Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse [Archive]

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my response.

I saw two passenger planes crash into the WTC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other witnesses just like you saw "big, grey planes" "without windows."

[ QUOTE ]

There were hundreds of ordinary people on those planes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, ordinary people did die because of 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]

Another passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet my whole bankroll that it was a missile. Do some research for yourself.

Here's a pic of the Pentagon where the plane supposevedly punched a hole in the inner wall. Where's the plane? Its just one of hundreds of pieces of evidence.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/missle-hole.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Another went down in a field in Pennsylvania.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go here (http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/) and watch the short video of the Pennsylvania crash site. Ask yourself if that looks like a plane or a plane crash, or even a hole that a commercial airliner could make.

[ QUOTE ]

There was an extensive scientific analysis done of the collapse of the World Trade Center. I believe it was on Nova on PBS. Why don't you go get yourself a copy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you buy "9/11 in Plane Site"? It will have a lot more evidence that your PBS documentary never addressed.

[ QUOTE ]

If you think that anyone -- ANYONE -- in our government, in the Port Authority (owner of the WTC property), or any other American was involved in some conspiracy somehow to crash those planes or take down the trade center, you're out of your F'n mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm out of my F'n mind.

ThaSaltCracka

06-16-2005, 08:07 PM

this is [censored] up man.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:11 PM

Did everybody forget about this or did I single-handedly end this thread? Sad, I was hoping for discussion.

ThaSaltCracka

06-16-2005, 08:12 PM

did they ever find the black boxes?

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:12 PM

If I remember correctly, no.

player24

06-16-2005, 08:13 PM

niss

I was in the World Trade Center when the planes hit on September 11 (I worked there for 17 consecutive years). After the initial attack, I made it to the lobby of the south tower and, when the second plane hit, I was frantically searching for an exit amidst the bedlum (i.e. other than the exits that were blocked by plane wreckage or the bodies of people diving from the North Tower).

I was also in the WTC when the terrorist bomb exploded in the WTC parking garage in 1993.

And, for what it's worth, I can personally attest to the fact that there a enormous/amazing difference between a building that was hit by a commercial jet and a building that was wired for demolition. There is absolutely no way that anyone in the Trade Center during each of those events (1993 and 2001)would observe any physical similarity between the blasts (based on the dissimilarity between the initial blasts and the subseqnet structural effects.)

The commercial air craft did 100% of the damage to the WTC on September 11. It was completely obvious to all who were in the building at the time...as well as those who were in the local environment (not to mention those who watched on television). (BTW, when I finally got out of the building, I ran like a baby all the way to China Town...just in time.)

Many/some people defend/applaud history revisionists on the grounds that we occasionally lack eye witnesses, video, etc...to certain past events; thus suggesting that revisions are in order. These revisionist-mongers believe that factual aspects of certaint events become clearer over time...occasionally diametrically altering the initial perspective to a significant degree. I won't dispute there general agenda (here), but in this case, we have physical evidece, eye witnesses, motive, confessions, common sense...all pointing in one direction. Foreign terrorists attacked the WTC, not the US government.

BTW, God Bless America....and God Damn the Terrorists!

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:24 PM

Well obviously two planes did hit the towers and cause significant damage. That's not to argue. But there is significant evidence that that's not the only thing that happened. There is a video testinmony by the owner of the WTC where he says, and I quote "...we made the decision to pull it." That means he made the decision to demolish the building (I can't remember which one.) It is fact that he said this. It's on the internet somewhere I'm sure, but I know it's on the video 911 in Plane Site.

Just think about that for awhile. Then couple that with the multiple testimonies of "bombs" and "explosions,", insurance policies taken out on the WTC right before 9/11, then watch the collapses and make up your own mind. If you still don't believe, watch 9/11 in Plane Site.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:26 PM

By the way, I'm very sorry you had to be there and witness it all.

Broken Glass Can

06-16-2005, 08:29 PM

This whole thread demonstrates the delusions of the lefties here.

What does some economist know about buildings or national security?

You guys will believe any old kook as long as it fits your anti-Bush ("Bush is Evil") template.

That is just sad, sad, sad.

ThaSaltCracka

06-16-2005, 08:30 PM

aren't they suppose to be indestructable?

I also want to add, that I have a hard time believing all of this. 9/11 was a sad sad day, and to think that our government may have been involved seems so far fetched, but I am gonna give that tape a view.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread demonstrates the delusions of the lefties here.

What does some economist know about buildings or national security?

You guys will believe any old kook as long as it fits your anti-Bush ("Bush is Evil") template.

That is just sad, sad, sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with right/left, conservative/republican. Nice try.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
aren't they suppose to be indestructable?

I also want to add, that I have a hard time believing all of this. 9/11 was a sad sad day, and to think that our government may have been involved seems so far fetched, but I am gonna give that tape a view.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good idea. I'm glad you respected my opinion. It'll at least be entertaining to watch. BTW, I found a copy on Ebay for $6 a while ago, you can try to find that.

Broken Glass Can

06-16-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread demonstrates the delusions of the lefties here.

What does some economist know about buildings or national security?

You guys will believe any old kook as long as it fits your anti-Bush ("Bush is Evil") template.

That is just sad, sad, sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with right/left, conservative/republican. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

The title of this thread is: "Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse" suggesting a Bush administration conspiracy of silence. So, yes, the "Bush is Evil" template is very much in play here.

ThaSaltCracka

06-16-2005, 08:40 PM

that website you linked has a free bitorrent of the movie. It will take a while to download, but hey, I don't want to pay for this crap.

I think 9/11 is one of those events that most Americans don't want to question and investigate beyond, who did it. Its painful to reflect on that day. My cousin went to 30 funerals in 30 days following 9/11. Its that type of emotion which makes this so hard.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread demonstrates the delusions of the lefties here.

What does some economist know about buildings or national security?

You guys will believe any old kook as long as it fits your anti-Bush ("Bush is Evil") template.

That is just sad, sad, sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with right/left, conservative/republican. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

The title of this thread is: "Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse" suggesting a Bush administration conspiracy of silence. So, yes, the "Bush is Evil" template is very much in play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a government conspiracy of silence. Since Bush is in office, you can say it's a Bush conspiracy if you want. I But if you read the posts, nobody's bashing Bush.

On a side note, I think this country did need to go to war - therefore I think something like 9/11 would have happened even if Bush didn't win the 2000 election.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 08:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
that website you linked has a free bitorrent of the movie. It will take a while to download, but hey, I don't want to pay for this crap.

I think 9/11 is one of those events that most Americans don't want to question and investigate beyond, who did it. Its painful to reflect on that day. My cousin went to 30 funerals in 30 days following 9/11. Its that type of emotion which makes this so hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's a lot of grieving. Well I'm glad you approach this with an open mind. Most people immediately disregard it as bogus without looking at the evidence. It's a hard thing to comprehend, mentally and emotionally. I hope everybody here downloads that bittorant and approaches it with an open mind. (It gets reeeal good when it shows the pictures of the Pentagon BEFORE the collapse. Those pictures should be enough to convince anybody.)

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 09:02 PM

I'll be gone for the night, but open for discussion later on during some intense 4-tabling.

James Boston

06-16-2005, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The title of this thread is: "Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse" suggesting a Bush administration conspiracy of silence. So, yes, the "Bush is Evil" template is very much in play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I titled the thread and I voted for Bush. I have no Bush-bashing agenda, although I admit I'm not a huge fan. The title reflected that someone working under the leader of the free world (Bush) has questioned 9/11, and is saying something polar to what Bush has said. No more, no less.

masse75

06-16-2005, 09:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely. Why did NORAD stand down on 9/11? Remember when Bush and Rice said that no one had any idea that someone would fly planes into buildings? Then why was NORAD running hijacking flight simulations the morning of 9/11?

Or the NORAD deal could just be bogus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having trouble following your logic. I'll take off my aluminum beanie that keeps the CIA from reading my brainwaves and see if that helps.

SpearsBritney

06-16-2005, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I love conspiracy theories!

The government pulled all this off without a hitch. This is the same government who:

Couldn’t fly 5 helicopters into Iran without two of the running into each other.

Can’t manage to get the DC government running well

Can’t respond to a simple Freedom of information act without taking 6 month

Couldn’t stop one nut job from landing on the White house lawn

Dredges the wrong channel in the Chesapeake Bay

Spends $58,000 on a coffee maker

And yet they coordinated 9/11 to the minute, had no errors, and no one blabbed to the press.

Yeah right.
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, are you retarded? This is what your saying:

This is far to complicated a mission to pull of successfully by the world's most powerful and intelligent government. It would definitely take the likes of a bunch of disorganized cave-dwelling camel-jockeys on the other side of the globe to pull off something of this magnitude.

It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid the majority of people in this world are.

And by the way, the "press" tell us exactly what government and corporation want us to hear. Now go back to doing what you're told to do, buy, watch, wear, etc...

__Q__

06-16-2005, 10:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
they would have Bush trained to act surprised

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they train him to look scared shitless?

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they would have Bush trained to act surprised

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they train him to look scared shitless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Durrr think about it. 9/11 was put on to scare the people into war. Thousands die, a symbol of America falls to the ground... our President's even scared!

BTW, how would you expect them to train him?

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 10:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love conspiracy theories!

The government pulled all this off without a hitch. This is the same government who:

Couldn’t fly 5 helicopters into Iran without two of the running into each other.

Can’t manage to get the DC government running well

Can’t respond to a simple Freedom of information act without taking 6 month

Couldn’t stop one nut job from landing on the White house lawn

Dredges the wrong channel in the Chesapeake Bay

Spends $58,000 on a coffee maker

And yet they coordinated 9/11 to the minute, had no errors, and no one blabbed to the press.

Yeah right.
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, are you retarded? This is what your saying:

This is far to complicated a mission to pull of successfully by the world's most powerful and intelligent government. It would definitely take the likes of a bunch of disorganized cave-dwelling camel-jockeys on the other side of the globe to pull off something of this magnitude.

It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid the majority of people in this world are.

And by the way, the "press" tell us exactly what government and corporation want us to hear. Now go back to doing what you're told to do, buy, watch, wear, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I thought I was the only 2+2er who knew all this. It makes it clear why Governor Arnold said "95% of the people need to be told what to do."

oreogod

06-16-2005, 11:00 PM

Sounds like u just came from some GOP pep rally.

I am pretty much in the middle when it comes to politics...I voted for Kerry because I feel Bush is a man unfit for presidency and his values are far conservative for my taste.

He's doing some good, but really he lost me at all the religous agenda and denial of ppl rights issue. Example gay rights. You can only put them off and deny them for now, but a few years down the road gays will have the rights everyone else enjoys. I find its equivlent to be the issues in the 50s-60s with civil rights for the blacks...Im sure the same ppl pushing for the denial of gay rights are the same ppl would would have jumped on the bandwagon back then for the denial of civil rights.

It's unconstitutional to say, he u can marry someone...while u cant, regardless of their sex. If its a religious issue, thats fine, let them get married in court. Oh well, it will happen regardless of the efforts made to stop it.

A forward moving society can only be held back for so long.

(By the way, no Im not gay, nor do I know any gays...Im coming at this from a standpoint of logic)

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like u just came from some GOP pep rally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me?

__Q__

06-16-2005, 11:04 PM

Bush has managed to do so many harmful things to this country, spreading silly conspiracy rumors just takes attention from the ways he's ACTUALLY hurt America and lessens the percieved credibility of anyone who makes legitimate criticisms of him.

oreogod

06-16-2005, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It makes it clear why Governor Arnold said "95% of the people need to be told what to do."

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, Arnold is good. He did say it best.

I suppose thats why everyone who thinks Bush is a great man and the savior of the faith always sound like they are repeating something heard at some GOP pep rally. Well there or Waco "cult" texas.

Triumph36

06-16-2005, 11:07 PM

Yes, that is exactly what's being said, because the world's most powerful and intelligent government is still incredibly incompetent.

Conspiracy theorists amaze me, because they assume that there's an enlightened conscience-less class of people who are capable of pulling off the grandest hoaxes.

I have no idea why I'm posting on this thread.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 11:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes it clear why Governor Arnold said "95% of the people need to be told what to do."

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, Arnold is good. He did say it best.

I suppose thats why everyone who thinks Bush is a great man and the savior of the faith always sound like they are repeating something heard at some GOP pep rally. Well there or Waco "cult" texas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you watching the Waco documentary right now too? Weiiird.

oreogod

06-16-2005, 11:19 PM

Well, I dont know if I buy the whole story per say of the WTC.

But you do know that 2-3 months before 911 the acting head of FBI resigned and took a low job at WTC as head of security in the month leading up to 911, he did die at that site...that and the next head of FBI resigned right around 911.

Intresting stuff...what I am most curious about is the Pentagon thing, I remember reading about that forever ago, and they never did find any plane wrekage there. Weird stuff.

As for conspiracies in general, the goverment did rule that there was more than one shooter at the JFK assasination, and Area 51 does exist (not sure if I buy the whole aliens deal, but it would be intresting to know what the real story behind all the hoopla is).

Im sure Watergate sound conspiracy theory-ish when Nixon was first outed. Either way, whether 911 happened straight up like so, theres a lot of weird [censored] out there in general that the government probably does.

I also know that theres some insane rich guy, who has a 1 million dollar reward out there if u can prove that the WTC collapse was actually because of the damage from the planes. He went to some of the top engineering ppl in the world and they told him, the way those buildings fell...no way it happened from the damage that came from the aircraft. Intresting stuff.

Intresting stuff.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 11:22 PM

Wow I didn't know about that the rich guy. That's crazy. Did he gave them a mill?

SpearsBritney

06-16-2005, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is exactly what's being said, because the world's most powerful and intelligent government is still incredibly incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me this perfect model of competency you are comparing the U.S. government to. Do you honestly believe that a government could ever be 100% competent. They need only be competent in the following areas:

1. enslaving you
2. distracting you (religion, pretty colors, etc...)
3. convincing you of their lies
4. taxing you

As far as I can tell, they're doing the best job to date.

oreogod

06-16-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow I didn't know about that the rich guy. That's crazy. Did he gave them a mill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well no ones proven that the buildings fell as the media says. (Meaning from exploding aircraft, with the fire melting down the metal causing the collapse).

Weird that no one seems to be able to prove the accepted belief that the buildings collapsed from the damage/fires/fuel of the aircraft.

Triumph36

06-16-2005, 11:35 PM

You have absolutely no frame of reference if you sincerely believe in 1, 2, and 3. Human governments aren't formed to enslave, distract, or convince me of their lies. They may end up doing so, but you seem to be one of those deluded people who thinks those things are the foundation of human socities.

Who is this enlightened class of conscience-less men cynically cackling about your enslavement while lighting up cigars with $100 bills? I put it to you again: most people are rather shortsighted and stupid. Who is farsighted enough to dream up these plans, and to carry them out without anyone noticing? Let's have a reply that doesn't sound like you stole it from a Rage Against the Machine CD liner.

