11/9 & middle eastern war, Facts shmacts

[GostHacked]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This thread is the most ridiculous yet! Great waste of time!

Keep it up guys! I think you're onto something BIG...REALLY REALLY BIG!

I suggest you keep up the research. One of you is gonna CRACK THE CASE...i can just FEEL it!!!!

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This thread is the most ridiculous yet! Great waste of time!

Keep it up guys! I think you're onto something BIG...REALLY REALLY BIG!

I suggest you keep up the research. One of you is gonna CRACK THE CASE...i can just FEEL it!!!!

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them.

If you told me you had aliens in your basement I would laugh, and wouldn't bother debunking.

[GostHacked]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This thread is the most ridiculous yet! Great waste of time!

Keep it up guys! I think you're onto something BIG...REALLY REALLY BIG!

I suggest you keep up the research. One of you is gonna CRACK THE CASE...i can just FEEL it!!!!

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them.

If you told me you had aliens in your basement I would laugh, and wouldn't bother debunking.

Again, more laughter, not enough debunking. Nothing to prove you are correct or I am wrong. Just nothing but laughter. Is that all I am expected to get out of you in this thread?

[KrustyKidd]

Anyone else find that from time to impact to collapse was under 2 hours odd?

Yes, very interesting. However, planes hit the towers and they fell down. If not from the planes and the resulting structural trauma then what? You can discount government involvement unless of course you can somehow portray a scenario how the operation would have taken place, then provide a motive, then providea risk vs reward assesment. Of interest as well would be how the government would turn a blind eye to al this, preferring to risk being executed for treason and murder as well as risking a revolution in the USA with the republican party dead forever while they controlled the executive and two houses. Strange behavior indeed.

And, also explain why the Clinton administration would have been in on it as they immediately knew who did it, blaming Al Queda rather than the CIA or other secret organizations.

Guess what I'm saying is that if you can work this idea from the other end, you might find a more receptive audience for this stuff. As it stands right now, it is of mild coincidental interest. Not ground breaking. When things happen, strange things often happen too. Present some rationale and method, not just coincidences.

[GostHacked]

Another point Jerry,

Do you recall the bombing of the WTC back in 1993? I would guess after that bombing it would send a sense of OH SHI.. through the CIA, FBI and the US Government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2516469.stm

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp

Looks like they hoped to kill up to 30,000 people that day. They thought that bomb would be enough to take down the WTC.

From http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/wtc93.htm

On February 26, 1993, the terrorists drove a yellow Ford Econoline rental van into the basement of the WTC and set a timer to detonate the 1,500-pound urea-nitrate bomb. The massive blast created a cavernous crater 200 feet by 100 feet wide and seven stories deep in the garage of the World Trade Center... In all, the explosion killed six people, injured more than 1,000 [1,042], and caused nearly $300 million in property damage...[3]

Here is the killer it seems

Osama bin Laden, widely believed to have been the mastermind of the August 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, would seem a natural candidate to support the WTC bombing, but to date none of the government indictments against him indicate a connection to the incident.[9]...

More to come....

[GostHacked]

Anyone else find that from time to impact to collapse was under 2 hours odd?

Yes, very interesting. However, planes hit the towers and they fell down. If not from the planes and the resulting structural trauma then what? You can discount government involvement unless of course you can somehow portray a scenario how the operation would have taken place, then provide a motive, then providea risk vs reward assesment. Of interest as well would be how the government would turn a blind eye to al this, preferring to risk being executed for treason and murder as well as risking a revolution in the USA with the republican party dead forever while they controlled the executive and two houses. Strange behavior indeed.

And, also explain why the Clinton administration would have been in on it as they immediately knew who did it, blaming Al Queda rather than the CIA or other secret organizations.

Guess what I'm saying is that if you can work this idea from the other end, you might find a more receptive audience for this stuff. As it stands right now, it is of mild coincidental interest. Not ground breaking. When things happen, strange things often happen too. Present some rationale and method, not just coincidences.

Rationale and method is something I am working on. I am over 4 months into this and still need more proof or some kind of evidence. I would like to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that WTC #7 came down by controlled demolition. Then we can start on 1 and 2. Eventually leading to the Pentagon and Pensylvania. But to me, WTC # 7 is the key to unraveling everything.

