who were behind 9/11?

[BCPVP]

FWIW, I have talked to a firefighter who was at the Pentagon. She said it was a plane and she hates Bush. Uber-liberal, so she has no reason to cover for the administration. She even ragged on people like Rumsfeld for trying to "help" while they were really just in the way.

Cumolo, you do see a huge difference between the Pentagon building and Slobodan's house, right? Like the fact that a good chunk of the face of the building is on fire in the Pentagon, but in Slobodan's house the damage is mostly interior (makes sense, the missle penetrates and then explodes). There's hardly any fire damage to Slobodan's house. How can you make that comparison?

i was at a party once, and there was a guy there who had worked for the green party. anyway, on 9/11 he was staying at some hotel near the pentagon, i think he said it was the sheraton, anyway, he said he was in his room, heard a roar, looked out and saw a plane flying really low. then like 30 seconds later, loud explosion. unrelated conversation revealed him to be pretty anti bush. in any event, there are tons of witnesses who saw the plane which hit the pentagon as it made its final approach. if you want to jump on a conspirocy theory, go with the, "yeah it was planes, but the cia/mossad orchestrated the attack" Also, think about the logistics if this were an inside job. We cant even kidnap arabs in europe. tortue and fly them around without getting found out. NO WAY we could pull this off.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I think you are one of the guys paid by CIA to post such stories on the internet.

(just kidding)

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are any of these Yanks.

Mack

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[wh1t3bread]

Try playing golf on this:

[Exsubmariner]

Post to the OP:
I watched your whole video. Interesting.

I have a couple of questions for you. These are proceeding from the standpoint that this production is, at face value accurate. I am also making the assumption that the producers of this video are in no way interested in perpetuation of this theory because they have an interest in making a living off of it.

First Question: What is to be gained by whom for pulling off this sort of coup?
Second Question: Once that objective is gained, what are they going to do with it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: the following quote is from the article

"NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence."

Funny. It seems like the author and you agree on not drawing conclusions on too small sample sizes.

I would still be interested to hear from you, from your fire-prevention expertise, how the fire in building 7 caused it to implode in the way it did.

Marnix

[Andrew Fletcher]

Best. Response. Ever.

Go White Soxs, by the way! Who do you like for the super bowl? I'm with Indy.