Just wanted to bring this to your attention:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm

Peace.

Wow... if what he is saying is true (and it really seems to be)...

Man Overboard wrote: ...but I have a feeling that if I called the White House's public line and asked what they thought of Stanley Hilton, I'd "disappear" within the week.

I have to agree with you. America has truly declined into a dark age...

Hmmm - very interesting. However, I take it with a small grain of salt. Seems very much like a "conspiracy theory" in my opinion.

Cheers

Hangedman wrote: I do believe that 9/11 was let to happen, but do not have enough proof to preach it, let alone preaching that it was orderd. But that was certainly VERY interesting.

Unfortunately, i agree with you.

Man Overboard wrote: Look at the guy's credentials.  If anyone's *not* a conspiracy theorist, it's him. Also: Epilogue: Stanley Hilton is a San Francisco, California, based attorney, political scientist, and former chief of staff for Bob Dole. Hilton gained notoriety and condemnation as a 'conspiracy theorist' for filing a $7 billion class action lawsuit, in 2002, against United States President George W. Bush, members of his administration (including Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld) and others, on behalf of taxpayers and members of 9/11 victims' families, alleging Bush administration complicity in allowing the September 11, 2001 attack. The case was thrown out of federal court over two years later, because the judge reasoned US citizens do not have any right to hold a sitting President accountable, based on the 'Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity'.

he may have credentials, but until i see the documents myself and decide for myself, that allegation is a conspiracy theory. It is just so f***ing evil. That's like Kim Jong Ill evil. I can see this happen at the hand of Cheney, but Bush is too ignorant to think of a such a large-scale conspiracy. But I do believe that America is corrups at almost every level and I do not trust the government the slightest bit.

Also, aliens are real. I was abducted 2 years ago in May. They gave me candy and read me a story.

stonebeard wrote: Man Overboard wrote: Look at the guy's credentials.  If anyone's *not* a conspiracy theorist, it's him. Also: Epilogue: Stanley Hilton is a San Francisco, California, based attorney, political scientist, and former chief of staff for Bob Dole. Hilton gained notoriety and condemnation as a 'conspiracy theorist' for filing a $7 billion class action lawsuit, in 2002, against United States President George W. Bush, members of his administration (including Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld) and others, on behalf of taxpayers and members of 9/11 victims' families, alleging Bush administration complicity in allowing the September 11, 2001 attack. The case was thrown out of federal court over two years later, because the judge reasoned US citizens do not have any right to hold a sitting President accountable, based on the 'Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity'. he may have credentials, but until i see the documents myself and decide for myself, that allegation is a conspiracy theory. It is just so f***ing evil. That's like Kim Jong Ill evil. I can see this happen at the hand of Cheney, but Bush is too ignorant to think of a such a large-scale conspiracy. But I do believe that America is corrups at almost every level and I do not trust the government the slightest bit. Also, aliens are real. I was abducted 2 years ago in May. They gave me candy and read me a story.

I have no doubt that aliens are real.  But what interest would they have in our backwater, p.o.s. planet?  They only gave you candy and read you a story, what no anal probe?

I agree with you, Bush is an incompetent moron who doesn't have the brains or balls to be truly evil, and that's why I'm voting for Palpatine next election (now there's a man who kicks *ss and takes names).  And attorneys in America love to make frivolous claims because they get a third of the take if they can find a judge and jury who are idiots enough to listen to them.  Hilton just got a judge who was a little bit smarter than that and not going to put up with the b.s.

All:

I am curious.  How many of you:

1.  Have read the 9/11 Commission Report?

2.  Have done any research on alternative theories of the events if 9/11?

Before we label anyone who believes in an alternative theory of 9/11 a “conspiracy theorist,” keep in mind that “conspiracy theory” has two parts: “conspiracy” and “theory.”  A “conspiracy” is two or more people acting in concert to plan and execute an illegal act.  A “theory” is an interpretation of hard and circumstantial evidence.

In this regard, the government's “official story” of 9/11 is equally a “conspiracy theory”: it is an interpretation of hard and circumstantial evidence that two or more people acted in concert to plan and execute the attacks of 9/11.

However, that theory is as full of holes as Blackburne, Lancashire (or, if you prefer, Swiss cheese).  And even were that not the case, there is as much, if not more, evidence to support an alternative theory, one which includes the active participation of one or more people in the U.S. government.

Let me give you just a tiny sidebar example.

World Trade Center 7 (the one with the infamous “bunker” created by Rudy Guiliani) collapsed about 8 hours after the twin towers.  Yet consider the following:

1.  It was a 57-story steel and glass building.

2.  It was not hit by an airplane, or even by debris.

3.  It had only two small fires, each of which claimed less than a full floor.

4.  No steel and glass building has ever collapsed as a result of fire (this is fact).

5.  In an interview for the PBS documentary, “America Rebuilds,” WTC owner Larry Silverstein states that the building was “pulled” – which is construction industry terminology for a controlled demolition (i.e., using explosives to implode the structure).

Consider that it takes at least a few days, if not weeks, to properly plant the charges for a controlled demolition.  It certainly cannot be done in less than 8 hours, especially when parts of the building have active fires.  This begs some interesting questions:

-Why would the building have been rigged for demolition at all?

-What caused the fires?

-Was the building itself “involved” in the events of 9/11?

-If not, was there something in the building that needed to be “disappeared?”

-Did someone have advance warning of the 9/11 attack?

Everyone is free to accept or reject the evidence or hypotheses offered.  However, even if one rejects them, there seems nothing inherently wrong in offering a look at how others are thinking.

For a short video of the collapse of WTC 7, go to any of the following:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

http://www.wtc7.net/ - http://www.wtc7.net/

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html - http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html - http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html - http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html - http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.htm l

Again Maani, you write a well thought out post.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: Again Maani, you write a well thought out post.

