9/11

NetsNJFan wrote: ^ thanks for the perspective Tony R I really don't think Bush planned these.  Even that arrogant bastard looked pretty shaken after the attacks, not something I think he could fake, hes kind of dumb in my opinion.

That crossed my mind too Nets.He looked kind of dumb,but would have rehearsed a more "Presidential" reaction if it was all pre-planned.....

Two things to remember about Conspiracy Theories:

1.They are just a theory.
2.They presume a conspiracy.

They prove nothing and can present no facts only interpretation.You can see anything you want in a picture if you stare at it long enough.

This statement for example:

Second, If you watch carefully as the buildings collapse, you will see that smoke and debris are being ejected outward  - and sometimes upward - from the building.  True, some smoke would come out that way, and perhaps even a little bit of debris.  But we are talking about stuff flying out at high speed.  Only an explosion could produce that effect.

Says who?

Maani cannot know this ( I presume.....),so he is taking the word of someone else.How many toppling Skyscrapers can anyone have seen? Enough to know how they will behave in any given set of circumstances.How many collapsing Skyscrapers would one need to see in order to become an expert?

There is a word for this: SPECULATION.

I love all this stuff and have eagerly read all the links. Thanks very much Maani.
It makes for a great story-possibly the second greatest ever told...

NetsNJFan wrote: gdub411 wrote: Maani. Quit abusing your powers, unstick this thread and let it take its natural course. Quit forcing your radical leftist ideals/beliefs down everyone's throats on this forum.

I am not sure what is so damned funny. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough yet. I am not saying Maani isn't entitled to his opinions and if he thought a certain story was relevant enough to peak the interest of the forum members, then, by all means, go ahead and start the thread. But by making it sticky, he is saying that this thread is more relevant than others. Can we expect that from every Admin guy? Will Useful Idiot start a thread on Tool and make it sticky because he likes the band? I just think this is dangerous behavior is all.

Dreamer said:

"...So much of what happened doesnt make sense. First, the "Black box" of the two planes was never found in the wreckage, even though it is fireproof, but the passports of the highjackers were found in less than 48 hours, and were in a goos enough state to show the pictures and details of the "suspects."

I would add that although the intelligence community (an oxymoron, if ever there was one) somehow completely failed to predict the attacks, they had the names and photos of all 19 hijackers within 48 hours!  And this, despite the fact that many of them were not even on the passenger manifests!  As an aside, it might interest you to know that at least 4 or 5 of the hijackers (who were all supposedly killed in the attacks) were found alive in Saudi Arabia less than five months later - though even this "news" was not reported until over a year after the attacks.

Also, if you look at the footage of the twin towers collapsing it is collapsing in the most unnatural way, it looks just like demolition... The twin towers collapsed straight down. Also the twin towers were the only steel frame buildings to ever collapse due to a fire. some skyscrapers burned for days, but never collapsed.

Here again, there is evidence "in plain sight" - or, in this case, hearing.  If you remember the news reports occurring at the time - i.e., during the events - you will hear many of the anchorpersons and announcers talking about "a series of explosions" just prior to the collapse of the towers.  Yet no one thought about what this might mean.  In addition, in the film by those two Frenchman - one of whom got trapped with some fireman on the mezzanine of building 2 after the collapse of building 1 - just before the collapse, you can actually hear a series of explosion, and see the reaction of the fireman who is on camera at the time.

Also, it is instructive to note that there was a 65-story steel and glass building that burned out of control - with a full 10-15 floors on fire - for over 18 hours.  Yet it never collapsed.  Take a look at the second photo at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Another problem is Bin Laden. I dont see how the US army, which is the most developed, well financed, and biggest in the world cant catch one single person...The way i see it, Bin Laden is not caught simply because Bush doesnt want to catch him. I remember an event in 2003 where the army had him trapped in a mountains, but just let him run away!"

Let's not forget that it was the U.S. who supplied bin Laden and his "insurgents" with arms during the first Afghanistan war against the Russians.  (There is even some evidence that bin Laden was a CIA informant during that time.)  Thus, we "created" bin Laden, but then, like Dr. Frankenstein, we could not control him.  And yes, you are right about having him "in our sights" and simply letting him go.  You are also correct that if we wanted to capture him, we could.  Do you remember that Bush was super gung-ho about capturing bin Laden immediately after the attacks.  But then, less than a year later, he basically said that bin Laden wasn't worth going after?  This was, of course, only after Bush had made the phony connection between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in order to "sell" the war to the American people.

Re the collapse of the towers, you need only watch any video footage of the towers immediately following the plane crashes to see a few very obvious things.

