Demolition and what [12] Implosions look like. Look Familiar? Larry Silverstien the owner of WTC7 states with his own admission to [13] "PULL IT" not “PULL THEM” (Which is a known demolition term) on a live interview. There is no two ways about this. Silverstein and the Fireman gave the order to "Pull WTC 7". Fireman and construction workers know this term very well. [14] CDI which is a controlled demolition team were paid over seven hundred million to remove the steel. Did you know that they were also called in for the “Oklahoma Bombing” and brought that building down in less then 6 seconds? 8 Seconds WTC 1,2,4,5,6,7, towers. This is just basic math. Nothing hit tower 7 and nothing hit tower 6.

Now, What would cause ground zero to still be burning molten steel a month after the fact of the devastation? I'll even take this a couple more steps further. [15] From the AVIRIS data collections the [16] quoted from the U. S. Geological Survey “revealed on September 16, 2001 that a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). Over 3 dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature were present in the core zone of the WTC.” [17] OHSA quoted “Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees.” Now after a month later the molten steel is still burning when the towers had already collapsed. Now the question is why? To cause the “EFFECT” of a Coal Scenario one can suggest that it might be a [18 ] “Blackbody” . Blackbody is “An object that can absorb and send off radiation with complete efficiency—that is, it reflects none of the radiation that falls on it. The higher the object’s temperature, the higher the frequency of the radiation it gives off”. To “CAUSE” the [19] Blast Furnace effect, According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [20] Blast Furnace ” is a furnace in which combustion is forced by a current of air that is under pressure”. The towers after the collision may cause a blast furnace stove effect. [21] U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 092447 filed August 11, 1979; Inventors Malone, William H.; Fischley, John; Anderson, Harry L.; Spirko, Edward J.; of the blast furnace stove quote " In the blast cycle, outside air is introduced at the bottom of the checker chamber and travels upwardly through the checkerwork absorbing the stored heat. This preheated combustion air then travels down through the combustion chamber exits the stove and enters the blast furnace." Let’s look at another inventor, [22] Inventor Claflin, H. Bruce U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 4,495,054 filed November 11, 1980; he had the "Method of Operating a Blast Furnace to Extract the Carbonaceous Oil and Gas from Bituminous Materials." Which could explain how it was controlled, vaporized and had volcanic like ashes in its own environment. As quoted by Claflin, H. Bruce comes another inventor. [23] Inventor R. S. Higgens " U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 158,709 filed June 12, 1980 "he reveals how, improved by minor modifications, zone controlled blast furnaces can be operated either as highly efficient hot metal producing blast furnaces utilizing heat and reducing gas produced externally to reduce their consumption of high-priced ecologically difficult to produce coke, or in an entirely different manner to produce maximum quantities of specification gases from low-cost sources such as low grade coal or lignite and recycled top gases. In gas mode operations, no coke is charged and the iron oxide charge is very small or zero. The amount of CO in the gas converted to CO.sub.2 in the reduction of iron oxides is small, improving the Btu content of the exit gases, and the heat that would have been employed to melt the iron is largely consumed in the endothermic reactions involved in reconverting recycled CO.sub.2 to CO and H.sub.2 O to H.sub.2 and CO." To sum it up, air, gases rose from the bottom of the towers traveling upwards then when it collapsed came back down faster then it should of. Creating a pressure of a blast effect. Making the clouds seem like a volcano just erupted and causing ground zero to molt for a month. The clouds alone looked like you were watching fireworks go off, [indication of explosives-Ever watch Munich?] Let’s take another look at the cloud formation of when the towers came down looks like a NASA Shuttle just lifted off. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. According to, “Newton's Law of Gravitation” those towers fell faster then gravity. Newton’s Law did however seem to coincide with the fact of how they burned. Like coals on a fire. In my finding it's just improbable and inconceivable. It is an undoubtedly fact that planes were used; no question about it but it is a major possibility planes were used in conjunction with demolition and should not be dismissed by one's demeanor. In my finding yes, demolitions were used in the towers. Why else would Larry Silverstein pay seven hundred million dollars to a demolition team?

Soon, I will answer your question as how the bombs were able to be placed in the building.

[28 ] Famous Bush Quotes :

1[29] Evil has found a willing servant
2It would be a heck of a lot easier to be a dictator than work in a democracy. (1996 - referenced in J.H. Hatfield's "Fortunate Son", when Bush was governor of Texas - date unknown)
3.Yes I'm distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel. For those who yearn for peace in the Middle East, for those in the Arab lands, for those in Europe, for those all around the world who yearn for peace, we must do everything we possibly can to stop the terror. There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started. We must not let them. For the sake of humanity, for the sake of the Palestinians who suffer, for the sake of the Israelis who are under attack, we must stop the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Now watch my drive. -- Dubya takes a moment from his golf game to comment on a terrorist attack in Israel that claimed 9 lives, Kennebunkport, Maine, Aug. 4, 2002
4.You f***ing son of a bitc*. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this. -- Dubya on a charm offensive with Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt, Dallas, Texas, Apr. 9, 1986
5.The definition of a patriot in the face of the evil done to America is to serve something greater than yourself in life, is to help somebody in need, is to love a person one at a time, as we remember that -- which I know we will. -- All I can say is "Wow." Manchester, New Hampshire, Oct. 5, 2002
6.I propose that every city have a telephone number 119 -- for dyslexics who have an emergency. -- Nugget of wisdom from Dubya, date unknown
7.You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier. (Jul. 1, 1998)
8.If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator. (Shortly after his contentious victory in the Supreme Court that resulted in his becoming president - Dec. 18, 2000)
9.A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it. (Jul. 26, 2001)
10.It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance. We are beginning to see some success in opening up federal coffers for faith-based programs. (Jan. 15, 2004)
11.We got attacked in 9/11. And then corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface, which created a -- a lack of confidence in the system. And then we had the drumbeat to war. Remember on our TV screens -- I'm not suggesting which network did this -- but it said, "March to War," every day from last summer until the spring -- "March to War, March to War." That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, "March to War" all the time. (Aug. 1, 2003)
12.After all he [Al Gore] claimed he invented the Internet. But if he's so smart, how come every Internet address begins with "Dubya"? -- Dubya keeping the room in stitches, Nov. 4, 2000 My favorite…
13.Conspiracy theories abound in American politics. I don't even need to be subliminabable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs. -- Sep. 12, 2000
14.There ought to be limits to freedom.-- In reference to the parody site gwbush.com, May 21, 1999
15.This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nukyular arsenals aimed at each other to keep the peace. That's what we were certain of... You see, even though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. We're certain that even though the 'evil empire' may have passed, evil still remains. We're certain there are people that can't stand what America stands for... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this, too -- I'm certain to maintain the peace, we better have a military of high morale, and I'm certain that under this administration, morale in the military is dangerously low. -- Washington Post, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 31, 2000
16.When we came into office, the country was in recession. And we started getting better, the economy was getting a little better, then the enemy hit us. And then we had some corporate scandals, we had some people in our society who forgot what it means to be a responsible citizen -- they didn't tell the truth to their shareholders and their employees, and that affected the people's confidence. And then on your TV screens you saw the words "March to war," which is not a very conducive phrase for economic development. (Aug. 26, 2003)


Footnote References:
[1] Bush Administration
[2] [right at the beginning-just keep replaying it and you’ll see it] unexplained flash
[3] 9/11stealth - WTC - More BlackOps PsyOps Flashes - ABC - PBS
[4] Transcript of Professor Abolhassan AstanenAs
[5] videotape by [Rick]
[6] [img=http://rheanna.frih.net/images/explode.jpg] Photo of an explosion of the U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 before the towers fell. [/img]
[7] [img=http://rheanna.frih.net/images/explode1.jpg] Photo 2, [/img]
[8 ] Video: [url=http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=8&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=72&epi=230&typ=0&form=1] U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6

[9] WTC 7
[10] 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6
[11] Controlled Demolition
[12] Implosions
[13] Larry Silverstein "PULL IT" not “PULL THEM”
[14] CDI
[15] From the AVIRIS data collections
[16] quoted from the U. S. Geological Survey
[17] OHSA
[18 ] “Blackbody” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[19] Blast Furnace effect,
[20] “Blast Furnace” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[21] U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 092447 filed August 11, 1979; Inventors Malone, William H.; Fischley, John; Anderson, Harry L.; Spirko, Edward J.; of the blast furnace stove
[22] Inventor Claflin, H. Bruce
[23] Inventor R. S. Higgens " U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 158,709 filed June 12, 1980
[24][img=http://rheanna.frih.net/images/fema.jpg] FEMA-google [/img]
[25] Bill Kristol on the Colbert Report
[26] September 9/11 Surprise
[27] Open your Minds and learn some History-9/11 News Special
[28 ] Famous Bush Quotes
[29]Secret Evil- Evil has found a willing servant

*I wanted to leave it open, so I removed some text of what I put in there. I wanted to stick with the facts of the demolitions findings. In my next article it will who had access to the towers to place the demolitions.

