9/11 Loose Change

[adam]

If you have an hour and 21 minutes to spare, this is worth it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

Good watch.

[aesir]

at least tell us what its about...

[ElysiumGX]

Glad it's being revised as more is discovered over the years. I still remember the first edition, and the political debate months ago that I believe hawken started (using very sorry theories I may add once again). I added what I believed may have been the influence behind these acts by (or allowed by) our government. And what role Bin Laden actually plays. No one cared then. Doubt they'll care much more now. The important task during these times is to ask questions that aren't being answered. Over time the general public will begin to wake up.

Someone recently said "the great american discussion is happening on the internet". The government underestimates this, even more so 5 years ago. We will find answers.

[adam]

It's a documentary on information regarding the 9/11 attacks counter-acting the claim of terrorism. It's an interesting watch to say the least. I saw a flash one, which I believe is the one hawken posted, and thought that was OK. This is extremely indepth and educated.

[oXYnary]

There are plenty of points raised in it. Thanks Brome. However, before we go too far. The responding critics to the conspiracies. Has this gentleman responded to the critics as well? Or are these the same disproven conspiracies all over again?

[aesir]

yea, I remember the original flash.

Im not exactly informed enough on the specifics of the situation to disprove or prove whatever is said in the conspiracy theory. It might be all true, or for all I know, they made up all of their facts.

I'll wait till someone more reputable makes the same claims.

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
Has this gentleman responded to the critics as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why it's the second edition. He covered several areas people asked about last time.

[Justin Meisse]

I haven't watched the new one so I don't know if it responds to the debunking article in Popular Science, here's the article for anyone interested: 9/11: Debunking The Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

[notman]

I stopped when this thing went into the same direction as the previous one. They are using documents and testing, in a one sided way to prove their argument. The crashing boeing was part of a study like car crash tests. The documents were all speculations for defense reasons. He's pointing out the target symbols on the trade towers. Overlooking the reasons why it may have been chosen. It's probably on the cover because it's been such a huge terrorist target.

Anyways, I think people should question events, especially when it could be the government tricking the public, but in the case of 9/11, I don't believe in the conspiracies. JFK, maybe, but I think if the government wanted public support, they wouldn't have gone so big, nor needed to.

[Joao Sapiro]

they are hiding stuff, every governament does that on the cost of lives...but they believe they will save more if they destroy some...

oh well...

[ElysiumGX]

Justin: Popular Mechanics got it's FACTS from government sources...many of them admitting that previous government claims were wrong. Here are two of the more recent claims they use as FACT:

[ QUOTE ]
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."


"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Plane liquified, and destroyed. Wing markings, black box, and uniforms?

More info I've picked up from right after 9/11:

[ QUOTE ]
Both black boxes from the hijacked aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon have also been recovered and turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration....according to a report in the Washington Times, investigators have so far failed to extract information from the Pentagon attack voice recorder because it was so badly damaged.

The recorders are housed in immensely strong materials, such as titanium, and insulated to withstand a crash impact many times the force of gravity and temperatures of more than 1,000 degrees Celsius. The data collection devices - which are actually orange - are mounted in the tail of an aircraft.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable.

[/ QUOTE ]


The biggest cause of controversy here is the fact the government can't get its facts straight. That's leads to questioning. Most theories are to laugh at, but something is wrong.

[Campaignjunkie]

I thought some of the evidence was kind of stupid (pamphlets with WTC under crosshairs) or even a little sexist (during the cell call, why weren't women screaming when someone got stabbed?). But some of the points were pretty sound to me, specifically how the plane that crashed into the Pentagon supposedly vaporized from the heat. I think something is definitely wrong with the current explanations, but I'm still not convinced that it's a mass conservative conspiracy within the US government.

[oXYnary]

None the less, why isn't the government being forth coming? I esepcially find the search and seizure of all the recorded automatic camera data from the cameraes on the feeway and the nearby hotel from the pentagon crash to be high irregular.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
or even a little sexist (during the cell call, why weren't women screaming when someone got stabbed?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy didn't use the word "women," what he asked was "why is nobody in the background screaming?" I don't see how that is sexist in the least bit.

[ QUOTE ]
None the less, why isn't the government being forth coming? I esepcially find the search and seizure of all the recorded automatic camera data from the cameraes on the feeway and the nearby hotel from the pentagon crash to be high irregular.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to not being forthcoming, they've also done everything in their power to prevent an investigation. The first foreign attack on the continental United States in nearly 200 years, and they adamantly refuse to conduct an investigation, despite the fact that several of the alleged hijackers are still alive. There's something horribly wrong here.

[Dukester]

this is one thing the internet does extremely well.
accelerates the asanine conspiracy theories fast than would have been possible 20 years ago.

[oXYnary]

Duke.. you know, I listen to the other side. Can you? Will you sit through this? Can you? Are you trying to keep an open mind? Or would you rather have a world view that makes it easier for you to have borders (black/white issues)?

Some of it is just happenstance. However, the facts remain. Im sure a reasonable person such as yourself can tell them apart.

So instead of instantly dismissing this. Why dont you take a step forward?

I double dog dare you.

[Josh_Singh]

[ QUOTE ]
a world view that makes it easier for you to have borders (black/white issues)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well his avatar is a zebra.

[ElysiumGX]

and he's from texas, what do you expect? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Kevin Johnstone]

- Deleted -

[ElysiumGX]

well, that killed it. back to work.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
this is one thing the internet does extremely well.
accelerates the asanine conspiracy theories fast than would have been possible 20 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it about this documentary that is asinine? It raises a number of legitimate questions and is very thorough with the information presented.

What I find asinine is the fact that the government refuses to conduct any sort of investigation. This is one of the largest attacks this country has ever seen, and yet there has never been an investigation. What's even more asinine is how this event has been used to justify a war in Afghanistan, a dubious war in Iraq, and an erosion of civil liberties.

Regardless of whether or not you believe the questions raised in this documentary are valid, Congress should commission an independent investigation of the events that took place on that day. There is absolutely no excuse for not doing so.

[oXYnary]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that if any of you had a point, you would have done like Slamminbeers and gone and started writing a book with the intent to put it out there in the hope that you would plant seeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what this person has done, except using video. I truly fail to see your point. Let me put this to you Ror. Would you rather live in blissful ignorance?

[hawken]

I drove through that town once

[AstroZombie]

I am not 100% convinced that the events went down as the film maker would have you believe, but this reminds me of something one of my college English professors said:

"Nazi Germany happened because no one believed that it could"

Several years into the war, admist all the rumours, Ally troops were shocked and surprised when they found the Nazi concentration camps.

Hard to believe that our own government would do such a thing, but is it possible?

[Kevin Johnstone]

- Deleted -

[adam]

I'd like to see him elaborate on the light posts outside the Pentagon. He said they seemed to have "popped out". Would be interesting to see what sort of force would be needed to do this and what time or projectiles cause that force (missle, etc etc).

Sucks not knowing the truth about things like this.

*sigh*

[hawken]

Back on topic of the case in hand somewhat, the video I posted some time back (which was google video, not a flash video), had my accompaning text that tried to make myself sound as derranged as the video I just watched. When I came back to the thread it was a monster, which really does show that it's still a highly disscussed topic with loose ends.

The majority of peoples responses were in the vain of "just accept it and get on with life" like Ror's comment above. But the ones willing to battle it out and not take it lying down, came up against fierce backlash from people willing to accept the goverments explanation fed through the american news media.

As Ror's states, it's hardly going to change your life, whatever you believe. And even if you are sticking to your guns over what you believe, the possibility of change is so remote that it's not even worth thinking about.

But that's how things change. There is the snowball effect, and if enough people stand up and think "hang on, that doesn't add up", there is enough room for change.

It is my personal belief that this secretive stance of the USA gov is to the negative social effect, and should it change, the world would be a better place.

[StrangeFate]

And yet, it seems you spend more time writing and thinking about this thread than anyone else.

[ElysiumGX]

With education falling behind, the price of commuting cutting into living expenses, and medical attention being kept from the ones you care about...all you need is love.

And perhaps a more effective ruling body to ensure a brighter future for your family. You do what's best for you and your family, Ror. That's understandable.

[hawken]

Post deleted by hawken

[KeyserSoze]

Hawken, I believe he was responding to Rorshach's post.

[hawken]

I wonder if theres a way to upgrade this board to phpbb2?

[PaK]

seems like the guy is reaching a bit. most of the first 10 mins is circumstantial. The video quit on my after 10 mins.

[CheapAlert]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if theres a way to upgrade this board to phpbb2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggested that once during the board outage of 04 and bear said no

probably because he prefers paid software to be more secure

[KDR_11k]

Why?

[Dukester]

Hmm, missed all this deleted stuff. Yap I'm from Texas so that could explain a lot /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I haven't even watched the video and won't since I'm on dial-up, but I've read through a number of these threads on different mb's so I feel pretty confident in my blind assertion.

I'm sick and I was drinking (The Balvenie 12 yr Doublewood /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), but thats nothing new, but it did give the courage to stick my nose in a thread where I had no business sticking it.

Carry on with your discussion, sorry for any train wrecking I might have caused /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Carry on with your discussion, sorry for any train wrecking I might have caused /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post had nothing to do with the deleted posts. What you said was pretty much true; the internet is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Just as it is a source of massive amounts of information, it's also a source of at least an equal amount of misinformation. But I don't think that means everything like this should be immediately dismissed.

Anyway, no need to apologize.

[Frank]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone recently said "the great american discussion is happening on the internet". The government underestimates this, even more so 5 years ago. We will find answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, your comments on a message board will certainly show those government types that you are serious! You're yelling "Yeah! Yeah!" behind the guy asking the hard questions!

Of course, they don't have to answer said questions, so I don't know what you think you're actually accomplishing. But hey, good on you for feeling all accomplished and rebellious and shit.

And as for the 'no investigation' comments, what was this then?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d3/180px-911report_cover_MEDRES.jpg

(I fully expect people to crow about how this was a govt investigation and therefore suspect, which I will happily grant, but as people were claiming there was never any investigation I figured maybe they would realize they were wrong...but then again this is the Internet...)

Frank the Avenger

[KDR_11k]

And as for the 'no investigation' comments, what was this then?

A 180x253x24bit JPEG image made with Adobe Photoshop CS?

[Frank]

Damn! The TRUTH comes out! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Frank the Avenger

[ElysiumGX]

You're right. I'm nothing. I have no role is this democratic government. My voice means nothing. My votes mean nothing. The opinions that make their way through group discussions mean nothing. The talk that finds its way through major news outlets means nothing. Is that your point?

