Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
“The Madrid tower was a completely different structure and smaller scale to the twin towers”
Therefore weaker.
“It was mainly concrete”
Concrete and steel of course.
“There was steel at the top and guess what happened it, it collapsed!”
After 24 hours, not 1 hour.
“the circumstances to 9/11 were completely unique”
So unique that the laws of physics were suspended for a day? Please tell us about the conductive qualities of steel and how they were suspended for one day only.
…normally when an aircraft hits the ground there is considerable damage in the immediate area, any pictures of such crashes will show that.
In the Pennsylvania incident the wreckage was spread over a trail lasting many miles, more consistent with damage caused by a bomb or missile hit. It would appear the aircraft broke up in flight and not when it hit the ground.
The “cospiracy theorists” argue this plane was taken out because the passengers had taken control of it and captured the hijackers. Of course the plan was that they would be killed outright and not suffer any future interrogation or trial where the truth might emerge. Its called burying the evidence…
Carlyle,
“When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known, the people at the controls flew them into buildings.”
That is circular reasoning. We do not know the cause of the crash of Flight 93. But even if we did, the authorities would still be legally obliged to do a thorough investigation as it was allegedly both an air crash and a mass murder incident. Are you seriously suggesting it was not necessary to collect the remains of Flight 93 and try to piece together what happened to it?
“In the Pennsylvania incident the wreckage was spread over a trail lasting many miles, more consistent with damage caused by a bomb or missile hit. It would appear the aircraft broke up in flight and not when it hit the ground.”
You need to upgrade your software to Troof 3.0. You’re still on stuff that Popular Mechanics debunked.
Scattered debris was found in places which were a few miles BY ROAD but just over the brow of a hill as the debris flies.
“The “cospiracy theorists” argue this plane was taken out because the passengers had taken control of it and captured the hijackers. Of course the plan was that they would be killed outright and not suffer any future interrogation or trial where the truth might emerge. Its called burying the evidence…”
That sounds silly and I’m sure there are number of Truthers shaking their heads and saying, “Don’t look at me guv!” right now.
You didn’t tell me who was paying you by the way.
If anyone wants to find out the truth about anything, that may conflict with their core beliefs, then they have to make the effort to find it for themselves.
There is very strong in-built resistance to this, because the very foundations of your self image of the world is liable to be swept away.
People naturally have trust in their government, in a relationship somewhat similar to a child and a parent.
Its like the wife of a loving husband and father, denying that he could possibly be the local serial killer. He keeps coming home late at night covered in blood, and says to his wife, he’s been helping his mate down the local butchers shop. His wife knows, that the local butchers shop closed down years ago, so she assumes he must have been working in Sainsbury’s. She doesn’t interrogate him, because the truth is too painful. The Son cowers in his bedroom, worrying who will be his next victim.
There is overwhelming evidence that all 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition. You simply need to examine it objectively, and try and remember the very basic physics you should have stayed awake for at school.
Try a Google or Youtube search of something like 9/11 Evidence of Controlled Demolition Physics.
You will get an extremely large number of results including some junk science and disinfo. Some of the junk is extremely professionally done and convincing, but it still doesn’t stand up to the basic laws of physics. If you don’t have any understanding of those, then you are at a big disadvantage.
You could however look at the detailed photographic evidence, that actually shows people moving and alive, at the very point were the aircraft hit and exploded. You will see some black smoke and some flames, but what you are looking at is an obviously cold fire, that could not possibly be hot enough to melt or even deform steel, because people are alive and looking out threw the hole hoping to be rescued.
But the chances are, like the Roman Catholic Priest who’s very existence both now and after death is dependent on his faith, he will not go anywhere near deep historical research, that will blatantly challenge his faith with facts. The facts are too dangerous and best ignored.
What is indisputable, unless you believe in aliens, 9/11 was done by humans, and it was a very evil act. Whilst Muslims got the blame for it, what exactly would be their motivation? They must have known that the response to such an attack would be the overwhelming destruction of their own culture.
Now try and think objectively which culture has actually exhibited the most tremendous evil. Is it Muslims, or is it Us?