“Part I” "Critical thinking of 9/11-Snowed to Contention" [Demolitions Findings]
Thank you for reading
Rheanna


Cool I spent a lot of time doing this so please don't skim it.
Dedicated to Hobopelican
Vrythramax
errr....I think you have your hands full Hobo.

*Max backs slowly away with hands in plain site*
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
...
With the overwhelming information surrounding 9/11, I have viewed the live footage, which I consider to be the most "crucial and damning evidence surrounding the World Trade Center attacks". To my knowledge, I would inquire about the circumstances underlying the events. I won't go as far as saying that the Bush Administration , CIA, and FBI were at total fault but I will say that the Bush administration, CIA, and FBI had some a foreknowledge in the situation and used it for their gain.

No argument here. Maybe or maybe not, I don't know. But that is a far cry from them causing the whole thing.


Quote:
On this live videotape you will notice a [2] [right at the beginning-just keep replaying it and you’ll see it] an unexplained flash before the first plane hits the building. Something went off before that plane ever hit. But, the news said different.

Sorry, I don't see anything I can recognize in that clip. Honestly, I can't even see the plane. May be a failing of my puter, but I just don't see anything there to support either side....better copy of it somewhere else?

Quote:
Then, an [ABC’s footage confirms Rick’s footage below. The second video freeze frame is a lot clearer.] [3] video , ([4] possible demolition ]). While the towers are still standing tall you can see flashes going off in a downward motion.

I can't load the 911podcast clip. In the first one, the "downward flashes" I see look nothing like explosions, but do look like falling debris occasionally catching the sun as it spins.

Quote:
Also, in another specific 9/11 footage [5] videotape by [Rick] , beginning of the video, starts at 21:25 [Freeze Frame Footage], 19:00 [For Live Footage]. It will prove that three bright flashes and two semi-bright flashes are dropped “on top” of the WTC 1 South Tower and lastly before the helicopter exits the South Tower you hear a pop. Right before you know it the South Tower crumbles to it's fate. The attacks are now were well over with.

Again, I can't load the clips from 911podcasts.com. Don't know why. But What do you think it shows? Is the helicopter dropping bombs now? Tell the truth...doesn't that sound a little silly?

Quote:
...Coincidence? Now mind you the South Tower was the second tower to be hit but it was the first one to fall. It would not make any sense for the North Tower to still be standing there burning away when it was the first tower to be hit by the plane. Common sense tells you that.

No, common sense says nothing of the kind. The locations of the impacts are not identical so you can not make any inference about which should have fallen first. This is just an example of taking a very complex situation and reducing it to "it seems like" guessing.


Quote:
It doesn't make any sense that when a second helicopter passes the North tower that; that too also tends to meet its fate in the same fashion as the South Tower. From hardcore live footage that is what I observed.

Just out of curiosity, how many helicopters were flying around that day? Maybe everyone a news crew could get into? Not to mention that the turbulence over the towers would most likely have made it impossible to fly directly over towers (anyone here a chopper pilot?)

Quote:
By, viewing these 2 photos you can see that the towers are still standing so nothing disturbed the U.S. Customs Building WTC 6 unless a bomb went off. i.e. Proof of demolitions.

From those photos, I really can't tell anything. But even if they are exactly what you say they are, can you explain why demo charges are going off on the ROOf? Have you ever seen examples of building demolitions where
they blow up the roof? All I see is an explosion. It may be on the building, it may be beyond it. But let's go back to common sense. WHY charges on the roof?

Quote:
.... WTC 6 would this only be an explanation for this emission cloud that sprouted [10] 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6.

This is just a link to a conspiracy site. I didn't see refs to anything substantial or even a video, just conjecture. If there is something there to back this up, help me out and tell me where it is.

Quote:
But that's really far-fetched thinking. I didn't see a plane hit it or debris fall on it. Did you? Look again. Keep looking until you can actually say hey, you know, it's impossible for a building just to explode like that when nothing is disturbing it; Supposedly. You may notice I repeatedly inputted "CUSTOMS". CUSTOMS+FEDS+1ST BUILDING TO EXPLODE=INFORMATION TO POSSIBLE HIJACKERS? Nobody has really even ever raised this issue. Why? Guess will never know. You can’t dispute the fact that the U.S. Customs Building WTC 6 blows up well before everything else.

From what you've shown, I can't see anything to discuss.


I don't want to discount the rest of what you have, but it gets cumbersome to try to debate this many points at one time...it's two easy to sweep an item under the carpet when it is shown t be questionable.

So, a quick summary of some of the points you brought up.

1) Explosion before the impact - I don't see it in that clip. Is there a better quality clip?
2) The "downward" explosions - I just see falling debris catching the light.
3) Helicopters dropping bombs - I don't think the air over the towers would have been flyable by a chopper (but would love to hear thoughts from pilots). In addition, it is just silly. Bombs in the building, military jet WITHOUT explosives, and helicopters dropping bombs?
4) WTC6 controlled demo - The angle of the pics aren't conclusive to me and the time is indeterminate. And again, you need to address why they place explosives on the top of the building where they are easily visible and would not do much damage to the structure.


Feel free to comment on those points, but while you are at it, I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?

There are more questions I'd like answered, but let's stick with 3 for now.

I'm going to move these posts back to the existing topic, since we only allow one thread for each topic.
rheanna
Do you have the latest quicktime? Make sure all your video codecs are updated.

Quicktime
Realtime Media Player
911podcasts uses that.

Explain WTC 6 Explosion before anything else then I'll answer questions. There's no disputing that. Sorry...That proves there were explosions...i.e. bombs set up before those towers came down.

and the flashes I don't know what it is but there dropping something onto the south tower and it sure and heck is no reflections of a sun. Shooting at it more or less. Like 5x times
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Do you have the latest quicktime? Make sure all your video codecs are updated.

Quicktime
Realtime Media Player
911podcasts uses that.

Explain WTC 6 Explosion before anything else then I'll answer questions. There's no disputing that. Sorry...That proves there were explosions...i.e. bombs set up before those towers came down.

and the flashes I don't know what it is but there dropping something onto the south tower and it sure and heck is no reflections of a sun.
shooting at it more or less. Like 5x times


On those clips, I tried all three formats offered. It seemed to be a general issue with the site for me. I'm not sure if I'm gonna go check all my codecs for that site alone.

WTC-6? Like I said, the stills don't give me any real sense of the location or timing of that explosion. But lacking any way to prove or disprove your contention, I will, for the moment, say it is a questionable point. So, let's question it some more. If there was an explosion there, why? Debris falling from the north tower next door (debris was falling before the tower collapsed, right?) or demo charges? The first seems likely. The second seems a bit odd to me. Why place explosives on the upper level where it would do little structural damage and be very obvious. Looking at the two scenarios, why do you find the second more plausible?
rheanna
http://www.free-codecs.com/ACE_Mega_CoDecS_Pack_download.htm

Try that and see if you still have problems.

Did you click the image? That's what makes it start. I'll see if I can't find another video for you like on google.

Here's the crater of wtc 6
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html

looking for actual explosion of 6 right now

squibs on wtc 7 close up
Quote:


http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293140235

Here is the first tower that was hit in slow motion and second aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&mode=related&search=

still looking for wtc 6 that's the hardest hardcore footage that has been taken down from some sites

You hear a blast while the firefighters are making a phone call to their moms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4NOlUF3A4&mode=related&search=
HBO uncovers a blast and you hear it go off

At the very end of this video you'll see an black cloud to your right, wtc 7 is in front of south tower when it falls and the nothing hit tower 7.. but wtc 6 has already exploded and fell before south tower falls.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
http://www.free-codecs.com/ACE_Mega_CoDecS_Pack_download.htm

Check that tomorrow. Late here now.
Quote:

Did you click the image?

LOL. I hope that wasn't an insult! I know how to play a clip!Smile

Quote:
Here's the crater of wtc 6
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html

Not relevant....there being ruble proves nothing.

