11/9 & middle eastern war, Facts shmacts

[Michael Hardner]

This was not a tire fire smile.gif 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.

How about the tons of paper, plastic and rubble underneath the building ?

As I said, with such a situation there will be many, many unanswered questions.

To use such phenomena as a basis for conspiracy is delusional. The real reason one would look for a conspiracy is a suspicious nature.

I can think of many many strange things that happened the day of:

Why was the sky so absolutely clear on a day where visibility would be important ? How could the terrorists plan for such weather months in advance without satellite technology ?

Why did the TV commentators not comment on the second plane hit even though they were watching when the first plane hit ?

Why did the TV commentators not suspect terrorism, or say anything from the outset even after the second plane hit ?

Why did Dan Rather not comment on the WTC buildings falling as it happened ?

And on and on and on.... These are only things that I noticed.

You could build a conspiracy on any one of them.

But for a real conspiracy (and by that, I mean US govt or somesuch) to have happened, you need to ask WHY would somebody at the very top do this, and HOW would they do it. In the HOW, ask yourself what kind of resources would be required, and who would approve such a plan.

The answer is that it's not plausible.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Some questions:

1. How did someone get the security access into the towers to plant strategically, piece by piece, the massive amount of explosives? ESPECIALLY a building that was bombed just a few years earlier by terrorists.

2. Usually when those buildings come down with explosives, we all hear a big bunch of explosions and can actually physically on video SEE the explosions across the whole building a couple of seconds before the building starts to fall. and its REALLY loud. ever seen that in vegas? its a sight to see!!!

3. How do you plant the explosives so expertly in a highly secure building which has been previously bombed by terrorists in the PRECISE location so as to make it look like a plan is hitting the buiklding...not only that, but the explosion is precision planted in the right location so that the guy who is flying the plane (which by the way you have to make sure he passes security) flies the plane directly into the right spot on the building...er...BOTH buildings on the precise location and floor of a 110 story building at 800 miles per hour....

4. How do you account for the massive amounts of jet fuel that seeped into the various floors of the building and leterally cooked the building's foundation before the collapse...which obviously accounts for the smouldering

5. You'd need alot of expert people working with security at the towers, explosives experts, and you need ALL of those people to keep their mouths shut.

The problem with conspiracy theories...they like to debunk the existing story, but never really consider the ridiculous amount of coincidence and luck that would have to go into making their pet theory possible.

Please, tell me you have more than dusty concrete, smouldering embers and "earwitness" accounts of "expolisions" from a few observers during the most stressed and dissoriented they've probably ever felt in their lives.

[Michael Hardner]

and you need ALL of those people to keep their mouths shut.

And supposedly the one guy who let it 'slip' was the building MANAGER and he did so during a TV interview ?

This, supposedly, would have been one of the last steps in the plan, ie. to pull down (for some reason) the third tower.

Even then, he said 'they pulled it' , speaking as if it was a last resort. His defence was that he meant that they pulled their men out out of the building.

If he is trying to cover up some plan that he let slip, how could he let it slip accidentally in that way ?

Again, it makes no sense. Of all the interviews of all people involved, there's bound to be some verbal slip up. You can't build a conspiracy around that.

Start from the top down, and you'll get nowhere.

[Riverwind]

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 ?

I suggested that rational people concerned about the danger poised by the WTC powers toppling across lower Manhatten after a terrorist attack could have wired those buildings as a _safety_ measure. This would have been done in the 90s after it become clear that the WTC was a target for terrorists - not when the building was built. If this happened, the people who placed these charges would have never intended them to be used while people were in the buildings - the detonation that happened accidently.

I agree that it is far fetched and would not be my first choice for explaination. My point is there are possible explainations that could explain controlled demolition that do not assume the people responsible intended to kill hundreds of innocent people.

[Riverwind]

The problem with conspiracy theories...they like to debunk the existing story, but never really consider the ridiculous amount of coincidence and luck that would have to go into making their pet theory possible.

Did you every think about how much of a co-incidence it is that three buildings collapsed as result of fire on the same day? Especially since no other high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. If you had asked the NIST people to estimate the probability of collapse after a fire before 9/11 they would likely have said it was incredibly small - yet you see the same phenomena repeat itself three times.

