Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

Originally posted by DaTerminator
So you believe that the US is power hungry enough to kill 3,000 of it's citizens only to destroy one of its biggest land marks and through the whole country into an economic crisis? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Not exactly. I honestly think it is possible for US Gov to let it happen or bash the guilt on someone else.

If you have some kind of strategic geopolitical interest (e.g. Iraq, middle east, oil, etc.) you need to spread fear to convince people and gain enough acceptation. If the people are constantly brainwashed with terrorists which want to kill our culture (or nukes to be launched from USSR) they will start to fear. When you're under effect of fear you're not thinking rationally. There are many studies about how drastically fear affects your rational thinking.
US needs a new enemy, for long years it was Russia and communism. Now they need a new one, the best is global neverending terrorist threat around the planet.

War is never about good thing. War is always about power, money and other interests - never for something generous. Even the most optimistic people must see that someone needs to pay for the war. And it's one big biz.

There is a massive Oil-Military-Jewish lobby in the US (and elsewhere), and these people are mentally on the bottom - better they are sick. They're just hungry for power their stupid money and other mean things. I think it's not a big deal for them to commit atrocities.

Of course I don't believe in every 9/11 conspiracy theory, but I really think that they are significant inconsistencies in official version. The Al-Quaeda is totally weird too, maan the US and Saudis were helping Al-Quaeda to get rid of Russians in 80s (in Afghanistan). Too much weirdness, too much lies. DaTerminator if you're really interested in these things you should check the threads and don't waste our time with your "show me the proof" style.

There are so many holes in your story I can't even begin.

First I'd like to start with your assertion that dealing with Al-Queda in the early 80's was "wierd." If you think that this proves any conspiracy you need to get back to the history books. We were in a cold war with the Russians and communism in general. Any point where we could fight communism without actually having to directly attack the russians we took advantage of, in this case the Afghani rebellion. We did supply Bin Laden with weapons and technology but at that point he had not done anything to harm anyone besides the soviet military. There was no indiciation that he was anything but a noble freedom fighter. There is nothing weird about it. Same goes for us working deals with Saddam Huessien. We had no way of knowing what he would do to his people and his neighboring countries. So to say that us supporting bin laden in the 80's makes us somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks of 2001 is ridiculous. No conspiracy there.

Also, despite your words I still have found no legitimate reason why our government would attack it's own people. The 9/11 attacks did not bring fear, it brought unity. The 9/11 attacks did not give us more oil. Gas prices have doubled since 9/11. 9/11 didn't give the government any more power than what is neccessary to keep our country safe. There is NO reason why the government would intentionally slaughter it's people, destroy it's city, and send the entire country into economic crisis. It is unreasonable to say otherwise. If you are still so intent that our government did this to themselves, prove me wrong.

There is a massive Oil-Military-Jewish lobby in the US (and elsewhere), and these people are mentally on the bottom - better they are sick. They're just hungry for power their stupid money and other mean things. I think it's not a big deal for them to commit atrocities.

I can some my response to this arguement up in one question: What the hell are you talking about?

[edit on 12-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

Re: the planes.

Prior to, and since, 9/11 I've travelled both internationally and nationally using foreign and domestic services.

Prior to 9/11, security onboard was virtually nonexistent. I generally travelled business class, and it would have been ridiculously easy to overcome flight attendants and gain access to the cockpit using boxcutters or, basically, anything with a sharp point.

Passengers do not expect the unexpected. All available knowledge prior to these events supported the theory that a hijacking would result in negotiation and limited (if any) loss of life. Most passengers would simply have been too afraid and/or shocked and/or in fear of their own lives to react in any other manner than to do what they've been told to do.

Re: cell phones.

More than one call has been officially logged - please see the various other threads addressing this point.

I've actually used cellphones and airphones to make calls from lower altitudes as well as cruising altitude. I managed the latter using only a feeble little cellphone with no special gagdetry or souped-up antenna or other transmission device. Was this a fluke? I've no idea! Very possibly. And if it was possible for me, it was possible for others - even those on the fated flights.

