Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   
previous post of mine....

"how come they claim the buildings collapsed from fire? when in fact steel burns at 2700 degrees, and jet fuel burns at 2300 degrees for a breif time while supplied with ample oxegen. note most of the fuel went up in that huge fire ball that exploded outside of the building, and the fire inside was very ineficient because of the lack of oxegen.

it is also said that a normal collaspe of the building would not cause the pulverazation of the concrete and materials that was strewn about the ground site. the only way to mix the molecular structure so signifigantly would be with a powerful and extremely hot blast ( c-4 )

a controlled demolition is the only logical explanation, the ground debris of the WTC was smoldering for many days after they collapsed. very hot tempuratures were messured at the ground reckage, what caused these extremely hot tempuratures, and the ability to burn for days?

also, the pancake collapse witnessed by all of us is confusing, since the hole in the towers were diagonal, the collapse should have been off center, but no they fell perfectly straight down.

there is so much more damning evidence as far as motive, cooperate agenda, and 3 letter agencys. there is no doubt in my mind this attack is the work of the illuminati.

PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION "

www.abovetopsecret.com...

notice in my picture the 24000 pounds of fuel that went up in flames ouside of the building. fire is drawn to oxegen, there is very little oxegen inside the building, for such an emense ammount of fuel.

another interesting fact...

the occupancy of WTC was at an all time low, a man (forgot his name) leased the buildings prior to the attacks. payed a 1 million down payment. then the buildings went down and he collected 7 billion from insurance.

all of this info i have gotten out of 9/11 the great illusion a very good book/movie


also are any of you aware of the stock sales that profited hugely right before the attacks occured. further research is required, but is known that the former head of the company invovled in these stock sales, is one mr george tenet.


beware disinformants, you just never know....

[edit on 28-9-2004 by sturod84]




posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Oh, no you don't.
You started out by repeating a old and clearly false rumor about Jews at the WTC on 9/11, then you stated: "I wonder if we aren't bombing and invading the wrong countries?"
When I pointed out that you used the plural, when the singular form would have been more in keeping with the tenure of your post, you replied:
"Uh no, I meant countries as in Plural, you know Iraq and Afghanistan. That is two, hence the plural. "
It would be totally illogical for you to be talking about Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of that post.
We did bomb and invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore you had to have been implying that we should be bombing and invading a different country altogether.
Based on the context of your post, I can only assume that you were trying to suggest that we should be bombing Israel.
That is what I meant when I suggested that you should use the singular form.


Instead of attacking my grammar, which is fine by the way, try addressing the issues. It's pretty pathetic, honestly to sit there trying to invalidate my informtion based on your incorrect review of my participles. If this was a formal debate, you would have got slammed.
It is a tactic too often used, instead of comming up with information to counter with, they attack you or your use of language. If you want to discredit me, try using some information rather than slants.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
WTC brought down by the great Americans themselves?? Or by the Mossad?? That's a lot o' BULL!! And the 'reasons' given are harebrained! Imagine if this had been the case, such a massive operation to destroy the WTC would have involved hundreds of people from government and inter-government departments, the military, Communications, Intelligence agencies, Air controllers, Air Force, Airlines and Airport security, Air defence, Homeland security, demolition experts, and other super secret agencies! Who was coordinating this massive effort? How were they communicating? Were they all on board? Why hasn't anyone of the hundreds involved, squeaked? Why only conjectures uptil now?
The fact is that the Islamic terrorists did it. Period. Bomb or no bomb!



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I read through the case for this a LOT and don't think the WTC was brought down by controlled demo.

Seven World Trade Center had to be, though.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
WTC brought down by the great Americans themselves?? Or by the Mossad?? That's a lot o' BULL!! And the 'reasons' given are harebrained! Imagine if this had been the case, such a massive operation to destroy the WTC would have involved hundreds of people from government and inter-government departments, the military, Communications, Intelligence agencies, Air controllers, Air Force, Airlines and Airport security, Air defence, Homeland security, demolition experts, and other super secret agencies! Who was coordinating this massive effort? How were they communicating? Were they all on board? Why hasn't anyone of the hundreds involved, squeaked? Why only conjectures uptil now?
The fact is that the Islamic terrorists did it. Period. Bomb or no bomb!


I was thinking about posting in this thread, but you've saved me the trouble!

Ummmm, hang on....





I guess I should say something 'on subject', so here goes...

It utterly, utterly saddens me that I am slowly accepting the fact that some people GENUINELY BELIEVE that the US Government [past or present] deliberately caused/allowed/was involved in the terrorism on 9/11.

Humanity is so MESSED UP that discernment has vanished and 'reality' is now the realm of Hollywood script writers.

The events of 9/11 were brought about by the actions of people under the influence of pure evil.

George Bush and most Government bigwigs may be many things, but they are not under the influence of pure evil.

