GostHacked

I concur. WTC 7 doesn't have a definitive answer yet. I think there is an even bigger conspiracy at play here. The democrats under Bill Clinton had this all planned before Bush came into office. Before the inauguration, the wheels were set into motion with a master plan of undermining the Bush administration's long term goals in the Middle East. The dem's KNEW that Bush et. al. would be looking to make some sweeping changes in the Middle east and the only way to ggrab power back would be to make the whole thing look like a conspiracy, which of course they would blame on the president who was in power DURING the attacks (ingenius). They way I see it, is it does not matter if you are Democratic or Republican. Clinton was not running the show then, and Bush is not running the show now. The plans for the Middle East go back farther than that. The US has been gearing up for this for 20 or 30 years now. 9/11 just happened to accelerate (justify) the invasion of a country that had not made a threat to the US directly. Drea Controlled Demolition was on the sceen at Ground Zero to bring down or 'pull' WTC 6. It was more damaged than WTC 7 and it still stood. Even with the gaping holes and fires that burned through it. Yet did not collapse. So how about this. One plane each plus fires brought down 1 and 2. Debris from 1 and 2 hit many other buildings. and because of tht 7 fell later on in the day. 6 had to be demolished since it was unsafe. I'd say 6 which took much more massive damage from the debris compated to 7, by everything that I see, that building should have fell that day as well. Or am I missing something here?

Again even the NSIT is theorizing here with nothing difinitive. They say they really do not know what caused the collapse. Shrugging shoulders across the board. Tell you what, I'd love to see official origional blueprints of WTC 7. Back up power is essential in skyscrapers. There would have been one or two back up generators in the basement of the building. The tenents themselves would not have individual generators. Possible the NYC Mayor Emergency bunker (in WTC 7) may have had that 'secondary generator with the feed from the basement'. but overall I think its all a best guess. I do agree in more investigation.

You were not making "an obvious point about other cultures or religions" in the very least. You are being a disgusting racist by generalizing. Ya - ok whatever. If you wake up one morning and find your trash has been upended, you say "gosh - a raccoon went through my trash. oh well, one pesky raccoon." But if you wake up EVERY day and find that a racoon has gone through your trash, eventually you make the comment that raccoons like to go through and you'd better do something to protect your trash from raccoons. Now in your world, you'd say that not all raccoons go through all people's trash. Fair enough, but you still need to lock down your garbage to stop the ones who do. This also gets into your skull that you soon learn not to trust any racoon. I am going to equate Honour killings with just that. Not enough trust of faith in your family members. And also geneeral ignorance of what is right and what is wrong. Now this asshole who killed those Amish girls to me just really pisses me off. I respect the Amish for the simple lifestyle they lead. Now someone has screwed that up forever for them. That guy is nothing more than a coward and should be dealt with the same way in which he handled those girls. Jerry S. But when your government is founded or based on religion that poses a problem. Even for the moderninity of western society. The US is still One Nation Under God. See a problem there? Little hypocritical to talk about Muslim religion/government when everything the west has is really the same just a different 'god. Even the currencey for the US is 'In God We Trust' (or is it money?) You may not take Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson seriously, but some politicians do. They themselves cannot differentiate between government and religion. And that can have a large impact on how they address issues that govern our lives. I think reporting of killings need to reflect the nature of it. We can suspect that 'Islamofactists' (ya thanks O'Rielly) killed for the religion, but it might have been something different and a slant was put on it to show that we are civilized and they are crazy religious fanatical killers. Hell even I can put that kind of a twist on it. But that is the essence of the posters post. To show the bias in the news media when it covers this kind of thing. This guy may have been a nutcase fanatical Christian, but IF anything like that was present it was not reported.

Edit gah From other pics the fires are not at the top, they are about 1/3 of the way up. Any good video of WTC 1 and 2 on collapse show nothing hit the top half of WTC 7. That site is interesting, and seems to have shots that I have not seen anywhere else. But, from the videos, the collapse of 1 and 2 show the debris hitting the bottom portion of that building. On that site the pics show damage to the top of WTC7, and alot of smoke. Will check into that site some more.

