The truth behind 9/11

[Paladin Solo]

How hard can it be to at least critically evaluate simple circumstantial evidence before a priori denouncing and to a great degree failing to grasp what this thread is about?

When did I fail to grasp what this thread is about? It's a thread about a conspiracy right? Hence the conspiracy... Ok, so I came about this thread initially a bit saracastically...

Sudden Onset of Collapse

Were you expecting the building to yell out to everyone watching that it couldn't hold itself up anymore?

Collapsing straight Down

Some buildings fail to collapse at all even when demolition charges are used, and some don't collapse the way they should. But since we've obviously seen these types of attacks happen ALL THE TIME, the WTC is the first reported case in which buildings collapsed the way they did... (God, I hope you recognize the sarcasm in that last sentence)

Almost Free-Fall Speed

Did it happen too fast? Should it have stopped and told you what it was doing? You hold tons of weight above your head, and see if you can hold it up without collapsing at free-fall speed. The building just simply wasn't strong enough to hold back the tons of steel coming down on it.

Total Collapse of the buildings

Like I said, sometimes demolition charges fail to collapse buildings as well. The airplane's cockpit went clear through (or some flaming ball of fire) the other side of the building when it crashed into it. This created a huge gap in the building which made holding up the weight much less stable.

Evidence of Sliced Steel

Thats what happens when metal comes crashing down on metal from really high above.

Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials

A tree root can break concrete, but a collapsing building can't?

Observed Dust Clouds

Not pretty enough carnage for you eh? There was other things in the building other than people and desks...plenty of things with chemcials, especially since there was an airliner in both buildings, not the mention the fact that a huge building crashing down to Earth is bound to push out a breath of smoke, at the very least.

Horizontal Ejections of gases

There were plent of things to emit gasses, and were you there to see if a pipe or two weren't physically bent and bleeding out gasses in a horizontal direction? There was plenty of debris to force gasses to maneuver in a horizontal method. For example, take your hand, and hold it to an angle next to your mouth, and blow so that your breath can be felt at different angles. Or, just maneuver your lips to project your breath to shoot at different angles. Not everything to life is so complicated.

Sounds Produced by Explosions

For the umpteenth time, a building crashing down, will make a thump, electronics on fire, with water and liquid fuel spraying at it, will explode, gasses will mix with other gasses and fire. It's chaos. Plus, did you not see the planes crashing into the buildings?

Molten Steel

Did you not see the fires or explosions? Do you not know that hot metal touching hot metal will create more hot metal? A strong concentration of explosive force with fuel to burn it for some time will make metal hot... So we found this molten metal in the debris...well, it had to be there, since it did come crashing down. And how would you know that the metal did not stay hot under that debris for some time? So let's say you're right...and demolitions were used. This makes the molten metal discovery more valid? Explain please, other than the fact that thermite can do the same to metal what an exploding airplane can. As the article, and fact says, metal can stay hot for a long time if not directly cooled, and heated by something really hot...Like an explosive force of a huge airliner full of flamables crashes into a building.

The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

The article keeps refering to this case. Well, here is my question...if the tempeartures could be, and were apparently recorded, then even if explosives were used, since the temperture recorded was "not capable" enough to melt metal...then how did the metal melt?

Now, the only part I'll agree with you on is the WTC 7 mystery, and the only thing I'm agreeing with you on that is that it's a mystery, yet to be solved. The molten metal from the Twin Towers could've scattered on collapse into 7's site.

7. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

That could just be random explosions from the building and/or the plane at a coincidencial time, or the explosions could've just be thumps of the building's upper damaged floors giving way. Or, it could've been demolition charges somehow randomly were placed near the location of where the plane coincidentially hit. The steel frames on the lower floors were also said to give away with the huge shift of weight diverted onto them, so when the break, explosions are heard, and dust is seen.

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

Plus, the weight of the building did help collapse the structure.

Now, while this conspiracy (at the time being) does present some very good points, perhaps the conspiracy is just a conspiracy of a conspiracy? Perhaps it is missing some other very good points? My point is this...when will it stop? Never... Someone is always going to argue it happened some other way than is widely believed. And though I respect your right and ability to bring to question those beliefs, in this particular case, I don't fully agree with your views on this subject matter.

