Just Wondering...

a reply to: Informer1958

It is a conspiracy because conspirators were involved. That is not what is so hard to swallow, it is the truth of when where and who benefited from this tragic set of events and it was not the people they claim did it.

a reply to: In4ormant

Is it on the same page as the engineering specs for the titanic?

They did not have the materials for the Titanic that were used in the towers' construction. I know you're just being sarcastic but actually, that is quite relevant. The Titanic would likely not have gone down if it had been constructed with better materials than the cheaply manufactured wrought-iron and steel that they used. The materials were extremely thin and brittle, unlike steel buildings erected in the 70's, when the towers were built.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I agree with you on that statement. There are many simple unanswered question about 911. The government silence of this event is overwhelming.

originally posted by: Informer1958
911 Official Story.

(1) 19 hijackers over took four planes with box cutters.
(2) All four of the planes flew off their given flight paths for an hour without NORAD intercepting them.
(3) Two planes crashed in the WTC and three WTC fell.
(4) Airplane fuel melted all the steal support beams making the WTC floor structure break simultaneously, all 110 floors.
(5) FBI claims they were able to identify all 19 hijackers DNA under millions of tones of the WTC debris.
(6) Plane slams into Pentagon travailing 500 knots skimming inches off the ground by a hijacker who could not take off and land a Cessna.
(7) Plane crashes in Shanks vile PA, leaving no luggage or bodies, just a hole in the ground.
(8) No investigation into 911 until 18 months later.
(9) Head of FBI said none of the plane crash were investigated.
(10) 3,000 people killed at the WTC all whom where identified through DNA sifting under millions of tones of the WTC debris.
(11) NIST report found was perfect.
(12) The 911 Commission Report was perfect.
(13) No one in our government covered up anything and all told the truth.
(14) Mainstream media told no lies and have our best interest.

That is the OS of 911.

Well how can you argue with that? Makes perfect sense

Our elected "representatives" knew well in advvance, and may have had direct involvement.

They "knew" Bin Laden did it immediately, because he claimed responsibility for it. (his ties to US intelligence agencies is intentionally hidden)

Insurance policies being renewed and beefed up shoetly before the attacks (I believe Jeb Bush was directly involved with the insurance aspect of things as well)

Justifying new military involvement in other countries and also a new war on law abiding citizens as well, and not just the Patriot Act (NSA surveillance for example, more recently NDAA)

Basically, I see that event as the first kickoff for the coming of the Orwellian Society. Look at what they justify as a result of that day. It's way too much to swallow for me - didnt buy it then, never will.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The reason the conspiracy exists is because of people who
can't accept the fact that their Gov. would #### 'em like
that. It must scare the hell out of 'em to even consider it.
And with out them hiding in their corner there's no more
conspiracy. Just an unordinary official lie from a gov. to
it's people. And it's people chase'n em thru the streets.

a reply to: In4ormant

Why did it have to be perfect demolition just bomb the building to let it fall where they may, kill whoever, blame the terrorist, kill 3000 or fifteen thousand. You miss the point. It's unnecessary. No need to disguise the demolition as planes. Just bring the things down.

I think it is you who are missing the point. I'll say it again: the planes were obfuscation. A shiny, attention-getting cover story. A false target for people to fixate on. It had to be something really huge, elaborate and controversial in order to cause the level of panic that ensued. It had to be shocking beyond all imagining. Because that way, the government could go in and play the hero, the big protector who makes everything ok again. They wanted a war and they got one. They made sure the entire country would be spoiling for revenge. Mission accomplished.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I think you don't give him enough credit for his acting skills...he did and still does do a great job of "acting" like a fool.

It isn't an act. He's a straight up moron.

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: tigertatzen

The funny thing is that any of you think A) Bush was capable enough to pull this off and B)He was smart enough to act his way through it.

Have you seen this guy??

Yup, he doesn't his his right hand from his left. the point though is to go with his flow, his secret service man was telling him to say nothing while in the schoolroom..which he did..so who was in charge?
Why did he not of his own initiative, just get up and say, something like I am sorry folks, it has come to my attention that I need to deal with some affairs of state, and I'll come back and see you soon, and thank you all....and totally disregard his secret service men, no harm done, and away. The narrative's a bit shiity isn't it!

