Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11

[mimartin]

Question for you: If we were reading about some similar tragedy in Africa or South America (places known for having corrupt governments), do you think we would be so quick to dismiss reports of conspiratorial acts carried out by the government against their own citizens?[/Quote] Wait the U.S, is not known for it corrupt government?

 

I get your point about questioning the facts and not following blindly. However, in my mind the collapse of the Twin Towers is still a result of the jetliners ramming the building. That does not however mean I know that as a fact.

Is it possible that our egocentric thinking tells us that stuff that only happens to "other countries"?

Now I thought you knew me better than that. However, I’ll play along. Yes, I definitely feel this country has that attitude that we are always on the right side. Forgive me. We have the false illusion that God has some how blessed our nation and that we can do no wrong. I will also admit that I once felt this way too; only with me is was probably worst since I am a Texans and we all know how they are. This mentality is what made September 11, 2001 such a shock. How could something like this happen here? I also believe it is a contributing factor to the all sides of the conspiracy theories. Some people take the government’s description of the events without question and others want to prove we could not be that vulnerable, that two symbols of America financial strength could not be removed from the New York skyline by 19 men armed with box-cutters. Still others just want to find the truth. Even though I still believe the government explanation for the most part, I will continue to question the events of September 11, 2001 if for no other reason, but to always remember those 2752 people that perished that day.

[Achilles]

Separate post for length Understood. Mine pushed the length limits, too. --Jae

 

If planes were crashing into skyscrapers everyday, no one would care about 9/11, and your argument would have merit.

Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.

 

But since jets aren't crashing into buildings everyday around here and no one's burning loads of jet fuel next to the aforementioned buildings' supports, your "argument" is just an unfunny remark made out of desperation and a need to be right.

I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with

Another reason is that we've also allowed our government to devolve into a self-absorbed mob of power-hungry old men who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about anyone unless it costs them some of their power.

So then we should just go back to our victim roles then?

 

I dunno, maybe it was crushed under the remains of a building or something -- with all the buildings in New York there are quite a few suspects, so let's me and you get on the case!

1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

 

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.

 

So what you're saying is the guy who works for the company that did the certifications for the steel used in the World Trade Center says they would have been a-okay in that situation? I am shocked sir.

Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.

 

Furthermore, he ignores the state of disrepair the buildings were in and assumes the steel used in its construction was in the same shape it was at the time of construction.

You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were. The outside was an aluminum facade, so it's not as though the steel beams had been exposed to the elements, etc.

 

The only time he accounts for time is when he mentions that the steel may have been without fireproofing. In addition, it seems to me that that site's purpose is to find some way that the World Trade Centers didn't collapse because of the planes.

I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.

 

Actually, I'm sure of it. Part of their mission statement is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-ups regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 in ways that inspire people to overcome denial, confront disturbing evidence and comprehend its implications for our freedoms and democracy." Ooh I love when people throw around words like "freedoms" and "democracy", it makes me feel like I'm running across a field with just an American flag towards a bunch of British soldiers. Demon British soldiers!

Nice!

 

You'd have a field day with Alex Jones. You think these guys are nutty?

 

I think the truth is just as simple (and horrifying) as InSidious said it was on the first page. Two planes hit two buildings. The initial impacts weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and added quite a bit to the weight to what they were designed to hold.

Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.

 

After this, jet fuel burned on and around the materials used to create the buildings.

And if that made sense, I'd accept that too.

 

Unfortunately, these materials weren't meant to be doused in jet fuel and set ablaze and were weakened significantly.

Except that's not true.

 

Finally, because the buildings were designed to require these materials to be at full or close to full strength, the buildings collapsed.

If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great.

 

Not every great tragedy has a complex plot behind it, and most often these complex plots are concocted so that we can pretend things aren't fragile and maintain our illusion of safety.

Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides.

 

Lets start with this...

 

Motive?

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

In the document, the following comment was made:

 

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

 

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

 

I cannot see any possible motive for placing explosives in the WTC, especially several hundred floors up, if you wanted to collapse a building the logical place to place explosives would be the super structure at the bottom.