Quote:

squibs on wtc 7 close up

You never addressed the possibility of pressure created by "pancaking".

Quote:
Here is the first tower that was hit in slow motion and second aircraft.

Again, what is the point of this clip?

I addressed 4 of your points, any rebuttals? And any answers to the 3 issues I asked you to discuss? Let's try to stay focused on these points for a bit, ok?
rheanna
no that wasn't an insult that's how you have to start the video on 911podcast...

Best footage for hardcore live footage of blasts going off before those towers came down, well below where the planes crashed. Heart of NYC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOja0Bw9RE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv631MjMmgs&mode=related&search=
explain the black cloud... after that rumble...then i'll answer your questions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4NOlUF3A4&mode=related&search=
At the very end of this video you'll see an black cloud to your right, wtc 7 is in front of south tower when it falls and the nothing hit tower 7 because that falls at 5PM.. but wtc 6 has already exploded and fell before south tower falls. That's proof enough.

Tower 6 is well far away from those 2 towers to have already go up in flames. Watch this video REAL CLOSE! 2:18-20 It shows WTC6 exploding, but it's edit real quick, this is best live footage I can find live without it being on 911podcasts.com and unbiased.....Notice how far it is from the towers itself... Nothing is disturbing that building..NO PLANES!...Bombs??... yes...But that's one heck of a bomb to make an explosion like that. . You can see the formation. Pause that video at 2:20 then it disappears because everyone has to remove towers 6's explosion to disprove that explosives were used. I've showed you 2 angles from that point of view. This is another angle but from a far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbGhjuOi9F4&mode=related&search=
**why does the newscaster say at the beginning "over and out"..He got cut off on air...

Super slow motion of the plane flashes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri7rZ6Bi6C8&mode=related&search=

*3 people state it wasn't an American airline

Super slow Motion of plane 2 and the color of plane 2(no shadows, no windows on the plane)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4gvfNtzcBw&mode=related&search=
the point of this clip is the slow motion that flashes went off before those planes ever hit those towers! It's right there on live footage. if you have to look at it 50 times to notice it then look at 50 times. Do it in slow motion. Pause every 2 seconds if you have too but it's there. I tried to find the most unbiased hard core footage for you to open you mind up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilQqplk1p2U&mode=related&search=
*Listen to the first guy, the towers haven't fell yet. How do you know because it's not white or dusty looking. This is well before the towers fell.
*Also look in the background for the black risen smoke while the tower is about to fall. What made wtc 6 explode before that tower even fell? Nothing hit it. Pause it if you have to, but the aftermath is there of that black smoke before south tower coming down. When you explain that building exploding, blowing up, demolitions..then I will answer your questions further.
*Keyword=STATE-SPONSORED=FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS

you read enough government documents and you'll know that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*It looked more like that helicopter is shooting at the tower, but you have to see those videos to see the downward flashes on podcast and Ricks video

* I looked up "war" in the thesaurus and got the word contention...now it seems like everyone is using it. I did not get the word from this video. Laughing

**Reason I used "Snowed to Contention"
-Faked to go to War-And that's what's happening...

***It affects me, I almost lost my brother in NYC, and I almost lost my brother in law to the war (he's still re-cooperating-was seriously injured). That's how I came up with title. I don't care about the debunking site or the sites with the statistics. I just want the truth.
PSUVikings
Blaster wrote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change

Watch the movie. Even though it is long it tells you a lot. It changed my mind for sure. Try to take a stand on the US government. Lets show them they are wrong. Its time for us to do somthing about this.

It does tell you why it may have been planed years before.

It was brought to my attention of another movie by a user named rheana

here is that movie http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml


I've watched that one and a few other types like it, this is large accusation to make but if it is true...wow, lots of the stuff Loose Change has looked very well done but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around something that drastic.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
...
Best footage for hardcore live footage of blasts going off before those towers came down, well below where the planes crashed. Heart of NYC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOja0Bw9RE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv631MjMmgs&mode=related&search=
explain the black cloud... after that rumble...then i'll answer your questions..


This is so silly, Rhe. I don't think you will ever answer any questions, only continue to post long, boring videos that don't really prove anything that I can see. You don't rebut the responses I make to your points, you won't anwer my questions. Why should anyone give any credence to this?

But if you promise to answer the 3 questions I posted earlier and you give me a time mark to go along with a clip, I'll do my best to respond to it.
rheanna
Quote:


can't tell... but that's a hot flame.
nilsmo
Instead of believing videos like loose change, you should notice some problems with it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
(Some notes here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html )

And the fact that Wikipedia, the international, free collaborative encyclopedia, has agreed upon this for the first sentence on the article September 11, 2001 attacks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks )
Quote:
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States on September 11, 2001.


The [1] points to this link btw: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm

Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks
rheanna
yuh, I'm done. I can't wait for it to come back up in your faces. Going sit back and laugh when we go to the Iran war then China will get blamed for nuking it. And, Bush will have managed to piss everyone off. If you ask me. Maybe we do deserve this chit because everyone wants to be so blind about it. Keep walking and talking like zombies because we are already living in the Resident Evil world. Should be fighting Israel. Not Iraq and not Iran. Done with this subject.
Vrythramax
With all due respect you both of you, I feel this has become a personal mate and should dealth via PM's.

One must think out our younger users, and dare I say impressional users
While I feel you both have valid arguements, perhaps this should be kept in private.

Just my 2 cents.
Vrythramax
I reiterate my previous post....maybe this should be handeled in private.
rheanna
Quote:

The Perfect Terrorist Plan to Level The Twin Towers Created In 1976
Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons
9 Mar 2005

By Greg Szymanski

The laundry list of terrorist warnings handed to the Bush administration
prior to 9/11 makes the President and others look like "bumbling idiots or a bunch of conniving criminals" responsible for the mass murders at the Twin Towers and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are the harsh words of Timothy McNiven, an outspoken critic of the
President's handling of 9/11 and a 29-year U.S. Defense Department operative still under contract with the government

He says not only did the Bush administration purposely ignore Al Queda in the months preceding the WTC attacks, but the situation is even more disturbing, considering his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11.

McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related
federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.

The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to
identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario.

The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army,
stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security.

To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector
test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders
given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.

The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long
Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target.

McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."

"I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario of the supposed study from a 100 story building to the Twin Towers," recalled McNiven, emphasizing that Lt. Teague was acting on specific orders from unknown superiors.

"He then said he thought it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town. But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976."

Since that ominous realization, McNiven has devoted his entire life to
alerting the American public about the similarities between 9/11 and the 1976 study without much success, his story basically being ignored by politicians and the mainstream media.

"Why am I doing this? Why have I spent every waking hour trying to bring this story to the American people?" asked McNiven, claiming he still is following a strange direct military order given to him more than 25 years ago.

"During the course of the terrorist plan we were devising, I made the
statement to Lt. Teague that if the WTC was ever attacked like we planned, I'd go public. I was then physically assaulted and told never to reveal anything we were doing regarding the Twin Towers."

However, about a week later a strange turn of events occurred. For no
apparent reason, McNiven claims his superiors completely changed their minds.

"I was given the direct order that if the Twin Towers were ever attacked the way we discussed in the 1976 study, I was to do everything in my power to bring the similarities to the attention of the American people.

"I have no idea why they changed their minds, but I was then emphatically told that this order was never to be rescinded - never - because those who would rescind it, would be the very same people who turned against the American people."

Besides taking a lie detector to verify his story, McNiven has made public a detailed list of about 40 names of those individuals who took part in the mock terrorist plan, including Col. Robert Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Sgt.
Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo and many others.

"There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA who were monitoring the study, but I wasn't able to get their names," he added.

Some of McNiven's most recent assignments with the Defense Department include work on the Northwest Drug Task Force and various other drug smuggling and weapons trafficking cases.

Greg Szymanski
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/22580.htm
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/23265.htm (Part II)
http://www.codenamegrillfire.com/index.php?n=8&id=8


GrillFire's Polygraph
http://www.codenamegrillfire.com/images/poly3.jpg

*Seismec Study
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

1970's
*Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense
PEOCBD
jharsika
This is a very long extensive article but there was a lot of research put into it. It's not an official story or anything, just done by a friend. But if you really care to know 'the truth' you can read this stuff and look up evidence yourself.
http://dansrants.onesite.com/
polopolo
It was the government!!!!