Cumulonimbus

06-16-2005, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow I didn't know about that the rich guy. That's crazy. Did he gave them a mill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well no ones proven that the buildings fell as the media says. (Meaning from exploding aircraft, with the fire melting down the metal causing the collapse).

Weird that no one seems to be able to prove the accepted belief that the buildings collapsed from the damage/fires/fuel of the aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's hard to define "proof," but I think Dave vonKleist has come pretty close.

SpearsBritney

06-17-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You have absolutely no frame of reference if you sincerely believe in 1, 2, and 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, you have to be intelligent enough to see 1, 2, and 3 for yourself. I can only guide you.

[ QUOTE ]
Human governments aren't formed to enslave, distract, or convince me of their lies. They may end up doing so

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif First of all you're wrong. Secondly, even if you were right, if they wind up doing so anyway, then I fail to see the relevancy.

[ QUOTE ]
but you seem to be one of those deluded people who thinks those things are the foundation of human socities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, unfortunately I am. I only wish I was stupid enough to share your ignorance.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is this enlightened class of conscience-less men cynically cackling about your enslavement while lighting up cigars with $100 bills?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know myself. Also, there's the possibility that they believe that they are doing what is necessary to save more lives in the long run. If someone else were to gain control of the world's most precious resource, then we would inevitably wind up on the receiving end.

[ QUOTE ]
I put it to you again: most people are rather shortsighted and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case in point:

[ QUOTE ]
I love conspiracy theories!
The government pulled all this off without a hitch. This is the same government who:
Couldn’t fly 5 helicopters into Iran without two of the running into each other.
Can’t manage to get the DC government running well
Can’t respond to a simple Freedom of information act without taking 6 month
Couldn’t stop one nut job from landing on the White house lawn
Dredges the wrong channel in the Chesapeake Bay
Spends $58,000 on a coffee maker
And yet they coordinated 9/11 to the minute, had no errors, and no one blabbed to the press.
Yeah right.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is farsighted enough to dream up these plans, and to carry them out without anyone noticing?

[/ QUOTE ]

See: U.S. Government

(Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, ALOT OF PEOPLE HAVE NOTICED!!!!)

[ QUOTE ]

Let's have a reply that doesn't sound like you stole it from a Rage Against the Machine CD liner.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a single argument I could make in my defense that you wouldn't say that about. (It was kind of funny though)

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 12:17 AM

I love this thread.

SpearsBritney

06-17-2005, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I was the only 2+2er who knew all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would be surprised at how many people believe this. Most are smart enough not to waste their time trying to explain it to others, but I just can't resist.

It also carries with it a certain "political incorrectness" that some are to timid to speak about. Not to mention that you usually just wind up looking like a complete tool. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 12:35 AM

Yeah but who cares about looking like a tool when you're right. It's fun sometimes though to get into an argument with ignorant peole who against you know you can win.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 01:16 AM

it would take a ridiculous amount of proof to sway most peoples opinion on this matter. And because of the sheer nature of the subject, attemmptihg to prove that is obviously not a popular stance.

Felix_Nietsche

06-17-2005, 01:17 AM

..........expressing his opinions on engineering matters.

His former department at Texas A&M is already distancing themselves from him as being a nutcase. He needs to watch the History channel special on the World trade Center.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but who cares about looking like a tool when you're right. It's fun sometimes though to get into an argument with ignorant peole who against you know you can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh this post came out all wrong. I wasn't referring to the people who have been resopnding to me here, just some of the people I've run across in my own experience. They're not as much ignorant as close-minded.

Dynasty

06-17-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I love this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread is on overload.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/DynastyPoker/imperviousikesmall.jpg

Some people want to believe the worst.

wacki

06-17-2005, 03:03 AM

I agree. This thread exposes morons.

I'm not even going to read it. I just can't believe a quack like this could get so high up the ladder.

FYI: Discovery channel had an excellent show about the WTC's collapse.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 03:26 AM

I just find it interesting.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread is on overload.

Some people want to believe the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the rest of people want to believe what they're told - without looking at the evidence.

06-17-2005, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's my response.

I saw two passenger planes crash into the WTC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other witnesses just like you saw "big, grey planes" "without windows."

[ QUOTE ]

There were hundreds of ordinary people on those planes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, ordinary people did die because of 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]

Another passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet my whole bankroll that it was a missile. Do some research for yourself.

Here's a pic of the Pentagon where the plane supposevedly punched a hole in the inner wall. Where's the plane? Its just one of hundreds of pieces of evidence.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/missle-hole.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Another went down in a field in Pennsylvania.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go here (http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/) and watch the short video of the Pennsylvania crash site. Ask yourself if that looks like a plane or a plane crash, or even a hole that a commercial airliner could make.

[ QUOTE ]

There was an extensive scientific analysis done of the collapse of the World Trade Center. I believe it was on Nova on PBS. Why don't you go get yourself a copy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you buy "9/11 in Plane Site"? It will have a lot more evidence that your PBS documentary never addressed.

[ QUOTE ]

If you think that anyone -- ANYONE -- in our government, in the Port Authority (owner of the WTC property), or any other American was involved in some conspiracy somehow to crash those planes or take down the trade center, you're out of your F'n mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm out of my F'n mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Exactly. You are.

06-17-2005, 09:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
niss

I was in the World Trade Center when the planes hit on September 11 (I worked there for 17 consecutive years). After the initial attack, I made it to the lobby of the south tower and, when the second plane hit, I was frantically searching for an exit amidst the bedlum (i.e. other than the exits that were blocked by plane wreckage or the bodies of people diving from the North Tower).

I was also in the WTC when the terrorist bomb exploded in the WTC parking garage in 1993.

And, for what it's worth, I can personally attest to the fact that there a enormous/amazing difference between a building that was hit by a commercial jet and a building that was wired for demolition. There is absolutely no way that anyone in the Trade Center during each of those events (1993 and 2001)would observe any physical similarity between the blasts (based on the dissimilarity between the initial blasts and the subseqnet structural effects.)

The commercial air craft did 100% of the damage to the WTC on September 11. It was completely obvious to all who were in the building at the time...as well as those who were in the local environment (not to mention those who watched on television). (BTW, when I finally got out of the building, I ran like a baby all the way to China Town...just in time.)

Many/some people defend/applaud history revisionists on the grounds that we occasionally lack eye witnesses, video, etc...to certain past events; thus suggesting that revisions are in order. These revisionist-mongers believe that factual aspects of certaint events become clearer over time...occasionally diametrically altering the initial perspective to a significant degree. I won't dispute there general agenda (here), but in this case, we have physical evidece, eye witnesses, motive, confessions, common sense...all pointing in one direction. Foreign terrorists attacked the WTC, not the US government.

BTW, God Bless America....and God Damn the Terrorists!

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I am wondering if you suffered any prolonged mental or emotional issues as a result of this. I still think about what I saw on an almost daily basis, and I was a good 10-20 blocks away. Just curious, not looking to pry or ask for personal information.

06-17-2005, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow I didn't know about that the rich guy. That's crazy. Did he gave them a mill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well no ones proven that the buildings fell as the media says. (Meaning from exploding aircraft, with the fire melting down the metal causing the collapse).

Weird that no one seems to be able to prove the accepted belief that the buildings collapsed from the damage/fires/fuel of the aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Watch the Nova special. It has a detailed, scientific explanation of how the buildings fell.

superleeds

06-17-2005, 09:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Watch the Nova special. It has a detailed, scientific explanation of how the buildings fell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has flaws in its detailed, scientific explanations. Which also happen to be likely explanations not hard and fast facts.

06-17-2005, 09:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. This thread exposes morons.

I'm not even going to read it. I just can't believe a quack like this could get so high up the ladder.

FYI: Discovery channel had an excellent show about the WTC's collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and Dynasty had the best posts in this thread. Seriously. No wonder they made you moderators. You are absolutely right. People are always looking for some nonsensical conspiracy in everything. How they can do it in this instance is mind boggling. There is nothing wrong with questioning the government -- particularly the present administration. But this stuff is patently ridiculous, foolish, insulting to the men and women who perished in the attack, and insulting to the men and women in the US government who serve this country admirably. We may not agree with them in all, most, or some of what they do, but to suggest that they would go and destroy the towers and kill 3000 people on American soil, is absolutely, positively INSANE. For Christ's sake, Watergate -- a petty burglary -- was a whole federal case. I'll say it again -- you people that think there's any credibility in any of this conspiracy nonsense are f'n nuts. It's no better than the argument that the Jews did it and none of the Jews showed up for work on 9/11.

CollinEstes

06-17-2005, 09:43 AM

Did you guys hear about that show that ran 6 months before the 9/11, called the Lone Gunman.

This was a spinoff of the X-files and they ran a pilot on national tv and the story involved around the gov't plans to crash a plane into the WTC. It is kind of creepy.

I don't buy into the whole thing but I find it intresting, like the fact that pasenger list for the Pentagon flight was filled with ex-navy, including a high ranking former navy pilot. Or all of the videos that where taken by the FBI or CIA from various local places around the pentagon that would of had footage of the plane going by.

Also there were alot of people who reported seeing a fighter jet both at the pentagon and at the Penn crash area.

06-17-2005, 09:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Watch the Nova special. It has a detailed, scientific explanation of how the buildings fell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has flaws in its detailed, scientific explanations. Which also happen to be likely explanations not hard and fast facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What are they? And where's the expose by any remotely credible source showing that the buildings were "wired for demolition". I mean, seriously. This forum is loaded with comments about how the "lefty" media is out to get this administration. Wouldn't one of these "lefty" media outlets love to expose this government's supposed involvement in this? RIDICULOUS.

CollinEstes

06-17-2005, 09:54 AM

You know this is ridiculous. You know it isn't true. You know that people are going to be people and make stuff up and come up with crazy ideas. So why then does it upset you so much? It doesn't tarnish anything wrong about this country, in fact I think shows how restrained our gov't is sometimes. They may hate what you say but they will let you say it.

06-17-2005, 09:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did you guys hear about that show that ran 6 months before the 9/11, called the Lone Gunman.

This was a spinoff of the X-files and they ran a pilot on national tv and the story involved around the gov't plans to crash a plane into the WTC. It is kind of creepy.

I don't buy into the whole thing but I find it intresting, like the fact that pasenger list for the Pentagon flight was filled with ex-navy, including a high ranking former navy pilot. Or all of the videos that where taken by the FBI or CIA from various local places around the pentagon that would of had footage of the plane going by.

Also there were alot of people who reported seeing a fighter jet both at the pentagon and at the Penn crash area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my God. Here's a suggestion for all you conspiracy nuts. Sit down and think about how this thing actually played out, including all of the things you claim happened. Think about all of the things that -- if there was a government conspiracy -- had to happen PERFECTLY or not only would the whole thing have fallen apart but the "plot" would have been discovered. It's ludicrious.

superleeds

06-17-2005, 09:57 AM

Did their expert get to look at and test any of structures he says likely failed?

CollinEstes

06-17-2005, 09:58 AM

Why is not ok for me to find it intresting? I said that I don't buy into the whole thing I simply stated some intresting things that happened.

Just like I find Bigfoot intresting, do I think it is real? NO but I can still be intrested. Just like you have the right to be UN-intrested.

MMMMMM

06-17-2005, 09:58 AM

Yeah...Dynasty, Wacki, and Niss...this thread is ridiculous.

What the heck, didn't bin-Laden actually admit to the 9/11 attacks a couple of years or so later? Oh...but that doesn't prove anything either--he could have just been falsely and opportunistically taking credit for something he didn't orchestrate.

I think the mods should have a quarterly or semi-annual or yearly Tin Foil Hat Award, to be given to the most deserving post or thread. Or maybe the mods could pick some threads or posts and we could vote on them for the award.

Uh...mmm...maybe not. There would be those who would create posts or threads just for the purpose of winning the award.

06-17-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You know this is ridiculous. You know it isn't true. You know that people are going to be people and make stuff up and come up with crazy ideas. So why then does it upset you so much? It doesn't tarnish anything wrong about this country, in fact I think shows how restrained our gov't is sometimes. They may hate what you say but they will let you say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a discussion forum. We are discussing. It beats working.

06-17-2005, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Did their expert get to look at and test any of structures he says likely failed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You answer my questions first and then I'll answer yours.

CollinEstes

06-17-2005, 10:07 AM

It's a discussion forum. We are discussing. It beats working.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can agree with that. But you are obviously worked up about something you know is nothing but a load of ****. I understand how if you think it somehow degrads the people who died or the men & women fighting for country you would be upset. But it doesn't it is just something people do to pass the time. IMO.

superleeds

06-17-2005, 10:17 AM

Ok. The flaws in the detailed scientific explanations are that no tests (at least none that were made public) were done on the parts he said failed, to asertain whether they failed as he said and indeed whether they failed at all. And as far as I'm aware no parts exist anymore to test, they were all recycled or redestroyed or tampered with as to make them useless as evidence. This is what I find odd. After all it was a crime.

I understand now that should you now answer my question it would be rhetorical.

06-17-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. The flaws in the detailed scientific explanations are that no tests (at least none that were made public) were done on the parts he said failed, to asertain whether they failed as he said and indeed whether they failed at all. And as far as I'm aware no parts exist anymore to test, they were all recycled or redestroyed or tampered with as to make them useless as evidence. This is what I find odd. After all it was a crime.

I understand now that should you now answer my question it would be rhetorical.

[/ QUOTE ]

or maybe they didn't do the testing because what happened to the buildings is so bloody obvious that testing is unnecessary? It's like executing someone with a bullet to the head and then doing an autopsy to find out the cause of death.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah...Dynasty, Wacki, and Niss...this thread is ridiculous.

What the heck, didn't bin-Laden actually admit to the 9/11 attacks a couple of years or so later? Oh...but that doesn't prove anything either--he could have just been falsely and opportunistically taking credit for something he didn't orchestrate.

I think the mods should have a quarterly or semi-annual or yearly Tin Foil Hat Award, to be given to the most deserving post or thread. Or maybe the mods could pick some threads or posts and we could vote on them for the award.

Uh...mmm...maybe not. There would be those who would create posts or threads just for the purpose of winning the award.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bin Laden was trained by the CIA about ten years ago. He still has connections with them. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Therefore, he can say whatever they want him to. He's their scapegoat.

On a side note, anybody who blindly labels this "conspiracy theory" as bogus simply because it is a conspiracy theory, is a fool. Example - I had a theory that my mom was an alcoholic. But just because it was a theory doesn't mean it wasn't fact. I had to explore for evidence until I was completely convinced that she wasn't an alcoholic. It turns out that evidence changed my mind.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." ~Bertrand Russell

-Which group are you in?