That's just been my experience; I'd be happy to answer any other questions relating to flight procedures from a mere passenger's point of view

Originally posted by DaTerminator
We were in a cold war with the Russians and communism in general. Any point where we could fight communism without actually having to directly attack the russians we took advantage of, in this case the Afghani rebellion. We did supply Bin Laden with weapons and technology but at that point he had not done anything to harm anyone besides the soviet military. There was no indiciation that he was anything but a noble freedom fighter. There is nothing weird about it.

I understand what are you saying and yes from my point of view you're roughly right. But you are still not accepting the fact that this is official info. Maybe they trained them or directly lead them. If they controlled them are u sure that everything what you have been told about Al-Quaeda is pure truth? Please don't answer to this, you will say "of course why shouldn't be, there is no indication whatsoever".

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Also, despite your words I still have found no legitimate reason why our government would attack it's own people. The 9/11 attacks did not bring fear, it brought unity. The 9/11 attacks did not give us more oil. Gas prices have doubled since 9/11. 9/11 didn't give the government any more power than what is neccessary to keep our country safe. There is NO reason why the government would intentionally slaughter it's people, destroy it's city, and send the entire country into economic crisis. It is unreasonable to say otherwise. If you are still so intent that our government did this to themselves, prove me wrong.

Roughly again, I think it did bring fear and also unity. You see these things in present view, you don't see the big map and you don't see the prices that will be in 20 years. I don't see it exactly either, but I believe that if the US Gov (others too) has a plan how to be able dominate in 10-20 years then they need to have control over oil and they have other interests of course.

Big Off topic: I still don't understand why every major country has big interests in crude oil and they are not trying hard to find and use alternatives. Maybe it's better for them to have control over it - don't know.

I understand what are you saying and yes from my point of view you're roughly right. But you are still not accepting the fact that this is official info. Maybe they trained them or directly lead them. If they controlled them are u sure that everything what you have been told about Al-Quaeda is pure truth? Please don't answer to this, you will say "of course why shouldn't be, there is no indication whatsoever".

Who said we controlled the terrorists? We never controlled them. We just were interested in fighting the soviets and we saw that the afghan rebellion was a good opportunity to do so. Bin Laden seemed to be a noble freedom fighter fighting for a good cause, so we supplied him with weapons and technology. We never trained them, or bought them.

Roughly again, I think it did bring fear and also unity. You see these things in present view, you don't see the big map and you don't see the prices that will be in 20 years. I don't see it exactly either, but I believe that if the US Gov (others too) has a plan how to be able dominate in 10-20 years then they need to have control over oil and they have other interests of course.

There is no fear. I don't fear the terrorists nor do I fear Bush. If you fear any one of those two things I think it was be safe to say that you are a pussy. And what makes you think the government had a plan to dominate in 10-20 years? And what makes 9/11 strengthen your hypothesis?

Big Off topic: I still don't understand why every major country has big interests in crude oil and they are not trying hard to find and use alternatives. Maybe it's better for them to have control over it - don't know.

Why? One word: cost.

I'm going to flat out say it, but 9-11 was just a modern version of Operation Northwoods.

Could US Leaders Actually Be Capable Of Instigating Attacks Like Those Of 911?


Many people believe that the Bush administration took advantage of 9-11 in order to launch the war and impose repressive measures at home.

In reality Washington did not just take advantage of 9-11. Rather, it instigated 9-11, just as the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed instigating fake attacks on Americans in 1962 - to create a climate where military action seems justified.

As for the campaign of repression at home - with its nightmarish Homeland Security, its assault on legal guarantees, and its star chamber Military Tribunals - this campaign is in part intended to silence the millions of people who suspect that Bush and other top leaders were involved in some way in making 9-11 happen.

Some people ask us: how can you believe that our leaders are capable of such cynicism, murderous cruelty, ruthlessness and dishonesty?

That is why Operation Northwoods is so important.

Full article can be found at www.rense.com...

I believe that the Bush Co. Administration could have used this, only to enstill fear and hatred against Islam in the American people. This article goes a lot further in depth if you read it.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

First I'd like to start with your assertion that dealing with Al-Queda in the early 80's was "wierd." If you think that this proves any conspiracy you need to get back to the history books. We were in a cold war with the Russians and communism in general. Any point where we could fight communism without actually having to directly attack the russians we took advantage of, in this case the Afghani rebellion. We did supply Bin Laden with weapons and technology but at that point he had not done anything to harm anyone besides the soviet military. There was no indiciation that he was anything but a noble freedom fighter. There is nothing weird about it. Same goes for us working deals with Saddam Huessien. We had no way of knowing what he would do to his people and his neighboring countries. So to say that us supporting bin laden in the 80's makes us somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks of 2001 is ridiculous. No conspiracy there.