Yes!  - now I will go have a look at the sites you have suggested - Cheers Maani

Manni, are you intending to predict when the antichrist is coming.

The President of the US may be many things (even incompetent) but to suggest what I think the intent of this thread wishes to is incredible.

The interview was conducted on Sept 13 2004

US Presidential elections were Nov 2nd 2004

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that George W. Bush is the biggest dumbar*e of a president in US history and then turn around and say he is smart enough to pull of something as complex, sophisticated and wickedly clever as this when the US has the most intrusive and sophisticated intelligence system in the world. Even Nixon got caught. Are you saying that Bush is infinitely more intelligent than Nixon.

Both sides of the campaign were using anything and everything they could to undermine the others crediblity (the stakes being the presidency) and truth would not get in the way of a 'promising' 'leaked' story on either side when it comes to winning browny points over the other, no matter how incredible it might seem.

Only from the home of Hollywood could it be possible.

The spreading of unsubstantiated rumors at any level, let alone on this, is unprincipled.

This just might end up as hysterical as the famous Orsen Welles broadcast.

http://theunjustmedia.com/9-11/The%20five%20israelis%20arrested%20the%20day%20of%209-11.htm - http://theunjustmedia.com/9-11/The%20five%20israelis%20arres ted%20the%20day%20of%209-11.htm

While we are in conspiracy mode. Any thoughts??

Blacksword wrote: http://theunjustmedia.com/9-11/The%20five%20israelis%20arrested%20the%20day%20of%209-11.htm - http://theunjustmedia.com/9-11/The%20five%20israelis%20arres ted%20the%20day%20of%209-11.htm While we are in conspiracy mode. Any thoughts??

My thoughts - anything is possible! A bit of a "cop-out" statement, I know.

Interesting reading about the Israeli Mossad Agents. It so happens that within the last year, 2 Mossad Agents were detained by the New Zealand Govt for attempting to obtain false NZ passports. They were jailed here temporarily and then deported. The NZ Government demanded an apology from the Israeli Govt which took a very long time to come. We (the public) never did find out why the Israeli agents were in NZ and why they wanted our passports. Apparently there was a similar incident with Mossad Agents in Canada a few years back doing the same thing. I suppose they think it is safer to travel globally on the passports of countries which are considered "non-threatening".

The cheek of them! It certainly cooled relations with Israel from the NZ Govt point of view and I don't think many NZ citizens were impressed either.

In context with this thread - how much involvement do these Agents and other Intelligence Agents have in the political direction that countries around the world take? I would venture to say quite a bit of involvement - I suspect in some of the upheaval experienced on the African continent and in Latin America. These intelligence agents appear more powerful than ordinarily suspected. One has to wonder who is ruling who and for what end reasons?

There...a little bit more added to the conspiracy theory of world domination. 

This is all pretty incredible. Don't know what to make of it. I have to let that sink in. It sounds too crazy to be true. Like most conspiracy theories. But who knows?...

Thanks, Maani, for sharing this, and for your thoughtful comments.

Great that ProgArchives is a forum that has a place for discussions outside music as well.

I do think the government is hiding alot from the US citizens..

This is a really interesting video about the Pentagon: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Ma in - http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Ma in

It sometimes feels like the USA is turning into the Nation described in 1984.

Nothing, but nothing would surprise me. James is right that a logical lie is easier to accept than an improbable truth, but history tells us of man's capacity for the unspeakable deed, and Bush doesn't strike me as someone who would rock the boat if his intellectually superior (and morally bankrupt) neo-con cronies were planning one.

Isreal, the biggest real-estate rip-off since the pilgrims invited the natives round for thanksgiving, is an arrogant, theocratic hotbed of corruption from which America would be wise to disassociate it self.

imo

emdiar wrote: Isreal, the biggest real-estate rip-off since the pilgrims invited the natives round for thanksgiving, is an arrogant, theocratic hotbed of corruption from which America would be wise to disassociate it self. imo

How does Israel relate to this subject at all? and why do you claim it is such a corrupt and greedy, and all, country?

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

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

Dreamer wrote: emdiar wrote: Isreal, the biggest real-estate rip-off since the pilgrims invited the natives round for thanksgiving, is an arrogant, theocratic hotbed of corruption from which America would be wise to disassociate it self. imo How does Israel relate to this subject at all? and why do you claim it is such a corrupt and greedy, and all, country?

If you read all of the above posts and links, you will see that Israel is named as a possible culprit, faking Islamic terrorism to futher their own ends.

Why is Israel greedy? I never said that! As you bring it up though, the blatent theft of land, openly defying all agreements and treaties gone before, and doing so with the blessing of the USA. Meanwhile, Britain (and the rest of the western world) tut-tuts but does sweet FA.

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.

Dreamer wrote: 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.

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

i don't think it was let to happen or their is a 'conspiracy'.  even republicans, conservative bastards they are, wouldn't do something so vile

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.

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.

emdiar wrote: Nothing, but nothing would surprise me. James is right that a logical lie is easier to accept than an improbable truth, but history tells us of man's capacity for the unspeakable deed, and Bush doesn't strike me as someone who would rock the boat if his intellectually superior (and morally bankrupt) neo-con cronies were planning one. Isreal, the biggest real-estate rip-off since the pilgrims invited the natives round for thanksgiving, is an arrogant, theocratic hotbed of corruption from which America would be wise to disassociate it self. imo

please!  Israel occuppies 0.25% of all arab lands.  And the arabs bitch and moan endlessly about it.  America lately is more theocratic  than Israel.

I don't understand how Israel is constantly bashed by the world, when one compares them to every other country in the area. 

