REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job

POSTED BY: ANTIMASON
UPDATED: Saturday, January 13, 2007 23:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3394
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:33 AM

ANTIMASON


this is really sad... im the only one who see's through this bull shit??

i suppose the patriot act was just a spontaneous response to 9/11... and homeland security, the Iraq war... i mean, granted it was all foretold in the 1997/2000 PNAC documents by the neonazis in office... but what a convenient tragedy to bring these plans out of the drawer and into fruition?? i mean.. Rice said we had no idea this could happen(even though they got a memo 5 days before)

and i guess Bush really is concerned about terrorism, and has as his first order of business to seal the borders huh?? right? i suppose this whole SPPA agenda to create a pan American union is a conspiracy?

open your eyes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:37 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Just a note.

about 20 years ago the BBC had a show called something like "you have control" where teams consisting of a random celeb and a member of the public where given control of vaious types of vehicle. The show finished every week with the teams on BA's Concorde simulator where they simulated the famous disaster movie scenario "the crew is taken sick, you must land the plane." Not one of these teams, who had never flown before, ever crashed in normal fight. A couple completely screwed the landing but most actually landed ok just overshot the runway. IIRC two teams made perfect landings.

The secret? The automatic pilot can fly the plane solo, all you need to do is give it a heading and it will take you where you want to go. Even Concordes flight landing aids, though not state of the art at that time, were good enough to help bring her down. All you needed to do was know what lines to keep the various pointers between, kids raised on modern video games would have no problems.

So flying a plane is not biggie. The difficult paty is getting airborne and landing, neither of which was a problem in this case.



hmm.. well thats interesting!! i wish someone had said something before..

im gonna have to head on down to my local airport and apply for a Pilot position; ill list "Ace Combat" for SEGA Genesis as my work experience...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:55 AM

DJTOES


I watched the "Loose Change" video. really interesting. Rasies some questions about the crash at the Pentagon. If a plane crashed into it, then were are the impact marks from the wings? It also shows tiny explosions inside the two towers, which look like a controlled explosion for a demolistion. Now, don't get me wrong. 9/11 was a terrible tradgey. All those lives lost...horrible. And the real question is. Why would it be done on purpose?
But here's another tidbit to think about. My best friend, who's enlisted in the (U.S.) Air Force said that he was told that the military shot down flight 93. That the passengers did not take over and crash the plane. That is a very distrubing thought.

They ain't cuddly like me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:36 PM

ANTIMASON


thats a good documentary... and all it does it raise questions, based on the evidence, that entirely contradicts the official story. apparently they sent search teams over an 8 mile radius looking for passengers and wreckage.. they were covering their tracks most likely.

the fact of the matter is, and no one here has any explanation for it otherwise, but Norman Minetta, secretary of the transportation, testified that CHeney refused to shoot down the aircraft headed towards the pentagon! see mr. Minettas testimony yourselves




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:40 PM

SEVENPERCENT


I can't BELIEVE I'm responding to this. I was probably confused by the massive storm of agreement that happened when Geez agreed with 'Zen. Sigh.

Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
right... Alqaeda needed "years of planning" to fool the FAA, NORAD, take flight training, learn the ins-and outs of commercial airline systems... and then wait till the LAST MINUTE, the very morning, to buy the tickets?


Let's go through this slowly. Maybe you aren't breathing when you read or post, and it's causing oxygen deprivation. They didn't have to "fool" anyone to do what they did. They took advantage of the system.
1. Poor baggage/carry-on screening let them slip knives on a plane.
2. Flight training was available to anyone in this country, with no oversight.
3. Buying a ticket ahead of time would get them placed on the manifest. Buying a ticket early might flag them on a watch list. After coming up with a plan, why would you chance ruining it by getting your name placed on a list before the last minute? You really are that dense, aren't you?

Quote:

get real. Mohammed Atta even coincidentally left luggage behind in Boston with a conveneint list of all his accomplices and a terror "training manual".. what an F-cken JOKE!

Why wouldn't he? Use your brain. If his mission was successful, would he ever NEED that luggage again? "Yes, let's remove all luggage and evidence so no one can find out that I've martyred myself against the great enemy! Who needs to know, besides, I may want that luggage in the afterlife!"
Quote:

which somehow miraculously survived the intense fireball of the crash, that supposedly caused a 110 story building to melt and EXPLODE into its footprint in 10 sec.
Light things tend to survive flaming impacts. They are blown out of the impact site. It's a fact of physics.

Quote:

i mean.. whos the conspiracy theorist?

Still you.

Quote:

yah.. and NORAD HAS NEVER BEFORE FAILED TO RESPOND TO 4 SEPERATE altered flights or hijackings either;

Uhhh...when had it happened before?

Quote:

that takes government complicity, the hijackers ALONE COULD NOT HAVE PULLED IT OFF!

It takes complacency. "Hey Dave - where's flight 93? I dunno Bill, I was getting a cup of coffee. Maybe the radar's broken. Give it 15 mins. or so, and try to call them."

Quote:

what kind of sheep would have played it cool and let some alleged "hijacker" compromise the lives of an entire plane, equipped solely with some *box cutters?

Ones that are trained to. Dear Christ, you just aren't getting it. They told pilots and stewardesses to comply with the requests of hijackers so no one would get hurt. It was standard policy. And, if you've never seen a razor cutter, they aren't toys. You can open someone up from top to bottom with a good slice - they're dangerous. The hijacker pulled a knife, said do what we tell you. The staff, as they were trained to, complied, thinking they would land in a foreign country and be safe. Who the fuck knew they were going to unload into a building?

Quote:

engage any number of levers and guages and switches you see..and try to fly that at 200-300 mph and hit 75% of your targets

THEY WERE TRAINED PILOTS! They had attended flight school! How hard is turning a plane for a trained pilot? You said they performed maneuvers an airforce vet couldn't have. How the fuck couldn't an airforce vet turn a plane? Turn stick to right, turn stick straight, decscend, aim at building. Where is the complex loop-de-loops you are suggesting they performed?