I agree Bin Laden had to be considered a freedom fighter during his war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda wasn't even organized back then. As to Saddam, I think the US knew what he was all about from the beginning but didn't care. I suspect we had a hand in bringing him to power and getting him to invade Iran.

wow DaTerminator and faust, you two amaze me.

Lets start with the terrorists in the planes with the box cutters. Lets say they did in fact manage to wrestle trough the passengers, or they managed to keep them calm. Why did nobody from the military respond to the illegal flight path of the planes ? There is a strict procedure to follow when a hijacking occurs, the FAA followed this procedure and was in direct contact with NORAD and whatnot. But nothing happend .. a plane crashed into a building, several more were under way and there was NO response. One of the planes flew over the white house before crashing, while there wer F16 ready for take-off only 20 miles away.

Lets say that vigilant guardian caused these 3 apparant mistakes. Wich seems fishy on it's own don't you think ? A training just on this day causing to mess up the entire american airspace ?
Let's assume it did, and lets assume that 8 out of the 9 of all the black boxes, made of the strongest alloy known to men got totally destroyed, but, one of the terrorists passports, made out of plain paper, landed on the streets untouched.

Ok, this is starting to sound like the magical bullet from the JFK killing but stay with me.

So we have the terrorists with boxcutters evading the US military while flying a boeing into these buildings. Mkay.
So we have this boeing hitting the pentagon on the only spot that was renovated to whitstand such an attack, following a clear trajectory that was marked there before 9/11, ok lets consider this coincidence, together with the fact that it hit in the only part of the pentagon that was renovated to whitstand such and attack and the fact that Rumsfeld was safe on the other side.
How come a boeing would NEVER fit te hole at the pentagon? And if there was no boeing here, then you can already safely assume that something else besides terrorists are at play here.

Ofcourse, the only proof of the so called boeing hitting the pentagon was quickly removed and people were forced to keep their mouths shut.

This is not enough proof ? No problem, the towers are still standing and we're already knee deep in #ty excuses and magical coincidences that it might be time to keep our eyes open for fairies and goblins.

Now, the two planes have hit the WTC towers, they are burning mildly for about an hour, then they suddenly collapse?
If you hit a tower this high, why on earth would it collapse ? It goes against the simplest physics rules.
You have a huge tower wich is supporting, in comparison, only a couple floors, it doesn't matter if they are burning, this will just mean the upper floors will weigh less, and in turn this means the towers have to support less weight!
In any case of a collapse, it would at best be partial.
But not in New York.
Here other physics rule apply, cause when the tower starts collapsing you see the upper part from where it had been hit actually tip over, but then start's falling straight down! As if what was supporting it suddenly collapsed too.
Not to mention that you can actually see the explosions, hear them, feel them. But there were no explosions, right ?

There's loads of evidence out there from unbiased people, but the problem is, when it's presented to you you don't believe any of it because it doesn't show a fox or cnn watermark.

If you're coming to a forum like this asking for evidence and at the same time yelling that we're conspiracy theorists you make a very bad impression.

I gotta ask though, where is the proof of terrorists being in those planes ? How come a big part of them are still alive ? Atta's father was probably dreaming when he was talking to his son on september 12 ?

Originally posted by Shroomery
Why did nobody from the military respond to the illegal flight path of the planes ? There is a strict procedure to follow when a hijacking occurs, the FAA followed this procedure and was in direct contact with NORAD and whatnot. But nothing happend ..

There is a policy to be followed after a hijacking is confirmed. Did you happen to peruse the timeline of events? The ones showing exactly when NORAD became involved? Just curious on this one.

8:30-38 am: NORAD is notified that AA flight 11 may be a hijack*.

8:43 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 175 has been hijacked.

8:44 am: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders fighters scrambled.

8:46 am: AA flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower.

NORAD had, at that point, 3 minutes notice. And because the plane started from Mass, it's only logical that the Mass. AFB would be the one responding.