[/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.

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.

I like how Maani forces his will and beliefs on others by making this ridiculous topic sticky.

Boys and Girls...look at this....this is so damned important!!...BOLLOCKS!!

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

Peace.

At gdub's request, I have "unstuck" the topic.  I certainly would not want to be accused of "forcing my beliefs" down anyone's throat.

Peace.

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.

maani wrote: At gdub's request, I have "unstuck" the topic.  I certianly would not want to be accused of "forcing my beliefs" down anyone's throat. Peace.

Thank You Maani.

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: ^ 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.....

Tony R wrote: 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.....

Dumb like a fox I say. Ah...the way he disarmed you two with his I'm too stupid to formulate a sentence look....such a clever, clever man he is.

gdub411 wrote: Dumb like a fox I say. Ah...the way he disarmed you two with his I'm too stupid to formulate a sentence look....such a clever, clever man he is.

You liked the ploy so much-you adopted it as your own....................

Tony R wrote: gdub411 wrote: Dumb like a fox I say. Ah...the way he disarmed you two with his I'm too stupid to formulate a sentence look....such a clever, clever man he is. You liked the ploy so much-you adopted it as your own....................

damn skippy.

Nets et al:

Bush "looked pretty shaken after the attacks?"  What planet are you living on?  When his aide whispered to him that we were under attack, Bush not only showed virtually no response whatsoever, but he remained quite calm, and went right back to listening to the students read their book for a full seven minutes.  This footage - taken by a television station in Florida while Bush was at the school - is readily available, undoctored and unedited.

The only reason why Bush could possibly have looked so calm - and sat for seven minutes without leaving - is because the attack did not "surprise" him.  The only other alternative is that he really is as dumb as rocks.

In this regard, if he is not dumb as rocks, and he had been "surprised" about the attacks, he - like any commander-in-chief - would immediately have stood up and said something like, "Kids, I have to leave because something urgent has come up.  But keep reading your books because reading is fundamentalist" (I'm joking about the last word).  He need not have alarmed them by telling them exactly what was happening, but simply find a way to leave as quickly and gracefully as possible.

After all, given that it was clear that we were under attack, how could he be certain that he was not a target?  And since his whereabouts were well-known - since it was a planned photo op - every moment he stayed in that classroom was a danger to the children and teachers.  Unless, of course, he knew there was no danger to them because he knew where the danger was.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

As for Tony's comment that: "[Maani says], "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."

Sorry, Tony.  This is not speculation.  And yes, of course I am "taking the word of someone else" since I am not an expert.  However, I am taking the word of quite a number of people who are experts, in fields like construction management, engineering, demolition, vulcanology, metallurgy, and other related fields.  After all, isn't that how we learn anything we don't have personal expertise in?  By reading up on it, finding out what experts say, weighing various experts' credentials and experience, and making an informed determination as to what seems most likely given the evidence?

Really.  I know you have better forensic debate skills than simply dismissing something as "speculation."

Peace.

maani wrote: 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.

OK, I would be the first to admit that Bush's Neo Con appointments could have 'hairraising' consequences, and yes, admittedly they do have the power, the connections, the financial backing to do basically whatever they want, but then really what you are saying is that this is most likely the most powerful government ever assembled in the US or in fact the world.

And, you must admit, anyone who is capable of orchestrating such an abominable act on its own people (A Stalinesque mentality of the ends justifying the means) has all the hallmarks of a very evil personality.

Please, dont forget this either.

(in Australia recently, 3 chinese embassy staff escaped and place themselves in the hands of the Australian govt - and I fear they may hand them back to the Chinese - and one has gone very public in saying that there are appx 2000 chinese spies in Australia alone.)

Spy technology, satellites etc are available to all independent states and who so ever has the capacity and power and desire to use it and the US do have alot of enemies (and difficult borders to protect) so if this were true, surely a foreign government would have picked up something substantial enough to broadcast it across the known universe.
 
Some of the US enemies would like to see nothing better than to bring them down from their superpower status. This includes France, possibly Germany, China etc, probably even Russia and particularly Islamic run states such as Syria, Iran and Lybia who in turn have their own connections and power sources.

Truly to pull off a conspiracy such as this would be, quite possibly, the cleverest evil plan in the history of the world because when we consider how 'big brother' is watching you from every corner of the earth, even if they could think it up and plan it, I can't see how the others could be so incompetent that they wouldn't have picked it up.

Finally, in regard to the Orson Welles thread, it does appear that you hold something of a leftwing view as opposed to the ultra conservatives at least, so it could be deduced that because you do not hold your current leader nor his govt executive in very high regard at all, you may not hold back to much in doing whatever you can to destroy whatever vestige of positive opinion anyone reading these posts might have of him.

Certainly, like paedophilia and such like, once the die is cast, the mud often sticks and this is such a gross accusation that if there is complicity by the US exec govt in this it would have to go down as one of the most abhorrent acts in the history of the western world.

I apologise for judging your motives for posting this thread but it is such a stupendously incredible suggestion that tears at the fabric of so much of what is supposed to be held true about honest and responsible government, by the people for the people, however, if it has any basis in truth, it is almost to FREAKIN SCARY to even think about.

James Lee wrote: Sorry, I must be thinking of the other Israel...the one that refuses to abide by its own peace treaties and forces families off their own land in neighboring countries whenever it feels like expanding. The one that gets incredible amounts of financial aid from the US despite behaving exactly like the countries the US government claims to be terrorist hotbeds. Israel gets bashed? Israel gets favored. There isn't an anti-semitic bone in my body, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend there isn't a glaring double-standard within past and current US- Middle East policy.

It would be so wonderful if both sides could find a compromise so that all the violence and blood-shed would discontinue - that Palestinians and Israelis could live in peace - I wonder if I am dreaming.

maani wrote: Sorry, Tony.  This is not speculation.  And yes, of course I am "taking the word of someone else" since I am not an expert.  However, I am taking the word of quite a number of people who are experts, in fields like construction management, engineering, demolition, vulcanology, metallurgy, and other related fields.  After all, isn't that how we learn anything we don't have personal expertise in?  By reading up on it, finding out what experts say, weighing various experts' credentials and experience, and making an informed determination as to what seems most likely given the evidence? Really.  I know you have better forensic debate skills than simply dismissing something as "speculation." Peace.

Of course it is speculation.If you read my post,I make the observation that:

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?

Other "experts" disagree with the "experts" you quote, Maani:

 Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

Eagar: We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

INTERVIEWER: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1200°F or 1300°F.
Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis

INTERVIEWER: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.....

.......as a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

INTERVIEWER: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

INTERVIEWER: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

INTERVIEWER: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.

INTERVIEWER: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar:

Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

So,different experts have different "opinions"-SPECULATION in my book,if no one can agree.

The point being that no one expert has enough experience of a Skyscraper of this magnitude collapsing.

James Lee wrote: Sorry, I must be thinking of the other Israel...the one that refuses to abide by its own peace treaties and forces families off their own land in neighboring countries whenever it feels like expanding. The one that gets incredible amounts of financial aid from the US despite behaving exactly like the countries the US government claims to be terrorist hotbeds. Israel gets bashed? Israel gets favored. There isn't an anti-semitic bone in my body, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend there isn't a glaring double-standard within past and current US- Middle East policy.

ok Israel gets attacked by their Arab neighbors, and then get blamed for taking land from them?  Please!

I know the US is very kind to Israel, but they are the only country.

It doesn't abide its own peace treaties?  It is the palestinians who constantly break the cease fires by targeting civilians and children.

To claim that to criticise the state of Israel is tantamount to antisemitism is playing right into Israels hands. It (the state) has been playing the guilt card since its conception, which is why so many nations have felt compelled to turn a blind eye to, or in some cases, (Uncle Sam) actively encourage its totally criminal actions.

And as for their claim, "God promised us this land, so bugger off, its ours!", crap!

You see, there you go again. I can hear Israel now: "What do you mean, you don't want us invading your land, displacing your people, occupying the best bits, denying you your own state and killing you if you don't like it? What are you, antisemites, or something??"

Purlease!

^ not at all emdiar, all I am saying is the Arabs refuse to tolerate a Jewish state in the middle east, they wouldn't accept it in 1947, and they wont accept it now.

don't forget the original UN partition had both a Jewish and Arab state in Israel, but the Jews accepted and the arabs turned it down and invaded.

NetsNJFan wrote: ^ but to deny the Arab's opposition to the very idea of Israel is not Anti Semitism is silly.

So Nets.It's the year 2500 and the most powerful country in the world is China.The Native Tribes of America make a plea that their homelands should be restored to them.Along comes China,clears great chunks of real estate and forcably declares the Nation Of United American Tribes on lands formally of residence to Mr & Mrs NetsNJFan.

I reckon you'd be pretty pissed off.....

maani wrote: 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 think the bit you said about looking back is very important. Having blind faith in the government is alot stupider than having "conspiracies for conspiracy theory". I think if all americans were shown conspiracy information before the elections, bush would NOT have been elected president (but in my opinion he cheated again, so...).

Me and a friend of mine looked back about two years ago, because something seemed very wrong with the situation. We're not clever at all, just curios. It took a simple two word search and we had what we were looking for. For me, the "conspiracy theory" makes alot more sense than the official story.

What I found more distrubing than the idea of this conspiracy, is the way Bush pathetically tries to defend himself against movements against him. He passed the "patriot act" which as i see it, goes against everything American democracy ever stood for. Americans simply lost what for so long was thier pride, but no one seems to notice, because of "the great terrorist threat". 

I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert.

I think that blaming one side for the whole problem is laughable. Britain started the conflict by promising the land (in thier control at the time), to the Jews. It was going slowly, but after the holocust, it was obvious that the Jews were in need of a home. If not in palestine, than where?

Alot of the people are saying that the arabs dont want co existance, or the Jews want the whole place for themselves. First handedly I can tell you that the majority of Israelis AND arabs want to live in peace, and really dont mind about the West Bank, as long as they feel safe when they walk down the street. There are many examples where Arabs and Israelis live in the same neighbourhod with great joy.

The problem is the two extremes of both sides, which is what is being heard on the news and ruining the whole peace. Neither sides can be justified, but neither can be blamed.

IMO

Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. I think that blaming one side for the whole problem is laughable. Britain started the conflict by promising the land (in thier control at the time), to the Jews. It was going slowly, but after the holocust, it was obvious that the Jews were in need of a home. If not in palestine, than where? Alot of the people are saying that the arabs dont want co existance, or the Jews want the whole place for themselves. First handedly I can tell you that the majority of Israelis AND arabs want to live in peace, and really dont mind about the West Bank, as long as they feel safe when they walk down the street. There are many examples where Arabs and Israelis live in the same neighbourhod with great joy. The problem is the two extremes of both sides, which is what is being heard on the news and ruining the whole peace. Neither sides can be justified, but neither can be blamed. IMO

Accolades for your post Dreamer. You stole my thunder. Let us not forget the fact that many Arabs lost their land because of that promise - what right did they have to make such a promise? IMO - no right and no right to oust Palestininan Arabs from their own land. I think such political interference in another country's governance is absolutely incorrigable. As Nets put it how would you like it if someone told you to get out of your home because it is going to be taken over by someone else? Would you put up a fight to retain what is yours? IMO I would think so.

