who were behind 9/11?

[Andrew Fletcher]

I have yet to meet a liberal who isn't completely insane who actually thinks that. Frankly, the right has a lot more to gain from these conspiaracy theories than the left.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Good questions. The attack would create huge national and international support for (inter)national operations that could be linked to the attack, enabling the group of people in charge to chase geopolitical interests that go hand in hand with vested personal interests in the companies profiting from the operations. This, in the middle long term, would enable this group of people to lead U.S. to worldwide economic and military dominance, and to keep hold of the leadership.

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Good questions. The attack would create huge national and international support for (inter)national operations that could be linked to the attack, enabling the group of people in charge to chase geopolitical interests that go hand in hand with vested personal interests in the companies profiting from the operations. This, in the middle long term, would enable this group of people to lead U.S. to worldwide economic and military dominance, and to keep hold of the leadership. [\quote]

Why is this a bad thing, for me as a US citizen, that is?
Why would it be a bad thing for the citizens of US allied countries?
Would there perhaps be a broader objective than just simple military and economic dominance, which the US already obtained at the end of the cold war?


[ QUOTE ]

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I remember watching on ABC news on 9/11 and the announcers said that WTC7 was intentionally detonated because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1&2. I don't know if that adds anything to the discussion or proves or disproves anything.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

But what I don't get and is one of the many reasons why I don't believe in this conspiracy is that it wasn't necessary. If Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan, he would not meet much international opposition anyway. And it was not made in a way to justify an attack on Iraq either. The only one benefiting from such an attack would be Al-Qaida.....

[MelchyBeau]

i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this a bad thing, for me as a US citizen, that is?
Why would it be a bad thing for the citizens of US allied countries?
Would there perhaps be a broader objective than just simple military and economic dominance, which the US already obtained at the end of the cold war?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bad thing would be that you'd be submitted by a leadership that decieves, lies and kills to pursuit their personal, financial and political objectives.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I remember watching on ABC news on 9/11 and the announcers said that WTC7 was intentionally detonated because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1&2. I don't know if that adds anything to the discussion or proves or disproves anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to have been brought down, but it's impossible to prepare a controlled demolition in a single day. If they took it down on 9/11, that was prepared. The official government reports concluded that fire and damage from falling debris caused the building to collapse, an explanation that is unsatisfactory. The fires were relatively small, the building stood quite far away from the towers, and even if the fire and the indirect damage would have caused the collapse, it would never cause the building to implode perfectly on its own footprint, as far as I can judge from my professional background.

[Exsubmariner]

"The bad thing would be that you'd be submitted by a leadership that decieves, lies and kills to pursuit their personal, financial and political objectives."

Doesn't everybody?
I submit that I am already no matter who is in charge. Please name a political figure in history where this has not been true.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv my reaction to most of the presented claims is the same as yours, but I cannot explain parts of the story. Just looking for answers. Do you understand the collapse of WTC7?

In his speech on november 10th to the General Assembly, Bush stressed "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

This struck me as odd at the time it was broadcasted. What was his motive to say that? What bad would outrageous conspiracy theories do?

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is not that fire cannot take a building down, but by the strict engineering standards for high-rise buildings it should take much longer for fire (even when huge) to cause critical damage to the core construction. Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

But let's accept fire caused it to collapse. How would the damage cause the perfect collapse? That is my concern. I can see parts of the building losing support, collapsing, extending damage to oher parts of the construction and collapsing gradually in a chain of events. But not symmetrically, superfast and on its own footprint. That would be highly unlikely, wouldnt it?