Quote:

when their own flight school instructors HERE IN AMERICA said they couldnt fly Cesnas.

Said they couldn't LAND cessnas worth a damn. Big difference. They didn't need to land them well.

Quote:

for a 757 thats almost phsyically impossible, with air resistance and turbulance,

If it's impossible, genius, how do planes even land? They come down at airspeeds of over 200 mph, at steep angles, and aim at runways smaller than the pentagon is wide. It is NOT physically impossible, or planes could never take off.

Quote:

to the extent that the first firemen on scene admitted on camera that he 'didnt see any signs of a plane crash'... thats worth noting

Also worth noting is the first pictures of the scene showed airplane debris, including a wing and an engine. Under the confusion of the firemen, a crack team of agents airlifted plane parts to the scene, made everyone move, placed them for the photos, and told the firemen not to notice.

Quote:

and the buildings didnt collapse after they were hit... they just burned; AND NOT AT STEEL MELTING TEMPERATURES EITHER! their were people standing outside the impact marks.. how much more 'proof' do you need. all those other floors that were perfectly intact pulvarized in a matter of seconds.. that has NEVER happened before.

The steel didn't need to melt, it just needed to weaken and bend. Hot metal does that. All that weight on a bent frame, and you can't believe it fell? No, it never happened before, because a plane hadn't hit a Goddamn building before!

Quote:

all the more remarkable that none of the Pentagons missile defenses were activated

They have those? I didn't see any, and I've never heard that it had them.


Quote:

did the buildings collapse immediately when they were hit??

Did they need to? They got hit, warped, and fell. It's a building, not a bowling pin.


You know what? I'm stopping there. I was going to go post by post, but you're an idiot. You're going to think whatever you want to think no matter what anyone says. I work with metallurgy and physics teachers - none of them questioned the reports of what caused the damage, because they know the science. You can't even grasp how easy it was for 19 people to beat the system, because you desperately need to believe in an evil gov't. Whatever.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:43 PM

SIMONWHO


As it hasn't been directly clarified in this thread - the reason why the terrorist's names (as well as a few others) aren't listed in the passenger manifold lists was due to the FAA not being able to contact their families (unsurprisingly) and therefore they couldn't be released. You can read the BBC's clarification here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.
html


I have no problem with people who believe conspiracy theories except for those who keep propogating that which they know to be untrue or irrelevant in the name of "creating a counter-myth". Yup, the fire wouldn't reach the temperature to melt steel. But it far surpassed the temperature at which steel loses its strength. And if I see that inaccurate mock-up of the plane's wingspan one more time...

What does it say about a person that they'd rather believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it was the government of a country that committed mass murder rather than an organisation which identifies itself as being hellbent on destroying and killing Western nations?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:47 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:

hmm.. well thats interesting!! i wish someone had said something before..

im gonna have to head on down to my local airport and apply for a Pilot position; ill list "Ace Combat" for SEGA Genesis as my work experience...




Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.

Fact is that most of the work done on airliners in the past 30 years has been to make them easier to fly. Why? because the easier it is the safer it is. People make mistakes when they are stressed and tired and most plane crashes are the result of pilot error. The easier and less stressfull it is the less risk of pilot error.

The reason you spend a lot of time and expense training pilots is not hand/eye co-ordination but the ability to effectively multitask and respond appropriately in crisis situations. Theoretically you can learn all you need to learn about the mechanics of flight with MS flight simulator the experience and training to deal with the bad situations is what a professional brings to the table.














NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:06 PM

ANTIMASON


you guys are all hopelessly lost.. but go on! keep believing in your the myth of alqaeda, let Bush erect concentration camps and patriot act 5 and 6, engage in ww3 in the middle east, destroy and bankrupt our nation... and tell me how many lives you saved from "terrorists" in the meantime?

if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY! show me any building thats ever collapsed other than a demolition, and lets see how IT FALLS! for the towers to fall at FREE FALL SPEEDS, your telling me that 10 stories collapsed, vanished, EVERY SECOND! every floor would have had to buckle and fail simultanously and symetrically... and not to mention explode!

believe what you want.. theres no stopping the American Nazi party anyway and all of you who want ww3 with the middle east and an end to American sovereignty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:10 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.



i wish i knew a commercial airline pilot.. id ask him why they bother going through flight school at all.. apparently its a complete waste of time aye?

their is so much historical evidence that points to a conspiracy by the world central banks(to financially enslave everyone), and ive told you all again and again.. but at the end of the day, youll take what Sean Hannity spews out as GOSPEL FACT! when theyll NEVER TOUCH on the subject(because they ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM NOW)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:12 PM

DJTOES


Look, I'm not saying the government did this. I don't want to believe in an evil government. there's no doubt in my mind that there are threats by terrorists againist my country or anyone elses. I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I was just saying that the Loose Change video gives intresting, yet very distrubing ideas. I don't know if what they say is true and there is no proof to back it up. I'm just pointing out that idea and what my friend said.

They ain't cuddly like me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:19 PM

ANTIMASON


wake up.. it was a conspiracy, there is no conceivable way that alqaeda, acting alone, caused all the damage that day.. its simply not possible. Norman Minettas testimony, along with tons of pre9/11 intelligence make it clear that the intelligence agencies had prior knowledge of the attacks, and at the very least abetted the attacks to futher the damage and remove remaining evidence.

how did building 7 collapse?

why was the CIA running a drill, of the exact same scenario of flying hijacked planes into buildings, the VERY MORNING OF 9/11?? what are the odds? but more importanly .. what was the purpose? to confuse FAA NORAD MAYBE?? where are the damn tapes if we're being told the truth.. video tapes, flight recordings, EVERYTHING?? its hidden away, classified, because THEY DONT WANT US TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:25 PM

RUE


I agree with this critique: i suppose the patriot act was just a spontaneous response to 9/11...
I agree with this critique: and homeland security
I agree with this critique: the Iraq war...
I don't know about this critique: i mean, granted it was all foretold in the 1997/2000 PNAC documents by the neonazis in office...
I don't know about this critique: but what a convenient tragedy to bring these plans out of the drawer and into fruition??
I agree with this critique: i mean.. Rice said we had no idea this could happen(even though they got a memo 5 days before)

I agree with this critique: and i guess Bush really is concerned about terrorism
I agree with this critique: and has as his first order of business to seal the borders huh?? right?
I DISagree with this critique: i suppose this whole SPPA agenda to create a pan American union is a conspiracy?

