Exactly,we control afghanistan,we have troops who can look and pakistan is our ally i guess so we can look for him.
He isnt even mentioned any more,last i heard about him was a US general who said we think we know where he's at but we dont wanna go and get him so all the operations we are spying on dont get disrupted. wtf
Allow me to briefly introduce myself so that I don't come off as a noob, coming into this argument blindly. My name is Luis Hurtado. I'm an animator on G4's Attack of the Show. I have a huge interest in politics and I love to read conspiracy theories, albeit with a grain of salt.
The whole 9/11 conspiracy story is really deviating from the point. We'll never really know who was behind it for sure, so arguing those theories is really futile. 9/11 was really just a reason for this current administration to do whatever it wants. Whoever was behind it, it's obvious this current administration has taken full advantage of it.
Conspiracy theorists love to dramatize everything and turn it into some grand scheme evil plot, when in reality it's incredibly simple what is really going on.
It's about money, that's it. Just money. Capitalism thrives on taking in as many markets as possible. Once we're bored with the new Shakira album, guess what. They will now be able to sell it in Iraq and Afghanistan. New markets = More Money.
If you guys haven't looked into, "Project for the New American Century." It's a pretty interesting read. It's a Washington thinktank organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Present and former members of this thinktank group include prominent members of the Republican & Bush Administration. No conspiracy theories here, just simple facts.
Another thing I've noticed is the actual geographical location of Syria, Iraq, Iran & Afghanistan. Is Bush trying to play Connect Four? This current administrtion has vilified all four of those countries and I'm sure intends on invading all four if it can. Why do you ask? Well, in my opinion it's a simple matter of economics. If you build an oil pipeline that runs from Afghanistan and travels West through Syria and spills out to the Mediterranean, then oil tankers don't have to travel around Africa anymore. It makes it way more efficient to move all that raw oil.
I will end my post with another concept to ponder. Bush, Gore, Kerry & Cheney all attended Yale University. Sometimes those school ties run deeper than party lines.
Bring on the debate! I'd love to have intelligent debate with anyone who wants to take any of my points or concepts on.
Bateman:"I believe he was a part of that whole "Yale Thing""
Inspector Kimball:"the Yale thing?"
Bateman:"He did a lot of cocaine and I believe was a closet homosexual...that "Yale Thing""
Thanks for joining us LHurtado. And welcome to polycount. Watch your step, lots of little ones.
now we're talkin.
prior to 2001, everyone knew that bin laden was opposed to military presence in muslim lands. every attack linked to bin laden has been against the US military.
1997 CNN interview.
[ QUOTE ]
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
Q) Do you think there will be more bombing attacks on American troops in Saudi Arabia? or attacks on American civilians in Saudi Arabia? or will there be assassination attempts on the Saudi Arabian ruling family?
BIN LADIN: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling (Saudi) family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.
Q) Mr. Bin Ladin, were you involved in financing the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City (before 9/11)?
BIN LADIN: I have no connection or relation with this explosion.
[/ QUOTE ]
The attack on the WTC was not aimed at a military or civilian presence in a muslim land. It killed innocent women and children, which Bin Laden himself is oppose to unless permissable by Islam to rid foreign occupation. It only increased US military presence in the middle east. Even if he is only inspiration for the reciprocate against US occupation in Muslim lands, is it fair to single him out as the "mastermind", while ignoring the true attackers. And apparently, those who carried out the attacks are still alive.
1998 interview:
[ QUOTE ]
Reporter:You've been painted in America as a terrorist leader. To your followers, you are a hero. How do you see yourself?
Bin Laden:As I have said, we are not interested in what America says. We do not care. We view ourselves and our brothers like everyone else. Allah created us to worship Him and to follow in his footsteps and to be guided by His Book. I am one of the servants of Allah and I obey his orders. Among those is the order to fight for the word of Allah ... and to fight until the Americans are driven out of all the Islamic countries.
[/ QUOTE ]
1999 interview:
[ QUOTE ]
bin Laden: Any foreign attack on Afghanistan would not target an individual. It would not target Osama bin Laden personally. The fact is that Afghanistan, having raised the banner of Islam, has become a target for the crusader-Jewish alliance. We expect Afghanistan to be bombarded, even though the non-believers will say that they do so because of the presence of Osama. That is why we, together with our brothers, live on these mountains far away from Muslims in villages and towns, in order to spare them any harm.
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like he got that one right. Bin Laden is actually a very intelligent man. I assume Saddam is just as well. Not the rat hiding in the hole we're shown to dehumanize him. Much like how the Nazi's dehumanized the Jews. Some reports state that Saddam was found in a modest home in a small village, and fought back American forces. Saddam now accused the American government of criminal acts, in an unbalanced court trial. Who do we believe?
[ QUOTE ]
Bin Laden was rumored in the Pakistani press to have died in 2001 of pulmonary complications incident to catastrophic kidney failure in the absence of available hygienic dialysis....This speculation was later undercut by newly released videos of bin Laden, alive and referring to current events such as the 2004 US Presidential election.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he died, maybe he didn't. If he had, it explains why we're not putting much effort into finding him. Was he really the reason we entered Afghanistan? The only audio tape directly linking him to the attacks could have easily been planted. The video tapes released last year proving he is still alive, could have been faked. He did hire decoys. At this point, many of his men have been captured. One of them admitting direct responsibility for the attack.
[ QUOTE ]
On October 21, 2004, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, reported that bin Laden was indeed alive, and that the Pentagon knew exactly where he was. According to Lehman, bin Laden was living in South Waziristan in the Toba Kakar Mountains of the Baluchistan region in Pakistan, surviving from donations from outside countries such as the United Arab Emirates and high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia. "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops," Lehman said. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now"
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah right. The US government has led us into this region due to greed. No one can deny that now, not even our military.
Well put together post Luis, and welcome to the boards.
I agree that Bush was anxious to use his 'toys'. After 9/11, we were going to go after SOMEONE and since Al Queda admitted to the attacks, it was an obvious move to go into Afghanistan. Also, the economy was just starting to go down the crapper after Bush's election and one of the best things known to help a poor economy is a war.
Unfortunately, the war did nothing for our economy, which has done nothing but toilet down since. Then he convinces the population that moving into Iraq is necessary to stop the "axis of evil". America should have stood up then and stopped his dumb ass.
But the point of this thread was to discuss the items pointed out in those videos. The videos are suggesting that our government performed these attacks, which is completely false. They may not have stopped done their job of protecting the country, but that's just a result of arrogance IMO.
As for Bush villifying those countries. We've always had bad relations in those countries. America has always had problems with governments that aren't democratic. Relations with those countries existed before Bush and they'll continue long after Bush.
btw, can you hook me up with Sarah's phone number? (j/k)
[ QUOTE ]
after the 911 attacks, Osama denied responsibility. if Osama was behind them, he would gladly tell the world. but he denied it, saying something about a "government within a government" in the US. even so, Osama was the first to point the finger at immediately after the attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Shortly after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, "the U.S. has evidence of bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks that it will present in due time." Well, it's been four years and they have yet to produce said evidence. So really, the idea that Osama bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on September 11th is also just a conspiracy theory; a conspiracy theory that we've used as an excuse to start two wars.
the point of this thread is to discuss recent throughts about 9/11. hawken started off on a bad note with those retarded videos. you can't find the source of these issues by only focusing on a silly theory created from watching compressed low angle videos of the attack itself. this whole situation goes way back and is much deeper in complexity.
Our government has about a dozen intelligence agencies funded with $40 billion per year. If most are unable to find answers, it's more likely they're hiding them.
my current thought? it happened, the government failed to prevent it in any case, and has since lied and started two wars. they are presiding over this country fraudulantly, lying to its people, and should thus be removed. they cannot have the consent of the governed if they lie to the governed.
[ QUOTE ]
my current thought? it happened, the government failed to prevent it in any case, and has since lied and started two wars. they are presiding over this country fraudulantly, lying to its people, and should thus be removed. they cannot have the consent of the governed if they lie to the governed.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did this change in your political outlook come about, Mishra? Good to see it and all, but I remember you having a different attitude about such things a year or so ago.
[ QUOTE ]
You know. There have been a couple of Presidents that I didn't vote for. Didn't like them.
There have never been any Presidents of the US that I voted for or against that I would accuse of treason just because I don't like the fact they are in office. Still, that is what is going on here.
I find a lot of this speculation extremely offensive, not to mention stupid.
Bye
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking of treason, just curious what your present feelings are regarding Karl Rove, Duke?
Man, I'm away from Polycount for 24 hours, and stuff like this goes down?
Hawken, I know from your posts that you are a reasonable, skeptical, independent thinker. It's not unreasonable to look at a list of alleged refutations of facts and give them the benefit of the doubt. This is how we keep our thinking independent, and this is the action that keeps our bullshit detectors calibrated and running efficiently.
However. It's also true that whenever a major historical event happens that shakes the world and rattles some people, inevitably, someone will come forward some time later and insist that everyone was fooled, and the whole thing was a giant conspiracy. The Kennedy Assassination, for example (Johnson had it done!). Pearl Harbor (Roosevelt let it happen!). The Federal building bombing in OKC (McVeigh was framed!). The Apollo moon missions (they were fake! -- there are people who dispute the validity of the space walk videos simply because "it looks too cheap").
My take on it is this -- conspiracy theory is the modern form of folkloric mythology. Mythology is an ancient storytelling craft that, among other things, attempts to explain why the world works like it does. So that it won't be so damn scary. When you don't understand what thunder and lightning are, it's much easier to deal with them if you "know" that they are bolts thrown by Zeus from up on Olympus. The human mind HATES undertainty just as Nature abhors vacuum, and the human mind will fill its own void with whatever seems to make the most sense. No matter how ridiculous it ends up sounding to people who believe otherwise.
So the gods of our modern conspiracy mythos are 'THEM'. The Big Scary Government, Grey aliens, fallen angels, 'The Frankenstein Computer God', take your pick; it's the Villain with A Thousand Faces. Whatever it is that you can't adequately explain to yourself, THEY can be held accountable for. And then you feel better, because life seems less random and frightening when you can point fingers like that. Whoever started that 9/11 conspiracy theory is obviously chilled to the bone by the idea that airliners could be hijacked and crashed into skyscrapers. This idea scares them so badly that they have to come up with an alternate explanation that refutes it, and then for them, that idea does not have to exist. And they can deal.
So really, I have pity for the people who can't accept what would seem to be a reliable consensus, that yes, airplanes crashed into the buildings and they collapsed. I have no hard first-hand evidence myself, but I can live with the conventional explanation until I get a reliably proven alternate.
[ QUOTE ]
This is too far fetched. The same sort of eyball tricks about "missile launchers' are going on, as wit "The Face" on Mars. people with a fervent belief in vast comspiracies, literally chasing shadows as "proof". Believing in conspiracies is comforting, because it means there is some order and direction in the univoerse, but that's not true. Most everything is random, and Yes, 17 Saudis could have done this while most people napped through their jobs and watched CNN about the missing Congressman's Intern. The universe is a random and uncaring place.
Scott
[/ QUOTE ]
my favorite post, thanks Scott.
My first post up there was written in the tone of the videos, tyring to mirror their belief in their own facts.
Some of which have been proven false, and in some shots we can see the planes really are entering the buildings when the minor pre-explosion takes place, this would be better explained by impact than "missiles". Although it's questionable what is on the under carrige of these planes. Also I agree with the concept that the visable charges being let off are indeed a result of the building collapsing internally.
