# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  9/11 Truth

## Mystic7

> These empirically verifiable data are what we know.  We do not know who planted the explosives or why.  All individuals are innocent until proven guilty and an extensive trial putting many key players on the stand would have to occur before we were able to even begin to put the pieces together for every single motive and event of that day. 
> 
> Also, see the thread in the philosophy forum for an analysis of the thermate evidence.
> 
> We also know that Sibel Edmonds and at least a dozen other FBI whistleblowers have indicated that the FBI has been infiltrated by criminal elements who aided the 9/11 terrorists.  Sibel Edmonds who claims to have documented evidence of this fact has been gagged by the highest authority - The Attorney General's Office, even after her claims were substantiated by a preliminary by the Justice Department.  Since that time gags orders have been repeatedly placed on Edmonds, and even the U.S. Congress form hearing her testimony.  What in the world are they hiding?  Why is Congress allowing Executive Privilege to override congressional oversight?  Ill outline the legal arguments if you cant see them.
> 
> This appeal to executive privilege has also been used in the NSA spying scandal to exempt testimony and evidence.  It has also been used in the Riggs Bank case where Bush's uncle was found to have allowed money laundering to two Saudi terrorists responsible for the 9/11 hijackings.  Do you think it is suspicious that the brother of the President (who is already under fire for not going after the _Saudi_ source of funding for the 9./11 terrorists), is now found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists?
> 
> There are hundreds of _coincidences_ that nearly prove a conspiracy.  They simply need more investigation before a full chronological picture of the events can emerge.







> I never said anything about remote controlled planes, missiles, fake cell phones, nor anything else you built up to knock down.  
> 
> Each of us who have actually admitted there are discrepancies in the official account have been sticking to the facts of what happened, and looking for the best possible explanation that accommodates them.  We understand parsimony in scientific and logical investigation.
> 
> ONE fact accommodates all of this evidence:
> 
> "1.                                                                        Extremely *rapid onset* of collapse                                     
>                                      2.                                   Sounds of explosions (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)                                     
>                                      3.                                   Observations of flashes  
> ...



I wanted to make a thread that portrays the truth. Not a bias view. Neither will anyone anger, distract, ridicule, deceive, or spam irrelevant nonsense. You must address the evidence if you ever wish to respond properly. You may not categorize, create strawman arguments or use any kind of defamation in your response.

*Check* 911 truth advice

----------


## Mystic7

> THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY
> 
>    1. AWOL Chain of Command
> 
>          1. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
>          2. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
> 
>    2. Air Defense Failures
> 
> ...



http://www.saveourwetlands.org/911top40doubt.htm

----------


## Universal Mind

Can you give evidence of your government action claims?  I am talking about credible sources.  Thanks.   :smiley: 

Here are links and links within links within links to facts and explanations about demolition specifics.  Neither of us is even close to being expert enough to take that argument to its full extent, but here are answers to a lot of your questions.  





> http://www.jod911.com/
> 
> http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/



Your poll mentioned an inside job by the government.  I don't see how they could have possibly pulled off such a thing.  Please tell me how even in theory such a thing would have been possible.  It seems that there are too many holes in the concept for it to have any touch with reality.  Even if I can't explain everything the government has done since I don't work for the government (so I am having you believe   :wink2: ), the burden of proof is on you in regard to your claim that 9/11 was a government inside job.  Since you believe such a story happened, please explain how it could have possibly happened even in theory.  I don't think it could have.  Do you?  How?  

Specific areas to address are how the planes were flown, how the "real" commercial jet airliners could have been hidden without being reported missing if the crashed airplanes were military jets, why so many friends and family members of the victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and that they were directly told by the victims that hijackings were taking place, how so many people would be contacted about participation in such an evil and major conspiracy and enough of them were insanely evil enough to do it, why the government would roll such big dice, why there could possibly have been no leaks about the conspiracy itself even though tons of people would have been involved, why one of the planes crashed in a field, why Al Qaeda would have taken credit, why the people we are fighting in the Middle East would happen to have the same mentalities and tendencies as the imaginary hijackers, and why the government would go through such an outrageous amount of trouble and risk when it would have been so much easier to just blow up the buildings and say the buildings were bombed by terrorists just like they were in 1993.  

No matter what we speculate on regarding why the government did what when, it seems that it would be illogical to leap to the conclusion that the government would and could pull off such an insanely evil yet impressive feat.  If you disagree, why do you?

----------


## juroara

this thread will lead no where, it's been how many years guys?  ::banana:: This is worse than bigfoot! 

we should be asking ourselves as americans questions instead. If the government was in charge of the 9-11 attacks, what can we as americans do? If the government as not in charge of the 9-11 attacks, what can we as americans do? If the government knew about the terrorist attacks and allowed it to happen to go to war, what can we as americans do?

sadly, I don't think there is much we can do. And it's been so long, Bush's term is almost over. This myth is going in the history books along with dozens of other white house scandals that were never proven either way. Pearl Harbor anyone?

I don't even think we have the power to protest anymore. A while ago I had read on several different news sites about a protest that was held against this massive meeting of the corporations that virtually rule the world. The blurb on all the news sites were identical, and very short. "the crowd got out of hand and the police ended the protest"

On only one blog was I able to find a first hand account of what went on that day, if the account was real - since it was the only one I could find - the protesters didn't get out of hand. They were just sitting and standing around as police fired rubber bullets at them and beat anyone in their vicinity, regardless of whether or not they were protesting. And even when the protesters ran for their lives, the police cornered them again at street intersections and fired and beat them again. Busted eyes, broken limbs, and lots of blood for a peaceful protest.

According to the blog, Bush had given the city the authority for this day, for those corporations, that any protest would be illegal. Which is of course, against our constitutional rights.

Problem is, I don't even know if this protest even really happened! All the accounts on news websites are so obscure and short.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal mind you broken record lol. Face the evidence posted.

----------


## Original Poster

I have to agree, you posted the same debunking myths that you actually ought to read to in oreder to realize its BS.  They fail to debunk the evidence... miserably.

You can;t have it both ways.  Either two firemen were lying, or there were pockets of heat in the building that went way above 1800 degrees, and not from burning rugs.

Either the FBI is so stupid they can't even get the names and pictures right of the hijackers, or the hijackers were faked.

Either these buildings were demolished deliberately, or there are bombs in all major buildings in the United States.  There were smoke clouds coming out, not from out the windows, but from one precise one every few floors.  For God sakes there's a video on youtube showing the owner of WTC7 admitting they had to PULL THE BUILDING for safety reasons.  How can you just PULL one building and not have the ability to pull every other building in the city at any time, unless of course they knew about it.

So stop trying to walk on water just by linking people to sites you haven't even browsed.

Here it is, the truth, either our government can demolish any building they want at any time they want, or they knew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

----------


## memeticverb

> Universal mind you broken record lol. Face the evidence posted.



He cant, knowingly or unknowingly hes disinfo.

Great thread by the way, you brought up many things the debunker wannabes hate, like the many contradictions between officials, the flip-flopping of their own stories, and the tremendous failure of the military to defend against a highly anticipated threat...    


__________________________________________________  _

Yet another witness on video describing explosions throughout the WTC

----------


## Universal Mind

Broken record?  You started a whole new thread with your broken record.  

First of all...





> http://www.jod911.com/
> 
> http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/



I think you missed a few other things.  





> Can you give evidence of your government action claims? I am talking about credible sources. Thanks.



Let's see that.  This conversation is really absurd if you can't even back up your assertions with credible sources.  I am not talking a left wing lunatic site mentioning two firemen out of hundreds, for example.  If you can't show credible sources, then there isn't really anything to talk about in the first place.  





> *Even if I can't explain everything the government has done since I don't work for the government (so I am having you believe ), the burden of proof is on you* in regard to your claim that 9/11 was a government inside job. Since you believe such a story happened, please explain how it could have possibly happened even in theory. I don't think it could have. Do you? How?



When do you guys think you can get that answer for me?  

So far, you have only _asserted_ that there are peculiar things about the big bang theory.  You have yet to explain why you leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, and you have not even told me how it could be real in light of the issues I have raised.  Again, the burden of proof is on you.  Thanks.

----------


## R.D.735

Although there are interesting anomalies in the structural failures of the WTC buildings, it doesn't point to demolition at all, in my opinion. I've read a lot on both sides of the 

We are told a lot about how the buildings fell so mysteriously, but why isn't there a trove of evidence about what was happening before the planes hit? There are reports from firemen about 'explosions' on 9/11, but nothing from anyone who worked in the building beforehand that demolition teams were wiring it or any other building to explode. The more secretive the wiring could have been, the longer it would have taken to complete it, straining the idea that the president(or whomever was allegedly the mastermind) was able to corrupt the government to such an extreme quickly enough to complete such a project. 