I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:25 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.



i wish i knew a commercial airline pilot.. id ask him why he bothers going through flight school at all.. apparently its a complete waste of time aye?



If you continue to hang out with other losers then no, you wont get to meet interesting people. It's not my job to tell you how to increase your circle of friends but I believe taht if you stopped being a nutcase that would help.

However --

1) The hijackers attended flight school and tried to get time on a Boeing simulator. They had flight manuals for various kinds of commercial aircraft. So the idea that they walked into a cockpit with zero experience is bogus.

2) The difficult part of flying is takeoffs and landings something they didn't have to do.

3) It has been proved, on TV no less, that a complete novice with access to the autopilot can make a commercial jet go where he wants ONCE THE PLANE IS IN THE AIR.

4) Up until 9/11 aircraft crews where trained not to resist or antagonise hijackers. Prior to 9/11 most hijackers would have landed the plane somewhere. It was accepted that any action was better taken on the ground by trained forces than in the air by a flight crew principly trained in customer service.

5) You are an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:38 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:


I have no problem with people who believe conspiracy theories except for those who keep propogating that which they know to be untrue or irrelevant in the name of "creating a counter-myth".



there are two theories about what happened on 9/11: one includes a rebel group of muslims, under the orchestration of alqaeda, and the other envolves members of the American military industrial complext. you have one variable, the terrorists... and then you have FAA, NORAD, Cheney in the underground bunker, the NYFD, the PENTAGON SECURITY SYSTEMS... youre theory cannot account for the massive failures on behalf of the governemnt; ours does. and our theory also gives a better explanation for the lies of Iraq, WMDs and 'democracy'

Quote:

Yup, the fire wouldn't reach the temperature to melt steel. But it far surpassed the temperature at which steel loses its strength. And if I see that inaccurate mock-up of the plane's wingspan one more time...


thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

Quote:

What does it say about a person that they'd rather believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it was the government of a country that committed mass murder rather than an organisation which identifies itself as being hellbent on destroying and killing Western nations?


it was Hitler and his Nazi henchmen who burned their Reichstag building, and blamed it on a political enemy, so that later he might become chancellor, enable fatherland security and all the other anti-terror like laws.. and galvanized his masses into one of the bloodiest wars ever. governments through out history have done this.. what makes you think now is any different, when the stakes are so high??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:46 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it.



It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk. This theory looks at the end result, is unable to believe that the actions taken on 9/11 could ahve brought about that result and then tries to construct a hypothasis that is a more "satisfactory answer."

Since the starting point is that something several orders of magnitude more distructive than a jet needed to be involved you have to introduce a huge conspiracy to explain it.

That is the point where most people turn off.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:52 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
the fact of the matter is, and no one here has any explanation for it otherwise, but Norman Minetta, secretary of the transportation, testified that CHeney refused to shoot down the aircraft headed towards the pentagon! see mr. Minettas testimony yourselves



So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I know, I'm breaking my own rule here, but it's a slow day.....


Quote:

antimason wrote:
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 13:19
wake up.. it was a conspiracy, there is no conceivable way that alqaeda, acting alone, caused all the damage that day.. its simply not possible



Why don't you just come out and say ...It's INCONCEIVABLE.!!. That way, we could respond in Inigo Montoya like fashion, - " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Fact is, despite your incredulity, that is EXACTLY what happened. 19 highly motivated, well financed and trained men took advantage of us in a way that most of the general populace thought never could happen. Which is EXACTLY why they did it. Because we weren't looking.

Quote:

how did building 7 collapse?
That's been addressed, time and time again. Only you ignore the facts.

Quote:

why was the CIA running a drill, of the exact same scenario of flying hijacked planes into buildings, the VERY MORNING OF 9/11??
You presume this is true ? Why ? Kooky internet web sites that offer nothing more than specious 'evidence'? What's so sad about dupes like you is that it diverts our attention away from what really DID happen. It allows you to ignore the evil that was committed against your country and to members of practically every nation on the planet.

Shame on you. Shame for your gullibility and ignorance.





People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:58 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition



This right here is your problem. You are unable to equate cause and effect so you feel the need to come up with a more "satisfying" answer.

For the sake of argument lets take an idealised version of your world view. Lets say that in each case only one floor half way up the building fails. What then happens to all of the structure above it? Where does it go? Where does it's weight and force bear? That's the problem. As I stated before and you ignored high rise buildings are not massively strong, they are only as strong as they need to be, there is little of any over engineering. The thing can stay up only if every structural element does it's job. If some of it fails and forces are transfered to neighbors that are not designed to carry that type of loading then they too will fail and the result is a catastrophic failure.

It looks like a demolition because it is a demolition. How do you think they destroy buildings commercially? Think they place a huge bomb in the middle and blow it up? They do it by using explosives in key points to take out enough structure that the building collapses under its own weight. That's exactly what the plane did in this case.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:59 PM

RAZZA


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!



Antimason:

Here is a link to a fire report from a high rise building fire in Philadelphia in 1991.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

If you look at page 19 of the report you will see this:

Quote:

"Structural Conditions Observed

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."