Just my opinion, of course - but it's one I will take with me to my dying day.

illimey.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
There is a wealth of evidence to support WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, there is a welath of evidence to support a conspiracy, there is very little if any evidence to support the official story given to us by our government. The official story if full of holes. Also take into consideration that the US Government has indeed been guilty of sponsoring terrorism, they have been been found deeply involved in plots to manufacture terrorism to justify the invasion of Cuba, there are serious indications that the bombing of peral harbor was not what it appeared to be. Also amungst these, let's 'remember the Maine', the suspiscous circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Lucitania. If you honestly think our government is above such activities then you are biased beyond any hope of openmindedness on this topic. How about Israel, are they also above such tactics? Why did we bomb Lybia? how about the american war ship the Israeli's fired on adn tried to put off on arabs? I would strongly encourage some research on this subject, some serious research before you go trying to debunk anything because as I have said, the official story regarding the events of 9-11 is full of holes. Cut that tv off for a while adn read up on thermite, read up on why teh tapes of communication between the pilots and the ATC were shredded and deposited in seperate trash cans... do some research on the weakening point of structural steel or the Fy by Wire systems that somehow ignorant box cutter weilding terrorists were able to disengage somehow. Complicity in a conspiracy to destroy WTC would not involve as many people as you think it would, especially given the athority and connections of those who were que bono. I am not asking you to buy anything, I am asking you to read up on it before you believe anything one way or another. Just for your piece of mind if nothing else. Start here if you like,
www.google.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
previous post of mine....

"how come they claim the buildings collapsed from fire? when in fact steel burns at 2700 degrees, and jet fuel burns at 2300 degrees for a breif time while supplied with ample oxegen. note most of the fuel went up in that huge fire ball that exploded outside of the building, and the fire inside was very ineficient because of the lack of oxegen.



To the moderators: Do any of you have a large ClueByFour handy? I am getting tiered of going over the same old B.S. about the temperature of burning jet fuel and melting steel.


it is also said that a normal collaspe of the building would not cause the pulverazation of the concrete and materials that was strewn about the ground site. the only way to mix the molecular structure so signifigantly would be with a powerful and extremely hot blast ( c-4 )


You have to realize something. The concrete floors of the WTC were NOT made of the same type of concrete that you might find in a sidewalk or a street curb. The WTC floor slabs were a steel and concrete composite floor. The concrete used was a lightweight aggregate mix. Read through this for some interesting perspectives on the WTC floor systems.

At any rate, wouldn’t this “powerful and extremely hot blast” have been noticed by the people watching the building? Surely they would have heard it even if they were several blocks away. On the Fourth of July, I can clearly hear the local fireworks show from my house even though I am at least a half mile from the park where it is held.


a controlled demolition is the only logical explanation, the ground debris of the WTC was smoldering for many days after they collapsed. very hot tempuratures were messured at the ground reckage, what caused these extremely hot tempuratures, and the ability to burn for days?


The collapse of the structure released an enormous amount of kinetic energy. The existing fires, combined with the internal friction of the building materials during the collapse are where the heat came from. The rubble did not smolder for days, it smoldered for weeks, even months. That is normal. There was available fuel (combustible debris) and limited oxygen in the debris pile and so it smoldered. This is similar to an underground coal fire. (Off topic: Did you know that there is an underground coal fire in Centralia, PA that has been burning since 1962?)


also, the pancake collapse witnessed by all of us is confusing, since the hole in the towers were diagonal, the collapse should have been off center, but no they fell perfectly straight down.


I think you are talking about the south tower (the diagonal hole). Actually, the top of the building rotated slightly as it dropped and did not really fall straight down, but at a slight tilt. Anyway, remember, gravity rules all. It would have been suspicious if the building had not collapsed straight down.

The collapse followed all the rules of physics and engineering. If you don’t think so, I would be happy to look at any calculations, diagrams, or details that you think would prove otherwise.


there is so much more damning evidence as far as motive, cooperate agenda, and 3 letter agencys. there is no doubt in my mind this attack is the work of the illuminati.


Uh, just who exactly are the “illuminati?” Are they related to “Kaos,” or “Spectre?”


OK, Without getting into a debate on the merits in your belief in the “Illiuminati,” let’s just state that your belief in this group is not proof of anything.




notice in my picture the 24000 pounds of fuel that went up in flames ouside of the building. fire is drawn to oxegen, there is very little oxegen inside the building, for such an emense ammount of fuel.


Read my link above for some insight on possible fire mechanisms in the WTC.

Google the term “stack Effect.”



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
There is a wealth of evidence to support WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, there is a welath of evidence to support a conspiracy, there is very little if any evidence to support the official story given to us by our government.


No, it is the other way around. There is a wealth of information to support, the FACT that the WTC collapse was caused by the impact and fire.

All of the so-called “demolition” evidence evaporates in a haze of ignorance once it is examined in any detail. When that happens, the conspiracy theorists pull out more and more absurd theories to support their claims. I especially like the one where someone devoted a whole web site to “prove” that floor trusses were not used in the WTC towers.


Then there is the latest. There are some people who actually believe that someone actually installed explosives in the columns when the buildings were built 30 years ago.

That is reaching for it a bit, don’t you think?



The official story if full of holes. Also take into consideration that the US Government has indeed been guilty of sponsoring terrorism, they have been been found deeply involved in plots to manufacture terrorism to justify the invasion of Cuba, there are serious indications that the bombing of peral harbor was not what it appeared to be. Also amungst these, let's 'remember the Maine', the suspiscous circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Lucitania. If you honestly think our government is above such activities then you are biased beyond any hope of openmindedness on this topic.