Regarding the 'pulling' comment, I've heard that it described pulling away from the building(because it might collapse), not pulling it down. Does anyone seriously believe the government has charges set up in every major building in the U.S.? If so, it should be a simple matter of inspecting some buildings to prove such a theory. Unless all of the building inspectors are in on it, which is a stretch of anyone's imagination.

There is the accusation of government competence, as well. Incredibly, it is somehow unbelievable that the government could be so catastrophically incompetent as to not prevent the plot. This is the same government that produced the Katrina debacle and installed horrendously incompetent and arrogant cronies wherever possible. Don't forget Pearl Harbor either. Turns out the government botched that one too.

Sorry if this offends anyone, by the way. I don't hold it against anyone who believes otherwise. I'm open to convincing (counter-)arguments on either side, and this is only my current opinion.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that?

(I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)

----------


## Universal Mind

> How about if the "conspiracy" didn't go as deep as the government planting bombs in the building, but purposefully provoking the attack, and allowing it to happen? And hard evidence or arguments for/against that?
> 
> (I know that's a little off the scope of many of the proposed theories, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)



That is a much more plausible idea.  It does not defy the laws of reality like the idea that the government rounded up hundreds of trustworthy Dr. Evils and pulled off a wild megasuperstunt with mystery pilots, fake hijackings, and demolition reports so flawed yet so convincing that their flaws are blaringly obvious to regular Joes on the internet but not the masses of actual experts.  Your idea takes away the elements of the greatest stunt in history and the social bizarrities that would be too strange for a Twilight Zone episode and leaves something I think is not out of the question.  I have not seen proof that it is true, but it could be for all we know.  What I do know is that Al Qaeda continues to say they want us all dead and that terrorist plots keep getting foiled.  I have no reason to believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just another part of the scenario we are dealing with in the world now.

----------


## Mystic7

Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far. 

6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample 8 out of 14.

So we are winning the fight.





> 911 Truth

----------


## Universal Mind

> Lets address the poll. Out of the 14 people voted so far. 
> 
> 6 say it's an inside job. 2 say it's government sponsored terrorism false flag military operation. 4 say it is not an inside job. 2 say it was because of bin laden and that they entirely trust the government. That's 8 people on the side of truth. And 6 people still in the process of waking up. That's only out of a small sample of 14 people who voted so far.
> 
> So we are winning the fight.



Your poll is scientific?   ::chuckle:: 

You would be using better science if you did not conduct your poll on a web site that is a cess pool for liberals.  Try Golf.com and see if you get the same results.  Those scientific research considerations are a real bitch to work with.

----------


## Mystic7

It's A DV poll. And not something that can be made biased like the disinformation sites you cherry pick. (that ignore the evidence) People are fairly balanced and more evolved at Dreamviews than other forums since it is a lucid dreaming forum. Labeling everyone here liberals is definitely a desperate measure for you.


Evidence Content.

The World Trade Center destruction
The Pentagon attack
The crash of Flight 93
Immediate military response
Attack foreknowledge





> The attack of 9/11/01 was a vast crime that left vast bodies of evidence. A great deal of that evidence was destroyed in the government's response to the crime. The quantity and quality of evidence available to the public varies greatly between different aspects of the crime. For example, whereas a large public body of visual records documents the destruction of the World Trade Center, there exist only a handful of photographs showing the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, and none showing the attack itself.

----------


## R.D.735

Frankly, much of the evidence in favor of the conspiracy seems circumstantial, especially the lack-of-evidence evidence. What is the most solid piece of evidence for the theory, and which evidence is the weakest, in your opinion?

----------


## Universal Mind

> It's A DV poll. And not something that can be made biased like the disinformation sites you cherry pick. (that ignore the evidence) People are fairly balanced and more evolved at Dreamviews than other forums since it is a lucid dreaming forum. Labeling everyone here liberals is definitely a desperate measure for you.



I didn't label everyone here a liberal.  I said this site is a cess pool for liberals.  In case you have not noticed, the vast majority of the people who discuss politics here are liberals.  A fact is a fact.  

I very much challenge you to answer R.D.'s question.  I know you love to dodge, but please answer her question.  I kept asking how you get from supposedly unanswered questions to the land of the impossible (which you NEVER answered), but R.D. put it another way.  She said that your evidence is circumstantial, which is absolutely true, and asked what your strongest evidence is.  What is it?  Is circumstantial "evidence" the best you've got?  I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you cannot even attempt to tell a plausible version of the 9/11 story involving the government conspiracy you claim happened, so I now have a different approach.  I too want to ask if you have any evidence that is not circumstantial.  Do you?

----------


## Mystic7

> Frankly, much of the evidence in favor of the conspiracy seems circumstantial, especially the lack-of-evidence evidence. What is the most solid piece of evidence for the theory, and which evidence is the weakest, in your opinion?



Now R.D.735. Don't believe anything I say research and verify yourself. The main pieces of evidence you need to know about are:

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.






> _no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat....A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said._



_The weakest evidence._
It is not an easy thing to believe that our government could or would deceive us on such a scale, especially when you start from within the paradigm of "mainstream reality." The concept of "9/11 as an inside job" points to a lot of other disturbing concepts, such as:
1. Our government may kill us to further their agenda.
2. Our media is completely sold out, corporo-fascist propaganda.
3. The majority of the US population (the world as well?) is effectively brainwashed.
4. Commonly accepted "reality" and "history" may be full of lies and deceptions.
5. We can be fooled (and have been, in many ways).
6. Our government is run by the terrorists and it is they who "hate our freedom."

----------


## Universal Mind

Circumstantial.  Direct evidence, of which you have absolutely none, does not involve such leaps to bizarre conclusions.  For example, the fact that the government knew about threats of terrorism.  They had tons of warnings about all kinds of vague things.  They get tons of them every day.  That does not mean they had specific knowledge that terrrorists would hijack specific airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11/01.  So your supposed evidence is of a very weak circumstantial nature.  It does not implicate anybody in a conspiracy to have airplanes flown into those specific buildings.  And that's one of your best pieces of evidence?  

Another example is your point that hijackers turned up alive.  That is not a proven fact.  It is a speculation that is under discussion by some left wingers, not an actual news story of fact.  Even if it were a proven fact, it could very well mean that the government got some identities wrong because of some fake ID's.  It does not put any government officials at a crime scene with criminal intent.  

You have no direct evidence.  All you have is weak circumstantial babble.  You are not explaining your leaps to really wild conclusions based on your extremely distorted claims.  And you can't even tell a plausible story about how the supposed inside job could have possibly happened.  It could not have.  It is an absurd idea.  That is why you cannot tell a plausible story.

----------


## tyrantt23

> Another example is your point that hijackers turned up alive. That is not a proven fact. It is a speculation that is under discussion by some left wingers, not an actual news story of fact.



As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story.






> Even if it were a proven fact, it could very well mean that the government got some identities wrong because of some fake ID's.  It does not put any government officials at a crime scene with criminal intent.



This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane?

----------


## Mystic7

Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic.

The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact.
The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact.

And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.

Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided.

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

----------


## Universal Mind

> As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story.



It is not a proven fact.  The BBC jumped to the conclusion that it is about ONE of the hijackers.  Other news sources jump to the conclusion about six, and I found one that jumps to seven.  It seems that the more in competition and therefore check a news company is with rivals, the less leap prone it is.  It is speculation at this point. 

LA Times

CNN

More importantly, such a mistake would not be proof that the government pulled off the most insane conspiracy stunt in history.  





> This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane?



They were inside the airplane until the building collapsed and the airplane was destroyed.  If that were an issue, don't you think the greatest conspiracy team in history would have done something much better to fool you in that regard?  

Can you explain this for me?  





> Specific areas to address are how the planes were flown, how the "real" commercial jet airliners could have been hidden without being reported missing if the crashed airplanes were military jets, why so many friends and family members of the victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and that they were directly told by the victims that hijackings were taking place, how so many people would be contacted about participation in such an evil and major conspiracy and enough of them were insanely evil enough to do it, why the government would roll such big dice, why there could possibly have been no leaks about the conspiracy itself even though tons of people would have been involved, why one of the planes crashed in a field, why Al Qaeda would have taken credit, why the people we are fighting in the Middle East would happen to have the same mentalities and tendencies as the imaginary hijackers, and why the government would go through such an outrageous amount of trouble and risk when it would have been so much easier to just blow up the buildings and say the buildings were bombed by terrorists just like they were in 1993.