Now, with all that aside... Let's say hypothetically that explosives were used... Why so quick to think it wasn't some other third party? I hear plenty of dirty references to Israel, but I'm not so quick to believe it. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to conspiracy theories, no matter how deep you dig the hole, there is always one that is deeper.

Anyways... Like I said, this kind of thing doesn't happen every day for scientists and investigators to study, research, and investigate. There are similiar situations in the topic of buildings collapsing, but they are also, at the same time, two very different situations.

Edit:

Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.

Try to stay on topic, that's ships in water, not buildings on land.

phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

When you're interested in making a quick buc, in the middle of a busy day planning on buildings for millions of citizens, and sometimes, corrupt, you tend to skip a few things. I won't even mention the politically zealous.

The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

You must be joking? Do you know who Osama is, and what his group wants to do with Americans?

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Have you read my last post (Paladin Solo)?

Have you missed the whole point of the article where it's clearly explained how the proposed conflagration scenario is supposed to account for what had happened. Never before or after has a high rise steel building collapsed due to fire, not to mention that the WTC steel collumns were heavily insulated with asbestos...steel just doesn't melt that way. Period.

As for sudden onset:
In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004). If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305). The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

 

[Paladin Solo]

Have you read my last post (Paladin Solo)?

Likewise...

When you started this thread, I remembered viewing this website awhile back.

Now, for one, notice the vast amount of debris in the collapsing buildings comming down?

And it does have information on that site which brings into quesiton the 9/11 attacks. Check out the fireman video. But someone saying it "LOOKED" like an explosion doesn't make it fact.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

I don't have the time to fully answer your post Paladin Solo, but still I beleive if I did I would most probably find myself quoting half the friginn article which directly adresses all of the remarks you have pointed out. But putting those things aside, how DO YOU explain the fact that all the three WTC buildings collapsed in a perfect self-imploding manner completely contradictory to the basic laws of thermodynamics (all the three buildings chose the path of greatest resistance, i.e. the least probable one).

The other problem iis that the only energy available for the concrete to be pulverized was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust. Not to mention the neat, easily transportable pieces of metal the collumns have obliterated themselves to...

I know that the implications of this are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

 

[Paladin Solo]

how DO YOU explain the fact that all the three WTC buildings collapsed in a perfect self-imploding manner completely contradictory to the basic laws of thermodynamics

I don't in this particular matter. I am not in the position to do such. Instead, what I do is take viewpoints from any side I can get a hold of, and try to understand and comprehend them to the best I can for that moment. I wasn't there, I watched behind a television. I am not there, trying to solve what happened. Instead, I am here, trying to understand what happened.

I know that the implications of this are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

You know, you're starting to sound a lot like;

I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America. And I believe all Americans are so well educated in basic physics that they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.
Hand me that remote, will you? I believe <clonk>. I believe <clonk>. I believe ...

Please, continue telling me what is truth and what is lie, as you seem to be so blessed with such benevolence.

 

[John Uskglass]

That the German government used that occassion to launch a war at a time it felt was most convenient.

Bullshit, utter bullshit. I would have expected better from you. The Kaiser did not want war any more then the French or the British. The Kaiser was probably the most actively involved leader of any nation to try and stop the war.

It's weird how long it takes for awful British propaganda to finally die. Really weird.

 

[[Rusty Chopper]]

You could've heard this story (http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm) :

The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building
On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City. He was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a weather report. Because of the poor visibility the LaGuardia tower wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from the military to continue on to Newark. The last transmission from the LaGuardia tower to the plane was a foreboding warning: "From where I'm sitting, I can't see the top of the Empire State Building."1

Confronted with dense fog, Smith dropped the bomber low to regain visibility, where he found himself in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by skyscrapers. At first, the bomber was headed directly for the New York Central Building but at the last minute, Smith was able to bank west and miss it. Unfortunately, this put him in line for another skyscraper. Smith managed to miss several skyscrapers until he was headed for the Empire State Building. At the last minute, Smith tried to get the bomber to climb and twist away, but it was too late.

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O'Connor described the crash:

The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.2
Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.

The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
---------------------

You see? The Empire State Building remained almost intact after such a terrible B-25 bomber crash!

Food for thought.

And yes, I read the article almost two years ago.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Yes, I've seen the story on the History Channel.

Top speed, 275 mph...

Top speed, 609 mph...