Are you claiming that the sinking of the Maine is tied into 9/11?




How about Israel, are they also above such tactics? Why did we bomb Lybia? how about the american war ship the Israeli's fired on adn tried to put off on arabs? I would strongly encourage some research on this subject, some serious research before you go trying to debunk anything because as I have said, the official story regarding the events of 9-11 is full of holes.


I knew you would eventually come around to blaming Israel for 9/11.



Cut that tv off for a while adn read up on thermite,


Do you honestly think that someone installed thermite in the columns 30 years ago?




read up on why teh tapes of communication between the pilots and the ATC were shredded and deposited in seperate trash cans...


First you need to improve your reading comprehension skills, because you obviously have problems understanding what you are reading. (Then you need to learn how to use a spell checker.
)

The destroyed tape was NOT the conversations between the controllers and the planes.

The tapes were made after the attacks and were records of the controllers talking about what happened.

Certainly the supervisor that destroyed the tapes showed bad judgment, but considering the emotional trauma these people had just gone through, I can fully understand that there might have been irrelevant information on the tapes, and the need to protect the privacy of the people involved.



do some research on the weakening point of structural steel or the


Yes exactly. If you actually learned something about how buildings are engineered, materials science and fire science, then you would see just how absurd these theories are.



Fy by Wire systems that somehow ignorant box cutter weilding terrorists were able to disengage somehow.


By what criteria are you calling them ignorant? Are they ignorant because they are Arabic? What gives you the right to call anyone ignorant?

I have underlined the misspellings mis-capitalization and other errors in your post. An occasional typo is understandable, but you, my friend are too lazy to spell check your work, and not smart enough to get it right the first time.



Complicity in a conspiracy to destroy WTC would not involve as many people as you think it would, especially given the athority and connections of those who were que bono. I am not asking you to buy anything, I am asking you to read up on it before you believe anything one way or another. Just for your piece of mind if nothing else. Start here if you like,
http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=WTC+demolition&btnG=Google+Search (I made a slight change to that link. Go ahead, check it out
- HR)


So, just what is the minimum number of people who you think are involved?


Ten? A hundred? A thousand?

How many people would be close enough to suspect what was going on?

A thousand?

Ten thousand?



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, it is the other way around. There is a wealth of information to support, the FACT that the WTC collapse was caused by the impact and fire.

You mean the explosions reported by firefighters who were blocked from testifying before the 9-11 commision or do you mean the seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse, or do you mean the black oxygen starved hydrocarbons reaching an incredible temperature are not a wealth of information? No Major Steel Towers Have Ever Collapsed From Fire Before. There have been much worse fires in lesser buildings. Cell Phones went dead before each collapse for a moment (radio interference from remote device). There were pools of molten steel at the base of the towers after the disaster, no hydrocarbon is going to do that, yet it is common with thermite demolitions. Most of the fuel from one of the jets burned up ina corner impact, yet it was the first to collapse despite the thick black smoke indicating a recession of the 'inferno'. Never mind the squibs you can see going off ahead of the collapses, or the fact that buildings came straight down into their foundation or that the lead company charged with cleaning up the mess specializes in large demolitions and was also the same company that contracted the federal building in OK.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
All of the so-called “demolition” evidence evaporates in a haze of ignorance once it is examined in any detail.

Who's details? The media?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
When that happens, the conspiracy theorists pull out more and more absurd theories to support their claims.

I don't really like responding to slights.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I especially like the one where someone devoted a whole web site to “prove” that floor trusses were not used in the WTC towers.

Then there is the latest. There are some people who actually believe that someone actually installed explosives in the columns when the buildings were built 30 years ago.

I wasn't aware that I had mentioned any of these, look back through my earlier posts, if you are going to refute me, stick to what I said. The explosives weren't installed until Bush's Brother's Security Company got contracted for security, not on only at WTC, but at the airport as well. A contract which ran out to the date on 9-11.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you claiming that the sinking of the Maine is tied into 9/11?


Uh no, I think I ended the paragraph with ...

If you honestly think our government is above such activities then you are biased beyond any hope of openmindedness on this topic.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
I knew you would eventually come around to blaming Israel for 9/11.

Who would you implicate then? Iraq? Afghanistan? Neither of these countries had jack to do with the events of 9-11. Most of the Highjackers were reported to be Saudi Nationals, some of which turned up to be alive and well in other parts of the world, wondering why the US had them listed as dead terrorists. The supposed mastermind of the plot was in the same resort George Bush was in within hours of each other. We were the biggest supporters of both Hussien and the Taliban, we created, trained, armed, supported, and made Bin Laden. Who would you blame? Alqeida? After all they claimed responsibility didn't they, note there was no mention of the fake alqeida cell they got busted setting up in Gaza anywhere but foriegn media.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you honestly think that someone installed thermite in the columns 30 years ago?