From the reports on buidling 7, official and conspiracy, it was granted that some of WTC 1 and 2 damaged the south side near the bottom floors. No where do I hear or read or see(videos) about any damage to the near top of WTC 7.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/ Paul Thompson goes into detail about the errors and misreporting in the MSM. I've seen the way the MSM treats those people. I have seen Steven Jones (the physics professer) on Tucker Carlson's show one time. The MSM calls them freaks, unpatriotic, stupid ect. http://youtube.com/watch?v=kMqPbdti39U http://youtube.com/watch?v=sFbG3DcZAqc How does a NORAD official know there was a bomb on board? http://youtube.com/watch?v=7kq3V0mMLqI http://youtube.com/watch?v=7kq3V0mMLqI Good ol FOX news. http://youtube.com/watch?v=wNGQrVxotxI Good ol FOX news again. 'So you are NOT teaching a course on 9/11, I jsut want to be clear on that' Wow they really wanted to focus on that one.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...toffscousin.htm

Your have to place your faith somewhere. You have two choices:1) You can accept, without proof, that a democratically elected gov't would deliberately murder thousands of its citizens and cause billions in property damage for dubious political objectives. 2) You accept, without proof, that current building science is not perfect and that there is a scientific explanation for all the physical evidence available that proves that two planes hitting the buildings is what caused the collapse. In both cases you have to accept a lot on faith. Given the choice between the two I choose 2). Interesting choice. I would have to say number 1. If we have not learned alot about building contruction over the last 100 years then this was again short sightedness. And as for the second one. In the 9/11 Commision Report, they official explanation if WTC7 is unknown fully, and they even said that it needed furthur investigation. Too bad this came a couple years to late when most of the evidence was shipped off to China. Simply not enough investigation was done into the collapse of the buildings. So I will cover all my bases and say both the 'conspiracy theories' and the 'official story' are both bullshit. There is one major diffence on both sides you have to consider. The people who keep pressing for the truth and those who ask us to trust them. It's been about 2 years now since I have been looking into this. Loose Change was the first one I watched, but though it was quite outrageous. Then I watched other things to try to refute it. I still lean torwards #1. Call it a hunch. EDIT Ok here are a couple vids available about 9/11 Thse are the ones are the best ones I have seen so far. 9-11 Press for Truth http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=558...duration%3Along 9-11 Mysteries http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-67...q=911+mysteries 9-11 Eyewitness. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-34...duration%3Along

Maybe their existance signifies that, but their abundance signifies that there are problems with society. Or a problem with how society is governed.

Rue Well you cam blame two sets of people. 1. those who watch MSM 2. those lazy enought to accept the MSM answer. And by your words. Isreal never existed as a state(country) but did exsist as an empire. So war does not determine who is right, just who is left. This I have always believed. So when France and Britian divided up the place, actually what gave them the right to actually do that in the first place? What gave then the right to say who has what land? The blame game can be thrown around and around. I am not a history buff and have learned a few things with your posts Rue.

I agree with you but this back and forth is getting tired. I think the arguments are getting futile and are just as useful as asking "Who killed Marilyn Monroe or JFK or Paul McCartney?" Some people believe this and some people believe that. By the time you can convince enough people, it will not make a difference. In general, I think the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a sign of a free society. I want to ask you a slightly different question, if I may: what do you want to accomplish? Either to be proven wrong, or proven right. If I am wrong, I will accept that, if I am right..... I really don't want to be right.

I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse. Gost, your missing what Kimmy is saying. Whether it collapsed due to the plane or planted explosives, the building would have fallen at the same rate. I cannot put faith in that. And I am not missing what she is saying. There was no resistance at all to the collapse. If no resistance was provided and it fell at free fall speed, either the WTC was a shody peice of engineering or the lower floors were taken out. To say the floors would have offered NO resistance I think is wrong.

It's been awhile since I have done some math. Kudos for you for pulling it out. But essentialy you are saying that no resistance whatsoever was present when the towers fell? I have verified it in a really fun way. Skydived a few times. We left at 10,000 feet. Pull the chute at 5000 feet. So in ~30 seconds I fell ~5000 feet in freefall. The wind resistance was not enough to hold me back, but collapsing on other floors below me might cause a slight delay in the collapse.

Kimmy Yes the laws of physics govern the collapse. Some say the building peeled like a banana, that would expose a core with those 47 beams would it not? And let's not forget that fireball that ripped down those elevator shafts, which out of the 90+ elevators in each building, there was only 2 that would have gone the entire hight of the towers. The Express elevator to the skylobby and a maintanence elevator. So that massive fireball that screamed down the shafts to blow out the basement seems just as outragous as explosives in the buildings. Not to mention the elevators were in 3 sections and a floor seperated all 3 sections. So you admit there would be resistance to the collapse? Air would have to be pushed out, floors pancaking on top of each other. That would have taken longer than the 10 seconds to completely, and I mean COMPLETELY destroy the two towers. By blowing out the floors below the impact zone and progressvly doing so would cause all that debris to fly outward instead of in. Which results in no resistance, you blow out below and above can free fall.

Then why are all the official reports claiming it pancacked on itself? No it does not happen in all buildings, but they specificly said that about the WTC 1 and 2. Contruction of the WTC by the NY Port Authoriy. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857 http://exploze.wz.cz/animace/colaps.swf More on the Pancaking, click a bit. http://exploze.wz.cz/animace/colaps.swf But burst outward it did. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...ncrete.full.jpg http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_...ent/221-wtc.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/tower2_exp1.jpg Well tower 1 and 2 did. 7 fell straign down and looked more of the typical pancake collapse.

WTC 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center United States Secret Service Department of Defense Immigration and Naturalization Service U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) The Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (the secret bunker) Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) http://www.answers.com/topic/7-world-trade-center Salomon Smith Barney American Express Bank International Standard Chartered Bank Provident Financial Management ITT Hartford Insurance Group First State Management Group, Inc. Federal Home Loan Bank NAIC Securities. Like most of the other buildings in the WTC complex, they housed some important tenants. Some major financial institutions and government branches like the CIA and SS. Now recall this. Fiscal year 1999, 2.3 trillion missing. Fiscal year 2000, 1.1 trillion missing. 20 billion to upgrade the computer system to resolve the loss of money. She also goes into the war games on 9/11, grills both Rummy and Myers, and they both pass the buck to someone else. Seems like something fishy is going on. Look how Rummy wrings his hands, always does that when he is nervous in the spotlight. I have said in my 9/11 thread that it could have bene a huge bank heist. That could possibly be so. So many records from financial institutions completely whiped out. Government records would have been destroyed (if they were not smart enough to back up their systems. maybe that is what the 20 billion was to do, but had not accomplished) Seems odd to me. People always confuse the 707 and the 767 that hit the WTC. Turnes out there is little difference between the planes. http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc-demolition.htm All this is over at http://www.boeing.com http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family...pf_200prod.html In other words, VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PLANES. And the designers of the WTC said they could sustain mutliple 707 hits. So on 767 does not equal whatsoever 2 or more 707s. It is beleived by some that the planes did not have a full fuel load since they were going cross country and not overseas. If the designers took that into account for a full fuel load, and considering those two planes are really the same, the fire damage would have not been significant enough to burn that hot. Most of the fuel burned up outside the building when it hit, both big plumes of fire and smoke describe just that. Micheal Hardner Source? And you don't build a sky scraper without taking into account wind shear.(getting back on your other question) The WTC towers to withstand hurricane strenght winds. We know the difference in desctuctive power between a hurricane and a 767. Large flat sufaces offer the most resistance to the wind. In order to sway 3 feet in each direction, the wind must be pretty damn strong to move tones and tones of buiilding. But the designers accounted for that. If the building was not allowed to sway, it would crack like a twig and fall. So when the plane hit, it caused a sway, but end up oscilating back to it's upright position. (this is what Polynewbie was trying to get at. All buildings have a natural oscilation or frequency of movement. Depending on the height and design, some sway more than others. Those Petronas Towers in Malaysia would have been build with those considerations. ALL tall buildings are designed with that in mind. That cannot be easily dismissed. And with the WTC being 110 stores, that would have been more of a factor during design and construction. Riverwind The only times I have EVER seen a building collapse into it's own foot print is from a controlled demolition. If a large section of WTC 7 was taken out of the side facing the twin towers, I would have suspected that building to topple forward onto the other buildings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/935000/image..._toppled300.jpg http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/icons/...s/47/47_945.jpg http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2...-17-taiqual.jpg http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/1999/12/...1230221302.jpeg Most of this is earthquake damage, much more than what a 767 can do to a building. Now take this into account. The Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, less than 10 seconds. About the same time for me to hurl my body off the top of the tower and go into complete freefall, and life is over in 10 seconds. Even if there was a 1/4 second delay in HALF of the floors as it was comming down it would have taken 13 seconds. So 3 seconds does not seem much of a difference at first, but when you take into account how tall these buildings were, that is A LONG TIME. That is if any resistance happened at all. The only way they come down this fast? Controlled demolition. That does not sink in to most and they disregard the laws of physics (which are just my 'beleifs') What could cause the buildings to fall like it was in a vaccuum? Please think long and hard about this. Trust your eyes, not what the government tells you Answer me that.

You do know that Osama was a CIA asset back in the 80s? Through the sales of weapons and arms to the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan (freedom fighters now turned terrorist, funny how that goes) to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US created their own problem by supplying these guys with arms (the reason was to fight that big bad boy Communism) and now it seems that they have turned into the Taleban and are now considered terrorists. So if the CIA told Clinton to back off, there was a reason for it. The CIA wanted to protect it's asset. The CIA was calling the shots, not the President. Even today that is still happening. You thin George is calling the shots? Or even Cheney for that matter?

Large cracks in what? The steel, concrete, glass? What? I doubt steel cracks at those temperatures. Riverwind If building science is not perfect, then how did all 3 buildings fall perfectly on their own foot print. Okok that might not be valid here, but the people who designed the building had to take into account of high winds in NY City. Those two towers had more stress on them on a daily basis from the wind than a single plane hitting the tower. The twin towers were designed to flex in the wind. http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm A plane hitting a small section would not move the building as much as the wind hitting the entire side of the building.

Given that you accept that there were planes, do you really think that the extra effort to plant bombs would have been worth it ? And USA Today could have been wrong about the weight of that beam, too... Bombs could have been on board the planes. Just offering another outrageous possibility. Hence the speculation of military aircraft were used instead of civilian aircraft. Not enough investigation was done into the wreckage of the site. Here is something I find interesting. Now bear with me. I am going on the notion that military planes were used for this next bit here. IN searching for some pics today about debris in the surrounding buildings. I came across a site that proposed the plane that hit the South Tower, had a pod on it or a missle, that end up plowing through the building to smack the bottom part of WTC 7. I can say that is crazy but who knows. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/ To say the US government did not have enough forsite to prevent this is being disingenious. They were given several warnings from other countries. But George was not worried about Osama at all. Given everyone could be wrong about everything. Everything in this thread could also be a lie.

Fashion designers and reality TV show junkies tend to be really shallow people and have an attention span of a peanut. They don't take much out of there time to look at the real world when there is so much glamour and partying going on. Yes. And they constitute most of your "believers". Just substitute "video games" for "fashion shows", and "hockey games" for "reality tv". But at least, when you pour a little reality and logic onto them it kick-starts their minds into actually considering things so that they can realize how silly their belief was. Then there's people so fixated, so obsessed on these conspiracy theories that they're like mesianic religious nutbars, where faith alone is sufficient to ward off truth, logic and science. You know - people like you. Well, say all you want about me, call me crazy and other things. I don't really mind or care in the least. It's not something I beleived all in one shot. I thought the premise of bombs in the buildings quite insane as well. Then actually I started noticing the same thing in a number of different videos. Obsessed about the topic I am indeed. Not ashamed to say it. Also I am not so sure a 'pancake collapse' would have the sufficient energy needed to throw large sections of steel weighing tones into surrounding buildings. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh...r-damage2_b.jpg World Financial 1. Large section of wtc framework about 20 floors up. http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/terr9...nttemplate5.htm Same building same beam. Whoa 600,000 lbs? When energy is needed to throw 600,000 pounds a couple hundreed feet? Also why did the WTC 1 and two explode damaging everything, while #7 fell straight down damaging essentialy nothing. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...er.west.air.jpg (#7 is the collapsed one on the left) But then again, I am one of the cooks. So take everything with a grain of salt if you must.