Mystic and others run for the hills every time I bring up those major questions about what they have the burden of proving. 





> Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic.
> 
> The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact.
> The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact.
> 
> And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.
> 
> Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided.
> 
> ...



1-9 = CIRCUMSTANTIAL... and very weak, just like the examples I talked about.  The burden is on YOU to explain how those circumstances prove that the big inside job idea (Not story.  You cannot even give me a plausible hypothetical story.) is true.  The burden is not on me to explain stuff that might have happened, and I asked you at least twice to show me credible sources of that information.  I also asked you what "evidence" you have that is not circumstantial.  You obviously do not have an answer to that, now do you?  

Do you understand that your weak circumstantial case that does not explain how an inside job conclusion can even be drawn from the weak circumstantial evidence that you will not even back up with credible sources and that has no hope of presenting a plausible story concerning the accusation would be laughed out of court?  I am not making that up.  It is a fact.  Your case would be laughed out of court.  A grand jury would be laughing so hard they would be crying if they were presented with your outrageous attempt at a case.  It is unheard of for a prosecution to not have a story to tell.  It is unheard of for a prosecution to completely avoid issues brought up by the defense.  It is unheard of for a prosecution to not back up the evidence they use.  Cases that are entirely circumstantial are extremely weak cases, especially when the circumstantial evidence is never tied to the conclusion, which is unheard of.  Saying, "Uh, well explain these things," is not a basis for evidence, much less a case.  You would be laughed out of court.  That is absolutely the truth.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal Mind tries desperately again to distract from the evidence and denounces all proof calling it all absurd and circumstantial while nothing could be further from the truth. 

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Pilots for 9/11 Truth  is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001].
Eyewitness
PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Architectural and engineering professionals and 497  other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 

And key evidence which Universal Mind continues to avoid.

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

----------


## R.D.735

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until _after_ the attack had already begun!

In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?

No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

----------


## memeticverb

> The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until _after_ the attack had already begun!
> 
> In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?
> 
> No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.



You are quite right that Pearl Harbor was anticipated, provoked, allowed, and then used for fear-mongering.  What would have happened if this information was made public within a few years of the attack?

Similarly, Operation Northwoods would have shook the nation to the core, and still would now if everyone knew about it.  It proves the govt plans terror attacks to create an excuse for war, a massively illegal and unethical practice thought only to be used by ruthless dictators. 

One thing you mentioned was that no one has come forth alleging they saw people wiring th building before the attacks.  But this is not true, and there are at least a few people on the record making such claims.  Either way this doesnt _prove_ anything in my opinion, but simply adds to the mountain of evidence all suggesting an inside job.

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower.  A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself.  This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

----------


## R.D.735

The thermate-like reactions appear to be very compelling physical evidence, though it is difficult for me to tell by the video whether the sparks falling from the building are liquid iron or ignited jet fuel. How does one tell the difference between the two?

I've heard that WTC7 had a structural design that lent it to likely possibility of the structure falling symmetrically. If a truss bridge fails at a single point, for example, the entire bridge will most likely fall nearly straight down because the forces that were supported by the failed member redistribute themselves instantaneously, creating a cascade of failures across the structure. In fact, here's some evidence of that:





> From Popular Mechanics
>  According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." 
> 
>  There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, *trusses* on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. 
> 
> Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."



An unusual structural design and long-term exposure to fire that weakened supports that were already damaged and under unusually high stresses to begin with seems a likely explanation. It is simply untrue that progressive collapse cannot happen in a steel-framed structure(remember the Minnesota bridge collapse?).

It isn't hard to imagine that a similar kind of collapse may have occurred in the twin towers, as there was high heat, structural damage, and higher-than-normal stresses on the members. It isn't hard to imagine that the core columns would buckle under the force of the building collapsing onto them, snapping them into twisted segments, as they were found in the rubble pile.

----------


## Mystic7

UM you know by now you are a constant source of amusement for me. Lets leave it at that for now.

----------


## Cyclic13

Main japanese opposition party questions 9/11 in parliament - broadcasted on public TV

----------


## memeticverb

> Main japanese opposition party questions 9/11 in parliament - broadcasted on public TV



This is one of the best brief presentations of the science behind the WTC collapses I've seen.  This could never have occurred in the U.S. where th congress is still currently gagged by the President in several 9/11 related investigations.  

What does this administration have to hide?  Why is it blocking investigations into the claims of FBI whistleblowers who have evidence of terrorist infiltration into the FBI?   Similar investigations involving money directly laundered to two of the 9/11 hijackers by Bush's uncle's bank have also been prohibited by executive order.  This amounts to a complete disregard of congressional oversight, the only check on a runaway executive branch.  Sad times for the U.S. political system.

----------


## tyrantt23

Yes, I was very impressed with the quality of the arguments that he brought up. Simply put, the 9/11 crime wasn't investigated to the extent that it should have been.

----------


## bluefinger

I also concur about how concise and effective the presentation was at highlighting serious concerns about the whole 9/11 issue. More food for thought...

----------


## memeticverb

b Former President of Italy: 9/11 and Inside Job

----------


## Traveling_Troubador

Paul William Roberts in his Globe and Mail article of Saturday, February 26, 2005 wrote the following:

    "Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think..."

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Main japanese opposition party questions 9/11 in parliament - broadcasted on public TV







> b Former President of Italy: 9/11 and Inside Job



Good stuff.

----------


## Kromoh

Well, just to sheer up the discussion a bit.

One could say "no, the US government would perhaps do a false flag operation, but they wouldn't do somehtign so cruel, as in killing so many people for it!"

I say that's exactly what they want you to think. By doing such a cruel thing, they kind of mask the possibility of an inside job. Whose government would do such a terrible thing anyway?

Not fooling me. Oil is worthier than two random buildings.

----------


## tyrantt23

> Not fooling me. Oil is worthier than two random buildings.



 ::shock:: 

But... the U.S. government would _never_ harm its own citizens!

[/sarcasm]

----------


## tkdyo

oye, again with the oil bs.

----------


## tyrantt23

> oye, again with the oil bs.



Well, saying it was done for oil is an extreme over-generalization of things.

Whether it was an inside job or not, the government has definitely taken advantage of the situation and used the terrorist attacks as a pretext for some things that would not be easily tolerated otherwise. I'm not in the mood for writing a lot right now, but just to name a few:

Torture
Unlawful war
Telephone/Mail tapping
Habeas Corpus... where did it go?

I'm not even touching in the topic of whether or not it was an inside job. I'm just saying that the government _has_ taken advantage of the attacks.

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## tyrantt23

> 



:rollaugh:

ouch.  :tongue2:

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> But... the U.S. government would _never_ harm its own citizens!
> 
> [/sarcasm]



Yea We know there all out there protecting our interests and caring for us and protecting us from the big bad evil terrorists! they love the american people and would die for us in a heartbeat to protect us!

 ::D: 

(more sarcasm  ::lol:: )

----------


## memeticverb

New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report
 Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14465
 Kyle Hence
Friday, 21 March 2008, 12:16 pm

_"Senior investigators on the 9/11 Commission believed their work was being manipulated by the executive director to minimize criticism of the Bush Administration."_ _[...]_
_"Investigative staffers at the Commission believe [executive director] Philip Zelikow repeatedly sought to minimize the administrations intelligence failures in the months leading up to 9/11, which had the effect of helping to ensure President Bushs re-election in 2004." -- Excerpts from The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon_
_[...]_
_"Theres a lot of things they missed, and unfortunately there is going to be a lot of talk for rest of our lifetimes about whether or not these connections at the White House had some impact on the final report." -- Philip Shenon on "The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart, February 10, 2008_

----------


## Invader

> Your poll mentioned an inside job by the government.  I don't see how they could have possibly pulled off such a thing.



Is the US government poorer than the terrorists, or richer? I forgot.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Is the US government poorer than the terrorists, or richer? I forgot.