There are also some good pictures of the sagging beams at the end of the report. Now, I'll grant you that this builing did not collapse, but it's steel beams were also not exposed to direct impact from a airplane traveling at 200+ miles per hour and a subsequent explosion and fire of much higher temperatures. Despite these facts, the builing's steel beams managed to sag up to 3 feet in some cases. By the way, this builing was eventually demolished because the city could not sell it to anyone willing to renovate the bottom part, then rebuild a new top half. I ask you, why would they have to rebuild a new top half? Could it be because it was structurally unstable? I'm not even going to get into the structural differences between the two buildings as I'm sure you would easily get bored and quickly dismiss whatever I have to say about it.



-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:59 PM

RAZZA


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!



Antimason:

Here is a link to a fire report from a high rise building fire in Philadelphia in 1991.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

If you look at page 19 of the report you will see this:

Quote:

"Structural Conditions Observed

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."



There are also some good pictures of the sagging beams at the end of the report. Now, I'll grant you that this building did not collapse, but it's steel beams were also not exposed to direct impact from a airplane traveling at 200+ miles per hour and a subsequent explosion and fire of much higher temperatures. Despite these facts, the building's steel beams managed to sag up to 3 feet in some cases. By the way, this builing was eventually demolished because the city could not sell it to anyone willing to renovate the bottom part, then rebuild a new top half. I ask you, why would they have to rebuild a new top half? Could it be because it was structurally unstable? I'm not even going to get into the structural differences between the two buildings as I'm sure you would easily get bored and quickly dismiss whatever I have to say about it.



-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I know it's been said to death, and if not, it should have been, but the WTC Towers 1 and 2 were built in a radically different manner than previous sky scrapers. Using examples of other tall buildings doesn't translate to what happened on 9/11. But of course, anyone who had taken the time to study this primary factor would have never posted a silly thread about conspiracy theories on fff.net in the first place.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:18 PM

BUFFALOPHIL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:

thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition




You idiot. All they had to do was hit the building near the middle. Then, the steel would soften, causing bending. The bending would increase, until the upper floors were forced to fall down on their center of gravity (i.e. straight down, jackhole); the top thirty to forty stories were falling down into the bottom sixty! Of course the damn building fell in less than twenty seconds! Dear God, why are you still propagating this crap?

"I cannot abide useless people."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:20 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

“The structural analyses of this study on components, subsystem, isolated exterior walls and cores, and global models of the WTC1 and WTC2, as well as observations from photos and videos taken during events, showed that the tower collapses were caused by combined effects of the structural and thermal insulation damage from aircraft impact and the subsequent intense fires. [[]emphasis mine[]]”
-- Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and fire, National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:20 PM

RAZZA


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
how did building 7 collapse?



I assume you believe that WTC7 did not sustain significant damage and therefore, there was no reason for it to collapse. I submit that your assumptions of the damage are incorrect, and eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene support my submission.

Quote:

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

Quote:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Quote:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI
C/9110462.PDF


Quote:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Quote:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

So, I guess now your conspiracy theory also includes members of the NYFD who would be complicit in the loss of hundreds of their brethren! The scope of your conspiracy is truly broad, and any good conspiracist knows that the fewer people who know, the better!

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:22 PM

RUE


What I wonder about is how the Royal House of Saud got this information to Cheney, Rice et al while at the same time bypassing dubya on the exact details.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it."

Amen, brother. The #1 Political response to any event: "How can we spin this to our advantage?"

--Anthony

Edited to add: Also the #1 response of conspiracy theorists, apparently...

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:47 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:29 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2-

It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk.



sure buddy.. the US government has no secrets?? wheres your proof.. as its the crux of your arguement?? (i guess you wouldnt have proof.. because it there are secrets, theyd be SECRET!) get real


Quote:

This theory looks at the end result, is unable to believe that the actions taken on 9/11 could ahve brought about that result and then tries to construct a hypothasis that is a more "satisfactory answer."


no.. you were told it was Osama bin laden and 19 hijackers, when OSAMA HIMSELF admits, along with the FBIS OWN PAGE, that he had nothing to do with 9/11! you obviously havent seen the work of Peter Lance, who uncovered MASSIVE FBI and CIA coverups envolving members of alqaeda, and the connections with OUR OWN ESTABLISHMENT prior to 9/11. you can deny that evidence all day long.. it only furthers our theory and punches another whole in yours

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:34 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.



this is why you werent in charge: shoot down the plane and lose the passengers, or LOSE THE PLANE ANYWAY and lose the targeted impact zone aswell! think about it... it hurts the official rediculous theory because Cheney is shown allowing the terror attack to occur! just as their political motives dictated


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:43 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Why don't you just come out and say ...It's INCONCEIVABLE.!!. That way, we could respond in Inigo Montoya like fashion, - " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Fact is, despite your incredulity, that is EXACTLY what happened. 19 highly motivated, well financed and trained men took advantage of us in a way that most of the general populace thought never could happen. Which is EXACTLY why they did it. Because we weren't looking.



why dont you say what you really mean.. that the muslim world is a greater threat than communism and fascism ever was! you want me to believe that? show me the # of terrorist attacks, and prove to me that the RISK is proportionate with the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS being spent right now in washington. your the fool for believing that radical Islam will ever convert the western world, thats the conspiracy theory

Quote:

That's been addressed, time and time again. Only you ignore the facts.


how then? lets debate it... since no plane hit it, why was it the FIRST EVER BUILDING TO implode into itself from fire, in a matter of hrs no less. maybe if a number of government offices werent located their, with specific intelligence records.. OH NEVER MIND! youre right... the terrorists magically brought that one down too!


Quote:

You presume this is true ? Why ? Kooky internet web sites that offer nothing more than specious 'evidence'? What's so sad about dupes like you is that it diverts our attention away from what really DID happen.


yah.. takes the attention off of this creation of alqaeda, and forces Bush and his Nazis to patroll the internet, tap domestic phone lines and remove habeaus corpus. you sheep... you stand their proudly, giving hail to your fascist leaders as they steal everything away from you- and you beg for more, while driveling your homages to them. one day, you all will learn the hard way that these men could give a f=ck less about you all

Quote:

It allows you to ignore the evil that was committed against your country and to members of practically every nation on the planet.


no.. it allows you to burry your head in the sand here in AMerica, and rest assured each night that big brother government will protect you; as it systematically removes every God given freedom allowed by the constitution. your such a socialist, you dont want a rule of law, you want mob rule..