Why, look loose change!
And there is also a divx version for the people it want to see it, better qualitty.

The link is: http://stage6.divx.com/Louder_Than_Words/show_video/1005782

somthings on loose change I don't belive.
Look at a populait dutch program, it named, zembla.

The link is: http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf

It is with english subtitles!

But still: It was the government!!!!
j_f_k
Very interesting documentary.

This gives me a sense of Deja Vu. A report was filed to the FBI and other agencies about my impending assasintation in Dallas two weeks before the date. The fact that nothing was acted on gave ammunition to conspiracy theorists that there was some official complicity in my assasination, however what they don't mention is that the FBI receive bogus reports of assasination attempts against the president (in 63) on average once every 2 weeks, and were consistanty receiving reports on. Also, until that day, the last presidential assasination was in 1865, so intelligence agencies didn't consider likely the possibility of such an act occurring. The attitude changed for good after the day.

Parallels exist with 2001. Intelligence agencies receive data on all sorts of plots and prior to Sep 2001 nobody thought such an attack would actually be pulled off. OF couse everything is different now.

The put options being brought prior to 9/11 are no suprise. Unlike my assisination, 9/11 must have been know by a lot of people, besides the terrorists themselves, because of the logistics.

The document brings up that chestnut of hte plane crasing into the Pentagon and seemingly disappearing. This was very big in France about a year after 2001.

The trajectories and everything look improbable. A saw a documentary talking ecactly about this - the upshot was that the concrete facade of teh Pentagon would have bent the wings backwards so the whole structure went through the opening. Think of a twig with brachhes coming out of it being passed through a narrow pipe - the braches bend to go through the hold.

No surprise there was no damage on the grass - the plane never touched the ground prior to the impact.
rheanna
Cute little Article summing up the Loonies in denial. Had me laughing. And is worth a read. Keeps the reader interested. The one in double quotes about the "the little green men". Laughing Enjoy...

Quote:

The Looniest of All 9-11 Conspiracy Theories
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/loony.htm

Written by Gerard Holmgren

For this, it's necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporizing a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is
enough to:

- Completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft

- Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel -- melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel

- Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building

This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporized. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp -- the next -- kapow! vaporized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire -- therefore not particularly hot -- they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they've already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it's physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Quote:


Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in 'retaliation' are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th.



Twisted Evil
jharsika
To whom does he refer to when he says "conspiracy theorists"? He makes it sound like he's ridiculing the official story yet he says conspiracy theorist.....the conspirary theorists in the sense I know (the ones who say it was the US government) completely agree that the idea of the steel melting at such a temperature is bogus. ......or wait, is that the point?!

I find it a bit confusing....
Embarassed
rheanna
I think he's talking about the government making it into a conspiracy when it's a no brainer that it violates the Laws of Newton and how everyone can believe a word of the hoax. Ah, who knows. I don't know. I just found the article funny and he worded it. lol ;o)
HoboPelican
Quote:
I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?

There are more questions I'd like answered, but let's stick with 3 for now.


Come on, all you conspiracy lovers, tell us why! If you want us to belief, give us an explanation!
DareDevilCP
I think it was the government because I mean people just dont attack for no reason and the way it happened and how bad the attack was, the governement had to do something to piss them off to go this far.I mean I never in my life seen someone do so much damage or evil unless it was because they felt attacked or were attacked in some way.The secret military missions the government hides from us.Too bad its not like Vietnam and the other wars they use to show on TV to the public.
ReubenWilliams
And I don't really like the idea. Its very horrible, but there are precednts, albeit much smaller scale ones. The american government famously created propoganda in order to galvanise the public into a war on vietnam.
HoboPelican
ReubenWilliams wrote:
And I don't really like the idea. Its very horrible, but there are precednts, albeit much smaller scale ones. The american government famously created propoganda in order to galvanise the public into a war on vietnam.


I don't think I have any misconceptions about the level of morals our leaders can sink to. I think it is pretty obvious that they lied about the WMDs to justify sending troops to Iraq. But to do what the conspiracy theorists are suggesting is several orders of magnitude past lying, both morally and in stupidity.

Question Authority (but question whackos, also!)
sonu
thnx for the movie links Smile
Handermier
HoboPelican wrote:
Quote:
I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?

There are more questions I'd like answered, but let's stick with 3 for now.


Come on, all you conspiracy lovers, tell us why! If you want us to belief, give us an explanation!


Agreed. Conspiracy lovers dance around raising question after question, but never giving an answer. Can we explain the smoke? It it smoke. There was fire and explosion that day. A helicopter shooting at the roof and/or shooting? There was how many news helicopters in the sky? How many people standing and watching?

You guys can say I am unAmerican, but I live in New York. My Uncle is over in Iraq as I type. Yeah, we went to war for some bullshit reasons. We still got a tyrant out of power and liberated people.

Quit the conspiracy crap. How about not putting the effort into something you can never prove and put it into something useful. Supporting our troops. Donation.

I think this thread has made me sick. I am out.

-Handermier
rheanna
watch the video and see for yourself... It was caught on 2 cameras before those towers came down.

(Helicopter dropping something on the towers (like 3/5 shots) before it fell , soon as the helicopter was out the way 30 seconds later those towers came down after what that helicopter did)

Common sense to create an attack like that takes a lot of money and was very well planned which screams of an inside job. Not conspiracy but common sense.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:

.....
Common sense to create an attack like that takes a lot of money and was very well planned which screams of an inside job. Not conspiracy but common sense.


Not sure if you understand the concept of common sense. The whole idea of it being a conspiracy defies common sense. Go back to the 3 questions I posed to you (that you never even tried to address)and consider how convoluted and easily botched this idea of the government being behind 9/11 is. Demolition, a mil jet, attacking helicopters...this is common sense?

But, no, you won't answer questions, you'll just throw up more videos as 'proof".

Just so my questions aren't forgotten, here they are again.

Quote:

Feel free to comment on those points, but while you are at it, I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?
Utopia GFR
Could be the Government, could be terrorism, could be a mix between those two.

I watched the 15 first minutes of the video and was quite shocked about what I learned.

Conspiracy, cash matters and politics seem to be the key elements to the global understanding of this tragic event.

A good video for people who want to learn more about 9/11 with new insights.
ratfungus
TurkishGamer wrote:
I think it was the government. While making the twin towers fall they took insurance money, the gold, the money in itm and maybe the extra put options place on the twin towers or the plane.They also created a reason (by blaming osama) for bombing afganistan and blaming terrorist and slowly moving into iraq. Another goal they achieved was to lower the status of the muslims. They showed osama as muslim and that he was a terrorist so with the media he practically brainwashed the citizens showing that all muslims are bad (clearly wrong if you have ever met one)

If anybody knows, I heard a rumor that the license plate of NY changed from twin towers to empire state building right before 9/11. If this is true this can also be evidence (I think).Anybody know otherwise or can prove it?

P.S-Please don't reply if you haven't seen any part of the video. The evidence will probably change your mind

Edit:Have you seen a muslim that behaved unappropriate before? (not from newspaper, tv, or any type of media)


Took insurance money? ... and nearly collapsed the world economy, caused worldwide travel chaos (that's still going on). What utter nonsense. Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan wanted a theocracy like Iran. They knew that a military dictator (Musharraf) wouldn't put up with any shxt. What they needed was another state - destabilised enough so they could overthrow that states government, install an Islamic dictatorship - then export this Islamic extremism back to Pakistan and overthrow the government there - Afghanistan fitted the bill. The move to Iraq was anything but slow - one of the fastest campaigns ever (I'm talking about the initial move into Iraq - not the ongoing insurgency). As for Osama - the man had a price on his head before the west ever went after him. And it was Saudi Arabia who put that price on his head. They wanted him, and still want him, dead. Mecca (Islam’s holiest place I believe) and also many other Muslim holy places are in Saudi Arabia. So before anyone in the west (except the intelligence services) had even heard of Osama - Saudi Arabia (the home of Islam) wanted him dead. Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of most non-Muslim countries. Female western reporters are forced to cover their heads or be expelled from these countries - very tolerant. Banal arguments - such as yours - don't even warrant a reply. I am just so annoyed at the absolute shxt you people come out with. Your country has, so far, been refused entry into the EU. A major reason is the appalling human rights record in your country (something common to many Muslim countries). And what about the Kurds? If they get full independence in Iraq, what do you want to do? Kill them all? I have met and know quite a few Muslims (including white Muslims). All Muslims bad? Of course not. But how many Muslim countries have appalling human rights records? Probably one of the reasons many Muslims want to leave these countries. Try making a placard that says not all Christians are bad and go around the cities and towns in Turkey wearing this placard so that you can explain that to the tolerant citizens of your country. And afterwards, please do come back and post your findings for us.
Heart Ticket
Mr Smith wrote:
Your all wrong, it was a plane. Machines WILL take over the world one day, I'm afraid children.