Brother, you said 30 years ago, not me. Get real. You can correct my spelling but you can't avoid misquoting me.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
First you need to improve your reading comprehension skills, because you obviously have problems understanding what you are reading. (Then you need to learn how to use a spell checker.
)

I don't need to do anything, FYI you don't have a clue who I am or anything about me. The only lack of comprehension skills here is yours, if you have read this entire thread than it is remarkable that you haven't disputed anything, you haven't argued anything with any evidence, stick to the facts, or your arguement is reduced to petty flaming. You have yet to debate anything here with facts, only 'clever' disassociative personal remarks.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The destroyed tape was NOT the conversations between the controllers and the planes. The tapes were made after the attacks and were records of the controllers talking about what happened.
Certainly the supervisor that destroyed the tapes showed bad judgment, but considering the emotional trauma these people had just gone through, I can fully understand that there might have been irrelevant information on the tapes, and the need to protect the privacy of the people involved.

LOL You call running around with the tapes, evidence of the largest disaster in US history, cutting them into ribbons and depositing them into seperate trash cans bad judgement?!?!? Yeah...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If you actually learned something about how buildings are engineered, materials science and fire science, then you would see just how absurd these theories are.

I know more than you think I know. Here again, when you fail to dispute anything I had posted previously with facts or data, you manage make a personal remark. This tactic in a 'discussion' is really indicative of either a lack of knowlege in the subject, or a blatant disrepect for others. Try sticking to the information, I hate bullies


Originally posted by HowardRoark
By what criteria are you calling them ignorant? Are they ignorant because they are Arabic? What gives you the right to call anyone ignorant?

Comming from you, is that a question or an introspective review of your lack of information?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I have underlined the misspellings mis-capitalization and other errors in your post. An occasional typo is understandable, but you, my friend are too lazy to spell check your work, and not smart enough to get it right the first time.

Hey thanks, it pleases me some how to know you wasted some time today.
I'm not smart enough eh?
Hey,

Originally posted by HowardRoarkWhat gives you the right to call anyone ignorant?

Heh, your a real nice guy aren't ya? Dude, learn to debate an issue without demeaning someone, I know it's hard, but really try. I don't come to these boards to get insulted by internet armchair tough guys, I come here to discuss theories, in this case I come to present to an open forum the research I have found on the WTC. If you can't deal with that then why don't go you and start your own "Hey I'm a Jerk" thread and have at them.

As far as changing my link, did you even look at the one I provided or did you just jump on here and start typing?



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy. Also take into consideration that the US Government has indeed been guilty of sponsoring terrorism, they have been been found deeply involved in plots to manufacture terrorism to justify the invasion of Cuba, there are serious indications that the bombing of peral harbor was not what it appeared to be. Also amungst these, let's 'remember the Maine',


Indeed manufactured? The USS Maine was recently examined and it was found out that the boiler exploded. That happened from time to time with steam powered vessels and locomotives. That being said, the US public and Goverment assumed that it was a Spainish bomb or mine. Not exactly great forensics and diving technology available at the time....

It was already a tense time between Spain and the US, the USS Maine incident just exacerbated and speed up what was already probably going to happen.


[edit on 28-9-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


Who would you implicate then? Iraq? Afghanistan? Neither of these countries had jack to do with the events of 9-11.


Where was al-qaeda doing the majority of their training and based out of? Afgahnistan. Who was harboring Al-Qaeda and would not give them up when we wanted to go after them? The Taliban in Afgahnistan.


The supposed mastermind of the plot was in the same resort George Bush was in within hours of each other. We were the biggest supporters of both Hussien and the Taliban, we created, trained, armed, supported, and made Bin Laden.


Resort? What? Links please. And No Alex Jones #e.

Ummm, the Taliban was born out of the US not helping out after the Soviets left. There was absolute anarchy for almost 15 years and the Taliban took iron-fisted control to stop civil war.

Osama is our very own Frankinstein coming back for us. We built him to fight the Soviets and now he is out of control. (that is if he is still alive)

Hussien was supported by the US during the cold war......Hussein and about another 10 dictators. Remember the Shah? The logic at the time was to have someone in power who would resist communism. But that did not stop him from buying Soviet technology and weapons.






[edit on 28-9-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I'll be honest, I was in nyc that day, and this topic is sensitive to me. my company lost 18 people. if i was on time for work, I would have been on my way to the 17th floor.


sometime it doesn't matter to me who did it, just that we remember the brave actions of those who tried to help, and live our lives as if today were our last day. all that really matters are the people you love.


peace



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
You mean the explosions reported by firefighters who were blocked from testifying before the 9-11 commission


Do you honestly think that if the rank and file firefighters had even the slightest suspicion that there were bombs in the towers that they wouldn’t be marching in the streets?

The issues they had with the commission had nothing to do with non-existent bombs.


or do you mean the seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse,


You seem to be unable to grasp that THIS IS NOT TRUE.


or do you mean the black oxygen starved hydrocarbons reaching an incredible temperature are not a wealth of information?


You also seem to be unable to grasp that even in an ordinary structure fire temperatures will reach 2000 degrees F. Now if you throw in the fact that you have jet fuel in the mix and the several floors was set ablaze at once, then even you would have to admit that incredibly high temperatures were not only possible, they were guaranteed. Furthermore, with the elevator shafts ripped open and most of the windows busted out, there was plenty of oxygen available.


No Major Steel Towers Have Ever Collapsed From Fire Before.


No Major Steel Towers Have Ever Been Hit By Fully Loaded Jet Planes Before.