Quote:

Shame on you. Shame for your gullibility and ignorance.


shame on you, for giving the Nazis in power the go ahead to rape the hell out of American traditions and place us in a never ending war.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:58 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by BuffaloPhil:


You idiot. All they had to do was hit the building near the middle. Then, the steel would soften, causing bending. The bending would increase, until the upper floors were forced to fall down on their center of gravity (i.e. straight down, jackhole);



have you seen that happen personally?? no, thats what the government theorizes; i am no engineer, i doubt you are either.. but there are hundreds if not thousands of professionals in the field who have come out against the official story, so its not as cut and dry as you think. of course.. it eases your mind from actually being vigilante against government and protecting peoples rights the world over. out of sight out of mind! lets blame the muslims and be done with it.. ww3 here we come

Quote:

the top thirty to forty stories were falling down into the bottom sixty! Of course the damn building fell in less than twenty seconds! Dear God, why are you still propagating this crap?


if that helps you sleep better at night... in the meantime we'll just keep murdering Iraqis by the thousands and over turn ever last civil liberty until nothing happens without the government knowing about it. when you accept the '08 REAL ID act, and permantly have a RFID locator attached to your person.. you come back here and tell me that taking our liberties is for our own good. in 2010, when the NAFTA superhighway is completed and mexicans and canadians have free travel into the AMericas, you come back here and tell me that Bush cared about national security. youre the joke, you accept political events in a vacuum, as if they happen randomly- when some people, like Roosevelt for example, knew that NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT IN POLITICS- that its all driven by a pre-existing agenda or motive. by the time you realize this, it will be too late for you to make a change

"I cannot abide useless people."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:02 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it."

Amen, brother. The #1 Political response to any event: "How can we spin this to our advantage?"

--Anthony



you guys are sick.. do you think that makes you patriotic, because you defend the Bush family?? did you know they imbezzled money for HItler? or that they had business connections with the Bin Laden family? you simply do not understand the game! Bush didnt need to know anymore then to keep pushing the PNAC agenda

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:06 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:

antimason- the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job





you dont actually believe what the government tells you... do you? read Operation Northwoods documents from the 60's, where our own DoD PLANNED TO ATTACK AMERICANS AND STAGE IT AS A CUBAN TERROR EVENT to justify military action. they planned to murder INNOCENT AMERICANS! straight from the governments mouth.. but youll come on here and tell me im crazy, because I ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO IT! what a bunch of sheeple- Hitler would have loved people like you all

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:09 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.



this is why you werent in charge: shoot down the plane and lose the passengers, or LOSE THE PLANE ANYWAY and lose the targeted impact zone aswell! think about it... it hurts the official rediculous theory because Cheney is shown allowing the terror attack to occur! just as their political motives dictated





So you would just kill them without hesitation? Glad you'll never be in charge of anything important. It would scare me if it was an easy decison.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:15 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition

“The structural analyses of this study on components, subsystem, isolated exterior walls and cores, and global models of the WTC1 and WTC2, as well as observations from photos and videos taken during events, showed that the tower collapses were caused by combined effects of the structural and thermal insulation damage from aircraft impact and the subsequent intense fires. [[]emphasis mine[]]”
-- Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and fire, National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm



thats what the national institute for propoganda and disinformation claims.. that doesnt make it proven. you can plead to me all day that the impact from the jet, followed by some MINIMAL JET FIRES that burned at most 1000degrees, for 1 hr, to have caused 110 stories to collapse at freefall speeds... but it would never have fallen that way. see your ignoring what even the designers of the building said, which is that they designed it so that a plane crash would MERELY PUNCTURE THE BUILDING! it never would have collapsed controllable into its own footprint- the odds are slim to nil. i suggest you read what the actual engineers have to say... but then no one has talked to the designers since 9.11, since the lead engineer died IN THE TOWERS THAT DAY.. conveniently!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:17 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2-

It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk.



sure buddy.. the US government has no secrets?? wheres your proof.. and is the crux of your arguement?? get real




So what you are saying is that because it's imposible to prove a negative it must be true? Don't be an idiot.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:19 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:


So you would just kill them without hesitation? Glad you'll never be in charge of anything important. It would scare me if it was an easy decison.



if Cheney cant stand the heat.. why was he suddenly given control over the emergency bunker(months before) to begin with??

you all are so consumed by your emotional feelings of that day and your initital preconceptions that you are blinded by any peice of evidence that suggests that, suprisingly, those attacks didnt catch every westerner in the world by suprise! you think it was out of the blue, when the facts are so clear as to be painfull.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:21 PM

FLETCH2


The building was designed to take a hit from a 707 fluing at low speed lost in fog not a 757 with an almost full fuel load traveling at over 400mph.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:22 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The building was designed to take a hit from a 707 fluing at low speed lost in fog not a 757 with an almost full fuel load traveling at over 400mph.



full of fuel? apparently it was coasting when it almost landed at its intended destination, and turned completely around? i guess the people at FAA and NORAD were getting coffee too huh...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:39 PM

ANTIMASON


if there was NNOOOO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, like Condi Rice and the President, and the whole of mass media mouthpieces claimed at the time, then explain why the CIA director george Tenet, and associated members were exposed as having committed insider trading the morning of 9.11 selling AA and united stocks short. why were their rumors in NY, literally ask NYers this, that something bad would happen down town- and to skip work at the towers that day. their are persistant reports of this prior knowledge, its all factual, google it... and it all points to prior knowlendge, yet its information that has no place in your official story, where "no one could possibly have imagined a plane being flown into a building"... when the CIA was running an IDENTICAL DRILL THE MORNING OF.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:52 PM

