9/11

[WhiteKnight77]

Here is a fact, more governments are corrupt than one would believe. All politicans have dirty secrets. Worst part is, we continue to elect them. Sure, the US government has been known to try stupid stuff in the past (Bay of Pigs), and will happen again in the future, but not everything that happens is a direct result of federal government action. It was inaction by previous administrations that allowed 9-11 to happen in the first place, plain and simple. Will a 9-11 happen again? Hopefully not and as evidenced since it has happened, the it will not happen anytime soon. What happens after 2008 is unknown at this time. Hopefully another attack on US soil will not happen by entities outside of the US as Al-Queida did on that fateful I watched a 757 strike the North Tower.

[dickie]

For my part, I meant that I'm starting to get the feeling (like with most conspiracy theories) that it's not so much a case of people seeing things and saying "Hmm...thats odd, I wonder why?" but rather people actually setting out to find a conspiracy, be they opponents of politicians, events or just people who'd rather have an exciting conspiracy than a sad set of truths.

As for a lot of the evidence, most of it seems to be based on a quick google and wikipedia session, rather than actual research. About the Pentagon for instance, movies tell us that when a plane goes down it explodes, huge chunks fly everywhere and that most of the plane remains intact, hence when you see the footage of something that happened in reality, it doesn't look 'real' because of what you have been conditioned to expect something different. Look at any picture of a plane crash, and theres just a load of unidentifiable debris. Planes are not as solid as they look, else they wouldn't make it off the ground, they're mostly a thin aluminium skin over a rigid frame, so when one ploughs into the ground at 500kts loaded with fuel, not much is going to survive. Newton tells us Force = Mass x Acceleration, imagine a mass of an airliner going from 500kts to 0kts in a matter of a fraction of a second and the force is huge, and would be enough to tear apart most of the airframe and it's components (i.e engines) before the fuel catches fire and proceeds to destroy whats left, here, as the fuel is kept in a confined space, as soon as it ignites you get an explosion which would tear apart any remaining pieces of the plane. Hence, it all makes sense thanks to Newton and A-Level physics.

[FA sear]

This is a response that I posted in another thread about this topic.

That 911 conspiracy video would have been more convincing if the author of it had been more objective. The number one rule of journalism is objectivity, and he failed miserably presenting one of the pieces of “evidence†in an objective manner.

The question is raised that there is no explanation as to why the puts on United Airline’s stock increased and he asks the question “what other reason or cause could there be that people would place puts on United’s stock? The problem with this statement is that there IS another explanation, and one that is more plausible.

Middle Eastern money has flowed through our equity markets to the tune of millions upon millions. They may say that they hate our capitalist system, but they sure do love profiting by using it. Bin Laden is a very wealthy, and has many wealthy contacts. What better way to profit off of the markets than to place puts on a tragedy that you just KNOW is going to happen? Now I am not saying that this is absolutely the case, but the fact remains that if you are going to present a theory such as this, the “evidence†better not show any flaws or biases.

Also, look at most stocks across the board at this time. Fall is often a time when the general market is either flat, or in a downturn. Most recent downturns have happened in the fall. The crash of 1987, 1998, and 2002. Also, if you examine a chart of the DOW, there were smaller corrections during the fall, and even during upswings the market is often flat during this time. The number of people seeking downside protections simply increases during the fall months. It is not uncommon for the VIX to increase significantly during this time.

By completely ignoring the fact that there is another possibility, this author puts himself in a particularly bad light. Now before you conspiracy theorists jump all over me, I’m NOT saying that I KNOW with 100% certainty that all of the evidence is falsified, but let’s face it, if you are compiling a piece like this, then you better do all of your homework before you present the evidence in a one way street type of manner.

Either way a thought provoking video, but the one piece of "evidence" that I happen to be an expert in is already poorly presented, so I can't say that the video has the visceral impact that it could have on some others.