I won't even mention fuel tank capacity...

The only thing I agree with here is that WTC 7 is a mystery, and I do have questions about the Pentagon. But I've heard countless conspiracies on WTC and Pentagon attacks to try and understand which one can be on to something... The only thing I'm trying to make sense of here is when we're going to finally know everything about that dreadful day.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

That the German government used that occassion to launch a war at a time it felt was most convenient.

Bullshit, utter bullshit. I would have expected better from you. The Kaiser did not want war any more then the French or the British. The Kaiser was probably the most actively involved leader of any nation to try and stop the war.

It's weird how long it takes for awful British propaganda to finally die. Really weird.

I was going to post the exact same thing, John.

I mean, really, welsh, it has long ago been established that the Austro-Hungarian empire was the one who forced the war the most.

Ironically, it was also the one who had the least to gain from it.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

John Uskglass wrote:

The 9/11 Attacks where too well coordinated, too successful in their terrible mission to have anything to do with the CIA or any government 'intelligence' agency.

Yeah, the CIA tries to missile assassinate someone and fails, killing many innocents in a war crime against a country not officially part of the conflict (Pakistan), while one of their members' roles is compromised (the CIA op who was looking for evidence of nuclear deals with Iraq and found none, which was turned around completely by apparently the Shit House's Offal Office for the Iraq Invasion) - and people expect them to be competent enough to come up with the kind of orchestration required for 9/11? HA!

How convenient for this government to always excuse itself by way of incompetence and not suffer any penal action for the now almost unbelievable array of atrocities it has committed – too damn convenient if you ask me.

"The torture of prisoners is not an aberration. It is a direct consequence of the with-us-or-against-us ideology of world struggle with which the Bush administration has sought to change, change radically, the international stance of the United States and to recast many domestic institutions and prerogatives. The Bush administration has committed the country to a pseudo-religious doctrine of war, endless war — for "the war on terror" is nothing less than that. ... Endless war is taken to justify endless incarcerations — without charges, without the release of prisoners' names or any access to family members and lawyers, without trials, without sentences. ... This "Global War on Terror" ... inevitably leads to the dehumanizing of anyone declared by the Bush administration to be a possible terrorist ..." — Susan Sontag

In a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 17th, 2001, Bush announced that America was embarked upon a "War on Terrorism" (in that speech he used the words "terror", "terrorist" and "terrorism" at total of 32 times, and "war" twelve times, so no-one would fail to get the message). But before the U.S. retaliated by bombing Afghanistan day and night for weeks it should first have established exactly who instigated, planned and directed the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Despite the attempt to blame nineteen Arabs, allegedly the hijackers of the four planes, this was not done. Such evidence, if it were ever produced (and, I believe it will never be produced), must be such as to convince third parties such as the Europeans, and the evidence must be made public (not every last detail, but enough to establish the case). Key figures such as the U.S. President, the British Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary-General declaring themselves "convinced" is insufficient. Such declarations will fool some people, but these officials are literally warmongers and will do anything to justify their waging of war, including lying to the public about the convincingness of the alleged evidence. Only when convincing evidence has been made public, and the identity of the attackers established, would it be possible to declare "war" without misuse of language. Until then the "War on Terrorism" will be a propaganda campaign like the "War on Drugs" — a way of disguising the true aims and motivations of those waging this "war", which in this case is that age-old motivation: territorial and economic conquest.

The "War on Terrorism" has three major components:
(1) A propaganda war waged firstly against the American people and secondly against the rest of the people on this planet who have access to TV and newspapers.
(2) A large increase in the powers of surveillance and control exercised by the U.S. federal government over U.S. citizens and residents and in the ability of the government to impose censorship.
(3) The use of American military force (with help mainly from the British), to whatever extent necessary, to gain control of the oil reserves of the Caspian Basin, the mineral wealth of Central Asia and whatever other economic resources in other parts of Asia that the U.S. wishes to control.
The purpose of (1) is to disguise the true nature of (3) by presenting it as the use of military force to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks. The purpose of (2) is to stifle any protest and dissent from those Americans who are not fooled by (1) and who object to (3). Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft & Co. know from the 1960s demonstrations against the Vietnam War that domestic opposition to military aggression abroad can bring that aggression to an end, and they wish to make sure in advance that the same thing will not happen this time.