So did they investigate what provoked the attacks, or was it simply because "they hate our freedom?" I could care less what planes were used. That discussion is useless. The only way to know the truth is to find the source, instead of being misled by Washington's buzzwords and catch phrases. Unfortunately there are many on my side of the discussion that know nothing, adding fuel to the fire of those who believe any questioning is unpartriotic.

When a drunk starts a topic, everyone joins in. When anything political begins, people jump in to stop it. Why is it so important to derail the discussion? Is it because you have nothing to contribute to serve as a counterpoint? When the President is asked tough questions, he starts making up words, mentioning people no one knows, or simply tries to make a quick exit. You start quoting books few have read like they're the word of god. Many sections of the 9/11 Commission report are still kept in secret. Some people in the world act as a voice, others act as support. If you have nothing constructive to add, take Ror's example and step out. What can be accomplished is that people will ask questions. When claims were made of Iraq having WMD, questions were asked. Later we find the claim was false, and years later those questions are justified. The administration is now careful of it's activities because the people still play a role in choosing who governs them. Or at least we still hope so.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
And as for the 'no investigation' comments, what was this then?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d3/180px-911report_cover_MEDRES.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a report that was based on preexisting documents, several interviews, and a few investigations relating to the attacks (such as the investigations into the backgrounds of the alleged hijackers), but it was not an investigation itself. It is a report that used information that already existed.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
When the President is asked tough questions, he starts making up words, mentioning people no one knows, or simply tries to make a quick exit.

[/ QUOTE ]

When has the President been asked a tough question? VERY rarely is he ever asked a tough question, since he surrounds himself with staged audiences who read their questions off of a Whitehouse teleprompter (I mean that as a metaphor, of course... I'm not suggesting that they literally read their questions off of a teleprompter, but they are scripted).

[hawken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone recently said "the great american discussion is happening on the internet". The government underestimates this, even more so 5 years ago. We will find answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, your comments on a message board will certainly show those government types that you are serious! You're yelling "Yeah! Yeah!" behind the guy asking the hard questions!

Of course, they don't have to answer said questions, so I don't know what you think you're actually accomplishing. But hey, good on you for feeling all accomplished and rebellious and shit.

And as for the 'no investigation' comments, what was this then?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d3/180px-911report_cover_MEDRES.jpg

(I fully expect people to crow about how this was a govt investigation and therefore suspect, which I will happily grant, but as people were claiming there was never any investigation I figured maybe they would realize they were wrong...but then again this is the Internet...)

Frank the Avenger

[/ QUOTE ]

yes lovely, a report that took years and is hald blacked out and written by bushes cousin.

believe at your own peril

[Eric Chadwick]

my tin foil hat is very comfortable.

[KDR_11k]

Just make sure it's not actually aluminium foil, that amplifies the brain control waves.

[ElysiumGX]

and aluminum can be absorbed into the body and collected in the brain over time, leading to dysfunction of impulses.

[LordScottish]

[ QUOTE ]

Hard to believe that our own government would do such a thing, but is it possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have enough time to read me into this, but I would wonder what the motives for such an assasin would be. When it comes to JFK we have the motive to enter a war quicker for idealistic reasons (Stop the so called domino effect of communist countries) or economical reasons (rather not, since at that time many scientific studies have shown that war does not necessarily pay out from an economical point of view).
What are the motives here? To attack Afghanistan? Why exactly? The oil obviously isn't the reason as the US are still bound to public international law and can't simply rob oil. And since the war the oil export of Afghanistan and Iraq have decreased, which is a bad result for any country depending on import oil.
Any suggestions?

[Eric Chadwick]

more tin!

[Moz]

Just a question, how many people actually watched the whole movie? And all the so called tin foilers, how many of you actually read the 9/11 commission?

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
how many of you actually read the 9/11 commission?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's available online as a free PDF.

and of course I watched the whole video.

[swampbug]

Just watched it.. Interesting stuff. Opened my eyes to a totally new angle. The vid seams the most plausable to me.

very scary.

[Eric Chadwick]

I don't care enough to spend the time... I'm just poking a little because you guys are so serious about it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MoP]

*flies a plane into EricChadwick's face*

Tin foil hat ain't gonna save you now!

[oXYnary]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care enough to spend the time... I'm just poking a little because you guys are so serious about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty much the saddest thing I have read in this thread. Humor at death (in either manner with/without the conspiracy people died in this event). Lovely Eric.

[tone]

we have never been at war with eurasia
we have always been at war with eastasia
boot production is up ..

LordScottish: think about what it takes to feed, clothe, arm, and transport an army.

In the 80's it was common knowledge that if a foreign power wanted to own american jets like A4s or F-18s they would be locked into maintenance contracts with the manufacturer and its subsidiaries for parts replacement. i.e. For five bucks you'd get a pack of half a dozen washers inside two layers of sealed plastic satchels that had "Quality Assured - Military Grade" General Dynamics or McDonnell Douglas stickers on it. The same washers you could get from radio shack for a penny a handful.

[hawken]

The more I watch these videos (theres loads) the more I think it was a demolition job. So many people must have been involved I'm sure the truth will come out when the current administration bows out.

WTC7 was almost certainly a demolition job, you can see that from the video and from on the spot news. WTC1&2 are debateable but I've been in my fair share of skyscrapers here in Tokyo, and it's kinda hard to believe that one colud just crumble like that.

Whatever the final reasons, or the intentions, the evidence coming out now really does point to premeditated foul play and not some planes simply whacking into buildings. WTC7 is almost evidence in its-self.

I urge anyone doubting this, before they reply, to watch this (realtime video of the whole lot, without whiney pre-grad voice over): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.

Also in these videos, it clearly shows what appears to be a few missiles being fired from helicopters, or rather the white flashes of them being set off. I kid you not. Watch it. Could be flashes from sunlight though.

It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.

[Downsizer]

Like I've always posted in regards to this.

I saw plane, my co-workers saw plane. It was seen by hundreds of people at the navy annex/FOB2 as a plane. From my personal accounts, and the accounts of others, and things I can't even say, it was a plane.

Just because the government does'nt want to admit how little it knew at the time, does'nt mean it's a conspiracy. They had to rush handling the public relations of this event, not send scientists and investigators. It was clean up, and don't over react.

I'll watch the video later as I don't have that much spare time at work. I also can't attest for the trade center portion of this. Though, perhaps those 'missiles' you say are being fired, were to shoot the planes down?

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]

It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.

Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.

It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hawken, I swear, you want it to be true so badly that you easily believe these videos. They keep showing dust clouds at the bottom, and acting as if it's new each time. I never hear the explosions that they claim... Sounds more like the lenscover hitting the camera.
I see helicopters, but no missiles. Do you honestly think they would fire missiles at the towers in plain site of everyone? See them clearly? Not on google video compression /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I need to stay away from these threads. They drive me nuts.

[Eric Chadwick]

MoP, you're hilarious man.

Oxy, haha, you proved my point better than I could myself.

In my opinion... if I can't laugh in the face of death, the ultimate injustice, then I'm taking life too seriously.

[Frank]

[ QUOTE ]
So did they investigate what provoked the attacks, or was it simply because "they hate our freedom?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to know the truth is to find the source, instead of being misled by Washington's buzzwords and catch phrases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Find the source? The source of what?

[ QUOTE ]
When a drunk starts a topic, everyone joins in. When anything political begins, people jump in to stop it. Why is it so important to derail the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have nothing to contribute to serve as a counterpoint?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.

[ QUOTE ]
You start quoting books few have read like they're the word of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?

[ QUOTE ]
Many sections of the 9/11 Commission report are still kept in secret.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?

[ QUOTE ]
Some people in the world act as a voice, others act as support. If you have nothing constructive to add, take Ror's example and step out.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.

[ QUOTE ]
What can be accomplished is that people will ask questions. When claims were made of Iraq having WMD, questions were asked. Later we find the claim was false, and years later those questions are justified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.

[ QUOTE ]
The administration is now careful of it's activities because the people still play a role in choosing who governs them. Or at least we still hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?

The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.

As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.

Frank the Avenger

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but to me it looked like those flashes are caused by the sun reflecting off of the tail portion of the helicopter (the reflection coming through the smoke causes a corona, which makes it appear to be a flash). After the helicopter comes out from behind the smoke (just before the camera cuts away), you can see a reflection "flash" from the tail for a second.

And besides, a missile wouldn't be able to collapse a building, unless it was a big fucking missile (in which case, you'd see an explosion bigger than the one caused by the airliner flying into the building).

[MoP]

Frank, awesome reply! Thanks for taking the time to do that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

KeyserSoze: Agreed, if those flashes were anything, they're much more likely to be flashes reflecting off the tail of the helicopter than 4 (count 'em!) missiles. How come we don't see this missile-firing from any other angle? Oh yeah... because the sun is at a different angle to the camera.

Also even if (huuuge damn if) those were missiles, why did the tower collapse from the base, they were fired at the top of the tower!

[notman]

Well, for someone that claims to be so smart in the beginning, I guess he skipped his physics classes. Most of the video completely ignores air pressure.
He also assumes a lot about those dust clouds. He suggests the bird is circling because it's a heated thermal cloud below. Funny, I've seen birds do that over an open field. Guess there was a small fire in the field that I missed.

His sound estimate is wrong also. If you listen to the footage, there isn't a 9 second lag between the time you see the tower collapsing and you hear it. You can see it falling into itself, and you hear the rumbling from it about a second or two later.... not 9 seconds.

He claims that the fire is out because it's black smoke. Black smoke? Maybe from his crack pipe. I see white/gray smoke. He even shows a fire coming out of the building, yet he claims nothing is on fire? He asks, what's burning? Maybe office equipment, wallpaper, files, carpet.... Wait, that doesn't fit his argument.

and yes, I agree, the flashes were the sun's reflection. It has also already been stated that they didn't rescue anyone because the heat rising was too great, and creating too much turbulance for the helicopters to get in there.

Edit: OMG!, they just completely took the history channel out of context. They left only the part where the guy stated the building was build to resist the IMPACT! The show later goes on to explain that it WASN'T design to withstand the HEAT and FUEL tunneling through the building.

[sonic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that no one can ever decide which story to stick with. Apparently the WTC towers were hit by a plane, demolished from the inside, shot with a missile from a pod on the plane (a plane that was a cargo/military combination), and also blown up by a helicopter with missiles! They sure didn't fuck around!

[BRUTICUS(CW)]

OK so bin Laden has been paid by the US government to pretend that he blew up the WTC? And these following video threats are also acting? So this is just like a big WWF match, they're all actors?