[WhiteKnight77]

,,,it's not so much a case of people seeing things and saying "Hmm...thats odd, I wonder why?" but rather people actually setting out to find a conspiracy, be they opponents of politicians, events or just people who'd rather have an exciting conspiracy than a sad set of truths.

Exactly!

[calius]

As for a lot of the evidence, most of it seems to be based on a quick google and wikipedia session, rather than actual research.

And whats truly horrific is the majority have also believed everything unquestioned from T.V ... and who owns that?

Lets assume the offical story is correct. Ok ... I can handle that .. lets just take it at face value ... ok. So ... can somebody explain building 7. plus the fact Larry silverstien who owned it admited they decided to "pull it" (demo it) ... so its admited and clearly shows demolishion. OK ... fair enough they had to do that ... but ....... it was rigged with cutter charges and demolished ... that takes planning to do that to any building, so, any answers as to how they had time to rig it that very day, plus knowing that didnt evacuate or warn anyone?

Building 7 is the kicker among the rest of all the "conspiracy theory" ... bare that in mind.

I understand people want to find a conspiracy ... but its a bit poor to say to all these people making these documentaries ... "sorry mate but you looking for reasons" ... I think you will find the reasons found them first to feel they needed to make them.

How did you all know it was Osama who organised this attack? Where did you get your information about who attacked with the planes? How did you (and me) find out about this attack? T.V and media right? Well did the T.V or media scrutinise and question what you were told while they were telling you or even after? Did those sources give you different (open) views on the subject other than the one only story? So we talk about journalism and investigation but in the same breath defend information from a media source that questions nothing and give you one view only, thats a conspiracy in itself ..we openly talk about corruption and yet will defend it without question based on what we have been told from the sources owned by the people,who are corrupt.

Also ... that last doc link ... have you listened to the news reports as its happeneing over the radio? Did you notice people moments after decribe explosions and the heli's etc? So why didnt the news reports after a few days go back to these peope to find out more? Surely thats the news ..." people heard and felt explosions" .. so there were bombs, but .... now there wasnt ... ask the media they wont talk of bombs? Wheres a conspiracy in the FACT wintesses are repoting this THAT MOMENT? ... point is, media wont touch it and its in your face recorded fact at the time and yet thats a conspriracy? .... thats where I get a bit lost with some views.

Check out how Charlie Sheen has dealt with all this and also check out how hes been treated by media .... google it.

[dickie]

Um, I think somebody is getting the wrong end of the stick here...

As for building 7, is it not possible that due to the excessive force applied by the aircraft collisions (see above posts for physics explanation), after all you have twice the force applied, and the towers would act as a lever in effect, multiplying the force transmitted to the ground, would be sufficient to deliver a shock to the surrounding ground enough to damage the foundations of the surrounding buildings? If such a force was then transmitted UP the foundations of these buildings, effectively creating a mini-earthquake, the height of building 7 would make it more susceptible to the damage and follwed by the vibrations of the two towers collapsing, cause it to collapse, after all, thats how they demolish buildings, they blow the foundations so they collapse in on themselves.

Sounds a whole lot more plausible to me.

[calius]

Maybe I am getting wrong end of the stick, but seeing as there are 2 end of a stick its best to use both. LOL.

Good point mate but I agree to differ on what you are stating (just me though) , then again I would say thats a healthy thing.

[dickie]

Exactly. I'm not out to debunk conspiracy theories, I've just yet to be presented with anything that convinces me. I try to keep that outlook with most things - a skeptic with an open mind.

[calius]

Exactly. I'm not out to debunk conspiracy theories, I've just yet to be presented with anything that convinces me. I try to keep that outlook with most things - a skeptic with an open mind.

Open mind is the main thing in all of this. I may be more floating in the areas of lesser the offical line (much lesser to be fair ) a good balance of all info is best.

[pz3]

I think the gov. has done a very good thus far of trying to keep terrorist attacks from happening...

Its like soccer.

....you can make 200 saves as a goalie but the ones that matter are the misses.