That does not qualify as an answer.  Explain a possible scenario of how the whole thing could have been pulled off.  Be sure to include how the airplanes could have been flown, how all of the Dr. Evils in different departments could have come together with such a risky (to their reputations and future freedoms as well as their own economy) and terrible scheme, why there has not been one leak about what supposedly really happened, why the government would involve such a wild airplane scheme when they could have just blown up the buildings, where the government got actors to play Al Qaeda members who confess to one of the most shocking crimes in history and cut people's heads off in videos, and why so many relatives of the hijack victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and were told directly by their relatives that hijackings were taking place.  I honestly have no idea how such a story could be told in a logical way.  If you can't do that, then you can't do it, but don't just return fire with questions I can't answer.  I don't have all of the answers about what happened or why the government did what it did when, but I am not claiming 9/11 was an inside job.  I can't tell you how the Andromeda galaxy was formed, but if you claim the Great Pumpkin created it, I am going to ask you how that is possible.  If you argue that 9/11 was an inside job, then the burden of proof is on you.  Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?  If so, then tell me how it could be.  Describe just one 9/11 attack scenario that is even plausible.  It does not even need to be what you think happened.  I am just asking for a story that is even possible.  Nobody has given me one yet.  If you are making the claim, then I am asking you to explain just one possible way it could have happened.  Can you do it?

----------


## Invader

> That does not qualify as an answer.



Money is power in this world. The more money, the more power.






> Explain a possible scenario of how the whole thing could have been pulled off. Be sure to include how the airplanes could have been flown,



1. Man in power with political relation to Israel wants war in middle east, for the sake of prolonging Israel's life.
2. Man has ties to many of the members of the Israel Lobby, who have a decent amount of control of the government.
3. Israel despises the rest of the middle east.
4. Start war by making American people angry towards middle east.
5. Frame a middle eastern organization.
6. Blow up towers, make it look like they did it.
7. Have an evacuation drill one day, a bunch of 'government inspectors' walk into the building with suitcases (explosives) and go to work undetered while the security cameras are turned off and everyone else runs outside.
8. Some days or weeks later, the aircraft fly into the building, and the explosives are blown.






> Be sure to include how the airplanes could have been flown,



By pilots. Either Israeli members who were promissed large sums of money for their families, or by middle easterners who were assured they were doing it for the sake of their country's well being (through a trusted source, likely a high ranking member of their government or society who was paid off).






> how all of the Dr. Evils in different departments could have come together with such a risky (to their reputations and future freedoms as well as their own economy) and terrible scheme,



It didn't have to be many men, and if it were, they didn't all have to have direct ties to our government, and may not even be well known to the public eye. It may be a select group of individuals who have been making these kinds of decisions for years (generations, even) behind our backs. Perhaps some underground society. They are all likely.






> why there has not been one leak about what supposedly really happened,



Roughly 95&#37;~ of the world's media is owned by zionist Jewish businessmen. You can always google who owns companies like Vivendi and Time Warner for yourself. Israel is a zionist state. The media is controlled very, very well.






> why the government would involve such a wild airplane scheme when they could have just blown up the buildings,



Again, they're trying to frame someone. Claiming hijackers did it with visible passports and airport security footage to show everyone the middle eastern men and their middle eastern names is easier than making it look like they blew it up. "Yea, um, saw the men come out after planting explosives." That doesn't fly as much as seeing the actual passport as evidence.






> where the government got actors to play Al Qaeda members who confess to one of the most shocking crimes in history and cut people's heads off in videos,



The members of the same organization have the same agenda, and would likely volunteer to be a part of this.






> and why so many relatives of the hijack victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and were told directly by their relatives that hijackings were taking place.



Because the hijackings DID take place, real people DID die, and those aircraft WERE flown into the towers, it just wasn't the aircraft that brought the towers down in neat, straight-down piles the way professionally demolishioned buildings do.






> Can you do it?



Psh, I certainly gave it a shot. Whether or not that's what I believe is no one's business, but I'm certain it sounds *plausible*, which is what you asked for. I'd like you to ask any more questions if I missed anything, or if I didn't explain anything thoroughly enough. If you don't aprove of anything I said, at least attempt to appreciate that I took the time to answer you with this.

I've delayed my sleep another half hour thanks to you! *shakes fist*

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> 1. Man in power with political relation to Israel wants war in middle east, for the sake of prolonging Israel's life.
> 2. Man has ties to many of the members of the Israel Lobby, who have a decent amount of control of the government.
> 3. Israel despises the rest of the middle east.
> 4. Start war by making American people angry towards middle east.
> 5. Frame a middle eastern organization.
> 6. Blow up towers, make it look like they did it.
> 7. Have an evacuation drill one day, a bunch of 'government inspectors' walk into the building with suitcases (explosives) and go to work undetered while the security cameras are turned off and everyone else runs outside.
> 8. Some days or weeks later, the aircraft fly into the building, and the explosives are blown.



A different scenario:
1. Create, fund, _and_ train the beginnings of the terrorist cell that "admits responsibility" for the attacks (which we already _know_ we did.) 

2. Send the foundation of that faction overseas to help exacerbate the philosophy behind the radical-Islamist side of the war and recruit for the cause. 

3. Keep the CIA-born portion of Al Qaeda under your wing, while the new recruits go about killing themselves while simultaneously committing the acts of violence that keeps the rest of the world scared of the already existent radical-Islam movement.

4. Have those easily manipulated recruits fly into the towers (regardless of whether or not explosives were planted), under direction from the CIA-born portion of Al Qaeda (ie; Bin Laden)

5. Sacrifice 7,000+ Americans (civilians and soldiers) for the goal of controlling of the Middle East, with the "clear" conscience that you're most likely saving hundreds of thousands of lives, over time. (Macro-Management)

6. Rush in like a knight on a white horse to try to gain the  ::bowdown::  of the Iraqi people by stopping a war that hinged on a catalyst you created yourself.

Implausible? I surely don't think so. In fact, that makes more sense than _half_ of the crap the Administration has tried to sell us over the past 7 years.

----------


## R.D.735

> Implausible? I surely don't think so. In fact, that makes more sense than _half_ of the crap the Administration has tried to sell us over the past 7 years.



As skeptical as I am about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I have to agree. The administration has a penchant for making up bizarre explanations, so it's pretty easy for something to make _more_ sense.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Money is power in this world. The more money, the more power.



I got that, but I was asking for details.  I didn't understand how the story could happen.  However, you ended up giving the best and only full story I have come across.  Your scenario involves events that are much more plausible than the ones I have been coming across.  If you had said the airplanes were remotely controlled and a missile hit the Pentagon, it would have ruined your chances of telling a coherent story.  However, your idea that terrorists really did pull the hijackings because they were put up to it by somebody given money by the Bush Administration is not an impossibility.  That scenario smooths out some of the other issues too.  





> 1. Man in power with political relation to Israel wants war in middle east, for the sake of prolonging Israel's life.
> 2. Man has ties to many of the members of the Israel Lobby, who have a decent amount of control of the government.
> 3. Israel despises the rest of the middle east.
> 4. Start war by making American people angry towards middle east.
> 5. Frame a middle eastern organization.
> 6. Blow up towers, make it look like they did it.
> 7. Have an evacuation drill one day, a bunch of 'government inspectors' walk into the building with suitcases (explosives) and go to work undetered while the security cameras are turned off and everyone else runs outside.
> 8. Some days or weeks later, the aircraft fly into the building, and the explosives are blown.



I understood that much.  However, if anything, it would be about oil revenues for Halliburton and/or other oil companies.  I don't think people in our government would go through such madness just for Zionism or money paid toward long term Zionism.   It would have to be much bigger than that, I think.  





> By pilots. Either Israeli members who were promissed large sums of money for their families, or by middle easterners who were assured they were doing it for the sake of their country's well being (through a trusted source, likely a high ranking member of their government or society who was paid off).



As I said, I cannot claim that that scenario is impossible.  





> It didn't have to be many men, and if it were, they didn't all have to have direct ties to our government, and may not even be well known to the public eye. It may be a select group of individuals who have been making these kinds of decisions for years (generations, even) behind our backs. Perhaps some underground society. They are all likely.



Your answer about actual terrorists on a jihad mission takes away the weight of my argument on this one.  It would take just one charismatic terrorist trainer and one greedy oil executive to pull that off.  If you had talked about remote control airplanes and a missile hitting the Pentagon, we would have a lot of conspiracy players to be talking about and a whole mess of other issues that would arise.  





> Roughly 95&#37;~ of the world's media is owned by zionist Jewish businessmen. You can always google who owns companies like Vivendi and Time Warner for yourself. Israel is a zionist state. The media is controlled very, very well.



That too is answered by your response that actual terrorists were involved.  It is easy for a small group not to leak, but a gigantic network of people who don't really know each other would be far more likely to involve somebody who would spill the beans on the wrong ears.  

I don't think Jews are keeping the news media quiet about anything, however.  Those corporations are in very extreme competition with each other, and everything juicy will be reported by at least somebody.  