And then think about the actual technical capabilities of the different cultures required to pull off such an event.
If you want links, find them yourself. If you are comfortable believing the official story, then stay with it.
Discovering the truth about 9/11 is like losing your religion. However I have never heard of anyone who once having convinced themselves of all the clear facts, has gone back to believing the official story.
Tony
Hi All,
I want to ask some questions; not “Just Asking Questions” questions; real questions, because my memory fades or could be imperfect.
I watched live TV coverage for a while on 911, probably BBC. I remember the coverage cutting away at one point, to pictures of children. Where, I ask myself. Gaza? Palestine? The voice-over told me that I was seeing children celebrating the disaster. I couldn’t say either way. I saw a few children, quite young, I think, not a dense crowd. I remember one ran left a bit, and then sort of retreated, looking back and smiling at the camera as if looking for approval. The child seemed too young to understand about such an incident.
The pictures alternated with pictures of what the kids were allegedly watching, which was an enormous television. Not the sort of thing you have in your home, but one of the huge things they put above the stage at rock concerts so that people at the back can see what’s happening on stage. This enormous screen was set up outdoors, and was showing TV coverage from New York.
I remember thinking this was very odd. I’d seen pictures of Gaza before, the poverty and the destroyed buildings, and I couldn’t imagine what one of these huge screens would be doing there; incongruous. And I remember wondering how anyone had noticed these children, and why they’d assumed that the children were celebrating. They just looked like kids mucking about in the street to me, there was only the voice-over to tell me that they were celebrating the destruction. It all seemed a bit artificial, a set-up.
I’ve looked around the Web to see if I could find a clip of this, but the only clips I’ve found on the subject show a completely different scene which has no resemblence to my memory.
So my questions are:
does anyone else remember this, and if so, what are your memories?
and
Can you link to a clip to refresh my memory?
I’m not going to sit watching this thread, but I’ll be back later to check for answers. All help appreciated.
“When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known”
Oh dear, this what is known as teleological reasoning ie presupposing what you’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate.
The official account of 911 wasn’t announced until 48 hours after the event. Of course you retain the wreckage in all instances, whatever theories you might have. The wreckage is kept because it is a valuable source of clues. The wreckage of the Lockerbie plane was kept and sifted through meticulously even though it quickly became obvious it was a terrorist bomb that caused the crash.
Frazer,
I appreciate your informed response about the explosives, and I will try to reciprocate by trying to re-open my mind, which I admit has been closed on this subject for sometime.
Carlyle,
The 9/11 reality denier label was made tongue in cheek. I often think it was a wise spokespan for empire who said “we make our own reality.”
I’m with you as an JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King lone nutter denialist. And by the way, Angrysoba told me he believes Oswald did JFK on his own.
I belive climate is always changing due to factors far more significant than the CO2 concentration and that the IPCC AGW/climate change gravy train (driven by a former train driving agenda benda named Rajenda, by the way) is the scam of the century. However, we’re going to have to do something about our fossil fuel habit regardless.
As for UFOs, I’m with Carl Sagan all the way. But if aliens do come to visit, I hope they aren’t going to turn out to be lizards with David Icke haircuts.
“Six miles to the southeast, at New Baltimore, a town of 630 people, Andy Stoe was in his yard Wednesday night when he found two scraps of paper — one an endorsed check for $698, made out to a San Jose, Calif. man who was not on the passenger list. The other paper was a financial statement, singed around the edges.
In Indian Lake, another crumpled financial statement lay amid thumbnail-size pieces of fabric and charred plastic, scattered across backyards.
On the Lowery farm, it rained financial statements — enough that Lowery and wife Gerry had a handful in the three one-gallon plastic bags of debris they turned over to investigators.
“They said they found unopened mail,” Gerry Lowery said of the mix of state police and FBI searchers who walked almost shoulder-to-shoulder through their fields all day Wednesday and yesterday. “They found a picture, a snapshot of a baby. That just caused goose bumps for me.””
In other words much of the debris that was found was paper which was blown by the wind.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp
They did find the data recorder and body parts so unless you want to claim they were faked then I am not sure what is left of your United 93 conspiracy.