Lol, i sadly agree on that they will eventually... aslong as machines don't kill me i love them

James
Danomite
alright alright, this has gone on long enough and I have to say something, you 9/11 "official story" believers go on and on saying that us "conspiracy nut jobs" can show no evidence to support our claims of what we think happened...where is your evidence? oh right...Guilianni had it trucked off to be melted down and wouldn't allow proper investigators into ground zero...
HoboPelican
Danomite wrote:
alright alright, this has gone on long enough and I have to say something, you 9/11 "official story" believers go on and on saying that us "conspiracy nut jobs" can show no evidence to support our claims of what we think happened...where is your evidence? oh right...Guilianni had it trucked off to be melted down and wouldn't allow proper investigators into ground zero...


I do apologize if I ever used the term nut jobs. That would not be fair statement. I think there ARE nut jobs who believe in the conspiracy, but not all who believe are nuts.

But to your question, talk to the families of those who died on the flights. Look at the photos of plane parts scattered at the pentagon and in PA. Listen to the cockpit recordings .There are tons of evidence that the hijacks occurred. But if you do believe it was the US government....PLEASE answer some of my questions:
Quote:

..., I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?


I keep asking these questions and you who believe in the conspiracy have not even attempted to answer. It seems all you want to do is watch videos and not do any thinking for yourself. Can someone at least TRY to explain to me why the government would do this is such a clumsy manner when there are so many easy ways to accomplish the same objective?
ratfungus
HoboPelican wrote:
Danomite wrote:
alright alright, this has gone on long enough and I have to say something, you 9/11 "official story" believers go on and on saying that us "conspiracy nut jobs" can show no evidence to support our claims of what we think happened...where is your evidence? oh right...Guilianni had it trucked off to be melted down and wouldn't allow proper investigators into ground zero...


I do apologize if I ever used the term nut jobs. That would not be fair statement. I think there ARE nut jobs who believe in the conspiracy, but not all who believe are nuts.

But to your question, talk to the families of those who died on the flights. Look at the photos of plane parts scattered at the pentagon and in PA. Listen to the cockpit recordings .There are tons of evidence that the hijacks occurred. But if you do believe it was the US government....PLEASE answer some of my questions:
Quote:

..., I am still waiting to hear why the government would resort to such a bizarre, easily fallible plan.
1) Why use a B-52? It is too easily recognizable and it is relatively simple to get a hold of a comm jet.
2) Why bombs in the building (power outage is a little obvious) and not in the plane?
3)Where are the planes and people on the actual flights?


I keep asking these questions and you who believe in the conspiracy have not even attempted to answer. It seems all you want to do is watch videos and not do any thinking for yourself. Can someone at least TRY to explain to me why the government would do this is such a clumsy manner when there are so many easy ways to accomplish the same objective?


Hi HoboPelican

I'm from Scotland but I think I can explain why no one has even attempted to answer your questions - it's simple really. In attempting to articulate their answers to your questions they would come to the realisation that they were talking utter shxt. Please see my post on page 10 where I have vented my spleen. However, maybe the US Government did do it and they wanted to cause the collapse of the whole world economy, and put more pressure on their already beleaguered domestic airline industry, and show up their own intelligence services lack of grasp of world affairs, and have hundreds of bereaved families, and wipe out the cream of the NY fire department, and severely damage the US tourist industry, and pay $millions in overtime to emergency services, and put a severe strain on the medical services, the military, the coastguard, and disrupt US ports, and make the US look vulnerable and defenceless, oh and nearly forgot and also put their own people in a state of fear. Then again, maybe it was just some fuxxing Muslim maniacs.
Danomite
I'll state that not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same theory of what happened, I don't believe it was a B-52, in fact I have concrete proof that it was a normal 757 jetliner...minus one small thing, it had radar detectors on the bottom of the plane, I have photographic proof of this too, I can send you photos if you would like. now bombs...I can't say if there was bombs or not, I wasn't there, but what I do know is that fire has never brought down a steel structure, ever, not even once, before, or since, 9/11. I also believe the people who were on those planes were REAL people, the same people the govt claims were on them, now that being said, the supposed "hijackers" were not on the planes, in fact 9 of them are confirmed to still be alive today. Look guys, you can blame it on random muslims if you want to but the truth is, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he's said it, his friends have said it, the flipping Mujah Hadine has said it, the only people who say that radical muslim fundamentalists commited 9/11 is the United States Government, and judging from their OWN record...I deffinately would not trust a word that spews out of their mouth.
ratfungus
Danomite wrote:
I'll state that not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same theory of what happened, I don't believe it was a B-52, in fact I have concrete proof that it was a normal 757 jetliner...minus one small thing, it had radar detectors on the bottom of the plane, I have photographic proof of this too, I can send you photos if you would like. now bombs...I can't say if there was bombs or not, I wasn't there, but what I do know is that fire has never brought down a steel structure, ever, not even once, before, or since, 9/11. I also believe the people who were on those planes were REAL people, the same people the govt claims were on them, now that being said, the supposed "hijackers" were not on the planes, in fact 9 of them are confirmed to still be alive today. Look guys, you can blame it on random muslims if you want to but the truth is, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he's said it, his friends have said it, the flipping Mujah Hadine has said it, the only people who say that radical muslim fundamentalists commited 9/11 is the United States Government, and judging from their OWN record...I deffinately would not trust a word that spews out of their mouth.


Hi Danomite. Couple of points. One you still don't explain (once you read the ramifications of 9/11 on my earlier post) why you think the US government would do this. Two anyone who takes control of an aircraft without lawful authority is a hijacker. Therefore, by your argument, the pilots (being the only ones with lawful authority) must have flown the planes into the towers/pentagon. Why did they commit mass murder and suicide, and why did the passengers on one of the other planes commit suicide/mass murder (as, in this case, it was through their actions that the pilots crashed the plane - presumably to avoid the wrath of the passengers who somehow knew that the pilots intended to commit mass murder and suicide)? Be interested to hear your theory.
HoboPelican
Danomite wrote:
I'll state that not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same theory of what happened, I don't believe it was a B-52, in fact I have concrete proof that it was a normal 757 jetliner...minus one small thing, it had radar detectors on the bottom of the plane, I have photographic proof of this too, I can send you photos if you would like.

Yes, please! Either send it to me or post it here for us all to see. Remember, though, proof is what we are looking for...not just an "oddity".
Quote:
... I also believe the people who were on those planes were REAL people, the same people the govt claims were on them, now that being said, the supposed "hijackers" were not on the planes, in fact 9 of them are confirmed to still be alive today.

So, there were people willing to commit suicide for this? For Bush? That may be your weakest link right there. But about the hijackers being alive, I assume you are referring to the BBC article. The one that they issued a retraction for? The one we discussed here earlier? If not, could your post a reference? If it is that article, I think that has been shot down by the original source.
Quote:
Look guys, you can blame it on random muslims if you want to but the truth is, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he's said it, his friends have said it, the flipping Mujah Hadine has said it, the only people who say that radical muslim fundamentalists commited 9/11 is the United States Government, and judging from their OWN record...I deffinately would not trust a word that spews out of their mouth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Bin Laden DID admit to it....here is a quote (out of context, but I think fairly)
Quote:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
It goes on from there, but sort of rambling.

BTW - You say no steel building ever collapsed from fire....that may or may not be true, but the point is that there was impact damage and fire damage. You blow out some support and weaken the rest through heat and I don't see any reason to doubt the structural failure. Besides, isn't that what you are saying brought the towers down? Government suicide agents flying the planes into the tower?

But I appreciate your thoughts on this. You seem to have given it some thought. I also don't believe anything that Bush says...I've said it before and will continue saying it, I think he is the worst thing to happen to the US and the world in a long time. But this particular madness is just too hard for me to accept without damn good evidence.
jharsika
HoboPelican wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Bin Laden DID admit to it....here is a quote (out of context, but I think fairly)
Quote:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
It goes on from there, but sort of rambling.