So far, your hypothetical scenario is plausible.  





> Again, they're trying to frame someone. Claiming hijackers did it with visible passports and airport security footage to show everyone the middle eastern men and their middle eastern names is easier than making it look like they blew it up. "Yea, um, saw the men come out after planting explosives." That doesn't fly as much as seeing the actual passport as evidence.



That is where I think your scenario stops making sense.  Explosives were used by Islamofascists on the World Trade Center in 1993.  It would have been much easier for the government to just use explosives than use airplanes and explosives.  The airplanes would not have been necessary and would have only created strange issues about the way the buildings fell.  The government conspirators would have looked into how the buildings would fall and would have been scared that the world of engineering would turn the issue into the talk of every town.  I don't think there is any way they would have taken on that monster when it was so unnecessary.  

Terrorists went after the WTC in 1993, so of course they would have still wanted to take it down in 2001.  I think that is the most plausible scenario.  

However, another plausible scenario is that actual terrorists flew airplanes into the buildings and caused them to fall by the airplanes crashes alone because they were put up to it by a charismatic terrorist trainer working for the Bush Administration.  That is not completely out of the question.  





> The members of the same organization have the same agenda, and would likely volunteer to be a part of this.



That is another part of your scenario I don't think adds up.  There is a $25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden, dead or alive.  I can't imagine him wanting to be the most wanted person on Earth with that kind of a bounty on his head for any amount of mere money.  I can see him doing it because he is willing to die for Allah, but not for money.  Money can't be enjoyed if you are dead or always having to hide in caves.  The same is true of every wanted Al Qaeda member.  Khallid Sheik Mohammed is in jail now.  Maybe he was totally framed?  If so, everybody involved in his interrogation and imprisonment is in on the conspiracy.  The more people involved in a conspiracy, the shakier it is.  9/11 is the biggest and most shocking news story ever, and anybody participating in it and trying to be secretive is playing with major fire.  That is one more reason I think it is much more likely that Al Qaeda, from the leadership down, was really was trying to pull some nut job jihad mission.  

The most plausible conspiracy scenario I can think of on that is that Bin Laden got plastic surgery after making a bunch of videos to be used in the future, and he got high tech make up artists for the future videos.  Then make up artists are part of the conspiracy.  I seriously doubt that is what has been happening.  





> Because the hijackings DID take place, real people DID die, and those aircraft WERE flown into the towers, it just wasn't the aircraft that brought the towers down in neat, straight-down piles the way professionally demolishioned buildings do.



That makes much more sense than what I have been coming across, but I don't think the conspirators would have bothered with airplanes if they were using explosives.  Explosives alone would not have raised demolition issues.  I also think that if the demolition was screwy the way it happened, that would be an even bigger news story than 9/11 was right after it happened.  It would at least be the talk of every town.  Imagine what a big deal it would be to everybody who comprehensively understands demolition.  Do you know how many of such people there are in the world?  





> Psh, I certainly gave it a shot. Whether or not that's what I believe is no one's business, but I'm certain it sounds *plausible*, which is what you asked for. I'd like you to ask any more questions if I missed anything, or if I didn't explain anything thoroughly enough. If you don't aprove of anything I said, at least attempt to appreciate that I took the time to answer you with this.
> 
> I've delayed my sleep another half hour thanks to you! *shakes fist*



Thanks for your response.  It involves the most logical 9/11 conspiracy scenarios I have seen anywhere.  I didn't mean to keep you up late.  I hope you had a good sleep.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> That is where I think your scenario stops making sense.  Explosives were used by Islamofascists on the World Trade Center in 1993.  It would have been much easier for the government to just use explosives than use airplanes and explosives.  The airplanes would not have been necessary and would have only created strange issues about the way the buildings fell.  The government conspirators would have looked into how the buildings would fall and would have been scared that the world of engineering would turn the issue into the talk of every town.  I don't think there is any way they would have taken on that monster when it was so unnecessary.



We were given a spectacle to _watch_ happen, that further galvanized the American people's readiness for war, because it was something we were able to actually witness in, basically, its entirety. 

We were also given maximum body-count, in that, had they have been bombs and gone of in succession (one building before the other) they would have tried to evacuate the second tower before all of our eyes were glued to the television. 

They would have had much less rationale for tracking Muslim tourists and travelers, with tighter security, considering how many do come in and out by plane. Such really helps the goal of eliminating as many of the Jihadists as possible. 

And what difference does it make of the government conspirators would look into the way the buildings fell, when all of the wreckage was cleared out, purposefully, before any proper investigation could be done? Any talk of the buildings having "fallen strangely" would be dismissed exactly how it is today - as just another conspiracy theory.

Besides, even with the ground-based 07-07-05 bombings in London, there were signs that seem to scream out "inside job." I don't think any incident like that is really safe from scrutiny.

----------


## Universal Mind

> We were given a spectacle to _watch_ happen, that further galvanized the American people's readiness for war, because it was something we were able to actually witness in, basically, its entirety.



Blowing up the two towers with remote control bombs or time bombs but not at the same time would have had the same effect.  The news crews would be on the scene over the first collapse, and then we get to watch the second one.  If the buildings really were bombed, isn't that exactly what happened?  What difference would the airplanes make other than to create demolition issues that supposedly exist now over the mere collapse videos and all kinds of things people bring up despite your claimed lack of proper investigation?  





> We were also given maximum body-count, in that, had they have been bombs and gone of in succession (one building before the other) they would have tried to evacuate the second tower before all of our eyes were glued to the television.



Just blowing up the buildings would have resulted in maximum body count in terms of deaths from building collapse.  Not giving people time to get out would have done that trick.  The way it happened, a lot of people escaped.  





> They would have had much less rationale for tracking Muslim tourists and travelers, with tighter security, considering how many do come in and out by plane. Such really helps the goal of eliminating as many of the Jihadists as possible.



Just capturing some bombers would not have done that?  They could have bombed an airport and created all of the airport scare they needed.  





> And what difference does it make of the government conspirators would look into the way the buildings fell, when all of the wreckage was cleared out, purposefully, before any proper investigation could be done? Any talk of the buildings having "fallen strangely" would be dismissed exactly how it is today - as just another conspiracy theory.



If there were real issues there, it would be the talk of every town because there are plenty of true demolition experts in every town.  The only people who make an issue of the demolition scenario are amateur liberals on the internet and maybe less than a thousandth of a percentage of the actual demolition experts who understand the full scope of every consideration.  That point often gets mistaked for a "majority rules" point, which it is not.  I am talking about the power of word travel.  





> Besides, even with the ground-based 07-07-05 bombings in London, there were signs that seem to scream out "inside job." I don't think any incident like that is really safe from scrutiny.



It's fine to ask questions, but one should be careful about jumping to conclusions.

----------


## Man of Shred

Quite obvious evidence of demolition style bombs.

----------


## Kromoh

Oh cmon ranma you can come up with something better. Lol. Those flashes? Glasses breaking and reflecting the sun. The building doesn't just "come down" - it's a chain reaction: one piece falls down, making another piece fall down, and then the two pieces make a third fall down, making the outcome exponential. Starts really slow, but at some point gains speed and comes down. It was predicted that the towers wouldn't stand still after being hit by the planes, and even in the wild chance they did, they'd have to be imploded to avoid future risk.

The towers were projected to implode in case of damage, which might feed some conspiracy out there, but most, if not every tall building is projected that way, so that it doesn't damage nearby buildings, which will then damage another series of buildings, ad infinitum.

Why the dust pops out of the windows before we see it imploding? The implosion is an inside-out explosion: while e.g. the 80th floor seems still steady in the outside, it has already come down on the inside. More or less like this:

........| |
......-----
.....|*###*|
.....|*###*|
.....|\*##*/| <- (dust comes out; though the outside seems undamaged
.....|.\*#*/.| <- the inside has already come down)
.....|..~..|
.....|......|
.....|......|

Needless to say, the interior parts push dust out and through the windows as they fall, and immediatelly after the outside parts fall.


I'm not denying 9/11 was an inside job, but that is just not evidence. The buildings fell because of the planes, full stop. What or who schemed the planes hitting the towers is another thing.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm not denying 9/11 was an inside job, but that is just not evidence. The buildings fell because of the planes, full stop. What or who schemed the planes hitting the towers is another thing.



Yeah, once you take out the remote control airplanes, fake hijackings, missile hitting the Pentagon, and bombs in the towers, I can't really say I know with certainty there was not an inside job.  I just have not seen convincing evidence of it.  