All the different conspiracy theories i've heard completely contradict one another. And we have people who believe ALL of them? What is that?

Yeah when I first watched the world trade centre come down I thought WOW I can't believe one plane could take that entire building down after hitting it near the top. But when I seen that flash movie with the techno music I thought WOW a piece of the airplane proceeded through the pentagon and punched a small hole through the back wall of a building and some loser with a pirated copy of flash decided to put techno music with said image and try and sell it off as a missile exit hole and a conspiracy.

[thnom]

Bruticus - so what you're saying is that it must be true because someone added techno music to a jpg image and did a bad job? Who needs investigators with this logic?!

[MoP]

[ QUOTE ]
Black smoke? Maybe from his crack pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHA! Oh, man, that made me laugh so much. Good one /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BRUTICUS(CW)]

[ QUOTE ]
Bruticus - so what you're saying is that it must be true because someone added techno music to a jpg image and did a bad job?

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, try again.

[swampbug]

thanks for posting that second vid.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
OK so bin Laden has been paid by the US government to pretend that he blew up the WTC? And these following video threats are also acting? So this is just like a big WWF match, they're all actors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he was on the CIA payroll during the Afghan-Soviet war, but I'd say no. Osama bin Laden has denied his involvement in the attacks, so I don't understand what you mean by "pretending that he blew up the WTC." According to his account, he wasn't involved.

[BRUTICUS(CW)]

what i mean is his threats and their timing. but I admit I didn't even know he had denied it.

regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
what i mean is his threats and their timing. but I admit I didn't even know he had denied it.

regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of those points are addressed in the "Loose Change" video.

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?


Find the source? The source of what?


Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.


No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.


How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?


What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?


What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.


Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.


You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?


The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.


As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.

We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.

This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority. And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?

Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.

I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question. And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible. In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.

It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.

If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.

In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations. This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?

I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.

Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults. I didn't even post the video. You couldn't get that right. But I doubt I can reason with you.

And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.

[Daz]

Gee whizz, another 911 thread!

Im as open minded as the next guy, but honestly people, If you want to believe something you really will. Nothing I watched in either video shows me anything to prove foul play (well, apart fron that conducted by the perpetrators of course!). But the second one? Man thats just annoying. 'Explosions' are well, you know, shit exploding from the extreme heat. Or debris falling down and dust rising from them, WHITE smoke billowing up from the ground is the same, flashes from planes or helicopters are (as already explained) quite , *quite* clearly sunlight glints. Missiles?! C'mon people! But more than anything, I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to ever believe what a man with a mullet tells me! THERE IS JUST NO WAY.

http://www.daz-art.com/rick.jpg

Im sure Rick Siegel is doing very nicely (http://www.911eyewitness.com/) thankyou out of selling his little DVD to mugs like you! LOOK, just $19.95!!111
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.

[oXYnary]

(acting as Elysiums support group like MoP did for Frank)

Awesome response Elysium! Thanks for doing that.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.

[Slum]

Daz summed it up perfectly, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.jakesjokes.com/funnypics/9070f510f1e76143cabdc0a4f8f55ee6arguingspecialolym pics.jpg

There, I've said my piece.

[notman]

LOL, I forgot about mentioning the mullet... nothing like a mullet with a bald spot also /images/graemlins/wink.gif

This guy really seems like someone that exploits the internet for financial gain and that's it. I damn near punched my screen though when he took off his glasses to emphasize his statement in the video.

[oXYnary]

If I see that overused jpg one more time..

[ElysiumGX]

Funny thing is the only ones trying to win are those derailing the thread. The rest would like a discussion that doesn't require a finish line and tator tots.

[MoP]

Yeah, stupid us. We should just back down and let moronicity win the day.

[ElysiumGX]

You still think someone needs to win. How American.

[Slum]

oXYnary: You'd think people would learn to stop arguing so much, after seeing that jpg about 500 billion times.

[Daz]

Ely, by suggesting that Rick Siegel is making money from 911 Im derailing the thread? I dont think so. I think thats very on topic.

[ElysiumGX]

No Daz. Your post is appropriate, and I tend to agree with you. This thread has gotten too large and misguided for me to cover all grounds. I'm out.

[oXYnary]

Look will you all stop bickering for a minute and please tell me who has accounted for the cell phone calls? How did they take place?

[Kevin Johnstone]

Just to be clear, I didn't delete my posts because I felt I had nothing constructive to add, I felt there was nothing constructive that could be added that would be listened to so I got the hell out of the thread.

r.

[MoP]

To be honest, ElysiumGX, your "discussion" is much like the "discussion" going on about Intelligent Design and evolution. One is a crazy theory with no proof (or self-proclaimed proof which is really just distorted facts and pre-formed beliefs masquerading as proof) but strong believers, the other one has mountains of scientific evidence.

Sure, you can "discuss" all you like, but the majority is bullshit. One side says light flashes are missiles fired from helicopters and shadows cast in a certain directions are weapons pods attached to military planes, and they have the backing of a man with a mullet in crappy glasses trying to sell his own home video to anyone who'll believe that the aliens are at Roswell, and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.

Now tell me what you're having is a discussion? Excuse me while I go and "discuss" that Elvis is living in my basement, honestly I saw the sunlight reflect off his glasses and sequin-studded suit!

edit: oXYnary: I was on a flight a few months back where they had phones built into the back of every seat, and you could make calls to anywhere from these.

[oXYnary]

So instead of addressing the issues, someone posts a second video which totally fucks up the relevant questions of the first video, and you all focus on that.

So again I ask.. with the first original video.

" please tell me who has accounted for the cell phone calls? How did they take place? "

Mop do you think people really want to believe this? I don't. But there are too many questions left unanswered (via the first more relevant video).

[Daz]

I dont know OXY, but I do know that Im a nervous flyer. So If the guy next to me leaves his cellphone on during take off just to do an experiment because you wont let it lie, I will punch him hard in the face for fear of it affecting the flight systems. Then I will a) get arrested and b ) not reach my destination and it will be your fault since your little obsession got spread all over the intramaweb!!1

[KDR_11k]

I think the gov really lowered their pants to invite Bubba but they didn't actively plan the attacks. Wouldn't be a first, before the Pearl Harbor attack most of the anti-aircraft equipment was withdrawn from the base despite intel data suggesting that an attack there would be likely.

If those attacks were targeting our freedoms then they were really effective, considering all the insane yet ineffective anti-terror laws passed throughout the western world soon after and the spreading paranoia that led to guards killing a man in a british underground station and other incidents.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no "massive investigation," and several of the crazy people who allegedly hijacked the planes ARE STILL ALIVE, so excuse me if I'm just a bit skeptical of the official account of what went on.

[BRUTICUS(CW)]

[ QUOTE ]

Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all, then the wives and family members who were on the news whos families are now broken apart were lying. It's fine and great to question authority but calling these families liars is morally questionable in my opinion oh, don't tell me, thats what the government wants me to think, right?

My response, have a heart people.

[LordScottish]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, ElysiumGX, your "discussion" is much like the "discussion" going on about Intelligent Design and evolution. One is a crazy theory with no proof (or self-proclaimed proof which is really just distorted facts and pre-formed beliefs masquerading as proof) but strong believers, the other one has mountains of scientific
evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? I would like to see you argueing with all the intelligent people considering ID and then talking to guys who see conspiracies everywhere. I hope you'd notice the difference and comparing the 2 is so ignorant, even very convinced defender of any form of the theory of evolution wouldn't do it. Sorry for going offtopic, but this had to be said. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[oXYnary]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all,

[/ QUOTE ]

Auhh see. The problem was those were personal cell phone calls. They >werent< from satelite phones. Also, in no way did they commentor say the families were lying, what he was hinting at was those calls were faked. Watch the vid Bruticus (original), seriously!

[Eric Chadwick]

LordScottish, this might be an interesting read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.

I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.

[MoP]

Yep Eric, that's exactly what I was getting at. I also PM'ed LordScottish if he's interested in debating this, I'd love to hear which "intelligent people" truly believe in ID as a scientific theory, if they haven't been fed misinformation or distorted/outdated theories.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember reading about this not too long ago. That judge really stuck it to them (especially considering that he's a right-wing, religious conservative himself). I liked how he pointed out their ignorance on the very subject they were trying to push into science classes (some of them didn't even know what it was called, and kept referring to it as, "Intelligence Design").

[MoP]

Yep, if you read the full court transcript it's pretty funny. The main scientific proponent of the ID argument admits that he hasn't read about 50 peer-reviewed papers debunking his outdated and incorrect theories, and when presented with them all he could say was "this isn't good enough"... so silly.

Anyway, I'll stop derailing this now...

[Mark Dygert]

I think we have seen both extremes. The truth more than likely lays somewhere in the middle.

I'm pretty sure the goverment has some things its not sharing but I'm pretty sure they didn't mastermind a elaborate plot to kill thousands of the very same people that voted them into office. Look how badly they have bungled through the war in Iraq. These same brillant masterminds could have pulled off something much more stunning and put much more of a PR spin on the war if they had actually masterminded 9/11. Sure they are hiding something but it's because the truth is more embarrasing than thier PR spin.

I bet flight 93 was shot down, and they figured they would spin it to make them look like heros.

[Daz]

Good post Vig. Now that theory of yours, I could actually believe.

[notman]

I love how the guy in the first video proves his arguments. He provides one sided information, then asks a skewed question, and answers it, as if his answer is fact. He must be a debate master.

As for the cell phones, they do work in the air. Not very well, but they do work. In case you haven't flown in recent years, they don't allow you to turn on cell phones will in flight. Only recently, they have started discussing allowing cell phones in flight. They used to claim that it interferred with the equipment, and they've recently discovered that it has no effect. So that device getting installed into planes, is probably a step towards improving reception if they are going to start allowing cell phone usage.

Some of those calls were using the sattelite phones though... especially the clearer calls (liek flight attendants). Also, that one son DID talk to his mom that way normally. She's stated so in interviews on 9/11 specials. Or is she being paid off to act as though her son spoke formally to her like that? I've known people that use their parents names rather than calling them mom or dad.

[oXYnary]

notman, he linked to a experiment that showed that the chances of a cell phone at that height getting through was atronomically slight at best. Yet we heard from multiple people.

Here is a quote though to make it more apparent.

[ QUOTE ]
Cellphone networks operate with each cell covering about 10 square miles (26 square kilometers), with the transmitter in the centre of the cell. Using the formula: Area = pi r squared:

10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. Let's call it 2 miles for the sake of argument.