Oh and BTW there is a crazy extremist guy down the street from me... and law enforcment is watching him closely aswell... he has threatened to kill some people but so far they havent cought him saying it to any one so I guess they cant do nothing yet.

very rude/angry guy...

Kind of funny seeing how lame survaliance is.... black van... dark window tint...with cameras in the back of it parked outside his house. How originall lol.

I only notice this because I seen the van at a gas station one day and the one guy had a window open. (oops)

Edited June 21, 2006 by Prozac360

[dickie]

How do you know they're not watching you?

Like you said, parking outside your house isn't that snide, so maybe they park outside his house and watch you! It'll be able those indecent images of sheep you have on your PC

[calius]

Charlie Sheen speaking at the recent Symposium of 9/11.

[WhiteKnight77]

Charlie Sheen speaking at the recent Symposium of 9/11.

The funny thing is, the video you linked to had him not saying one thing. You have to look at a different video to hear what he actually said. Controlled demolition my foot. As the syndicated columnist asked, "When did Charlie Sheen get a Civil Engineering Degree?"

[calius]

Charlie Sheen speaking at the recent Symposium of 9/11.

The funny thing is, the video you linked to had him not saying one thing. You have to look at a different video to hear what he actually said. Controlled demolition my foot. As the syndicated columnist asked, "When did Charlie Sheen get a Civil Engineering Degree?"

At what point WK when I posted that link did I state he said anything specific? Well darn, thats me discredited .. NEXT ! I posted it to show that he was at that Symposium of a link i posted previously. Google to find out what he said (as you say there are fuller clips), I refrain from posting all links to all that because most swamp it with rants etc (which they are entitled to do).

The whole symposiums was made up of engineers and techs and demolishions experts, and general folk, thats what that event was all about. Plus my posting of sheen clip was highlighting that not just joe soap has the same point of view. Plus the fact media hasnt touched this that much over here - Charlie Sheens views and treatment since speaking out about it - (funny that).

As the syndicated columnist asked, "When did Charlie Sheen get a Civil Engineering Degree?"

- So if you dont have one you cannot have a point of view then eh? When did many of the people asking questions? Well, since alot of tech, demo experts scientists have come forward (and been silenced in certain cases) came to the same questions and then submitted there papers and details on this - find out about it (if you want to).

At least they have the balls to excercise the right to say what they have to say, no matter how much they get blasted for it, and still carry on.

PS - your foot is entitled to disagree too

[WhiteKnight77]

Now the link you posted to is "Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones at American Scholars Symposium". Now you are saying he is speaking at a symposium that ",,, was made up of engineers and techs and demolishions experts, and general folk, thats what that event was all about."

Now, there may be an engineer or a demo expert or 2 in that crowd, but the whole thing? Either you or YouTube has it wrong on who was attending that particular symposium that you linked to.

Sure, anyone can have an opinion, but to claim it appeared like controlled demolition without any first hand knowledge of such stuff is rediculous. Does he have any up close experience? I doubt it. Want a fact? To many people would have known something was up the minute someone started peeling back wall coverings and trying to clear areas around columns. Even more strange is that no one called about dynamite (or plastic shape charges used to cut beams) being applied to said beams. Again, to many people to try and keep quiet in a plot to kill them, especially by the government either federal or state. Think about it.

[pz3]

lots of explosives could not just be snuk in.

takes about 5lbs to 15lbs (cant remember right now) of high quality plastic explosives (similare to that used to seperate the shuttle from the fueltank) to cut a standard size steel beam and not to mention the godly amounts of wiring to take out multiple beams and at diffrent floor levels.

it didnt happen people would have noticed it before hand.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Prozac360

[Dan]

What would you do

If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom

What would you do

If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people

Who gave up everything they had.

Would you think about all them War Vets

And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free

It costs folks like you and me

And if we don't all chip in

We'll never pay that bill

Freedom isn't free

No, there's a hefty ######in' fee.