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 04:37 PM

Hey niss, why don't you bring about some proof that makes your theory so "bloody obvious?" Give me some evidence that terrorists hijacked the plane. Give me some evidence that terrorists are behind all this. Refute my evidence - refute the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon. Do some actually arguing and discussing instead of merely labeling all this as a bogus conspiracy theory. Your arguments so far are pathetic.

wacki

06-17-2005, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But just because it was a theory doesn't mean it wasn't fact. I had to explore for evidence until I was completely convinced that she wasn't an alcoholic. It turns out that evidence changed my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to do a search there is a thread on this. It has all the counter proof you need including a long list of eye witnesses and pictures of the parts thrown from the airplane during the plane crash into the pentagon. There is no conspiracy.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But just because it was a theory doesn't mean it wasn't fact. I had to explore for evidence until I was completely convinced that she wasn't an alcoholic. It turns out that evidence changed my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to do a search there is a thread on this. It has all the counter proof you need including a long list of eye witnesses and pictures of the parts thrown from the airplane during the plane crash into the pentagon. There is no conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but I already posted on the other thread as well. Here's the only counter proof I found:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/pentvid4.jpg

I guess that small piece represents a whole plane. Because this does not show up in any other photos this is considered to be rather suspect as to its authenticity. This would be very easy to plant because of it's size. Also, this pictured surfaced months after the crash.

I guess that "counter proof" totally disproves the lack of plane and the lack of giant entry hole done by the cabin, wings, and tail of a 757 in the following picture. This was taken before the collapse. Show me a piece of plane here.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/pentagonhole.jpg

Here's an idea of the size of the plane relative to the buliding:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/compall.jpg

Do you really think a plane could make that hole and leave ONE piece of debris hundreds of feet away? The ball's in your court, Niss and Wacki.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 05:17 PM

By the way, Damn I'm Good.

06-17-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey niss, why don't you bring about some proof that makes your theory so "bloody obvious?" Give me some evidence that terrorists hijacked the plane. Give me some evidence that terrorists are behind all this. Refute my evidence - refute the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon. Do some actually arguing and discussing instead of merely labeling all this as a bogus conspiracy theory. Your arguments so far are pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I in bizarro world? Are you the bearded Spock?

AngryCola

06-17-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He needs to watch the History channel special on the World trade Center.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because the History Channel is known for being accurate.

kurto

06-17-2005, 05:44 PM

This reminds of the TV Special (Fox network, not cable, if I remember correctly) where they provided (supposedly) compelling evidence that the moon landing never happened.

Ben Therre

06-17-2005, 05:50 PM

Lets get Janet Reno on the case.

player24

06-17-2005, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I am wondering if you suffered any prolonged mental or emotional issues as a result of this. I still think about what I saw on an almost daily basis, and I was a good 10-20 blocks away. Just curious, not looking to pry or ask for personal information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss, I don't want to turn this into a group therapy session...or to bump a thread (started with benign intentions by James Boston) into any more of a bizarro circus than it already is)...but the short answer is "yes".

Thanks for standing tall.

Triumph36

06-17-2005, 06:53 PM

You're insane.

How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all? Not to mention that you seem to be representing the cocksure side of the Russell quote you needlessly employed.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all?

[/ QUOTE ] are you serious?

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're insane.

How do you know these pictures are from the crash sites at all? Not to mention that you seem to be representing the cocksure side of the Russell quote you needlessly employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you're insane. You're a stupid butthead. My dad could beat your dad up...etc... In other words, insults will get you nothing but self-gratification.

With reference to the pictures, one of them is obviously computer edited... that plane is superimposed if youd didn't know. The other one is from a civilian. Two other civilians also got pre-collapse pictures, and actually the whole nation got to see the video footage of before the collapse on national television. You can watch that if you buy probably any 9/11 documentary.

And no, I'm not cocksure in the way that that quote describes. I question everything and I'm open-minded - two traits that many people lack. This is why you don't see me getting mad and acting stubborn and calling people names like some of the other posters. I merely relay evidence the best I can.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 07:32 PM

BTW, I advice everybody to go HERE (http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page &PAGE_id=22) and download 911 In Plane Site. It is very compelling and fact-based without bias. The other videos are also pretty good, but Plane Site is a must.

wacki

06-17-2005, 08:17 PM

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

btw, aluminim burns......

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

btw, aluminim burns......

[/ QUOTE ]

Problems with that article...

"the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"

The grass was not damaged at all. No impact damage, no burns, nothing. That fact alone basically dislodges this whole theory.

"You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon."

OK look at the picture I posted of before the collapse. Wouldn't there be a shape of plane's impact... in other words, wouldn't you see where the wings impacted or the tail section impacted? There's only two scenarios regarding the wings: they either fell off upon impact or destroyed the outer wall, leaving "wing holes" in the building. Well, they didn't fall off, because we could see them if they did. There was no wing holes left either. As you can see, the only hole is about 20 feet wide. Can a 757 fit into a 20 foot wide hole and leave no debris? Let's even assume the wings burnt up. What about the two engines on the wings? Where are they? They wouldn't burn up, and they're large enough to where they'd be visible in the video and the pictures.

"As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane."

Again, wings can't fit through a 20 foot hole.

"In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck."
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/obscure.jpg

I love this. I don't know why the author didn't use a clearer picture, because there are pictures without the water and steam blocking the view. Again, where's the damage that the huge tail section would do? Would it break off and magially get pulled in with the wings - which also broke off, but magically did no damage? \

Are we to believe that two wings, two engines and a tail all broke off and all were pulled in through a 20 foot hole without any exterior damage from the impact except for the initial hole? I mean look - when the tail would hit the white area, it would break the windows. THE WINDOWS ARE COMPLETELY INTACT. Come on, use a little of your own logic and quit trusting in other people's arguments.

I wish I could upload the video of the pre-collapse footage - you'd laugh if you saw how absurd the idea is that a 757 caused it.

Like I said before, just watch 911 In Plane Site. Download it or buy it.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 08:55 PM

I watched the movie. It is interesting to say the least, and I agree it came across as unbiased.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 09:07 PM

That's good, I hope everybody follows your lead. Checkout 911wasalie.com, infowars.com, and thepowerhour.com for additional info, because there's a lot of stuff that wasn't in the video (like the fact that Silverstein, the owner of WTC, took out a huge insurance policy right before 9/11, and ended up making over $900 million, that's $500 million in profit.)

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 09:09 PM

the brief part about the OK city bombing was completely new to me as well.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 09:14 PM

Here's the hole made by the 757 *cough* cruise missile. Try and refute it.

http://212.87.68.69/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/1/pentagoncompare.jpg

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the brief part about the OK city bombing was completely new to me as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah - i like that cuz it illustrates that it's not about Bush, not about republican/democratic.

06-17-2005, 09:49 PM

For someone who is into questioning everything, you are awfully quick to believe whatever you read on the internet. How do you know that top picture is from the Pentagon? How do you know that it's a picture of "the hole"? How do you know it's not a picture of some type of collateral damage? How do you know where in the Pentagon the picture was taken?

Let's see. Wacki posts an aerial picture of the entire Pentagon. You post a picture allegedly of a sliver of the building. Which is more credible. Hmmmm.

Again ... if there was any truth to any of this nonsense -- and there isn't -- don't you think the mainstream/"lefty" media would pick up on it? Someone? Anywhere?

wacki

06-17-2005, 09:53 PM

Wow.... well I couldn't find the old thread. Maybe it's a conspiracy. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Here is a good link. It even has computer modeling via Purdue University explaining how it all works an why the wings folded the way they did.

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

kurto

06-17-2005, 09:55 PM

Personally, I think if there was significant doubt, the scientific community wouldn't be quite about it. I don't think our government would be able to fool the majority of the scientic community.

It is highly improbable that there is a conspiracy here.

With that being said, I'm surprised at the life of this thread. I think everyone involved is pretty convinced.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 09:57 PM

they talk about the Purdue study in that video. Apparently their model did not include the planes engines. Also, based on what the model showed, there would have been substantilly more damage to the outside of the Pentagon, including the grass as well.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 09:58 PM

also, wacki, I think you should give it a view. Its free to download, although it will take a while. It is a 1.4GB file.

wacki

06-17-2005, 10:07 PM

Maybe. Michael Moore is very good at creating conspiracies. I've wasted too much of my life debunking his crap. Show me a reputable scientist/engineer that thinks this and I will invest more time. Until then I have more pressing issues.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For someone who is into questioning everything, you are awfully quick to believe whatever you read on the internet. How do you know that top picture is from the Pentagon? How do you know that it's a picture of "the hole"? How do you know it's not a picture of some type of collateral damage? How do you know where in the Pentagon the picture was taken?

Let's see. Wacki posts an aerial picture of the entire Pentagon. You post a picture allegedly of a sliver of the building. Which is more credible. Hmmmm.

Again ... if there was any truth to any of this nonsense -- and there isn't -- don't you think the mainstream/"lefty" media would pick up on it? Someone? Anywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if I could take video off of 911 in Plane Site and place it on here, I would. But you can doubt any picture. So like I've been saying, WATCH THE VIDEO. You will have no doubt of the realism of that picture after you watch it.

And thousands of people are picking this up and they try to tell the mainstream media about it. But, the mainstream media works for the government. Anybody with a little historical knowledge knows that the easiest way to control a society is through it's national news. So the easiest way to spread news like this is through forums and blogs - blogs which are slowly being cracked down on. It'd be nice if you guys made it a little easier for me to get my points across instead of arguing every little discrepancy(sp?). I have no bad intentions, I'm merely doing what I think is right by showing you the evidence and persuading you to keep an open mind about it.

Cumulonimbus

06-17-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Michael Moore is very good at creating conspiracies. I've wasted too much of my life debunking his crap. Show me a reputable scientist/engineer that thinks this and I will invest more time. Until then I have more pressing issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Michael Moore's a crack. We should leave him out of this.

ThaSaltCracka

06-17-2005, 10:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Michael Moore is very good at creating conspiracies. I've wasted too much of my life debunking his crap. Show me a reputable scientist/engineer that thinks this and I will invest more time. Until then I have more pressing issues.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not saying that I believe everything in the vid, just that I thought it was interesting. Give it a view, it may change your stance, or at the very least it may make you have some more questions.

06-17-2005, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But, the mainstream media works for the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings an end to this thread.

Good night to all.

Triumph36

06-17-2005, 11:17 PM

Keep an open mind about it?

To even believe these massive conspiracies, one must have closed one's mind very well first; closed it to common sense and reason, and the natural skepticism which at first helps the conspiracy theorist. Then with the remaining bit that is left, the mind is opened and all things are explained away. Why hasn't the media exposed it? It's a tool of the government! Why would they shoot a cruise missile at the Pentagon after the World Trade Center was already destroyed? To destroy the evidence!

And even if it were true, it makes no sense to believe in conspiracy theories anyway. How often do I see fish toss away their money online and claim the site is rigged? Conspiracy theories are the same belief on a larger scale - that shadowy forces have contrived it so that you're not part of the 'in the know' cabal.. but you can get glimpses, so you're in on it too.

Believe what you like. You already do anyway.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 01:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Keep an open mind about it?

To even believe these massive conspiracies, one must have closed one's mind very well first; closed it to common sense and reason, and the natural skepticism which at first helps the conspiracy theorist. Then with the remaining bit that is left, the mind is opened and all things are explained away. Why hasn't the media exposed it? It's a tool of the government! Why would they shoot a cruise missile at the Pentagon after the World Trade Center was already destroyed? To destroy the evidence!

And even if it were true, it makes no sense to believe in conspiracy theories anyway. How often do I see fish toss away their money online and claim the site is rigged? Conspiracy theories are the same belief on a larger scale - that shadowy forces have contrived it so that you're not part of the 'in the know' cabal.. but you can get glimpses, so you're in on it too.

Believe what you like. You already do anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, opinions like this make me want to give up with you people... which I do. I hope at least one person looked at the evidence I presented and went "Wow, that's interesting. Maybe I should look into this further." If only one person gained something, then me posting these pictures and all was worth something. But when it comes to arguing about 9/11 with people whose minds are already completely closed off to anything that says their government might be tricking them or fooling them - I am done. It gets nowhere. But if anybody is out there that sees the evidence, that sees that there just might be a slight chance of something wrong going on here, send me a message anytime you want. I'm open to your thoughts and criticisms, and I can point you in the direction of truth. As for arguing about whether a 16 foot hole can contain a 757 - I'm done. Peace.

ThaSaltCracka

06-18-2005, 01:42 AM

my only questions is where are the black boxes?

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, the mainstream media works for the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings an end to this thread.

Good night to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't tried to debunk my evidence buddy, like I challenged you to. Whether or not mainstream media is funded by the government (which it is) has almost nothing to do with this thread.

Triumph36

06-18-2005, 10:35 AM

This isn't deciding between two logically equivalent positions, or two equally likely things.. it's not like whether I am going to order eggs or an omelet, it's "Well, you could look it at that Osama Bin Laden was responsible... or you could think that the entire thing was a government setup, did you ever think about that?" The problem with such theories is that they break down exactly where they need to be solid: on the level of individuals. Who are the individuals in the American government involved in such deception, and how are they capable of living with themselves? A LOT of people would have to be on the fix, and not just higher-ups. To think, hey, there's some weird things going on with 9/11, I absolutely agree: the plane down in Pennsylvania, the fact that no one could intercept the planes to New York, etc. I'm not going to go so far as to claim that these things are all part of a shadowy government conspiracy to put us at war with the Middle East, to me they seem much more likely the product of human failure than superhuman success. The problem with conspiracies is that they're so easy to construct and so logically airtight that they forget human psychology and human failure.

Again, why would the US shoot a missile at the Pentagon well after the WTC had been hit by planes?

My point is that believing in conspiracies, even if they were true, is useless. If the government was responsible, how does that change anything? Clearly you have no power to alter the course of these events.

mmbt0ne

06-18-2005, 10:38 AM

God damn. Shut the fu[/b]ck up about In Plane Site. Go read Popular Mechanics from March of this year where they pwn that movie in any and every way.

BTW, FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor to get involved in WWII. Refute that.

06-18-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, the mainstream media works for the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings an end to this thread.

Good night to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't tried to debunk my evidence buddy, like I challenged you to. Whether or not mainstream media is funded by the government (which it is) has almost nothing to do with this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

06-18-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God damn. Shut the fu[/b]ck up about In Plane Site. Go read Popular Mechanics from March of this year where they pwn that movie in any and every way.

BTW, FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor to get involved in WWII. Refute that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great article. Thanks for the post.

wacki

06-18-2005, 02:11 PM

You want to know where the pieces of the plane went? Here I'll show you.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_1.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_2.jpg

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_3.jpg

Please use photoshop and try to put a red circle around any piece of that airplane that is larger than a softball.

wacki

06-18-2005, 02:18 PM

http://212.87.68.69/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/1/pentagoncompare.jpg

Look at the damage of that building. Look at how the pillars are bent outward. Look at the lack of fuel scorch marks on the building.