The American government says that America is "at war" (as if that justifies anything the government wishes to do). But a war requires an identifiable enemy. A war is a war between two or more opposing sides. A "war" in which one side is invisible is a fantasy — a pretext to restrict civil liberties, to impose censorship and to deny rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. It is a tool for psychological operations directed against both domestic and foreign populations, for deceiving the American people and others and persuading them to submit willingly to violations of their human rights. (Though one might say that if they do submit then they deserve the enslavement that will come to them.) And in this case, as noted above, the purpose is to suppress any domestic opposition to U.S. military action abroad. And at home; remember that the U.S. military has been used against American citizens before — at Waco.

An another thing to keep in mind is that wars end when one of the opposing sides is beaten into submission and can no longer fight. But if one side is invisible then the war can never end, because there is no way to know that the opposing side has been defeated. Indeed, if the American people begin to believe that perhaps the "terrorist threat" has begun to recede you can be sure that another "terrorist attack" will occur, courtesy of those scripting the "War on Terrorism", which will return them to their former state of fear and dread, which is just where the perpetrators want them to be. The "enemy" will remain an invisible, diabolical presence, unseen except for its evil effects when "the terrorists" attack again. The American people have entered what may be a long, drawn-out, nightmare, in which nothing will be what it seems. It is The Towering Inferno, Armageddon and The X-Files suddenly emerging into daily life.

The "War on Terrorism" is the psy-war successor to the "War on Drugs". It has been clear to almost everyone for quite some time that the "War on Drugs" is totally discredited, and those who are informed know that it is basically a component in a huge and long-running scam whereby the U.S. government finances its covert operations and (in part) its military by means of its profits from its international drug trafficking. It became clear to the U.S. government, especially in view of the tolerance and regulation of drug use adopted in recent years in many European countries, that it can no longer maintain its "War on Drugs" with any degree of credibility. Thus the people of the U.S. had to be hoodwinked into supporting a new "War", and the bogeyman of "militant Arab fundamentalists" (helped greatly by a Zionist-dominated mainstream media and terrorist attacks on the WTC in 1993, probably provoked by the FBI, and on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which US Army explosives had reportedly been used) provided a useful target.

The war on terror is the new strategy for elite domination of US society. It is their desperately-needed successor to the Cold War, which for fifty years legitimized government power and Pentagon budgets and held people in thrall to Mutually Assured Destruction. The war on terror is intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, so that they sacrifice liberty for security and mobilize behind their leaders to smite the foe wherever and whomever he may be. It is meant to justify the far-flung bases of Empire and to make Americans eager to sacrifice their sons and daughters and treasure in the noble cause. It is meant to turn an alienated and ever more unequal and undemocratic society towards unthinking, patriotic zeal. Most of all, it is meant to focus on carefully-selected foreign enemies the anger and revolutionary solidarity which should be focused on the enemies of democracy and peace here at home. — Dave Stratman

 

[Sander]

helped greatly by a Zionist-dominated mainstream media

Zionist-dominated mainstream media?
Sorry pal, you just lost all of your credibility.
Zionist, pschyeah.

 

[welsh]

That the German government used that occassion to launch a war at a time it felt was most convenient.

Bullshit, utter bullshit. I would have expected better from you. The Kaiser did not want war any more then the French or the British. The Kaiser was probably the most actively involved leader of any nation to try and stop the war.

It's weird how long it takes for awful British propaganda to finally die. Really weird.

Read Dale Copeland- Origin of Major Wars. He's done the documentary research. Have you?

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Sander, if you have attentively read that which I have posted you would not have failed to note that that the word sequence “Zionist-dominated mainstream media” is merely served as an expression delineating the preponderance of western media to biasly portray “Christianity” in favor of “Islam”, if you get my drift. Still, Usama Bin Laden would insist that actual Jews were behind all this, but that’s an all together different conspiracy theory – one that needs not have any relevance to the subject at hand.

As for sir Solo, I have given an illustration of damage inflicted by the second aircraft impact to the South Tower in order for him to better grasp that which I have been proposing. Notice how extensive the distribution of load bearing columns is, and just how little of the fuel actually remained in the building a posteriori to the impact. Each of these columns has 5 inches thick hardened steel skirts and the whole design is highly redundant and can still support the building with more than a third of the columns knocked out. And as can be seen there hardly was any impact damage to the load bearing section at all. The most curious fact is that this tower was the first to collapse, even though the flames there have been far less intense and have “raged” for a considerably shorter period of time. Kind of leaves the conflagration theory deprived of oxygen, doesn’t it?