ANTIMASON


do you all understand why the declassified OPERATION NORTHWOODS documents are so important?/

it seems that most of you cannot seem to comprehend how American born leaders would commit criminal negligence and the indirect murder of other Americans, for any reason whatsover; so that creates a stumbling block between you and reality. the fact of the matter is, unless you are completely oblivious to prior history, THATS ALL WE'VE EVER KNOWN! and NORTHWOODS is the most obvious evidence of a prior attempt by our US governemnt, just 40 years ago, to kill AMericans under false flag terror events and blame it on cuban nationals; everything the CIA is known for in other countries, espionage and political coups and propoganda. if thats too vague for you, understand that the Pentagon joint cheifs approved it IN WRITING! look it up please.. because i cannot possibly cover(uncover) every lie and untruth propogated by the establishment; but i know it happens, im certainly not naive to that


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:26 PM

FLETCH2


You may be an idiot but I love the hat, is that real tinfoil? Glad to see you are a traditionalist.

Let's wind this back a little. You claim that the towers could not have fallen just through the impact of planes. Consequently you create an elaborate conspiracy that operates in order to demolish the towers. This in turn results in hundreds of co-conspiritors with the problems associated with such a large operation.

Even ignoring the fact that 1) it is possible to knock down a building with a plane and 2) the unlikelyhood that such a conspiracy could be maintained your theory has a far bigger problem. That problem is that according to your theory the ultimate objective of the attack is not to destroy the building but to create a political environment that could be used to inact legislation like the patriot act and start the Iraq war. I would contend that crashing the planes into the buildings alone would have achieved that objective, even if the buildings hadn't fallen the result would have been hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars of infrastructure damage. In many ways having the towers still standing would have served as a even better advertisement for the administrations policies since they would have been an even more visable symbol that America had been attacked. If we believe as you do that the majority of the added conspiritors are involved in some way with demolishing the buildings then why bother? You can acheive the same effect without demolition and the risk of discovery is less.

If you proposed the theory that members of the administration with the help of Saudi Intelligence organised an attack on the WTC using hijacked airliners that INADVERTANTLY destroyed the building, that would be a plausable theory because it involves less than 50 people. However, you can't propose that theory or even consider it even though it is more reasonable because you come to this argument unable to conceive that 19 people who are willing to die for a cause could destroy 2 enormous buildings. It is your inability to deal with that reality that causes you to imagine the huge conspiracy you see. It's magic thinking.

Let me tell you what's going on. If the accepted theory is accurate, if 19 determined well financed guys drawn from a group with less than 10,000 members could cause that much devistation then YOU can never ever feel safe again. Most professional sports clubs have more than 10,000 fans you could find 19 fanatics for almost any cause. It's unnerving, it's scarey and you don't want to live with those consequences. If on the other hand it is YOUR theory, if this kind of operation can only be done by the president of the US of A with the assistance of thousands of flunkies that actually makes you feel safer. You reason that it's hard to amass and use that level of force, the administration would have to use it sparingly as a result and thus your personal safety is assured. Further if it could be proved and Bush and Cheney end up in orange jumpsuits in some Federal stockade then you are shiny. After all if only the President can do this then it's easy to stop.

So that's the problem. Culture shock, the inability to deal with the idea that 19 random none entities could kill you and 2000 of your neighbours. The horrid realisation that the biggest military in the world can't nescessarily protect you from a determined enemy if he is willing to die to get you.

I can see why living a delusion is preferable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:43 AM

RUE


AM

I don't think I'm a dupe of the administration. And I tend towards thinking some people in the administration had at a minimum a general warning and kept silent for their own purposes.

As was mentioned earlier it would be very instructive to see who profited from pre-9/11 trading and who very specifically avoided airlines the week previous.

What I don't get is how whole organizations could have been in on it for a long time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:02 AM

ARCLIGHT


what a jack off.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:09 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats what the national institute for propoganda and disinformation claims.. that doesnt make it proven. you can plead to me all day that the impact from the jet, followed by some MINIMAL JET FIRES that burned at most 1000degrees, for 1 hr, to have caused 110 stories to collapse at freefall speeds... but it would never have fallen that way. see your ignoring what even the designers of the building said, which is that they designed it so that a plane crash would MERELY PUNCTURE THE BUILDING! it never would have collapsed controllable into its own footprint- the odds are slim to nil. i suggest you read what the actual engineers have to say... but then no one has talked to the designers since 9.11, since the lead engineer died IN THE TOWERS THAT DAY.. conveniently!

There is no “national institute for propaganda(sic) and disinformation.” That’s a product of your delusional fantasies. The agency in question is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And the document I cited, the one you ignored, contains a detailed scientific structural analysis and computer simulation results that demonstrates conclusively that the accepted process of the collapse is not only possible, but probable. You’re obviously very committed to your fantasy.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:38 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You may be an idiot but I love the hat, is that real tinfoil? Glad to see you are a traditionalist.



it sure is... its not as gaudy as your corporate media goggles.. but it works

Quote:

Let's wind this back a little. You claim that the towers could not have fallen just through the impact of planes. Consequently you create an elaborate conspiracy that operates in order to demolish the towers. This in turn results in hundreds of co-conspiritors with the problems associated with such a large operation.


first of all, you seem to aviod the evidence of prior knowledge, like executive order 199i, where Bush told the FBI to BACK OFF BIN LADENS TRAIL. why is this important? because our claim is that these 19 hijackers were patsies, trained at AMerican bases, with American visas.. but most importantly with federal protection. and of course... you neglect the significance of OPERATION NORTHWOODS< where our government IN WRITING PROPOSED TO ATTACK AMERICANS THEMSELVES! their are too many variables to consider, that simply giving 19 hijackers the credit for changing America forever is just too gullible and unrealistic - when after 9/11, our federal government received untold TRILLIONS in money to do whatever the f-ck they pleased, carte blanche... because Americans bought the lie hook -line and sinker


Quote:

Even ignoring the fact that 1) it is possible to knock down a building with a plane


sure, 4 planes(3 hits), 4 buildings, 75% of their targets, all completely destroyed but the pentagon... it may be possible, but WHAT ARE THE ODDS??? seriously..