I just thought of something.  Even if it could be proven that the buildings were bombed, why would that prove that the government planted the bombs?  Why couldn't they have been planted by Middle Eastern terrorists?  They did it in 1993.

----------


## Bearsy

Kromoh, never in the history of the world has a steel/titanium building fallen because of a fire. The _only_ way the towers could have fallen are from bombs. 

You're talking about a pancake effect, right?
Well then why did the inner support beams fall? The pancake effect only effects floors, the 42(?) 4 foot wide support beams would have been left standing. 

Why was there molten steel in the wreckage? Jet fuel burns at a certain temperature(IDK offhand) and steel melts at about 1000 degrees F higher... how did this happen?

Why was there huge amounts of Thermite all around the site? Thermite is used to cut through steel.

How did the buildings completely fall in about 12 seconds? That's practically free fall speeds, there were "accelerants" that made the floors fall, if they fell onto each other there would be a pause between each floor. It was an average of 7 floors per second. Pancake would be 2 fps _tops_(and thats being generous).

It had to have been bombs. What about Building 7? It was a controlled demolition. Blatantly so.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Kromoh, never in the history of the world has a steel/titanium building fallen because of a fire. The _only_ way the towers could have fallen are from bombs.



How many of them have had passenger airplanes explode in them, and how many of them are more than 100 stories tall?  





> It had to have been bombs. What about Building 7? It was a controlled demolition. Blatantly so.



Why is it not the talk of every town?  If YOU could understand it in such simple terms, wouldn't that mean every demolition expert, engineer, and  Bubba Joe construction worker would understand it even better?  It would be the talk of every town.  Imagine what an issue it would be.  

Also, please explain why if there were bombs in the buildings they would automatically have to have been planted by the government.  Why not terrorists like the airplane hijackers and the scum that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993?

----------


## tkdyo

to add on to komoroh and UM's arguing points, the steel didnt have to melt completely for these buildings to fall, the temperature that the jet fuel burns at could have been enough to just weaken the steel and cause it to give. 

second of course they fell so quickly, they were huge buildings and as komoroh said the effect of the collapse would increase exponentially.  

Im also curious about the Thermite.  But it seems that it is not only used to cut, but weld as well and also create electrical connections...so either one of those two things could be responsible.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

meh you guys can bicker all you want, I believe that the government LET it happen, but did NOT MAKE IT HAPPEN.  

Sorta like FDR, he pissed off the japanese privately and publicly announced isolationism....in turn he recieved warning that the japanese were going to attack, and he saw this as an oppurtunity to enter the war 'legitimately'

and bush is the same as fdr, he pissed off the terrorists somehow, and publicly he announced "WAR IS THE LAST OPTION".....yea right...and then he received a document saying bin-laden determined to attack...i bet he just tossed it out LOL...but yea, they saw 9/11 as an oppurtunity to establish the patriot act and other bad steps towards world government, 9/11 wasnt planned, it was allowed, so that bush can finish the rockefellers and his families dreams of war and money and 1 world government.

anyways, thats my take on 9/11, wasn't an inside job, or planned, they just pissed of some angry terrorists, and well they let them attack us...

----------


## Man of Shred

> to add on to komoroh and UM's arguing points, the steel didnt have to melt completely for these buildings to fall, the temperature that the jet fuel burns at could have been enough to just weaken the steel and cause it to give. 
> 
> second of course they fell so quickly, they were huge buildings and as komoroh said the effect of the collapse would increase exponentially.  
> 
> Im also curious about the Thermite.  But it seems that it is not only used to cut, but weld as well and also create electrical connections...so either one of those two things could be responsible.



even if that were the case. It wouldn't collapse at free-fall speed. it would collapse slowly at first and then speed up. not go the same speed all the way down at free-fall speed.

----------


## memeticverb

> even if that were the case. It wouldn't collapse at free-fall speed. it would collapse slowly at first and then speed up. not go the same speed all the way down at free-fall speed.



exactly. And i think actually the collapse _accelerated_ towards the ground at a little less than 9 meters per second.  There is no explanation of that other than explosives.  

We really dont know who planted the demolitions, and it doesnt have to be "the government," whoever that refers to.   We only know the government is actively doing everything possible to keep the information classified.  From pentagon tapes and eye witness testimony, to whistle-bowers who aren't even allowed to speak in front of congress about their information.

----------


## memeticverb

> How many of them have had passenger airplanes explode in them, and how many of them are more than 100 stories tall?



Not the point, Which is that they cannot come up with an adequate reason why the towers even possibly could have "fallen" to the ground in accelerated motion.






> Why is it not the talk of every town?  If YOU could understand it in such simple terms, wouldn't that mean every demolition expert, engineer, and  Bubba Joe construction worker would understand it even better?  It would be the talk of every town.  Imagine what an issue it would be.



You couldn't be using any simpler logical fallacies.  Simply because every engineer, assuming you could interview every single one, didn't agree with something, wouldn't make it true but only count as a piece of evidence for the claim.  But science wins in this case as far more engineers, architects, and scientists have come forward asking for a new investigation than have come forward in support of the government.  So in a numbers game, the government loses.  Anyways, why do you have to wait for something to become the talk of the town in order to believe it?  






> Why not terrorists like the airplane hijackers and the scum that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993?



Read up.  The 1993 bombing has been proven to have occurred because of the FBI's involvement with the terrorists.  Did you know the FBI had infiltrated the 1993 WTC bombers?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Not the point, Which is that they cannot come up with an adequate reason why the towers even possibly could have "fallen" to the ground in accelerated motion.



What I said does cover a recurring issue.  It explains the basis for the amount of heat and the amount of pressure.  





> You couldn't be using any simpler logical fallacies. Simply because every engineer, assuming you could interview every single one, didn't agree with something, wouldn't make it true but only count as a piece of evidence for the claim. But science wins in this case as far more engineers, architects, and scientists have come forward asking for a new investigation than have come forward in support of the government. So in a numbers game, the government loses. Anyways, why do you have to wait for something to become the talk of the town in order to believe it?



No, that is not a logical fallacy.  However, your point is a dodge, which is inherently fallacious.  You have yet to explain away the lack of chatter.  I will explain my point again, and this time counter it instead of some point that I did not make.  If YOU can understand the demolition issues in such simple terms, every demolition expert in the world can too.  If the government issued a false demolition report, it would in fact be the talk of every town.  It is not.  I don't know what you are talking about when you say the government loses in a numbers game.  The number of demolition experts in the world who agree with you makes up a microscopic percentage of the number of demolition experts in the world.  I would even venture to say that the very few who are taking your position are looking for book sales and other forms of attention.  It is a big joke.  Are you and the legion of rebellious fifteen year olds on the internet understanding simple demolition concepts that the supervast majority of actual experts is not understanding?  What an absurd concept.  





> Read up. The 1993 bombing has been proven to have occurred because of the FBI's involvement with the terrorists. Did you know the FBI had infiltrated the 1993 WTC bombers?



That does not even begin to counter my point.  Are you sure you read it?

----------


## memeticverb

> What I said does cover a recurring issue.  It explains the basis for the amount of heat and the amount of pressure.  
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not a logical fallacy.  However, your point is a dodge, which is inherently fallacious.  You have yet to explain away the lack of chatter.  I will explain my point again, and this time counter it instead of some point that I did not make.  If YOU can understand the demolition issues in such simple terms, every demolition expert in the world can too.  If the government issued a false demolition report, it would in fact be the talk of every town.  It is not.  I don't know what you are talking about when you say the government loses in a numbers game.  The number of demolition experts in the world who agree with you makes up a microscopic percentage of the number of demolition experts in the world.  I would even venture to say that the very few who are taking your position are looking for book sales and other forms of attention.  It is a big joke.  Are you and the legion of rebellious fifteen year olds on the internet understanding simple demolition concepts that the supervast majority of actual experts is not understanding?  What an absurd concept.  
> 
> 
> 
> That does not even begin to counter my point.  Are you sure you read it?



lol! You are funny, really.  You realize that you are claiming that the absence of something arbitrary (your definition "chatter") is evidence of the absence of some truth to a claim?  