Now ...The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain suffered mugh higher temperatures and heat damage comared to WTC 1 and 2. So you can say the combination of a plane and fire may take it down. Well the Windsor tower was just gutted from a fire. That much we know. And the top part of it collapsed, but not taking down the whole structure. This, I think is important.

Check out the official 'pancake' theory, and how it applies to 1,2 compared to #7.

[JerrySeinfeld]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This thread is the most ridiculous yet! Great waste of time!

Keep it up guys! I think you're onto something BIG...REALLY REALLY BIG!

I suggest you keep up the research. One of you is gonna CRACK THE CASE...i can just FEEL it!!!!

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them.

If you told me you had aliens in your basement I would laugh, and wouldn't bother debunking.

Again, more laughter, not enough debunking. Nothing to prove you are correct or I am wrong. Just nothing but laughter. Is that all I am expected to get out of you in this thread?

Other than the fact that you guys are ridiculous, yes...that is all you can expect.

Actually spending any time to debunk your speculations would award this conspiracy-theory garbage with far more credit than it deserves.

Again, thanks for the entertainment value guys.

[GostHacked]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This thread is the most ridiculous yet! Great waste of time!

Keep it up guys! I think you're onto something BIG...REALLY REALLY BIG!

I suggest you keep up the research. One of you is gonna CRACK THE CASE...i can just FEEL it!!!!

I hear a laugh but no debunking, no real rebuttle, nothing to show otherwise. I have seen your rebuttles before, this time I would like a bit more substance to them.

If you told me you had aliens in your basement I would laugh, and wouldn't bother debunking.

Again, more laughter, not enough debunking. Nothing to prove you are correct or I am wrong. Just nothing but laughter. Is that all I am expected to get out of you in this thread?

Other than the fact that you guys are ridiculous, yes...that is all you can expect.

Actually spending any time to debunk your speculations would award this conspiracy-theory garbage with far more credit than it deserves.

Again, thanks for the entertainment value guys.

Thanks for playing Jerry. You can exit stage left where we have some nice consolidation prizes for you.

NEXT !!!!

[Michael Hardner]

But to me, WTC # 7 is the key to unraveling everything.

It sounds like a kind of spy novel entertainment, which is exactly what this is to the conspiracy-theory types.

The sad thing is the damage that it does to public institutions.

[GostHacked]

But to me, WTC # 7 is the key to unraveling everything.

It sounds like a kind of spy novel entertainment, which is exactly what this is to the conspiracy-theory types.

The sad thing is the damage that it does to public institutions.

How do you explain Silverstien saying 'I made the decision to pull it' ?? It's on video, google it.

[Michael Hardner]

How does he explain it ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

WAIT!

EUREKA!

I'VE GOT IT: IT WAS PROFESSOR PLUM IN THE LIBRABY WITH THE CANDLESTICK!!!!

[GostHacked]

How does he explain it ?

There is a PBS aired documentary out with him saying that. I am going to use 9/11 revisited for my purpose.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...visited&pl=true

At 7:50, you can see CNN correspondant Bill Hemmer wth Mayor Julliani 10 days after the collape.

At 15:40 is where Silverstein says it all.

[Riverwind]

At 15:40 is where Silverstein says it all.

What was surprising was how matter of fact he was about it - he acted like it was the most normal thing in the world.

I watched the whole video and it does make a pretty compelling case that the fire was not the cause of the tower collapses. I liked the fact that it mostly stuck to facts and did not speculate on why the gov't might do such a thing (something typical of most conspiracy theories).

Here is a sequence of events that could explain the problems identified but presumes it was caused by gov't incompetence rather than malevolent calculation:

It was well known that the WTC was a target for terrorists for many years. It also would not take much imagination to predict that terrorists might crash planes into the buildings. For that reason, the WTC owners, insurers, the port authority and the gov't decided they needed a strategy to limit loss of life and property caused by a terrorist attack. These people could have decided that there was a huge potential for damage if the towers collapsed sideways across lower Manhattan. As a result, they came up with a plan to wire the towers with explosives that would allow them demolish the buildings as safely as possible if the need arose.