Quote:

2) the unlikelyhood that such a conspiracy could be maintained your theory has a far bigger problem.


alqaeda can pull off conspiracies, but intelligence agencies with their multi=billion dollar budgets and compartmentalized security clearances cant.. right

Quote:

That problem is that according to your theory the ultimate objective of the attack is not to destroy the building but to create a political environment that could be used to inact legislation like the patriot act and start the Iraq war. I would contend that crashing the planes into the buildings alone would have achieved that objective, even if the buildings hadn't fallen the result would have been hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars of infrastructure damage.


if the buildings hadnt collapsed, you think we'd be where we are today?? 9/11 barely works for the "war on terror", and has almost no relevance to Iraq... if the buildings hadnt collapsed and shocked the hell out of americans, it would have been just another oklahoma city bombing. besides.. they needed to destroy the evidence.. like the plane reconstructions. (since we might find out they were military craft)

Quote:

In many ways having the towers still standing would have served as a even better advertisement for the administrations policies since they would have been an even more visable symbol that America had been attacked. If we believe as you do that the majority of the added conspiritors are involved in some way with demolishing the buildings then why bother?


to remove the evidence.. and as Hitler said 'it is much easier to believe a big lie than a small one'


Quote:

You can acheive the same effect without demolition and the risk of discovery is less.


no, the risk of uncovering the evidence would have been greater, without 2 110 story buildings nearly vaporizing. the bottome line is Bushs bro Marvin and his company Securacom put those incendiary devices in the building, since mainstream news accounts even claim that scheduled 'maintance' closed down many of the floors prior to 9/11

Quote:

If you proposed the theory that members of the administration with the help of Saudi Intelligence organised an attack on the WTC using hijacked airliners that INADVERTANTLY destroyed the building, that would be a plausable theory because it involves less than 50 people.


saudis, israelis.. the bin laden family.. theyre all envolved, because trillions of american dollars are being dished out for this sick war on freedom

Quote:

However, you can't propose that theory or even consider it even though it is more reasonable because you come to this argument unable to conceive that 19 people who are willing to die for a cause could destroy 2 enormous buildings. It is your inability to deal with that reality that causes you to imagine the huge conspiracy you see. It's magic thinking.


willing to die for what? Allah? id sure like to see Atta explain himself in the afterlife, when he is asked why he was seen at a strip club, wearing gold and drinking hard liquor just days prior to the attacks; im sure thats how a TRUE devout muslim becomes a martyr for his god

Quote:

Let me tell you what's going on. If the accepted theory is accurate, if 19 determined well financed guys drawn from a group with less than 10,000 members could cause that much devistation then YOU can never ever feel safe again.


alqaeda, the CIAs creation of the 80's? you should check into the 100k money transfer to Atta from the Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad, who on 9/11 was actually meeting with sen. Graham and intelligence committe head Porter Goss; coincidence?? i wonder what they possibly could have been talking about...


Quote:

So that's the problem. Culture shock, the inability to deal with the idea that 19 random none entities could kill you and 2000 of your neighbours. The horrid realisation that the biggest military in the world can't nescessarily protect you from a determined enemy if he is willing to die to get you.


the difference is, im not afraid, because i will never be murdered from "muslim terrorists with alqaeda".. more likely, i will be imprisoned in an AMerican POW camp, because the government data mined my personal records and labeled me an enemy combatant. people like you are already associating 9/11 truthers with terrorists. i am more afraid of our government than some incredibly low risk of killed by terrorists; the risk is simply not proportionate to the sheer amount of fearmongering, and the subsequent destruction of our republic. ill take my chances and correct our country from the inside, rather then assume that Americas only enemies are from abroad

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:44 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats what the national institute for propoganda and disinformation claims.. that doesnt make it proven. you can plead to me all day that the impact from the jet, followed by some MINIMAL JET FIRES that burned at most 1000degrees, for 1 hr, to have caused 110 stories to collapse at freefall speeds... but it would never have fallen that way. see your ignoring what even the designers of the building said, which is that they designed it so that a plane crash would MERELY PUNCTURE THE BUILDING! it never would have collapsed controllable into its own footprint- the odds are slim to nil. i suggest you read what the actual engineers have to say... but then no one has talked to the designers since 9.11, since the lead engineer died IN THE TOWERS THAT DAY.. conveniently!

There is no “national institute for propaganda(sic) and disinformation.” That’s a product of your delusional fantasies. The agency in question is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And the document I cited, the one you ignored, contains a detailed scientific structural analysis and computer simulation results that demonstrates conclusively that the accepted process of the collapse is not only possible, but probable. You’re obviously very committed to your fantasy.



yah.. my fantasy keeps me vigilante against lies that you are all too willing to endulge. what happened to the pentagon then friend?? wheres the plane? whers the footage? show it too me.. since WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED? im sure you can find clips of the impact, maybe some that the FBI stole from surrounding locations? theyve got to give them back sometime right?

i mean, if it was just a commercial airliner, what are they hiding that we havent seen before?? maybe something other than a 757... thats the joke: relying on scripted propoganda from the Pentagon, when they wont even show us the evidence themselves. some republic you arrogantly defend.. the same ones who lie to your face and steal your wealth

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:06 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
AM

I don't think I'm a dupe of the administration. And I tend towards thinking some people in the administration had at a minimum a general warning and kept silent for their own purposes.



friend whats the difference? if they knew, and allowed it to happen, then they are complicit, negligent, and exhibited criminal intent. there is probably an incredibly fine line between passively allowing something to occur, and taking part or profittting from it, and the fact that we have the whitehouses own game plan pre-9/11, the PNAC documents, which foretell everything that has happened the last 6 years, that says it all. to think that absolutely no one in government saw this coming.. well thats the fantasy and dillusion. we've been lied to yr after yr from this administration, about SS, the borders, WMDs and Iraq and domestic servelience... i am honostly baffled that people would STILL trust anything that the white house says, ESPECIALLY about 9/11 prior knowledge. these people are traitorous scum, and do not deserve any allegience whatsoever from anyone; theyve done nothing but destroy America

Quote:

As was mentioned earlier it would be very instructive to see who profited from pre-9/11 trading and who very specifically avoided airlines the week previous.


