It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the government was in charge of 9/11 what's the deal with terror?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   


I actually saw the PLANE hit the pentagon


skibum -

You actually witnessed the plane hit the pentagon?!? Zowie. If you'd be willing to describe your experience, I'm all eyes.

If you already have in another thread, point me.
thx


[edit on 21-8-2004 by bunkbuster]




posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
You are right, and you know what theres a first time for everything...
Building 7 really did peak my interest. According to me, WTC 1,2 fell due to A) hot jet fuel, B) its architecture, and C) the plane knocking otu key support columns. WTC7 had none of the above but fell just like it was imploded. This really puzzled me, because ive seen implosions live before and this was textbook implosion. So i went to some of the "conspiracy theory sites" and found (ill be damned
) credible evidence that WTC7 was indeed imploded. Larry Silverstien, owner of the WTC complex was told that the fire could not be contained via the cheif of the FDNY, and he gave the order to "pull it" according to this site which gets its sources from a PBS documentary, which it also had a clip of on the web. So that is cut and dry as to what happend with WTC7, in my eyes. Now the "WHY". Why did he decide to "pull" the building? Some say it was a massive gov coverup, gov documents existed in the building that needed to be destroyed. I personally think that it was A) to minimize fire to other neighboring buildings, B) for the insurance money.


So what your telling me is they sent men into a building that was unsafe because of fire to set up explosives that take days to plant?


[edit on 8/21/2004 by WhiteWolf420]



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
What about international terrorism? what about terrorism in Iraq? What about OBL stating that he was behind 9-11.. so if you beleive that our gov was behind 9-11 you are implicitly stating that obl is in kahoots with our gov.. and i for one dont buy that... OBL is a real person, with real motives and those motives are against the US. Sure we 'created' him but he is just one of our [many] botched incursions into stopping communisim.

Actually I have a theory...

I dont think our government are the sinister ones at all.. there are too many open ends and too many stretched conclusions. What if all the extreme conspiracy theorists are really extreme anarchists.. all they want to see is anarchy..(i know ppl like this) they will do anything to see chaos including turning ppl againsth their governments, volia Anarchy.. yay!



[edit on 17-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]


You may need to take some reality pills. This is not going to create anarchy but dictatorship. If you look at how hitler took power... it started by burning the parliament house!



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   
1. Rookie pilots trained in small personal craft having the skill to do some incredible flying of jumbo jets, And furthermore guys who grew up in dusty middle eastern villages thought to turn off the transponders.

2. At the pentagon there is a small hole like a missile pierced much deeper than the rest of the plane and also there is a lack of incidental damage to windows where the wings and tail would/should have hit.

3. The anomolous futures shorts on the Airlines. Someone was certain something was going to happen.

4. How quickly and how like demolition the collapse of the wtc towers were.

5. Why did building 7 collapse at all and why did it look exactly like a demolition?

Genuinely, if it is that easy to drop a building by starting a fire in the middle of it with accelerant, perhaps it should be looked into as a cheaper way of dropping buildings.

realisticpatriot, you point out that the wings would have had to have sheared some/many of the interior columns in the wtc, yet the converse argument is used at the pentagon to explain how a plane folded it's wings back and went into a much smaller hole than the profile of a commerical jet would have had.

To all these things there may be explanations, but what is the truth?
.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   


To all these things there may be explanations, but what is the truth?


I dont know what the "truth" is but heres my 2 cents....



So what your telling me is they sent men into a building that was unsafe because of fire to set up explosives that take days to plant?


Well burning buildings are always unsafe, I know this is highly unorthodox but thats what silverstien said, so I dont doubt it.



1. Rookie pilots trained in small personal craft having the skill to do some incredible flying of jumbo jets, And furthermore guys who grew up in dusty middle eastern villages thought to turn off the transponders.


They not only trained on actual aircraft, but flight sims as well. They didnt know how to land or take off, just fly and navigate, and that is not that hard to do, and thats all they needed to do. NEVER underestimate your enemy, just because they grew up in mud huts or whatever doesnt mean they are not intelligent, and wont think of every way to make your life miserable. I dont know how we know for sure the transponders were turned off .. i remember right after this happened we knew all the flight data (maybe from the boxes recovered?) It doesnt surprise me that they turn the transponders off if that indeed did happen. If you were a terrorist, would you want them tracking where you are flying the airplane? Remember they orchistrated this (ar at least I believe so) So if they were this organized, this cunning, and this smart to pull off 9-11 im sure they could come up with turning off the transponders if they felt it threatened their mission.