See: argumentum ad ignoratium

As for the only experts speaking out for only their own benefit this is easily refutable since most are not being compensated for their academic work.  See Journal Of 9/11 Studies, which has produced solid academic research that has not been challenged, let alone disproved

See: 
9/11 and the Twin Towers:  Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible 
*Dr. Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti, ME*


Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
*Dr. Crockett Grabbe*

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol! You are funny, really. You realize that you are claiming that the absence of something arbitrary (your definition "chatter") is evidence of the absence of some truth to a claim? 
> 
> See: argumentum ad ignoratium



Wrong.  Argument ad ignorantium involves arguing that something is true because it has not been proven false, not that the absence of an inevitable element proves that something is not real.  After all of the times I have gone over this with you, I know good and well that you don't really believe your false characterization of my argument.  Why would you even bother to mischaracterize my argument so profoundly?  At least you are amused by your own false presentations of my point.  As you know, I am saying that you and kids on the internet are not going to be noticing something in mass numbers when the world of actual experts are not noticing it and that it would be an astronomically enormous piece of information if the biggest news story in history (9/11) were the result of a controlled demolition and not the result of airplane crashes.  Demolition experts all over every town would never shut up about it.  If astronomers, who are far less abundant than demolition experts, noticed that the moon is really a planet beyond Pluto, contrary to what the government and the media tell us, they would never stop talking about it, and because of that, neither would anybody else.  It would be such a huge piece of information.  You are claiming the existence of a phenomenon that is the opposite of that.  What you are claiming is impossible.  Also, if fifteen year olds and pissed off liberals all over the internet were able to pick up on simple clues that the moon is actually a planet that is past Pluto, of course astronomers would be able to pick up on it.  The same is true of demolition experts and controlled demolition 9/11.  Do you understand my point this time?  Of course you do.

----------


## memeticverb

> Wrong.  Argument ad ignorantium involves arguing that something is true because it has not been proven false, not that the absence of an inevitable element proves that something is not real.  After all of the times I have gone over this with you, I know good and well that you don't really believe your false characterization of my argument.  Why would you even bother to mischaracterize my argument so profoundly?  At least you are amused by your own false presentations of my point.  As you know, I am saying that you and kids on the internet are not going to be noticing something in mass numbers when the world of actual experts are not noticing it and that it would be an astronomically enormous piece of information if the biggest news story in history (9/11) were the result of a controlled demolition and not the result of airplane crashes.  Demolition experts all over every town would never shut up about it.  If astronomers, who are far less abundant than demolition experts, noticed that the moon is really a planet beyond Pluto, contrary to what the government and the media tell us, they would never stop talking about it, and because of that, neither would anybody else.  It would be such a huge piece of information.  You are claiming the existence of a phenomenon that is the opposite of that.  What you are claiming is impossible.  Also, if fifteen year olds and pissed off liberals all over the internet were able to pick up on simple clues that the moon is actually a planet that is past Pluto, of course astronomers would be able to pick up on it.  The same is true of demolition experts and controlled demolition 9/11.  Do you understand my point this time?  Of course you do.



I was just saying you had no way to prove your point which is having to with what a certain percentage of people are A) aware of - I just heard about this a year or two ago - and B) what this population believes in when they review all of the evidence.  

Because you lack data your argumetns use fallacies like assuming the absence of data cannot be explained any other way than by the claim a) It is false that explosives caused 10 characteristics of controlled demolition.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I was just saying you had no way to prove your point which is having to with what a certain percentage of people are A) aware of - I just heard about this a year or two ago - and B) what this population believes in when they review all of the evidence. 
> 
> Because you lack data your argumetns use fallacies like assuming the absence of data cannot be explained any other way than by the claim a) It is false that explosives caused 10 characteristics of controlled demolition.



That is not a fallacy.  In fact, it follows one of the basic laws of logic.  Have you ever heard of the law of modus tollens?  It is basically this...

If A, then B.
Not B,
therefore not A.  

If most demolition experts believed the biggest news story in history were false, then they would be talking passionately about it all over the place and influencing most of the rest of the country to talk about it passionately.  Most demolition experts are not talking passionately about it all over the place and influencing most of the rest of the country to talk about it passionately, therefore most demolition experts do not believe that the biggest news story in history is false.  

That is use of modus tollens.  You have come across other rules of logic and various fallacies which involve absence as an element, and you apparently assumed that all syllogisms involving absence as an element are fallacious.  Absence is actually often an element of logical arguments.  

What adult Americans have not seen footage of the twin towers collapse?  Very few.

----------


## ♥Mark

But have they seen the footage of the ones with the UFO's? I think not! Because the government has destroyed it! Using your logic:

If there was UFO footage, the government would destory it and we wouldn't see the footage.

We don't see the footage, therefore, there were UFO's.

----------


## Universal Mind

If A, then not B. 
Not B, therefore A.  

FALLACY!!!!!!  (affirming the consequent)  ::doh:: 

You see here... C could also be the reason for not B. 

A ha!   :idea2: 

But on the other hand, the absence of squirrels in the ocean does prove that alligators were put there to eat them.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respons...C_2001_attacks

I once again ask why Osama bin Laden would bring down such a fury on his own organization just to take false responsibility for the attacks. It would be like hearing about murder on the news of some dude you hate and then turning yourself and 5 or your friends in, even though you didn't do it. What a retarded theory, and I don't believe you naysayers can come up with a valid explaination.

Terrorists did it. We reacted poorly and in the interest of certain politicians. Get over it. At least I know my role in this whole ordeal.

----------


## memeticverb

> That is not a fallacy.  In fact, it follows one of the basic laws of logic.  Have you ever heard of the law of modus tollens?  It is basically this...
> 
> If A, then B.
> Not B,
> therefore not A.  
> 
> If most demolition experts believed the biggest news story in history were false, then they would be talking passionately about it all over the place and influencing most of the rest of the country to talk about it passionately.  Most demolition experts are not talking passionately about it all over the place and influencing most of the rest of the country to talk about it passionately, therefore most demolition experts do not believe that the biggest news story in history is false.  
> 
> That is use of modus tollens.  You have come across other rules of logic and various fallacies which involve absence as an element, and you apparently assumed that all syllogisms involving absence as an element are fallacious.  Absence is actually often an element of logical arguments.  
> ...



I didn't say your form was incorrect, did I?  Nope.  There's a difference between formal and informal fallacies, yours being the latter.  I said your argument is an appeal to ignorance and the absence of evidence which happens anytime someone tries to show a conclusion as false because they claim you have failed to show it is true.  

You cannot give any *positive* evidence in support of your premises.  To do so you would have to show that 

1) most "demolition experts" have seen the footage (I would prefer PhD scientists and physicists myself) 

2) that most of them also did not think that the twin towers collapsed from explosives destroying the resistance in accelerated motion.

It is more likely that most engineers or demolition experts did not see the collapses themselves since they would have working.  I was in a class at the time, and only saw the collapse once later, (and I never heard about WTC7).  I instantly felt that the "collapses" didn't make any sense, but didn't think much more than that, as the real reason was something I never would have accepted back then.  

I remember professors were tentative about even demonstrating the Bush administration's foreknowledge, let alone their possible involvement (and these people had tenure!).  How do you think controlled demolition experts and engineers would feel about saying something so politically inflammatory?  Even many of the main scientists for 9/11 Truth (all independently working from the government) have been threatened, fired, and harassed by American empire zealots.  Been making a lot of phone calls UM?  



World Trade Center 7

----------


## Universal Mind

> I didn't say your form was incorrect, did I? Nope. There's a difference between formal and informal fallacies, yours being the latter. I said your argument is an appeal to ignorance and the absence of evidence which happens anytime someone tries to show a conclusion as false because they claim you have failed to show it is true.



No, it was not about the absence of evidence.  It was about evidence of absence.  There is a difference.  If you say that Martians blew up an MX missile in Pontotoc, Mississippi, and I say there was no mass death or building destruction in Pontotoc, Mississippi, which there would have been under such circumstances, I am not committing a fallacy.  I am using the law of modus tollens.  





> You cannot give any *positive* evidence in support of your premises. To do so you would have to show that 
> 
> 1) most "demolition experts" have seen the footage (I would prefer PhD scientists and physicists myself)



9/11 is the biggest news story in history, and footage of the twin towers collapses has been run into the ground.  Do you really want to argue that there is a serious question about whether most demolition experts have seen that footage?  I do admit that I can't give you the home television records of most demolition experts.  You've got me on that one.   ::roll:: 





> 2) that most of them also did not think that the twin towers collapsed from explosives destroying the resistance in accelerated motion.



It would be the talk of every town if they did.  





> It is more likely that most engineers or demolition experts did not see the collapses themselves since they would have working. I was in a class at the time, and only saw the collapse once later, (and I never heard about WTC7). I instantly felt that the "collapses" didn't make any sense, but didn't think much more than that, as the real reason was something I never would have accepted back then.