There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet. Since no signal is transmitted beyond that range, normal cellphone reception at higher altitudes is clearly not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=40

Watch the entire thing and pay more attention.

I also wonder VIg if thats what happened. Yet, there where no bodies according to the initail corner at the scene, and Cinncinatti reported a flight 93 being landed.

[hawken]

doesn't matter if you believe in the theories or not.

The 1st Gulf war, by Bush senior, was all based on a fake court case about babies being thrown out of cots. The witnesses were actors, Iran's own diplomat used his daughter, and american citizen, to act as a nurse stationed in Iran.

Now, if they can make that shit up and make you swollow it, for a war, then openly admit that it ws all lies some 10 years later, I doubt anyone will give a flying fuck about what truths come out over the ground for the second Gulf war.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Please please watch the videos of WTC7 collapsing. It is only the 3rd building (in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!) to collapse from fire damage. The first two are the twin towers.

For it to collapse like that, the fire would have to be spread out over the entire base at equal tempretures. If it really did collapse because of damadge, it would look something like this:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg

(ok so I don't believe the missle thing on second inspection)

As for the twin towers, there are numerous eye wittness accounts from firemen, firecheifs, police, medics etc about the bombs, blasts and melted bases of the twin towers. I am more inclined to believe them, than the american news media some days later. In fact the news changed from the bomb stories to "America under attack" half way into the first day after Bush announced it was Terror. How the hell did anyone know that early? Why were the bomb stories covered up?

The current evidence points towards even detonation of bombs about the bases of both towers, from the eye witness accounts to the clean up operation where destruction experts (who were hired for the clean up) tell of melted, twisted iron supports at the base of the buildings. Same as dynamite's effects, they say.

[LordScottish]

[ QUOTE ]
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.

I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks EricChadwick, I agree with you there. I should have said it's a bad idea to compare the 2 in order to show that both are wrong. I never heard anyone say that ID is a scientific theory here in europe, it seems this is mainly happening in the US. The only thing scientific about ID is the criticism on the different versions of the theory of evolution.

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]


Watch the entire thing and pay more attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but I did. That guys results mean nothing to me. I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you'll read forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets. How about a question to counter the one asking why they are adding boosters. If cell phones can receive in flight, then why is it against the rules to use them? People wouldn't use them if they can't connect to anyone.

Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.

Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.

[KDR_11k]

1. Some planes include cellphone stations these days that are connected to the network via sat uplink. I think cellphones are only problematic during take-off and landing when they can disturb the ground-air communication, in flight they don't cause any real problems.
2. If a cellphone doesn't get a connection it increases its signal power until it either gets a connection or reaches maximum power. Even turning a phone on for a moment could cause a signal disturbance. Such a stronger signal might be able to get through and get you a connection but it will also cause the most disturbance to the plane's sensors.

[Frank]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pot, meet kettle.

[ QUOTE ]
We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]
The President's statements to help whip up support for his pet war are not 'the official reason.' You should know that. Here's what the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack#Motive) has to say. Basically, the US was punished for violating Muslim lands and supporting Israel. And that's what the government says. But you go on believing otherwise, you rebel you.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, It's W trying to scare people into supporting the war. And it's Fox News calling people unpatriotic for asking questions, not the govt. They may think it, but they don't say it.

[ QUOTE ]
And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the least. My question about the source was actually an honest question, I didn't know what you meant; what you were referring to as 'the source' wasn't clear to me. Sorry I wasn't clear in my question.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, I read your replies to see if you actually have any new information; I haven't seen anything but assumptions and questions. Questions do not count as information. A good number of the questions you've posed already have answers, but you don't believe them; yet you have nothing to back up your view of the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question.

[/ QUOTE ]

But when your questions are answered, and you don't accept those answers even though they are the most likely answers, what does that make you look like?

[ QUOTE ]
And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, which parts are those? Please elaborate. And I won't post anything about the parts you find plausible until I watch the video for myself.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But I didn't know that until you said it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree they ignored many warnings, but what steps did they take to allow the attacks to happen?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think someone would bother framing a terrorist organization? Why? Are you one of those that thinks the US is run by the EVIL ZIONINST HORDE? The US already offers unilateral support to Israel, it's not like we need a reason to offer them our protection. And what did Israel get out of the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq? How have they gained?

[ QUOTE ]
This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I remember the anthrax scare, I remember it was considered domestic terrorism. What evidence are you referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first time I've ever heard you try to seperate yourself from them. You've been all about 'asking questions' until you were challeneged.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which facts did I get wrong? That you didn't post the video? Okay, you got me there. Your position re the conspiracy nuts? Had you made it clear I wouldn't have gotten it wrong, now would I?

[ QUOTE ]
And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because MoP recognizes a man using his talents well. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Frank the Avenger

[KDR_11k]

And what did Israel get out of the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq? How have they gained?

Afghanistan and Iraq could be used to mount a two-fronted attack on Iran. Though I still think it'd be much cheaper and less messy to just hammer a few long range missiles into the Iranian seat of government. Or at least make that the declaration of war, take out the heads before mounting an attack.

[hawken]

[ QUOTE ]


Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.

Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What guy?

I didn't write see or hear. But yes, there are numerous accounts of bomb desruction previous to and after (molten pools of steel) the buildings fell.

WTC7 is still a mystery, and isn't concluded in the FEMA reports. Even the guy who owns the building (Larry Silverstein) is quoted in an interview as saying that they decided to "pull" the building not put the fires out. Very, very mysterious.

Notman it would be better to make statements of your own conclusions not finding holes in others, becuase we all get our information from the internet - and there's 100's of counter arguements to pick from...
You appear to be getting mixed up about what I'm saying or other people are saying, and confronting me on things that I didn't state. That discovery channel program (which also aired in the UK at the same time) is based on the FEMA report, which was thrown together quickly without evidence. The evidence was shipped off and melted down or scrapped in other countries within days. There wasn't a proper investigation after the felling of the two buildings, so it kinda makes it hard to believe a program based on one report without investigation of the failed materials.

In addition that program doesn't talk about WTC7.

[motives]

i just think the pentagon crash is weird.. Where is that friggin plane?

[notman]

No, I'm referencing the first movie, which is very similar to the one you posted previously. It's the same guy narrating. You are again acting as though the 'proof' in those videos, of explosions, is true. The flashes on the different floors and the people saying their heard a sound 'like' a bomb, are what I believe you are refering to when you suggest that bombs were used.

Sometimes I go on further to dispute the video, rather than just disputing your point. I could go on all day about how rediculus these videos are, but it would be too big of a post to go point for point with those 2 hour long videos.

What conclusions would you like me to state? Two commercial jets hit two buildings and the jet fuel heated the metal support brackets and beams, to a point where they became weakened and failed. The floors drop, and a building collapses. There is nothing more to prove. I'm finding holes in the arguments people use to suggest that the above didn't happen.

[hawken]

I haven't talked out WTC 1&2 in any detail, I'm more interested in WTC7. Because if that was felled on purpose, it stands to reason that the other buildings were also premeditated destructions.

The guys in these videos speak a lot of shit, I thought we figured that out first time around? /images/graemlins/smile.gif But then again, there's a lot of shit on the news too.

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]
i just think the pentagon crash is weird.. Where is that friggin plane?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only one that I've found questionable, even in the beginning. It's often used to prove that this was all a government arranged deal. I think there may be a coverup about the pentagon, but I don't think it's for the reasons the videos suggest. This is one of those things that I'm hoping will eventually be revealed.

[Ninjas]

Dude, Hawken is talking about detonation charges not missles.

So Notman, why did WTC7 fall? It wasn't hit by a plane, or doused in fuel. So why? The official story is that it was struck with debris.

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, Hawken is talking about detonation charges not missles.

So Notman, why did WTC7 fall? It wasn't hit by a plane, or doused in fuel. So why? The official story is that it was struck with debris.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say he was talking about missiles? I was discussing how he suggested (and the video) that it was detonation charges. The 'like a bomb' quotes in the video were suggesting that something was detonated.
Is it that hard to believe that a combination of debris and fire caused WTC7 to fall? I can't say for sure because none of those videos show the condition of the other side of WTC7. But later on, they show the other building behind WC7 distroyed from debris. It's still standing, but large pieces of the buildings were all over it.
To be honest, I thought I had heard back in 2001, that they were purposely going to take it down because it was near collapsing. Hadn't heard that it fell on it's own as it plays out in these videos. So I'm not planning on arguing WTC7 without full knowledge of it's demise, just like no one else here really should be... unless you were there and witnessed it.

I've been keeping my discussions to things I witnessed that day, which was the Twin Towers falling, the aftermath of flight 93, and the Pentagon's hole. I also witnessed irresponsible speculation from the media. Many of which were replayed in the second video as evidence. They forgot the one where they claimed a car bomb when off in PA... which obviously never happened.

[Downsizer]

WTC7 may have been put down on purpose, perhaps to stop the spread of fire? Maybe the company that owns the building was going to demolish it anyway as stated above, but it would cost them less durring this fiasco then to shut down the street.

Who knows. To quote my favorite movie: "It's a headless blunder, operating under the illusion of a master plan."

The government must seem infalable to the mass public to keep things in check. While they may not divuldge anything, i'm pretty sure most humans beings including the president would'nt harm innocent civilians unless there was just cause. Trusting the judgement is another factor, but hey, everyone can vote. We botch, we remember it and dont put another 'W' into office.

The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted. Conspiracy or not, as cold eharted as it may sound, we still live in a great country, at least those of us who wish to take advantage of the many opportunities. You just have to look hard enough, and want hard enough to find the peace.

Debating or arguing things that cant be proven is fun, but don't let it get out of hand. This stuff will be mystery longer than JFK/Area 51 will ever be. Maybe 'no one atually knows the details' is the answer, and everyone is making up what they want to.

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted.


[/ QUOTE ]
I had hoped this also, but it was already proven that the country has learned very little the re-elected this idiot, even with everything he had done. Now it's just gotten worse. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[hawken]

I'm glad the debates are here. I like to keep an open mind, America is a great country and its a shame for all of this to happen, from the bottom of my heart I feel to sorry for the people who died. It's just too scary to comprehend dieing in such a way.