At this time, flight 77 has just left Dulles in DC (8:22), and is probably not yet hijacked. Why would anything in DC be scrambled at all at this point?

9:10 am: (approximate time) UA flight 77 begins to fly back towards the capital, around 10 minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

9:25 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 77 may have been hijacked.

9:27 am: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia to head to intercept UA flight 77.

9:35 am: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.

9:37 am: AA flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

9:38 am: AA flight 77 (allegedly) strikes the Pentagon.

*I used both alleged times here, to show the discrepancy between FAA and NORAD's reporting.

a plane crashed into a building, several more were under way and there was NO response.

Because at that point it hadn't been confirmed that the other deviated flights were hijacked. See timeline.

One of the planes flew over the white house before crashing, while there wer F16 ready for take-off only 20 miles away.

At that point, it was New York which had been confirmed as being under threat. Not the White House or the Pentagon. From a purely pragmatic point of view, why would fighters be protecting an area which wasn't considered to be under threat?

Lets say that vigilant guardian caused these 3 apparant mistakes. Wich seems fishy on it's own don't you think ? A training just on this day causing to mess up the entire american airspace ?

Yeah, I think it's a bit fishy. But you might want to confirm those details; Vigilant Guardian wasn't a one-day event. It started the day before and was meant to continue for some days after.

So we have the terrorists with boxcutters evading the US military while flying a boeing into these buildings. Mkay.

There was no evasion of the US military. Where are you getting this? There was no evasion.

How come a boeing would NEVER fit te hole at the pentagon? And if there was no boeing here, then you can already safely assume that something else besides terrorists are at play here.

You're referring to the hole in Ring C? The one commonly shown online? The small hole? Or are you actually saying that the plane could not have fit into the hole in Ring E (which was a good 75 feet wide; and as planes don't generally produce "cut out" holes when crashed into concrete walls, it's not difficult to see that maybe that Boeing was indeed responsible for the hole).

Shroomery, believe me, I have my questions about 9/11. I don't think it was as clear-cut as "they" would like us to believe, and I don't think we have been told the entire story (for one thing the delays being transponders being turned off and controllers taking action - the official story is that despite rumours to the contrary, it's not unusual for planes to lose either radar or transponder emissions; when both happens it's assumed that the plane has crashed, not that it's been hijacked. I'm still considering these things).

But there have been certain "proofs" of a conspiracy which have indeed been debunked/explained to the point where it's just going around in circles to continue discussing 'em.

Originally posted by Shroomery
If you hit a tower this high, why on earth would it collapse ? It goes against the simplest physics rules.
You have a huge tower wich is supporting, in comparison, only a couple floors, it doesn't matter if they are burning, this will just mean the upper floors will weigh less, and in turn this means the towers have to support less weight!
In any case of a collapse, it would at best be partial.
But not in New York.
Here other physics rule apply, cause when the tower starts collapsing you see the upper part from where it had been hit actually tip over, but then start's falling straight down! As if what was supporting it suddenly collapsed too.

Let’s talk about simple physics.

If you drop a metal box that weighs 10 pounds on your foot from a height of 10 inches, it might hurt a bit, but I doubt that you would be seriously injured. Now what if you drop that same box on your foot again, but this time instead of dropping it from 10 inches, you drop it from 10 feet. Now, what are the odds that you’ve just earned yourself a trip to the ER with a broken foot?

That is a bit simplistic, but you can probably understand that the impact force of a falling object is much greater then the mass of that same object when it is at rest.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a single floor failed, causing the top of the building to drop 12 feet.

If we also assume that the floor that the top landed on did not “give way” as you seem to believe that it should not have, what would the impact force have been?

Well I don’t know the actual mass of the top of the building, but I can calculate the impact force as a percentage of the initial mass.

If we assume an initial mass of 1 kilogram (it doesn’t matter what it is since we are just looking to calculate the force as a percentage of the initial mass.)
Since 12 feet = 3.65 meters. We can go to this page to calculate the impact force.

Note that you have to estimate the amount of “give” in the floor below. If we assume that the total “give” was 10 centimeters, then the impact of 1 kg of mass equals 357.69 newtons of force this is equivalent to 39.74 kg of force. Thus the falling mass would have exerted a force almost 40 times it rest mass. This would be far more dynamic loading than the lower portion of the structure would be able to support. Furthermore, the falling top of the building pushed the exterior walls outward, separating them from the floors via simple levering actions.