First, within a very short time after the crashes, the smoke coming out of the towers was mostly black.  This indicates a fuel-starved fire.  That is, once the initial diesel fuel burned off - and even the government's experts say that it is likely that over 80% burned off as a result of the initial explosions - there was simply too little for the fire to "live on," so within a very short time the smoke went from grayish-white to dark gray-black.

Second, If you watch carefully as the buildings collapse, you will see that smoke and debris are being ejected outward  - and sometimes upward - from the building.  True, some smoke would come out that way, and perhaps even a little bit of debris.  But we are talking about stuff flying out at high speed.  Only an explosion could produce that effect.

Third, the building fell at what is termed "free-fall" speed: i.e., as if there was no structural support whatsoever.  This is virtually impossible without explosives.  Indeed, why no mention of the entire internal "core structure?"  This core contained multiple steel columns in groups of 8.  Thus, even had the concrete floors "pancaked" around the core, it would have left the internal "core" standing.  Yet the core itself was reduced to splinters.  This is exactly what a controlled demolition is supposed to do so that the building can collapse properly.

It might interest you to know that, in the 9/11 Commission Report, the Commission completely ignores the existence of the internal core.  It is as if the floors were simply suspended in mid-air except for the perimeter structure.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that, under the guise of finding bodies and simply wanting to "rebuild," no serious investigation was done of what was in every real sense a "crime scene."  Instead, all the debris was carted off as quickly as possible, without anyone having a chance to inspect it for traces of explosives, etc.

The very fact of the unbelievably "shocking" nature of the events blinded all of us to what was occurring right in front of our eyes; i.e., we were so caught up in the shock and emotional aspects of the events that it was impossible for us to focus on the details.  And that is as it should be.

However, now that the shock has worn off, it is incumbent upon us to take a closer look, and see if what we were told is actually what happened.  And contrary to the belief of some members, this is not "conspiracy theory" for conspiracy theory's sake.  It is, in effect, "the people" (including experts in all related fields) doing the investigative work that the government should have done in the first place.  Maybe these alternative theory(ies) are correct, and maybe they are not.  But to simply ignore both the facts and the hard and circumstantial evidence that has been mounting is to put on blinders and bury our heads in the sand.

At least one member has accused me of deliberately fomenting "conspiracy-type thinking," with some nefarious intent.  However, I do not pretend to have all the answers, or even some of them.  I am simply providing a forum in which this topic - the movement for which is growing globally at an accelerating pace - can be talked about and debated.

I fully expect some of you to be extremely angered by it, and consider many of us "conspiracy kooks."  However, we are not 'kooks."  We are simply willing keep an open mind, and to entertain an alternative theory of the events of 9/11 based on facts and evidence.  You are free to reject this, and/or to provide evidence that refutes ours.

For more info on the structural nature of the towers, and specifically the "core," go to:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-lied-a bout-trusses.htm

Peace.

Man Overboard wrote: 202-456-1414 Someone should ring the White House, that's the number.

I'd rather give Cheney's personal cell a ring. Though I'm sure it's probably busy with calls from former employees of Exxon Mobile lobbying their "energy plans" to pocket quick cash before the people of the US realize that they are being royally f***ed by the oil industry and rise as one and slay the CEOs of the companies in said industry.

[/QUOTE]

yes they were fireproof, but I don't think they could withstand the intense heat and pressure of the collapsing buildings

[/QUOTE]

Yes but my point was, that if it was so intensley hot, how could they have no problem finding the passports of the highjackers, in a state that is actaully readable? It would surely burn a lot quicker than the fireproof boxes.

NetsNJFan wrote: rather I think it is merely incomptence on the part the Bush Admin.  Clinton had many anti-terrorism programs and actions in place which Bush (and Condoleeza Rice) largely ignored when he came into office.  Since then we have seen more incompetence in this war on terror.

Hope you're not falling for the good cop (Clinton) bad cop (Bush) routine ... let me quote Dream Theater:

"... who would wish this on our people ..."

I sure hope that nobody in your government would.

I have been very interested in this "conspiracy theories" for a very long time, simply because so much of what happened doesnt make sense. First, the "Black box" of the two planes was never found in the wreckage, even though it is fireproof, but the passports of the highjackers were found in less than 48 hours, and were in a goos enough state to show the pictures and details of the "suspects"

Also, if you look at the footage of the twin towers collapsing it is collapsing in the most unnatural way, it looks just like demolition... The twin towers collapsed straight down. Also the twin towers were the only steel frame buildings to ever collapse due to a fire. some skyscrapers burned for days, but never collapsed.