Further to my description above, I also seem to remember that not all of the children seemed to be interested in the big screen, and the ones that were didn’t give it their full attention; mostly, they just seemed to be involved in their street game, which was kicking a ball or some stones about, I think.
MJ
Why have you assumed that the Madrid towers were weaker because they were smaller? It wasn’t, in fact it was a far stronger design as it had a central solid concrete core which was far more robust than the steel frame of the twin towers.
Also it was not alight for 24 hours it was alight for 18 hours and in fact by 14hours the fire was under control. It wasn’t left to burn like you said.
The steel didn’t collapse after 24hrs it collapsed after 5 hours.
Again this is a completely different fire as it was started at a single point of a floor and then it spread.
9/11 the fire started throughout a full floor not a single point.
I have to ask the question, are you a structural engineer? The reason why I ask is that you seem to be making a lot of assumption which would lead me to believe that you are not.
“Oh dear, this what is known as teleological reasoning ie presupposing what you’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate.”
Actually, MJ, I think it is question-begging. Teleological thinking is mostly about the purpose of something. “What is the reason for this?”, “Why does this exist?” etc…
Re: Tim Groves:
There are 10 sorts of people:
those who know binary, and those who don’t.
Clark,
I think this is the clip you remember
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOJCQr1Now
From wiki
“Annette Kr?ger Spitta of the ARD’s (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin L?ffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.”
Tony
Teleological thinking is mostly about the purpose of something. “What is the reason for this?”, “Why does this exist?”
It can be, for instance in some of the arguments people make against evolutionary theory. But it has a deeper philosophical meaning than that and I am using it correctly in this case. Indeed, “what is the reason for this?” is the sense in which I’m using here, really.
“The steel didn’t collapse after 24hrs it collapsed after 5 hours”
5 hours is pretty good. Shame WTC2 didn’t hold out for that long. 58 minutes!
“9/11 the fire started throughout a full floor not a single point”
But did not spread. A rather small-scale local fire really.
“are you a structural engineer?”
No, but I’ve picked up some of the basic principles along the way out of interest in the subject.
I know about the conductive qualities of steel for instance. Do you?
A reply to Chris in Glasgow who said;
“Neil Turner, you have just produced a bone fide example of what I believe is known as a Gish Gallop”.
Others would call it truth.
Unfortunately some people are educated beyond their intelligence.
Vronsky
This is what my margins can’t contain:
Before 911 the Muslim world in general(or at least the ones Craig’s friends in quilam call Islamists) called the Taliban American agents.
They also used this term to a lesser degree for Uthama bin Ladin.
We believed that the Taliban were created by America to stabilise the country for the pipeline.
The Taliban received all their funding and fuel from Pakistan, as well as their arms. And it wasn’t much of a secret that all this was being paid for by America.
During that time Period the Taliban were allowed to collect funds and distribute their newspaper openly in the UK. They were able to travel everywhere to give talks in the UK. We remember senior members of the Taliban going to America to have meetings with senior members of the American administration.
Because we knew how infiltrated both the Taliban and Uthama bin Ladin’s entourage were by the CIA, we just called them the CIA.
That was our name for them, and we called their supporters, the supporters of the CIA.
We laughed at them and treated them as a joke.
So to say Bin Ladin did it, would not contradict saying it was an inside Job done by rouge agents. Because we still remember him getting funding and arms from the CIA.
Remembering how infiltrated his Entourage were, remembering that he was completely dependent of the Taliban and the Taliban were completely dependent on Pakistan and the CIA for founding and supplies. Remembering how infiltrated the Arab Mujahideen, the Taliban and Pakistans ISI were by the CIA, really does mean I can’t see a contradiction between saying it was an inside Job and a outside Job.
But my personal opinion, which I do not believe is held by anyone else. Is that it wasn’t done by Bin Ladin, because he was under the house arrest by the Taliban at the time. They had removed all of his phones so he had no means of communication to direct such a thing. Even if he did have such a means, he was already on watch list because he had admitted attack America in Somalia.
The Taliban has nothing to gain by such an attack, and Uthama had given what is known as a Bayat to Mulla Umar. What this means was Uthama bin Ladin was under a religious obligation to obey Mullah Umar.
What I believe is an Anti-Taliban group could have been responsible. This may have happened with or without the collusion of agent provocateurs. I have reasons for this belief, but my margins can’t contain them.
My forum my contain them though?
I have been fascinated for some years by a short piece of film in Loose Change 2nd Edition. The clip, starting at 34:35, shows the towers after the first plane has hit.
The cameraman, who appears to be using a hand-held camera, keeps the camera focused on the towers, even when there is the roar overhead of the second plane coming in, and a voice is heard, saying what sounds to me like “Ah, oui”.
Wouldn’t he duck or run, or at least look up, when he is looking at a building that had just had a plane crash into it and he hears another plane roaring in? And is that voice saying “Ah, oui”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM
Call me a twoofer, but it seems to me like two French Canadians have been commissioned to capture the moment.
I wasn’t going to mention anything about 9/11 again.
Here’s a building which burned pretty well, though:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29099142
That’s the Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental. And don’t tell me it stayed intact because some water got sprayed on it, _please_.
hawley_jr wrote: “Call me a twoofer, but it seems to me like two French Canadians have been commissioned to capture the moment.”
Are you talking about the Naudet brothers? They’re actually French originally. (Why do you think they’re Canadians?) They were doing a documentary on the NYPD. What’s so odd about that? Happens all the time.
hawley_jr, I just looked briefly, and it’s not the Naudet brothers, so I was wrong.
Nonetheless, that’s some very silly evidence for an inside job!
If no videotape existed, then it’s a conspiracy.
If videotapes exist, then it’s a conspiracy.
Nothing odd about that footage of Bush sitting in the classroom reading billy goats gruff for ten minutes after news of the first crash was very quickly wispered in his ear. -phew- Nothing strange about that scene at all.
Everyone take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQSV3BBtZ4&feature=player_embedded
Why did I post it?
America can not use the excuse of dead Americans to case dead Muslims just as the Zionists can not use the excuse of Dead jews to cause dead Muslims.
Don’t let the bastards use their crocodile tears to call for the extermination of millians.
standaman,
Thanks for picking up on that point,just a thought; I’m hoping Craig spotted that raindrop in a sea of 9/11, needs to be reviewed before the next major public inquiry. 7/7??
“Nothing odd about that footage of Bush sitting in the classroom reading billy goats gruff for ten minutes after news of the first crash was very quickly wispered in his ear. -phew- Nothing strange about that scene at all.”
1. The teacher was reading; he wasn’t reading. Get it right.
2. If he had known the attacks were coming, the better staging of the response would have been for him to confidently rise to his feet, confidently travel to Camp David (and stay there!) and have some great stills and video of him taking control of the situation.
“the better staging of the response would have been for him to confidently rise to his feet,”
Ah yes, too strange to be strange. That covers it nicely :p
But yes, Standaman’s note shouldnt get noised out:
>>
passed into law 1 month before the 7/7 attrocities.
The Inquiries Act 2005 will allow secret inquests under goverment selected (privvy councillor) high court judges & inquests without family members or/or juries present.
The same legislation will be used to undertake the inquests (NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED YET) into the 56 deaths of July 7th 2005.
More here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk2fmhv
1. Of course Bush wasn’t reading. He can’t read.
2. Bush claimed to have seen the first crash _before_ going into the classroom, commenting that he thought “that’s one terrible pilot”. The guy whispered into his ear about the _second_ plane, while he was sitting there, pretending to read along.
Now of course, Bush couldn’t have seen the plane hit the first tower, nobody did. He wouldn’t have even seen about it, because pictures weren’t broadcast at the time he went into the school. Bush either knew about it in advance, or he was lying when recalling the event.
Glenn, while you’re making things up, why don’t you just write that Bush was standing there with a plunger that was wired into the WTC? In your mind, what’s the downside to making things up? Nothing.
What!!!! You call a plane full of fuel, burning, a small scale fire!!!! Did you see the impact????
I saw the impact and its net result, after the fuel had burned off in the fireball. A small-scale localised fire. Nothing controversial there. We’ve all seen the pictures.