Ofcourse, the only proof of the so called boeing hitting the pentagon was quickly removed and people were forced to keep their mouths shut.

There is plenty of eyewitness testimony that a boeing hit the pentagon.

This is not enough proof ? No problem, the towers are still standing and we're already knee deep in excuses and magical coincidences that it might be time to keep our eyes open for fairies and goblins.

The towers were hit way before the pentagon, so already you are knee deep in misinformation.

Now, the two planes have hit the WTC towers, they are burning mildly for about an hour, then they suddenly collapse?
If you hit a tower this high, why on earth would it collapse ? It goes against the simplest physics rules.

No, in fact it follows the simplest physical rules. If the gigantic fires from the plane weaken the stability of three or four floors of the building than collapse is eminent. If you have say 20 floors crashing upon one floor than that one floor will give way, then the next will and so on and so forth.

Tinkleflower: You've got the wrong numbers there mate.
I suggest you take a look here :

911research.wtc7.net...

If you simply look at the flight path you will have to agree that there wasn't a 3 minute interval at all.
And if that isn't enough, here are pretty detailed outlines of what happend to flight 11 in particular, others are described there too:

billstclair.com...

At that point, it was New York which had been confirmed as being under threat. Not the White House or the Pentagon. From a purely pragmatic point of view, why would fighters be protecting an area which wasn't considered to be under threat?

Yeah sure, again, look at the flight path, if one plane goes off on a joyride, hits a building, and 2 others are up there flying the most peculiar path flight, don't you think they would do something about it ?
No, what you say is that, oh well, it's not heading for the same target, it must be harmless! Are you serious ?

Yeah, I think it's a bit fishy. But you might want to confirm those details; Vigilant Guardian wasn't a one-day event. It started the day before and was meant to continue for some days after.

That's even worse! They do a "training" for days wich disrupts the security of your airspace, wich it was intented to improve.
And I'm not the one using Vigilant Guardian as an excuse of them making mistakes, that's what they do.

You're referring to the hole in Ring C? The one commonly shown online? The small hole? Or are you actually saying that the plane could not have fit into the hole in Ring E (which was a good 75 feet wide; and as planes don't generally produce "cut out" holes when crashed into concrete walls, it's not difficult to see that maybe that Boeing was indeed responsible for the hole).

Oh I don't know about the holes, although that would proove enough I guess. You tell me that planes penetrating buildings don't necessary leave the same size penetrating holes. But lets look at the WTC for instance, you can clearly see the impact holes of the wings. Now lets say the pentagon was different in construction, and I'm sure it was. I still doesn't explain why at the exact spot of where the 6 ton titanium engines would've hit the walls, the windows were perfectly in tact.
And you wouldn't even need a 6 ton engine to break those, wings the width of those on a boeing would've been enough.

There were parts of an engine found tho, but not one of a boeing but that of a much smaller aircraft.

@DaTerminator, I don't believe you that there were witnesses of a boeing hitting a plane at the pentagon, if what you're saying is true, then why did they remove the video from the gas station pointing exactly at the impact spot?
All I've heard was people telling that "it was definately not a commercial airplane" and "it sounded like a small private jet" or "a rocket". And this even comes from the "mainstream" media like cnn and others.

If you drop a metal box that weighs 10 pounds on your foot from a height of 10 inches, it might hurt a bit, but I doubt that you would be seriously injured. Now what if you drop that same box on your foot again, but this time instead of dropping it from 10 inches, you drop it from 10 feet. Now, what are the odds that you’ve just earned yourself a trip to the ER with a broken foot?

Ah but you're already mistaken here. The WTC tower didn't have any empty space to let the upper part gain any speed. If you look at the video evidence you can clearly see people in the impact holes of the planes, meaning the floors were not completely destroyed or engulfed in flames.
It's like setting the top of a tree on fire and expecting it to come straight down, it's ridiculous.