Another problem is Bin Laden. I dont see how the US army, which is the most developed, well financed, and biggest in the world cant catch one single person. The way I see it, if the USA wants something done, it is done. It has satalites, helicopters and thousands of troops ready, SO WHY DIDNT THEY CATCH HIM YET? If it was urgent for bush, Bin laden would be caught in a week. He's walking in the mountains, so couldnt they just take some satelite pictures and find his exactl location? (tell me if I am missing something, cause I am really no expert).

The way i see it, Bin Laden is not caught simply because Bush doesnt want to catch him. I remember an event in 2003 where the army had him trapped in a mountains, but just let him run away!

I think the "official story" is very far from the truth, the problem is proving the US government wrong which would be impossible under Bush's laws.

Barbs:

First, this thread is not "going" anywhere.  Nor am I making any "prediction" about the Antichrist, the "end times" or the "second coming."  I'm not even sure where you are getting that from.

Second, I never stated that George Bush was a "dumba**."  And even if I believe he is, don't forget that he has surrounded himself with "daddy's" people, who are far from being dumba**es: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, even Rice.  I'm not saying Bush is necessarily a "puppet," though others have said so.  But he, personally, doesn't need to be "smart enough" to "pull off" 9/11: he need only have a vested interest in doing it, and have people around him with an equally vested interest and the ability to pull it off.  There is no question that that is the case here.  Say what you will about Cheney, he is among the greatest strategists of this or any administration.  Rumsfeld is no slouch either.

Finally, the Orson Welles broadcast was a "one-off" event that was not only stated (four times during the program) as being a radio play, but within 24-48 hours anyone who wasn't sure at the time found out it was just a radio show.  No one - not Welles, not the radio station, etc. - made an attempt to claim it was anything else.

9/11 was also a "one-off" event (of sorts).  However, in this case, the government came up with their "official story" in less than 48 hours.  And they stuck to that story, dismissing any other scenario at all, despite the fact that not all the evidence was in yet.  That is a very different thing than what Orson Welles did.

James:

Re Pearl Harbor, it is my understanding that Roosevelt did not know the exact location of the air strike, but only that the Japanese intended to bomb a "U.S. naval facility."  My understanding is that he assumed that it would be Guam, since that was the closest naval facility to Japan.  However, as you infer, whether or not he knew that the specific target was Pearl Harbor, he was willing to allow U.S. servicepersons to be killed (and U.S. naval vessels to be destroyed) so the U.S. would have a legitimate reason for entering the war.

Dreamer:

Thank you for bringing in yet another big piece of the puzzle, and yet more evidence that the "official story" is hogwash.  I was going to bring up the Pentagon next, but felt that people needed time to "digest" simply the general gist of this thread.  Still, it is one of the clearest, most understandable pieces of evidence to support an alternative theory of 9/11.

For those not aware, here are some of the facts: and I say "facts" because no one, not even the government, has disputed them: indeed, some of these facts were corroborated in the 9/11 Commission Report.  The claim, of course, is that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon:

-A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of over 124 feet, a length of between 155 and 178 feet, and a tail height of 44 feet (about four-and-a-half stories).

-The hole made by the impact of whatever hit the Pentagon was just over 60 feet wide, and less than three stories tall.

-Virtually no wreckage was found, either inside or outside the Pentagon.

-The lawn directly in front of the impact zone showed no signs of "trauma": burning, scraping, etc.  It remained virtually "pristine."

-Something left a perfectly round hole (about the size of a missile) almost 100 feet from the impact zone.

The plane had to do a 270 degree turn in order to hit the impact zone.  In this regard, note the following:

-Hundreds of veteran commercial pilots have said that they would have trouble executing a turn like that, so it is unlikely in the extreme that a "new" pilot could do it.

-The impact zone was the only place in the entire Pentagon that was "fortified."  Indeed, by "sheer coincidence," that part of the building had only just undergone a renovation that included bombproof windows and extra structural support.  As an aside, because this part of the building was under renovation, it had the least number of people in it.

-The impact zone was on the exact other side of the building - as far away as possible - from where the top brass of the Pentagon have their offices, including Rumsfeld, who was in the building at the time.

-By "sheer coincidence," the "airborne intruder security system" - which would have shot the plane out of the sky long before it crashed into the building - had been shut-off that very day for "routine maintenance."

As noted, everything stated above is undisputed fact, and much of it is even included in the 9/11 Commission Report.  Yet from these facts alone, one has to think twice before blindly accepting the "official story."

For more info on this aspect of the events of 9/11, see:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/inside.html

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm