Anyone else heard about this?

[malice2501]

I recently went to a web site (www.reopen911.org) and got a free DVD from it. The basic concept of it is that the US Govt knew all about it and did nothing. It goes as far as saying that the US govt may even have taken part in actively hiding information and intentionally causing a large chain of intelligence failures in order to accomodate it. It also points out that the WTC could not have become a giant cloud of liquid death in the way it did without some help from explosives and that NOT A SINGLE STEEL BULDING HAS EVER FALLEN FROM FIRE, which is the current theory supported by the White House and 911 comission. There has been only 2000 pounds of evidence collected from the scene of the act, and most of the real evidence has been destroyed.

So what do you guys think? tell us your opinion and give a link to a good web site that you have giving us more info.

[Gulcasa]

Why are people still so crazy over this. It's done and over with. Let it be, dammit.

[malice2501]

Why are people still so crazy over this. It's done and over with. Let it be, dammit.

Im not asking about it being crazy, the event is done. Im asking about the involvement of OUR GOVT in this event. It is commonplace politics to let the enemy kill your people to rally support. Do you think our govt is willing to sacrifice 3000+ people to meet its own ends? With JFK it was revealed years later that they lied throught thier teeth about EVERYTHING. I think the same is happening now on a much larger and more filthy scale.

Its a scary world when our govt doesnt serve the people and the people end up serving it.

[Gulcasa]

Oh, well, I'm not worrying about that because I live in Canada. Politics here are so dull, even if the government started up a Soylent Green-esque recycling system noone would care.

[Oni]

Do anyone remember how Hitler started Reichstag fire and blamed communists? It helped him to get rid of them pretty easily. Well maybe one day you'll wake up in a nazi country with one dictator and no one to oppose. History repeats itself. And it is even more dangerous because even a bullshit like banned weapons in Iraque did the job. And I bet more of those craps will come to discredit anyone inconvenient. Maybe you should hunt down some potential dictators when there is still time...

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Do you think our govt is willing to sacrifice 3000+ people to meet its own ends?

What would its' own ends be?

[malice2501]

Lets see, whats been accomplished by the new found political power garnered by Bush after 9/11

1) Complete loyalty by both parties, creating a truly non-partisan government.

2) Unquestioned support around the globe for a VERY unpopular war.

3) The passing of the patriot act, a bill tailored to destroy personal freedoms and expand national power.

I dont have the time, but i will be adding more later.

[Mistral]

Alright, a disclaimer. Only read this if you have a serious amount of time to burn. If you want it easy, just read this and this. Mostly the first. The only important stuff in here that's not in there is me refuting his three points next, asking for information about the JFK coverup after that, and I steal a joke off Terry Pratchett in my last section of the last post, though he told it better than I did. That's really about it.

And really...
1. Only briefly. After, the Democrats went into a really rabid anti-Bush stance.
2. Afghanistan was never unpopular, and that was the only war that had global support on a significant scale. Bush went rogue when he tried to press this into a war on Iraq, precisely because there was little connecting Saddam to Al Quaeda. Even now, discontent regarding the Bush administration's foreign policy between the Hindu Kush and Red Sea centers not on Afghanistan, but Iraq.
3. The Patriot Act is already beginning to be dismantled, little pieces at a time, through court acts and refusal to renew certain provisions. Not exactly a lasting success, is it?

With JFK it was revealed years later that they lied throught thier teeth about EVERYTHING.

Wait, what? I never heard this before...elaborate, please?

Besides, suggestions on the WTC's construction range from comments that it's "one of the more resistant tall building structures," to that its economical, lightweight construction materials and unusual tube design led to fundamental structural weakness compared to older buildings (considering the manner of the collapse, I'd bet upon the latter).

But, rather than rely on my conjecture or the statements of those looking at the WTC before 9/11, I shall look at the Core Evidence section and endeavour to disprove what I can in a short period of time.

NOTE COMING BACK: Alright, not a short period of time, but it's done. Thanks to the 21k character limit, it's going into two parts.

The WTC buildings collapsed at free the fall speed of gravity, 8.4 seconds (10 floors per second). To collapse at "Free fall" speed means that the falling building pieces had to crush concrete, shear steel bolts, and brake welds and fall just as fast as a rock dropped off the side of the building that hit nothing but air. Impossible without explosives. Each floor hit would have significantly slowed the fall!