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: seagull

It's just you and me baby. You ready for this?

Sorry, I used to jump in the ring too. But have come to the conclusion it is utterly pointless to argue about it.

I believe 4 planes crashed that day, flown by mostly Saudi radicals.

3 of those planes hit their target, WTC 1&2 and the pentagon.

WTC 1&2 came down due to severe damage caused by the plane impacts and the resulting fire weakening the already over stressed, damaged structure.

WTC 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, which also started fires that were fed by fuel oil stored in the building. Since WTC 7 had a similar design as WTC 1&2, tube in tube with trusses, it was just as vulnerable as 1&2 turned out to be.

The pentagon was hit by a third 757.

Did our Intelligence know what was going to happen? I don't believe they had specific knowledge about the attack, other than increased chatter.

Did our government use the attacks to further an agenda? Absolutely, and they still are.

Do I trust our government. NO, I believe our government is capable of the most heinous of acts.

Sorry if you feel alone In4ormant, but you are not. In fact, the majority here would agree with you but have come to realize that further 'debate' on this issue is pointless.

Everyone sees what they want to see.

a reply to: FamCore

I agree with you. However, Bin Laden was an CIA asset, whistle Blowers like Sibyl Ebens the most gag woman in the FBI claimed, Bin Laden was working for our government and died shortly after 911 of kidney failure. Once Eben told the public the Bush administration went in over drive to find a new master mined. I remember this was headline News all over the world.

Has anyone ever thought there might be some disinfo agents with ats accounts?

originally posted by: stosh64
Sorry if you feel alone In4ormant, but you are not. In fact, the majority here would agree with you but have come to realize that further 'debate' on this issue is pointless.

Everyone sees what they want to see.

This. 'Debate' on the issue always inevitably ends in one side ignoring everything that doesn't fit with what they've already decided to be true, and screaming "shill" at anyone who disagrees.

originally posted by: sophie87
Has anyone ever thought there might be some disinfo agents with ats accounts?

Possible, though unlikely. Especially when it comes to 9/11. The internet is chock full of all manner of insane 9/11 conspiracy theories. Nobody cares.

The biggest conspiracy is the Official Story of 911. To many simple unanswered questions that the government will not answer.
The WTC debris carted away with tracking devices on the dump trucks to make sure they did not stop anywhere while heading to the dump site. Why?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Fourteen years ago, I was still in high school, and at the time, was quite sure that it was an inside job.

Since then, however, I've learned to look at things more objectively, rather than jumping to whatever conclusion best supports my world view. I also went on to study architecture and structural engineering in college, git my degree, and went into the field.

I still have a few questions about minor things, but overall, I find that the official story explains things quite well. I find myself constantly shaking my head in disbelief at the ignorant claims of most 'truthers' who have absolutely no understanding of structural mechanics (as it relates to architecture) outside of a few videos they saw on YouTube.

I very rarely get involved in 9/11 threads because I don't deal well with ignorant, arrogant idiots (ie. 95% of 'truthers'), and I don't want to get banned from ATS.

Anyway, back to the original question....I used to buy into all the conspiracy stuff, but now I see it for the ignorant trash it is. It's amazing what an education can do to one's thoughts on the matter....

Man that's quite a post. I too am an architect. Have been for 31 years. Longer than you have been alive. Sone are you gainfully employed in the field? You seem to be here day in and day out posting in these forums.

So you buy into the NIST report? Calling people who question that report and the OS "ignorant, arrogant idiots" based on the acceptance of that report is rather ignorant and arrogant since it is fully incomplete and does not address quite a lot about the fires and how they reached such temperatures when the combustibles were not capable of reaching the temperatures capable of deforming A36.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Ah, so you read minds.

Protocol? He's just been told that buildings in NY have been attacked. ...and that the Pentagon has been attacked. What's the protocol for simultaneous attacks on New York, and Washington DC by person/persons unknown?

The protocol is that he's next, so instead of sitting pretty for another half hour at the school, including a TV address, he should have been OTF immediately, and especially since he had a huge scare in Genoa at the G8 conference 20-22 July 2001..that scare was about an aircraft attack on world leaders. and surprise surprise, not from persons unknown in fact the whole period was abuzz about speculation of an aerial attack, including reports to the FAA

Snippets,
'The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”

The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.