[notman]

That's where I'll agree with you /images/graemlins/wink.gif
I hope no one is taking my responses as angry. They are just meant as opinion and counter discussions /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Whenever I see the trade tower footage (originals) I get angry. I think of the lost lives and the damage done.
The one thing I agree with in the second video is, where was our government? Why weren't we protected? Although he suggested they sat on things, in reality I think they were just caught off guard and took too long to make decisions. No one wants to be the guy to order a commercial jet to be shot down :/
I get even more upset when people make these conspiracy videos and don't do a balanced report. They really stretch to make a point, and they claim assumptions as facts.
But I don't feel anger when I discuss it. When I feel someone is attacking me, I may get upset, but not when it's kept as a discussion/debate /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[oXYnary]

[ QUOTE ]
I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm so you don't give one iota of evidence.. Yet you continue to spew the same line. In fact the link I gave you your arguement was used, and shown to be flawed. Your not being a reasonable objective arguer here (speaking of ID). BTW I did do a search, how do you think I came across that link I agave you (which you have seemed to not bother reading through without hitting the reply first).

"Google it" is the crux of a flawed viewpoint. In other words, you dont know the information yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets.

[/ QUOTE ]

This technology to allow this wasnt available until after 9/11 notman. In fact I believe it was said 2004 when it was introduced. Again, look at the link I gave.

So if you have evidence.. not your personal opinion. Give it, elsewise back out of this as you have nothing to say.

[Eric Chadwick]

I did this search.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cell+phone+flight&btnG=Google+Searc h

Clicked on the second result, and towards the bottom of the first page they said this.
"A cell phone signal falling to Earth from a phone aboard a plane encounters no significant obstacles to slow it down, so it's strong enough to reach the ground and find a network on its particular frequency."


Edit: oops I meant the 2nd, not the 1st.

[MoP]

oXYnary, if you expect that one single internet link to a forum actually related to the "Loose Change" video counts as evidence, then you're sorely mistaken.

I might start believing your side of the argument if you can point me to 2 or 3 non-biased sources of information regarding this.

That's the problem with the internet, it's so easy to just Google up a page giving "evidence" for anything ... hell if I wanted to I could give you a quote and a link to a site that proves we're energy beings made of light and should worship the cat goddess that lives in the sun.

So before you start saying "you don't give one iota of evidence", consider the "evidence" that you yourself are giving, and maybe actually dig a little deeper rather than just grabbing the first thing that fits your pre-formed opinion of what the "facts" are.

Cheers.

[Daz]

Indeed, 'evidence' (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/lm-f97/LM97_Bosnia.html) can be misleading.

[arshlevon]

well i hate these dumb threads, but one point that my girlfriend has made over and over since the bombings(she is a PhD chemist) is that jet fuel could never reach a tempreture high enough to melt steel, or weaken the infrastructure of a sky scraper, never, not even during cumbustion. there is no way an explosion from an air plane could take down a building, and even more scientifically impossible causeing an explosion at the top of a building and making the support beams on the bottom collapse. there is no know physics in the universe that could ever explain it. those are the words of an inorganic chemist who specializes in organometalics and knows metal down to the atom and all the physical properties of pertty much all metals. she knows exactly what it would take to destroy, bend, melt fracture that grade of steel.
not an airplane.
i would also like to say i hate hippies and baba ganoush. pita bread sucks and berts beez wax is really a subsiderary of johnson and johnson who do animal testing on thier products. i dont really care much about 9/11 or the war really, i am pretty indifferent about most things that dont affet me directly. so i can say these things with no bias toward a neo hippie beatnik puckrock agenda, as well and a bible thumping guntoating racist american perspective. i believe facts, and my girlfriend is good for those. on a side note the video was extremely one sided but did raise a few interesting questions. but none that havent already been raised before. he could of made it about 15 mins if he just wanted to raise a few scientifically viable questions instead of pretending he had any answers.pretending to know for a fact things that are pretty much unproven and mysteries will always makes you look like a dumbass.

[notman]

The reason I suggested google was so you'd have many options rather than me posting all the google results here. If you want, I can post them here, but I'm not using 'google them' as a crux. I read your link earlier, and considered editing my post, but I figured you read it yourself and didn't need me quoting it. There are several posts stating that it's possible:

Gecko:
"Contrary to what is stated in the documentary, it is quite possible to make cell phone calls from airliner cruising altitude. I know someone who owns a pressurized private aircraft, and he occasionally makes cell phone calls from 25 thousand feet. The key is to make the call over a rural area, and not an urban area."

FireEyes:
"Just watched the documentary and I found the "cell phone calls" section to be completely wrong. I work for a company that is writing a research document on mobile phones on planes.

Firstly it is very possible for you to make and receive phone calls using your cellular phone whilst in a plane."

So you've got ONE guy who states some equations. What he doesn't include is the source of his equations, nor if that only covers ground radius. Radio frequencies can travel upward unobstructed. Then this guy further tried to state that his cell phone stopped working at specific altitudes. Did he have an alitimeter onboard? Personally I can't tell what the hell height I am until we level off that the pilot tells us. My point is, I really question the guys statements. Maybe he couldn't receive calls a high altitudes, but others were able to.

That 'technology' isn't required to make phone calls, it is probably meant to improve the ability.

Edit: Ok, how about this... the guy states that the cell phone range is 10 square miles. So how far to you think that claim is vertically? 30,000ft is 5.682 Miles. That is the typical cruising altitude. Seems to me like the towers could reach that.

[MoP]

Indeed, notman. If people were making short calls on their cell phones over a rural area, base stations are often several kilometres apart, it would take even a fast-moving plane about a minute to cover that distance, so a short call is entirely possible.

And also this is from an official source, not some random guy on a forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Cellular base stations transmit and receive signals from mobile phones or other types of mobile radio. Each base station provides coverage for a given area, termed a cell. Base stations can be a few hundred metres apart in major cities or several kilometres apart in rural areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

From here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/mpsafety/school-audit/stewqa.htm

Arshlevon: That's good info, thanks. I'm wondering what happened to the wreckage from the plane after they hit the towers. Surely having a large amount of burning plane inside the tower can't be healthy for it?

[Joao Sapiro]

there was a detonation of some buildings in portugal, near Troia ( a portuguese province ) wich detonated some of the few tall buildings from the late 60 `s. i SAW it and was VERY similar to the way that the WTC went .

Theres alot of information misguided and misfed or given to the wrong people, but it is clear that something is missing...all we must know is what exactly.

[arshlevon]

mop, another thing about airplanes my girlfriend says is that they are made of very lightweight metals,and very thin sheets of lightweight metals. so they can fly. buildings arent made to fly and are made extremely hard dense metals. each floor of a building is made to withstand thousands of tons of weight, more than several airplanes. it also has alot to do with desity of the materials involved. she gave an anology of running at a stop sign pole with piece of paper pulled between two hands. there is no speed fast enough you could ever run into the pole to bend it or break it with the paper. conversley there isn't metal dense enough in airplane save for the little black box that could really even dent constuction grade steel nomatter how fast its traveling. thats the big physical problem. another thing is a lot of the wieght in a plane is the fuel where the molecules are much more densley packed than a few sheets of lightwieght metal welded to a lightwieght frame and this would be dispersed on inpact as well as the plane being torn to bits as soon as it hits one of the main support beams, so at no one point really is the entire weight of the plane bearing down on one area of floor. and one more point she made is that airplane fuel, or almost anyfuel for that matter dosent really explode, it ignights. it will make a huge fire ball, but the fire ball produced will not contain the massive force of a chemical explosion like a bomb, creating a shockwave that can rip things apart by sheer force.

[sledgy]

Here's a good link about the physics of the collapse. arshelevon, not to knock your girlfriend's expertise, but I think there are many factors besides just weight and temperature that caused the structural failure. A 757 weighs 220,000 pounds. A 767 weighs 312,000 pounds and both have a cruising speed of over 500MPH. I have no doubt that there is a speed at which a piece of paper will shear off a stop sign. Sort of like when a meteor hits a large body like the earth or moon. With enough velocity a very small object can make a very big splash.

When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert. (http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/PainfulQuestions_2.htm)

[arshlevon]

yes sledgy a meteor can make a big splash if it hits a big ball of dirt and rocks, but not if hits a huge ball steel.and a meteor is a very densly packed ball of menerials a plane is a hollowed out frame with thin sheets of lightwieght metal on it, 2 totally diffent things. the weight of something is only reletive to its density when calculating an impact. you can have a million pound ball that is just a cm inch shell of chocolate and drop it fom space and its not going to do much to the earth. its not solid. if a plane was a solid hunk of 200,000 metal verses thin sheets of metal tacked on with 1/4 inch rivits to a hollow frame you might have something. and you are trying to argue with internet, that never works.

[sledgy]

[ QUOTE ]
\and you are trying to argue with internet, that never works.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha ok you got me there.

[KDR_11k]

yes sledgy a meteor can make a big splash if it hits a big ball of dirt and rocks, but not if hits a huge ball steel.

Have you seen the NASA impact tests where they fired small balls at a steel plate at 10km/s? That looked like quite a splash (it looked like water frozen in mid-splashing, roughly a 20cm diameter area affected by a 1cm ball). A comet can come at 80km/s, IIRC. Every fragment of such a comet could cause a big impact.

Either way, I doubt the fuel was the only thing within the building that could burn, some of the stuff there might indeed be capable of producing sufficiently high temperatures.

Doesn't mean I think the forces add up, in fact I doubt a collapse from fire would really have looked like that. Plus there was an earthquake reported at a nearby seismograph the moment the towers started collapsing (i.e. before it hit the ground). If the theory of an internal collapse was right I hink we'd have seen some major damage to the outer areas spreading from the point of impact downward during the collapse, not just the moment the internals hit the ground.

[Eric Chadwick]

The reasoning that an object with low mass couldn't damage an object with high mass doesn't hold water. If the velocity is great enough, this happens.

Ever see the photo of a piece of hay that pierced a tree trunk during a tornado? Closest thing I could find on a quick search was this one, a vinyl record stuck in a telephone pole by a tornado.
http://www.tornadochaser.net/images/record.jpg
"Above photo illustrates the awesome power of a tornado demonstrated by slaming this 33rpm plastic record into a telephone pole. Historic NWS Collection
Courtesy NOAA/Department of Commerce"

If I follow your reasoning, then the front of a car wouldn't be dented when it hits a deer.

Another example, plywood through a palm tree.
http://www.fema.gov/kids/trnsfe.htm
(though someone will probably argue FEMA is part of the massive gov't conspiracy.)

[MoP]

FEMA is evidently part of a massive conspiracy to make kids think that "missile" is spelt "missle".

[Frank]

On the WTC7 issue, it couldn't have been 'brought down' as in demolished, simply because demolition charges take weeks to put into place. So it's not like they said 'well, it's burning, blow it' and just sent guys in to blow it up. Either there had to be charges already in place (which I personally have never seen evidence of), or the fire caused it to collapse. Which seems kind of unlikely to me. So I dunno. But bringing it down on purpose couldn't be a snap decision made on the day.