Hmm...a pity their linked proof is broken (and it's a part of their own site, too! How could they be so negligent!), but I'll do what I can. The page name (seismic.html) suggests they used seismic data that showed "spikes" at 8 and 10 seconds, which is where they got their "collapse in 8.4 seconds" from. Unfortunately, looking at the rest of the data doesn't support that.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

<hr color=green>

The South Tower (Building #2) fell after 1 hour; the North Tower (Building #1) fell after 2 hours.The Meridian Plaza burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed. The Madrid fire in 2005 burnt for 24 hours looking like a torch and never collapsed.

Indeed. I wonder how much redundancy is built into those smaller structures, or for that matter, what the fuel for the fires was. Oh, it's linked. Meridian burned due to a conventional electrical fire, and Madrid..."the heat and high temperatures...something...the materials of the building, creating numerous explosions around the building." Well, that's my best guess, but there's no indication that it was set with large quantities of jet fuel, either. Anyone who cooks will tell you that 30 minutes at 300 degrees F does not equal 3 minutes at 3000 degrees F...though I would be impressed to see what kind of food came out of a blast furnace...how long the fires burned doesn't necessarily affect how much damage a low-temperature fire would cause to something that's resistant enough. Let's see...ah.

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent."

That covers both the low and high ends of fuel burning temperature estimates.
<hr color=green>

Yet Scientific American, October 2001 said "The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings�.they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center"s

And I'm sure that will go down in history alongside the "ship that God Himself could not sink." Very nice, but I'm not sure how a snippit like this is actually conducive to a proof.
<hr color=green>

"A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."- Cardington fire tests

Hmm. Fire was set to supports for an 8 story building, in isolation, not to a far taller building (110 stories) that had taken serious damage from jet liners (Or a similarly massed object; let us be even-handed, even when dealing with tin-foil crackpots), in order to specifically test a form of flooring that would help prevent such collapse from happening being tested and used in other recent construction. Hmmm, 1970s were when the WTC was constructed, so I doubt it had a composite floor. At least this link worked, so I could use it alone without searches...
<hr color=green>

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."- Federal Emergency Management Administration. Chapter 5, Page 31, May 2002

Oh, interesting. Eh, I would have thought that 2 110 story buildings (1 and 2 WTC) coming down on Building 7's ears would have been a contributing factor, but...was Building 7 all that close? I know 3-6 fell due to 1 and 2's destruction, but if there's such ambiguity in 7's case, there may have been contributing factors. Still, it's not directly relevant.

NOTE COMING BACK UP: Ah, I covered this later. Just keep going.
<hr color=green>

The investigation of the WTC "is a half-baked farce." - Fire Engineering Magazine. Jan 2002

All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, and before the investigation was even concluded, some before it began! � Fire Engineering

Hmmm, interesting, but the report used primarily visual evidence and modelling. Unusual and unfortunate, certainly, and probably a significant factor in why so many conspiracy theories have found fertile soil (and the analogy goes further when you consider the all-natural fertilizers used ), but not in itself disproof of the disaster report. Oh, and the first paragraph is opinion, not fact, so that doesn't disprove the disaster report, either.
<hr color=green>

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clinton's sex life.The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clinton's indiscretion exceed $65 million.

That's more a comment on the Clinton investigation than the WTC one, frankly.
<hr color=green>

Building 7 at the WTC, 47 floors, steel, and constructed differently from the twin towers, fell at 5:30 but it was never hit by an airplane, had no significant fire! The fires were not long enough (only 1-2 hours) to harm the steel. Yet days later, there were "hot spots" in the building that still exceeded the maximum temperature possible from jet fuel � but not from explosives.

Since I don't want to quote the whole thing (here, just scroll down to the WTC 7 collapse), I'll just pick and choose.

With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

<hr color=green>

The gusting wind on the towers had at times been greater than the impact of the airliners. Neither tower was bent nor did they creak or groan at any time.

Interestingly enough, the first link doesn't mention anything about wind - merely information on towers themselves. Also, the second link specifically mentions...

For 7 to 10 minutes before the towers fell, the photographs show exterior columns bowing inward, almost like pieces of cooked spaghetti, a sign that they are about to give way.

On the day of the attack, the winds were light, and the pressure on the exterior columns was so modest that they were using about 16 percent of their capacity, studies have shown.

Note that - light winds. Nothing about this "greater than the airplane impact" to my eyes. I expected the truth twisting into corkscrews, but blatant lying is...a bit much.
<hr color=green>
The concrete was encased in a steel framed pan yet clouds of finely pulverized concrete and steel beams came shooting out of the buildings for up to three times the width of the building at hundreds of miles per hour - only possible with explosives. [/quote]
Heh, one.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy.

Let's see...air being compressed by a floor at near-freefall conditions, losing 9.81*800,000 m3 of volume per second at most, let's call it 8*800,000 or 6,400,000 metres cubed...that's a lot of air being pushed around in a hurry.
And two. Poor Romero, becoming the focus of so many conspiracy theorists for mentioning that it "looked like a controlled demolition."

"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001.

<hr color=green>

If the force of the falling building is strong enough to pulverize concrete then the bolts and rivets would have to hold beyond that force � and then give way. Yet the force to pulverize concrete into fine powder is greater than the force that sheers or stretches steel bolts and rivets. It cannot be both ways.

Why does it need to be? If the force crushes the concrete, the rest of the supports go, too. This paragraph is, simply, confusing. Why would the bolts "have to" hold beyond that force? Why can't they simply snap once they've got nothing to affix the steel support structure with the main building material?
<hr color=green>

Both impacts and fires in the Twin Towers did not hit the center of the buildings. That means that only two sides of the building were harmed at most and two sides were structurally sound. Building 7 had no impact or significant fires. Yet all three collapses are perfectly straight down. Only the tops of the Towers should have fallen over, not the entire building all straight down, just like a controlled demolition.

It doesn't really matter where it hit, considering that the fuselages pretty much tunnelled well into the structure in both cases. It only affected the outer superstructure of those two faces. This actually concerns why there was damage so far above and below, but this paragraph suits damage distribution laterally for the internal spaces as well.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

They didn't fall straight down; they fell at a small but significant angle. Not strong enough to shear the bits still holding the top on, so it fell through the tower rather than off, apparently, but still...

Ah, just found where I first saw it: here.

USA Today incorrectly shows the top of South Tower falling vertically. It actually fell towards Building 4, possibly as much as 24 degrees.

It was the North Tower that fell vertically.

Heh...so we both weren't quite right. They botched South, and I botched North.
<hr color=green>

"I'm still to this day amazed that he [alleged pilot on Flight 77] could have flown into the Pentagon," according to the hijackers pilot instructor. "He could not fly at all." Yet, "The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

Ah, again, the PDF I linked just above. This is actually exactly what I was trying to find it for, for pages 8, 9, and 10, on the Pentagon strike. Basically, the media botched it again.

US News and World Report show the plane hitting the Pentagon while diving at a steep angle, but according to military officials it came in almost horizontal, and it was skimming the surface of the grass. It was so close to the ground that it knocked over a lamp post along the highway in front of the Pentagon

It also goes on to mention that maps put the impact on the wrong wall, which was...really impressive to me. How does a reporter miss which wall the huge hole is in?

And before you say that flying so close to the ground flawlessly was even more skillful, it wasn't exactly flawless.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

<hr color=green>

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003 : Mr. Mineta: "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane [Flight 77] is 50 miles out...30 miles... 10 miles out" � Cheney knew this plane was coming at Washington and the Pentagon and yet no planes had been scrambled to protect Washington after over 1 hour since the WTC was attacked. Even at 400 miles per hour, it takes over 7 minutes to travel 50 miles, more since the plane was at altitude. Cheney knew the plane was coming when it was even farther away since Mr. Mineta had not been present when Flight 77 was first reported to Mr. Cheney. They had known this flight was missing for over an hour after the first plane crashed into the North Tower. There should have been an umbrella of F-16 and other aircraft over Washington, DC. An F-16 fighter can travel 50 miles and destroy a target in less than 2 minutes. Moreover, pictures released by the Pentagon show anti-aircraft missiles firing at an aircraft much smaller than a 757. Everything failed! Incompetence, if not guilt.

Hmmm, again, the same article I've been linking on and off throughout, since they were so kind as to pull all of this together for me.

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).

Who cares about the VP? It's NORAD that sends the planes where they need to be, and they were still tracking on the WTC because of the other two lost planes...

Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower.

<hr color=green>

Read how the alleged hijackers used top secret information to find holes in our Radar Defenses.

