who were behind 9/11?

Tom, I too believe that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down. When the plane abruptly changed course over Cleveland (it was already known by this time that it had been hijacked) two fighters were scrambled from the airforce base in Dayton, Ohio. They would've caught up with this plane precisely where the plane went down.
Also, there is reason to believe that the order had already been given. It's not clear if Bush had given the order, but it's fairly certain that Cheney had.
Moreover, Rumsfeld, in a press conference mentioned, "when the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down" then, after realizing what he just said, corrected himself. There's no reason to believe that the plane couldn't have been shot down, it has been a long standing policy to do such, just never been enforced before. If you recall a few years ago the situation with the golfer in a private plane that was flying around aimlessly over the midwest and ultimately crashed (they had lost pressure and everyone on board fell unconscious) the order had already been given to shoot it down, they were just waiting until it the debris would fall into a less populated area before shooting it down. However, the plane began to plummet before they had the opportunity they wanted to shoot it down. I think the administration just does not want to admit that they are responsible for the incident over Pennsylvania. Of course, it is entirely reasonable that they did not shoot it down, I just feel that, after three planes had been used as missles, they didn't want to take any chances and brought it down. By the way, it is possible to take a plane down without it breaking up into a million pieces.

[zipo]

>>I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.<<

Personally, I think it may well have been shot down also.

Tough to make the decision to do that, but I don't know of a viable alternative.

[Cumulonimbus]

It seems you guys think that the collapsing of the towers is the main piece of evidence of the conspiracy theorists. Regardless of what brought the buildings down, (even though there is much evidence and many news reports of "bombs" in the building, including police claiming that there was a bomb in a white van in the basement of one of the towers, the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING, and even though frame-by-frame analysis shows explosions popping out the columns just like a demolition) this is only one claim.

There's many many more pieces out there and I encourage you all to not only focus on the destruction of the towers, but on the other claims as well. Explore the links I gave, at least.

-Kyle

EDIT - I guess what I'm trying to say is view all these evidences as a collective whole instead of tearing apart a single piece of evidence. There's plenty of evidence out there for you to form a story in your head of what really happened, not what our warmonger-leaders and their news stations tell you. Spend your time researching it instead of arguing in a forum. It will lead nowhere but more arguments!

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING,

[/ QUOTE ]

Pulling the building could either mean evacuating the building or pulling fire hoses on the building.

debunking silly ideas one at a time,
Melch

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING,

[/ QUOTE ]

Pulling the building could either mean evacuating the building or pulling fire hoses on the building.

posting really silly ideas with a closed mind one at a time,
Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[TroutMaskReplica]

I wasn't going to wade into this mess because i don't believe in a conspiracy the likes of which is alleged by the movie OP links to, but there are a few details which continue to trouble me.

this one I'm throwing out there just because I've never seen anyone really make a deal of it in the media or anyone respond to it satisfactorily when I've brought it up in conversation: why did Bush claim (on at least two occasions) that he saw the first plane fly into the WTC on TV before entering the classroom in Florida? (there was no footage of the first plane crashing until a day or two later - that of the french crew shooting the documentary on the rookie firemen).

i bring this up from time to time with friends because it's always bugged me...some folks brush it off - typical bush, he meant something other than he said, or "you *know* what he meant", but
a) he said this on more than one occasion, and
b) let's face it, it was a pretty historical moment, one I can personally remember quite clearly four years later (Bush made the comments below only three months later)
c) he told the 9/11 commission a different story, or at least Andrew Card did (the report says that Karl Rove informed him a twin-engine plane had crashed into the towers a few minutes before he entered the classroom)

I find it implausible that he could be confused about these details a mere three months later. What does it mean? I don't know, but I suspect that this president is a liar. (For the sake of bi-partisanship I will add "like the president before him")

[ QUOTE ]
I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

source

And what is a collapsing building supposed to sound like? Is it going to be silent? Its going to be very loud with lots of popping and bomb-like noises. There are going to be explosions as trusses and beams break. All that air that is being compressed has to go somewhere. So yes, its looks and souns like a demolition, but doesn't mean there was one.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
And what is a collapsing building supposed to sound like? Is it going to be silent? Its going to be very loud with lots of popping and bomb-like noises. There are going to be explosions as trusses and beams break. All that air that is being compressed has to go somewhere. So yes, its looks and souns like a demolition, but doesn't mean there was one.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, thx for the logic: the fact that 9/11 looked and sounded like an foreign terrorist attack, doesnt mean there was one

[Marnixvdb]

Banks,

I have still not had a decent explanation from you how building 7 collapsed due to fire damage, and the damage from falling debris.

I know that high rise buildings are designed to withstand prolonged periods of fire. The video of the collapse does not show a building heavily on fire. I know that a building collapses assymmetrically when the damage is assymetrical. The video of the collapse shows a perfect symmetrical collapse.

You asked me: "Do you expect a building to tip over like a tree" as if it is very obvious buildings don't tip over. This makes me question your expertise, since in designing high-rise buildings the most challenging aspects of the construction is preventing the buildings from tipping over. Transfering the vertical loads is easy, making the building rigid to withstand horizontal forces and torques is the challenge.

So, from my expertise, I know that

1) Fire can damage the steel, causing it to loose strength, warp and deform the construction. This is a gradual process, that may eventually reach a point where parts of the support system fail
2) A single failure in the support system should never lead to inmediate collapse of the entire system.
3) Partial failure of the support system should always be visible before it is critical
4) A total collapse of a medium to high rise will thus always start with partial failure of the support system, and therefore start gradually and progress assymetrically.

Once again I ask you to prove my points wrong. I am interested in it, because of my professional backgrounds, and I'd be happy to hear a believable explanation on how fire cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did. So far, I haven't heard one yet, that isnt highly unlikely.

I hope we can have a technical discussion on this, disregarding the implications that any conclusion might have. Could prove to be interesting for both of us.

ty,

Marnix

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I'm trying to say is view all these evidences as a collective whole instead of tearing apart a single piece of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know of a much better way to tear down someone's argument than by attacking their supporting evidence. Now you want us to lay off that so your precious theory is perserved. Nice try.