As you say, Dreamer this is a very complicated and controversial topic for this forum.

...and we are way off the topic!!! 

Tony:

I find it interesting (if not blatantly evasive) that the expert in the interview - like the 9/11 Commission - completely ignores the existence of the internal core structure.  These steel beams were four times as thick as standard steel beams, and ran the height of the building.  So even if we accept everything else said by "your" expert - about the fires, the temperature at which steel can be affected, that the floors did in fact "pancake" onto each other - he still does not explain why the internal core "disappeared," since it would not have "pancaked" along with the floors, and should have (or at very least parts of it should have) remained standing even if the concrete "pancaked."

However, his ignoring of the internal core structure brings up a problem with his "free-fall" theory.  Since the concrete floors were also connected to the internal core via a series of trusses, the internal core itself would have affected the speed at which the floors collapsed.  That is, they had to "break away" from both the external "mesh" and the internal core structure.  Indeed, not only would this have affected the speed at which the floors fell, it would also have affected the manner in which they fell; i.e., they would almost certainly not have "pancaked" as "perfectly" as they did, but rather some parts would have collapsed on top of the next floor and "slid" in one direction or the other before that floor fully "disengaged" from both the external "mesh" and the internal core.

He is also "fudging" a bit when he talks about the temperature of the fires and the temperatures at which steel beams are affected enough to be severely weakened.  Ask any metallurgist or vulcanologist: steel beams do not weaken at temperatures as low as 300 degrees; that is pure poppycock.  (Indeed, if you checked out the link to the discussion of high-rise fires in steel and glass buildings, you will know that this claim is completely without merit.)

Steel melts at 2750 F (1370 C).  Gasoline can burn at a sustained temperature of about 1500 F (945 C).  However, even oxygenated fuel (like that used in airplanes) can only burn at a sustained temperature of about 2000 F.  Yet there was nothing for the fires in the towers to "feed on" that would have provided a sustained temperature anywhere near that high.  Indeed, as noted, the fact that the smoke turned from gray-white to black in less than half an hour proves that the fire was starving for oxygen, and thus could not possibly have been sustaining temperatures high enough to seriously affect solid steel beams, much less "melt" them.

Consider something for a moment.  When the shuttle blasts off, the propellant used creates a temperature of over 5000 F, and this is sustained for a good two to three minutes.  Yet even this temperature has no effect on the steel structure that the shuttle is poised on, and which takes the brunt of that emission.  So if steel - which admittedly melts at a sustained temperature of 2750 F - is not seriously affected at a sustained temperature of 5000 F for two to three solid minutes, what makes you think that even the initial explosion of the airplanes' fuel tanks (perhaps 2000-2500 F for thirty seconds) and the resultant fires (perhaps 1000 to 1250 F for twenty minutes, and then much lower) are going to seriously affect it?

You see - one does not have to be an expert, or have anything but a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, plus some logic and common sense (and, of course, the Internet for research).  I am not claiming to know as much as "your" expert.  But my facts above are facts, all of which can easily be found on the Internet on completely unbiased, science-oriented sites.

Peace.

valravennz wrote: Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. I think that blaming one side for the whole problem is laughable. Britain started the conflict by promising the land (in thier control at the time), to the Jews. It was going slowly, but after the holocust, it was obvious that the Jews were in need of a home. If not in palestine, than where? Alot of the people are saying that the arabs dont want co existance, or the Jews want the whole place for themselves. First handedly I can tell you that the majority of Israelis AND arabs want to live in peace, and really dont mind about the West Bank, as long as they feel safe when they walk down the street. There are many examples where Arabs and Israelis live in the same neighbourhod with great joy. The problem is the two extremes of both sides, which is what is being heard on the news and ruining the whole peace. Neither sides can be justified, but neither can be blamed. IMO Accolades for your post Dreamer. You stole my thunder. Let us not forget the fact that many Arabs lost their land because of that promise - what right did they have to make such a promise? IMO - no right and no right to oust Palestininan Arabs from their own land. I think such political interference in another country's governance is absolutely incorrigable. As Nets put it how would you like it if someone told you to get out of your home because it is going to be taken over by someone else? Would you put up a fight to retain what is yours? IMO I would think so. As you say, Dreamer this is a very complicated and controversial topic for this forum. ...and we are way off the topic!!!

I agree Israeli Arabs are generally moderate and good natured people.  Israel is one of the few places in the middle east where Jews, Arabs, and Christians ect. live in peace with each other...at least in Israel Proper.

Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. IMO

Dreamer:

Why can we not discuss this issue on an internet forum and why is it too complex ?

Please indulge me with an answer............

Maani:

I have read all the articles you provided,the links in the articles and "googled" for some background information on the assorted experts.

One thing we can agree on is that the vast majority of commentators are extremely knowledgeable in the subject of metals,construction etc.

So why is there no general concensus? Outside of the fact that if there was a conspiracy then the conspirators would wheel out their own experts to shoot down the opposition experts,one has to say that it is quite obvious that no-one really knows.  In my experience,"experts" are just as likely to have an agenda of their own (TV interviews,the book about the theory etc) and as a consequence are just as likely to confuse "opinion" with "fact" as any layman.

I love conspiracy theories. They give endless fodder for speculation and can stimulate intelligent discussion.Every cataclysmic man-made world event brings out the experts.The only thing you can guarantee they will agree on-the importance of being seen as "The Number One Expert In Their Field".

Next week however,I may argue the opposite.

Tony R wrote: Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. IMO Dreamer: Why can we not discuss this issue on an internet forum and why is it too complex ? Please indulge me with an answer............

I'm not saying that we "can't" discuss it on an internet forum, but I dont see much coming out of it. It is complex because of the many details and the long history that, maybe you know everything about, but I can't possibly tell you every single event, what led to it, and what it led to. It simply goes too far back.