And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five

Who will?

What would you do

If someone told you to fight for freedom.

Would you answer the call

Or run away like a little ######

'Cause the only reason that you're here.

Is 'cause folks died for you in the past

So maybe now it's your turn

To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free

It costs folks like you and me

And if we don't all chip in

We'll never pay that bill

Freedom isn't free

Now there's a have to hook'in fee

And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five

Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?

Oooh buck 'o five

Freedom costs a buck 'o five

[calius]

LOL ... is that from Team America Dan?

Ok WK, it may not be chock full of them. Fair enough, it happened, Sheen was there, that was my point.

Google "Thermite used in twin towers" ref cutting steel pillars (and no traces) and also "Willam Rodregues" - (survivor of basement floor explosions, for more on base of towers explosions and molten steel that was left).

[FA sear]

The problem I see with the controlled demolitions theory is this. In order to have a controlled demolition to something the size of the WTC would require charges being placed every couple of floors all the way down all four corners. Think about the sheer number of charges required for something like an operation on that scale.

Charges cannot simply be placed every ten or twenty floors on the way down. This would create a toppling effect, not a controlled demolition type of collapse. I have seen video footage of a couple sports domes being taken down, and even there, despite the dome shape and unlikely toppling effect, charges were literally placed every ten feet all the way down the structure.

Demo preparations are very time consuming and cannot be done on a whim. To take something along the size of the WTC down, most, if not almost all of the floors would have had to been closed down for a number of days.

The videos are thought provoking, but I cannot see the legitimacy of it all.

The only thing that strikes me is the issue of the missing gold. That one issue really seems like it could have been a crime of opportunity taken by someone on the "inside" (not necessarily Bush, but anyone "high up"). The only reason I even entertain that thought is because there are a number of VERY serious issues in the gold market currently. However, that is another topic altogether.

[calius]

Demo preparations are very time consuming and cannot be done on a whim.

So can you explain ... building 7 that was admitted it was "pulled"?

To take something along the size of the WTC down, most, if not almost all of the floors would have had to been closed down for a number of days.

But a plane its built for taking can, and that isnt burning at temperatures to melt steel? (firefighters radio tapes 70 floors up state they can put the fires out when they report as they reach the main areas). How does that descibe white hot molten steel at the basements of these towers that were smouldering for weeks? Look at the eyewitness doc as regards reports of bombs before collapse (that ould weaken it) and the capturing of explosions from basements on the audio - (google "Willam Rodregues" who survived explosions in the basement.)

Check the docs, links and more info - CCTV and security was messed with leading up to that day.

Im interested with the gold issue (PM me anything you have on that mate).

[FA sear]

Demo preparations are very time consuming and cannot be done on a whim.

So can you explain ... building 7 that was admitted it was "pulled"?

To take something along the size of the WTC down, most, if not almost all of the floors would have had to been closed down for a number of days.

But a plane its built for taking can, and that isnt burning at temperatures to melt steel? (firefighters radio tapes 70 floors up state they can put the fires out when they report as they reach the main areas). How does that descibe white hot molten steel at the basements of these towers that were smouldering for weeks? Look at the eyewitness doc as regards reports of bombs before collapse (that ould weaken it) and the capturing of explosions from basements on the audio - (google "Willam Rodregues" who survived explosions in the basement.)

Check the docs, links and more info - CCTV and security was messed with leading up to that day.

Im interested with the gold issue (PM me anything you have on that mate).

Sorry, but a plane crashing in the open may be like a tin can and the fuel may "go up" instantly, but when fuel is burning in an enclosed environment like a building, the results can be dramatically different.

Firefighters may have been 70 floors up, but what about the 75th, or 80th floor? there can be a huge disconnect between what is happening five to ten floors up in a burning building.