There have been much worse fires in lesser buildings. Cell Phones went dead before each collapse for a moment (radio interference from remote device).


Gosh cell phones went dead. How many of the local cell towers were effected by the attack? How many were located in the WTC? How many people were trying to use their cell phones at the same time?

Yes the firefighters had trouble with their radios. Unfortunately they proved to be unreliable when they needed them the most.


There were pools of molten steel at the base of the towers after the disaster, no hydrocarbon is going to do that, yet it is common with thermite demolitions.


First of all, this is an unsubstantiated report. Now, as I understand it the report was of pools of melted metal. There is no confirmation that the metal was steel. There are plenty of other metals used in buildings, aluminum being one.


Most of the fuel from one of the jets burned up ina corner impact, yet it was the first to collapse despite the thick black smoke indicating a recession of the 'inferno'.


If it all burned up, then where did the “black oxygen starved hydrocarbons” come from that you keep going on about?

Even if 80 % of the fuel burned up in the first few minutes, that still leaves an awful lot of fuel on that floor. If all of the fuel in a jet plane crash burns up so quickly, then why is it when other planes have crashed, they still burned for a while?


Never mind the squibs you can see going off ahead of the collapses,


Ah, the so called squib flashes that are exactly one pixel in size. Digital noise, my friend, digital noise.


or the fact that buildings came straight down into their foundation


Do you honestly think that they should have tipped over like a tree? Where should the buildings have fallen except straight down? Furthermore, a significant amount of the debris was scattered around the building footprint itself.


or that the lead company charged with cleaning up the mess specializes in large demolitions and was also the same company that contracted the federal building in OK.


This proves absolutely nothing.



The explosives weren't installed until Bush's Brother's Security Company got contracted for security, not on only at WTC, but at the airport as well. A contract which ran out to the date on 9-11.


You have obviously never worked in the construction trades in a large high rise have you? You have no idea what how buildings like the towers are managed and operated, do you? I have gone over this in other threads and simply do not wish to repeat myself again. Suffice to say that the whole idea that some one can sneak into an occupied building and plant thermite on the structural columns with no one noticing is just plain silly.



Who would you implicate then? Iraq? Afghanistan? Neither of these countries had jack to do with the events of 9-11. Most of the Highjackers were reported to be Saudi Nationals, some of which turned up to be alive and well in other parts of the world, wondering why the US had them listed as dead terrorists. The supposed mastermind of the plot was in the same resort George Bush was in within hours of each other. We were the biggest supporters of both Hussien and the Taliban, we created, trained, armed, supported, and made Bin Laden. Who would you blame? Alqeida? After all they claimed responsibility didn't they, note there was no mention of the fake alqeida cell they got busted setting up in Gaza anywhere but foriegn media.


Don’t you get it, this has nothing to do with nationality, this is a religious war for these people. and again, this has nothing to do with the cause of the building collapse.

That’s it for now, I’ve got to go.




[edit on 28-9-2004 by HowardRoark]


LL1

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The WTC and the Pentagon was done by a group/s OTHER than our own gov'tment.
Finding it hard...
Than stop and think about Madrid on 3/11, did their gov't. do it?
What about what is going on in Russia, the 2/two aircrafts that were BLOWN up in mid-air.
And what about the school with all the children.
Since 9/11 there have been numerous terrorist attacks, not caused by government/s but by terrorist groups.

The WTC was HOLLOW, made to provide the most office space, do you know how much a sq ft of office goes for in Manahhtan, NYC A LOT. It was not designed for a hit from more than a 707.
Once those planes landed IN them the WTC towers went up like chimneys.
Do you have any idea of how flammable jet fuel is? The fumes are even flammable. They IMPLODED!

Still don't believe, go to al-Jazeera go to the very bottom left screen, notice the cartoons? Scroll on them until you find a cartoon on AQ/bin Laden/Afghanistan.

The cartoon descibes how the U.S. gov't came to Afghanistan to help fight the "Bear", upon mission accomplished, they asked for food, education, $ the U.S. gov't leaves them high and dry, with "see ya!"
Next to their rescue.... bin Laden.... with $$$$$$$$$$
Next they hit the WTC.... next they hold up a credit card the states:
"INTERNATIONAL"
What does this tell you!? Carte blanche for terrorism!

But we are allllll entitled to our own beliefs/decisions...


LL1

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
if firefighters knew there were "bombs" in the WTC, WHY!? did 343 die?
doesn't sound "controlled" to me...

www.firehouse.com...


LL1

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Animation of a floor truss in the World Trade Center giving way from pbs.

www.pbs.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Resort? What? Links please. And No Alex Jones #e.


This resort... And Lets not forget the millions we poured into the taliban regime while UNOCAL was courting them for a pipline. After we invaded Afghanistan, we installed a former consultant to UNOCAL as their new president.