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.h
tml

this is just one of many links that cover the same news event. this alone should blow any notion that our intelligence agencies were caught off guard with the attacks; when they knew full well, and actuall profitted, by receiving bloated budgets and increased authority. if that is all that is needed to gain more money and power, why not just skip the middle man and attack yourself..? believe me... its more common than anyone realizes

Quote:

What I don't get is how whole organizations could have been in on it for a long time.


because the CIA is an illegal creation to begin with... just like the Fed, and its front groups the CFR and Tri-Lateral commission. study the history of any one of these groups, and it should become clear to you that it is the mindset of the individual that initiates their selection into the conspiracy(if they were not already born into it via an elite family)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:33 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:






Quote:

Even ignoring the fact that 1) it is possible to knock down a building with a plane


sure, 3 planes, 4 buildings, 75% of their targets, all completely destroyed but the pentagon... it may be possible, but WHAT ARE THE ODDS??? seriously..




1) The Pentagon is a low rise building. The forces that tore the WTC apart were therefore not present.

2) When it was built the Pentagon was seriously over engineered because it was a military command center and a war was comming.

3) The Pentagon is MASSIVE, so large that it is one of only 2 buildings in the US to have it's own postal code.

Quote:





Quote:

2) the unlikelyhood that such a conspiracy could be maintained your theory has a far bigger problem.


alqaeda can pull off conspiracies, but intelligence agencies with their multi=billion dollar budgets and compartmentalized security clearances cant.. right




Exactly. There is a reason that terrorist units work in small cells because it is easier to keep a secret if fewer people know. The conspiracy you propose needs hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved that is a lot harder to do.

Quote:



Quote:

That problem is that according to your theory the ultimate objective of the attack is not to destroy the building but to create a political environment that could be used to inact legislation like the patriot act and start the Iraq war. I would contend that crashing the planes into the buildings alone would have achieved that objective, even if the buildings hadn't fallen the result would have been hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars of infrastructure damage.


if the buildings hadnt collapsed, you think we'd be where we are today?? 9/11 barely works for the "war on terror", and has almost no relevance to Iraq... if the buildings hadnt collapsed and shocked the hell out of americans, it would have been just another oklahoma city bombing. besides.. they needed to destroy the evidence.. like the plane reconstructions. (since we might find out they were military craft)




When were they military craft?

You see again where you over complicate things. If you crash jet airliners into buildings then you don't need the building to collapse to "cover up the evidence" because the evidence would support the established facts. What I think you are saying here is that you crash disguised military planes into the WTC to ensure their total destruction. That total destruction being nescessary to cover up the fact that they were hit by military planes? Man that is so stupid and redundant I don't know where to start.

Aw forget it.

Quote:



Quote:

In many ways having the towers still standing would have served as a even better advertisement for the administrations policies since they would have been an even more visable symbol that America had been attacked. If we believe as you do that the majority of the added conspiritors are involved in some way with demolishing the buildings then why bother?


to remove the evidence.. and as Hitler said "it is much easier to believe a big lie than a small one"




But if you really did crash an airliner into a building what evidence are you covering up?

Quote:





willing to die for what? Allah? id sure like to see Atta explain himself in the afterlife, when he is asked why he was seen at a strip club, wearing gold and drinking hard liquor just days prior to the attacks; im sure thats how a TRUE devout muslim becomes a martyr for his god




Part of the principle of Jihad is that Martyrs are absolved from sin. They have to be if you think about it since the killing of women and children even in war is expressly forbidden by the Koran. The very act of 9/11 is illegal in most interpretations of the religion. If your interpretation of Muslim ideology gives you a pass for mass murder then a couple of beers are hardly an issue.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:29 AM

ANTIMASON


why havent we been attacked since 9/11? was it because the patriot act, or homeland security, or just the overall outstanding job BUsh has done securing our ports of entry.. like say THE BORDERS??!! let me get this straight.. lets tap all phone calls, remove habeas corpus, wage an unconstitutional preemptive war in Iraq... all because of terror, right, cause its this unprecedented threat.. only lets leave the nations borders wide open

theres nothing consistant about that.. because their is nothing genuine about the threat of terror; it is and always has been a political creation, to rally people to ask for their own enslavement, for the protection of big brother against these bad boogeymen who 'hate america' and want global jihad


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
CIA does a major walk-back on Russia being at fault
Fri, July 25, 2014 09:48 - 43 posts
Running of the Bulls 2014
Fri, July 25, 2014 09:35 - 23 posts
Isis 'orders female genital mutilation' for women in Mosul
Fri, July 25, 2014 09:18 - 24 posts
‘PHONY SCANDAL ALERT!’ Disbelief after IRS claims Lois Lerner emails have been ‘lost’
Fri, July 25, 2014 07:42 - 49 posts
US: Russia firing artillery at Ukraine military
Fri, July 25, 2014 06:48 - 13 posts
Alec Baldwin arrested
Fri, July 25, 2014 03:20 - 27 posts
Accident or Not? Malaysian Airliner shot down.
Fri, July 25, 2014 00:12 - 308 posts
The predictions thread
Thu, July 24, 2014 23:33 - 263 posts
NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment
Thu, July 24, 2014 22:47 - 94 posts
65 Outrageous Lies By Barack Obama
Thu, July 24, 2014 21:49 - 12 posts
Getting fit by 3mins of exercise a week?
Thu, July 24, 2014 21:43 - 86 posts
Meanwhile in Gaza.
Thu, July 24, 2014 19:06 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS