Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??

Originally posted by 2PacSade
If the buildings just all of a sudden fell down on 911 how would that be explained?

By a bomb in the basement probably.

As far as keeping the operation a little more simple, that would do it, yeah? Have a couple smaller bombs go off to give the people a little smoke and fire. Give the news cameras time to get a good view of people running, screaming, and pouring out of the buildings.

Then BOOM.

Drop them both at the same time, blame the whole thing on the evil Jihadees, and you have accomplished exactly the same thing without the incredibly complex layer of the planes.

(The real problem, in my opinion, is the outfitting of the building for demolition in the first place. That's a HELLUVA process to do in an OCCUPIED building!)

...but if the NIST reports were a bit more solid in their explanations then I for one would be much more inclined to believe what we've been told.

On the money, 2Pac. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Truth Movement is one complete and plausible report away from extinction. The fact that the Government has not been forthcoming with information is, in my opinion, the only legitimate pointer to an organizational conspiracy.

The Government produces one 9/11 report on the military failures of that day, along with a physically plausible simulation of the collapses, and the rest of the Movements "ammunition" is blown away like sawdust.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. . .

Agreed. Unless it's a platypus, right?

The collapses were strange, no doubt. Completely unprecedented. But so was seeing two big ol' airplanes flown into the side of skyscrapers like that.

I'm no structural engineer, and I'm sure that a lot of people will poke holes in this statement pretty easily, but:

If the damage inflicted on the building was unlike anything we'd ever seen before, why would we believe that the result wouldn't be equally unique?

I'm just not sold on the NIST explanations so far from what we saw that day.

Neither is the NIST.

BTW- In any case, Bush had to get the support of CONGRESS to go to war, not the American people.

So this whole big show was for THEM? Just another reason to hate politicians.

Seriously though...he's the DECIDER, remember?

George Bush has proven repeatedly during his tenure that the opinions of others mean SQUAT to him...he just vetoed a bill to give kids healthcare, for goodness sake. And didn't even need to blame Osama to do it.


Edit: Spelling

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Essedarius]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I think you're missing my point again. You can't follow regulations regarding the plane until you can find the plane.

But they did know where the planes were accept for flight 77 for a few moments.

"but for eight minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05,
this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed
to controllers at Indianapolis Center. as well as from core primary radar coverage where American 77 had been flying."

Which brings up the question of how the terrorist knew how to avoid the radar.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well my first question is, what does core primary radar coverage mean?

All the terrorists needed to do was turn off the planes transponder and all of a sudden, they're just another blip (1 of 4500 blips).

Just a few things to keep in mind:

Has a building the size of WTC ever collapsed before?

Some conspiracy theorists suggest the government used bombs to blow up the buildings. Well why make a plane fly into them and cover it up with bombs? Why not just blow it up with bombs and blame terrorists? wouldn't that be a safer way to do it with less possibility of complications?

The WTC had already been bombed once so why not just say it happened again?

Which leads me to my next point. Obviously we know the WTC was previously bombed but the attempt failed. Who did that? If terrorists did it the first time and got away with it, why couldn't they have done it this time too?

Originally posted by Griff
Who ever said it was perfect?

If you were in a position of power, would you agree to execute the operation if it wasn't perfect?

Heck no, I wouldn't!! Too much to lose, too little to gain!

Think for a moment on photo ops, plausible deniability etc., etc. Why would it seem to you that this was a stupid move?

We're not talking about the fact that the president was involved in a photo op at the time. We're talking about the "scripting" of his reaction. We're talking about whether or not THEY took the time to script out the actions of the ONE MAN they knew EVERYONE would look at when the "big treason" went down.

By claiming that the President's actions are proof of his guilt, people are asserting that the people who pulled off 9/11 were unable to do something that the producers of The Hills do on a regular basis. That gap in intelligence is just a little too much for me, that's all.

I disagree. Most of the top brilliant people are stupid when it comes to other things. There's a fine line between idiot and brilliant. But, anyway, acting stupid is not the same as actually being stupid.

I do see what you're saying, Griff. But, in this instance, I respectfully disagree. We're not talking about one single idiot savant here. We're talking about a large number of individuals planning an operation that HINGES ENTIRELY on public perception.

Having the president look like an ill-prepared dullard runs completely opposite to the goals of the operation (i.e., getting everyone to goose-step in behind our fearless leader).

I would have been much, much more skeptical if the President would have lept right up and said: "Pardon me kids, but the country needs me."

Originally posted by Essedarius

I would have been much, much more skeptical if the President would have lept right up and said: "Pardon me kids, but the country needs me."

No matter what Bush says or does, people who are against Bush will spin it to their benefit.

First it was there were not enough troops in Iraq. Now the talk is about how the surge is not working. I bet you could find anything Bush has done or said and find the democratic spin on it to be negative.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well my first question is, what does core primary radar coverage mean?

Well as you may know, if you turn of the transponder the plane does not just vanish. The ATC only has a blip instead of the flight number and other information but the radar can still pick the plane up unless the plane goes into a space where radar does not cover.

Bascially it means they could not see the blip on the radar from flight 77 because he was in a blind spot with no coverage from radar.

No matter what Bush says or does, people who are against Bush will spin it to their benefit.

I am not for or against Bush. i just want to know what really happned that day.


[edit on 10-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well my first question is, what does core primary radar coverage mean?

Well as you may know, if you turn of the transponder the plane does not just vanish. The ATC only has a blip instead of the flight number and other information but the radar can still pick the plane up unless the plane goes into a space where radar does not cover.

Bascially it means they could not see the blip on the radar from flight 77 because he was in a blind spot with no coverage from radar.

Yes, but who's radar had the blind spot?
I am also wondering how hard it is to find out where these blind spots were located at the time. I am not a pilot, so I don't know the answer to this but if there are any pilots here, I'd like their opinion.

Thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, but who's radar had the blind spot?
I am also wondering how hard it is to find out where these blind spots were located at the time. I am not a pilot, so I don't know the answer to this but if there are any pilots here, I'd like their opinion.

Thanks.

The air traffic control radar. But there are joint ATC and NORAD radars too.

I am no pilot, but i think it would take someone with flight experience to know where the blind spots were at. But then again the hijackers could have just gotten lucky and happen to find a blind spot.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, but who's radar had the blind spot?
I am also wondering how hard it is to find out where these blind spots were located at the time. I am not a pilot, so I don't know the answer to this but if there are any pilots here, I'd like their opinion.

Thanks.

The air traffic control radar. But there are joint ATC and NORAD radars too.

I am no pilot, but i think it would take someone with flight experience to know where the blind spots were at. But then again the hijackers could have just gotten lucky and happen to find a blind spot.

At the time, there were not inward pointing NORAD radars

"NORAD's radar system ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. The radar window was like a doughnut,. There was no coverage in the middle. Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

Or the hijackers may have simply asked where the spots were in class.

Originally posted by robert z
I bet you could find anything Bush has done or said and find the democratic spin on it to be negative.

Historically, I vote republican.

But, let's be honest, Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. He is an arrogant bastard that has alienated our country from the rest of the world and weakened our infrastructure to the point where we cannot take care of our own citizens in the case of a natural disaster.

Does this mean he perpetrated 9/11?

In my opinion, quite the opposite.
Honestly, why would a man with a God complex need a "false flag event?"

Originally posted by jfj123
"NORAD's radar system ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward.

AGAIN, there are joint ATC and NORAD radars.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
"NORAD's radar system ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward.

AGAIN, there are joint ATC and NORAD radars.

There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

Really?

The elementary school teacher? She's in on it too?

I'm sorry but this is absolutely absurd.

The Truth Movement needs to decide whether our Federal Government is brilliant beyond measure, or a doddering group of clownish morons...because what you are implying in the above paragraph is this:

The evil supervillians who devised the PERFECT covert operation that led to the pinpoint collapses of our country's most recognizeable buildings...didn't gameplan for WHERE the President would be when the news broke, and what would be the most believable action following that historic moment.

Decide.

Astonishingly stupid or amazingly brilliant.

You don't get both.

Please put me down as a vote for "a doddering group of clownish morons". There's plenty of evidence proving that

Very well put points you have made. GOOD JOB !!!

Neither one of you addressed my point. Do you think it is odd that the Secret Service did not think it was necessary to move the President to a safe location???

About the collapse the buildings...

WTC 1 & 2 were hit in 2 different locations yet collapsed in the same manner??? WTC 1 was hit almost center and closer to the top of the building. WTC 2 was hit closer to the East Side of the building and much lower than WTC 1...yet they both collapsed in the same manner. Just a reminder the core columns below the jet impact would not have been damaged so therfore the lighter, damaged, upper portion of the buiding collapsed directly onto the heavier, undamaged core columns. That would be the path of MOST resistance!!!

If WTC 2 had toppled to the East I probably wouldn't be on this forum right now.

Then you look at WTC 7 cmon guys use your eyes!! For crying out loud it fell straight down symetrically at near free fall speed. It even had the controlled demo classic crimp in the center of the building? Uh and no plane hit the building.

If one of those buildings had collapsed differently than the others I would be far more likely to accept the official story. The building collapses have not been explained adequately. In fact we are still waiting for the official story on WTC 7!

Neither one of you addressed my point. Do you think it is odd that the Secret Service did not think it was necessary to move the President to a safe location???

Yes. But then again, we don't really know what happened behind the scenes. So from your point of view, it may seem odd but does that mean conspiracy? Far from it.

WTC 1 & 2 were hit in 2 different locations yet collapsed in the same manner???

Were they built in the same manner? If so, they may have had the same weaknesses thus causing a similar collapse.

WTC 1 was hit almost center and closer to the top of the building. WTC 2 was hit closer to the East Side of the building and much lower than WTC 1...yet they both collapsed in the same manner.

See above statement

Just a reminder the core columns below the jet impact would not have been damaged

Why would you say that? Of course there would be damage below where the jet impacted.

so therfore the lighter, damaged, upper portion of the buiding collapsed directly onto the heavier, undamaged core columns. That would be the path of MOST resistance!!!

A MASSIVE shift of dead load onto even undamaged support columns could easily cause CATASTROPHIC STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

Here's a video simulation of the plane impact.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Do you think it is odd that the Secret Service did not think it was necessary to move the President to a safe location???

Yeah. Very odd.

But which do you think is more likely?

(a)
Everyone froze and breached their protocol.

or

(b)
They knew they didn't have to follow normal protocol because they planned the attacks themselves.


As odd as it is, I have to say that (a) is more likely.
I would be interested to hear an argument against that logic.

If one of those buildings had collapsed differently than the others I would be far more likely to accept the official story.

And for as "impossible" as those collapses were, they still make more sense than the logistical nightmare of orchestrating 9/11 as a controlled operation.

The building collapses have not been explained adequately.

I could not agree more. But the logistical explanation behind a government-led conspiracy to perpetrate 9/11 is not just inadequate...it's non-existent.

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Lately, I kinda keep quite on my view of it. There's just soo much trash compared to anything factual(even if), probably why people don't believe what you have to say.

True. The official explanation has nothing going for it. All the facts we can verify support other explanations. You're so right.

Originally posted by Unplugged
The official explanation has nothing going for it. All the facts we can verify support other explanations.

I'm sorry WHAT?!??

Common sense is a very formidable ally, and it is NOT on the side of the Truth Movement.

(I'm not sure it's on the side of the official explanation either, of course...it's kind of waffling...but it's WAY closer to the official explanation than the other alternatives.)

Originally posted by Essedarius
Common sense is a very formidable ally

Common sense is a figure of speech. There's not really a point in referencing it seriously, as if it actually meant something.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Unplugged

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Lately, I kinda keep quite on my view of it. There's just soo much trash compared to anything factual(even if), probably why people don't believe what you have to say.

True. The official explanation has nothing going for it. All the facts we can verify support other explanations. You're so right.

The official explanation has NOTHING going for it? Well isn't that a huge blanket statement.

I think what a lot of people are missing is that the NIST has never done an investigation like this before. Actually, nobody on the planet has done an investigation like that before so is it really that hard to believe they are strongly with EXACTLY what happened within every inch of the building during every second of the impact, damage and collapse?

It's really easy for someone who has no background in this area to say, "that just doesn't look right". Well what can you compare it to? What is your frame of reference? Remember, this is the first time this has EVER happened so there is no model or frame of reference that NIST can compare it to so they must make their own model. That's a lot more difficult then copying and pasting from previous models.

I really don't understand why it's so hard to believe that the NIST is struggling with answers. Does that mean there was anything more then a plane hitting a building because of terrorists??? NO of course it doesn't.

Originally posted by jfj123
Just a few things to keep in mind:

Has a building the size of WTC ever collapsed before?

No. And that's why they weren't allowed to CD it in the first place. They wanted to but I think the port authority or some agency wouldn't allow it, so it would have had to be deconstructed....COSTING billions instead of MAKING billions. See where incentive comes into play here?

Some conspiracy theorists suggest the government used bombs to blow up the buildings. Well why make a plane fly into them and cover it up with bombs? Why not just blow it up with bombs and blame terrorists? wouldn't that be a safer way to do it with less possibility of complications?

The planes were used IMO so that people can say "we've never seen planes smash into buildings before....how should they have fallen".

The WTC had already been bombed once so why not just say it happened again?

Yes, look into who did it and who was involved.

Allegations of FBI foreknowledge

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad A. Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [11] He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers; reported by Ralph Blumenthal in the New York Times, Oct. 28, 1993, section A,Page 1.[12]

In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.[citation needed] The 1993 WTC sting operation was depicted as a false flag operation and was a plot device for the 1996 movie The Long Kiss Goodnight with Geena Davis.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So, if the FBI was involved in the first bombing, why is it SOOOOOO hard to believe they would be involved in 9/11?

Which leads me to my next point. Obviously we know the WTC was previously bombed but the attempt failed. Who did that? If terrorists did it the first time and got away with it, why couldn't they have done it this time too?

Well, for one, they didn't "get away with it", but after that bombing, how could the government turn around and say "oops, they did it again"? Think about it.