Question : Where did you get this quote? Who translated it? Are you sure he said it? Did you know the media is controlled? Did you ask him yourself? There is no way to be certain of the truth. If it was actually Osamah Bin Laden, he could have been lying too. You don't even know. A quote/confession whatever, is not considered hard evidence in the court of law. Just a really good arguing point. In this case, considering all information we get is extremely filtered, I do NOT think this is a good point to be making!
jharsika
ratfungus wrote:

I'm from Scotland but I think I can explain why no one has even attempted to answer your questions - it's simple really. In attempting to articulate their answers to your questions they would come to the realisation that they were talking utter shxt. Please see my post on page 10 where I have vented my spleen. However, maybe the US Government did do it and they wanted to cause the collapse of the whole world economy, and put more pressure on their already beleaguered domestic airline industry, and show up their own intelligence services lack of grasp of world affairs, and have hundreds of bereaved families, and wipe out the cream of the NY fire department, and severely damage the US tourist industry, and pay $millions in overtime to emergency services, and put a severe strain on the medical services, the military, the coastguard, and disrupt US ports, and make the US look vulnerable and defenceless, oh and nearly forgot and also put their own people in a state of fear. Then again, maybe it was just some fuxxing Muslim maniacs.


You know there are a lot of reasons why an individual or organization would do this. A lot of conspiracy theorists refer to " the US government" just generally and don't really mean it in that sense, but more specifically someone for example the Bush administration, or those insurance company owners. Anyways the reasons anyone would do this could be:
1) They are rich, the economy's possible downfall doesn't affect them.
2) Noone they know is dying, so what? The people are just numbers to them.
3) They can turn a profit by investing in certain anti-terrorist insurance clauses, and such.
4) When they save the day they can look good.
5) If they have angry hurt people looking for a scapegoat, and the scapegoat is the world's largest oil source.......well it's not hard to convince them who-dunnit

6) The US has a long history of being randomly invading ******.
7) It's not their money being spent, it's the governments and taxes etc. (And non existant money, the US is more in debt that anyone else because of army expenditures! but....who would collect on that! They'd just say you blew up their citizens and invade you! haha!)
Cool The list goes on.

So just to drive the point whoever did this obviously DIDN"T care about all the lives and money it would cost!
Danomite
if you want to read my opinion on 9/11 , go to www.dansrants.onesite.com (if I can't link you because of the regulations I can PM you the adress), I wrote a lengthy article about it on there, it's on the front page, I didn't adress the plane issue because that's here-say, I just adressed facts that are true that helped lead me to the conclusion that this was a plan organised and purpotrated by the Bush administration, Securacom, Silverstein Holdings, as well as a few other random characters I've met along my research. oh and if you don't believe the government would be capable or willing to commit these sort of acts, just read "Operation Northwoods" (apparently they were supposed to have destroyed it but obviously they forgot to and now people can see what their own government does to get the war they want)
HoboPelican
jharsika wrote:
....
Question : Where did you get this quote? Who translated it? Are you sure he said it? Did you know the media is controlled? Did you ask him yourself? There is no way to be certain of the truth. If it was actually Osamah Bin Laden, he could have been lying too. You don't even know. A quote/confession whatever, is not considered hard evidence in the court of law. Just a really good arguing point. In this case, considering all information we get is extremely filtered, I do NOT think this is a good point to be making!


Well, I posted that not as absolute truth, because you are right, to a degree. You should question what is given to you. But I was responding the the statement:
Quote:
Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he's said it,

being used as evidence that it was not terrorists. I think Bin Laden's statement has validity in that sense. As to the source, select any phrase from my quote and google it. I actually found it here.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403
Proof it was terrorists? No. But it is just another little mis-statement used by CTs to support their theory. It isn't a main point for me, but it was brought up by the conspiracy side.
Quote:

A lot of conspiracy theorists refer to " the US government" just generally and don't really mean it in that sense, but more specifically someone for example the Bush administration, or those insurance company owners.

This alone is a big red flag to me. No coherency to the theories. You pin one down and refute it and someone else says, "No, what really happened was this....". It just drags on and on.

Onward....Ignoring the first two points. They are not reasons for doing it, but speculation on why an evil person wouldn't MIND doing it. Not the same thing.
Quote:

...
3) They can turn a profit by investing in certain anti-terrorist insurance clauses, and such.
4) When they save the day they can look good.
5) If they have angry hurt people looking for a scapegoat, and the scapegoat is the world's largest oil source.......well it's not hard to convince them who-dunnit
6) The US has a long history of being randomly invading ******.
7) It's not their money being spent, it's the governments and taxes etc. (And non existant money, the US is more in debt that anyone else because of army expenditures! but....who would collect on that! They'd just say you blew up their citizens and invade you! haha!)
Cool The list goes on.

So, looking at your list:
3) Interesting idea. That should be easy to prove, any references or just speculation?
4)No one saved the day.
5) As I said before, there are easier, more foolproof ways to do this. This whole scenario is more like a Rube Goldberg device, depending on which conspiracy you accept.
6) As irrelevant as stating terrorists have a long history of killing innocent people.
7)I haven't a clue what you were trying to say here, sorry.

The thing is, if you skim this whole topic, you'll find loads of "evidence" that has been shown to be wrong, misrepresented or outright fabrication. How much do we have to show as being bad evidence? Is there ANY solid evidence that makes you believe it was the US? Or just a gut feeling?


Edit to Danomite:
Quote:

if you don't believe the government would be capable or willing to commit these sort of acts, just read "Operation Northwoods"
I never doubted they are capable of considering such madness. But, unless I am mistaken, none of the extreme scenarios were ever carried out. And that is what I am saying about 9/11. It may have occurred to the them in a brainstorming session, but someone is always going to point out the fallout if they are caught.

Not sure what rules prevent you from posting info from your site here. But why not post one item at a time here and we'll look at each in order?
jharsika
Sorry I was trying to say they don't mind that money is going to waste in the war, because it is not their money being spent.

When a country has a history of doing something, it tends to repeat that. Attitudes of societies and it's peoples (including leaders) don't change much over time. Of course terrorists have a history of killing people, but not muslims! In fact it is the Jihadists who are accused, these are extreme muslims not associated with the rest of the muslim world - average everyday Muslims are angry with Jihadists for giving them a bad name. My point was: the US government has an attitude like no other, they believe they can do what they want and not have to face consequences, which is the truth. *


*Personal opinion starts here* You are seeing it today. A fruitless, pointless, stupid war killing thousands of innocents, and noone can stop them.*and stop*
HoboPelican
jharsika wrote:
..
*Personal opinion starts here* You are seeing it today. A fruitless, pointless, stupid war killing thousands of innocents, and noone can stop them.*and stop*


Thanks for the clarification.

but yeah...I hear ya. And agree. But my disliking...lets' be honest, hating the current administration is not enough to accept that they did this thing. All the evidence, on the surface, seems to be pretty clear cut. All the evidence put forth by conspiracy theorists, that I have seen, is incredibly weak and often flat out wrong.

And that is the thing that really convinces me that there was no conspiracy. No matter how many items you refute or show to be questionable, the conspiracy types just ignore those and toss out some other bit. When they run low, they start repeating items disproved earlier as if it was never mentioned before.

Tell me, what do you think when a bit of "evidence" is "proven" wrong? Do you just ignore it? Do you simply disbelieve what was said? I really would like to know.
jharsika
All I know is someone isn't telling the truth and it wasn't who they said it was. It doesn't add up whatsoever. When convicting someone it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have much reasonable doubt.
HoboPelican
jharsika wrote:
All I know is someone isn't telling the truth and it wasn't who they said it was. It doesn't add up whatsoever. When convicting someone it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have much reasonable doubt.


I can respect doubt. So let's discuss the items that give you doubt. What is the biggest item that makes you disbelieve the terrorist theory? And what do you think actually happened that day?
jharsika
HoboPelican wrote:
jharsika wrote:
All I know is someone isn't telling the truth and it wasn't who they said it was. It doesn't add up whatsoever. When convicting someone it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have much reasonable doubt.


I can respect doubt. So let's discuss the items that give you doubt. What is the biggest item that makes you disbelieve the terrorist theory? And what do you think actually happened that day?


It's hard to explain what gives me doubt. There is too much. You've heard all the evidence and arguments before, and they are what give me doubt. I have no theory as to what happened that day.
HoboPelican
jharsika wrote:

It's hard to explain what gives me doubt. There is too much. You've heard all the evidence and arguments before, and they are what give me doubt. I have no theory as to what happened that day.