As for the towers, the reason given on a History Channel breakdown was the planes hit on the corners of the building, damaging the outer supports and putting way more weight on the floors just below the impact than they could take. The floors above the impact collapsed downward, crushing the rest of the tower on the way down. So the base supports of the towers don't even enter into it.

Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time. The situation wasn't 'burning jet fuel poured over structural steel' it was more like 'structural steel in a furnace lit by burning jet fuel.' Everything on the floors of the impact was on fire, for an hour. I bet it got damn hot in there.

Frank the Avenger

[Showster]

Heh wooo lets re-open the X-files! GOO mulder... Wudn't suprise me if it was a giant conspiracy, poltics and money corrupt most of the Western World. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuel doesn't burn hotter over time; it's surroundings will rise in temperature until it reaches an equilibrium with the temperature of the burning fuel, but the only way to make the fuel burn any hotter is to oxygenate it somehow.

I say the only way to settle this once and for all is to construct of an exact duplicate of the WTC buildings, fly a remote-controlled 757 into the exact same spot, and try to duplicate the results. This sounds like a job for the Mythbusters! I'm on this phone with them now /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Eric Chadwick]

What about the rest of the combustable material inside the building? Rugs, desks, plastics, files, furniture, etc.

[KeyserSoze]

It would contribute to the fire, but I doubt any of that stuff burns hotter than jet fuel.

[tone]

Frank: regarding WTC7, you might find this interesting .. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
from here - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

I have no question about saudis flying the planes, especially since the House of Saud involvement in world banks, american investment groups, and controlling stock in the media outlets has led to such a cozy relationship that people from Saudi Arabia don't need to sit for an interro..view.. when applying for a visa, just mail in the application and have one mailed back. Apparently it wasn't too hard for saudi-born islamic fundamentalists to enter the US at all.
/edit .. further info: http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz2003.html

Also, I'm wondering who else has seen Al-Jazeera's 'Control Room' movie.. has nothing to do with the wtc, but shows some of the media dealings behind the iraq invasion. Regardless of the potentially slanted points of view, there is some sound logical reasoning in it.

[Ninjas]

Yeah. I don't think you could get any more conclusive than that "pull it" video.

[KDR_11k]

So since demo charges can't be set up that quickly, is it likely that the building was already rigged and they were waiting for an excuse to blow it? Didn't it include a CIA office or something?

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
So since demo charges can't be set up that quickly, is it likely that the building was already rigged and they were waiting for an excuse to blow it? Didn't it include a CIA office or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's very likely at all. It doesn't make sense to plant explosives without a specific, planned time for them to be detonated.

[KDR_11k]

Yes, if there were explosives already placed then they knew they'd have an opportunity to detonate them soon. Can explosives be set up to demolish a building that accurately in such a short timeframe? Doesn't that require weeks just to get a company for that and make the plans for it? I doubt planned demolitions are offered by the fire dept now.

[rooster]

eh, the explanation I heard was that the buildings were protected with fireproof insulation so that the supports didnt melt or get damaged by fire, but the insulation was all blown off with the explosion. Once they eventually weakened the weight of the above floors became too much and they toppled. Sounds about right to me- once a small part of the support gets damaged the whole thing is threatened.

[Ninjas]

They have demolishion experts in the military. I'm sure they can rig a building in a couple hours.

Rooster: What about the part where the owener admits to blowing up WTC7?

[KDR_11k]

But for that you'd have to get demolition experts to the location first (when they need medics and rescue troops there's usually no space on the transporter to spare for other people) and a civilian can hardly order the military around so the experts would have to have been nearby already. And wouldn't it have made more sense to wait with demolishing stuff until the big desaster is dealt with? I doubt fire would spread so fast and uncontrollably that you have to demolish such a building immediately.

Maybe it was completely normal but I somehow doubt that. Wasn't the building still in use?

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Rooster: What about the part where the owener admits to blowing up WTC7?

[/ QUOTE ]
To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.

Considering the precise way in which the building collapsed, and the fact that the collapse was allegedly caused by a fire (which I doubt), I personally do think it was a demolition job, but the phrase "pull it" is a bit ambiguous and we may be misinterpreting how it was used. Probably not, considering the context of what he said, but it isn't exactly a confession either.

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the building still in use?

[/ QUOTE ]
It was being used to store all sorts of documents (including documents pertaining to lawsuits against several large corporations), but I'm not sure if it was being used for office space or anything like that.

[Ninjas]

[ QUOTE ]

To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone can watch that video and think he is talking about firefighters, then I think english must not be their native language.

[ElysiumGX]

Ok, I give. But I'm not getting attached this time.

[ QUOTE ]
Once they eventually weakened the weight of the above floors became too much and they toppled. Sounds about right to me- once a small part of the support gets damaged the whole thing is threatened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds reasonable. But it's hard to believe that the whole structure would fall straight down due to the top most floors. I would think they would fall over and the rest, or a good portion of the lower levels build to hold the weight, would remain standing. Close up videos show that the top of one building did fall to one side, but then it fell into itself straight down. It's so strange that the entire structure crumbled...and so quickly.

I also believe WTC7 was demolished. But I wonder if it was rigged just before or just after the attacks. If it was just before, more questions. Why they would do it...even more.

[danr]

man alive ... so many claims on how people expect a building to behave, each one that feels "strange" adding fuel to the conspiracy fire ...

it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before. They can make a million calculations and simulate a potential collision hundreds of times, but without firm evidence from previous similar situations, i don't think they can nail the expected behaviour well enough to say "hey, that's wrong ... something else must be afoot".

repeat the experiment for real 5 more times, we might get somewhere.

[rooster]

the momentum of a few floors falling down a story is huge, once it starts moving it puts many more times the strain on the structure than when its stationary. once one floor crunches, the next one goes harder, then the next etc.

[motives]

problem is the building goes down free-fall..

Not floor by floor like "ca-chunk, ca-chunk ca-chunk"

[rooster]

is that a response to my post? I definately wasn't suggesting that it stops each floor, rather that the force increases with each floor that cripples. meaning that the structure that was strong enough to support the floors is nowhere near enough to stop the floors when theyre moving. Once one floor buckles its the beginning of a chain reaction

[motives]

yea sorry if i was unclear, my point was that if that was happening you would see some hesitation were each floor slams into the other. At least the first somethin floors. Not just plummet straight down.

not that im a building engineer or somethin.. Just figure it would look different than what u see on the videos

[rooster]

well.. I dissagree, it would only hesitate if the structure *could withstand the momentum of the above floors, and I dont think it could. they buckle the instant the weight hits them and the whole thing continues down. The footage shows the upper floors in freefall but the lower floors stay where they are until the upper ones crunch em.

[Frank]

To demolish a building with explosives so it falls straight down requires precise setting and timing of all of the charges. Military explosives experts are not urban building demo experts (although I'm sure they could be if they wanted to learn). Either way, demolishing a building with explosives requires charges set all through the building, not just on the ground, so if the place is on fire you don't want to be going in and setting explosives. Blowing up a building like that is not a snap decision. So far as I know, anyway.

That said, WTC7 sure as hell didn't collapse like it was destroyed by fire. It went down exactly like a demolished building.

Motives, if the top ten floors of a steel and concrete building fall down, do you really think one floor of that same building will be able to stop it?

Frank the Avenger

[SkullboX]

Here is an item, roughly 20 minutes in length broadcasted on Dutch national television on a highly respected newsprogram. It doesn's suggest the US blew any of the buildings, but does question the involvement of the US government prior to the attacks. In the video a former german minister and a former british minister (in office during Blair's war government) are interviewed.

http://www.2vandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&func=view&cid=210&sid=29 882# (It's subtitled in english)

I'm somewhere in the middle of both stories I guess. We'll probably get to know the truth sometimes, the only sure thing is right now, very few people do. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[motives]

rooster, frank: Im not sure. As i said im no engineer. i never said that the top ten floors would be stopped by the building. What i said though was that i think that if floor 70-something collapse you would see that floor crumple a bit and then go down taking the rest with it. Not just perfect freefall like that. But i dont see the point arguing it since i cant back it up. I just think its weird when u think about it.

[sledgy]

I've done alot of reading around the net on this over the past couple days and I've reached my own conclusion that most of those who believe in conspiracy theories do not know their ass from applesauce on most common sensical things.

[adam]

While we're on it, how do you lot feel about religion or President Bush? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[notman]

aren't they the same thing? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Can't stand Bush... one issue I have is he uses his religion to drive his decisions, rather than keeping church and state seperate. He's also an idiot IMO. Personally, I think Cheney is running the country (for the most part) and Bush is just a figurehead puppet.

[KDR_11k]

"George, shoot the lawyer!" "Okay, Dick."

[notman]

lol, that's probably how it would have happened if Bush was there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

btw, did you see that guys pics today after getting released from the hospital? Ouch

[ElysiumGX]

I'll try to summarize what I think about 9/11, and why I don't put so much time into the trivial details of the conspiracy theories. A lot of facts don't line up. While one side believes Al-qaeda and BinLaden (remember them?) caused the attacks, the other believes the government possibly played a role. It's a black and white arguement.

I think a third party may have been involved. A group not directly connected to the US government, but loyal to its interests. A group that benefits from stronger US influence in the Middle East. From evidence gathered, there was suspicion that perhaps the anthrax scare was a plot to frame extremist organizations (don't hear much about the anthrax scare anymore). The US already had plans for moving in, they only needed a scapegoat and a born leader, appointed by God himself, to march the country to victory under a blanket of several misleading buzz words. Freedom. Terrorist. Weapons of Mass Destruction. "Spoke on condition of anonymity".

I think Israel plays a strong role in this goal. This is why many of the suspected hijackers are still alive today. Discovering who really carried out the attacks, if they were working under the interest of allies, could be a low blow to the US. For the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, most evidence would be destroyed (or kept secret). Videos taken, forces relocated. In a debate of whether it was the government or terrorist, no one would suspect it was neither.

After the attacks, the US was quick to point the finger at Bin Laden who has yet to admit his involvement (that I know of, and why wouldn't he?), or be captured. He could play scapegoat to the perfect frameup. Everyone knew his intentions, he just needed a little help in making them a success. Since then, Bin Laden has urged the American people to stand against it's government's lies.