When will you people wake up? Just look around, and for once see where our country is going...

The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have a right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.

— Harry Browne

Examples of genocide within U.S. history are common enough not to be considered remarkable or even genocide. Among historic crimes which are not commonly called genocide: the destruction of North American Indian peoples, the liquidation of six million Brazilian Indians through the policies of multi-national corporations, effects of U.S. economic and military policies on the poor throughout the Americas, the Euro-American slave trade and subsequent treatment of black Americans, and the fate of the American poor. ...

Corporate capitalism may simply be legitimized genocide by economic means. ... Those without ethics no longer sell beads to the indians, but rockets and missiles to "underdeveloped countries," where the arms kill off as many poor people as possible.

— J. B. Gerald

As a member of the United Nations the U.S. has committed itself to the principles expressed in the Charter. Since 1980, however, the U.S. has consistently flouted these principles, abrogating treaties and attacking other nations without international consent.

Indeed, the U.S. government, in violation of the United Nations charter and international law, has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy. Actually Congress excused itself from any direct responsibility for this aggression since it resolved "That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines [emphasis added] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons ..." So if George W. Bush thinks (to the extent that he is able to think) that, say, Iran "harbors terrorists" or will in "forseeable future" be in posession of strategic nuclear assets, then Congress has said it's OK by them for George to nuke Teheran.

 

[Sander]

Sander, if you have attentively read that which I have posted you would not have failed to note that that the word sequence “Zionist-dominated mainstream media” is merely served as an expression delineating the preponderance of western media to biasly portray “Christianity” in favor of “Islam”

Bullshit. It's a completely useless expression, that, moreover, doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, and is mainly linked to anti-semitism.

As for sir Solo, I have given an illustration of damage inflicted by the second aircraft impact to the South Tower in order for him to better grasp that which I have been proposing. Notice how extensive the distribution of load bearing columns is, and just how little of the fuel actually remained in the building a posteriori to the impact. Each of these columns has 5 inches thick hardened steel skirts and the whole design is highly redundant and can still support the building with more than a third of the columns knocked out. And as can be seen there hardly was any impact damage to the load bearing section at all. The most curious fact is that this tower was the first to collapse, even though the flames there have been far less intense and have “raged” for a considerably shorter period of time. Kind of leaves the conflagration theory deprived of oxygen, doesn’t it?

When will you people wake up? Just look around, and for once see where our country is going...

See, I read through that page you provided, yet I can't help but remain extremely skeptical of all of this. Mainly because office supplies aren't the only thing that burns, desks, chairs, carpets, curtains, clothes, people and lots and lots of cubicle material burn as well. Besides that, I've seen several burned down buildings along roads around here, and most of them feature obviously half-molten support structures.

Also, you may want to reconsider your approach of telling us that the Bush administration is evil, no-one really gives a shit about all of these theories, because they're all poorly substantiated and lack any and all counter-points because everything is presented extremely one-sided.

The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have a right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.

— Harry Browne

Yet you people voted the PATRIOT act in anyway. What are you gonna do about?

As a member of the United Nations the U.S. has committed itself to the principles expressed in the Charter. Since 1980, however, the U.S. has consistently flouted these principles, abrogating treaties and attacking other nations without international consent.

Indeed, the U.S. government, in violation of the United Nations charter and international law, has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy. Actually Congress excused itself from any direct responsibility for this aggression since it resolved "That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines [emphasis added] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons ..." So if George W. Bush thinks (to the extent that he is able to think) that, say, Iran "harbors terrorists" or will in "forseeable future" be in posession of strategic nuclear assets, then Congress has said it's OK by them for George to nuke Teheran.

Actually, methinks that it isn't officially war.