2. At the pentagon there is a small hole like a missile pierced much deeper than the rest of the plane and also there is a lack of incidental damage to windows where the wings and tail would/should have hit.
...

realisticpatriot, you point out that the wings would have had to have sheared some/many of the interior columns in the wtc, yet the converse argument is used at the pentagon to explain how a plane folded it's wings back and went into a much smaller hole than the profile of a commerical jet would have had.


The pentagon unlike the WTC, (dont know if you have seen either but i have seen and been in both) is one solid building. In the sense that its made out of huge slabs of stone (granite?). Made in the WWII era it was made to widtstand merciless bombing. The WTC had a steel mesh, so the planes were easily able to penetrate, with some of their wreckage going clean through. The plane that hit the pentagon hit it like it hit a solid mountain, but despite that fact i think it still penetrated 3 layers. Only the body of the airplane had the mass behind it to go through like it did, it would make sense that the wings shear off because its hitting a much more solid structure compared to the WTC. There are eye witnesses all over, even skibum on this very forum, that said they saw the plane hit, why do people still speculate? are all of theese claiments paid off government sheep? I think not. If it was a missle WHERE did it come from? And no one saw this missile?



4. How quickly and how like demolition the collapse of the wtc towers were.

5. Why did building 7 collapse at all and why did it look exactly like a demolition?


Please read my previous posts.




Genuinely, if it is that easy to drop a building by starting a fire in the middle of it with accelerant, perhaps it should be looked into as a cheaper way of dropping buildings.



Controlled demolition or implosion is a MUCH more cleaner, not to mention much less riskier, and more controlled. You can even control which way a building falls, if it is very close to somthing sensitive. Also imagine tring to clean all that debris when its that hot.. youd have to wait for days. And gasoline tends to explode when lit, no one wants flying glass and concrete going everywhere. How would you even rig that building with fuel so that it burns right where you want it to. Fires are very unpredictable, esp if there is wind, you can even light surrounding buildings on fire. Explosives are much more controlable, predictable, cleaner, and I think cheaper (although this has already been discussed) and of couse im talking about a building that is large in magnitued not your fathers old tool shed.
Really i dont see how any one of you can consider this a viable option for safley taking down a building.




[edit on 21-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

[edit on 21-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

[edit on 21-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Well RP, I'm not really sure what you're basing some of this stuff on.

First off, I've been in one of the WTC towers and when I was stationed at Ft. Myer, VA, while an MP in the Old Guard (Army). I had to perform 25 to 30 ceremonies at the Pentagon and had to perform various escort duties on the inside probably 10 to 15 times. I had the priveledge of spending a few hours and exchanging some very good conversation with the Army Chief of Staff (at the time), Gen. Eric Shinseki. It's from one of those conversations that I learned a little about the Pentagon. As a whole, the Pentagon isn't built to withstand merciless bombings, that's in fact one of the reasons that it was under construction, it was basically falling apart. It does however contain a few rooms and sub-levels that are very heavily constructed and built to withstand a bomb. So overall, the Pentagon was constructed like a mid-20th century office building. It's not one solid building either but a concentric circle of 5 rings.
As far as the damage that the Pentagon suffered, I don't know how you can make such claims. First off, how do two 757 wings, with the majority of their fuel tanks full, with engines attached, not have enough "mass" to do damage to the building? How does the fuselage alone have the "mass" to penetrate the 6 walls granite of the outer 3 rings and make an almost perfect 12 ft. hole? That, my friend, makes no sense at all.

Also, look at the pictures, some windows remained intact where the wings were supposed to have impacted.
www.freedomfiles.org...

Also, you poked a little fun at my little idea that maybe the real airliners crahed into the Atlantic ocean. I know it may have sounded a little crazy, but I actually found out that it wasn't an original idea. Turns out NORAD ended up having their fighters chase 2 of the flights out over the Atlantic, before being called back when the Pentagon was hit. Someone screwed up and published it in the report.

This is a huge deal guys:
villagevoice.com...

From the "9/11 Commission Report":

"The NORAD mission commander ordered his only three other planes on alert in Virginia to scramble and fly north to Baltimore. Minutes later, when he was told that a plane was approaching Washington, he learned that the planes were flying east over the Atlantic Ocean, away from Baltimore and Washington, so that when the third plane struck the Pentagon, NORAD's fighters were 150 miles awayfarther than they were before they took off."

People actually did report seeing some sort of missile hit the Pentagon, some also said that it wasn't a huge airliner, but some sort of small private plane. I would post a link here, but's you can find the reports in just about any of the main links previously posted.