Well, I won't argue a gut feeling. I have gone with my gut on occasion without any substantial reason. Sometimes I was even right. But in this case, I do hope that you are wrong.

Anyone else feel like addressing this?
Quote:
What is the biggest item that makes you disbelieve the terrorist theory? And what do you think actually happened that day?
Danomite
if you actually read my article, you already know what I think anyways Wink
HoboPelican
Danomite wrote:
if you actually read my article, you already know what I think anyways Wink


But I didn't! I figured this was a good place for it! Where we all could see it. And all I'm looking for is how many different conspiracy theories there really are. Give us a thumbnail sketch of what happened.
ratfungus
jharsika wrote:
ratfungus wrote:

I'm from Scotland but I think I can explain why no one has even attempted to answer your questions - it's simple really. In attempting to articulate their answers to your questions they would come to the realisation that they were talking utter shxt. Please see my post on page 10 where I have vented my spleen. However, maybe the US Government did do it and they wanted to cause the collapse of the whole world economy, and put more pressure on their already beleaguered domestic airline industry, and show up their own intelligence services lack of grasp of world affairs, and have hundreds of bereaved families, and wipe out the cream of the NY fire department, and severely damage the US tourist industry, and pay $millions in overtime to emergency services, and put a severe strain on the medical services, the military, the coastguard, and disrupt US ports, and make the US look vulnerable and defenceless, oh and nearly forgot and also put their own people in a state of fear. Then again, maybe it was just some fuxxing Muslim maniacs.


You know there are a lot of reasons why an individual or organization would do this. A lot of conspiracy theorists refer to " the US government" just generally and don't really mean it in that sense, but more specifically someone for example the Bush administration, or those insurance company owners. Anyways the reasons anyone would do this could be:
1) They are rich, the economy's possible downfall doesn't affect them.
2) Noone they know is dying, so what? The people are just numbers to them.
3) They can turn a profit by investing in certain anti-terrorist insurance clauses, and such.
4) When they save the day they can look good.
5) If they have angry hurt people looking for a scapegoat, and the scapegoat is the world's largest oil source.......well it's not hard to convince them who-dunnit

6) The US has a long history of being randomly invading ******.
7) It's not their money being spent, it's the governments and taxes etc. (And non existant money, the US is more in debt that anyone else because of army expenditures! but....who would collect on that! They'd just say you blew up their citizens and invade you! haha!)
Cool The list goes on.


So just to drive the point whoever did this obviously DIDN"T care about all the lives and money it would cost!


Hi Lynn

So is your argument

1 & 2. Just becuase they (the US politicians (government official are, generally, anything but rich)) are rich they decided to commit mass murder and cause world chaos? What because they're rich and didn't know the murder victims? And they managed to talk all the officials, necessary to carry out this attack, into going along with it and to keep quiet afterwards? Doesn't sound too plausible.

3. If someone from the insurance industry out there can tell me how to turn a profit investing in this way - please post that info. Make a killing - if you'll pardon the pun.

4. You must mean after the worldwide travel, military, terrorist and economic chaos that's been caused, right? So they'll save the dave 5, 10 or 20 years after their administration (Bush cannot be re-elected remember) has ended - yep good long-term plan.

5. Russia and Saudia Arabia are currently the biggest producers of oil with Saudi having about twice the reserves of Iraq and Iran, Kuwait and the UAE having about the same as Iraq - so why pick on Iraq or why only Iraq?

6. The USA doesn't randomly invade anywhere - it's always thought out and planned - maybe not well planned - but planned nonetheless.

7. There is almost nothing a government can do that costs more than going to war. And that often means taxes going up. Governments throughout history have been overthrown because they've taxed the population more and more to fund expensive (in terms of money, people, prestige/world standing) unpopular wars. So, again, why would they do this?
Danomite
ratfungus wrote:
So, again, why would they do this?


From jharsika: Why don't you ask them?
rheanna
Considering that they were dicussing the attacks in the 70s makes me believe our government is behind it. It was a well planned job that any terrorists couldn't have planned without the help from of our government. It's common sense.
ratfungus
Danomite wrote:
ratfungus wrote:
So, again, why would they do this?


From jharsika: Why don't you ask them?


You're the one putting forward a conspiracy theory - that's why I'm asking you. I used to be in the military and was concerned with intelligence part of the time. I think the UK government is far, far better at hatching and executing plots and plans than the US government and the UK government (via it's Secret Intelligence Services) couldn't begin to hope to put together a plan like this. If you put together all the variables, statistically, there is probably more chance of being able to breathe under water than to pull this off as a government. It was terrorists who had the idea, or at least the outline of an idea, but no funding or infrastructure to carry it out. Osama (who is a very wealthy individual) likes the idea, offers the funding, bunch of terrorists go to the US, get some training in flying, US secret services are asleep at the wheel and the rest, as they say, is history.
ratfungus
Here's something you can try at home - yourself. Get two inflated ordinary roundish balloons. Suspend them from the ceiling with thread and some sticky tape. Put the balloons about six to eight inches apart. Now get a powerful hair dryer and aim the jet of air between the two balloons. Now, you're thinking well what the ..., the balloons will just move apart. Well try it. The balloons actually move together. I can assure you this is not because of a government conspiracy. It's explainable by physics. Just like the explosions you've seen in the towers.
HoboPelican
rheanna wrote:
Considering that they were dicussing the attacks in the 70s makes me believe our government is behind it. It was a well planned job that any terrorists couldn't have planned without the help from of our government. It's common sense.


Do you actually know anything about that topic? Are you familiar with the concept of brainstorming ideas? If the fact that something similar was considered 30 years ago by totally different people, and was dismissed out of hand, is the sort of thing that makes you believe in this conspiracy, well we might as well discuss the tooth fairy. That might be a better topic for you, since you still refuse to even try to respond to my questions.

And why do CTs keep saying it was so well planned that terrorists couldn't pull it off? What was so difficult? Do you think terrorists are some sort of cavemen? Anyone with modicum of intelligence could figure out which planes to hijack to be able to hit their targets within the time frame that occurred. What makes you think it required some government mastermind?

@ratfungus - (btw- love the handle Smile ) Please, I am still interested in what you think actually happened and why you believe it was a conspiracy... shows us your thought process.
rheanna
[quote="HoboPelican"]
rheanna wrote:
Considering that they were dicussing the attacks in the 70s makes me believe our government is behind it. It was a well planned job that any terrorists couldn't have planned without the help from of our government. It's common sense.


Haven't answered you because I'm done with the subject. Been mourning for a week now and I just don't want to talk about anything. Been mainly getting drunk. It doesn't matter what I say anyway so really there's no point to even go further. At first the debate was fun and dandy but it's not anymore. You can believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.
Blaster
Sorry for bumping my old topic but I just re-watched the second edition of Lose Change and I still really believe this could have been done by our government. More the fact at how the twin towers came down. I think it really should have taken longer for the towers to fall down then they did... There should have been some obvious signs of stress in the structure that any trained FDNY fire fighter would have reconized.
guissmo
Why would the government do such a thing?
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
Sorry for bumping my old topic but I just re-watched the second edition of Lose Change and I still really believe this could have been done by our government. More the fact at how the twin towers came down. I think it really should have taken longer for the towers to fall down then they did... There should have been some obvious signs of stress in the structure that any trained FDNY fire fighter would have reconized.
The two parts that were interesting for me too were the fact that some of the "terrorists" that were named as hijackers, were not even in the country at the time, and Osama Bin Laden denied that he had anything to do with the hijacking.
achowles
Firstly, Loose Change has been comprehensively debunked already. So using it to support any argument only serves to invalidate that argument.

That said, there are many valid questions left unanswered regarding 9/11 attacks. Such as why the US government failed to heed many hundreds of warnings of the impending attacks from a wide variety of sources.
medesignz
BULLSHIT!

Have you ever seen the Penn & Teller show?
paskifire
This is interesting, I gotta check it out.
Ophois
I hate to be the devils advocate on this one, and get myself labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", but nobody has given a reasonable explanation for Tower 7. The NIST said in 2008 that the structure of the building was weakened to the point of collapse by the fires from "office furnishings". Granted, the NIST is a credible source, and I am inclined to believe what they have to say on these matters. Unfortunately, this would be the first time any modern building in the entire world was brought down by a few relatively small fires. I'm not saying Cheney pulled a lever and killed thousands of Americans, I am far from that idea. In fact, I don't even have a theory on what happened. But I can tell you what most likely didn't happen.