The explosives could have been attached to the buildings for years. There is no reason to believe the people who put them there knew that an attack would occur on 9/11 - they just figured it could occur.

However, when the attack actually happened, something went wrong because the explosives in the south tower got set off accidentally with hundreds of firefighters still in the building. This created panic among the people who set the explosives because they knew they would be crucified if the truth got out. So they decided to blow the north tower and try to claim that it was the planes that brought the buildings down.

The rest of the cover up follows logically from there.

[Michael Hardner]

So the whole conspiracy was blown by somebody saying "pull it" ?

Seems like a pretty fragile conspiracy don't you think ?

[GostHacked]

So the whole conspiracy was blown by somebody saying "pull it" ?

Seems like a pretty fragile conspiracy don't you think ?

It may be weak if anyone else but the property manager said it. Comming from him, makes a huge difference. Now arguments can be said that he was talking about 6 or 5, but those were taken down some time after 9/11. However the way he is describing things he is definatly talking about 7. So they 'pull' it and watch it fall.

Riverwind

I am wondering about the power downs and evacuations of some floors leading up to 9/11. Did they start after or before Silverstein took over the property? Remember he was given a 99 year lease on all WTC property two months before 9/11. According to some of those videos, they shut down a block of floors at a time then did their work from there.

[Riverwind]

I am wondering about the power downs and evacuations of some floors leading up to 9/11. Did they start after or before Silverstein took over the property? Remember he was given a 99 year lease on all WTC property two months before 9/11. According to some of those videos, they shut down a block of floors at a time then did their work from there.

It could have happened at anytime. In fact it could have been done with the approval of the insurance company that was scared of the possible liability if the towers collapsed on other buildings. The fact that the buildings changed ownership might have been the trigger for the review of procedures.

The important point to remember is there is way such things could have been covered up unless there was some guilt on gov't part so it is extremely unlikely that there was a profit motive on the part of Silverstine.

I have done some more research on these 9-11 conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, a lot of crap is mixed in with ideas that deserve further investigation. Claims that the 4 planes did not crash on that day and the damage was actually caused by missiles are just loony.

Popular mechanics has a good site debunking the theories.

It appears that the difference between the competing claims comes down to whether the fire got hot enough to undermine the structural integrity of steel cores. A point which I don't think can ever be proven one way or the other. (It is worth noting that there are flaws in the original explanation by FEMA/NIST so these conspiracy theorists have forced people to re-think the mechanisms that caused the collapsed - even if the ultimate conclusion does not change).

The Madrid fire cited by the controlled explosion proponents actually appears to refute their theory because part of the steel frame of the building _did_ collapse. This site suggests that important design differences between the WTC towers and the Madrid tower explain why the Madrid tower did not collapse.

[Michael Hardner]

It may be weak if anyone else but the property manager said it. Comming from him, makes a huge difference. Now arguments can be said that he was talking about 6 or 5, but those were taken down some time after 9/11. However the way he is describing things he is definatly talking about 7. So they 'pull' it and watch it fall.

The property manager ?

I can think of a few people who might be in on the conspiracy before him - city or federal officials... engineers.

Why would he be in on the conspiracy if he can't keep a secret like that ?

It's very very easy to look at all of the things that happened at 9/11 and find strange things that seem to have no explanation. The same thing happened with the Kennedy assasination.

Obviously planes hit those buildings. Why would somebody need to augment such an attack with a controlled demolition ?

It makes no sense.

[GostHacked]

Riverwind

So then why those hot spots at the 'Ground Zero' ? 10 days after the fire under was still burning, even two months after it was still burning. What can cause something to smolder like that for 2 months. Stuff was on fire as it fell? That fireball that smashed through the elevator shafts to the lobby took out the garage underneath?

It was a hot fire under there too. What would have been needed to make a fire THAT hot for THAT long after the buildings collapsed.

I am reading the FEMA report myself, but I am no math expert!

Only way is to recreate the buildings, crash a plane into them and fine out. But that will never happen.