Now look at this picture. (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/damage_comp.jpg)

See the obvious fuel marks on the outside of the building? See the lack of burn marks on the much smaller building?

wacki

06-18-2005, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
my only questions is where are the black boxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

wacki

06-18-2005, 02:31 PM

I am done. Thanks for wasting my time on another useless "I hate America and our President is evil bullshit".

Next stop.... the moon landing was fake and the concentration camps never happened.

wacki

06-18-2005, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would bet my whole bankroll that it was a missile. Do some research for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's big enough (highly unlikely), I am willing to take you up on the offer.

ThaSaltCracka

06-18-2005, 04:21 PM

I don't feel like reading this whole article right now, but I bookmarked it.

Thanks Wacki.

edit: why haven't they released the Black box info?

ChoicestHops

06-18-2005, 04:32 PM

The whole deal about a missle into the Pentagon is bogus. I saw that interesting flash movie about it, but it's bogus, a plane did hit it. Ive seen pictures of the parts.

1) Did we ever find out why building 7 collapsed? No plane hits it, and the government says fire went to the building from other structures. Ok, so why does it collapse like a demolition too?

2) Why did NORAD back down? Why did Bush and Rice come out and lie to us, telling us they had no prior knowledge? On the morning of 9/11 NORAD was running tests of planes being flown into buildings, coincidence?

Northwoods Document is proof that people in power, in the US, will sacrifice our civilians and soldiers at their hands to put the blame on another country.

Can anyone answer my questions besides giving a tin foil or go to hell response? I'd say they are pretty significant.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 04:45 PM

Putting the Pentagon aside, another good question is why did Larry Silverstein, the owner of all the WTC towers, say on national TV that "they made the decision to pull (the building.)" I mean, it takes weeks to set up the explosives to demolish a building.

ChoicestHops

06-18-2005, 05:01 PM

Good point, it's ironic that building 7 falls (which I believe was his) but the Hilton and other buildings, which are closer to the towers, get 0 damage.

But, somehow, this other building gets a shitload of fire and collapses.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 05:10 PM

Yeah it was his. What's even more ironic was the huge insurance policy he took out right before (I think it was one week) 9/11. I guess it cost him $300 million to build the original towers, but the policy paid him $800 million to build new towers.

If you watch video of that building burning, it's only two floors that are burning - and they look like pretty small fires. It looks like arson.

partygirluk

06-18-2005, 05:27 PM

Are you really suggesting the following?

The U.S. government sets up a conspiracy to mass murder its citizens

This requires 100s of people to plan

None of these people or people that were approached to be part of the slaughter have a fit of conscience and come clean to the press

The U.S decide to make out that a plane has hit the Pentagon. But it really is a cruise missile. They go to all this planning to cover up this conspiracy and make it look like the work of Al Qaeda, but despite all this they make the blooper or not actually have plane wreckage at the site where they will claim a plane hit the pentagon?

Lunacy.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 05:34 PM

Yes, that's the conclusion that most come to. But we're mainly just throwing around all the anomalies that happened on 9/11 to get opinions and views. If you don't like hearing about this stuff, which a lot of people don't, then you don't have to read it. Your posts don't help us reach any conclusions though.

SpearsBritney

06-18-2005, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. government sets up a conspiracy to mass murder its citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

3000 people is a drop in the bucket compared to any other war they've marched unwilling or brainwashed soldiers into. (Sorry if that's a little insensitive)

[ QUOTE ]
This requires 100s of people to plan

None of these people or people that were approached to be part of the slaughter have a fit of conscience and come clean to the press

[/ QUOTE ]

It think you're overestimating just a tad. Even if it was hundreds, it would only be a select few who knew what was actually going on. Also, if they're convinced that their mission is for the "greater good", then it may just rest a little lighter on their conscience.

Casualties are just a calculated number when it comes to government and war.

Triumph36

06-18-2005, 06:04 PM

As I said, conspiracy theory requires closing off most of common sense. Why would Silverstein say these things on television, especially in light of his supposed insurance windfall? It's always a good sign too when the revealing quotes have a pronoun and brackets.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, conspiracy theory requires closing off most of common sense. Why would Silverstein say these things on television, especially in light of his supposed insurance windfall? It's always a good sign too when the revealing quotes have a pronoun and brackets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), watch the video which is about halfway down the page, then quit making me do the research for you. It's not hard to go to google and type "Silverstein video 9/11."

SpearsBritney

06-18-2005, 06:27 PM

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 06:37 PM

Oh I bet they'll think of a way. It's like all they wanna do is win an argument, as opposed to learning how crooked this world is.

wacki

06-18-2005, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Putting the Pentagon aside.....

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. You owe me your bankroll. I'm not letting you off that easy.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Putting the Pentagon aside.....

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. You owe me your bankroll. I'm not letting you off that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. First of all, we never shook on it. Second, nothing's been proved - I think it's i'mpossible to come to a completely clear conclusion on the matter. Third, I thought you were "done" with this thread>?

06-18-2005, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, conspiracy theory requires closing off most of common sense. Why would Silverstein say these things on television, especially in light of his supposed insurance windfall? It's always a good sign too when the revealing quotes have a pronoun and brackets.

[/ QUOTE ]

PS Silverstein has been in litigation with the insurance companies over the claim. Don't you think that if there was any truth to the story, the insurance companies -- who leave no stone unturned in an attempt to find a reason to avoid an obligation, particularly one of this magnitude -- would have found something? Anything? But why should we get silly little facts get in the way.

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 08:33 PM

06-18-2005, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I don't know. But rational thought doesn't matter, cuz he still said it.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I don't know. But rational thought doesn't matter, cuz he still said it.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the rest of that page? The whole page is dedicated to Larry Silverstein and the demolition of the buildings. Did you even watch any of the videos on there, like this (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm),
which clearly shows the demolition charges exploding out the corners of the building.

I'd like to ask you niss, how would you explain that the towers fell? Did the file melt the steel? What's your view on how they fell down?

SpearsBritney

06-18-2005, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said, conspiracy theory requires closing off most of common sense. Why would Silverstein say these things on television, especially in light of his supposed insurance windfall? It's always a good sign too when the revealing quotes have a pronoun and brackets.

[/ QUOTE ]

PS Silverstein has been in litigation with the insurance companies over the claim. Don't you think that if there was any truth to the story, the insurance companies -- who leave no stone unturned in an attempt to find a reason to avoid an obligation, particularly one of this magnitude -- would have found something? Anything? But why should we get silly little facts get in the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The red pill's certainly not an easy one to swallow, so for those who still don't quite grasp the underlying concept, I will break this whole thing down into simplest terms.

-A few-billion dollar investment (give or take a few thousand lives)

-A multi-trillion dollar return (not to mention the future stability of the world as we know it)

The insurance company's interests aren't any place other than with the government's (with the extreme likelihood of subsidizations). Believe me, they do not want stones to be unturned.

Still stupid? Back to top ^

MMMMMM

06-18-2005, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The red pill's certainly not an easy one to swallow, so for those who still don't quite grasp the underlying concept, I will break this whole thing down into simplest terms.

-A few-billion dollar investment (give or take a few thousand lives)

-A multi-trillion dollar return (not to mention the future stability of the world as we know it)

[/ QUOTE ]

The costs of 9/11 were well into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS...not "a few billion".

Cumulonimbus

06-18-2005, 11:47 PM

SpearsBritney

06-19-2005, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The red pill's certainly not an easy one to swallow, so for those who still don't quite grasp the underlying concept, I will break this whole thing down into simplest terms.

-A few-billion dollar investment (give or take a few thousand lives)

-A multi-trillion dollar return (not to mention the future stability of the world as we know it)

[/ QUOTE ]

The costs of 9/11 were well into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS...not "a few billion".

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I am aware of the cost. My use of the word "few" was to imply that the cost was/is a casual number, as in no big deal.

I am quite certain that you realize this, as you seem moderately intelligent. But since you have no legitimate rebuttal, and are just grabbing at strings, I forgive you.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Cumulonimbus

06-19-2005, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I am quite certain that you realize this, as you seem moderately intelligent. But since you have no legitimate rebuttal, and are just grabbing at strings, I forgive you.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been a lot of string-grabbing around here. I never thought I'd say this, but Britney Spears is my hero.

SpearsBritney

06-19-2005, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am quite certain that you realize this, as you seem moderately intelligent. But since you have no legitimate rebuttal, and are just grabbing at strings, I forgive you.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been a lot of string-grabbing around here. I never thought I'd say this, but Britney Spears is my hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

<cough>SpearsBritney<cough>

Cumulonimbus

06-19-2005, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am quite certain that you realize this, as you seem moderately intelligent. But since you have no legitimate rebuttal, and are just grabbing at strings, I forgive you.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been a lot of string-grabbing around here. I never thought I'd say this, but Britney Spears is my hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

<cough>SpearsBritney<cough>

[/ QUOTE ]

I have lyxdexia.

SpearsBritney

06-19-2005, 12:24 AM

Dude, we totaly pjn3d!

MMMMMM

06-19-2005, 01:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The red pill's certainly not an easy one to swallow, so for those who still don't quite grasp the underlying concept, I will break this whole thing down into simplest terms.

-A few-billion dollar investment (give or take a few thousand lives)

-A multi-trillion dollar return (not to mention the future stability of the world as we know it)

[/ QUOTE ]

The costs of 9/11 were well into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS...not "a few billion".

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I am aware of the cost. My use of the word "few" was to imply that the cost was/is a casual number, as in no big deal.

I am quite certain that you realize this, as you seem moderately intelligent. But since you have no legitimate rebuttal, and are just grabbing at strings, I forgive you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best rebuttal is that the costs are known to be huge, but the multi-trillion-dollar benefits of which you speak are nebulous, far-off, and showing not much sign of getting any closer.

Cumulonimbus

06-19-2005, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, we totaly pjn3d!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, the truth will set you free. Of course we pjn3d. I'm ready for more.

lastchance

06-19-2005, 02:30 AM

Why did you not try to refute Wacki's huge pile of evidence stacked against you in the 13th to 14th page?

(Wacki is my hero)

Cumulonimbus

06-19-2005, 02:34 AM

I believe I did, what evidence do you speak of?

06-19-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The insurance company's interests aren't any place other than with the government's (with the extreme likelihood of subsidizations). Believe me, they do not want stones to be unturned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hysterical. Who writes your stuff? Chris Rock? George Lopez? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

SpearsBritney

06-19-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The insurance company's interests aren't any place other than with the government's (with the extreme likelihood of subsidizations). Believe me, they do not want stones to be unturned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hysterical. Who writes your stuff? Chris Rock? George Lopez? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totaly aware of how comical this all sounds to someone who doesn't know what's going on in the real world.

06-19-2005, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The insurance company's interests aren't any place other than with the government's (with the extreme likelihood of subsidizations). Believe me, they do not want stones to be unturned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hysterical. Who writes your stuff? Chris Rock? George Lopez? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totaly aware of how comical this all sounds to someone who doesn't know what's going on in the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continued hilarity. When do you publish your manifesto? Ted Kaczinski was the Unabomber. What's your pen name? The Kooky Canadian? The Canucklehead?

SpearsBritney

06-19-2005, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The insurance company's interests aren't any place other than with the government's (with the extreme likelihood of subsidizations). Believe me, they do not want stones to be unturned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hysterical. Who writes your stuff? Chris Rock? George Lopez? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totaly aware of how comical this all sounds to someone who doesn't know what's going on in the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continued hilarity. When do you publish your manifesto? Ted Kaczinski was the Unabomber. What's your pen name? The Kooky Canadian? The Canucklehead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the fact that it would mean that you're wrong about something, why does this all seem so improbable to you? Your argument seems to be nothing more than just plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA. Wake up man.

06-19-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the fact that it would mean that you're wrong about something, why does this all seem so improbable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, because it's ridiculous?

Bob Moss

06-19-2005, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides the fact that it would mean that you're wrong about something, why does this all seem so improbable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, because it's ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what else is ridciulous? This idea that the world is a sphere? I mean, WTF, we can all see that it's flat.

Bob

Triumph36

06-19-2005, 10:49 PM

That's a ridiculous comparison because clear observation shows that it's round. Therefore, it's not 'improbable', it's clearly provable. Whereas what these two paranoid people are yammering about is unprovable, and the product of overactive and disturbed imaginations.

The *only* difficulty here is what Silverstein said, but it hardly suggests the 'controlled demolition' theory.

06-19-2005, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides the fact that it would mean that you're wrong about something, why does this all seem so improbable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, because it's ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what else is ridciulous? This idea that the world is a sphere? I mean, WTF, we can all see that it's flat.

Bob

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for a goof (to all of you conspiracy theorists out there) ... tell me why the report of the independent, bi-partisan 9/11 Commission is not worthy of consideration.

Cumulonimbus

06-20-2005, 05:45 AM

I don't understand why you skeptics are even arguing in this forum? Don't you have something else better to be doing? Me and Spears are sharing information, posting pictures, etc... you don't have to read them or respond to them. So why do you? If we're SO wrong, why do you bother? Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that does make sense is that you all are starting to see some sense in this - yet you refuse to let yourself acknowledge something that's "so ridiculous."

Keep in mind, this ridiculous tactic has been used many times in history... (Government attacks own people to start war, make them feel threatened, etc.) I'm sure if some "mindless conspiracy theorists" told those people what their government was doing to them, they'd laugh just like you do.

The main thing is, you all are approaching this in the wrong way. Think of it this way: if there is a mere one percent chance of the government being behind 9/11, doesn't that one percent warrant a further investigation with an open mind? - simply because of the importance of something like that happening.

And there is at least a one percent chance. There's hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people in this world who believe the US government was behind 9/11. Go to Europe and watch their news stations for awhile. They see this country how it really is because they're not blinded by America's FOX news, NBC, and ABC.

So if all these people believe that the government was behind 9/11, does the thought cross your mind that hey, maybe I should look into this "conspiracy" stuff more? I'm pretty sure that none of you are doing that - I'm giving you guys links upon links and all I get is bullshit responses. If you showed these links to Einstein or any other genius, they would immediately approach it with the "what if" mentality, because they know that the conspiracy is very possible. They'd examine all of the evidence and form their conclusions. You people, as far as I know, are NOT examining all the evidence. You just look at pictures I give you and say things like "that's probably fake" or you come up with some outlandish explanation for each piece of evidence. The bottom line is that you all approach this with the completely wrong mindset. This stubborn mindset can leave you in a very closed, isolated world.

What you have to realize is that you are all on the defensive. You have to make up an explanation (absurd or not) for everything we show you. We're not making up the explanations - you are. We have our explanation, and it explains EVERY SINGLE weird happening surrounding 9/11. That's what the truth does.

If you don't want to change your mindset - that's fine. You can go hang out with my stubborn close-minded grandpa, who still believes that black people are the anti-Christ, and talk about the world as you think it is or as you want it to be. But I'm telling you, for your own good, on this issue and others, your closed-mindedness is your downfall. You don't have to believe this conspiracy stuff, but it doesn't hurt to spend a weekend and examine all the evidence. Yeah it takes a weekend or more because there's like 300 pieces of evidence. Keep it real all - thanks for reading my post.