However a lot of questions are unanswered, motives aside. For example, what really caused the Richter 2 recording? Why were there reports from fire crews that the foundations of the twin towers were bombed after impact?
mop:
[ QUOTE ]
Hawken: I just noticed another of your original points is also full of crap. Airliner fuel burns at over 1700 degrees Celsius. The melting point of Iron is around 1500 degrees Celsius. The melting point of Titanium is about 1650 degrees.
Come on, man, let's see some actual facts here rather than lame conjecture!
[/ QUOTE ]
erm. So the fuel burns hotter than the engines metal can hold it? A jet engine is 9 tonnes of titanium, are you really saying that it melts at a lower tempreture than the fuel being burnt inside it?
My grandfather worked for Rolly Royce and worked on the first jet engines which were modified from a german plane, that cashed near their factory. He designed the flu system which remains unchanged today (due to the simple nature of a jet). Trust me, if they made the engine incapable of withstanding the fuel it burnt, as you seggest it's 50 degrees in the minor, I doubt they would have gotten very far.
Also, I go with the belief that the planes were not hijacked to a certain degree, and might have been military. This leaves so many questions open (like what happened to everyone?).
The reason why the official story of 911 is contested so much is that that the goverment is so secretive about everything surrounding it. If they were just a bit more open and honest then it would put a lot more people at ease. However putting people at ease is not something they want to do, seemingly.
It's a shame we can't all get togther and drink some beers, why is our nature self destruction?
Hawken: Yeah, actually. The jet fuel burns at 1700 degrees celsius in the turbine, but it's cooled before it comes into contact with the metal.
"The cans are carefully shaped to maintain a layer of fresh unburned air between the metal surfaces and the central core. This unburned air mixes into the burned gases to bring the temperature down to something the turbine can tolerate."
If you don't think it was jet fuel in the basement (where it was still hot days later), what do you think it was then? Even if it were a bomb, the material would have been burnt up.
I also think a lot of what was mentioned in that video is very conveniently put in. Like when he put in all the audios from the day where people state it looked like an implosion. They were just describing the way it collapsed, but the narrator acts as if the reporters even thought it was a professional implosion.
I believe the secondary explosions the firefighters heard were either equipment in the building exploding or large items falling (like layers of the floor). The basement explosions could have been from fuel that poured down the elevator shafts (or the elevator itself falling). Obviously I don't have any way to prove this, but there is a way to explain something from either side.
Well unlike Crappius, i mean the virtuous Moppius (sorry typos), i dont have the appropriate qualifications to tell you at what temperature water boils or any designated substance. It all comes down to what space / ratio and altitude the solid, liquid or gas is traveling, oxygen is an important factor in this since the lack of it thereof can change the chemical reaction.
To me, unlike others your first estimate was probably true, and not of real importance (in my point of view). One thing we both share however is that its common knowledge that something is attached to the belly of the plane. As to what it is, i dont know. I will leave it to you, i know for sure that your instinctive discernment and sharp thinking can pretty much lead you in this.
normal 767 viewed from below
abnormal 767 or modified one (p.s) This image comes directly from a publication im linking without consent. (hope its ok)
Dont eat your words too fast, there is some fondation in what you said.
Have a nice day friend
I would think that you should apply the light and angle to your model plane there, so that it is equivalent tp the lighting in the Newsday photo. It's the contour of the belly at the landing gear blisters, coupled with the CAST SHADOW OF THE RIGHT ENGINE NACELLE, and towards the nose there is a reflection on the fuselage ahead of the wing, heightening the contrast. Compare the plane with the buildings at the edges of the photos to see the lighting direction. That's what your musterious attatchment is.
..and as to answer Hawken's question to me, about what cause the 2 Rigchter scale event.
Have anyone been inside a building when a very large and heavily laden truck goes by, rattling the windows and the glassware on the shelves? In Saving Private Ryan, there's a nice illustration of the effect of 3 56 ton Panzers and a few Armoured APC's approaching the village that our little band is in, with the skipping of pebbles and debris in the quiet right before the attack.
What caused the "Event was not secondary explosions, but the cumulative weight of each collapsing floor, transmitting the impacts of the dramatically increasing tonnage, through the remaining upright girders, before they themselves were added to the weight of the falling debris, until the final collaps e of the entire weight of the building into the foundations and bedrock underneath that. It took (forever)about 20 seconds for the building to fall (and also knock down a piece of Tower 7 (?). It was the Weight of the building that caused the seismic event.
Paint the reflective silver parts blue, the dull part will then give you the silver "line" in those pictures. The darker part in the center is the wider part between the wings on the model, it probably was painted blue as well because it's more visible from the sides.
[ QUOTE ]
It's the contour of the belly at the landing gear blisters, coupled with the CAST SHADOW OF THE RIGHT ENGINE NACELLE ... That's what your mysterious attachment is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scott, man, I'm amazed I didn't see that before.
It's totally obvious!
The attacks were in the early morning, the sun was still very low - note the direction the towers are being lit from - the turbine nacelle shadow is being cast in exactly the right direction on the fuselage for it to appear like a possible outline of something attached to the bottom of the plane.
There goes your mysterious pod attachment, conspiracy folks.
The only way you could disprove this is if you actually got a photo from such an angle where you could see the actual silhouette of the underside of the plane. I think you'll find that the silhouette of the underside is always perfectly normal, though... no sign of a pod.
It's just a trick of the light. Great point, Scott. I also really enjoyed your "The universe is an uncaring place" post
[ QUOTE ]
...Crappius...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahahaha... Peanut, man, get back into school! Maybe it'll kick your mental age up 10 years or so, into the early twenties.
I honestly can't believe after 4 pages, you people are still discussing the "pod under the plane theory".
