The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Sunofson: Hello?!
Two totally different buildings with two totally different design methods, etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges...





seekerof




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   


of course you dont because there is nothing on the web that will lend credence to the preposterous notion that the govt proposes


Ok, well, what about this?



Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.





NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.





According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."





There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.





Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."





WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


You opinion?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Do not be so naive as to think the two parties are not partnered. The rivalry is just for politics sports enthusiasts citizenry, so that we might think we have a hand in the outcome. We do not.


haven't read something from you for quite a while. nice to see your vision, here. good stuff.

politainment, yeah?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I still haven't seen people discuss time. It takes time to:
1. Find, talk to, and negotiate with a demo company
2. Study the layout of the building to see how best to implode it
3. Study the floorplans to see where to place the explosives
4. Gather the explosives
5. Place the explosives in the right spots.

Are you telling me they were able to do that all in a matter of hours? Inside a burning building? When everything surrounding that area was in chaos? And if things weren't in chaos, how did they do it undetected? I'm sure if it was imploded, most of the police and fireman didn't know about, so do you think they were just going to let people run around with explosives after the greatest attack on US soil?






posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I still haven't seen people discuss time. It takes time to:
1. Find, talk to, and negotiate with a demo company
2. Study the layout of the building to see how best to implode it
3. Study the floorplans to see where to place the explosives
4. Gather the explosives
5. Place the explosives in the right spots.

Are you telling me they were able to do that all in a matter of hours? Inside a burning building? When everything surrounding that area was in chaos? And if things weren't in chaos, how did they do it undetected? I'm sure if it was imploded, most of the police and fireman didn't know about, so do you think they were just going to let people run around with explosives after the greatest attack on US soil?



i think you're underestimating the power of billions of dollars.
if i bought those buildings, i would get the floor plans, universal access and as much time to plan and contact co-conspirators as i needed, with time left over for cocktails after work.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
People also keep comparing the WTC towers to other sky scraper fires. Those other sky scrapers weren't slammed into by 747s....


And as far as it not being hot enough. Well the buildings continued to burn and smolder for days. They weren't exactly cool....



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Plus, the steel didnt need to melt. It just needed to weaken, which it did greatly



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I just think it's laughable that anyone could blame 9/11 on the Republican-controlled Congress. The President committed a crime of perjury and did countless other questionable things which were no better, if not WORSE, than what Richard Nixon was impeached for by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

I don't want to turn this thread into political bickering, I just think that for 8 years the Clinton Administration totally dropped the ball. Regardless of Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinksy, etc, the President of the United States still has the constitutional and moral requirement to protect the citizens of the United States. During his time in office, American interests, citizens, and property were attacked by al Qaida or al Qaida-related groups no less than half a dozen times. Bill Clinton never even visited the World Trade Center after it was attacked by terrorists in 1993!

Bill Clinton passed up numerous offers from the Sudanese government, and even reportedly the Taliban itself, to extradite bin Laden to the US. Clinton's argument was that he didn't feel we could build a solid case against bin Laden in a court of law. Meanwhile the guy is on CNN, ABC, and countless other world wide media outlets declaring a Holy War against the United States, as well as taking credit for the attack on US Marines in Somalia in 1993!

Even after the attack on the USS Cole, which could clearly have been attributed, and was, to Osama bin Laden and al Qaida, Clinton did absolutely nothing. On quite a few occasions, we had the crosshairs on bin Laden and the Clinton Administration called off the hit. Once because there was a Yemeni or Saudi royal (I forget which, maybe even UAE) who was staying with bin Laden for the week and Clinton didn't want to offend the Arab country by killing one of its royal family members! Not to mention this guy was staying with and associating with well known and WANTED terrorists!

There's so many more examples of Clinton dropping the ball that would turn your stomach. I understand and accept the fact that 9/11 occured on George Bush's watch. But 8 years compared to an 8 month-old administration is quite a different thing. Clinton left Bush with an underfunded intelligence network and a gutted military. There's not much that can be done, especially with all the beurocracy of Congress, that can be done to change everything in 8 months.

If Clinton really felt his hands were clean of the situation, then he wouldn't have his former National Security Advisor helping himself to 5-finger discounts at the National Archives, and then burning the very documents he stuffed in his socks "by accident."