'Bush and Atta Visit Same Resort in the Hours Leading to 9-11
More smoke, more fire.
by Daniel Hopsicker
July 29—Venice, FL.
Just three nights before President George W Bush arrived at the swank Colony Resort on Longboat Key on the evening of Sept 10, 2001, Mohamed Atta was staying at a slightly-less tony hotel just two miles down the beach, the Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites—Longboat Key, according to eyewitnesses who contacted the FBI in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Predictably, the story went nowhere. So too did early wire reports stating that on the day of the attack Sarasota police said the Secret Service interrogated four Sudanese men after getting a tip that
the men intended to harm President Bush during his visit to the city.
The incident was found to be "unrelated" to the attacks, the AP reported, and ended in the release of the men. But these stories are now being resurrected in the wake of recent reports of a possible Longboat Key assassination attempt against Bush on the morning of the terrorist attack, and they are provoking disturbing questions about how much, or how little, Americans have been told about the events surrounding the attack on their country.
In an exclusive interview with theMadCowMorningNews, the bartender at Marty's Pub at the Holiday Inn, Darlene Sieverts said, "Mohamed Atta sat right on that bar stool, drinking rum and coke." "I didn't have any real interaction with him. A bartender can tell when a customer doesn't want to talk, and he didn't."
"How do you say 'I'll have what he's having?'"
"About fifteen minutes later he was joined by a second man. When
I approached (the second man) and asked what he'd like to drink, he
indicated that he didn't speak English, and motioned for Atta to
intercede. Instead of ordering something for him, Atta asked for the
bill," bartender Sieverts told us.
"He left a $20 bill to cover a $4. tab."
Sieverts recollections of spotting on Longboat Key the most
cold-blooded killer of the still-young 21st Century—just a few short
days before Bush's arrival—were confirmed to the FBI by other hotel
employees, several of whom also recalled seeing Atta on another
occasion, dining in the hotel's Gulfstream restaurant with a man
identified by the restaurant manager and a waiter as Marwan Al-shehhi.
The two both dined on the hotel’s featured 'Surf & Turf'
buffet.
The revelation of Atta's proximity to Bush, first
reported in the local Longboat Observer, deepens the mystery
surrounding the pre-dawn warning received by the Secret Service detail
protecting the President on his Florida trip in the early morning hours
on Sept 11.
Alarmingly, The Colony, which bills itself as "the nation's no.
1 tennis resort," is just two miles of mostly-deserted white sand
away from the Holiday Inn Hotel frequented by Atta and Al-shehhi.
Longboat Key is located just outside Sarasota, Fl., itself the home
of such curious attractions as the Ringling Bros. Circus, and Florida
Secretary of State Katherine Harris, now running for Congress, the local
daughter of a citrus magnate who became internationally-famous overnight
in the aftermath of the Presidential election of 2000.
Bush was in Florida to promote his administration's new education
bill. His first stop of the day was to be at the Emma E Booker
Elementary School in Sarasota—a 25-minute drive from the Colony.
"Four Sudanese men? In Sarasota?"
In the warning, Zainelabdeen Omer, a Sudanese national who has since
disappeared, told authorities of an immediate threat of a possible
assassination attempt and terror attack on America from a friend of his,
a man named "Ghandi" who had just arrived in Sarasota to bail
someone out of jail.
To bring the day's chronology into focus, a little after 6am on
September 11, 2001, according to an AP report, "Bush awoke in the
magnificent surroundings of the Colony
Beach Resort on Longboat Key, an upscale and relatively-pristine
tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico a spindly
coral island in the Gulf of Mexico, off Sarasota, Florida."
"The previous evening Mr Bush had dined beachside with his
brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, the state that had controversially
handed him the presidency. Now, on the morning of his 234th day in
office, a light, warm breeze was slipping in from the ocean, and, after
breakfast, Bush led his Secret Service crew on a four-mile run around
the nearby Serenoa golf links."
"On his return to the Colony, the President showered, changed
into a lightweight, dark blue suit, and, still glowing from the
morning's exertion, sat down for the first routine intelligence briefing
of the day. It was 8am."
"At the same time Atta, was fourteen hundred miles away, making
his way onto American Airlines Flight 11 taking off from Boston's Logan
International Airport, followed 14 minutes later from the same airport
by Al-Shehhi, aboard United Airlines Flight 175."
"No van, no warning? No problem."
The AP story neglects any mention of a van filled with Middle Eastern men attempting to gain access to the President at the same time as Bush is leaving for his morning jog.
And although the story was reported on the local NBC affiliate, the
AP also neglects any mention of the pre-dawn warning of an attack.
Instead, the AP's account of Bush briefing that morning states that
"The President's briefing appears to have included some reference
to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer, but
contained nothing specific, severe or imminent enough to necessitate a
call to Condoleezza Rice, his 47-year-old National Security Adviser.
The FBI, too, seemed unimpressed.
"Nationwide the FBI has received over 200,00 such tips, stated FBI
spokesman Sarah Oakes, "with more than 5000 of the tips coming
into the Tampa office alone."
"Mum's the word in Florida"
Unlike whistleblowers who have come forward in the FBI's Minneapolis
and Phoenix offices, to name just two, agents in the Tampa FBI office
have maintained their silence.
So too have agents in the Sarasota FBI office.
Does their silence signal valid national security concerns? Or just
embarrassment?
Atta and Al-Shehhi's presence on Longboat Key just days before the
President's arrival raise a number of disturbing questions.
The most pressing is also the most obvious. What were terrorists doing on
Longboat Key?
Still, the Secret Service, no doubt very aware of
Atta's suspicious presence on Longboat Key, has dismissed the
pre-dawn warning they received as "just coincidence."
This must mean that when, three days later, a van filled with Middle Eastern men attempted to gain entry to Bush's hotel by posing as journalists, it has nothing at all to do with "terrorist ringleader" Mohamed Atta's recent presence on Longboat Key.
It is all just a coincidence.
Nothing to see here. Move along."