[Michael Hardner]

I suggested that rational people concerned about the danger poised by the WTC powers toppling across lower Manhatten after a terrorist attack could have wired those buildings as a _safety_ measure. This would have been done in the 90s after it become clear that the WTC was a target for terrorists - not when the building was built. If this happened, the people who placed these charges would have never intended them to be used while people were in the buildings - the detonation that happened accidently.

It sounds pretty unsafe as a safety measure - to have live explosives in a building, ready to go.

Why wouldn't this information have been brought to light ?

I agree that it is far fetched and would not be my first choice for explaination. My point is there are possible explainations that could explain controlled demolition that do not assume the people responsible intended to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Or the explanation that they just fell that way. There were reports from 9-1-1 callers that the concrete floors were starting to crack and give way.

[Michael Hardner]

Did you every think about how much of a co-incidence it is that three buildings collapsed as result of fire on the same day? Especially since no other high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire?

Not when you consider that two of them had the exact same thing happen to them and the third was beside the first two.

[Riverwind]

Did you every think about how much of a co-incidence it is that three buildings collapsed as result of fire on the same day? Especially since no other high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire?

Not when you consider that two of them had the exact same thing happen to them and the third was beside the first two.

Two identical buildings collapse in the same way - a stretch but believable. A third building with relatively minor fires collapses in the same way? That does not make sense unless all of these steel high rises have a major design flaw. If that is the case then we should make sure that this design flaw is well understood before any more of these buildings get built. The NIST report is a long way from explaining the design flaw that led to the collapses.

[GostHacked]

Why did the TV commentators not comment on the second plane hit even though they were watching when the first plane hit ?

No TV camera crews were on site filming anything when the first plane hit. The only people that caught the first plane hitting was the french brothers doing the documentary.

Why did the TV commentators not suspect terrorism, or say anything from the outset even after the second plane hit ?

Actually they did.

Why did Dan Rather not comment on the WTC buildings falling as it happened

He did, saying 'if you had ever seen one of those controlled demolitions' There are some news clips in the 9/11 Revisited that shows it, also In Plane Site shows it. He did comment.

JerrySienfeld.

1. How did someone get the security access into the towers to plant strategically, piece by piece, the massive amount of explosives? ESPECIALLY a building that was bombed just a few years earlier by terrorists.

Who was in charge of security leading up to 9/11 ?

2. Usually when those buildings come down with explosives, we all hear a big bunch of explosions and can actually physically on video SEE the explosions across the whole building a couple of seconds before the building starts to fall. and its REALLY loud. ever seen that in vegas? its a sight to see!!!

Enough eye witnesses and firefighters said they heard explosions. (maybe bombs, maybe something esle)

3. How do you plant the explosives so expertly in a highly secure building which has been previously bombed by terrorists in the PRECISE location so as to make it look like a plan is hitting the buiklding...not only that, but the explosion is precision planted in the right location so that the guy who is flying the plane (which by the way you have to make sure he passes security) flies the plane directly into the right spot on the building...er...BOTH buildings on the precise location and floor of a 110 story building at 800 miles per hour....

You don't need to place them where the planes will eventually hit. But you would rig it for the whole building, no matter where the plane would hit. and the planes were recorded to be flying 450 to 550 MPH, 800 is past Mach 1.

They can be set in timers, or remote detonation. Something Controlled Demolition devised. And they can be set in blocks, like they usually are to go off at a certain time.

[Michael Hardner]

Two identical buildings collapse in the same way - a stretch but believable. A third building with relatively minor fires collapses in the same way?

Why is the first fact a stretch when they had the exact same thing happen to them ?

The third building collapse looked different, I thought. That's how I remember it.

That does not make sense unless all of these steel high rises have a major design flaw.

Not a design flaw. Humans can only design things to a certain amount of safety.

They certainly can't be expected to design things to withstand disasters that haven't happened before, or haven't been imagined.

Designing for safety often involves improving on a previous failed design.

Racing cars, for example, often are improved after a driver is killed. Flame-proof race suits, neck support and so forth - all of these devices could have been brought in earlier but weren't.