At the same time it is hard to convince someone that somehow the US government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. I will tell you this, I live in Ottawa and I talk to people all the time about it. 60% or more *rough guess here) think that the US government let it happen, or helped it happen. Mind you less than 50% of those think that the WTC was a controlled demolition. Some of the facts and events that may help out the story are ignored by MSM and the blind sheep among our population (ok don't wanna get all Alex Jones on you) I have watched alot of video. At first I was thinking no way. Why would someone do that? How would somoene do that? I was skeptical at first about these theories. But after constantly stacking it up to the official story, the official story falls short. I have even gathered video from people in BY that were near the towers when they fell. Interesting home video of one guy on the 36th floor of his apt about 5 to 10 blocks from the WTC site on that day. Interesting stuff. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-67...duration%3Along This is another 'Loose Change' type of film, but takes into account some of the more recent happenings. Alot of those news artilces I do recall. Then again, I am looking at this stuff on almost a daily basis. However I am not that stupid as to believe that the planes where holograms. No those had to be the real deal, real planes flying into those real buildings. There are alot of outragous claims about 9/11. Some don't jive with even the likes of me . IF a guy comes at you on a plane with nothing but a simple box cutter, what do you do? Fashion designers and reality TV show junkies tend to be really shallow people and have an attention span of a peanut. They don't take much out of there time to look at the real world when there is so much glamour and partying going on. I would not waste any time convincing her of anything. I had a pal last year tell me I was nuts. Now he is not so sure, and I have not given anything for him to look at since then. He comes up to me recently and says I am not as crazy as he thought. He is not 100% convinced, but I can tell he is starting to question the official story as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/...main/index.html So yes, it is contributing to the problem they are trying to erradicate? Hindsight is 20/20 my friends. The US Policy has failed. Actually it is not the Policy, but the crew that is behind it. I wish you right wingers would wake up on this one. If the problem was to be addresed, Saudia Arabia should have been on the list. Even Afghanistan was a more correct invasion compared to the failings that is the New Iraq. Osama was the target, but Saddam was linked to 9/11 and well, he pissed everyone off before right? Well I agree the invasion of Kuwait was generaly not a very smart move. This also gave the US to beat the oil out of him in the 90s, and sanctioned said oil throughout the 90s in part with the UN and the Oil for Food program. We know how that turned out. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/oil...d_timeline.html So yes the Policies have failed. They will keep failing until they understand what the hell they are getting into in the first place. Terrorism was to have gone down with the invasion of Iraq, but now they say it will go up, it's been going up for a few months now, or is it years. Either our leaders are incompitent at their posts, or there is another agenda here. I am starting to think that they cannot go through the next agenda without a another catalyst.

What would their motive be ?Who cares?? The event has already taken place. I am questioning the possibility of origin not motive. I am being serious. The true motive has no bearing on the origin. The people who flew the plane were not super-human. Nevertheless, there are many possible answers to the question of a domestic motive. Here are some: 1) anything 2) the same motive as that of the people who did it, whatever that was (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 3) the same motive as that of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 4) mental illness (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") 5) possession by the Devil (ergo, my first answer: "Who cares?") I can think of a lot more reasonable ones but my original answer: "Who cares?" is the best because most arguments AGAINST some sort of conspiracy keep asking for a motive. A possible motive is irrelevant because not every action must be rational. The chances of ABSOLUTELY NO American being complicit in the demolition of the World Trade Center exists but so do the chances of AT LEAST ONE American being part of it. Hard to answer that in a few short lines. So I would direct you to The Powers of Nightmares - The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004) By Adam Curtis 3 part series on the rise of terrorism and how the government uses it to it's advantage. The documentary is put together really well. Highly sugested.

What would their motive be ? Bringing 'Freedom' to the rest of the world.

The U.S. has already said they won't stay if there is a civil war. You think they should stay if it is civil war? Actually yes they should stay. When you bring freedom (a product) you should be able to provide service/support for said product. It sucks for the troops who are doing the dirty work, moral would drop due to failed leadership to stabalize the country. Making it harder for them to actually carry out and do the job they were sent to do. This proves to me that ... - the Bush Administration had no clue of what they were getting into. (lack of planning and foresight) OR - The Bush Administration expected this to happen and pull out to save face and say 'Well, we tried!' However, those new permanent US military installations in Iraq are well... permanent. Which says to me they are in it for the long run, in some way shape or form.