06-20-2005, 09:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you skeptics are even arguing in this forum? Don't you have something else better to be doing? Me and Spears are sharing information, posting pictures, etc... you don't have to read them or respond to them. So why do you? If we're SO wrong, why do you bother? Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that does make sense is that you all are starting to see some sense in this - yet you refuse to let yourself acknowledge something that's "so ridiculous."

Keep in mind, this ridiculous tactic has been used many times in history... (Government attacks own people to start war, make them feel threatened, etc.) I'm sure if some "mindless conspiracy theorists" told those people what their government was doing to them, they'd laugh just like you do.

The main thing is, you all are approaching this in the wrong way. Think of it this way: if there is a mere one percent chance of the government being behind 9/11, doesn't that one percent warrant a further investigation with an open mind? - simply because of the importance of something like that happening.

And there is at least a one percent chance. There's hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people in this world who believe the US government was behind 9/11. Go to Europe and watch their news stations for awhile. They see this country how it really is because they're not blinded by America's FOX news, NBC, and ABC.

So if all these people believe that the government was behind 9/11, does the thought cross your mind that hey, maybe I should look into this "conspiracy" stuff more? I'm pretty sure that none of you are doing that - I'm giving you guys links upon links and all I get is bullshit responses. If you showed these links to Einstein or any other genius, they would immediately approach it with the "what if" mentality, because they know that the conspiracy is very possible. They'd examine all of the evidence and form their conclusions. You people, as far as I know, are NOT examining all the evidence. You just look at pictures I give you and say things like "that's probably fake" or you come up with some outlandish explanation for each piece of evidence. The bottom line is that you all approach this with the completely wrong mindset. This stubborn mindset can leave you in a very closed, isolated world.

What you have to realize is that you are all on the defensive. You have to make up an explanation (absurd or not) for everything we show you. We're not making up the explanations - you are. We have our explanation, and it explains EVERY SINGLE weird happening surrounding 9/11. That's what the truth does.

If you don't want to change your mindset - that's fine. You can go hang out with my stubborn close-minded grandpa, who still believes that black people are the anti-Christ, and talk about the world as you think it is or as you want it to be. But I'm telling you, for your own good, on this issue and others, your closed-mindedness is your downfall. You don't have to believe this conspiracy stuff, but it doesn't hurt to spend a weekend and examine all the evidence. Yeah it takes a weekend or more because there's like 300 pieces of evidence. Keep it real all - thanks for reading my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the education. Now I'll ask you again ... why isn't the 9/11 commission's report -- which contains a detailed analysis of what happened, why it happened, and what corrections we need to make -- conclusive? Determinative? Worthy of consideration? Why do we instead latch on to internet blogs and websites that have been discredited? Is Popular Mechanics run by the government?

Sifmole

06-20-2005, 01:37 PM

I am actually a bit confused about a couple of questions that should be asked regarding the whole "cruise missle" vs "flight 77", which hit the Pentagon thing:

( Note: I may have the flight # wrong, but you get the point )

1) Which airline's flight 77 was it?

2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

Cumulonimbus

06-20-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you skeptics are even arguing in this forum? Don't you have something else better to be doing? Me and Spears are sharing information, posting pictures, etc... you don't have to read them or respond to them. So why do you? If we're SO wrong, why do you bother? Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that does make sense is that you all are starting to see some sense in this - yet you refuse to let yourself acknowledge something that's "so ridiculous."

Keep in mind, this ridiculous tactic has been used many times in history... (Government attacks own people to start war, make them feel threatened, etc.) I'm sure if some "mindless conspiracy theorists" told those people what their government was doing to them, they'd laugh just like you do.

The main thing is, you all are approaching this in the wrong way. Think of it this way: if there is a mere one percent chance of the government being behind 9/11, doesn't that one percent warrant a further investigation with an open mind? - simply because of the importance of something like that happening.

And there is at least a one percent chance. There's hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people in this world who believe the US government was behind 9/11. Go to Europe and watch their news stations for awhile. They see this country how it really is because they're not blinded by America's FOX news, NBC, and ABC.

So if all these people believe that the government was behind 9/11, does the thought cross your mind that hey, maybe I should look into this "conspiracy" stuff more? I'm pretty sure that none of you are doing that - I'm giving you guys links upon links and all I get is bullshit responses. If you showed these links to Einstein or any other genius, they would immediately approach it with the "what if" mentality, because they know that the conspiracy is very possible. They'd examine all of the evidence and form their conclusions. You people, as far as I know, are NOT examining all the evidence. You just look at pictures I give you and say things like "that's probably fake" or you come up with some outlandish explanation for each piece of evidence. The bottom line is that you all approach this with the completely wrong mindset. This stubborn mindset can leave you in a very closed, isolated world.

What you have to realize is that you are all on the defensive. You have to make up an explanation (absurd or not) for everything we show you. We're not making up the explanations - you are. We have our explanation, and it explains EVERY SINGLE weird happening surrounding 9/11. That's what the truth does.

If you don't want to change your mindset - that's fine. You can go hang out with my stubborn close-minded grandpa, who still believes that black people are the anti-Christ, and talk about the world as you think it is or as you want it to be. But I'm telling you, for your own good, on this issue and others, your closed-mindedness is your downfall. You don't have to believe this conspiracy stuff, but it doesn't hurt to spend a weekend and examine all the evidence. Yeah it takes a weekend or more because there's like 300 pieces of evidence. Keep it real all - thanks for reading my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the education. Now I'll ask you again ... why isn't the 9/11 commission's report -- which contains a detailed analysis of what happened, why it happened, and what corrections we need to make -- conclusive? Determinative? Worthy of consideration? Why do we instead latch on to internet blogs and websites that have been discredited? Is Popular Mechanics run by the government?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

Sifmole

06-20-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually a bit confused about a couple of questions that should be asked regarding the whole "cruise missle" vs "flight 77", which hit the Pentagon thing:

( Note: I may have the flight # wrong, but you get the point )

1) Which airline's flight 77 was it?

2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am quoting myself -- I just find it interesting that the rabid "information" being thrown about stopped as soon as simple questions were asked.

SpearsBritney

06-20-2005, 10:12 PM

Any answers that we could provide you, you almost certainly could find on your own if you were really that interested. We have done pretty much all that we can do to at least make you start asking questions. Anything from here on in will just be the same old back-and-forth, which for the most part, I've grown quite tired.

I believe that we've provided enough info and links in these threads to make any intelligent, rational person quite skeptical of the Bush administration's "Official Story" about what happened on 911, but spending anymore time trying to convince any non-believers, is just beating a dead horse.

To be quite honest, I've realized that I really don't care what you think.

SpearsBritney

06-20-2005, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's a ridiculous comparison because clear observation shows that it's round. Therefore, it's not 'improbable', it's clearly provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point. These "clear observations" obviously weren't so clear for quite some time.

Triumph36

06-20-2005, 10:32 PM

I'm not missing the point. A round world is undeniable once presented with the proof. Your deluded vision of the United States willfully attacking itself in order to get into a war with the Middle East is the product of 'seeing what you want'.

As for Cumulonimbus, what kind of shadow government that willfully murders 3,000 citizens is going to allow websites to state the 'truth' against it? You are the one in a closed and isolated world - you have failed to refute anything put forth in the Popular Mechanics article, as well as answer simple questions relating to the nature of this conspiracy. Would I spend a weekend examining this? Of course not. Worldly truth is hardly worth that, especially when the conclusion that you and SpearsBritney have come to is pessimistic and completely powerless.

You're citing Europe as open-minded? You have to be kidding. First of all, if the United States is so able to carry out things of this nature, wouldn't Europe's governments do the same thing? Or do they magically have a free press and the United States doesn't? Europe's opinion on this is irrelevant - they hate the United States and they hate that they are second-rate powers. Much of the Middle East thinks it's a United States plot, does that give them any relevance? Of course not. People believe whatever they want to believe. That's why OJ went free. And that's why you continue to present easily refutable 'evidence'. The ONE thing that is disturbing is Silverstein's comment. The rest has been adequately dealt with and you are still standing here claiming that it hasn't been.

SpearsBritney

06-20-2005, 10:43 PM

Keep displaying that naivety. Looks good on ya /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Triumph36

06-20-2005, 11:18 PM

The word is 'naivete', and I think it's embarassingly adolescent to believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of powerful men. When you're very young, you believe everything you're told. When you grow up, you realize a lot of it were lies and deceptions, and that the world doesn't run the way the politicans say it does. Most people grow out of this phase, realizing that while there are a lot of deceptions in the world, that's just the way the world works. Religion and morality aren't controls imposed by a ruling class - they're intepretations of the right way to exist within a society. We as a species are far more capable of failing than succeeding - that's why we have religions and morality in the first place. That's why I attribute the actions of 9/11 to grand failure rather than grand success. If you really believe there are people out there capable of hiding this, then you must believe yourself to be an insignificant speck of humanity or sub-humanity, ruled over by your natural betters, and that your only role is to smugly bray out the supposed truth to the ignorant sheep who believe otherwise. What a grim existence. Well, enjoy it. I'm done with this thread.

slamdunkpro

06-20-2005, 11:26 PM

It was the work of S.P.E.C.T.O.R. - calling Mr. Bond, James Bond /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

SpearsBritney

06-20-2005, 11:42 PM

I can't believe I'm stooping to your level here but;

na·ive·té or na·ïve·té (nv-t, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.
2. An artless, credulous, or uncritical statement or act.

na·ive·ty or na·ïve·ty (n-vt, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
Artlessness or credulity; naiveté.

[ QUOTE ]
We as a species are far more capable of failing than succeeding - that's why we have religions and morality in the first place. That's why I attribute the actions of 9/11 to grand failure rather than grand success.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You're saying that it's unlikely because people fail more often than not? Wouldn't the "grand failure" of the U.S. in this case also be the "grand success" of the "evil-dooers"?

"Jordan fades back, swoosh, and that's the game!" /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

06-20-2005, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I'm stooping to your level here but;

na·ive·té or na·ïve·té (nv-t, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.
2. An artless, credulous, or uncritical statement or act.

na·ive·ty or na·ïve·ty (n-vt, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
Artlessness or credulity; naiveté.

[ QUOTE ]
We as a species are far more capable of failing than succeeding - that's why we have religions and morality in the first place. That's why I attribute the actions of 9/11 to grand failure rather than grand success.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You're saying that it's unlikely because people fail more often than not? Wouldn't the "grand failure" of the U.S. in this case also be the "grand success" of the "evil-dooers"?

"Jordan fades back, swoosh, and that's the game!" /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Pssst. Party is rigged. I read it on the internet. And my aces were cracked. Twice. Once by 8-9o.

I just gave you all of the proof you need. Now prove I'm wrong.

SpearsBritney

06-21-2005, 12:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pssst. Party is rigged. I read it on the internet. And my aces were cracked. Twice. Once by 8-9o.

I just gave you all of the proof you need. Now prove I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

AH HA! I KNEW IT! Seriously though, do you find it hard to hide the fact that you're in love with me?

vulturesrow

06-21-2005, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pssst. Party is rigged. I read it on the internet. And my aces were cracked. Twice. Once by 8-9o.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is even a website that says so. So it must be true.

[ QUOTE ]
I just gave you all of the proof you need. Now prove I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

They cant prove you wrong. Just show them the website.

Sifmole

06-21-2005, 10:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any answers that we could provide you, you almost certainly could find on your own if you were really that interested. We have done pretty much all that we can do to at least make you start asking questions. Anything from here on in will just be the same old back-and-forth, which for the most part, I've grown quite tired.

I believe that we've provided enough info and links in these threads to make any intelligent, rational person quite skeptical of the Bush administration's "Official Story" about what happened on 911, but spending anymore time trying to convince any non-believers, is just beating a dead horse.

To be quite honest, I've realized that I really don't care what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have me confused with someone else in this "debate"; because they list of questions was my first post. I find it interesting that you are perfectly willing to go out and locate URLs to post that show your side, but won't bother to answer these questions. Also, you presented yourself as having already researched this enough in order to hold the theory that there is a grand conspiracy.

Instead, in answer to simple and straight-forward questions, I get a Dibertian "Bah!". I think that answer speaks more than all the rest. I know the answers to these questions and they all answer exactly as if there was a real flight 77 and it crashed into the pentagon. As for why would they use a cruise missle instead of a plane -- I have no idea, it makes no sense at all; and so seems incredibly unlikely.

Thank you, have a nice, and try out the moon landing conspiracy later.

Cumulonimbus

06-21-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am actually a bit confused about a couple of questions that should be asked regarding the whole "cruise missle" vs "flight 77", which hit the Pentagon thing:

( Note: I may have the flight # wrong, but you get the point )

1) Which airline's flight 77 was it?

2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am quoting myself -- I just find it interesting that the rabid "information" being thrown about stopped as soon as simple questions were asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have time to answer your questions earlier, as you can tell by my short response to a different post. But I'm not gonna answer them anyway - first of all, you can find those answers on the internet because although you may not believe it, you're not the first person to ask. Secondly, they're really basic questions - questions that don't really mean enough for me to care to answer them. I mean, what airliner company had it's plane crash doesn't really affect whether or not a missile hit the pentagon. Finally, like Spears said, I'm sick of this back and forth stuff. We show you something, you question it, we answer your questions, you ask different questions, we answer them... etc. If your'e really interested in this stuff, then realize that me and Spears are not spokesmen for the 911 conspiracy, there are thousands of people everywhere who believe it. Of course, I'm sure many of these people don't like arguing with closed minds, so you may be out of luck. I think it's best for you all non-believers to go on not believing anyway. Hey, it makes the world look nicer and safer. The blue pill can be a beautiful thing.

Sifmole

06-21-2005, 08:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am actually a bit confused about a couple of questions that should be asked regarding the whole "cruise missle" vs "flight 77", which hit the Pentagon thing:

( Note: I may have the flight # wrong, but you get the point )

1) Which airline's flight 77 was it?

2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am quoting myself -- I just find it interesting that the rabid "information" being thrown about stopped as soon as simple questions were asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have time to answer your questions earlier, as you can tell by my short response to a different post. But I'm not gonna answer them anyway - first of all, you can find those answers on the internet because although you may not believe it, you're not the first person to ask. Secondly, they're really basic questions - questions that don't really mean enough for me to care to answer them. I mean, what airliner company had it's plane crash doesn't really affect whether or not a missile hit the pentagon. Finally, like Spears said, I'm sick of this back and forth stuff. We show you something, you question it, we answer your questions, you ask different questions, we answer them... etc. If your'e really interested in this stuff, then realize that me and Spears are not spokesmen for the 911 conspiracy, there are thousands of people everywhere who believe it. Of course, I'm sure many of these people don't like arguing with closed minds, so you may be out of luck. I think it's best for you all non-believers to go on not believing anyway. Hey, it makes the world look nicer and safer. The blue pill can be a beautiful thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow -- what an amazing pile of Shi... deflection.