Anyway, besides all this, what is your point? Yes, Bush is war-mongering and his policies are extremely doubtful. If you'd actually read around this forum you would know that this has been discussed countless times here already. Yet you decide to come in here, post about it, without actually having done anything else on this site. Do you even know what this site is about? And what made you decide to come here?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Jerkoholic...you're starting to sound just like all the hardcore right wing supporters in this country. What you're doing right now is pushing your political agendas and presenting these conspiracies as facts, and claiming that we all need to "wake up" and recognize that you're right and we're wrong... Understand that there are many questions about the events that take place in this country. Also understand that when you're claiming everything you believe as truth, and the opposite as lies, you sound like a douchebag. All the propoganda you speak against, is being spat right back out of your mouth in twisted forms.

Hmm...sounds a lot like...fundamentalism.

So, in your honor, I present to you, the "truth" you don't accept.

Jerk...you ever hear of a man called Baghdad Bob?

"Now pause the sequence at the beginning and advance it frame by frame. Firstly, look at the plane. Does that look like a Boeing jet to you? Is its wingspan wide enough? Does it have engines attached to its wings?"

The site you got that picture from...does it suggest a bird crashed into the WTC? Or are they just plain nuts?

This is invaluable propaganda and brainwashing.

No kidding...

What that first picture fails to show you is not the same for the second. Notice the explosion from the point of impact? I wonder in what other directions within the building the jet fuel burst into, enflaming other, flamable substances and objects.

 

[4too]

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead



Why is structural steel in high rises ""fire proofed""?
Not to please the insurance underwriters,
heat hurts any structure.

What potential fire load was waiting for those flying zippos?
Wasn't the WTC too tall to be protected with the normal water sprinkler system?
Most sprinkler systems are not designed to suppress fires for more than a few floors at a time. If the WTC had some foam system then maybe it was never intended to handle several floors of burning fuel.

Maybe the too tall buildings had enough fire protection and fire rated structural components to be 'street legal', to pass code, but were always a potential fire trap for it's occupants, if evacuation took more than half an hour.

Maybe the conspiracy that conspired the collapse of the WTC was thick with the architects and engineers that walk like gods to inflate their fees and prance like poodles, come to heel and roll over, when the money men start talking budget.

OR, maybe the usual suspects could include THAT aesthetic warrior, the darling of right leaning ontology's, that self centered extremist whose individual expression of his artistic copy right, struck down a literary tower compromised by the small minds of group think and commercial exploitation.


Who dun it?


Ann Rand's architect.






4too

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Fair enough sir Solo.
I'm guilty as charged. In my effort to portray what I deemed the true sequence of events leading to the collapse of WTC towers I have trodden astray of the path of verifiable scientific reasoning and for that I am most deeply sorry. My original intent was to provide the principles on the basis of which the occurrence of events leading to the collapse of aforementioned high risers can be systematically explained, predicted, and retrodicted with the end goal being the proving that the FEMA report (which is an argumentative work backing the official story) is seriously flawed to the point that can't be explained by mere incompetence only.

Whether or not the controled demolition theory can be proven beyond reasonable doubt is of only secondary consequence as long as one can prove that the goverment has delibaretaly witheld the truth from the public as is evidenced by their officially backed account of 9/11 events.

4too, I like your sarcastic, witty way of punching letters to the screen. I fear we may never know the whole truth behind this, but still I find it as my duty to persevere to the end - whatever that might be.

Can anyone provide me with evidence of a steel high riser collapsing due to fire, (Other than WTCs of course) the nature of that fire and the subsequent collapse of the building?

P.S.

That which you have pointed out Paladin Solo is the so called POD PEOPLE truth movement, one I strongly distance myself from. Such bullshit serves only to further obfuscate already tapestered skies. The guy who wrote that commited suicide virtualis - in a most amuzing manner.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I understand that there are more complicated forces at work when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. But what I don't understand is what it is...

Yes, there are going to be unanswered questions, and there's always room to conspire in any event.

Like you, I occasionally like to read up on these conspiracies, as they do entertain those parts of the brain. But I can't be sure if they're anything more. The WTC 7 collapse, the Pentagon, and numerous other questions I would want answered right now just like you. But what I can't and will not do is stray from facts. You presented some valid points, some wich need to be further investigated and debunked or confirmed. Plausible is not enough for me, just like you, but until then, there's not much I can do but wait. Until then though, discussions and debates are the only tools we have at our disposal. Unless you have some information no one has heard about, yet?

 

[John Uskglass]

Can someone get rid of that idiot's sig? That's illegal in some countries, and it's offensive.

 

[Wooz]

No.