And now there's a big fuss about an old video where Saddam talks "about" terrorists interests in WMDs. In no way does he talk about having them or obtaining them. Obviously, this is solid proof he in fact was hiding WMDs. Our President talks about WMD all the time, only difference, we actually have them. In court, Saddam continuously calls Bush the criminal. There is doubt on whether Saddam was actually pulled out of a hole. An entire country, and we find him in a small hole, yet still can't find Mr. Laden (if he is even hiding). It works great to dehumanize Mr. Saddam.

Now, Iran is behind the crosshairs, and there is new Palestinian leadership not favorable to Israeli or American interest. I'm sure there will be no end to our involvement in the middle east. Keep the masses busy with false reports, and silly theories. Mission Accomplished.

I know it all sounds silly, but it would make a perfect political thriller worthy of primetime. Who says it's impossible? Taking down three entire skyscrapers in the middle of Manhatten on a clear morning sounds impossible.

Wow, this was a long summary. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[oXYnary]

[ QUOTE ]
So you've got ONE guy who states some equations. What he doesn't include is the source of his equations, nor if that only covers ground radius. Radio frequencies can travel upward unobstructed. Then this guy further tried to state that his cell phone stopped working at specific altitudes. Did he have an alitimeter onboard? Personally I can't tell what the hell height I am until we level off that the pilot tells us. My point is, I really question the guys statements. Maybe he couldn't receive calls a high altitudes, but others were able to.

That 'technology' isn't required to make phone calls, it is probably meant to improve the ability.

Edit: Ok, how about this... the guy states that the cell phone range is 10 square miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the quote I was a direct response to what your gentleman stated! I dint include them because I thought it would be self evident that the response addressed their issues. But yes, your right notman and MoP, it is hard to prove one way or another. I admit as such, but we also cant allow ourselves to be engulfed in grey all the time, or nothing will ever be accomplished. Its the same as ID pointing to grey areas in Evolution as proff that Evolution is flawed.

You also misinterepreted the information in thee equation. 10 miles was not the radius. Again.
[ QUOTE ]
10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. Let's call it 2 miles for the sake of argument.

There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and Daz.. Dont forget the other extreme to your example! Very recent also! The fall of Hussiens statue and just how much staging was/wasn't involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_statue_fall

Oh, need I remind of "weapons of mass destruction"?

[MoP]

oXYnary, Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Cellular_telephony) that cell phone base stations can have a coverage area of anywhere from 0.25 to 20 miles, so it's entirely possible that they were within coverage range of a single more rural base station for enough time to make a phone call or two.

Like I said before, presenting things like that as fact and proof of your argument doesn't really work when the "facts" are just made up by people on a forum.

[oXYnary]

Dammit, I searched Wikipedia.. Im never good with search terms.. Ok Then for the time being I will forward this.What we will need to establish is the range of the towers in the area the flight was in. Back in 2001 also. 5 years would of course seen upgrades in the infrastruture.

But see? Since IM a honest debator, I will withdraw until I can find out more...

[oXYnary]

Wait a minute, I think I just figured it out... Thats the towers range right? Range outgoing. It can only receive. It can rebroadcast signals to other sites though in the network. It cant give a range for receiving because that depends on the individual phones transmitting strength!

Try again!

Yaee...
(me ducks MoPs knockout)
"ADRIAN! ADRIAN"

[Eric Chadwick]

I thought we covered that already.
http://boards.polycount.net/showflat.php...vc=1#Post102719 (http://boards.polycount.net/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=101341&page=&fpart=5&vc= 1#Post102719)

[oXYnary]

Looks like I missed that Eric. I owe you an apology. Got too mixed up with MoP and notman.

He states right before that..

"The signal from a cell phone doesn't go on forever; the energy to propel it dissipates after a number of miles, "

So which is it? Does it have unobstucted access to the ground from any level? The figure I gave above shows that the range is still limited.

[Mark Dygert]

What if the building was rigged for demo? What if the same people that masterminded this plot knew what kind of damage it would to do everyone to see those towers fall on TV, after they where hit? What if they didn't know if the planes could take down the building so they rigged it for demo anyway? This was obviously an attempt to go for maxium effect. It takes time to get camera crews out to a location and set up. What if they accounted for that? Crazier conspiracies are being bantered about.

One of the problems with the video I see is that when they are talking about the “heavy duty industrial steal” they are showing the outer shell being put on. On these towers that is not where the buildings main supports where located. Instead the buildings had all of their supports clustered around the center of the building in long tubes. If the planes managed to penetrate and weaken the center supports the building wouldn’t come down like any other building because it’s design was different. All the examples they show are of building with drastically different designs.

[ QUOTE ]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
“The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Also if you pay attention to the video, you see a big chunk of the building (what looks like the upper half) fall over onto the surrounding buildings. So it wasn’t as nice and clean as they would have you believe. That would be considered an utter failure to any company that demo's buildings. But then conspericey people always like to go for the quick and easiest answers first. One person, one evil matermind.

The video shows pieces falling off the building as proof of an placed charge going off. What about the other 200 reasons why that piece could have fallen off?

The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. "watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right! Simple math proves it we iz teh right!!11one" They state people contridicting themselves as proof of a cover up. But really those people didn't have all the facts early on. As facts rolled in over time, the "experts" changed thier opions of what happened to be more correct. I doubt anyone was holding a gun to thier loved ones heads making them change thier story. They where always opinions as to what happened never facts. Opinions stated as if they where facts and sure some people even believed them to be facts but they where still opinions, much like this video...

[Irritant]

I think it was Colonel Mustard. On the Grassy Knoll.

Welcome to the new Millenium.

[Thegodzero]

vig, the outsite frame is a shell it doesnt support the building. The inside is made of steel reinforeced concrete made to withstand a full 747 hitting it. There are 4 main shafs that are far enough apart that even if the hull was hard as rock would only be able to hit one with full force. If that happened it would still be held up by the other three. If that didnt hold the top would have fallen over not dropped. I studied the building shortly before it was hit so when i saw it on the news being hit i didnt think much of it .As i knew it could take that, when i saw them fall it hit me the numbers of how many people were in the towers on a given day that being 100,000 people. The idea of the total only being less than 3000 made me question it more. Only someone who wanted to make a point but cared about lives would hit the towers that early.

[Ninjas]

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. [i]"watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the "opinion" they have about the math involved is wrong? I'm guessing you haven't taken much math.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
So it wasn’t as nice and clean as they would have you believe. That would be considered an utter failure to any company that demo's buildings. But then conspericey people always like to go for the quick and easiest answers first. One person, one evil matermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure it would be considered an utter failure. The WTC towers were more than twice as tall as the tallest building ever demolished... I'd say it was a pretty successful demo, especially considering it was done with airliners. Pretty impressive (in a morbid sort of way) if you ask me. If the pilots would've survived, they could've started their own demo company.

[KDR_11k]

TGZ: That's in mid of a no-flight zone. Apparently at 9 in the morning the anti-air defense is weaker (because an NFZ means planes entering it get a warning and a barrage of anti-aircraft missiles shortly after). Maybe it was just to hit the Pentagon while AA is down and delaying the other attack would mean the defense is up again. OTOH, this is terrorism, the goal is to make people afraid and governments pass restrictive laws to "fight" terrorism, not to kill people.

Vig: Who says there weren't a few charges placed to make the destruction more uneven and "natural"? Besides, I think we were talking about demo charges in WTC7, not the twin towers.

Also, Al Qaeda once bombed the twin towers with a slight inaccuracy that made the towers survive it and a note "next time we're more accurate" so maybe AQ placed a few bombs in the basement to make it collapse while flying the planes in for effect?

OTOH, as had been said before, AQ denies any connection with that attack.

Keyser: Demolition experts have to calculate how the building would collapse and place charges accordingly, that's not trial and error so "we've never done THIS before" isn't an excuse. A non-expert placing bombs could have made such an error.

[KeyserSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Keyser: Demolition experts have to calculate how the building would collapse and place charges accordingly, that's not trial and error so "we've never done THIS before" isn't an excuse. A non-expert placing bombs could have made such an error.

[/ QUOTE ]

The taller a building is, the more the falling debris is going to disperse beyond the building's "footprint." It's simple physics. Prior to Sept. 11th, the tallest building ever demolished was less than 50 stories (compared to the WTC tower's 110 stories), so it goes without saying that the debris from the twin towers would disperse quite a bit more than any other building ever demolished.

Besides, if the towers were demolished with explosives, it wasn't a commercial job... I doubt the people responsible had much concern for any collateral damage that may have been caused by falling debris (I'm speaking hypothetically, of course).

[KDR_11k]

If it was gov ordered there'd be at least some concern for reducing collateral damage. But considering the layout of the structure I suppose just blowing away the central support pillars would make it drop cleanly. Al Qaeda would bomb it like that (least explosives necessary) but TGZ said there's no way the planes alone could have done that. Bombs in the basement sound plausible, no matter who placed them.

[adam]

OK OK fine - it was ME who blew up the WTC.

I did it for peanuts.

[Valandar]

And yet, everyone forgets Occam's Razor.

Take that as you will.

[KDR_11k]

Occam's Razor says the simplest theory that explains the observations is applicable. What this thread is about is that the official theory does not match the obervations.

[Valandar]

Neither do the myriad conspiracy theories.

There can be only one conclusion. Not all the facts are evident, yet. And any decision or judgement made until the facts fit a provable theory is premature.

[KDR_11k]

Well, yes, but noone cares about the majority of conspiracy theories, either. I mean, lizard men from Vulcan? Is that what LSD in the tapwater makes you think? Does that happen when you miss the primary message of the Illuminatus and the Principia Discordia?

I think the simplest explaination for the observations we're seeing is, if the planes didn't bring it down then those terrorists planted bombs in there as well (adds only one additional assumption, doesn't run counter to the official claims AFAIK). After all, terrorism is about making a headline, it's a play and the world is the stage. "Plane crashes into WTC but symbol of capitalism survives" wouldn't make a nice headline and "explosion destroys WTC" wouldn't have as much impact, either. The plan was well made so a backup plan to make sure the thing really goes down makes sense. They had a chance to bring it down with a bomb before so they knew how to plant a bomb and how to get in there without being stopped.

[Mark Dygert]

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. "watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right!

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the "opinion" they have about the math involved is wrong? I'm guessing you haven't taken much math.

[/ QUOTE ]

The math they used was correct. I was saying they flashed some math on the screen as if to say;
"look we have math, believe EVERYTHING we say (even the really crazy stuff)"

OOOOoohhh they have the math to prove the towers fell in 9 seconds. Wow so it was George W. holding the detonator, get a rope we gots us a hangin’ to do Earl.