This behavior seemed especially reckless in light of reports, issued at the time, that as many as eleven planes had been hijacked. The Secret Service should have feared that one of those planes was bearing down on the school at that very moment. The Secret Service’s behavior, however, suggested that it had no fear that the school would be attacked.'


Eleven planes Eh!

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Fourteen years ago, I was still in high school, and at the time, was quite sure that it was an inside job.

Since then, however, I've learned to look at things more objectively, rather than jumping to whatever conclusion best supports my world view. I also went on to study architecture and structural engineering in college, git my degree, and went into the field.

I still have a few questions about minor things, but overall, I find that the official story explains things quite well. I find myself constantly shaking my head in disbelief at the ignorant claims of most 'truthers' who have absolutely no understanding of structural mechanics (as it relates to architecture) outside of a few videos they saw on YouTube.

I very rarely get involved in 9/11 threads because I don't deal well with ignorant, arrogant idiots (ie. 95% of 'truthers'), and I don't want to get banned from ATS.

Anyway, back to the original question....I used to buy into all the conspiracy stuff, but now I see it for the ignorant trash it is. It's amazing what an education can do to one's thoughts on the matter....

Man that's quite a post. I too am an architect. Have been for 31 years. Longer than you have been alive. Sone are you gainfully employed in the field? You seem to be here day in and day out posting in these forums.

So you buy into the NIST report? Calling people who question that report and the OS "ignorant, arrogant idiots" based on the acceptance of that report is rather ignorant and arrogant since it is fully incomplete and does not address quite a lot about the fires and how they reached such temperatures when the combustibles were not capable of reaching the temperatures capable of deforming A36.

Not solely based on the acceptance of the NIST report, no. As I said, there are still a number of things that I have questions about, and I absolutely agree that the NIST report is sorely lacking in some areas.

I don't consider everyone who questions the 'official story' to be an 'ignorant, arrogant idiot' either, but in my experience, the overwhelming majority of those screaming conspiracy on sites like this fit that description quite well.

It would appear that most 'truthers' (again, not all) watch a few conspiracy videos on YouTube, then come here, get on their little soapboxes, and start talking as if they are experts in architecture, structural mechanics, and demolitions. Then when someone who actually does know what they're talking about comes along and points out exactly what's wrong with their arguments and why, they start thumping their chests and screaming 'shill' as loud as they can.

There are a some intelligent, mature people who bring up some good and interesting points, but they are few and far between.

It's always nice to meet another architect, though.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: In4ormant

Why did it have to be perfect demolition just bomb the building to let it fall where they may, kill whoever, blame the terrorist, kill 3000 or fifteen thousand. You miss the point. It's unnecessary. No need to disguise the demolition as planes. Just bring the things down.

I think it is you who are missing the point. I'll say it again: the planes were obfuscation. A shiny, attention-getting cover story. A false target for people to fixate on. It had to be something really huge, elaborate and controversial in order to cause the level of panic that ensued. It had to be shocking beyond all imagining. Because that way, the government could go in and play the hero, the big protector who makes everything ok again. They wanted a war and they got one. They made sure the entire country would be spoiling for revenge. Mission accomplished.

Just seems odd to me that a country that never needed much of a reason before to go to war would need something so elaborate as this to do it then.

Does a 735,000 pound hunk of metal traveling at 500 MPH that explodes and then burns at 1500 degrees bend an I beam? I mean, I know that steel melts at 5150, but will it bend, or become flexible in these conditions? We need to conduct an experiment to find out.

a reply to: In4ormant

Just seems odd to me that a country that never needed much of a reason before to go to war would need something so elaborate as this to do it then.

First of all, it was a Gov. that went to war not a country. Second, the need
for reason depends on who that gov. targets for war. The long term goal
was obviously to make it's own people the enemy.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

Just seems odd to me that a country that never needed much of a reason before to go to war would need something so elaborate as this to do it then.

First of all, it was a Gov. that went to war not a country. Second, the need
for reason depends on who that gov. targets for war. The long term goal
was obviously to make it's own people the enemy.

I can't imagine what it must be like to live in fear under the umbrella of an oppressive government bent on killing/enslaving me. What is that like?