The way I see it, each side can be justified and blamed. Eg. The Arabs cannot be blamed for fighting when a bit of thier land is given to a different people, yet where on earth would the Jewish people and survors of the holocust (who went through such a horrible experience) go to??

The avarage Israeli would most likely say the Israelis have a right for the land, but the Palestinian will say the opposite. Personally I can't say which one is right or wrong, thats why I think it is a complex topic.

Out of interest, whats your opinion on this?

Dreamer wrote: Tony R wrote: Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. IMO Dreamer: Why can we not discuss this issue on an internet forum and why is it too complex ? Please indulge me with an answer............ I'm not saying that we "can't" discuss it on an internet forum, but I dont see much coming out of it. It is complex because of the many details and the long history that, maybe you know everything about, but I can't possibly tell you every single event, what led to it, and what it led to. It simply goes too far back. The way I see it, each side can be justified and blamed. Eg. The Arabs cannot be blamed for fighting when a bit of thier land is given to a different people, yet where on earth would the Jewish people and survors of the holocust (who went through such a horrible experience) go to?? The avarage Israeli would most likely say the Israelis have a right for the land, but the Palestinian will say the opposite. Personally I can't say which one is right or wrong, thats why I think it is a complex topic. Out of interest, whats your opinion on this?

I'm not saying I have some glib answer to these problems,merely that given the disparate backgrounds of the members of this forum, this could be a wonderful opportunity for learning.Much of what we think we know about any event in history is gleaned from relatively few sources.There are people of many different cultures on this site and hopefully some of our Jewish members would have the confidence to give their side of the story (I'm not sure there are any Palestinians on the forum) and,of course,provide balance to any discussion.

What is often evident,to me at least,is that many of our less senior members wear their sources on "their sleeves".We often get a hotchpotch of school history cobbled together with the national prejudices,that demonises one party without really seeing the flip-side of the story.

Arabs blow up Israelis,Israelis blow up Arabs and there is absolutely no end in sight.In virtually every respect both sides are wrong.

But consider this:

Muslims blow up Westerners and Westerners blow up Muslims.

In every respect both are wrong.

As a Briton,of course I feel sorry for my countrymen and women who have lost their lives in the atrocities in London-it could have involved my own brother.What I cannot forgive is the daily rants against "Pakis" (the racist term in Britain for anyone from the Indian Sub-Continent) as if they have no right to be saddened and outraged when areas with almost exclusively Muslim populations are pummelled to dust by Western Armed Forces.

Some Americans on this site have referred to "Arab-types" dancing in the streets on the day of the WTC atrocity.How many Americans were exhilarated and exultant when we did the same to Bagdad? Why is it acceptable for one party and not the other?Oh,I forgot,the Arabs have been allowed too live on American soil,so they should integrate into American culture and be silent by way of thanks.......

.........so if any of our American friends get to work,or go and live in a foreign country,they will immediately take on the culture and customs of that country.If "The West" bombs or invades allies of this country ,will these same Americans denounce the atrocity or support America?

I agree with more or less everything you say Tony. I am a Jewish Israeli my self, but that doesnt mean i have to agree with my government and accept what Sharon has done in his career as something good. I think it is wrong that the West Bank is occupied, not only is it provoking Arabs, but the soldiers have to defend them with thier lifes. That is something that I really dont understand. Because some people want "all of israel" they think its right for them to go into the center of a Muslim city infront of the sea, and than an innocent soldier has to stand outside the neighbourhood and defend the setlers. I see no excuse for this.

However if you want some pro israeli arguements: The Jews were forced out of Israel (or Judea) by the Romans with force. They went devided all round the world, and evereywhere they were chased and accused of anything that the locals felt like blaming them for. But unlike the Romans, the Jews survived and continued to exist till the 20th century. With the rising wave of anti-semetism Herzl said that the only way to solve this would be build a Jewish country and many agreed.

After WWII the whole world accepted this and the UN gave the Jews palestine, since it is thier historic and religious home, and they prayed to it twice a day for 2000 years. I think that is enough for the Jewish people to deserve Israel as thier country.

Anything is possible, but here are a few problems I have with this interview:

another problem is that it’s not presented as a theory, but as the only TRUTH.

The lack of evidence (although there is some good evidence) is made up for by repeating that “Bush is a criminal” and comparing him with Nazis and Stalinists.

But the animation Dreamer posted is pretty convincing… and the story about the passports and the Black Box as well….

But the biggest problem I have is: WHY DIDN’T BIN LADEN OR ANY OTHER ARABIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DENY THAT THE ATTACKS WERE ORGANIZED BY THEM?

Joren wrote:  WHY DIDN’T BIN LADEN OR ANY OTHER ARABIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DENY THAT THE ATTACKS WERE ORGANIZED BY THEM?

why should you deny responsibillity if it serves your purpose.

Dreamer wrote: I agree with more or less everything you say Tony. I am a Jewish Israeli my self, but that doesnt mean i have to agree with my government and accept what Sharon has done in his career as something good. I think it is wrong that the West Bank is occupied, not only is it provoking Arabs, but the soldiers have to defend them with thier lifes. That is something that I really dont understand. Because some people want "all of israel" they think its right for them to go into the center of a Muslim city infront of the sea, and than an innocent soldier has to stand outside the neighbourhood and defend the setlers. I see no excuse for this. However if you want some pro israeli arguements: The Jews were forced out of Israel (or Judea) by the Romans with force. They went devided all round the world, and evereywhere they were chased and accused of anything that the locals felt like blaming them for. But unlike the Romans, the Jews survived and continued to exist till the 20th century. With the rising wave of anti-semetism Herzl said that the only way to solve this would be build a Jewish country and many agreed. After WWII the whole world accepted this and the UN gave the Jews palestine, since it is thier historic and religious home, and they prayed to it twice a day for 2000 years. I think that is enough for the Jewish people to deserve Israel as thier country.

very well said.  i agree the settlers who live in shacks on hilltops with rifles are freaking nuts and are just as bad for the peace process as hamas.  but I am just shocked by people on this board saying Israel has no right to exist.

tuxon wrote: Joren wrote:  WHY DIDN’T BIN LADEN OR ANY OTHER ARABIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DENY THAT THE ATTACKS WERE ORGANIZED BY THEM? why should you deny responsibillity if it serves your purpose.