About the structure of the WTC. It's very possible that the force of the plane's impact, along with the fire, and the dynamic force of the building...led to the collapse of the building. So an attachment to a plane is realy not worth discussing. But additional influences to the collapse of the buildings are. Some report of additional explosions about 14 seconds before each building collapsed. A shake is also recorded on a ground secured camera. A month after the collapse, molten steel was still burning beneath the wreckage. Firemen were blocked from accessing areas due to hotspots. With the collapse of the damaged floors, and the lack of oxygen buried beneath the wreckage, jet fuel cannot cause this. A thermite detonation within the basement can. If someone can smash a commercial jet into a building, they can just as likely set up explosions in the basement (it happened in 1993) as well to further weaken the structure after impact, initiating a collapse.
Remember WTC 7 also collapsed later that day. It fell straight down into its footprint. FEMA stated that it collapsed due to fire caused by debris. Just fire within offices of a couple floors. Local authorities later admitted to demolishing the building. Inability to contain the fire was the reason given. Lots of important paper work from important companies were in that building. Maybe some people remained.
Even IF they detonated it. When did they have time to do this? To destroy a building with such precision takes experience, and time. Was the building rigged to be demolished before the attacks? And IF it wasn't demolished...how do they explain the hotspots from that building similar to the ones created by thermite detonations in the WTC basements? Molten steel was also found in the wreckage of WTC 7, a product of thermite detonations. Burning office supplies can't cause that.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember WTC 7 also collapsed later that day. It fell straight down into its footprint. FEMA stated that it collapsed due to fire caused by debris. Just fire within offices of a couple floors. Local authorities later admitted to demolishing the building. Inability to contain the fire was the reason given. Lots of important paper work from important companies were in that building. Maybe some people remained.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, building 7--which just so happened to be where a lot of evidence for various corporate lawsuits (e.g. Enron) was being stored--is quite a mystery. The lease owner, Larry Silverstein, said in an interview that he gave the order to "pull it" when the fire department told him they couldn't contain the fire. I don't understand how they were able to set explosives to demolish a building in less than 8 hours, when that sort of thing usually takes weeks or even months of planning (not to mention how long it takes to set the explosives and detonators).
And of course, more fodder for the conspiracy freaks: Larry Silverstein had signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center less than two months before September 11th. He also had a less than two-month-old terrorist insurance policy that paid out more than $3.5 Billion (he sued for another $3.5 billion, claiming that the two towers were two separate terrorist attacks, but he lost the lawsuit).
This building 7 situation seems very fishy, and the evidence is a lot more clear-cut and credible than a bunch of shadows in a blurry picture.
Why post an image that's known to be a hoax for over 4 years now? Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
ok, let's say it wasn't already known. first glance.
9/11/2001 was a warm sunny day. not the weather for winter coat and hat.
question: why are you and so many others so willing to believe everythihg you're told from our government? at what age did you realize santa isn't real?
Elysium: You realize he was kidding, right? You had me worried for a moment.
It would entirely be possible that some people knew about the attacks and rigged the buildings with explosives to make sure they come down to amplify the shock effect (from what I've heard, "airplane crashing into the building" was one of the possible threats the designers had taken into account and the building was supposedly plane-proof). They probably tried to make building 7 collapsing look like an accident but not enough debries went into that direction so Silverstein said he did it to contain the fire.
OTOH, there might have been substances in the WTC that could burn anaerobic that caught fire and continued burning after the collapse.
I realized he was kidding. Some of us are having a nice dicussion based on recent thoughts of 9/11. It hasn't turned into a flame war. Many are just brushing off the possibilities, and acting like children. Some find this important because it affects our lives. While others are still hoping to find those WMD's. And few are distracted by airplanes.
I think there is alot of questions which need answering for WTC building 7.
Fire alone took that building down and if thats the case it will be the first building ever to collapse by fire only.
A plane didnt hit it so there is no large quantities of accelerants to fuel the fire to a heat hot enought to melt the metal structure which keeps it up.
So without nothing to fuel this fire to this type of intensity,no major impact to affect structural integrity what caused building 7 to collapse.
i really don't know what to think. the event is like something out of a god damnned action movie, it's ridiculous.
all i know is that i'm pretty fucking pissed off a war was started and nobody knews for sure what the fuck was going on. i'm guessing there was a lot of important shit in those buildings that would, if destroyed would jack up our economy (i don't know anything about that crap) i've heard in history classes that war is the best thing for a country's economy, so there ya go, more people had to die. i think extremist terrorist groups are fucked-up angry people that want war. i feel remorse for the innocent and good that are killed in wars, but i feel the war going on will make the world a better place.
i think that the "secondary explosions" shown in the video footage is air pressure from the floors above collapsing on top of it. weren't people breaking windows and jumping out to their deaths? i'm pretty sure windows on buildings like that don't open. anyway, i bet that's what those are.
i think a commercial airliner crashing into a wtc tower would cause it to crumble. those buildings were fucking huge, they must have had an immense amount of pressure on their supports to begin with, and heating it up with gallons of plane fuel?
the rocket launcher theory is just silly. i'm doubting the flash was even in the real footage. but i do wonder what it could be.
i extremly doubt the american government had anything to do with this event. thousands of their people died.
Elysium, My point in posting that was how people are believing those videos like they are fact when they are obviously designed to fool the public. My reply was directed to Peanut (as you might note in my reply title).
KP, I'm with you. It's more bothersome to me that we are in a war with a country that has nothing to do with 9/11. We really don't know why we are there anymore since they didn't have "WMD"s. Now we have to stay there until they get things settled. When will that be? Probably never. That area is always in unrest.
Notman: you're right. I apologize. I had moved on in my arguements, and didn't understand the purpose for your reply. For most of this thread I've been ignoring peanut's posts because they're so retarded. Like I said, after 5 pages, how can anyone still be discussing those lame videos?.