I am unimpressed. I've already mentioned this. NORAD has nothing covering the internal US (which is unsurprising; they're supposed to deal with outside powers coming in), and the ATC were looking for three needles in a 2000+ haystack.

[Mistral]

And now, part 2 of 2. I...wasted a singular amount of time on this.

<hr color=green>

NORAD successfully intercepted off course and suspected hijackings 100% of 67 times during the year prior to 9/11 (AP, 8/13/02), each time in under 20 minutes. An Air Force F-15 "scrambles" to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes, normally intercepting in 15 minutes. Yet on 9/11 they were four failures for over an hour each -- three after they knew the planes were high-jacked and intended mass murder. Please read, "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert, which indicts Richard Cheney for his involvement in the war games that diverted our interceptors from stopping the high-jacked airplanes. Contrast this to Condoleezza Rice's statement from her May 16, 2002 press briefing, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile". (See Fox TV broadcast plot 6 months earlier) "Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in on Genoa. This was where U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner into the summit, which prompted officials to close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport".

I've never heard of the scrambles before, and considering there was only one interception (botched, at that), which I've quoted above, I'm not sure I'll go with the unlinked source. I'm, frankly, uninterested in reading the book they cite, though I wonder what wargames were going on if so few jets were active in the US. Somehow, though, I'm not surprised that Rice would say that, considering the frantic covering they were doing after Katrina broke the levees, too ("No one could have anticipated the levees would fail" by both Bush and Clinton...disregarding those engineer reports that warned of anything above cat 3). I don't think anyone's saying that Bush has a weather machine, though (The Yakuza working with the Russians, on the other hand...).
<hr color=green>

"On August 6, 2001, just over a month before 9/11 and during the "summer of threat", President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) at his Crawford, Texas ranch, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US The August 6th memo focused entirely on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor to President Bush, stated to the 9/11 Commission that she and President Bush considered the August 6th PDB as just an historical document and commented that this was not considered a domestic warning. At this 9/11 hearing, Condoleezza Rice had taken an oath to tell the truth to the Commissioners. [Perjury!] "Additionally, according to the 9/11 Commission report, chief White House expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, sent Rice an urgent memo just days after she took office stressing the severity of the terrorist threat. She did not respond. Although the national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks . . . terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions. The first meeting that dealt with al Qaeda did not occur until 9/4/01." Read the 9/11 widows letter on "Kindasleazy" Rice.

So the senior administration misjudged. That makes them incompetent at the worst (only maybe, actually, since we haven't even seen these memorandums ourselves, so we don't know their wording), not directly responsible.
<hr color=green>

Rice lied that they did not anticipate hijackers using airplanes as weapons yet FEMA's cover image depicts just such an attack!

As I said above, I'm not surprised considering their similar actions in later disasters. No one's saying they caused those disasters, too (no one with credibility, pardon).
<hr color=green>

I am also appalled by the media. A Zogby Poll I commissioned reported that 66% of New Yorkers want the 9/11 investigation re-opened and 49% believe government VIP's knew ahead of time and did nothing to stop it. The New York Times thought it NOT "news fit to print". I had to pay for an advertisement to get it in the New York Times!

Let's hear it for the New York Slimes (hey, if these people can mock where they should be making serious arguments, so can I, especially when I agree ). Really, that paper's been going downhill for a while.
<hr color=green>
OK, finished. There is one last thing I'd like to say, though. All of these government conspiracies, ranging from the CIA killing of John F. Kennedy, the Area 51/Groom Lake/Roswell alien cover-up, to, most recently, 9/11, presuppose one thing that makes them seem ridiculous on the light of it. They presuppose government competence. Given their track record in budgeting, economic management, education, health care, military affairs (direct meddling by the government, mind you), and the ilk, can we really call any government competent in any sweeping change or plan?

[malice2501]

OK, finished. There is one last thing I'd like to say, though. All of these government conspiracies, ranging from the CIA killing of John F. Kennedy, the Area 51/Groom Lake/Roswell alien cover-up, to, most recently, 9/11, presuppose one thing that makes them seem ridiculous on the light of it. They presuppose government competence. Given their track record in budgeting, economic management, education, health care, military affairs (direct meddling by the government, mind you), and the ilk, can we really call any government competent in any sweeping change or plan?

lol, i didnt read the whole thing, but i skimmed past it. I was in the military for a while, and believe me NOTHING is left to chance. Everything is done for a reason and the public is a secondary concern.