Does it serve their purpose then?

I think it would be much better for them if all those Americans were killed, and on top of that, they could say that they have a president who killed his own citizens.

NetsNJFan wrote: very well said.  i agree the settlers who live in shacks on hilltops with rifles are freaking nuts and are just as bad for the peace process as hamas.  but I am just shocked by people on this board saying Israel has no right to exist.

I dont think anyone is really saying that........just that the creation of Israel was done cack-handedly,that's all.

marktheshark wrote: 2 people I knew personally were killed on flight 77. That's all I have to say about that. I generally don't talk about it much.

 Now I'm confused... I was almost convinced that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing...

Mark:

Obviously, whatever else I may believe, I am very sorry to hear that.  Would you be willing to provide their names?

Peace.

Mark:

Sorry.  I didn't mean to seem nosy...

Peace.

Quotes from Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the leader of the only true democracy in the ME, and a proud member of the 'civilized' and 'free' world...

‘It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands’

‘I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him’

‘Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them’

‘Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care’

‘Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it’

‘A lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world’

Dreamer wrote: I know that Sharon is insane, but dont let that lead you to believe all Israelis are like him.

I never claimed they are, although its worth pointing out that he was democratically elected to power by the Israeli people.

This confirms all I read and heard about 9/11. There is an interesting, well researched book by a german author.Mathias Bröcker: 'Verschwörungen, Verschwörungstheorien und die Geheimnisse des 11.9' I don't know if it is translated.

Here is a teaser in german with the link to all his sources :

Alle Quellen, die Mathias Bröckers für sein Buch benutzt hat, http://www.zweitausendeins.de/Broeckers/Broeckers_index.htm - finden Sie hier . (links, a lot of them in English)

"Als am 7.12.1941 wie aus heiterem Himmel Flugzeuge Pearl Harbor angriffen, war Amerika entrüstet über die Heimtücke der Japaner. Heute sagen Historiker: Präsident Roosevelt wusste im Vorhinein von dem Angriff, hatte ihn sogar provoziert. Roosevelt wollte in den 2. Weltkrieg eintreten. 88 % der US-Bevölkerung waren bis Pearl Harbor dagegen.

Als am 11.9.2001 wie aus heiterem Himmel Flugzeuge das World Trade Center und das Pentagon angriffen, waren Amerika und die Welt entsetzt über die Heimtücke dieses Anschlags. Und sofort standen die Täter und der Feind fest: Osama Bin Laden und seine islamistische Al Quaida. George W. Bush verkündete den Weltkrieg gegen den "internationalen Terrorismus", für den es vorher kaum Unterstützung gegeben hätte. Inzwischen mehren sich die Indizien: Die US-Regierung war über den Angriff vorinformiert.

Mathias Bröckers, Wissenschaftsautor, Journalist und langjähriger Kultur-Chef der "taz", misstraute von Anfang an dem einstimmigen Chor der Medien. Als wären sie gleichgeschaltet, machen sich selbst renommierteste Blätter zum Sprachrohr des Weißen Hauses.

Auf der Suche nach mehr und alternativen Informationen floh Bröckers ins Internet und machte dort mit Hilfe der Suchmaschine ungeahnte Entdeckungen, die er über Monate im Online-Magazin "telepolis" zu einer kontroversen Dokumentation verarbeitete, die millionenfach angeklickt wurde und jetzt - bedeutend erweitert und vertieft - bei Zweitausendeins als Buch erscheint.

Es dokumentiert: Der 11.9. ist nicht nur das Datum eines entsetzlichen Massenmordes, sondern auch Kristallisationspunkt bizarrer Ungereimtheiten, fantastischer Widersprüche, verschwiegener Hintergründe und strategischer Geheimaktionen. Ist seit dem 11.9. nichts mehr so, wie es einmal war? Es war vorher schon zu vieles ganz anders ...

Ein paar Beispiele? Großvater Prescott Bush finanzierte und unterstützte Hitler, den die US-Armee dann beseitigen half. Vater George Bush bewaffnete als CIA-Chef Saddam Hussein, gegen den er dann als US-Präsident in den Golfkrieg zog. Sohn George W. Bush erhielt das Geld für seine erste Ölfirma vom Vermögensverwalter eben jener Firma, deren Sproß Osama er jetzt jagt: Bin Laden. Gouverneur Jeb Bush ließ die Wählerliste in Florida manipulieren und verhalf so seinem Bruder George W. Bush zu den entscheidenden Stimmen für das Präsidentenamt.

Osama Bin Laden ist ein Produkt der US-Geheimdienste, aufgebaut für den Terrorismus gegen die Sowjetunion. General Mahmud Ahmed, Chef des pakistanischen Geheimdienstes ISI, der mit der CIA kooperiert, ließ im Juli 2001 nicht nur 100.000$ an den "Terrorpiloten" Mohammed Atta überweisen, auch hielt sich Ahmed vom 4.-15.9. offiziell in den USA auf - zu "Gesprächen über die Taliban". Am 11.9. frühstückte er auf dem Capitol Hill mit zwei Vorsitzenden des Ausschusses für die US-Geheimdienste.

Obwohl dem Oberkommando der US-Luftwaffe die simultane Entführung von vier Flugzeugen bekannt war, die sich alle absoluten "no fly areas" näherten, dauerte es 75 Minuten, bevor die Abfangjäger aufstiegen - zu spät.

Warum tat George W. Bush zunächst so, als habe er während eines Schulbesuchs von dem Anschlag erfahren? Wenn er, wie sich später herausstellte, schon eine Stunde zuvor informiert worden war, warum tagten dann zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht schon sämtliche Krisenstäbe?

Bröckers ist hochakribisch. Denn Ungereimtheiten in der offiziellen Tatversion gibt es viele:

Warum werden die Daten des Funkverkehrs und der Flugrekorder nicht veröffentlicht? Warum lagen Wrackteile der Pennsylvania-Maschine über viele Meilen weit verstreut? Ist sie doch abgeschossen worden?

Warum trat der Top-Bin-Laden-Fahnder der USA, John O'Neill, 8 Wochen vor dem Anschlag im Juli 2001 zurück? Welche direkten Geschäfte machten die Familien Bush und Bin Laden miteinander? Welche Geschäftsinteressen hat die Firma Halliburton des Vizepräsidenten Cheney bei Pipeline-Projektierungen in Afghanistan?

Warum wurden bis Juli 2001 Geheimverhandlungen mit dem Taliban-Regime über den Bau dieser Pipeline geführt? Warum wurden die FBI-Untersuchungen gegen verdächtige Flugschüler von oben gestoppt?

Warum setzten Bush und Cheney Oppositionsführer Daschle unter Druck, "tiefergehende Untersuchungen" des 11.9. durch den US-Kongress zu verhindern?

Bröckers ist ein investigativer Konspirologe. Er zeigt mit diesem Buch: Die allgemein akzeptierte Tatversion vom 11.9. ist eine mit Bedacht inszenierte Verschwörungstheorie, die falsche Spuren legt.

"Nach der größten Polizeifahndung aller Zeiten", resümiert Bröckers, "liegen gegen den angeblichen Chefplaner Osama Bin Laden und seine Al Quaida-Bande, knapp ein Jahr nach den Anschlägen, so viele Beweise vor, wie wenige Stunden danach: praktisch keine."

Bröckers fragt, wer die faktischen Nutznießer der Terroranschläge sind, und er bringt andere notorisch Verdächtige ins Spiel. Nicht um seinerseits Verschwörungstheorien in die Welt zu setzen, sondern um das Verschwörungsdenken als skeptische Wissenschaft fruchtbar zu machen. Denn: "Ohne angemessene Verschwörungstheorien lässt sich unsere hochgradig komplexe und konspirative Welt gar nicht mehr verstehen."

Mathias Bröckers "Verschwörungen, Verschwörungstheorien und die Geheimnisse des 11.9."

Mit einem Interview mit dem Ex-Staatssekretär im Verteidigungsministerium Andreas von Bülow und einem Schaltplan der Verschwörungen von G. Seyfried. 371 Seiten. Broschur.

Alle Quellen, die Mathias Bröckers für sein Buch benutzt hat, http://www.zweitausendeins.de/Broeckers/Broeckers_index.htm - finden Sie hier .

Das vollständige Inhaltsverzeichnis finden Sie http://www.zweitausendeins.de/pdf/Info/18434_In.pdf - hier als Adobe Acrobat (PDF) Datei (356 KB).

Auslieferung nur in Deutschland, nach Österreich und in die Schweiz.

marktheshark wrote: Joren wrote: marktheshark wrote: 2 people I knew personally were killed on flight 77. That's all I have to say about that. I generally don't talk about it much.  Now I'm confused... I was almost convinced that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing... If youre being sarcastic Joren, then you are screwed-up in the head and I don't think it's funny!

No, I was not being sarcasting! It's the truth! I was almost convinced that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing. But after what you said, I got confused... now I don't know what to believe...  That's it.

I'm feeling really sorry for you, Mark  and I should have said that before... we're a bit too obsessed at "solving the mystery" I guess, although I don't think we are able to solve it...

threefates wrote: I'm a Democrat... and even I don't believe a word of that.  Sounds like dementia to me.  Can't believe you people fall so easily for such crap.

Christ on a pogo-stick!!!

We agree 3F8Ts!!!!!

Blacksword wrote: Dreamer wrote: I know that Sharon is insane, but dont let that lead you to believe all Israelis are like him. I never claimed they are, although its worth pointing out that he was democratically elected to power by the Israeli people.

I think he's done a pretty good job.  of course I don't know hows he's handles anythign other than the arab-israeli conflict

NetsNJFan:

Perhaps you are too young to remember (), but it was Sharon who simgle-handedly created the most recent intifada by making a very public (and highly inappropriate) visit to the Temple Mount - the third holiest shrine in Islam - accompanied by members of the Mossad, a personal bodyguard of 18, and over 200 Israeli soldiers.  It was this outrageous act that caused the then-current peace talks to completely break down, and for a period of relative calm to change into a new cycle of Palenstinian suicide bombings and Israeli air strikes.

It is true that Sharon seems to have (at least partially) "turned over a new leaf" in some regards.  But he ultimately has only himself to blame for the current mess that the Palestinian-Israeli situation is.

Peace.

Blacksword wrote: Quotes from Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the leader of the only true democracy in the ME, and a proud member of the 'civilized' and 'free' world... ‘It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands’     ‘I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him’   ‘Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them’   ‘Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care’   ‘Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it’ ‘A lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world’

Blacksword:

Before I make a personal comment on these quotes, can you please tell me where you sourced them from?