These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

 

Nope being British, it was a BBC Panorama/Horizon documentary, so British funded. We are talking however about 5 years since I watched the thing. I did loose a friend in the WTC, and whatever caused his death won't bring him back, unpleasant as I find your current government, I don't think they placed explosives.

Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

 

Because Jet fuel is very hot? Surely it would of caused all nearby explosives to go off, again I'm not an explosives expert, but I would think 1,500 degree heat would set any explosives off.

The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

 

I think we are talking about different documentaries.

Probably

 

I'm no expert but I would expect the Towers to leave a pretty similar rubble pattern, unless they collapsed sideways.

Why is that?

 

I don't think the explosion on the videos of the 747 (or whatever plane type it was) is nearly big enough for a combination of a fully laden plane and explosives. Again I'm no expert.

How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

 

Thanks for reading

My pleasure. Thanks for your post

 

I reserve the right to speculate fruitlessly.

Noted.

 

Well, it would be nice to hear from a structural engineer on the subject.

Unfortunately, we have. The reason I say "unfortunately" is because they don't seem to agree.

 

I could give you a very high number as a guess?

I would be willing to settle for 42.

[mimartin]

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses...

 

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

 

I thought of September 11, 2001 when originally watching this documentary and when watching the documentary on the Twin Towers. I agree that it is a damning piece of circumstantial evidence. I also believe the neo-cons have benefited from September 11, 2001 more than any other group. However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events. I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO

[Achilles]

However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events.

J7 asked for motive. I provided motive.

 

I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO

Establishing motive and establishing proof of guilt are two entirely different things (although I'm sure Darth333 will be happy to correct me if I'm wrong here). I am pretty much convinced that we were never, ever have the latter.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.

Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea? Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame?

 

I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with

If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you...

 

1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

 

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.

1) I didn't say anything about fire there.

 

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.

 

Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.

That's a bit naive.

 

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too."

 

You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were.

That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel?

 

I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.

I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source.

 

Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.

I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."

 

Except that's not true.

Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel.

 

If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great.

 

Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides.

I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.

[Achilles]

Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea?

What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.

 

Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame?

Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?

 

If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you...

My apologies. Who were you referencing then?

 

1) I didn't say anything about fire there.

Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.

 

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.

Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).

 

That's a bit naive.

 

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too."

"Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.

 

So I'm still not understanding how he is biased. He stuck his neck out to call attention to something that did't make sense, got fired for it, and it made absolutely no difference in the end.

 

That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the point you were making. Your argument seemed to be that buildings were in poor shape before the attacks.

 

I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source.

That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.

 

I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."

I wasn't implying that you needed to. I've done a lot of looking on my own, so I doubt you'd be able to find something I haven't seen. And some of the sources available have valid points and some of them are absolute garbage...on both sides. Hence the whole "we'll probably never know for sure" thing I did way back on the first page of this thread.

 

Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel.

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.

 

I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.

Okay.

 

Thanks for your response.

[True_Avery]

Let me try again...

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55

 

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

 

----

 

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

 

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ), a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

 

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

 

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55

You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.

 

Or if you would like the original link,

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

Have fun.

 

EDIT:

December 14, 2007

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.

My argument is that your argument sucks.

 

Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?

You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious.

 

My apologies. Who were you referencing then?

Err... live people?

 

Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.

Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant? Also, feel free to stand by that point.

 

Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).

Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble...

 

"Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection?

 

That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.

Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source.

 

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.

You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (courtesy of Avery <3)

 

Thanks for your response.

I aim to please.

[Nedak]

(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

 

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

 

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

 

~9

 

Whatever.

 

As much as I am two sided on this topic your evidence lacks.

 

Also, would a president/ruler actually admit to such war crimes? I mean, seriously.

[Achilles]

My argument is that your argument sucks.

 

You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious.

I'll be sure to be more specific with you in the future.

 

Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant?

No, the flippancy in your post made it difficult for me to determine what your point was. I thought you meant one thing but your response indicated that you did not.

 

Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble...

Source please?

 

So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection?

Not unless he was the one that had signed off on it or was somehow responsible for the department that did.

 

Does he feel compelled to come forward and say something? Yeah it appears that he does, but that isn't the same thing as showing bias in what he says.

 

You might cast aside your cynicism long enough to argue that he was compelled out of some sense of loyalty to the company, but I think that wanting to point out a mistake is just as likely and probably has better evidene. But of course, that's only my opinion.

 

Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source.

I could not possibly be using site for the source, as the site didn't write the letter. I am using the letter as the source which happens to be on the site.

 

If it were available on some other site, such as FoxNews or BBC, the letter would not be any different and you would still have to determine the veracity of the letter on its own merits.

 

It's like saying a website that you found using Google is better than when you found it using Yahoo!.

 

You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (courtesy of Avery <3)

We were just discussing bias, weren't we?

 

I aim to please.

Indeed you do. Take care.

[Arcesious]

Either way, a lot of people died in the 9/11 attack. Before a debate continues, I'd say it's important that all information known about this is put on the table. Every source, and then a process of elimination, instead of pointless bickering where one provides a source, another refutes it and provides a source and the same person refutes that and provides a source, etc, etc.

However, this may turn out to be a debate of heavy speculation, from conflicting sources if what I suggest is done... the debate could do with less insults like:

My argument is that your argument sucks

 

Now i'm not trying to play moderator here, but the debate would go along much more smoothly without any 'I'm right because I know you're wrong' arguments...

 

Not to target one person individually with an argument over a person's validity in debate, which is not my intention.

[jonathan7]

Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

 

In brief;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml

 

Full transcript; http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

 

(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)

 

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

In the document, the following comment was made:

 

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

 

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

 

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building.

 

These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

 

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.

 

The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

 

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere.

 

Probably

 

You can let me know

 

Why is that?

 

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble

 

How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

 

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part.

 

My pleasure. Thanks for your post

 

No worries

[Achilles]

In brief;

<snip>

(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)

I appreciate you looking.

 

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building.

You asked for motive. There's motive.

 

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.

And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China?

 

Niiiice and safe.

 

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere.

That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

 

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble

Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

 

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part.

So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

[jonathan7]

I appreciate you looking.

 

No worries

 

You asked for motive. There's motive.

 

Thin though

 

And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China?

 

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.

 

That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1

 

 

Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

 

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent.

 

So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

 

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.

[Achilles]

Thin though

How so?

 

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.

Depends on what was used.

 

Very loose example: Suppose someone uses gasoline to blow up your car. Investigators later find evidence of gasoline in the wreckage.

 

Remember this wasn't like a airplane investigation where they put every piece they could find in hanger somewhere and spent a couple months piecing things back together to see what happened.

 

A small sample of beams were kept for investigation and everything else was scooped up and shipped elsewhere as part of the clean-up effort ASAP.

 

And yes, some people claim there there is evidence of explosives on the material, but I don't know how much credence to give the claims (physics I can follow. Chemistry, not so much).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1

And if another expert had the opposite conclusion?

 

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent.

We know they collapsed straight down though, so what's your point?

 

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.

You didn't answer the 2nd part of my earlier question, so I had to ask again in a different way. In fact you still haven't told us where you think the explosives were (though we've now ruled out that you think they were on the plane) so I'm still not clear how you got to "the explosion wasn't big enough".

[Totenkopf]

bah, this isn't worth it anymore. We're not even talking about the subject you're just going after the words I decided to use in my sentence, and not even making much sense at that. I'm done, I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

 

I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

[Nedak]

I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

 

I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

 

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

 

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

[Achilles]

^^^^

Great post.