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor [Another lie. The top of one of the towers fell over, not down. No pulverizing force! While there may have been enough force to pulverize the concrete, real engineers have shown that the rapidly moving cloud can only be explained by 14 tons of explosives. Where are their calculations? Furthermore, they claim the steel was weakened. If so, it would not have provided enough resistance for the falling weight above to pulverize the concrete instantly]. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. [Another lie. Chain reaction perhaps. But the buildings fell at the speed of gravity – that only happens when air is the only resistance. There should have been a slowing down by each floor hit] Engineers call the process "pancaking," [their diagrams deliberately leave out the 47 steel, massive core columns that would have stopped it from "pancaking" straight down] and it does not require an explosion to begin [that is his guess since it has never happened before - anywhere - or since], according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

The towers were hit way before the pentagon, so already you are knee deep in misinformation

Ok smartass, first of all, I meant that I hadn't touched the subject yet in my post. And second of all, I never said they weren't hit yet.
Nice try though, this actually makes you the one posting disinformation.

No, in fact it follows the simplest physical rules. If the gigantic fires from the plane weaken the stability of three or four floors of the building than collapse is eminent. If you have say 20 floors crashing upon one floor than that one floor will give way, then the next will and so on and so forth.

First of all, where are those gigantic fires ? I want to see them. Every picture and video shows there are no gigantic fires. Have you seen pictures of others buildings that burned for days and wondered why they didn't collapse ?
What about audio footage of the firemen telling over the radio that they are probably able to put out the "small pockets of fire".

Second, that pancaking theory of yours is false, look at te quote above, but you're too stubborn to look up the facts and you assume too much.
Just like you assume that a plane hitting a building automatically means destruction and mayhem, giant fires, while those buildings are exactly build for those circumstances many times over!

There was no evasion of the US military. Where are you getting this? There was no evasion.

Avoiding, my bad.

Originally posted by Shroomery

Ah but you're already mistaken here. The WTC tower didn't have any empty space to let the upper part gain any speed. If you look at the video evidence you can clearly see people in the impact holes of the planes, meaning the floors were not completely destroyed or engulfed in flames.
It's like setting the top of a tree on fire and expecting it to come straight down, it's ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about?

The building was 97% "empty space."

The floors were just over 12 feet apart, the flors slabs were 4" thick. add another foot for the furniture and drywall if you like, but that is still a lot of "empty space."

The exterior walls were buckling inward well before the collapses started.

Originally posted by Shroomery

Oh I don't know about the holes, although that would proove enough I guess. You tell me that planes penetrating buildings don't necessary leave the same size penetrating holes. But lets look at the WTC for instance, you can clearly see the impact holes of the wings. Now lets say the pentagon was different in construction, and I'm sure it was. I still doesn't explain why at the exact spot of where the 6 ton titanium engines would've hit the walls, the windows were perfectly in tact.
And you wouldn't even need a 6 ton engine to break those, wings the width of those on a boeing would've been enough.

There were parts of an engine found tho, but not one of a boeing but that of a much smaller aircraft.

The plane apparently hit at an angle so there would be no wing outline on the side of the building. Also, stubstantiate your claims that a smaller aircraft engine was found at the sight.

@DaTerminator, I don't believe you that there were witnesses of a boeing hitting a plane at the pentagon, if what you're saying is true, then why did they remove the video from the gas station pointing exactly at the impact spot?
All I've heard was people telling that "it was definately not a commercial airplane" and "it sounded like a small private jet" or "a rocket". And this even comes from the "mainstream" media like cnn and others.

Trust me there are eyewitnesses. And where did you get those quotes from? The only place I have seen those before was during a conspiracy theory flash video that has long since been debunked.

Ah but you're already mistaken here. The WTC tower didn't have any empty space to let the upper part gain any speed. If you look at the video evidence you can clearly see people in the impact holes of the planes, meaning the floors were not completely destroyed or engulfed in flames.
It's like setting the top of a tree on fire and expecting it to come straight down, it's ridiculous.

I don't understand where you are coming from. The planes that hit the trade centers created a huge explosion pretty much opening up a hole in both towers. The fires which ensued weakened the stability of the building. Now if you look at a picture you will see that there are many floors above the impact hole. If the stability of the floors where the impact was were weakened enough than the whole thing will come crumbling down. It has to do with physics:

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

Nothing like a tree on fire. I think it's the notion that everything requires a conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

Ok smartass, first of all, I meant that I hadn't touched the subject yet in my post. And second of all, I never said they weren't hit yet.
Nice try though, this actually makes you the one posting disinformation.

misinformation not disinformation. There is a difference.