My point has been that you can't create a well drawn hypothesis for the cause of 9/11 just from a split second of low angle videos. Years and decades of political conflict have led to these events. There are at least three possible causes here:
The first, young theorist are happy to point at without further questioning is, the US caused it.
The second, being the group and leadership the US accused moments after the attack, Al-qaeda, and Bin Laden. The reason: they hate our "freedom". Yep. Nothing to do with years of occupation, corruption, and killings. Move along.
And last, a third party within the US with a dislike for Islamic actions in the Middle-East. This is the "inside" organization that Bin Laden speaks of in his tapes. The US may have let this group attack, with plans to accuse Islamic groups in order to take action that appeals to the interest of this third party. Perhaps the US didn't know of the group, and they succeeded in framing Islamic militants. There had been a previous attempt, which was a complete failure. Bin Laden had recently issued his fatwa. Al-qaeda would be blamed immediately. This sounds like the US caused it. But more likely the US didn't care to prevent it. The US knew someone was planning to take down those towers. A warning was given. There was no action. If they can rig a war, plant tapes, and imagine WMD...why not rig an election?
Only a just war against a real enemy helps the economy. I'm probably finished with this thread now.
Replies
He isnt even mentioned any more,last i heard about him was a US general who said we think we know where he's at but we dont wanna go and get him so all the operations we are spying on dont get disrupted. wtf
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/goss.bin.laden/
The whole 9/11 conspiracy story is really deviating from the point. We'll never really know who was behind it for sure, so arguing those theories is really futile. 9/11 was really just a reason for this current administration to do whatever it wants. Whoever was behind it, it's obvious this current administration has taken full advantage of it.
Conspiracy theorists love to dramatize everything and turn it into some grand scheme evil plot, when in reality it's incredibly simple what is really going on.
It's about money, that's it. Just money. Capitalism thrives on taking in as many markets as possible. Once we're bored with the new Shakira album, guess what. They will now be able to sell it in Iraq and Afghanistan. New markets = More Money.
If you guys haven't looked into, "Project for the New American Century." It's a pretty interesting read. It's a Washington thinktank organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Present and former members of this thinktank group include prominent members of the Republican & Bush Administration. No conspiracy theories here, just simple facts.
Wiki on Project for the New American Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century
Another thing I've noticed is the actual geographical location of Syria, Iraq, Iran & Afghanistan. Is Bush trying to play Connect Four? This current administrtion has vilified all four of those countries and I'm sure intends on invading all four if it can. Why do you ask? Well, in my opinion it's a simple matter of economics. If you build an oil pipeline that runs from Afghanistan and travels West through Syria and spills out to the Mediterranean, then oil tankers don't have to travel around Africa anymore. It makes it way more efficient to move all that raw oil.
Map of The Middle East
http://www.theodora.com/maps/new8/middle_east.jpg
I will end my post with another concept to ponder. Bush, Gore, Kerry & Cheney all attended Yale University. Sometimes those school ties run deeper than party lines.
Bring on the debate! I'd love to have intelligent debate with anyone who wants to take any of my points or concepts on.
Thanks for reading
_lou
Bateman:"I believe he was a part of that whole "Yale Thing""
Inspector Kimball:"the Yale thing?"
Bateman:"He did a lot of cocaine and I believe was a closet homosexual...that "Yale Thing""
now we're talkin.
prior to 2001, everyone knew that bin laden was opposed to military presence in muslim lands. every attack linked to bin laden has been against the US military.
1997 CNN interview.
[ QUOTE ]
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
Q) Do you think there will be more bombing attacks on American troops in Saudi Arabia? or attacks on American civilians in Saudi Arabia? or will there be assassination attempts on the Saudi Arabian ruling family?
BIN LADIN: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling (Saudi) family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.
Q) Mr. Bin Ladin, were you involved in financing the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City (before 9/11)?
BIN LADIN: I have no connection or relation with this explosion.
[/ QUOTE ]
The attack on the WTC was not aimed at a military or civilian presence in a muslim land. It killed innocent women and children, which Bin Laden himself is oppose to unless permissable by Islam to rid foreign occupation. It only increased US military presence in the middle east. Even if he is only inspiration for the reciprocate against US occupation in Muslim lands, is it fair to single him out as the "mastermind", while ignoring the true attackers. And apparently, those who carried out the attacks are still alive.
1998 interview:
[ QUOTE ]
Reporter:You've been painted in America as a terrorist leader. To your followers, you are a hero. How do you see yourself?
Bin Laden:As I have said, we are not interested in what America says. We do not care. We view ourselves and our brothers like everyone else. Allah created us to worship Him and to follow in his footsteps and to be guided by His Book. I am one of the servants of Allah and I obey his orders. Among those is the order to fight for the word of Allah ... and to fight until the Americans are driven out of all the Islamic countries.
[/ QUOTE ]
1999 interview:
[ QUOTE ]
bin Laden: Any foreign attack on Afghanistan would not target an individual. It would not target Osama bin Laden personally. The fact is that Afghanistan, having raised the banner of Islam, has become a target for the crusader-Jewish alliance. We expect Afghanistan to be bombarded, even though the non-believers will say that they do so because of the presence of Osama. That is why we, together with our brothers, live on these mountains far away from Muslims in villages and towns, in order to spare them any harm.
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like he got that one right. Bin Laden is actually a very intelligent man. I assume Saddam is just as well. Not the rat hiding in the hole we're shown to dehumanize him. Much like how the Nazi's dehumanized the Jews. Some reports state that Saddam was found in a modest home in a small village, and fought back American forces. Saddam now accused the American government of criminal acts, in an unbalanced court trial. Who do we believe?