About building 7:

1) Why did it catch on fire? (The supposed reason for "pulling" it.)
No planes hit it. No burning fuel landed on it.

2) How were explosives obtained and installed within an hour and a half?
It collpsed within an hour and a half of the first main tower impact.

Please provide some reasoning to that train of thought, because Silverstein's slip of the tongue obviously showed that the building had been previously rigged to implode. So, if building 7 was, why not the North and South towers?

The supposed hijackers trained on Cessna's and other civilian training aircraft, not on comercial jets, look it up, their American training history was well recorded. These facilities didn't have Boeing commercial jet simulators either, so they didn't even have that experience.

Also, you're telling me that maneuvering a Boeing 757 or 767 isn't hard to do?
Come on, that's a little pretentious. Many pilots have come forward and said that whoever flew those things into the building had to have had alot of experience because of the nature of the crashes; low level flying through a city full of tall buildings, pulling the plane through a hard turn, all this and nailing a target roughly the same width as the wingspan.

Another note on why the attacks occurred when and where they did. The planes hit the towers before the buildings were full, but late enough, so there would have been enough witnesses and quick news coverage. If they really wanted to "terrorize" us, then they would have hit between 10am and 4pm when tens of thousands of people would have been in the WTC complex. Or they would have hit the Indian Point Nuclear power station, which one of the "hijacked" planes apparently flew right over. This is the number 1 target for terrorists according to the CIA and if hit, would cause a meltdown, followed by a huge radiation leak that would have injured or killed millions. Also, the section of the Pentagon that was hit was under construction, there were only a few active offices over there. So, my point is, that if the Government wanted to polarize and scare American citizens without killing too many people, then they did it perfectly by striking huge American symbols and killing the minimum number of people as possible with maximum media coverage. They knew that people wouldn't be watching live at 3 in the morning. 3,000 is alot, but not as much as 50,000 or 1,000,000 or even 10,000,000.

Excellent site and it points out the nuclear power plant fact:
911timeline.net...



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriotWell burning buildings are always unsafe, I know this is highly unorthodox but thats what silverstien said, so I dont doubt it.


You missed my point, I was trying to say that the bomb's were planted beforehand, not during the events of 9/11. Since the buildings were on fire and unsafe and it does take a few days to set up that type of controlled demolition it must mean this was planned in advance.

[edit on 8/23/2004 by WhiteWolf420]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Another note on why the attacks occurred when and where they did


Yeh good points. I have always felt that the nature of the attacks were very strange. So early in the morning when such a small amount of people were at the WTC complex. THe fact that the pentagon was hit in the area that was being reconstructed. Plus the incredible way that each of the three buildings that fell, fell directly downwards which spared a huge loss of life in a place like manhattan.

You make a good case ledbedder. I have read up on many trained people who claim that the manouver that the plane did before it struck the pentagon would have only been possible if done by a highly trained pilot. Apparently these guys could not take off and land....

However depending on where you go to get your information on the net you can get a different picture. Many people say they saw wreckage at the site consistent with the plane that supposedly hit.
Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Some info about the damage analysis of the pentagon.

www.architectureweek.com...


Led its true the pentagon is falling appart from the inside, ie, plumbing and electrical but i still stand by my claim that the outside is pretty solid. a few feet of concrete is i think is more impregnable than a couple inch thick steel beams and glass at the WTC site. Do you really think a global hawk could pentrate through 3 layers/ring of the pentagon?



I don't know how you can make such claims. First off, how do two 757 wings, with the majority of their fuel tanks full, with engines attached, not have enough "mass" to do damage to the building? How does the fuselage alone have the "mass" to penetrate the 6 walls granite of the outer 3 rings and make an almost perfect 12 ft. hole? That, my friend, makes no sense at all.



First of all I said :


Only the body of the airplane had the mass behind it to go through like it did,

I guess I should have been more clear in what i was trying to say. its simple physics. the surface area of of the nose is smaller than that of the wings, therfore with the same amount of force on the same surface the fusalage would have more penetrating power than the wings. Its like tring to put a nail in woodwhile its lying down, verus on its point. The nail on the point will go in much easier. Again im no expert but thats the way i see it.



Also, look at the pictures, some windows remained intact where the wings were supposed to have impacted.


I suppose its entirely possible that the plane banked a bit before it hit, that would maybe explain the weired collapse pattern. Regarding the NORAD stuff you posted, got any links? So what youre telling me that we had military aircraft chasing hijacked passenger jets over the atlantic as well as the 911 flights? What is your full theory of what happened? Im having a tough time piecing it together.