First of all, where are those gigantic fires ? I want to see them. Every picture and video shows there are no gigantic fires. Have you seen pictures of others buildings that burned for days and wondered why they didn't collapse ?
What about audio footage of the firemen telling over the radio that they are probably able to put out the "small pockets of fire".

So the huge clouds of black smoke that stayed in the atmosphere above NYC for days are not the slightest hint of big fires?


[edit on 15-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

So the huge clouds of black smoke that stayed in the atmosphere above NYC for days are not the slightest hint of big fires?

No they are not, they are exactly the opposite, if you would've done some research you would know this. Thick black smoke means there is not enough oxygen to fuel the fire.

Not to forget that almost all the fuel from the second plane exploded outside the tower, however, this one fell first.

But you know what, just for the heck of it, lets assume there were fires, even then that would not make those towers collapse because pancaking, the necessary procedure for a tower such as this to collapse straight down, is simply impossible with a building that is engineerded like the WTC.

Like I said, you assume way too much and you happily look away when all the evidence is presented to you.

Oh and if you want quotes from eyewitnesses then just look up some news footage from any of the tv stations that were covering live that day.

I don't understand where you are coming from. The planes that hit the trade centers created a huge explosion pretty much opening up a hole in both towers. The fires which ensued weakened the stability of the building. Now if you look at a picture you will see that there are many floors above the impact hole. If the stability of the floors where the impact was were weakened enough than the whole thing will come crumbling down. It has to do with physics:

Again you asume that they created a lot of damage.
What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center. Colums wich can not be destroyed by the fires like you think.
I've already said that these towers were built for impacts like this many times over, a single impact, and especially one not touching the central support columns, should not let the building collapse. Especially not after burning mildly for less than an hour.

And what about the people showing IN those impact holes, people who are alive. How did they get there/survive there, if those floors were so badly damaged that they were unable to support the upper floors.


People can write a book about the evidence AGAINST the Bush administration on this matter.
We have yet to see the first piece of evidence that it was actually terrorists with boxcutters.
The only "evidence" there is is that some immigrants took flight lessons. But this is not very sound evidence either if you realize that half of the alledged hijackers show up alive after the attacks. Especially the one that was first reported to have thrown out his passport quickly before hitting the tower!

It's easy to question a lot of details surround 9/11.
What I don't understand is that people can still keep a straight face while telling this was not supported by the government if you look at ALL the facts surrounding 9/11.

We present you with hundreds of things that tip over your so called terrorist with boxcutter knife theories, but when we're busy explaining fact 5 to you, you already forgot about the first 3, so it's kinda useless.

Everytime you present us with something you call "facts" they're 9 out 10 just plain wrong or plain assumptions without any technical proof.

WTF are you talking about?

The building was 97% "empty space."

The floors were just over 12 feet apart, the flors slabs were 4" thick. add another foot for the furniture and drywall if you like, but that is still a lot of "empty space."

The exterior walls were buckling inward well before the collapses started.

I was talking about the so called test of dropping a cube onto your foot from a certain height. It doesn't work that way, if you too read the link I provided you can actually see for yourself how the falling of the tower should actually be slowed by each floor. Second of all, the exterior walls have nothing to do with this. The fact that the entire tower crashes straight down can only mean one thing, the main support columns HAD to be removed in the process, or the towers would have tilted, or, more likely, never would've come down.

I just don't understand why you can't accept the common story that pretty much everyone, even mosts liberals or anti-bush people, believes. I have a good feeling that these conspiracy theories were started only after the anti-bush sentiment grew. If you have any good arguements or evidences, I would like to see them presented here. As Ernold said, some people have trouble believing there isn't a conspiracy and will believe the conspiracy even when there is evidence to the contrary. Common sense tells me that Al Queda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is just no legitmate reason why the government would do such a thing, and there is truck-loads of evidence to support the fact that Al Queda is directly responsible for the attacks. If you still insist that you have all this evidence to support a government coverup that can withstand scrutiny than provide it. Your avoiding my request only shows that you aren't sure of yourself.