You are right, it doesn't matter which airline's plane crashed into the Pentagon; and if you weren't so interested in deflecting from exposing the conspiracy theory's weakness you wouldn't settle on that one question. Obviously the point of the questions was:

If the official story says 4 planes crashed ( 2 at WTC, 1 in Pennsylvania, and 1 at the Pentagon ) and the flight records show only 3 planes unaccounted for -- this would support your arguement. But the fact is, the official story says that 4 planes crashed and all the records -- both official, and the lives of the surviving family -- says 4 planes crashed.

So, it is pretty reasonable that 4 planes crashed. So the real question left is -- where did the 4th plane crash?

And even more curious -- why would such an advanced, well-funded, and supported conspiracy choose to complicate their situation by claiming a plane hit the pentagon and then choose to use a cruise missle? Apparently the already managed to arrange for at least 3 hijacked planes, why not a fourth?

A proposed scenario has to at least be internally consistent, and this conspiracy certainly is not.

So you can't just wave away the questions I posted and say they are irrelevant -- because they go to the simple heart of the matter. If the answers to these questoins cannot be reconciled with the conspiracy theory, then it stands on very shaky ground.

Your ball.

Sifmole

06-22-2005, 02:07 PM

Seven simple questions, and all is well. The "conspiracy" proponents squelched by the bright light of simple facts.

I'll be here all week folks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am actually a bit confused about a couple of questions that should be asked regarding the whole "cruise missle" vs "flight 77", which hit the Pentagon thing:

( Note: I may have the flight # wrong, but you get the point )

1) Which airline's flight 77 was it?

2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am quoting myself -- I just find it interesting that the rabid "information" being thrown about stopped as soon as simple questions were asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have time to answer your questions earlier, as you can tell by my short response to a different post. But I'm not gonna answer them anyway - first of all, you can find those answers on the internet because although you may not believe it, you're not the first person to ask. Secondly, they're really basic questions - questions that don't really mean enough for me to care to answer them. I mean, what airliner company had it's plane crash doesn't really affect whether or not a missile hit the pentagon. Finally, like Spears said, I'm sick of this back and forth stuff. We show you something, you question it, we answer your questions, you ask different questions, we answer them... etc. If your'e really interested in this stuff, then realize that me and Spears are not spokesmen for the 911 conspiracy, there are thousands of people everywhere who believe it. Of course, I'm sure many of these people don't like arguing with closed minds, so you may be out of luck. I think it's best for you all non-believers to go on not believing anyway. Hey, it makes the world look nicer and safer. The blue pill can be a beautiful thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow -- what an amazing pile of Shi... deflection.

You are right, it doesn't matter which airline's plane crashed into the Pentagon; and if you weren't so interested in deflecting from exposing the conspiracy theory's weakness you wouldn't settle on that one question. Obviously the point of the questions was:

If the official story says 4 planes crashed ( 2 at WTC, 1 in Pennsylvania, and 1 at the Pentagon ) and the flight records show only 3 planes unaccounted for -- this would support your arguement. But the fact is, the official story says that 4 planes crashed and all the records -- both official, and the lives of the surviving family -- says 4 planes crashed.

So, it is pretty reasonable that 4 planes crashed. So the real question left is -- where did the 4th plane crash?

And even more curious -- why would such an advanced, well-funded, and supported conspiracy choose to complicate their situation by claiming a plane hit the pentagon and then choose to use a cruise missle? Apparently the already managed to arrange for at least 3 hijacked planes, why not a fourth?

A proposed scenario has to at least be internally consistent, and this conspiracy certainly is not.

So you can't just wave away the questions I posted and say they are irrelevant -- because they go to the simple heart of the matter. If the answers to these questoins cannot be reconciled with the conspiracy theory, then it stands on very shaky ground.

Your ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

superleeds

06-22-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) Which airline's flight 77 was it

[/ QUOTE ]

American Airlines

[ QUOTE ]
2) Has anyone shown evidence that there was a flight 77 scheduled for that airline that day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes AA themselves, all major newspapers, official government reports etc. It was a daily scheduled flight from Washington to LA.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Was flight 77 the type of aircraft that is being proposed as hitting the pentagon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It's only conspiracy theorists who are claiming otherwise. (Pointless Question)

[ QUOTE ]
4) If scheduled, did flight 77 take off at an airport within proper distance and time parameters to allow it to arrive at the pentagon at the given time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Again AA, news sources, government etc confirm

[ QUOTE ]
5) If scheduled, Did flight 77 land that day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, into the Pentagon, according to official sources. Yes, anywhere but the Pentagon according to alot of conspiracy theorists. (Pointless Question)

[ QUOTE ]
6) A 757 would have a couple hundred passengers, at least a few of these have surviving family memebers with access to credit card records indicating what airplane tickets were purchased. Are these out there for flight 77?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a list of crew and passengers (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html)

[ QUOTE ]
7) Even more basically -- there is a very accurate record of all major commercial airline planes that go up every day; and a record of all of them that land. Do the counts from 9/11 match up? Are there 4 less flights landing than took off? This should be easy to find out. Of course I realize that this number might match and it could be because they "conspiracy" crashed the extra plan somewhere else and it wasn't reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

Officially Yes and as there is no independent check that's all she wrote. (Pointless Question, but at least you admit it this time)

[ QUOTE ]
And my final question:

If this conspiracy was capable of getting two planes to fly into the WTC, and was run by the government. Why would they use a cruise missle to hit the pentagon and say it was a 757? Really, why? Does this make even the slightest bit of sense? Why not just use a friggin' 757?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause Rumsfeld's a pussy and he didn't want any mishaps which may result in the bit of the Pentagon he was in being hit. (This is pure malicious conjecture on my part).

FWIW I thought your questions were crap.

ptmusic

06-22-2005, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am done. Thanks for wasting my time on another useless "I hate America and our President is evil bullshit".

Next stop.... the moon landing was fake and the concentration camps never happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't a moderator supposed to resemble something along the lines of moderation and fairness?

I don't believe in these conspiracy theories about 9/11 either, but I'm certainly not going to throw around tired liberal-bashing accusations that someone "hates America" and believes that "our President is evil." Who in this thread said that?

-ptmusic

wacki

06-22-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't a moderator supposed to resemble something along the lines of moderation and fairness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I ban him? No.

Am I allowed to have an opinion even though my name is in green? <--- Dumb question.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in these conspiracy theories about 9/11 either, but I'm certainly not going to throw around tired liberal-bashing accusations....

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call him a liberal. I called him a looney. Sam h and andyfox are liberals.

vulturesrow

06-22-2005, 07:25 PM

Its not like he's CEO or President or something. He is a poster on an internet discussion forum that happens to have some administrative responsibilities.

ptmusic

06-22-2005, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't a moderator supposed to resemble something along the lines of moderation and fairness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I ban him? No.

Am I allowed to have an opinion even though my name is in green? <--- Dumb question.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in these conspiracy theories about 9/11 either, but I'm certainly not going to throw around tired liberal-bashing accusations....

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call him a liberal. I called him a looney. Sam h and andyfox are liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough. I'm just so sick of hearing protestors or dissenters (or in this case, conspiracy theorists) get labelled as America Haters or Bush-is-Evil-ists. This thread has nothing to do with that.

-ptmusic

MaxPower

06-22-2005, 11:45 PM

OK. This is officially the stupidest thread ever on 2+2 and that is saying alot.

Do you have any idea what it takes to demolish buildings the size of the WTC towers? I'm not an expert, but you would have to place a very large number of explosives and it would be impossible to do without the people who work in the building noticing and it would be very obvious in any video of the buildings collapsing. Perhaps the government has some top secret method that we don't know about - did the video explain that?

wacki

06-22-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK. This is officially the stupidest thread ever on 2+2 and that is saying alot.

Do you have any idea what it takes to demolish buildings the size of the WTC towers? I'm not an expert, but you would have to place a very large number of explosives and it would be impossible to do without the people who work in the building noticing and it would be very obvious in any video of the buildings collapsing. Perhaps the government has some top secret method that we don't know about - did the video explain that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Video was about the pentagon. Welcome back to hell hole Maxpower. Ya it's stupid. I wouldn't of even opened this thread again if I hadn't seen your name on the main page. Hope you had fun in Vegas.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OK. This is officially the stupidest thread ever on 2+2 and that is saying alot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, you can't seem to stay away.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea what it takes to demolish buildings the size of the WTC towers?

[/ QUOTE ]

A hell of a lot more than 800 degree fires.

The WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. Yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an expert, but you would have to place a very large number of explosives and it would be impossible to do without the people who work in the building noticing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assume approximately 95% of people that worked in that building, did so during the day. It would not be hard at all for them to strategically place explosives throughout the framework of the buildings.

[ QUOTE ]
and it would be very obvious in any video of the buildings collapsing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it could possibly have been more obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the government has some top secret method that we don't know about

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm)

Look, it happened, get used to it.

MaxPower

06-23-2005, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. Yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of plausable explanations. This is just pure nonsense. I'm not going to argue with you because I am not an expert in this area. There are plenty of scientific papers that have been published on this. I don't pretend to understand all the theories, but they seem much more plausable than your crackpot theory.

superleeds

06-23-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of scientific papers that have been published on this

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. There havn't. The evidence that scientists would use to test and build theories around doesn't exist anymore. And until someone can point me somewhere proving different, it would appear it was deliberately rendered useless for any future investigation. That's what is odd. Even the blueprints to the buildings are not available so these plenty of scientific papers that have been published you talk off are guessing at the actual components and then building hypothesis as to why they would fail. Just doesn't seem very scientific to me.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. Yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of plausable explanations. This is just pure nonsense. I'm not going to argue with you because I am not an expert in this area. There are plenty of scientific papers that have been published on this. I don't pretend to understand all the theories, but they seem much more plausable than your crackpot theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

My crackpot theory?

Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures.

Fire Engineering frequently publishes technical studies of major fires and is read in more than 50,000 fire departments and schools of fire engineering across the nation.

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

Because no “real evidence” has been produced, the theory that the twin towers collapsed due to fire “could remain just unexplored theory,” Manning said.

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.

Maybe (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/)

he's (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)

not (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

crazy (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3224)

after (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc-demolition-old.htm)

all (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyer.htm)

watch the squibs shoot out from the right side (http://thewebfairy.com/video/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv)

watch the instantanious flame when the charge goes off (http://thewebfairy.com/video/charges.going.off.wmv)

this one's really cool! (http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10050/index.php)

Like I said, the evidence is simply impossible to deny. Instead of just ignorantly dismissing the evidence like everyone else, why not spend an hour or two and research this stuff for yourself. There are literally millions of intelligent rational people out there who believe the US was/is behind this. Stop turning a blind eye and just take a look for yourself. You are experiencing just about everyone's same reaction when first presented with this information. It takes a little time to fully sink in. Kind of like SSH.

However, no physical evidence alone will be able to overide your natural tendency to refute anything that goes against what you have been told and subsequently believe. For that, you have to also understand a few other things;

911 for Noobs (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814)

Top 15 reasons to doubt the official story (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646)

RicktheRuler

06-23-2005, 01:55 PM

The idea of Left or Right wing biases in the media is silly.

I'll let others elaborate.

RicktheRuler

06-23-2005, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe they didn't do the testing because what happened to the buildings is so bloody obvious that testing is unnecessary? It's like executing someone with a bullet to the head and then doing an autopsy to find out the cause of death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Do you know violent criminals often do something terrible to cover up something even more heinous? For example, burning rape victims.

This is not the first time I have heard the building fell very conspicuously--that is all.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 02:07 PM

There are literally scores of substantial reasons to doubt, reject or ridicule the official 9/11 story. However, their relative importance in spurring people to disbelief still largely depends upon subjective factors like professional knowledge and personal experience.

Engineers, for example, are often driven to 9/11 skepticism by the inexplicable WTC collapses, investors by the apparent insider trading and huge war profits of the aftermath, pilots by the novice hijackers' astounding aerial skill, veterans by the suddenly dysfunctional national air defense system, journalists by the stonewall secrecy and investigation phobia, civil servants by the total disinterest in accountability, libertarians by the anthrax-assisted stampede to rubberstamp the repressive "Patriot Act", etc, etc.

Others are simply insulted to incredulity by the number of coincidences we are asked to believe to make the official story seem true. (See " The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 (http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html) " for a brutally funny walk through that particular fairyland.)

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of plausable explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear just one.

The fact that Silverstien (WTC owner) himself admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (WHICH TAKES WEEKS TO SET UP!!!) should be enough evidence on it's own.

(I would also like to add that I'm totaly pwning this thread-you guys got nothin!)

MaxPower

06-23-2005, 02:52 PM

I just did a literature search and skimmed some scientific journal articles on the matter. These are way over my head and they are probably over the head of 99.9% of the population.

I did watch that 20 minute video that someone posted and it was mostly a guy interviewing people on the street and hand waving about some kind of conspiracy. I certainly wouldn't call that scientific.

I am smart enough to realize that I cannot determine the cause of the WTC collapse or even discriminate between the theories.

What I've seen so far from the conspiracy theorists is not very convincing. There seem to be some conventional theories that explain the facts plausably even though they need further testing.

I hope this is the last time I post in this thread.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just did a literature search and skimmed some scientific journal articles on the matter. These are way over my head and they are probably over the head of 99.9% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one!

[ QUOTE ]
I did watch that 20 minute video that someone posted and it was mostly a guy interviewing people on the street and hand waving about some kind of conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you must have skipped over the part where the firemen explained (in great detail, I might add) how they heard secondary explosions "like detonations, floor by floor-pop, pop, pop, pop" on their way out. Or the part where the FDNY Chief said that there must have been "other devices planted in the building". I would suggest you watch 16:40-19:30, because clearly you missed that part.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't call that scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you explain it then? Please, enlighten me.

[ QUOTE ]
I am smart enough to realize that I cannot determine the cause of the WTC collapse or even discriminate between the theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't sell yourself short. It's actually quite easy once you examine ALL of the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
What I've seen so far from the conspiracy theorists is not very convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mustn't have seen much. Believe me, there is A LOT more!

[ QUOTE ]
There seem to be some conventional theories that explain the facts plausably even though they need further testing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're almost there!

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this is the last time I post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't be the first.

MaxPower

06-23-2005, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I did watch that 20 minute video that someone posted and it was mostly a guy interviewing people on the street and hand waving about some kind of conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you must have skipped over the part where the firemen explained (in great detail, I might add) how they heard secondary explosions "like detonations, floor by floor-pop, pop, pop, pop" on their way out. Or the part where the FDNY Chief said that there must have been "other devices planted in the building". I would suggest you watch 16:40-19:30, because clearly you missed that part.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't call that scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you explain it then? Please, enlighten me.