[Totenkopf]

I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

 

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

 

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

 

Though the US has been around less than a quarter of a millenium, it's had its share of corrupt administrations, even local and county ones. I've never contended that this administration has been any more or less corrupt than previous ones. However, it's one thing to accuse your govt of a false flag operation and another to prove it. Frankly, given that openness has been both a strength and an achille's heel of the US economy, it's also equally possible for any organized outfit to pull something like that off, especially with outside help.

 

I would ask you....which claims do you see as still having merit b/c you believe they haven't been disproven? Untill one finds the unequivocal proof that Bush et al rigged the TT to go down to start his "apocolyptic" scenario, it's mere speculation/conspiracy mongering.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

 

Yes, I also wondered why there were explosions heard from quite a few different people coming from underground, after the planes hit, but before they fell?

 

Another thing I found interesting is the building's fall itself. If you were to run the collapse over in real-time, you'll see the the buildings (all three of them) fell at maximum velocity. One of the documentaries did this for us and slowed and highlighted the regular intervals of floor collapse.

 

There is visual evidence of small bursts or explosions on regular intervals of floors as the buildings fell. You can see Both towers fell exactly the same and at the same speed. The only time buildings fall like that are when they are done purposely.

 

The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever, however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity.

 

BTW, in our atmosphere, jet fuel burns somewhere in the neighhborhood of 1500 or 1600 degrees. There were bent, not shattered, but bent steel foundation girders that could only have been damaged by explosive temps reaching around 2800 degrees. The only thing that burns that hot is stuff like thermite.

 

You know what that stuff is used for? That's right you got it, DEMOLITION.

 

I always wondered why NY smoldered for weeks after the collapse.

 

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.

[Achilles]

The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever' date=' however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity.[/quote'] Building 7 did have some damage (although it was not struck by a plane), however the question is did it take enough to rationalize and complete structural failure (I think the answer is "no").

 

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.

Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished.

[Totenkopf]

Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there.

[mimartin]

Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there.

Now that is just crazy. Everyone knows that Arthur Andersen took care of those files and if the person is talking about the documents that link Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm to the scandal, then that document is probably kept at his residence. It would be his marriage license to Wendy Gramm, who was formerly on the board of directors of Enron.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished.

 

Better said. that's what I meant.

 

I was also wondering of the validity of statements relating to a gold depository in the lower levels of tower 7 and how some people weren't allowed near certain areas almost immediately after the collapse.

How could there be Feds with guns on the scene so quickly shooing people away after a disaster of this magnitude?

Oh well, probably for looters and such.

 

I was also instantly curious when I heard statements about the owning group of the Twin Towers putting up an unusual insurance policy toward them just months before that fateful day. I can understand putting up insurance for planes hitting buildings that big. I surely would.

But it must of taken a massive amount of clairvoyance to put up insurance for both of them getting hit simultaneously.

 

...which is what they did.

 

I wonder how much that claim paid out?

 

...and why aren't there any photographs of a dc-10 splattered all over the Pentagon? How could the same plane do so much damage in NY but hardly a scratch to a much smaller building? Where are the wings and tail and engines after the fires were put out? Can a fuselage be totally disintegrated in an area of damage that small?

 

pics? Don't bother looking. You won't find any.

[ForeverNight]

Well, I've actually done some reading on the Pentagon.

 

Well, its almost the largest building in the world (Square Footage wise) at around 5.4M square feet... (Maybe even more!).

 

Also, the plane hit it in the area that had just finished being restored up to current-day military spec. We're talking Blast-resistant windows, fire-doors, reinforced walls, cleaned up ceilings, the whole nine yards.

 

Basically, if they could have chosen a worse spot to drive a plane (Or Cruise Missile) into, they would be very, very, very hard pressed. The rest of the building was the original 1941-2 construction.

 

One of the reasons for the structural damage being smaller is the way it was built. Like most reinforced concrete buildings of the 40's, it was built in a manner that made the entire floor of the building take the stress of a small area, however, the entire floor than received the strength of the rest of the floor.

 

And, from what I've picked up, the plane disintegrated upon impact, or something like that, I'm not qualified to answer that question.

 

Hope that helps.