[ QUOTE ]
Bin Laden was rumored in the Pakistani press to have died in 2001 of pulmonary complications incident to catastrophic kidney failure in the absence of available hygienic dialysis....This speculation was later undercut by newly released videos of bin Laden, alive and referring to current events such as the 2004 US Presidential election.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he died, maybe he didn't. If he had, it explains why we're not putting much effort into finding him. Was he really the reason we entered Afghanistan? The only audio tape directly linking him to the attacks could have easily been planted. The video tapes released last year proving he is still alive, could have been faked. He did hire decoys. At this point, many of his men have been captured. One of them admitting direct responsibility for the attack.
[ QUOTE ]
On October 21, 2004, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, reported that bin Laden was indeed alive, and that the Pentagon knew exactly where he was. According to Lehman, bin Laden was living in South Waziristan in the Toba Kakar Mountains of the Baluchistan region in Pakistan, surviving from donations from outside countries such as the United Arab Emirates and high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia. "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops," Lehman said. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now"
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah right. The US government has led us into this region due to greed. No one can deny that now, not even our military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
I agree that Bush was anxious to use his 'toys'. After 9/11, we were going to go after SOMEONE and since Al Queda admitted to the attacks, it was an obvious move to go into Afghanistan. Also, the economy was just starting to go down the crapper after Bush's election and one of the best things known to help a poor economy is a war.
Unfortunately, the war did nothing for our economy, which has done nothing but toilet down since. Then he convinces the population that moving into Iraq is necessary to stop the "axis of evil". America should have stood up then and stopped his dumb ass.
But the point of this thread was to discuss the items pointed out in those videos. The videos are suggesting that our government performed these attacks, which is completely false. They may not have stopped done their job of protecting the country, but that's just a result of arrogance IMO.
As for Bush villifying those countries. We've always had bad relations in those countries. America has always had problems with governments that aren't democratic. Relations with those countries existed before Bush and they'll continue long after Bush.
btw, can you hook me up with Sarah's phone number?
after the 911 attacks, Osama denied responsibility. if Osama was behind them, he would gladly tell the world. but he denied it, saying something about a "government within a government" in the US. even so, Osama was the first to point the finger at immediately after the attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Shortly after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, "the U.S. has evidence of bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks that it will present in due time." Well, it's been four years and they have yet to produce said evidence. So really, the idea that Osama bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on September 11th is also just a conspiracy theory; a conspiracy theory that we've used as an excuse to start two wars.
Our government has about a dozen intelligence agencies funded with $40 billion per year. If most are unable to find answers, it's more likely they're hiding them.
my current thought? it happened, the government failed to prevent it in any case, and has since lied and started two wars. they are presiding over this country fraudulantly, lying to its people, and should thus be removed. they cannot have the consent of the governed if they lie to the governed.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did this change in your political outlook come about, Mishra? Good to see it and all, but I remember you having a different attitude about such things a year or so ago.
You know. There have been a couple of Presidents that I didn't vote for. Didn't like them.
There have never been any Presidents of the US that I voted for or against that I would accuse of treason just because I don't like the fact they are in office. Still, that is what is going on here.
I find a lot of this speculation extremely offensive, not to mention stupid.
Bye
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking of treason, just curious what your present feelings are regarding Karl Rove, Duke?
Hawken, I know from your posts that you are a reasonable, skeptical, independent thinker. It's not unreasonable to look at a list of alleged refutations of facts and give them the benefit of the doubt. This is how we keep our thinking independent, and this is the action that keeps our bullshit detectors calibrated and running efficiently.
However. It's also true that whenever a major historical event happens that shakes the world and rattles some people, inevitably, someone will come forward some time later and insist that everyone was fooled, and the whole thing was a giant conspiracy. The Kennedy Assassination, for example (Johnson had it done!). Pearl Harbor (Roosevelt let it happen!). The Federal building bombing in OKC (McVeigh was framed!). The Apollo moon missions (they were fake! -- there are people who dispute the validity of the space walk videos simply because "it looks too cheap").
My take on it is this -- conspiracy theory is the modern form of folkloric mythology. Mythology is an ancient storytelling craft that, among other things, attempts to explain why the world works like it does. So that it won't be so damn scary. When you don't understand what thunder and lightning are, it's much easier to deal with them if you "know" that they are bolts thrown by Zeus from up on Olympus. The human mind HATES undertainty just as Nature abhors vacuum, and the human mind will fill its own void with whatever seems to make the most sense. No matter how ridiculous it ends up sounding to people who believe otherwise.
So the gods of our modern conspiracy mythos are 'THEM'. The Big Scary Government, Grey aliens, fallen angels, 'The Frankenstein Computer God', take your pick; it's the Villain with A Thousand Faces. Whatever it is that you can't adequately explain to yourself, THEY can be held accountable for. And then you feel better, because life seems less random and frightening when you can point fingers like that. Whoever started that 9/11 conspiracy theory is obviously chilled to the bone by the idea that airliners could be hijacked and crashed into skyscrapers. This idea scares them so badly that they have to come up with an alternate explanation that refutes it, and then for them, that idea does not have to exist. And they can deal.
So really, I have pity for the people who can't accept what would seem to be a reliable consensus, that yes, airplanes crashed into the buildings and they collapsed. I have no hard first-hand evidence myself, but I can live with the conventional explanation until I get a reliably proven alternate.
/jzero
This is too far fetched. The same sort of eyball tricks about "missile launchers' are going on, as wit "The Face" on Mars. people with a fervent belief in vast comspiracies, literally chasing shadows as "proof". Believing in conspiracies is comforting, because it means there is some order and direction in the univoerse, but that's not true. Most everything is random, and Yes, 17 Saudis could have done this while most people napped through their jobs and watched CNN about the missing Congressman's Intern. The universe is a random and uncaring place.
Scott
[/ QUOTE ]
my favorite post, thanks Scott.