Both administrations are to blame, I just feel that the Clinton Administration has gotten largely what amounts to a free pass from the country and the liberal media. Thankfully President Bush didn't turn the other cheak after we were attacked. And if anyone doubts that 9/11 would have happened with Al Gore as President, you've got another thing coming. It would have unfolded just the same way. Accept for instead of invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban, we would have just filed a lawsuit against al Qaida!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Rasputin---> Yes, you can point the finger at Clinton as well. You wont find me defending him either. The finger needs to be pointed at both sides. However, if the republicans would have been worrying about more pressing issues than the presidents affairs this might have been prevented. If the president would have not been screwing around, this allcould have been avoided.

However, Monica was only one investigation. What about all the other ones? What was he ever charged with? Nothing. That was all a gigantic waste of time. And Bush had plenty of time to change things. Instead he vacationed and relaxed. Again I assert, the only conspiricy is the one prepetuated by both parties in failing to acknowledge their derelection.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
For the better part of the 1990s they had their heads so far up Clintons rear it was sick. The whole party was out to destroy him. While this nation had real problems and security issues to deal with, we we're bombarded with "Whitewater" or "filegate" or whatever the "gate" of the week was.

The Republicans made it nearly impossible to get anything done for those 8 years. This was done intentionaly. Although they tried to get em, he always got away. Then..they hit the jackpot. Monica. All hell breaks loose. Theres hearings, investigations, and in the end, impeachment. The FBI even investigated the Blue dress. 200 agents assigned to the case. All to see if they could prove a BJ..how sad..



True enough, but you can also look at the administations before Clinton's.

Most of the terrorists had their formative years during the Reagan and Bush senior administrations, and are from countries and organizations that were affected strongly by the policies of those leaders. While it's true that the Clinton administration deserves some blame for not finding the fire, his administration didn't start it.

Maybe if Republicans had left Clinton alone, he would have focused more on security, but IMO, by the time Clinton was president, the wheels were already set in motion. If not September 11th/01, then it might have been October 20th/06. Stopping one plot or event might have been possible with more focus on security, but terrorism is just a tactic. As long as there is a desire to use the tactic, it will be used... and you won't stop it all the time. You need to get to the root causes.

The war on terrorism should be a war on war, a war on poverty, a war on resource exploitation, a war on environmental degradation, a war on corporate greed, a war on racism, and a war on imperialism. Without winning those battles, the war on terrorism can never be won. Stop the wheels before they are going, because after that, terrorism is only a matter of time no matter how much security you look for.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Ok I'll take a stab at it....

I agree totally with SPLIFF in his assessment on how the Republican 'Anti-Clinton' agenda, originally conceived by Newt Gingrich, severely weakened the government's overall effectiveness to take decisive action on whatever the issue may be.

When Clinton responded rapidly to the embassy bombings in Africa with a cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Sudan, the vast majority of Republicans accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" to take attention off the ongoing investigations into his personal affairs. The same rhetoric occurred when the US and NATO attempted to dislodge Serbia's genocidal occupation of the former Yugoslavia republics.

Ironically, Bush takes over a month to perform ANY retaliation of the 9/11 attacks, even though there was excellent intelligence in hand where most of Al Qaeda's operations were located. This was time well appreciated by Al Qaeda I'm sure.

A person that blindly follows the Republican bandwagon would say that this was Bush's way of insuring that our forces were not placed under any unnecessary danger and that the members of the UN Security Council were given enough time to digest the evidence to determine if retaliation/invasion was justified. HAH! I guess this was the pre-Iraq Bush ideaology.

Something really stinks about the whole 9/11 issue as it has been presented to us by the government and media. There are just too many convenient circumstances leading up to the attacks, as well as the financial windfall that the Carlisle Group has enjoyed following the attacks, to not question the 'truth'. To be honest, I was supportive of Bush and his response to the attacks on 9/11 until I began to understand more about the Carlisle Group, the creepy close ties between the Saudi Royal Family to the Bush Family as well as James Baker - all members of the Carlisle Group.

My two cents...

W.E.S.B


dh

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I still haven't seen people discuss time. It takes time to:
1. Find, talk to, and negotiate with a demo company
2. Study the layout of the building to see how best to implode it
3. Study the floorplans to see where to place the explosives
4. Gather the explosives
5. Place the explosives in the right spots.

Are you telling me they were able to do that all in a matter of hours? Inside a burning building? When everything surrounding that area was in chaos? And if things weren't in chaos, how did they do it undetected? I'm sure if it was imploded, most of the police and fireman didn't know about, so do you think they were just going to let people run around with explosives after the greatest attack on US soil?



That's the whole point, for God's sake - 7 contained offices of the CIA, the FBI,Defense organisations and Rudolph Gulliano's CONTROL BUNKER which controlled the whole event. He was decamped ON THE DAY to the FEMA HQ that had been set up the DAY BEFORE (foreknowledge in flagrante delicioso) a couple of blocks away. The offices were cleared as some slow burning fire mysteriously broke out with no obvious cause - the building had not been hit by debris - the press and firefighters were apparently warned shortly in advance that the building was going to come down
The building was wired with explosives well in advance of 911 because they knew they were going to have to destroy it as part of the cover-up of the central crime

A very good article debunking the whole of these so-called debunkers' case is posted here
www.serendipity.li...

[edit on 14-4-2005 by dh]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by dh]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Quote: "The War on Terrorism should be a War on War, a War on Poverty, a War on Resource Exploitation, a War on Environmental Degradation, a War on Corporate Greed, a War on Racism and a
War on Imperialism. Without winning those battles the War on Terrorism can never be won."

Finally - someone else who gets the BIG PICTURE!!!


As for the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 - I am still going to have to go with the
"Government is Incompetent" explanation! But I still think the whole Pentagon side of the Equation is Fishy However! That being said I feel that DH's proposal of Insider Corruption is just TOO plain Scary! You know 3000 People Died on just that ONE DAY! If it was an Inside Job done just to forward Agenda's & make Money - well that is just *TOO EVIL* - I don't even want to Imagination such a thing! I can't - I have too much Hope for the Future of Humanity!


[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   


Ironically, Bush takes over a month to perform ANY retaliation of the 9/11 attacks, even though there was excellent intelligence in hand where most of Al Qaeda's operations were located. This was time well appreciated by Al Qaeda I'm sure.


That was actually a fast response time considering the massive, crippling assault we launched. It takes a LOT of time to plan an invasion of another country, and a LOT of time to get the forces into position to do it. I'm sure the Marines on those LHA's we haze gray and underway before the attack plans were drawn up. Even cruising at top speed it takes those ships several weeks to get into the Arabian Sea from the US. We also had to undergo serious negotiations with Pakistan to secure the use of their airspace. That took time.

Clinton responded quickly to the terrorist attacks during his years, too quickly and too softly. When I was in the Navy my ship deployed to the Med less than a week after the Khobar towers attack. We were fully prepared to go kick some @ss and revenge our fallen brothers in the Air Force who died in that bombing. But nothing became of it. I don't remember anyone launching a retalitory strike.

When the USS Cole was bombed, I was stunned. I had recently got out of the Navy and was on a DDG like the Cole. I was working as a defense contractor at an Aegis training and engineering center then. The CIC team of the Cole was at my site for training before they deployed. I fully expected a massive military strike in response to that overt act of war. Instead, Clinton decided to lob some tomahawks at some mud huts in Afghanistan and a baby formula factory in the Sudan.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime

Clinton responded quickly to the terrorist attacks during his years, too quickly and too softly. When I was in the Navy my ship deployed to the Med less than a week after the Khobar towers attack. We were fully prepared to go kick some @ss and revenge our fallen brothers in the Air Force who died in that bombing. But nothing became of it. I don't remember anyone launching a retalitory strike.



Do you really think that Clinton would have been given the same benefits as Bush without an attack on American soil the size of 9/11? I doubt it.

Attacking a civilian target on American soil is a lot different than attacking a military target in Yemen. After 9/11, nearly every American civilian and politician was ready to support Bush on whatever he wanted to do. I never got that feeling about Clinton when the Cole was attacked.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Hajduk]
ed. to shorten quote

[edit on 14-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh
The building was wired with explosives well in advance of 911 because they knew they were going to have to destroy it as part of the cover-up of the central crime




i think you're underestimating the power of billions of dollars.
if i bought those buildings, i would get the floor plans, universal access and as much time to plan and contact co-conspirators as i needed, with time left over for cocktails after work.


You all are talking but you're not thinking. People worked in that building up until 9/11. That rules out the explosives being placed weeks or months before the attack, as that is not unnoticable. Leaving the only time they had to place them without being detected was when the buildings were build. Now they may be rich, but they're not God. No one has that much foresight. No one.

the How?
the Why?
the Who?
If you can answer those with FACTS not speculations from conspiricy sites, then you'd have something to hang your hat on.