[Michael Hardner]

So then why those hot spots at the 'Ground Zero' ? 10 days after the fire under was still burning, even two months after it was still burning. What can cause something to smolder like that for 2 months. Stuff was on fire as it fell? That fireball that smashed through the elevator shafts to the lobby took out the garage underneath? It was a hot fire under there too. What would have been needed to make a fire THAT hot for THAT long after the buildings collapsed.

Tire fires burn for years.

This is another example of looking for a conspiracy bottom-up, by looking at the anomalies and strange things that are unexplained. I tell you that with any such event it's easy to find little oddities and slip-ups.

From the top down: Who within the US would have the motive and the means to carry out such a plan ? What would be involved in executing it ?

If you look at those questions objectively, you would see that the risks would far outweigh the benefits, even if you assume that some individuals would be so inhuman as to kill thousands for personal gain.

[Riverwind]

So then why those hot spots at the 'Ground Zero' ? 10 days after the fire under was still burning, even two months after it was still burning. What can cause something to smolder like that for 2 months. Stuff was on fire as it fell? That fireball that smashed through the elevator shafts to the lobby took out the garage underneath?

I am not rejecting the scientific analysis which raises many legimate questions. These guys should not be dismissed, however, they don't have a slam dunk case either. OTOH, these guys admit that - they only claim to be raising questions that should be investigated further. They do point out that the NIST report started with the conclusion that the buildings collapsed because of fire and developed a mathematical model to explain why. This is a perfect example of tunnel visions and why the NIST report should be taken with a grain of salt.

I really don't think the guys questioning the pancake theory should be put in the same category as the loons with the disappearing airplanes that did not crash anywhere.

[Riverwind]

If you look at those questions objectively, you would see that the risks would far outweigh the benefits, even if you assume that some individuals would be so inhuman as to kill thousands for personal gain.

Did you read my hypothetical theory in a earlier post? Accepting the building were wired with explosives does not mean accepting that the entire 9/11 attack was staged by the US gov't - there are other more plausible explainations for why explosives would be in those buildings.

[Michael Hardner]

I really don't think the guys questioning the pancake theory should be put in the same category as the loons with the disappearing airplanes that did not crash anywhere.

Why not ? Why accept one crazy theory but not another ?

There will always be questions - always. At what point do you move on ? Maybe a good point would be where reasonable doubt as to what happened ceases. The questions regarding security holes need to be investigated more fully, but the conspiracy tack - controlled charges in buildings, phantom planes etc - is a waste of time and spirit.

[Michael Hardner]

Did you read my hypothetical theory in a earlier post? Accepting the building were wired with explosives does not mean accepting that the entire 9/11 attack was staged by the US gov't - there are other more plausible explainations for why explosives would be in those buildings.

I believe I read one of those explanations above, and it's not plausible.

How dangerous would it be to have live explosives in buildings ? How would you keep all of this secret from building inspectors ? How would you keep this a secret in general ? Was the WTC the only skyscraper in the world where the designers got the idea to put in explosive charges ? Why didn't they try the idea elsewhere ?

All of this would have to happen in a world where they have a hard time just designing proper air conditioning in many buildings, where they have a hard time remaining on budget without exotic specialized work such as installing charges.

[GostHacked]

So then why those hot spots at the 'Ground Zero' ? 10 days after the fire under was still burning, even two months after it was still burning. What can cause something to smolder like that for 2 months. Stuff was on fire as it fell? That fireball that smashed through the elevator shafts to the lobby took out the garage underneath? It was a hot fire under there too. What would have been needed to make a fire THAT hot for THAT long after the buildings collapsed.

Tire fires burn for years.

This is another example of looking for a conspiracy bottom-up, by looking at the anomalies and strange things that are unexplained. I tell you that with any such event it's easy to find little oddities and slip-ups.

From the top down: Who within the US would have the motive and the means to carry out such a plan ? What would be involved in executing it ?

If you look at those questions objectively, you would see that the risks would far outweigh the benefits, even if you assume that some individuals would be so inhuman as to kill thousands for personal gain.

This was not a tire fire There would have to be a source for that fire to burn and smolder for so long. First I am looking at how the buildings come down, then I can move on to the whys. One step at a time.

Major natural gas line erupted? Damaged from the buildings falling and breaking some lines? But that section would be shut off pretty quick. Saftey measures are in place for that kind of thing.