People actually did report seeing some sort of missile hit the Pentagon, some also said that it wasn't a huge airliner, but some sort of small private plane. I would post a link here, but's you can find the reports in just about any of the main links previously posted.
...
Many pilots have come forward and said that whoever flew those things into the building had to have had alot of experience because of the nature of the crashes; low level flying through a city full of tall buildings, pulling the plane through a hard turn



I just dont think a small private, or a cruise missle had the kenitic energy to penetrate 3 layers/rings of the pentagon. If ski bum could tell us what he saw as best as possible it would help a lot. No dobut its a fairly difficult task but with practice of flying im sure it was not that complicated to turn a airliner around and get it lined up with the 2 tallest buildings in new york. They stuck out like sore thums for peats sake. They were nearly twice the height of the surrounding WFC buildings, and those buildings are pretty tall.



About building 7:

1) Why did it catch on fire? (The supposed reason for "pulling" it.)
No planes hit it. No burning fuel landed on it.

2) How were explosives obtained and installed within an hour and a half?
It collpsed within an hour and a half of the first main tower impact.

Please provide some reasoning to that train of thought, because Silverstein's slip of the tongue obviously showed that the building had been previously rigged to implode. So, if building 7 was, why not the North and South towers?


For question 1, look to

www.architectureweek.com...://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

While no conclusions were drawn it did provide some possible senarios which were come to by highly trained professionals with years of experience. Upon reading this report, I have to admit that I am confused, because even they claim that the building fell just like a implosion, and that even the senarious that they came up with, which could have caused the building to fall like that were for the most part improbabable, but not impossible. From that report, and silverstiens comments heres my version of what went down. 1) fallout debris from the WTC structures hits and damages wtc7 pretty bad. 2) fires are created all thougout the building, so much so that FDNY tells silverstein that the building is unrecovererable. They decide to pull it, and set charges on whatever key support columns they could find. I by no means think they pre planted charges in any of the WTC buildings. If you also look there was a LOT of deisel fuel in that building for back up generators. So theres another theory, read the report its really interesting. WTC 7 is on ch 5, its a lot of engineering mumbo jumbo till about page 16 then things start getting interesting. But the full reports worth the look if you got the time. If you still dont understand how the 1 and 2 buildings collapsed,

www.architectureweek.com...




[edit on 22-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The links are in there.

Don't you think that if other planes were hijacked that day, we would have heard about it?

Well, I believe one of the possibilities that day was that some or all of the civilian planes were taken out to sea and crashed, while missile-equipped boeings were crashed into the towers and possibly the Pentagon. I can only speculate, but I think our own guys hijacked the planes.

There's plenty of footage that shows the plane that hit the 2nd tower fired something which impacted just before and to the right of the nose of the plane.

I guess some people base their beliefs off of what's true and others base truth off of their beliefs.





[edit on 22-8-2004 by ledbedder20]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
.
What you speculate realisticpatriot is that they had charges just laying around and ready to set and blow building 7 on that day? That still would have taken time, which means they decided to drop building 7 almost minutes after the second wtc tower fell. They drilled and set those charges in 7 hours? If that is so why then would they be afraid to tell people why they demolished it?

There is another profered rationale/explanation building 7 dropping, it had several tanks of diesel fuel in the basement and i believe one on the 23 floor for the mayor's emergency command center. The diesel caught fire and burned the building down. If that was the case there were virtually NO flames visible for this 'tremendous' fire and not very much smoke?

As to the pentagon, even if the wings sheared off the plane, at the speed it was going the simple inertia of the metal will still have the wings and tail continuing in a straight line and crashing and smashing windows at the very least. The only way the wings could have possibly folded and crumpled back would have been at a much lower speed. At the speed of flight the wings would have ripped off the plane and slammed into the side of the building.
.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Plus the incredible way that each of the three buildings that fell, fell directly downwards which spared a huge loss of life in a place like manhattan.



and also spared a huge loss of insurance money that would have traded hands if they had totaled other buildings in the process.

Luckily, all the demolished buildings were "Larry's"

Also, patriot -
You agree that Larry "gave the order" to pull it due to the out of control fires.
The official FEMA report, however, states that the building collapsed due to the fires.

Nefarious or not, somebody's lying.
One obvious flat out lie about why any of the buildings fell that day and my belief in the "official" story begins to, well, implode.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by bunkbuster]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
In my mind, wtc 7 is the only unsolved mystery (that and the mystery cloud of smoke that you can see in the pic from (page 2?) of this thread. Which was before the towers fell. WTC are cut and dry, I have only seen one angle with that "missle" video so i believe that was doctored, or was an anomaly. I guess all we can do is speculate.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
In my mind, wtc 7 is the only unsolved mystery... WTC are cut and dry,...


Well then, IMO you have an interestingly flexible mind when it comes to logic.

In your mind, the FEMA report on WTC 1&2 is completely accurate, however, they failed to notice the fact that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded? Or, in your mind, the FEMA report on WTC 1&2 is entirely truthful, however the authors chose to lie about WTC 7 only?

That's kind of a stretch for my mind -
It's about as hard for my mind to imagine as a "pool" of burning jet fuel.
My mind rarely thinks what it's told to though...



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I think that the people who published that report did so to the best of their ability, and despite their best efforts were unable to come up with a solid reason for the collapse. Like i said they claimed the collapse was no doubt internally caused, much like a implosion. How where and what happened illuded them because to date, no building ever fell in such a manner (besides 1 and 2, but thats a different ball game). With the evidence they had they concluded that the enormus amounts of fuel in that building could have fueled the flames through a bizzare turn of events (read the report). What they claim makes sense, and could have happened, however they even speculate that it is highly improbable, and the the real cause of the collapse is still unknown. But they do provide a list of areas that should be further researched.

They wrote this report, im guessing without the knowledge that silverstien did in fact decide to pull the building. Like i said earlier, im not sure why this fact is so unpublicizied, barring a few websites and a PBS documentary. Maybe post 9-11 things were so chaotic that information did not get to go where it needed to go to (i.e. people who were investigating).

You as well as other seem to be skeptical that they "pulled" the building. Im playing what silverstien said over and over in my head and there is no other way to interpret that. (that i can think of) What do you think happened? Covertly place charges before hand? I think the logistics of that would be MUCH harder than imploding it when it was on fire. Remember the charges need to be placed in drilled holes inthe support columns (im pretty sure) Thats pretty hard to hide. The team that wrote the report did come to one conclusion, that a large portion of the stress that induced the fall came from the lower parts of the building (fl 1-5?) Maybe the firemen/emergency service personell were able to place a few charges in order to hopfully coerce the building to imploding. I guess thats my story...untill i can findsomthing solid that refutes my claim

[edit on 22-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
You as well as other seem to be skeptical that they "pulled" the building.


No, I feel pretty confident that they "pulled" 7.

I'm skeptical that they didn't pull 1 & 2.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
.
To take down a 47 story building would take weeks of work, drilling and setting charges, plus planning time to know where to set them. There can be virtually no way you could get much of anything done in at most 7 hours, especially if fires with smoke were burning inside.

In short building 7 had to have been pre-rigged for demolition. Unless someone wants to say some buildings are built with explosive demolition charges built in, it had to have been done in the weeks or months prior to 911.

THIS CAN BE NO COINCIDENCE.

911 was a pre-planned event.

The question is exactly who and why.
.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Sorry i didnt forgot to finsish this sentence...

The team that wrote the report did come to one conclusion, that a large portion of the stress that induced the fall came from the lower parts of the building (fl 1-5?) which were also where a large number of the fires were taking place. In my mind, 1 of 3 things happened.

1) Fell due to flames:
the fall out from the towers damaged the building, started fires etc. could have ruptured gas/fuel lines, which fed the flames... building implodes under its own duress.

2) Shoddy but effective implosion:
After seeing the building was unrecoverable, emergency mangement teams in accordance with silverstien placed charges in key support beams near in the bottom of the building, hoping this would be enough for it to implode, they were right. Remember in under normal circumstances this would not work. The only reason why it worked here is because once key support columns that were not affected by the fire were demolished, this placed the stress of the building on the support columns that were weakend by the fire.

3) Silverstein is a duma$$

Somehow what he said was wrong, and by "pull it" he may have ment to say "forget it" or somthing of the sort, ie, telling the firefighters not to bother trying to fight the fires. and they watched the building come down. Just because somthing like this has never happened before to any building doesnt mean its not possible. buildings like people are different. You can only to a certian degree of accuract predict how one is going to react to certian high stress conditions, based on another of its kind.


Just 3 more theories in the theory pool. one or the other happend if you ask me. I just dont know which. If you claim that the charges were planted before hand ...HOW did they accomplish this? they were able to drill into EVERY support column in BOTH towers AND wtc7 without ANYONE noticeing? I know we are entitled to our own thoughts/beliefs/theories, but thats just too hard for me to swallow.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join