Is Usama bin Laden on the FBI most wanted list? Yes. Is he there for anything relating to the WTC attacks? No. Why? Because the DOJ simply does not have enough evidence to indict him. Someone supposedly quoted bin Laden as having admitted to this crime in an older post. A confession is more than enough for an indictment. Yet, he is still not indicted for this. So, what most likely didn't happen was what we have been told. Most likely, Usama had very little or nothing to do with it, as evidence shows(or lack of). And the details we are being given are skewed, or patently false.

This leaves us a with only a few options.
1 - Usama did it, and he is the smartest man on the planet.
2 - Our government did it, and we have yet to prove it.
3 - A mysterious third party did it, and Usama is getting blamed, in order to justify a war for oil.

Suspend your hatred of Arabs for a second, and consider the evidence. No modern building has ever collapsed so fast, or in such a way as to resemble demolition, from a few small fires(Tower 7). The main buildings fell at "free fall" speed, which would not be possible if the structural damage was relegated to the impact areas. The buildings would encounter resistance from lower levels as it collapsed, making it fall in an "uneven" fashion. Not straight down, in just a few seconds. Hundreds of people heard multiple explosions(eye witnesses are usually no good, but there were hundreds of them, and that should be taken into consideration). They claim that the jet that hit the pentagon "disintegrated" from the heat. Many tons of titanium(engines) vaporized from the heat, but they claim to have identified the hijackers and victims DNA from the bodies, which were apparently more durable than titanium engines.

The list goes on.
I don't claim to know the real story. But I do know that there is a huge divide between the "official" story and the "real" story. Any American who does not demand further investigation, to me, is unpatriotic, given the conflict between the evidence and the official story. So many people say "just let it go", and tell me to trust my government. Why should I? They haven't exactly been forthcoming with information in my lifetime, at least. Because of the conflicting, and lack, of evidence regarding the WTC attacks, Americans should demand another inquiry. We should demand the truth. No matter what side of the aisle we are on, this is not about politics, it's about crime, and the criminals need to be brought to justice. Whoever they are.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
I hate to be the devils advocate on this one, and get myself labeled as a "conspiracy theorist", but nobody has given a reasonable explanation for Tower 7. The NIST said in 2008 that the structure of the building was weakened to the point of collapse by the fires from "office furnishings". Granted, the NIST is a credible source, and I am inclined to believe what they have to say on these matters. Unfortunately, this would be the first time any modern building in the entire world was brought down by a few relatively small fires. I'm not saying Cheney pulled a lever and killed thousands of Americans, I am far from that idea. In fact, I don't even have a theory on what happened. But I can tell you what most likely didn't happen.

Is Usama bin Laden on the FBI most wanted list? Yes. Is he there for anything relating to the WTC attacks? No. Why? Because the DOJ simply does not have enough evidence to indict him. Someone supposedly quoted bin Laden as having admitted to this crime in an older post. A confession is more than enough for an indictment. Yet, he is still not indicted for this. So, what most likely didn't happen was what we have been told. Most likely, Usama had very little or nothing to do with it, as evidence shows(or lack of). And the details we are being given are skewed, or patently false.

This leaves us a with only a few options.
1 - Usama did it, and he is the smartest man on the planet.
2 - Our government did it, and we have yet to prove it.
3 - A mysterious third party did it, and Usama is getting blamed, in order to justify a war for oil.

Suspend your hatred of Arabs for a second, and consider the evidence. No modern building has ever collapsed so fast, or in such a way as to resemble demolition, from a few small fires(Tower 7). The main buildings fell at "free fall" speed, which would not be possible if the structural damage was relegated to the impact areas. The buildings would encounter resistance from lower levels as it collapsed, making it fall in an "uneven" fashion. Not straight down, in just a few seconds. Hundreds of people heard multiple explosions(eye witnesses are usually no good, but there were hundreds of them, and that should be taken into consideration). They claim that the jet that hit the pentagon "disintegrated" from the heat. Many tons of titanium(engines) vaporized from the heat, but they claim to have identified the hijackers and victims DNA from the bodies, which were apparently more durable than titanium engines.

The list goes on.
I don't claim to know the real story. But I do know that there is a huge divide between the "official" story and the "real" story. Any American who does not demand further investigation, to me, is unpatriotic, given the conflict between the evidence and the official story. So many people say "just let it go", and tell me to trust my government. Why should I? They haven't exactly been forthcoming with information in my lifetime, at least. Because of the conflicting, and lack, of evidence regarding the WTC attacks, Americans should demand another inquiry. We should demand the truth. No matter what side of the aisle we are on, this is not about politics, it's about crime, and the criminals need to be brought to justice. Whoever they are.
Awesome posting Ophois and totally reflects my thinking too. I'm also certain Cheney had nothing to do with it. Ditto Bin Laden. I can't imagine anyone doing so much for his public relations as a formidable terrorist, than the United State Government of that time. And none of it based on factual evidence either. Almost exactly in the same style of "evidence" as the basis with which Iraq had been invaded.
goutha
If there is any thruth it will come out in 50 years. So be patient guys!
medesignz
goutha wrote:
If there is any thruth it will come out in 50 years. So be patient guys!


HaHa... No... this forum wants answers Twisted Evil
crossroads
I have seen this video a while ago, about a year or so ago. I found it to be very informative and really changed the look on what I had about the whole idea behind what happened that horrible day. I remember exactly where I was when it happened. I think that when something like that happens everyone will always remember exactly what they were doing and who they were with. I have a feeling that the government had something to do with the attack because everything seems to add up and is in favor of the government. They made a ton of money on it, had the excuse to start a war with another country, and got to become the hero in the eyes of the people and make them agree with anything that they said. I feel that they saw the deaths of that day as just something that had to happen to move forward, as well as the war. So many Americans are dying in other countries and for what? I feel that we have gone so far now that if we left the countries we are in the war would come to America. We have dug our self into a big and dangerous hole.
BinahZ
I have one question on the matter:
What is the difference between government and terrorism ?
deanhills
medesignz wrote:
goutha wrote:
If there is any thruth it will come out in 50 years. So be patient guys!


HaHa... No... this forum wants answers Twisted Evil
I like your attitude! Would love to find some answers too.

Something that has never added up to me has been the fasticious synchronization of all the planes. The pefect planning of all the terrorists getting through customs at the exact right moment, without anyone picking up on it. But most of all it was the absolute destruction of the two buildings and then little less than a dent in the Pentagon. So many questions that do not add up.
hamza1122
byutiful wrote:
hi.. where did you get the video? how realiable is this source?


Yeh i've seen this. and it is very reliable. it's biased because it's proving the US government did it but it's REALLY convincng evidence and they have video footage of the bombings and how there were explosions before the plane even hit the building. They also calculate how some things were impossible to happen and other stuff. You should watch it. and it wasn't the terrorists. America just framed them because them hate Islam and always try to show us in unfavourable light.
achowles
BinahZ wrote:
I have one question on the matter:
What is the difference between government and terrorism ?


During the Bush era in the US the difference was... erm... Americans didn't pay tax to Bin Ladin.

But seriously though. This is getting silly now. After the 1970s attack on the WTC, in which a car bomb went off under one of the buildings officials were worried that the building was going to collapse. From one car bomb. Collapse. Caused by a car bomb.

If you want an idea of how the twin towers were built, imagine you have a deck of cards and you punch a hole through the middle of all of them. Through the hole you insert a straw. Now you evenly space out the cards down the straw. What you now have is a crude representation of how the WTC towers were constructed. They were described as a miracle of modern engineering. A miracle they ever stood up at all if you ask me.

So, yes, given that they were all centred on a single support column with no other means of support at all, it's not at all surprising that they collapsed. And it's not at all surprising that they did fall straight down and didn't fall sideways.
rheanna
Danomite wrote:
Look guys, you can blame it on random muslims if you want to but the truth is, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, he's said it, his friends have said it, the flipping Mujah Hadine has said it, the only people who say that radical muslim fundamentalists commited 9/11 is the United States Government, and judging from their OWN record...I deffinately would not trust a word that spews out of their mouth.


I find it funny, that the people voted for a Muslim US President, and they think that the Muslims are the people behind 9/11. Now, that, makes no sense. Oh yeah, and a simple cell phone call caught Bin Laden? But, couldn't catch Bin Laden back in the days because he was living a cave and was so rich at the time to pull it off. Please. Still think we are naive?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.