Look Calius, I'm not saying that ALL of the information has been proven 100% false, but let us face the facts here. Much of the so called "evidence" and the way it is presented is very poor at best. Building 7 is a legitimate question, and I'll have to look at that some more at a later time. However, loook at how the options on United's stock was presented, the questions about the remains of the planes in PA and the Pentagon. All very poor journalism by any standard.

Again, that does not mean that ALL of it is false, but it does cast a dark cloud over the whole theory. Once again, building 7 is a legitimate question, and I guess we will continue to look at that issue.

Sent you a PM on gold.

[WhiteKnight77]

I found this tidbit at 911Research.WTC.net.

Reports of molten steel in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1

A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements.

This website has a mixed bag of information, but some interesting things just the same.

[calius]

Sorry, but a plane crashing in the open may be like a tin can and the fuel may "go up" instantly, but when fuel is burning in an enclosed environment like a building, the results can be dramatically different.

Does that not read correct, either it "goes up" instantly or it burns for a while. Does not mean it burned enough to melt steel.

The results can be dramatically different

Sure I would agree to a point, but have you another example of this to show that?

The Dylan Avery doc shows other buildings that burned for days untill it was a shell and never collapsed at all let alone an hour. We are talking Buildings built for planes to hit it and take it too (WTC).

Firefighters may have been 70 floors up, but what about the 75th, or 80th floor? there can be a huge disconnect between what is happening five to ten floors up in a burning building.

True .. but, they never had a chance to get further they sort of died. If it was that hot and only a few floors away surely it would be the case even that far away, I mean we are told this was enough heat to take both towers down the same way right!? Thats another thing .. we are talking 2 separate towers ... falling the exact same way. Also anyone seen the photos of the guy with a white flag (or shirt) stood in the gaping hole of one of the planes hanging on for dear life ... alive in the hole ... if it was that hot he would never have even been able too.

Much of the so called "evidence" and the way it is presented is very poor at best.

Show me some media offical line information thats any better? I mean, they bring up nothing of this not even building 7. The media will tell you they found a crisp passport from a plane that hit the towers ... now you all argue it was hot ... so how did that happen!? But the media will "sell" you that "tripe".

WK ... good linkage (checked it out some good bits on that site too) although that doesnt cover that fact of eye witness reports of explosions, and basement explosions and eye witness reports such as mr rodregues. They were there that moment/that day ... debunk site or not. I mean, we have it on audio that moment from the doc - Eyewitness. No conspiracy or thoery in that.

Oh PS .. Jchung .. good info on the PM mate too, I will certainly check that out .. some of it links into what I was checking out (especialy names & people) thanks for that mate

[pz3]

Any chance of compressors and generators or water pumps operating at high PSIs causing an explosion?

I know 3,000PSI N2 tanks go off like frag grenades if they take a bullet.

Im sure theres still a million other little things that we dont even have the slightest insight into.

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

Fires dont always burn the same temp in the same place... I know this for a fact from 8th grade science class.

Even catalyst such as wind and smoke can make a huge diffrence.

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

Eyewitnesses are just that too....

Check out these eyewitneeses for example.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Prozac360

[calius]

Any chance of compressors and generators or water pumps operating at high PSIs causing an explosion?

I know 3,000PSI N2 tanks go off like frag grenades if they take a bullet.

Im sure theres still a million other little things that we dont even have the slightest insight into.

Good point also. Athough in the basement were was a "bullet" ... IE: who fired it to make them explode ... what I mean by that is, the official story is this was ALL caused by planes hitting 80 storys or more above ... wheres the relation to it in the basement(s)?

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

Fires dont always burn the same temp in the same place... I know this for a fact from 8th grade science class.

Even catalyst such as wind and smoke can make a huge diffrence.

- Not enough to burn steel in a building chock full of it.

Eyewitnesses are just that too....

Check out these eyewitneeses for example.

You and I know thats a cheap shot (funny though ) ... although its a bit of an insult to people that day witnessing the horror unfolding infront of them who reported explosions, entirely different example. (though I cant help but find that clip funny!).