I have seen the footage probably at least thirty times.  Like I said, it is the biggest news story in history.  Even if only a small percentage of demolition experts saw the footage on their own televisions, once just a few of them saw it, they would have made such a huge deal out of it that they would have shown the footage to every other demolition expert they knew.  Word like that would have spread like a forest fire.  Think about it.  The biggest news story in history.  





> I remember professors were tentative about even demonstrating the Bush administration's foreknowledge, let alone their possible involvement (and these people had tenure!). How do you think controlled demolition experts and engineers would feel about saying something so politically inflammatory? Even many of the main scientists for 9/11 Truth (all independently working from the government) have been threatened, fired, and harassed by American empire zealots. Been making a lot of phone calls UM?



I am not saying they would have all gone on television over it or written articles.  I am saying it would be the talk of every town, just like the moon turning out to be a planet past Pluto.  That sort of thing does not stay a secret when amateurs all over the internet can notice it.  Think about it.

----------


## Amerika

> just like the moon turning out to be a planet past Pluto. That sort of thing does not stay a secret when amateurs all over the internet can notice it. Think about it.



We have noticed it Rammstein. I mean Einstein. We have noticed it. And your still losing in the poll.

----------


## C911

The gov. knows, but they dont tell anyone anything. We know about 1&#37; of everything there is to know about the world, due to the government.

----------


## Sagea

> meh you guys can bicker all you want, I believe that the government LET it happen, but did NOT MAKE IT HAPPEN.  
> 
> and bush is the same as fdr, he pissed off the terrorists somehow, and publicly he announced "WAR IS THE LAST OPTION".....yea right...and then he received a document saying bin-laden determined to attack...i bet he just tossed it out LOL...but yea, they saw 9/11 as an oppurtunity to establish the patriot act and other bad steps towards world government, 9/11 wasnt planned, it was allowed, so that bush can finish the rockefellers and his families dreams of war and money and 1 world government.
> 
> anyways, thats my take on 9/11, wasn't an inside job, or planned, they just pissed of some angry terrorists, and well they let them attack us...



We've been watching bin Laden since the early 90s, we knew he hated us and that he was moving vast amounts of money but we didn't think he would attempt an attack on the scale of 9/11.

We got repeated warnings from the terrorists that they were going to attack, and they did before 9/11 multiple times, but people like Bill Clinton did nothing worthwhile to retaliate. 
You can't blame any one person for 9/11 (except for AQ) because Islamic fundamentalism has been brewing since the colonial powers stupidly divided the Middle East the way they did.

As for the one world government crap, that is all conjecture with no basis in fact.

----------


## Universal Mind

> We have noticed it Rammstein. I mean Einstein. We have noticed it. And your still losing in the poll.



 ::rolllaugh::   Yeah, it's the talk going on just like it would be, isn't it?  And OH NO, I am losing in a poll in a forum dominated by Bush haters?  You got me on that one.   ::roll::   I guess Dream Views Extended Discussion polls are the true measure of reality.  

What grade are you in?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

UM: You know, not to start anything, but I have to ask:

Why is it that you keep saying 9/11 is the biggest news story in history?

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM: You know, not to start anything, but I have to ask:
> 
> Why is it that you keep saying 9/11 is the biggest news story in history?



The media is far bigger than it had ever been before, and 9/11 is the biggest news event of the age of the modern media.  Can you name a bigger one?  It is the only news story I know of that has ever had every single channel talking about it, even channels that have nothing to do with news.  It has been the most talked about news story of my life time, and before my birth, the media was much smaller and far less global.  

This countdown puts it in second place for the biggest news stories of the past 25 years (before which the media was miniscule in comparison to what we have now).  In first place is the fall of the Berlin Wall, which I think is ridiculous.  That was a major event in history, but I remember it.  It was nothing compared to what 9/11 was.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/top25-headlines.htm

Look at the name of this thread and how so many of the other threads are related to 9/11.  Look at what is all over You Tube.  Look at how much people talk about 9/11 conspiracies and how we are handling it now.  Nothing else comes even close.  Can you name something you think does?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Nothing else comes even close.  Can you name something you think does?



Not right off-hand. Just thought I'd ask. I see that it has more to do with the scope and breadth of the media, than the actual event? I mean I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, the Hiroshima bomb and things of that nature - more along the size of the event than on the buzz about it. I see what you mean, though.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Not right off-hand. Just thought I'd ask. I see that it has more to do with the scope and breadth of the media, than the actual event? I mean I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, the Hiroshima bomb and things of that nature - more along the size of the event than on the buzz about it. I see what you mean, though.



Yeah, there are probably a lot of events that would kick 9/11's ass if they happened in the age of big media.  Imagine how the internet and 24 hour news networks would handle the British invasion or the Civil War.

----------


## Amerika

> Yeah, it's the talk going on just like it would be, isn't it? And OH NO, I am losing in a poll in a forum dominated by Bush haters? You got me on that one.  I guess Dream Views Extended Discussion polls are the true measure of reality.

----------


## Universal Mind

> 



That's wonderful.  Maybe a cheesy music video from the 80's would have been an even more on-point response to what I said, like in the old days (a few months ago).

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Death to Amerika

----------


## theSheep

I'm canadian and I personally beleive it was an inside job, but I don't beleive that they put bombs in the building and all this random crap.

Maybe they wanted a reason to get into the middle east for oil and stuff. I think Bin Laden is made up by the americans

----------


## Universal Mind

> Maybe they wanted a reason to get into the middle east for oil and stuff. I think Bin Laden is made up by the americans



Who is the actor playing him?  Who is running "Al Qaeda" in Iraq?

----------


## Grod

> Who is the actor playing him?



Probably Elvis, you know how his clones get around.

----------


## Flinte

Universal Mind, it's nice to know that there is at least one rational thinker here. I haven't been following this thread the whole time, so my bad if this has already been used.

 "In  no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers _melted_ due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. "

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

----------


## Dreamworld

It was obviously a false flag operation. I don't think it went as far as doing the job, but U.S.A allowed it to happen. 

This is the shit you aspect from a conservationist government.

----------


## Universal Mind

> It was obviously a false flag operation. I don't think it went as far as doing the job, but U.S.A allowed it to happen. 
> 
> This is the shit you aspect from a conservationist government.



Do you mean "expect" from a "conservative" government?  An "aspect" is a component of a situation, and a "conservationist" is a person who pushes to save natural resources.  

Why was it "obviously a false flag operation"?

----------


## Cyclic13

This settles it once and for all...

Buckle in for 911 truth...

----------


## memeticverb

> Universal Mind, it's nice to know that there is at least one rational thinker here. I haven't been following this thread the whole time, so my bad if this has already been used.
> 
>  "In  no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers _melted_ due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
> 
> However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. "
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



There have numerous experts debunking the possibility that the fireproofing was disloged in the manner NIST describes.  

But this is besides the point, since if it was the fires that softened the steel enough to cause failure, and these failures were caused by asymmetrical damage, then why do we see in every video complete symmetry in the collapses?  In other words, the buildings collapse perfectly straight down, meaning all the columns would have to have been severed at exactly the same time.  It is very hard, if not impossible to imagine this happening from the gradual weakening by fires.

*Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"*

----------


## Trojan

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but when have you ever seen a controlled demolition start at the top?

Controlled demolitions start at the base of the structure - so anyone that claims it looked like a controlled demolition has never seen one.

----------


## memeticverb

> Not sure if this has been mentioned, but when have you ever seen a controlled demolition start at the top?
> 
> Controlled demolitions start at the base of the structure - so anyone that claims it looked like a controlled demolition has never seen one.



I think this was addressed earlier, or in another thread, but thanks for bringing it up.  

Top Down Controlled Demolition

There is no reason a top-down demolition couldn't have been used.

And then look at WTC7, it doesn't seem to start at the top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

----------


## Trojan

> I think this was addressed earlier, or in another thread, but thanks for bringing it up.  
> 
> Top Down Controlled Demolition
> 
> There is no reason a top-down demolition couldn't have been used.



Perhaps, but those explosions on the video were very obvious and only included a few floors.  

For the WTC, the collapse started directly below the impace point, so either those planes were guided to the correct floor or they wired every floor.






> And then look at WTC7, it doesn't seem to start at the top.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM



Yes - this one does look more like a controlled demolition.  But is there any physical evidence to support the theory?  Any eyewitnesses to the teams of demolition experts that would have been needed to plant the explosions?

Has anyone ever asked a controlled demolition expert what it would take to wire all three buildings?  How many teams, how many hours?  And then all it would have to be done and leave no physical evidence and no eyewitness to the work.

----------