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Facefirst
Resort? What? Links please. And No Alex Jones #e.


This resort...



'Bush and Atta Visit Same Resort in the Hours Leading to 9-11
More smoke, more fire.
by Daniel Hopsicker

Nothing to see here. Move along."


Ummm... didn't these terrorist chaps spend lots of time in Florida getting a good tan, excellent flight training and probably plenty of hugs from Mickey?

As your quoted article suggests....

Nothing to see here. Move along.

illimey



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you honestly think that if the rank and file firefighters had even the slightest suspicion that there were bombs in the towers that they wouldn’t be marching in the streets? The issues they had with the commission had nothing to do with non-existent bombs.

Perhaps you should read the transcripts of the communication between the firefighters who were in buildings, clearly making references to multiple explosions. The fire fighter raised several objections, notably amunsgt them was the complete lack of investigation allowed them, and the destruction of potential evidence.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

or do you mean the seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse,

You seem to be unable to grasp that THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Yeah, Columbia University just loves to manufature seismic data to support conspiracy theorists. The seismic readouts are in the public domain, and clearly show major readings in the instants BEFORE each collapse. Now how in the world do you get that this isn't true? Do you think Colulmbia University would make them up, maybe rig their seismographs? Maybe there just happened to be earthquakes in NYC that day the moment before each bulding collapsed? How can you say this isn't true whenthe seismic data is obviously legitimate, and considering the source of the read outs, accurate as well? I can up and say there is cheese on the moon too, but that just isn't supported by data, is it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

or do you mean the black oxygen starved hydrocarbons reaching an incredible temperature are not a wealth of information?

You also seem to be unable to grasp that even in an ordinary structure fire temperatures will reach 2000 degrees F. Now if you throw in the fact that you have jet fuel in the mix and the several floors was set ablaze at once, then even you would have to admit that incredibly high temperatures were not only possible, they were guaranteed. Furthermore, with the elevator shafts ripped open and most of the windows busted out, there was plenty of oxygen available.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to this one. Black Smoke=Oxygen starved. The flames were abating in the first building to collapse. Steel doesn't even begin to weaken at hydrocarbon temperatures indoorsin a fuel rich, oxygen poor environment, unless it is in an oxygen rich controlled situation like a O2 Furnace.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

No Major Steel Towers Have Ever Collapsed From Fire Before.

No Major Steel Towers Have Ever Been Hit By Fully Loaded Jet Planes Before.

WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled 707. That is not conjecture, that is a fact stated by more than one designer of the WTC complex.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

There have been much worse fires in lesser buildings. Cell Phones went dead before each collapse for a moment (radio interference from remote device).


Gosh cell phones went dead. How many of the local cell towers were effected by the attack? How many were located in the WTC? How many people were trying to use their cell phones at the same time?
Yes the firefighters had trouble with their radios. Unfortunately they proved to be unreliable when they needed them the most.

They went dead the same time as the seismic readings and explosions. Funny, they handled all the traffic until that moment.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

There were pools of molten steel at the base of the towers after the disaster, no hydrocarbon is going to do that, yet it is common with thermite demolitions.

First of all, this is an unsubstantiated report. Now, as I understand it the report was of pools of melted metal. There is no confirmation that the metal was steel. There are plenty of other metals used in buildings, aluminum being one.

Unsubstantiated? Both Fema and the clean up crew reported pools of molten steel. NASA sattelites confirmed 700 degree hotspots months after the collapse.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Most of the fuel from one of the jets burned up ina corner impact, yet it was the first to collapse despite the thick black smoke indicating a recession of the 'inferno'.

If it all burned up, then where did the “black oxygen starved hydrocarbons” come from that you keep going on about?
Even if 80 % of the fuel burned up in the first few minutes, that still leaves an awful lot of fuel on that floor. If all of the fuel in a jet plane crash burns up so quickly, then why is it when other planes have crashed, they still burned for a while?

Dude, I'm not debating the fact that there were fires in the buildings, I am telling you that hydrocarbon fuels, even in the open air, do not acheive the temperature nessecary to weaken structural steel to the point of collapse. No Fire has ever caused the collapse of a steel tower, ever. On 9-11 it happened twice in one day. If the impact of the planes was the cause of the collapses, then how did they manage to stand four hours after the initial impact? Which was it, the fires, or the planes? Both? No, neither of which would have brought them straight down into their foundations, neither of which would have caused explosions right before each collapse. Neither of them would explain the explosions in the basement, nor the pools of molten steel, yes it was steel, that is not unsubstantiated, it is fact.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Never mind the squibs you can see going off ahead of the collapses,

Ah, the so called squib flashes that are exactly one pixel in size. Digital noise, my friend, digital noise.

The same digital noise from all the different cameras in the same pixels, same frames? Digital noise that produces smoke and debris eh?