My first post up there was written in the tone of the videos, tyring to mirror their belief in their own facts.
Some of which have been proven false, and in some shots we can see the planes really are entering the buildings when the minor pre-explosion takes place, this would be better explained by impact than "missiles". Although it's questionable what is on the under carrige of these planes. Also I agree with the concept that the visable charges being let off are indeed a result of the building collapsing internally.
However a lot of questions are unanswered, motives aside. For example, what really caused the Richter 2 recording? Why were there reports from fire crews that the foundations of the twin towers were bombed after impact?
mop:
[ QUOTE ]
Hawken: I just noticed another of your original points is also full of crap. Airliner fuel burns at over 1700 degrees Celsius. The melting point of Iron is around 1500 degrees Celsius. The melting point of Titanium is about 1650 degrees.
Come on, man, let's see some actual facts here rather than lame conjecture!
[/ QUOTE ]
erm. So the fuel burns hotter than the engines metal can hold it? A jet engine is 9 tonnes of titanium, are you really saying that it melts at a lower tempreture than the fuel being burnt inside it?
My grandfather worked for Rolly Royce and worked on the first jet engines which were modified from a german plane, that cashed near their factory. He designed the flu system which remains unchanged today (due to the simple nature of a jet). Trust me, if they made the engine incapable of withstanding the fuel it burnt, as you seggest it's 50 degrees in the minor, I doubt they would have gotten very far.
Also, I go with the belief that the planes were not hijacked to a certain degree, and might have been military. This leaves so many questions open (like what happened to everyone?).
The reason why the official story of 911 is contested so much is that that the goverment is so secretive about everything surrounding it. If they were just a bit more open and honest then it would put a lot more people at ease. However putting people at ease is not something they want to do, seemingly.
It's a shame we can't all get togther and drink some beers, why is our nature self destruction?
"The cans are carefully shaped to maintain a layer of fresh unburned air between the metal surfaces and the central core. This unburned air mixes into the burned gases to bring the temperature down to something the turbine can tolerate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet
Read up on it
If you don't think it was jet fuel in the basement (where it was still hot days later), what do you think it was then? Even if it were a bomb, the material would have been burnt up.
I also think a lot of what was mentioned in that video is very conveniently put in. Like when he put in all the audios from the day where people state it looked like an implosion. They were just describing the way it collapsed, but the narrator acts as if the reporters even thought it was a professional implosion.
I believe the secondary explosions the firefighters heard were either equipment in the building exploding or large items falling (like layers of the floor). The basement explosions could have been from fuel that poured down the elevator shafts (or the elevator itself falling). Obviously I don't have any way to prove this, but there is a way to explain something from either side.
Well unlike Crappius, i mean the virtuous Moppius (sorry typos), i dont have the appropriate qualifications to tell you at what temperature water boils or any designated substance. It all comes down to what space / ratio and altitude the solid, liquid or gas is traveling, oxygen is an important factor in this since the lack of it thereof can change the chemical reaction.
To me, unlike others your first estimate was probably true, and not of real importance (in my point of view). One thing we both share however is that its common knowledge that something is attached to the belly of the plane. As to what it is, i dont know. I will leave it to you, i know for sure that your instinctive discernment and sharp thinking can pretty much lead you in this.
normal 767 viewed from below
abnormal 767 or modified one
(p.s) This image comes directly from a publication im linking without consent. (hope its ok)
Dont eat your words too fast, there is some fondation in what you said.
Have a nice day friend
Scott
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
but then again it could have been jumbojets with frickin missiles attached to their heads.
Have anyone been inside a building when a very large and heavily laden truck goes by, rattling the windows and the glassware on the shelves? In Saving Private Ryan, there's a nice illustration of the effect of 3 56 ton Panzers and a few Armoured APC's approaching the village that our little band is in, with the skipping of pebbles and debris in the quiet right before the attack.
What caused the "Event was not secondary explosions, but the cumulative weight of each collapsing floor, transmitting the impacts of the dramatically increasing tonnage, through the remaining upright girders, before they themselves were added to the weight of the falling debris, until the final collaps e of the entire weight of the building into the foundations and bedrock underneath that. It took (forever)about 20 seconds for the building to fall (and also knock down a piece of Tower 7 (?). It was the Weight of the building that caused the seismic event.
Scott
It's the contour of the belly at the landing gear blisters, coupled with the CAST SHADOW OF THE RIGHT ENGINE NACELLE ... That's what your mysterious attachment is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scott, man, I'm amazed I didn't see that before.
It's totally obvious!
The attacks were in the early morning, the sun was still very low - note the direction the towers are being lit from - the turbine nacelle shadow is being cast in exactly the right direction on the fuselage for it to appear like a possible outline of something attached to the bottom of the plane.
There goes your mysterious pod attachment, conspiracy folks.
The only way you could disprove this is if you actually got a photo from such an angle where you could see the actual silhouette of the underside of the plane. I think you'll find that the silhouette of the underside is always perfectly normal, though... no sign of a pod.
It's just a trick of the light. Great point, Scott. I also really enjoyed your "The universe is an uncaring place" post
[ QUOTE ]
...Crappius...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahahaha... Peanut, man, get back into school! Maybe it'll kick your mental age up 10 years or so, into the early twenties.
...Crappius...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahahaha you say ?
You look nervous, i can see the sweat excreted through the monitor.
At least my 10 years of age are giving you a match.
Have fun debunking this for me. Im taking the day off
Love
About the structure of the WTC. It's very possible that the force of the plane's impact, along with the fire, and the dynamic force of the building...led to the collapse of the building. So an attachment to a plane is realy not worth discussing. But additional influences to the collapse of the buildings are. Some report of additional explosions about 14 seconds before each building collapsed. A shake is also recorded on a ground secured camera. A month after the collapse, molten steel was still burning beneath the wreckage. Firemen were blocked from accessing areas due to hotspots. With the collapse of the damaged floors, and the lack of oxygen buried beneath the wreckage, jet fuel cannot cause this. A thermite detonation within the basement can. If someone can smash a commercial jet into a building, they can just as likely set up explosions in the basement (it happened in 1993) as well to further weaken the structure after impact, initiating a collapse.