The outline for the video goes as follows.
- 10% facts used to prop up the rest of the video but don't prove everything they claim.
- 70% conjecture
- 20% opinions

Just don't get sucked into thinking what they parade around behind a few facts is actually truth, its their opinion. They raise some interesting points but I don't see a lot of concrete facts that back up everything they claim. They don't state a lot of their sources for the info they give, just because it sounds like it could happen doesn't mean it IS what happened. I wasn't there, I won't know the full truth, and I doubt anyone will. It is foolhardy to think anyone can explain it all. The scope of the events make it pretty hard to do that.

I can't say these guys (or the government) are getting it 100% right. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, lost to the dead and in the debris. At the end of the day they are still Michael Moore wanna-be's doing a half ass job of spreading their brand of truth when they don't have the full story and more than likely never will.

[rooster]

yeah I agree, arguing over stuff that can't be proven is pointless. Unless people actually enjoy it, then it's just entertainment. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Ninjas]

Here is what I think of the video.

The intro is complete fact. The joint chiefs had approved plans to kill Americans in the 60's and I have no reason to doubt the other things they state in that section.

The Pentagon site does not look like any plane crash I have ever seen. The lack of any video of a plane hitting the building is suspicious. It IS the pentagon, right? Im sure they have hundreds of video cameras on it.

That dude in the video is not Osama Binladin, and that video contradicts many other statements by him that he had nothing to do with it.

I think it is pretty clear at this point WTC7 was rigged to explode, since that is what the owner said, but later lied (lamely I might add) to cover up. The US government supports his lies so they are in cahoots to some extent.

It was inprobable that a jet or fire would cause a collapse of WTC1 or 2 since the building were designed to withstand these exact things. Even the building that had only it's corner clipped fell down, even though this would have missed all of the building's major support structure.

We also know that George Bush ignored the letter and spirit of the law/constitution by setting up a secret program to violate Amercan's right to privacy by listening in on phone calls.

His administration put pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence to justify a war in Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda and There never were ANY WMDs.

Many major news outlets have said that the US government probably maintain secret prisons in third world countries. Why? So they can torture people with impunity.

There is good evidence that the election results in Florida were influenced by Jeb Bush (roadblocks, double punching, etc.)

So all that adds up to more than nothing I think. At least enough to not trust anything those guys say.

My prediction: In the next year Germany or France will insist on sending a major UN mission into Iran. The US will field the majority of people and equipment in this war.

[MoP]

I shave with Occam's Razor.

[Thegodzero]

Dracula uses occam's razor to shave too mop, so watch out you might turn into a vampire!

Ninjas, how do you know something fishy with the system? When something like this happens and the gov doesnt start a formal non partisen investigation into why it happened. Insted you have Bush saying we need to move on and not look into who is to blame but insted what we are going to do now. Then keeping that same idea for years after it happened. So that he can distroy any evidence of wrong doing. What he said makes sense for the people who lost someone, but not for a gov whos job it is to keep them safe...

[Ninjas]

I read the FEMA report on WTC7 today. Pretty funny. A choice quote from the conclussion. "...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

The ways they say the building could have fallen down are so absurd that they make the tinfoil hat people look like the pinacles of logic. In fact, the whole report seems more like a document to support conspiracy claims than a report to debunk them, yet this is the report the state department refers to when "debunking" the WTC7 rumors. I have also been reading through the Sept. 11th records. Eyewitness interviews from a lot of the people who were there. Some of them have been censored, and the NY Times had to sue under the freedom of information act just to get them released at all.

From NY Times

"...again, I don't know how
valid this is with everything that was going on at that
particular point in time, but for some reason I thought
that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center
before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant
Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
in front of the building, and I agreed with him because
I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I
mean, it could have been as a result of the building
collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building
or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building, how when they
blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I
thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
15
S. GREGORY
but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
right next to me. He said did you see anything by the
building? And I said what do you mean by see
anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw
them, too."

[hawken]

[ QUOTE ]

it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Danr, so when the empire state building got a B-25 wedged into it, did it fall down in a heap? So yes, it has happened before.

"BOMBER HITS EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, SETTING IT AFIRE AT THE 79TH FLOOR; 13 DEAD, 26 HURT; WIDE AREA ROCKED"
was the headline on one newspaper after B-25 bomber looking for Newark Airport (in NJ) slammed into the 79th floor of the building on the morning of July 28, 1945.

[Rick Stirling]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Danr, so when the empire state building got a B-25 wedged into it, did it fall down in a heap? So yes, it has happened before.

"BOMBER HITS EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, SETTING IT AFIRE AT THE 79TH FLOOR; 13 DEAD, 26 HURT; WIDE AREA ROCKED"
was the headline on one newspaper after B-25 bomber looking for Newark Airport (in NJ) slammed into the 79th floor of the building on the morning of July 28, 1945.

[/ QUOTE ]



directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before

[Ninjas]

I've been reading the eyewitness stuff and the really amazing thing is that almost every account does not match up with the official story. In one account a guy who was at his desk just a few floors away from the impact. The impact was so absorbed by the building that none of his pictures on his desk were even disturbed.

And about the Empire State building crash. To be fair, a B-52 is around 40% bigger than a Boeing 757, and the Empire State building is a lot smaller and older than the trade centers.

[MoP]

Ninjas, it's also probably an amazing thing that many of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts don't match up with each other. It's been proven that eyewitness accounts are hugely fallible, I tried Googling up the statistics on it just now but can't find an appropriate link, however I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that less than 10% of eyewitness accounts are actually accurate descriptions of what happened. Something to keep in mind.

Also something to keep in mind is that you yourself read "B-25" as "B-52" and made the incorrect claim that it is 40% bigger than a 757, the B-25 is actually a considerably smaller plane. It's also likely that it was travelling about half the speed. Also, the fact that it was an accidental crash as opposed to a direct and deliberate maneuvre probably made it a lot less dangerous.

[ElysiumGX]

Correction Ninjas. The Empire State Building was hit a 10 tonne B25 bomber. Not a B52.

A fully loaded Boeing 757 weighs 100 tonnes with 30 tonnes of fuel on board

[Ninjas]

oops...

Yeah, except that a lot of eyewitness accounts in this case do match up with each other, just not the official story. If it were just one or two people saying bombs went off in the building, then fine, but so many?

People can judge for themselves on the eyewitness accounts 911 Report (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)

[Frank]

A clairifcation:

Bin Laden initially denied involvment, but later admitted he and al-Queda had planned and carried out the attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#Responsibility)

The Pentagon is a building made entirely of reinforced concrete. Of course the hole won't look like any plane crash you've ever seen.

If the US was willing to knock down several buildings in the middle of Manhattan just to have an excuse for a war, why in the hell would they care about collateral damage? Why would they be so careful about it?

Frank the Avenger

[KDR_11k]

Because they don't want the blow to their economy to be too big?

[ElysiumGX]

Further clarification:

Bin Laden initially released a statement denying involvement.

Soon after, US Forces FOUND a video in a destroyed building in which Bin Laden admitted involvement, but even many in the Muslim world considered it a fake.

In 2004, just before the elections, Bin Laden released another video speaking to the American people directly. He speaks of planning to bring down the towers after the Israeli/American invasion of Lebanon. I wonder if this video could have been intended to bait America. It was a strong influence in keeping Bush in office, which would work towards Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting America to defeat. Denying involvement would get him nowhere, but admitting it would work to achieve his initial goals. And here we are right on course with the debt ratio continuing to rise, and domestic issues set aside. An entire city can be destroyed under the supervision of an agency that is now considered a joke, but billions go into the effort overseas.

[Ninjas]

Well, the government is involved in the WTC7 cover up. You can read what they have to say on the state department website, then read the FEMA report on WTC7, then watch the "pull it" video and then the Silverstien press release, saying he meant firefighters. Of course, after reading the FEMA report you will already know there weren't any firefighters.

The issue of the Pentagon od WTC 1 and 2 are a bit different, but I have been reading original sources and I just don't think the official story adds up.

[Jeremy Lindstrom]

so what about the plane that crashed in the field? The government made at farmers growing corn?

[KDR_11k]

Who said the planes weren't hijacked?

[sledgy]

As an addendum to my last comments I think it's very possible that there are deliberate attempts at providing misinformation to the public in the way of conspiracy theories so that details of real issues become obscure.

I'll cite as an example GWB's recent criticism for allowing illegal wiretapping of American folks and then merely days thereafter another Osama video suddenly surfaces. This just seems way too coincidental. It could be Al Qaeda's plan to fan the flames of unrest but in either case I'm keeping my eyes open.

On another note of GWB critique:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3651464.html

Are we in such deep financial shit that we need to sell off national forest to pay for our basics? Maybe we should stop shooting money through a firehose into GWB and admin's pet war in the middle east and then we'd have enough. When is this bullshit going to stop and we can start putting money in the BANK like when Clinton and admin were in charge?

I think we should pay members of the Congressional and the Executive branches much more. By increasing the salary tenfold, the positions would become far more attractive to the truly talented business-oriented people. When a CEO or other officer of a mid-size company today can take home 7- and 8-digit paychecks why would they bother running for political office? The only way to make any real money in office is to cheat, lie, and steal. Any successful corporation will tell you that an investment in good people is the best investment you can make.

[hawken]

[ QUOTE ]
so what about the plane that crashed in the field? The government made at farmers growing corn?

[/ QUOTE ]

dekard this was aready cleared up at the end of page two by vig. No need to go around in circles.

It would appear that plane was shot down, but it's kinda embarassing for the gov to admit it.

There's no evidence for it crashing, only spin.

[notman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so what about the plane that crashed in the field? The government made at farmers growing corn?

[/ QUOTE ]

dekard this was aready cleared up at the end of page two by vig. No need to go around in circles.

It would appear that plane was shot down, but it's kinda embarassing for the gov to admit it.

There's no evidence for it crashing, only spin.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahah, I didn't realize THAT was proven. I still believe the plane crashed like we were told. You believe it was shot down.
Everyone has an opinion, but it shouldn't be stated as fact by us. That is why I had stopped replying in this thread, because none of us know all the facts and everyone seems to be holding onto their opinions. It only seems like arguments are going to continue. But I felt I need to respond to this because I found it funny how you stated that so 'matter of fact'.

[Ninjas]

If all the courts in the country had to wait until they had "all the facts" to make a judgement, then no judgement would ever be passed.

I think that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" WTC7 is a conspiracy. I think that the "preponderance of the facts" show that the the official story for WTC1 & 2, and the Pentagon are not accurate. I have not researched flight 93, but my gut feeling is that it is fishy.

Everyone has an opinion, yet some opinions are better informed than others.