Originally posted by HowardRoark

or the fact that buildings came straight down into their foundation

Do you honestly think that they should have tipped over like a tree? Where should the buildings have fallen except straight down? Furthermore, a significant amount of the debris was scattered around the building footprint itself.

No you're right man, the impact would have cut all the support structures simultaneously causing a perfect footprint collapse. Damage to one side of the building would cause them come straight down. Give me a break. Not to mention the complete lack of resistance from the lower floors. Near Terminal velocity in a steel structure is common in a collapse from impact...
If the impact caused the collpase, yes they would have fell to the most damaged side. If the fires caused the collapse, the tops of the buildings wouldn't have turned into powdered concrete, unless there was some explosive new properties to fire and concrete I am not aware of.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

or that the lead company charged with cleaning up the mess specializes in large demolitions and was also the same company that contracted the federal building in OK.

This proves absolutely nothing.

No, it doesn't. Neither does the fact that Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC adn the airport until 9-11. Neither does that the fact that Willie Brown got a warning from Condi Rice not to fly that day, nor does the subsequent blocking of investigations from the white house. Ashcroft suddenly deciding to start taking government flights, the sudden flurry of trading through the WTC computers that morning, the unprecedented power down at WTC the weekend before, the Israeli's dancing around and high fiving, no none of it prooves anything. Indeed circumstantial evidence, however, the real evidence was shipped out as quickly as possible and investigation of these material wasn't allowed was it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark


The explosives weren't installed until Bush's Brother's Security Company got contracted for security, not on only at WTC, but at the airport as well. A contract which ran out to the date on 9-11.

You have obviously never worked in the construction trades in a large high rise have you? You have no idea what how buildings like the towers are managed and operated, do you? I have gone over this in other threads and simply do not wish to repeat myself again. Suffice to say that the whole idea that some one can sneak into an occupied building and plant thermite on the structural columns with no one noticing is just plain silly.

Here again, consider who was in charge of security at WTC. Conisder the unprecedented power down the weekend before. What is plain silly about that? Why were the sprinkler systems not working on the floors where the impacts occured? Silly?

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Who would you implicate then? Iraq? Afghanistan? Neither of these countries had jack to do with the events of 9-11. Most of the Highjackers were reported to be Saudi Nationals, some of which turned up to be alive and well in other parts of the world, wondering why the US had them listed as dead terrorists. The supposed mastermind of the plot was in the same resort George Bush was in within hours of each other. We were the biggest supporters of both Hussien and the Taliban, we created, trained, armed, supported, and made Bin Laden. Who would you blame? Alqeida? After all they claimed responsibility didn't they, note there was no mention of the fake alqeida cell they got busted setting up in Gaza anywhere but foriegn media.


Don’t you get it, this has nothing to do with nationality, this is a religious war for these people. and again, this has nothing to do with the cause of the building collapse.

A religous war? Here again you respond to fact with generalization.
I am not mitigating the seriousness of the tragedy on 9-11, but there are questions about the cause of the disaster which have not yet been answered by the official explinations given to us by those who would have been que bono. There are holes in the official story, big holes. There has been supression of evidence, there has been outright lies, and there have been some very suspect activities here that need to be examined. Why, when faced with the serious disaster to ever face this country, would subsequent investigations be blocked? Why would the white house tell FBI agents to back off Bin Laden Family memebers who were here in the US? Who was Geroge Bush Sr. Metting with the morning of 9-11 (I know, do you?) Start asking some real questions, start doing some real research on the events of 9-11 and you will find the official account of the events of
9-11 to be not only inaccurate, but in many cases what would appear to be intentionally misleading. Once again, I offer a link to a google search www.google.com...
and I encourage you to check out the information for yourself. I have done an extensive amount of research, two years of it, and I have come to the painful conclusion that yes the WTC was demolished, if you come to a different conclusion, I can only hope that your conclusion is based on thoughtful and conclusive research, not the story the mass media handed you. I can't make you believe one way or the other, but I can tell you that the evidence doesn't support the story here. USE THE LINK, dig a little, if it doesn't raise some questions for you, then you are in need of a serious media debriefing.




[edit on 29-9-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Yeah, Columbia University just loves to manufature seismic data to support conspiracy theorists. The seismic readouts are in the public domain, and clearly show major readings in the instants BEFORE each collapse. Now how in the world do you get that this isn't true? Do you think Colulmbia University would make them up, maybe rig their seismographs? Maybe there just happened to be earthquakes in NYC that day the moment before each bulding collapsed? How can you say this isn't true whenthe seismic data is obviously legitimate, and considering the source of the read outs, accurate as well? I can up and say there is cheese on the moon too, but that just isn't supported by data, is it?


Have you ever bothered look at the data and read the actual report, or do your relly entirely on what is posted on Rense.com?

Let’s look at the report ourselves shall we?

Seismic report from Columbia

Please go over that report and tell me what parts of it support your contentions.

I did, and look what I found:


A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.


WOW a half ton explosion in 1993 and it wasn’t picked up by the seismograph that was even closer then the ones that were in operation on 9/11. Logically, then that must mean that your “seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse” were the result of even larger blasts. Please explain how this can be.

Better yet, let’s look at the data, shall we?



Please point out the “seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse”


Here is another one:



Where are these “major readings in the instants BEFORE each collapse” that you insist exist?










top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join