As for the steel losing strength, steel does not loose strength gradually. it retains it's rigidity until it reaches near melting tempature. The design of the building was also that it wouldnt collapse in an event like this, as the uneven weight would be distrubited among the various columns.

In the case of building 7, the video evidence suggest that there was no significant damage done to the structure. The building had fires on several different floors, all of them minor. This is relevant because if it didnt fall from the towers, wtf made it fall? I havent seen a building just fall over for no peticular reason. They fall down by force.

It is also relevant that less than a million was used to investigate one of the worst terrorist attacks in US history. How you think it isnt is beyond me.

Im not going to argue the science of it, because quite frankly unless we reconstruct it and knock it down, anyone can tell us any fucking thing about it. Rather, i will ask about the things that just make no sense and yet seemed to be unexplained and ignored by the 9/11 comission.

How is it that an ACTIVE airforce base(forgot which, ill get the name later) with 2 active F-16 fighter plane squadrons (we know this because thier own website stated this fact, was mysteriously changed the next day) that is located 50 miles from the white house not able to intercept a jet? There is a strict protocall that is followed in the case of a plane being flown without response (demonstrated in your paragraph). Now could they shoot it down? i think so, but lets say they couldnt. One of the planes came within miles of the White House and passes it. Why couldnt they get a plane off the ground to get near it? Ive been in the military, and they are NOT incompetent.

Also, doesnt it seem strange that 3, count em, 3 active life fire exercises were being conducted at the same exact moment as the 9/11 attacks? ALL OF THEM were exercises on a terrorist attack on the US. Later Rice would lie through her pie-hole to the 9/11 comission that there has never been an exercise conducted on terrorism.

How is it that the recordings of the hijack(not the black box, im talking about air traffick control recordings) have dissappeared? At the WTC site, only 2,000 pieces of evidence were collected on site, the rest has been destroyed. This is odd in any case, but in the case of THE worst terror attack ever, wtf is going on?

As I said above, I'm not surprised considering their similar actions in later disasters. No one's saying they caused those disasters, too (no one with credibility, pardon).

funny how every whore has bad eye sight, how every junkie has a bad memory, how every murderer(voluntary or not) seems to kill dolphins and other fuzzy animals. Point: Credibility is built and earned, something that no single person linked to this administration has done.



Now, here's the crazy stuff that makes me wonder how you can say this isnt/cant be a conspiracy.

The plane that were flown into the pentagon was a 757, which is a 60 ton, 129 feet wide, 50 foot tall (from the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail) airplane. How can it possible make a hole so small in the side of the pentagon? Ask yourself that while looking at these pics: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/collapse.html
im going by my eyes and common sense. A plane that could MELT STEEL didnt completely set the pentagon on fire. How is this possible?

You seem to just be using a lot of sceptacism to shoot down ever single idea that anyone has on the 9/11 attacks. This is natural seeing as it is a touchy subject. But i dont put shit past anyone. These things are being exaggerated, but my own eyes tell me something isnt right about the plane and the pentagon.

Try this site, its better than the other one that was posted: www.reopen911.org

[Mistral]

As for the steel losing strength, steel does not loose strength gradually. it retains it's rigidity until it reaches near melting tempature. The design of the building was also that it wouldnt collapse in an event like this, as the uneven weight would be distrubited among the various columns.

Cite your source, please. Since you specifically mentioned you only skimmed what I wrote or linked, it's clear you didn't notice this.

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Somehow, this seems more credible to me.

In the case of building 7, the video evidence suggest that there was no significant damage done to the structure. The building had fires on several different floors, all of them minor. This is relevant because if it didnt fall from the towers, wtf made it fall? I havent seen a building just fall over for no peticular reason. They fall down by force.

Indeed. Not to the people who did the actual analyses. Again, to what I posted.

With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."
...
But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
...
"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

This is the second time I've had to do this, and since you didn't even try to directly refute anything I posted, I can only conclude that you neglected to even skim, despite your statement to the contrary.

Im not going to argue the science of it, because quite frankly unless we reconstruct it and knock it down, anyone can tell us any fucking thing about it.