Remember WTC 7 also collapsed later that day. It fell straight down into its footprint. FEMA stated that it collapsed due to fire caused by debris. Just fire within offices of a couple floors. Local authorities later admitted to demolishing the building. Inability to contain the fire was the reason given. Lots of important paper work from important companies were in that building. Maybe some people remained.
Even IF they detonated it. When did they have time to do this? To destroy a building with such precision takes experience, and time. Was the building rigged to be demolished before the attacks? And IF it wasn't demolished...how do they explain the hotspots from that building similar to the ones created by thermite detonations in the WTC basements? Molten steel was also found in the wreckage of WTC 7, a product of thermite detonations. Burning office supplies can't cause that.
Remember WTC 7 also collapsed later that day. It fell straight down into its footprint. FEMA stated that it collapsed due to fire caused by debris. Just fire within offices of a couple floors. Local authorities later admitted to demolishing the building. Inability to contain the fire was the reason given. Lots of important paper work from important companies were in that building. Maybe some people remained.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, building 7--which just so happened to be where a lot of evidence for various corporate lawsuits (e.g. Enron) was being stored--is quite a mystery. The lease owner, Larry Silverstein, said in an interview that he gave the order to "pull it" when the fire department told him they couldn't contain the fire. I don't understand how they were able to set explosives to demolish a building in less than 8 hours, when that sort of thing usually takes weeks or even months of planning (not to mention how long it takes to set the explosives and detonators).
And of course, more fodder for the conspiracy freaks: Larry Silverstein had signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center less than two months before September 11th. He also had a less than two-month-old terrorist insurance policy that paid out more than $3.5 Billion (he sued for another $3.5 billion, claiming that the two towers were two separate terrorist attacks, but he lost the lawsuit).
This building 7 situation seems very fishy, and the evidence is a lot more clear-cut and credible than a bunch of shadows in a blurry picture.
If you look closely, you can see the missile under the nose!
ok, let's say it wasn't already known. first glance.
9/11/2001 was a warm sunny day. not the weather for winter coat and hat.
question: why are you and so many others so willing to believe everythihg you're told from our government? at what age did you realize santa isn't real?
It would entirely be possible that some people knew about the attacks and rigged the buildings with explosives to make sure they come down to amplify the shock effect (from what I've heard, "airplane crashing into the building" was one of the possible threats the designers had taken into account and the building was supposedly plane-proof). They probably tried to make building 7 collapsing look like an accident but not enough debries went into that direction so Silverstein said he did it to contain the fire.
OTOH, there might have been substances in the WTC that could burn anaerobic that caught fire and continued burning after the collapse.
Fire alone took that building down and if thats the case it will be the first building ever to collapse by fire only.
A plane didnt hit it so there is no large quantities of accelerants to fuel the fire to a heat hot enought to melt the metal structure which keeps it up.
So without nothing to fuel this fire to this type of intensity,no major impact to affect structural integrity what caused building 7 to collapse.
all i know is that i'm pretty fucking pissed off a war was started and nobody knews for sure what the fuck was going on. i'm guessing there was a lot of important shit in those buildings that would, if destroyed would jack up our economy (i don't know anything about that crap) i've heard in history classes that war is the best thing for a country's economy, so there ya go, more people had to die. i think extremist terrorist groups are fucked-up angry people that want war. i feel remorse for the innocent and good that are killed in wars, but i feel the war going on will make the world a better place.
i think that the "secondary explosions" shown in the video footage is air pressure from the floors above collapsing on top of it. weren't people breaking windows and jumping out to their deaths? i'm pretty sure windows on buildings like that don't open. anyway, i bet that's what those are.
i think a commercial airliner crashing into a wtc tower would cause it to crumble. those buildings were fucking huge, they must have had an immense amount of pressure on their supports to begin with, and heating it up with gallons of plane fuel?
the rocket launcher theory is just silly. i'm doubting the flash was even in the real footage. but i do wonder what it could be.
i extremly doubt the american government had anything to do with this event. thousands of their people died.
KP, I'm with you. It's more bothersome to me that we are in a war with a country that has nothing to do with 9/11. We really don't know why we are there anymore since they didn't have "WMD"s. Now we have to stay there until they get things settled. When will that be? Probably never. That area is always in unrest.
My point has been that you can't create a well drawn hypothesis for the cause of 9/11 just from a split second of low angle videos. Years and decades of political conflict have led to these events. There are at least three possible causes here:
The first, young theorist are happy to point at without further questioning is, the US caused it.
The second, being the group and leadership the US accused moments after the attack, Al-qaeda, and Bin Laden. The reason: they hate our "freedom". Yep. Nothing to do with years of occupation, corruption, and killings. Move along.
And last, a third party within the US with a dislike for Islamic actions in the Middle-East. This is the "inside" organization that Bin Laden speaks of in his tapes. The US may have let this group attack, with plans to accuse Islamic groups in order to take action that appeals to the interest of this third party. Perhaps the US didn't know of the group, and they succeeded in framing Islamic militants. There had been a previous attempt, which was a complete failure. Bin Laden had recently issued his fatwa. Al-qaeda would be blamed immediately. This sounds like the US caused it. But more likely the US didn't care to prevent it. The US knew someone was planning to take down those towers. A warning was given. There was no action. If they can rig a war, plant tapes, and imagine WMD...why not rig an election?
Only a just war against a real enemy helps the economy. I'm probably finished with this thread now.