If that is the case then we should make sure that this design flaw is well understood before any more of these buildings get built. The NIST report is a long way from explaining the design flaw that led to the collapses.

The insides of planes have for years been filled with lots of flammable plastic. Air bags for cars were supposed to happen in the 1970s but didn't.

What I'm saying is - designing for safety is based on a lot of seemingly unrelated things that happen in the human world, such as politics and economics and just general stupidity.

They could make cars close to 100% safe but no one could afford them. And they don't even have seat belts on school busses, for gosh sakes. I wouldn't expect a 767-proof building to be built in the future. The world doesn't work that way.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You don't need to place them where the planes will eventually hit. But you would rig it for the whole building, no matter where the plane would hit. and the planes were recorded to be flying 450 to 550 MPH, 800 is past Mach 1.

They can be set in timers, or remote detonation. Something Controlled Demolition devised. And they can be set in blocks, like they usually are to go off at a certain time.

ok i get it now.

they broke into the building, got past the heavy security, rigged the whole building and blew it up without any explosions.

have you ever seen a controlled demolition? you can see and hear the explosions PRIOR to the building falling down.

you have no evidence you just have speculation.

face it: the nutter muslims flew planes into the buildings, the buildings were awash with masses of jetfuel, the inner structure melted and the building collapsed. heck, maybe the "explosions" your "witnesses" heard were the people jumping out of the windows and landing on the pavement.

unless you have something more than pure speculation, you're going in circles.

I suppose the SS Cole, the US embassy bombing, the bick berg beheading...these were all set ups too.

hahaha

[Riverwind]

have you ever seen a controlled demolition? you can see and hear the explosions PRIOR to the building falling down.

In most of the footage on this site there is no sign of explosions until after the building crumbles: http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

[Black Dog]

This is as thorough a debunking of most 9-11 myths as you're going to find.

[Riverwind]

The third building collapse looked different, I thought. That's how I remember it.

The third build collapse looked like a controlled demolition - no plane crashed into it. Any damage to the building was on one side and that should have caused an asymmetrical collapse. A symmetric failure caused by asymmetric structural damage + fire may be theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

No matter what explaination you use, all available explainations presume some amazing co-incidences.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here are some sites to check out - very good stuff...

http://www.nuforc.org/

http://www.lochnessguide.com/

let me know your thoughts...

[GostHacked]

This is as thorough a debunking of most 9-11 myths as you're going to find.

It does not explain alot at all BD. Generalizations ect. No specifics. Thats where reading the official FEMA/NIST documents are needed.

JerrySinfeld.

Again, I ask, and you must investigate, (which I know the answer) who was in charge of security for the WTC complex up till the day before of 9/11.

[GostHacked]

Here are some sites to check out - very good stuff...

http://www.nuforc.org/

http://www.lochnessguide.com/

let me know your thoughts...

We are not talking about UFO's or the Lochness.

[Michael Hardner]

We are not talking about UFO's or the Lochness.

No, but much of the rationalization that's used to support arguments that those are cover-ups are identical to the ones used for 9-11.

For example, 'it's always good to ask questions'. Another - official sources can't be trusted. Even closer to the point - finding strange anomalies and unexplained facts and concluding that there must be a conspiracy at work.

And - yes - the Popular Mechanics article is a good read, if only to show that many seemingly unexplainable things can be explained. You can bet that the ones that aren't will be fuel for the conspiracy engines.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We are not talking about UFO's or the Lochness.

No, but much of the rationalization that's used to support arguments that those are cover-ups are identical to the ones used for 9-11.

For example, 'it's always good to ask questions'. Another - official sources can't be trusted. Even closer to the point - finding strange anomalies and unexplained facts and concluding that there must be a conspiracy at work.

And - yes - the Popular Mechanics article is a good read, if only to show that many seemingly unexplainable things can be explained. You can bet that the ones that aren't will be fuel for the conspiracy engines.

Exactly.

But c'mon MH, let's face it. The evidence of the lochness monster is far more compelling than the "cement powder, 110-stories-of-exposives" BS we're being subjected to here...

I really do enjoy reading this stuff for entertainment value,though. They go round and round in circles without proving anything.