You wouldn't be the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've also heard people describe in great detail how they saw aliens crash a spaceship in Roswell but I don't believe that either.

Maybe they heard popping noises and maybe they didn't? I have no way of knowing. What would it prove it they did hear popping noises?

I heard the guy say that there must have been other devices in the building. I'm not sure what that proves either. The fact that he said it doesn't make it true.

Evidence based on peoples recollection is notoriously weak. I do not put a lot of faith in that kind of evidence.

There is no point to this discussion. You believe it, I don't.

wacki

06-23-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe they heard popping noises and maybe they didn't? I have no way of knowing. What would it prove it they did hear popping noises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poping noises were most likely real. In fact computer modeling places the noises as the bolts of the trusses being sheered off. I've seen this happen before in real life. And when they come off, they fly off like a bullet!

***notice I'm only responding to Max Power, TSC, Lastchance, and a few others

superleeds

06-23-2005, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
***notice I'm only responding to Max Power, TSC, Lastchance, and a few others

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that cos you've got your head up your arse?

guller

06-23-2005, 04:46 PM

If they already had the building rigged with explosives, why equip the plane with a military pod and missle, as seen in previous posts?

Beavis68

06-23-2005, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But you do know that 2-3 months before 911 the acting head of FBI resigned and took a low job at WTC as head of security in the month leading up to 911, he did die at that site...that and the next head of FBI resigned right around 911.

[/ QUOTE ]

Louis Freeh was a Clinton appointee, not an acting director. Pickard was the acting director and was head during the attacks.

John O'Neil was a deputy director that was working as director of public safety at the WTC and was killed.

And you guys say Christians are dumb.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 05:44 PM

You guys keep coming in and picking and choosing which pieces of evidence may or may not have happened. You are not however, disproving any of it. You are simply saying; ..oh yeah?!... well, this could be possible too.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking; "How is that any different from what you're doing?" Well, I'll tell you. I have spent many hours (god only knows why) pointing out all of the anomalies with the Bush Administration's "Official Story". Basically doing your homework for you. I have linked numerous web sites, pictures, videos, calculations, etc. You guys are just taking turns jumping in (half-interested) when ever you think you see an inconsistency.

The problem with your story is this; Putting aside for one second the MOUNTAIN of physical evidence, there are literally hundreds of HUGE holes in the "Official Story". The odds of even a FRACTION of these anomalies to have happened/not happened, as you are suggesting, are by no exaggeration, ASTRONOMICAL.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If they already had the building rigged with explosives, why equip the plane with a military pod and missle, as seen in previous posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never made this assertion. Infact, I think it's absurd.

There are a good number of irrational and unsupportable 9/11 theories and theorists "out there" that have been used to great effect to discredit 9/11 truth advocates as whole (Check out Rule 4 in " The Twenty-five Rules of Disinformation (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556) " to grasp the tactic and then watch it in action in Popular Mechanics' recent 9/11 smear). We are therefore also concerned about these spurious plot lines and how they are exploited, and we criticize many on our site (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147) . Every large and growing movement picks up a few noisy dunces or provocateurs in the margins, but they do not in any way invalidate the well researched evidence at its core. We only pray that those drawn to the 9/11 issue by sensationalist claims will stay long enough to learn the less theatrical but equally damning truth.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 06:05 PM

There's a very good reason why it takes weeks, if not months, for specially trained proffessionals to carefully plan and execute controlled demolitions, and it is this:

BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 07:43 PM

Now watch these again. These buildings are not "structurally failing". They are literally disintigrating from the top down. A "structural failure" would cause the top of the building to topple over, not systematically blast every floor of the building to smithereens.

Look at the "debris avalanche" of the north tower. You will see the debris cloud rapidly projecting outward. That's no small distance it's traveling. Those are explosions propeling that debris, not simply energy escaping from the collapsing building.

Pay special attention to the south tower. You can EASILY see the timed explosions a few floors beneath each other.(You can also see it on the north tower, but you have to look a little bit closer.)

North Tower (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/woolworth_1.avi)

South Tower (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/--=Close-up of south tower collapse.mpg)

There's no disputing it. Those are explosions my friends.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 08:29 PM

3) Instant Fulfillment of the Neocon Wish List

For a huge military buildup and Middle East energy control
- In September 2000, one year before 9/11, the Bush team's neocon think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century) published a plan for global domination called "Rebuilding America's Defenses". (Top Bush Administration figures like Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al. were signers of PNAC's Statement of Principles.)
Their plan called for a huge boost in defense spending, full spectrum dominance over all nations and regions (including outer space), long term petro-resource control with permanent Middle East bases, and a preemptive war policy against recalcitrant states. However, they openly conceded that such a huge "transformation" would take forever "absent some cataclysmic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

It's time to open your eyes.

Sifmole

06-23-2005, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of plausable explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear just one.

The fact that Silverstien (WTC owner) himself admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (WHICH TAKES WEEKS TO SET UP!!!) should be enough evidence on it's own.

(I would also like to add that I'm totaly pwning this thread-you guys got nothin!)

[/ QUOTE ]

You pwn nothing, because you haven't responded to simple, succinct questions. You deflected and again resort to subjective discussions -- look at known facts first, if those can't be reconciled ( reasonably ) with the conspiracy theory then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Simple question -- why resort to complicating your conspiracy by using a cruise missle and claiming it was an airplane? When you managed to utilize at least two other airplanes and apparently ( by the conspiracy itself ) have a large amount of resources at your disposal. It makes no sense what-so-ever. Make that make sense and you may be started.

06-23-2005, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But you do know that 2-3 months before 911 the acting head of FBI resigned and took a low job at WTC as head of security in the month leading up to 911, he did die at that site...that and the next head of FBI resigned right around 911.

[/ QUOTE ]

Louis Freeh was a Clinton appointee, not an acting director. Pickard was the acting director and was head during the attacks.

John O'Neil was a deputy director that was working as director of public safety at the WTC and was killed.

And you guys say Christians are dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

PS Neil D. Levin, the then-head of the Port Authority, died in the attack. One would imagine that the very terrorist Mr. Silverstein, or the Port Authority, or the CIA, or the government, or the illuminati, or the pizza connection, or whoever it was that planned this "conspiracy", would have filled him in. After all, it is the Port Authority's land.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of plausable explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear just one.

The fact that Silverstien (WTC owner) himself admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (WHICH TAKES WEEKS TO SET UP!!!) should be enough evidence on it's own.

(I would also like to add that I'm totaly pwning this thread-you guys got nothin!)

[/ QUOTE ]

You pwn nothing, because you haven't responded to simple, succinct questions. You deflected and again resort to subjective discussions -- look at known facts first, if those can't be reconciled ( reasonably ) with the conspiracy theory then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Simple question -- why resort to complicating your conspiracy by using a cruise missle and claiming it was an airplane? When you managed to utilize at least two other airplanes and apparently ( by the conspiracy itself ) have a large amount of resources at your disposal. It makes no sense what-so-ever. Make that make sense and you may be started.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Where the hell did I say that a missile hit the pentagon? My arguments have always been based on motive, means, past pretext incidents, and the WTC. Please stop responding to this thread until you have a clue what you're talking about. (I sincerely hope this isn't all you got)

Since you seemed to have missed it the first time around, I will post it again:

There are a good number of irrational and unsupportable 9/11 theories and theorists "out there" that have been used to great effect to discredit 9/11 truth advocates as whole (Check out Rule 4 in "The Twenty-five Rules of Disinformation" to grasp the tactic and then watch it in action in Popular Mechanics' recent 9/11 smear). We are therefore also concerned about these spurious plot lines and how they are exploited, and we criticize many on our site. Every large and growing movement picks up a few noisy dunces or provocateurs in the margins, but they do not in any way invalidate the well researched evidence at its core. We only pray that those drawn to the 9/11 issue by sensationalist claims will stay long enough to learn the less theatrical but equally damning truth.

I suggest you reread this entire thread, and come back when you have a leg to stand on.

Man, you must be beginning to really hate me for pwning you so hard all the time.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 10:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of plausable explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear just one.

The fact that Silverstien (WTC owner) himself admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (WHICH TAKES WEEKS TO SET UP!!!) should be enough evidence on it's own.

(I would also like to add that I'm totaly pwning this thread-you guys got nothin!)

[/ QUOTE ]

You pwn nothing, because you haven't responded to simple, succinct questions. You deflected and again resort to subjective discussions -- look at known facts first, if those can't be reconciled ( reasonably ) with the conspiracy theory then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Simple question -- why resort to complicating your conspiracy by using a cruise missle and claiming it was an airplane? When you managed to utilize at least two other airplanes and apparently ( by the conspiracy itself ) have a large amount of resources at your disposal. It makes no sense what-so-ever. Make that make sense and you may be started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well to answer that question, you have to have a little imagination. Actually, first you have to realize that a missile did the Pentagon by looking at the evidence... otherwise it's not logical to start thinking about why the government would shoot a missile instead of crashing a plane.

First of all, here's what happened to flights 77 and 11. (http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast)

OK, so flights 77 and 11 never even took off. So they couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Why would the government shoot a missile then? That's a good question, but it's hard to give an answer that's supported by evidence... simply because of the nature of the question. I mean, why would the government do that? Not coming up with an answer doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAPPENED.

Just because a tree fell down, but we don't know why it fell down, doesn't mean it didn't fall down.

The answer is: you have to come up with your own answers to this question. I don't even have an answer, because I understand that it could be some stupid little reason that we don't know about it... i.e., maybe something happened early on 9/11 that made it so they couldn't get a plane to hit the Pentagon in time, maybe there was a malfunction with the self-flying plane they would have used (google self-flying planes and 911 for more info), maybe the plane's navigator pussied out at the last minute. Maybe they got cocky and thought it would be just easy to shoot a missile instead of flying a plane, and they knew that they could get away with it and tell the people "It was a plane. If you don't believe it, you're a moron or a terrorist."

I think you can google your question and find a plausable answer, or at least some good opinions.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 10:57 PM

Why do you bother? All the information I put out was for open-minded people to connect the dots for themselves. If you think that you're going to somehow change the minds of anyone who already believes that America was behind 911, let me assure you, you are wasting your time.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 10:57 PM

BTW, Sifmole, just because you don't get immediate answers to your questions doesn't mean we're ignoring them. I, for one, am rarely on the internet. In fact, it looks as if I've missed about 3 days worths of posts until now. This is a forum, not a telephone conversation - remember that.

mmbt0ne

06-23-2005, 10:58 PM

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. Yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of plausable explanations. This is just pure nonsense. I'm not going to argue with you because I am not an expert in this area. There are plenty of scientific papers that have been published on this. I don't pretend to understand all the theories, but they seem much more plausable than your crackpot theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

My crackpot theory?

Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures.

Fire Engineering frequently publishes technical studies of major fires and is read in more than 50,000 fire departments and schools of fire engineering across the nation.

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

Because no “real evidence” has been produced, the theory that the twin towers collapsed due to fire “could remain just unexplored theory,” Manning said.

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.

Maybe (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/)

he's (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)

not (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

crazy (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3224)

after (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc-demolition-old.htm)

all (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyer.htm)

watch the squibs shoot out from the right side (http://thewebfairy.com/video/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv)

watch the instantanious flame when the charge goes off (http://thewebfairy.com/video/charges.going.off.wmv)

this one's really cool! (http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10050/index.php)

Like I said, the evidence is simply impossible to deny. Instead of just ignorantly dismissing the evidence like everyone else, why not spend an hour or two and research this stuff for yourself. There are literally millions of intelligent rational people out there who believe the US was/is behind this. Stop turning a blind eye and just take a look for yourself. You are experiencing just about everyone's same reaction when first presented with this information. It takes a little time to fully sink in. Kind of like SSH.

However, no physical evidence alone will be able to overide your natural tendency to refute anything that goes against what you have been told and subsequently believe. For that, you have to also understand a few other things;

911 for Noobs (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814)

Top 15 reasons to doubt the official story (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post man!

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

[/ QUOTE ]

*yawn* So, I guess you're next huh? ....yada yada yada...see ALL of my posts/links to debunk any of your perposterous claims...yada yada yada *yawn*

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The WTC fires are reported to have burned at around 800degC - steel melts at around 1500degC. Yet both WTC towers collapsed in about one hour, completely, in a uniform and controlled way, straight down, in free-fall time (approx 10 secs) - ie: no resistance, regardless of no fires on any lower floors, and of the immense central column of re-inforced concrete and steel, and of the outer structural skeletal wall of hundreds of steel support beams. IF any steel did melt, then it would have caused an asymmetrical localized failure within one or two floors - which could not have resulted in the whole structure coming down. These, and the WTC building 7 were controlled demolitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of plausable explanations. This is just pure nonsense. I'm not going to argue with you because I am not an expert in this area. There are plenty of scientific papers that have been published on this. I don't pretend to understand all the theories, but they seem much more plausable than your crackpot theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

My crackpot theory?

Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures.

Fire Engineering frequently publishes technical studies of major fires and is read in more than 50,000 fire departments and schools of fire engineering across the nation.

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

Because no “real evidence” has been produced, the theory that the twin towers collapsed due to fire “could remain just unexplored theory,” Manning said.

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.

Maybe (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/)

he's (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)

not (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

crazy (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3224)

after (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc-demolition-old.htm)

all (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyer.htm)

watch the squibs shoot out from the right side (http://thewebfairy.com/video/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv)

watch the instantanious flame when the charge goes off (http://thewebfairy.com/video/charges.going.off.wmv)

this one's really cool! (http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10050/index.php)

Like I said, the evidence is simply impossible to deny. Instead of just ignorantly dismissing the evidence like everyone else, why not spend an hour or two and research this stuff for yourself. There are literally millions of intelligent rational people out there who believe the US was/is behind this. Stop turning a blind eye and just take a look for yourself. You are experiencing just about everyone's same reaction when first presented with this information. It takes a little time to fully sink in. Kind of like SSH.

However, no physical evidence alone will be able to overide your natural tendency to refute anything that goes against what you have been told and subsequently believe. For that, you have to also understand a few other things;

911 for Noobs (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814)

Top 15 reasons to doubt the official story (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post man!

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I've been totaly pwning while you were gone! It's sick!

mmbt0ne

06-23-2005, 11:06 PM

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
your perposterous claims

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer. I'll take Popular Mechanics over you. Sorry, no offense.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:11 PM

Durrrr hey mmbt0ne, I can post long annoying editorials too.

First you need to know that the north tower of the World Trade Center suffered a very serious fire on February 23, 1975. You also need to know that this fire caused no serious structural damage to the tower and that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire. The following is a report concerning the February 23, 1975 fire.

The February 23, 1975 North Tower Fire.

This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 23, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area. A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread. The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that spread over eleven floors. This was a serious fire.

Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to preform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.

The 2001 World Trade Center Tower Fires.