Yeah, but even if we did that, anyone could tell us anything still. It'd just add still more or less credibility to the voices. There is already a disparity in credibility between the conspiracy theorists and the noted experts in the field.

funny how every whore has bad eye sight, how every junkie has a bad memory, how every murderer(voluntary or not) seems to kill dolphins and other fuzzy animals. Point: Credibility is built and earned, something that no single person linked to this administration has done.

Just saying the senior administration isn't credible doesn't mean much when I'm not quoting Bush or SecState (of either term) on this. But at least you demonstrated you read at least one of my points. I suppose that's sort of a plus...

How is it that an ACTIVE airforce base(forgot which, ill get the name later) with 2 active F-16 fighter plane squadrons (we know this because thier own website stated this fact, was mysteriously changed the next day) that is located 50 miles from the white house not able to intercept a jet? There is a strict protocall that is followed in the case of a plane being flown without response (demonstrated in your paragraph). Now could they shoot it down? i think so, but lets say they couldnt. One of the planes came within miles of the White House and passes it. Why couldnt they get a plane off the ground to get near it? Ive been in the military, and they are NOT incompetent.

Hmmm...where'd this originally come from. Wait...where did I say there's a strict protocol? I don't recall that...

Also, doesnt it seem strange that 3, count em, 3 active life fire exercises were being conducted at the same exact moment as the 9/11 attacks? ALL OF THEM were exercises on a terrorist attack on the US. Later Rice would lie through her pie-hole to the 9/11 comission that there has never been an exercise conducted on terrorism.

The first, not really. The second, again, not really. We've pointed out that the administration isn't exactly given to truth-telling. We just disagree on whether this means that they orchestrated the whole thing or not.

How is it that the recordings of the hijack(not the black box, im talking about air traffick control recordings) have dissappeared? At the WTC site, only 2,000 pieces of evidence were collected on site, the rest has been destroyed. This is odd in any case, but in the case of THE worst terror attack ever, wtf is going on?

The first, I don't know. This is where you may have something. That's a first, but it's there. You continue on to the debris, and I wonder if this perhaps isn't a representative sampling done, in which case it would be adequate.

The plane that were flown into the pentagon was a 757, which is a 60 ton, 129 feet wide, 50 foot tall (from the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail) airplane. How can it possible make a hole so small in the side of the pentagon? Ask yourself that while looking at these pics: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/collapse.html
im going by my eyes and common sense. A plane that could MELT STEEL didnt completely set the pentagon on fire. How is this possible?

First, it didn't melt steel. We've been over this. It weakened it to the point of structural collapse, thanks to the fire and building contents. Stronger anti-fire passive systems at the Pentagon (anti-fire barriers which had never been used at the WTC in order to provide open flooring, for instance), meant the fires never spread quite as much. Regarding the hole, this was also in my points, though not quite specific to the hole itself.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

Three times...this is getting tiresome. Either try to refute my points on a case by case basis, or...well, I'd say I'd just leave the thread, but there really is no threat to that at all. On second thought, you know what? Bugger it...

Two more things before I ditch. I'll try to avoid posting in here from now on (unless a glaringly stupid post by anyone shows up, at which point I'll probably be unable to resist grabbing my Metacrawler mace again), but I'll keep reading for a little while.

Try this site, its better than the other one that was posted: www.reopen911.org

That is the other one you posted.

Wait, what? I never heard this before...elaborate, please?

You never did this. It's not directly relevant, but I was curious. I hadn't heard of any such cover-up around the Kennedy assasination.

[Rekuja]

i didn't read all that crap u ppl posted lol, however i browsed that site and it seems all they are trynna do is make the government look like a big fat lie.. though it already is..

there are many crazy ppl out there, hell.. some people even believe the holocaust didn't happen...

just read this site.. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

[Shadow X]

I never understood how people could spend hours oline talking about political news, and after glancing throught this thread, I still don't

Nice link, Mystic

[malice2501]

eh, once again skimmed over the very long article thingy. I did skim over the first one, but not every thing i stated came from it. Either way, it's gonna be one of those things where noone can believe what each other is saying. Lets just kick all agree that it was fucked up and should have never happened shall we

btw, y did you change your toon? i had no clue who the hell you were for a sec (himiko)?

[Rekuja]

people can believe whatever they want.. to be honest whenever i read a new terrorist bombing, i dont care about whos telling the truth or not.. the fact that humans killing other humans is related it jus makes me sick.. it's best to forget about the events.. remember the ones that "did" the event WANT u to remember it ^^