[GostHacked]

We are not talking about UFO's or the Lochness.

No, but much of the rationalization that's used to support arguments that those are cover-ups are identical to the ones used for 9-11.

For example, 'it's always good to ask questions'. Another - official sources can't be trusted. Even closer to the point - finding strange anomalies and unexplained facts and concluding that there must be a conspiracy at work.

And - yes - the Popular Mechanics article is a good read, if only to show that many seemingly unexplainable things can be explained. You can bet that the ones that aren't will be fuel for the conspiracy engines.

Exactly.

But c'mon MH, let's face it. The evidence of the lochness monster is far more compelling than the "cement powder, 110-stories-of-exposives" BS we're being subjected to here...

I really do enjoy reading this stuff for entertainment value,though. They go round and round in circles without proving anything.

Find out who was in charge of security for WTC yet?

[Michael Hardner]

Google says Marvin Bush, brother of George Bush, was on the board of directors of a firm that provided electronic security for the WTC.

It's not all that amazing, really.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We are not talking about UFO's or the Lochness.

No, but much of the rationalization that's used to support arguments that those are cover-ups are identical to the ones used for 9-11.

For example, 'it's always good to ask questions'. Another - official sources can't be trusted. Even closer to the point - finding strange anomalies and unexplained facts and concluding that there must be a conspiracy at work.

And - yes - the Popular Mechanics article is a good read, if only to show that many seemingly unexplainable things can be explained. You can bet that the ones that aren't will be fuel for the conspiracy engines.

Exactly.

But c'mon MH, let's face it. The evidence of the lochness monster is far more compelling than the "cement powder, 110-stories-of-exposives" BS we're being subjected to here...

I really do enjoy reading this stuff for entertainment value,though. They go round and round in circles without proving anything.

Find out who was in charge of security for WTC yet?

ahhh - the smoking gun. a Bush sat on the board of a security company. do you have any idea what boards of directors do?

so what are you proposing happened EXACTLY?

[Michael Hardner]

Additionally, the parent company of Stratesec/Securacon, Aviation General, listed at one time it's Head Office being housed in a hanger not far from Tinker Air Force base, which is or was a major staging platform for Tankers, and Tankers were in the air during the War Games of 9/11, and there IS evidence of a LIVE FLY excercise involving the use of simulated hijacked aircraft and therefore DRONES being employed as planes as missiles into landmark buildings, incliuding the WTC, on 9/11

An example of a quote from a 9/11 conspiracy site.

This type of imagineering would be amusing if it weren't for the damage it does in fuelling the idea that information from any official source can't be trusted. As I have posted, this is the same tack used by large corporations in discounting UN scientist reports on global warming.

Blind acceptance is just as bad as blind rejection. If we don't, as a society, get back on the same page information-wise then we won't be able to agree to a response when something urgently needs to be done.

[Michael Hardner]

I imagine what's being proposed is that, as a member of the board, the Bush brother would have some kind of direct influence on operations - enough to tamper with the 'electronic security' that would have been so vital to stopping the planes from hitting the buildings ?

That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps, then, his firm had to rig 'electronic security' throughout the building, allowing him to personally instruct the workmen, or... uh... anyway to allow them to install charges in the... walls....

I'm not sure.

What I do know is that it's another example of starting with a coincidence of some sort (yes there are many if you look closely enough) then working backwards (using your imagination) until you can find a link back to the original conspiracy.

It's nothing but a parlor game.

What's worse is that all of this energy could be put into more important research:

Environmental research, tax expenditures, corporate misdeeds...

These are all things that could use some looking in to, but aren't as sexy as James Blonde style worldwide conspiracy.

[Riverwind]

This type of imagineering would be amusing if it weren't for the damage it does in fuelling the idea that information from any official source can't be trusted.

The official sources claimed that Saddam had WMD. Official sources are not always right and should not be trusted blindly. Should they be trusted in this case? Probably. But I think the conspiracy theorists have forced the official sources to think more carefully about what happened. I don't think the information in the Popular Mechanics article would be available there were not people who questioned the official story.

The issue is not whether someone questions the official story, the issue is whether they cling to the their theories once they have been credibly refuted.