Videos of the towers indicate the fires of September 11, 2001, were less severe than your typical office fire. The dark colored soot in the smoke plume indicates an oxygen starved fire. Such a fire will burn well below the maximum 825 deg C (1,520 deg F) that a hydrocarbon fire can burn at when the fuel and air are mixed in perfect proportions. Of course, if the hydrocarbon is mixed in perfect proportions and burnt in pure oxygen rather than air, then temperatures of about 3,000 deg C (5,500 deg F) can be achieved.

....that's about a fourth of the whole article. (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293269268 )

06-23-2005, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you bother? All the information I put out was for open-minded people to connect the dots for themselves. If you think that you're going to somehow change the minds of anyone who already believes that America was behind 911, let me assure you, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

wacki

06-23-2005, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Good answer. I'll take Popular Mechanics over you. Sorry, but you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you bother? All the information I put out was for open-minded people to connect the dots for themselves. If you think that you're going to somehow change the minds of anyone who already believes that America was behind 911, let me assure you, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying (which you obviously are) that I am waisting my time, you're wrong! Millions have been convinced.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good answer. I'll take Popular Mechanics over you. Sorry, but you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey SpearsBritney, I think I might stop posting on this thread - mainly because of stuff like this. Or maybe I'll act like wacki by saying I'm gonna stop returning to this forum, but then I'll continue doing so only to call people names and keep repeating the words "conspiracy" and "theory" and "lunatic" and "crazy," or whatever else sounds good at the time.

Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again.

06-23-2005, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you bother? All the information I put out was for open-minded people to connect the dots for themselves. If you think that you're going to somehow change the minds of anyone who already believes that America was behind 911, let me assure you, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying (which you obviously are) that I am waisting my time, you're wrong! Millions have been convinced that you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP (thanks to Wacki for the inspiration).

mmbt0ne

06-23-2005, 11:22 PM

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
You also need to know that this fire caused no serious structural damage to the tower and that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly 2 buildings have ever been hit by an airliner for the sole purpose of demolition.

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that spread over eleven floors. This was a serious fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

At a height that was readily accessible by firefighters, and could be attended to immediately. Also, this fire didn't include any of the structural damage that a flying plane will cause when it impacts.

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to preform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plane didn't hit one floor. Also, it should be noted that a plane hitting the building would rip through all sorts of these safeguards, and the accompanying explosion would also cause a problem these modifications were probably not adequate for.

Thank you for the article, it's interesting.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your perposterous claims

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer. I'll take Popular Mechanics over you. Sorry, no offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because clearly I'm the one with the agenda, not that massive American media conglomerate.

Hearst (http://www.hearstcorp.com/) Diversified communications and media company whose interests include magazine, newspaper, and business publishing, cable networks, radio and television ...

...NEXT!

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly 2 buildings have ever been hit by an airliner for the sole purpose of demolition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know what you're getting at here.

[ QUOTE ]
At a height that was readily accessible by firefighters, and could be attended to immediately. Also, this fire didn't include any of the structural damage that a flying plane will cause when it impacts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, but I remember an article where the architect of the towers says the buildings were designed to where they could take the impact of 2 or even 3 planes without collapsing. Apparently, he doesn't believe the planes and the fires collapsed the building.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the article, it's interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very welcome, I have hundreds more available upon request.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey SpearsBritney, I think I might stop posting on this thread - mainly because of stuff like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, That's cool. I'm kind of getting bored myself. They keep coming with the same weak sh!t. We've pretty much done all that we can do. All that's left really, is to keep making them look like fools, but even that's getting tired.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you bother? All the information I put out was for open-minded people to connect the dots for themselves. If you think that you're going to somehow change the minds of anyone who already believes that America was behind 911, let me assure you, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying (which you obviously are) that I am waisting my time, you're wrong! Millions have been convinced that you're a looney.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP (thanks to Wacki for the inspiration).

[/ QUOTE ]

WEAK! FYPs as a last resort? Maybe I overestimated you.

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

mmbt0ne

06-23-2005, 11:43 PM

<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
<blockquote>En réponse à:<hr />
Thank you for the article, it's interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very welcome, I have hundreds more available upon request.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take you up on that sometime, but I'm probably lying.

This isn't really something I think about except when I click on the Politics forum. I know, it's probably a bad thing to say, but I'm more or less apathetic about things like this because
A) I can't change them
B) If I'm not supposed to know what happened, I almost certainly never will

Like I said, I'm relatively open to logical arguements on any front, but everybody is set in their beliefs, and will be hard-pressed to convert to something as polar opposite as the 2 options here.

About 98% offtopic, this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053684/104-2139241-1247962?v=glance) seems to be a pretty interesting book so far about Iran. It has some information in it about Bin Laden and associates meeting directly with head Iranian officials about planning terrorist attacks.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:44 PM

Well there is a reason I post here, besides making people look dumb. I don't know how to explain it, but I think this guy does. (http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page &PAGE_id=54) Here's a quote from the article, explaining why I feel that I need to spread the word:

If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there’s a real chance you’re going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we’re all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what’s behind the fantasy curtain.

wacki

06-23-2005, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering...

man this sucks... I have to stop.

wacki

06-23-2005, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good point, but I remember an article where the architect of the towers says the buildings were designed to where they could take the impact of 2 or even 3 planes without collapsing. Apparently, he doesn't believe the planes and the fires collapsed the building.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. NOVA interviewed the architect I watched him talk about it. *tries not to insert conspiracy joke*

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the article, it's interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very welcome, I have hundreds more available upon request.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take you up on that sometime, but I'm probably lying.

This isn't really something I think about except when I click on the Politics forum. I know, it's probably a bad thing to say, but I'm more or less apathetic about things like this because
A) I can't change them
B) If I'm not supposed to know what happened, I almost certainly never will

Like I said, I'm relatively open to logical arguements on any front, but everybody is set in their beliefs, and will be hard-pressed to convert to something as polar opposite as the 2 options here.

About 98% offtopic, this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053684/104-2139241-1247962?v=glance) seems to be a pretty interesting book so far about Iran. It has some information in it about Bin Laden and associates meeting directly with head Iranian officials about planning terrorist attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I feel ya. At least you can explain how you truely feel about all this, as opposed to the rest of the posters here.

Yeah it seems like you can't do anything about it, but it's like voting - you have a small voice, but a voice nonetheless. I've educated many friends and family about how we're gradually becoming a fascist police state - which is something almost impossible to argue with, all you gotta do is watch the news to see it. It's all about getting the word out. That's all we can do. People are planning a million man march on DC to impeach Bush(impeachBush.org). Of course, this is only a small step, but it's a step nonetheless. And more and more people are seeing how crooked the Patriot Act is - Dubya is having to defend it against more than half the country now. You see, we're not powerless.

Cumulonimbus

06-23-2005, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a good point, but I remember an article where the architect of the towers says the buildings were designed to where they could take the impact of 2 or even 3 planes without collapsing. Apparently, he doesn't believe the planes and the fires collapsed the building.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. NOVA interviewed the architect I watched him talk about it. *tries not to insert conspiracy joke*

[/ QUOTE ]

What did he say? I got my info from Alex Jones, maybe he just twisted his words around.

wacki

06-24-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What did he say? I got my info from Alex Jones, maybe he just twisted his words around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read alex jones words but.....

quick search on google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ig&q=architect+wtc+airplane+fu el&btnG=Google+Search)

From a respectable yet very antibush source (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/wtc.architect.cnna/)

Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn't travel to the other stories.

HARRIS: The planes that crashed yesterday were much bigger than that. They were 757s.

SWIRSKY: And also the fuel capacity is much more tremendous.

HARRIS: Exactly. That's what I want to ask you about. Which was it that made the biggest difference? Was it the impact felt from the larger plane, or was it the heat generated by the burning and that much fuel.

SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was (concerned).

You will find all of the architects say the EXACT SAME THING..

So, please tell us, how badly did your source twist his words?

Now think for a second. How reliable is Alex Jones? BTW, Alex Jones has apparantly made a lot of money by selling his conspiracy theory.

Cumulonimbus

06-24-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Now think for a second. How reliable is Alex Jones? BTW, Alex Jones has apparantly made a lot of money by selling his conspiracy theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I already thought about this, which is why I immediately doubted his report in my post. I dont rely on a lot of his stuff, actually.

Whether or not the WTC architect said he thinks they'll fall because of planes or not doesn't matter enough to debunk the whole theory. Yes, there are architects who believe the planes would take all THREE buidlings down, and there are many who don't. My dad is one of them. I'm studying architecture, but I don't think I know enough yet to make a valid claim about it.

Cumulonimbus

06-24-2005, 12:38 AM

BTW, if anybody cares, here's a link (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2005062112075570) that might illustrate how few people it would take to pull off 9/11.

Cumulonimbus

06-24-2005, 01:03 AM

By the way, it seems like you guys are starting to doubt my links. Here's where I get most of my links. (http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/index.html)

SpearsBritney

06-24-2005, 01:10 AM

Wacki, you have displayed atleast moderate interest in this thread. I would like you to think about these few points if you haven't read the whole thread:

Crackpot Theory (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2705961&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

Perfect Collapse (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2708378&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

Motive (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2709467&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

Controlled Demolition (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2709112&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

What Are The Odds? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2708169&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

Growing Skepticism (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2706192&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

These pretty much sum up any argument I would otherwise try to make from here on in.

guller

06-24-2005, 08:16 AM

So did the gov. also kill all of the ground crew that normally worked on flights 11 & 77 (baggage handlers, ticket counter, flaggers, pushers, mechanics, skychef)? How come their families haven't reported them missing? Do you think American Airlines is really a secret wing of the CIA?

Oh wait, I need to have an open mind right! I think you mean empty head, this is so obviously crackpot.

Cumulonimbus

06-24-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So did the gov. also kill all of the ground crew that normally worked on flights 11 & 77 (baggage handlers, ticket counter, flaggers, pushers, mechanics, skychef)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

SpearsBritney

06-24-2005, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Oh wait, I need to have an open mind right! I think you mean empty head, this is so obviously crackpot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/) (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head.

SpearsBritney

06-24-2005, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering...

man this sucks... I have to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them.

Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11.

Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)

Cumulonimbus

06-24-2005, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering...

man this sucks... I have to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them.

Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11.

Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)

[/ QUOTE ]

SMACK! All you guys need to seriously read this article - it's short so you have no excuse.

After you're done, ask yourself how much of this is really a crackpot idea.

SpearsBritney

06-24-2005, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering...

man this sucks... I have to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them.

Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11.

Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)

[/ QUOTE ]

SMACK! All you guys need to seriously read this article - it's short so you have no excuse.

After you're done, ask yourself how much of this is really a crackpot idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

And after you're done that, go back and review all of the evidence again, especially the WTC collapse.

You guys think I'm just some paranoid nutcase. But I'm not the least bit afraid. In fact, I believe this is the better of the two scenarios. I am a lot more comfortable knowing it was the government using it to promote their political agenda, than suspiciously staring down every Arab and Muslim, waiting for the next big "terrorist attack" to happen.

Benal

06-24-2005, 05:50 PM

I cant believe I read most of this thread. What a waste of time.

Six_of_One

06-24-2005, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/) (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I've been reading this whole thread without responding, but this last comment you made is just ridiculous. I read the entire link you provided, and all I found was somebody's opinion of what some clouds of dust look like, and a bunch of speculation. Nothing even close to proof of anything at all.

Promise me that you believe the moon landing really happened, you don't think there are aliens at Area 51, and you don't think the Illuminati is secretly running the world, and I'd be more inclined to take you seriously.

Otherwise, I heard the Bilderbergs and Bohemian Grove are having a party in the left nostril of the face on Mars. Get in touch with Kissinger, maybe you can swing an invite.

SpearsBritney

06-24-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/) (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I've been reading this whole thread without responding, but this last comment you made is just ridiculous. I read the entire link you provided, and all I found was somebody's opinion of what some clouds of dust look like, and a bunch of speculation. Nothing even close to proof of anything at all.

Promise me that you believe the moon landing really happened, you don't think there are aliens at Area 51, and you don't think the Illuminati is secretly running the world, and I'd be more inclined to take you seriously.

Otherwise, I heard the Bilderbergs and Bohemian Grove are having a party in the left nostril of the face on Mars. Get in touch with Kissinger, maybe you can swing an invite.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/) (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head.

[/ QUOTE ]

For many people, including some of the leading demolition experts in their first unguarded moments, the initial appearance of the collapses alone left no question that these were controlled demolitions.

But you would know better, I guess.

Some of these, for example the south tower pictures below, show clear rings of explosions running completely around the building just below the point of collapse.

In other pictures we see extremely energetic ejection of debris that simply cannot be accounted for by gravitational forces.

Many of these images show the explosive nature of the collapses, the violent ejection of large amounts of powdered concrete and shattered steel and the huge pyroclastic clouds formed.

What is especially striking in the collapse of both towers is the enormous volume of material being ejected early in the collapse, and the quantity of shattered steel thrown out ahead of the dust clouds. Much of this broken steel consists of neatly chopped one-story long pieces of the perimeter columns, 14" square steel box columns that are assembled in three-story sections. These columns are also welded to 52" deep plates along each floor, but have somehow been broken free of these at the same time they are chopped up and ejected at high speed. --(are you stupid?) This combination of shattered debris with dust and smoke ejected at high speed makes for a textbook picture of the effects of high explosives.

As the author notes it is very peculiar that the top section, having begun tilting to the south, did not continue to topple and land far to the south of the tower. Needless to say, had this happened the damage to other buildings in the area would have been vastly greater.

Conservation of angular momentum requires that an object continue to rotate around its center of mass once set in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. Even if the tower beneath it had completely given way, leaving it nothing more to push against laterally, the rotation once started would not abruptly stop. But the top section does not stop rotating and drop straight down, as some have claimed. What does in fact happen is that the top section breaks up internally so that it no longer behaves as a rigid object, relieving it of the obligation to conserve angular momentum.. By turning into a slurry of concrete dust and shattered steel the rotation becomes dissipated into the motion of what is essentially a fluid.

Why the top would collapse on itself in this manner is very difficult to explain on the basis of a simple plane damage and heat-induced collapse. It would require the entire top section to lose all internal mechanical strength just at the moment it started to topple, at the same time that its thirty one-acre slabs of 4" thick concrete were turned to dust. To accomplish this without explosives would be very difficult indeed.

Instead of the kind of slow start we would expect near the beginning of a gravitational collapse we see high speed “demolition waves” coming directly toward us, with another set shooting out to the left, from the east side of the building. These are exactly the sort of confluent rows of small explosions that are so characteristic of a controlled demolition, and can be seen emerging in flat rings extending all the way around the tower and propagating rapidly downward.

Your denial of this (and other) evidence, is simply you not being able to grasp the concept that your government would do such a thing. Period.

Seriously, what's wrong with you? How can you ignore a single word of that?