The offices were cleared as some slow burning fire mysteriously broke out with no obvious cause - the building had not been hit by debris - the press and firefighters were apparently warned shortly in advance that the building was going to come down

1. The offices were cleared after the planes hit.
2. Not hit by debris?? lol
I know you have no evidenc to support that....simply because it's extremely far from the truth. There's only one picture of 7 not showing the north side (the side facing away from the twin tower), it shows fire, but you really don't get a sense of damaged the south side was.
Here's the building in relation to the TTs


construction design, height, and where the most damage was all played a part into how it fell like it did.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
There were reports by some of the workers in the WTCs that several months prior to 911 some sections of the builidng would be closed off for maintenance and that no one was allowed in those sections during the maintenance, (one of the workers said this was unusual and that some of the sections would be closed a half day or more), I recall reading that somewhere I think a member here posted the link if anyone still has it please post it. So yes even though people worked there it would have been easy for the building to have been wired without anyone knowing it. Put a team of experts in there and it could have been done.
Another thing out of place is the way the steel from the building was sold off so quickly, one would think it would have been studied to determine the exact cause and ways to prevent such a thing happening again but no it was sold within months of the disaster, why the hurry.
Another thing in every past disaster like this a special commission was formed to see how and why it happened, the families of the 911 victims had to fight to get Bush to form such a commission.
Also don't forget Operation Northwood.
And last but not least the mayor was told to evacuate the building it was coming down, now think about that, that means someone had the knowledge before the building imploded it was coming down.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
OMG.. I can't belive that any of you still believe building 7 actually fell on its own accord. I've collected a bunch of photos and videos of the building prior to and of the collapse. Where is all this major damage some of you mention located? I've seen every face of the building in pictures and unless someone is doing some major photo shop "fixing up" of these pictures I just don't get it. The buliding only sustained superficial damage folks.. that's a fact and you are just going to have to live with that unless you can prove otherwise. There is a ton of material out there so I'm not going to post any pics but you can start here.

www.911review.org...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
OMG.. I can't belive that any of you still believe building 7 actually fell on its own accord. I've collected a bunch of photos and videos of the building prior to and of the collapse. Where is all this major damage some of you mention located? I've seen every face of the building in pictures and unless someone is doing some major photo shop "fixing up" of these pictures I just don't get it. The buliding only sustained superficial damage folks.. that's a fact and you are just going to have to live with that unless you can prove otherwise. There is a ton of material out there so I'm not going to post any pics but you can start here.
www.911review.org...


The way wtc7 collapsed definitively looks like a controlled demolition. And even if some debris felt on it it couldn't have collapsed like it did, in a perfect symmetrical way. Guys stop being blinded and watch the video of the collapse until you understand that.

[edit on 15/4/2005 by Musclor]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   


However, Monica was only one investigation. What about all the other ones? What was he ever charged with? Nothing. That was all a gigantic waste of time. And Bush had plenty of time to change things. Instead he vacationed and relaxed. Again I assert, the only conspiricy is the one prepetuated by both parties in failing to acknowledge their derelection.



Actually, Clinton was charged and plead guilty. He lost his license to practice law in Arkansas for 5 years, I believe, in addition to a few other things. Thats neither here nor there. The President has the utmost and ultimate responsibility to protect the American people as well as American interests abroad. To say that Bush or any modern President can "vacation" is laughable at best. The President is constantly working and making decisions for the country regardless of his location. With today's technology the Executive Branch can be controlled from Bush's limo or Air Force One, and can most certainly be effectively ran from Crawford, Texas. The myth that the President must be in the Oval Office or Washington in order to work is just that, a myth. No President ever truly vacations these days and it's simply a ploy by Bush's opponents to make you think he's lazy, when in fact he's very disciplined and runs a very tight schedule.

Furthermore, 8 months is not plenty of time to change things. Most of that time is spent in transition and establishing a new administration. To think that Bush, or any President, could in a mere 8 months completely modernize our military and revamp our intelligence services is a joke. Especially in the pre-9/11 environment where there was no flame under the feet of legislators to do anything. If Bush before 9/11 had tried pumping billions into homeland security or billions into intelligence then people would be calling for a coup de tat.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join