You mean, almost 50% like the ones who voted for Bush in first place. Yeah I'm sure they're right on the matter.. they were right about Bush weren't they?
Where is that truck-load of evidence against Al Qaeda ?
You are SO wrong about that, there is absolutely no evidence, just ask Condoleeza, she promised to offer us the evidence 3 years ago and we're still waiting!!!
In fact it is US conspiracy theorists who have to come up with the evidence.
But you're telling us that they would have no reason to do such a thing ? Are you sure about that ? You're telling stuff like this never happend before ?
You're telling me Bush and his cronies aren't up to something like this ? You still believe Bush is an honest man trying to get rid of terrorism ?

I find it insulting to believe anything other than that islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden materminded and executed the 9/11 attacks. Where is your logic? Mind explaining these things to me?

Sorry to burst your bubble, you should actuacly be insulted at the "official story" your government gave, now that is the definition of a conspiracy theory!
The story has holes in it you could fly a 747 trought...

Just look at the financial transactions surrounding 9/11 alone...(WTC insurance Silverstein, etc...), follow the money and you'll come across stuff that's fishy to say the least.

But you just go on believing what the official story says happaned, if that makes you happier.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

The question will always be "Who really perpetrated it and in God's name why?"

Easy. Islamic Radicals planned and executed the 9/11 attacks because they want the West to decline and for islam to rule the world. It is pretty much that simple. They don't believe in western culture and want to rid the world of it.

Umm.. can you explain how hijackin a few airliners and crashing them achieves any of this?

Maybe you want to re-watch some of thoes Osama videos.. cause i've never once heared him claim responsibility for these attacks.. Terrorists WANT to be acknowledged for what they do, its why its Terrorism.

I think you should really be looking further back into the origins of al-Qaeda, you may find things aren't as they appear.

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Ooh, thanks a lot for explaining it to me. Mate everyone wants/wanted to rule the world Russia, China, US is no exception. This is not as black&white as you think, the problem is with corrupted political parties/dictators fueled by greed/etc and stupid/intolerant/simple_minded people following them. There are plenty of them everywhere on the planet.

Everything is about money and power - sooo trivial and small.

So you believe that the US is power hungry enough to kill 3,000 of it's citizens only to destroy one of its biggest land marks and through the whole country into an economic crisis? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

No, personally I beleive that certain people in high places in the US are power hungry enough to have someone else kill 3,000 peole that would conveniently flatten a building, that was recently puchased by a company that could not afford the hundreds of millions of dollars it would have cost them to remove the abestos. Furthermore the place was seen as an eye-sore by many NYC locals and was never all that liked.

What economic crisis? Traders made millions (if not billions) off September 11. Cheney himself had haliburton stocks woth less than $500,000 US before September 11, 2001. A year later they are worth $26,000,000 US.

I don't see any economic crisis. The attacks also saved the Bush presidency (suddenly he was 91% in the polls) and fufilled the complete Bush/Cheney/Rumpie wish-list regarding military defense and spending as stated in the Project For A New American Century.

I don't KNOW what happened, but I'm asking questions. Though not many people (in the government) are very happy to have these questions asked. Why else would they ship all the steel and rubble to china for smoldering?

Originally posted by ekul08
Umm.. can you explain how hijackin a few airliners and crashing them achieves any of this?

Because it resulted in virtually every nation in the world focusing - if only for awhile - on a terrorist attack. This in turn forces speculation as to the goals of those terrorists - and this is what they want. They want attention on them. They want people to be aware of their goal. How better to accomplish this than manage to get the entire world watching all at once? If nothing else, it served as a really great way of recruiting for their cause...

In terms of videos..this would suggest complicity, if not outright responsibility, and this tape (though it doesn't show Bin Laden) would appear to confirm a definite 9/11-Al Qaeda link.

Of course, whether we can or do trust those videos is another matter entirely.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

That little link ought to clear anything about the trade tower collapse up.

And just where are these various huge holes in the official story? There's a lot of talk about them but I still haven't seen them. Give me a bullet list.

As to however asked how the 9/11 attacks would succeed in getting rid of western culture: it's a terrorist attack for God's sake!! Alqueda and Homas all do similar things. The point is to create enough destruction to instill fear into the populace of a given western country.

And as to whoever said that there was no economic collapse after 9/11:
either you aren't american so you wouldn't know or you have a five second memory span!! The economic balance of the country went haywire after 9/11.