Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

September 11th 2001


adayinthelife

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 782
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Donald Rumsfeld wasn't nearly killed. Rumsfeld's office was almost as far away from the section the plane hit as you could get. He was on the very opposite side of the building.

 

My apologies. That appears to be an excellent cover then.

 

"OK fellow conspiritors, here's what we're going to do. We want to start this war and it's not enough that the Arabs attacked New York today. Lets fire a missle into the Pentagon too, and then we can really go for a BIG war! Now, we've only got an hour to work with here. Arrange for about a hundred or so people to disappear like they've been on a plane that crashed. Kill them if you need to. And make it believable. Put an officials wife in with the mix. Who drew the short straw? Ted Olsen? Ohhh, bummer Ted. We have to whack your missus, but it's for a very lucrative cause, and you'll get yours buddy!

 

Kill some inner city kids on the plane too. They're expendible and the press will love that.

 

Now, make a plane disappear too. And get that missle ready. Let's fly it into the Pentagon now. Now, I know that Rumsfeld is in there, but this was all his idea so he has to take a bit of a risk. Tell him to get on the other side of the building so we can blow it up without killing him. Then tell him to rush over and be very visible. It makes it all the more believable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYR, watch the video, it isn't suggested that this was all turned around in 1 hour.

 

On viewing the evidence in the video, and as a result of my already held suspicions about the WTC7 demolition, i think it's extremely plausable that the towers were in fact demolished.

 

I don't doubt for one second that those people (PNAC etc) would hesitate to see US citizens die, if it forwarded so effectively their aims of full spectrum dominance, and the justification of their proposed policy of pre-emption, against future economic and military threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two good pieces, pro and con.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=5&c=y

 

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

 

 

 

NYR, watch the video, it isn't suggested that this was all turned around in 1 hour.

 

On viewing the evidence in the video, and as a result of my already held suspicions about the WTC7 demolition, i think it's extremely plausable that the towers were in fact demolished.

 

I don't doubt for one second that those people (PNAC etc) would hesitate to see US citizens die, if it forwarded so effectively their aims of full spectrum dominance, and the justification of their proposed policy of pre-emption, against future economic and military threats.

 

I'll try and take a look at it tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The popular mechanics thing is covered in the video.

 

This video cannot be dismissed as 'conspiracy theorist', it is a very good piece of investigative journalism, that happens to concern conspiracy.

How can it be better to ignore the enormous discrepancies in the official version of events? just so we all sleep easier at night?

 

Was 'the power of nightmares' conspiracy theorist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merely pointed out that within seven minutes it was possible to note a little editorial bias.

 

Doesn't mean they are right or wrong - I don't know enough about mechanics, popular or otherwise, to state.

 

Here's an article in support of the popular mechanics piece, by the author of this book, which should quickly allow you to establish the authority of everything he writes. ;)

Edited by andysama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I take it you still haven't watched the video?

 

The following is from the popularmechanics site.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. 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.

 

Really?

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

 

No sign of any intense fires raging in the building either.

Edited by adayinthelife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to burn down an empty Reichstag and blame it on the Communists, it's another to kill thousands of your own people. Anyone who believed this shceit needs their head examined.

 

But I suppose that's EXACTLY what they want me to think!! Oh No!!!!

 

That's the crux of the matter.

 

It all sounds very logical and convincing in the documentary but it just cant be true.

 

It's like the old joke about the wife catching her husband in bed doing it with some woman and he says, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

 

We've been so conditioned to believe things like "the US government would never do something like that"(they do) or "it's a conspiracy theory" (yes, it is, just as the official story is) that we've stopped allowing ourselves to simply look at the body of evidence and judge by the outcomes what makes the most sense. Means, motive, opportunity- who had them?

 

You know it's true,you just don't want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not just blow up the WTC and blame bin laden?

why go for the aeroplanes + the bomb? seems unnecessary, doesn't it?

 

The WTC is now the iconic image of a generation.

 

Bombs are pretty cliche as well, if you're going to pull something like this off, why not go for the dramatic. Also The World Trade Center has been bombed before, and not fallen down. I doubt the public would believe that Al-Qaeda was able to plant bombs on every floor, but most people can imagine that a building getting hit by a plane will fall down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WTC is now the iconic image of a generation.

 

Bombs are pretty cliche as well, if you're going to pull something like this off, why not go for the dramatic. Also The World Trade Center has been bombed before, and not fallen down. I doubt the public would believe that Al-Qaeda was able to plant bombs on every floor,

 

we believe whatever we're told, remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we believe whatever we're told, remember?

 

Yes and no.

 

People will veer away from things that may seem unlikely, but they're not neccesarily stupid. For a terrorist group to bring down the WTC they'd likely need to plant bombs on every floor. Thats something thats going to be difficult to spin, and screams inside job.

 

Plane hits building, building falls down, government say the fire etc did it. Sounds sensible enough on the surface, why bother looking deeper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a terrorist group to bring down the WTC they'd likely need to plant bombs on every floor.

you saying that's what happened?

 

All they have to do is release footage of flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

how is that gonna convince you?

 

you not seen the footage of the planes going into the WTC?

 

 

i love a good conspiracy theory but this isn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you saying that's what happened?

 

I'm not sure. I do not belief that the twin towers fell down "simply" because they were hit by planes. That type of thing has happened before and the buildings did not collapse. I also find it hard to believe that the buildings collapsed like they did for purely natural reasons.

 

On the video the interviews and eye witness accounts from the firemen on the scene are very powerful and very persuasive. They said there were explosions going on down the building. I'm choosing to give those first hand accounts more weight then the official explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is that gonna convince you?

 

you not seen the footage of the planes going into the WTC?

i love a good conspiracy theory but this isn't one.

 

Because I don't believe flight 77 hit the pentagon and they have the footage so why not show it if they have nothing to hide?

 

Have you even watched the video?

 

If you did you would have seen numerous firemen reporting seeing huge plumes of dust and hearing huge explosions on the lower floors of the buildings soon after the planes hit.

 

Again if they have nothing to hide then why did the US government fight so hard to block the release of the radio transmissions from the firemen on that day? and why did Bush put a gagging order on the police and firemen?

Edited by adayinthelife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I do not belief that the twin towers fell down "simply" because they were hit by planes. That type of thing has happened before and the buildings did not collapse. I also find it hard to believe that the buildings collapsed like they did for purely natural reasons.

 

On the video the interviews and eye witness accounts from the firemen on the scene are very powerful and very persuasive. They said there were explosions going on down the building. I'm choosing to give those first hand accounts more weight then the official explanation.

 

I've watched the first 35 minutes of the video and will watch the rest tomorrow. I've seen plenty wrong with it so far.

 

In answer to your staement above, that sort of thing HAS NOT happened before. A massive impact followed by a massive, extremely hot fire in a building of that kid of weight has NEVER happened before. The ones in the video don't compare I'm afraid.

 

As for the noises, I am pretty confident that they were structural failures. I've been in a building one that was being demolished. It is absolutely incredible how loud it is. It sounds like bombs going off. The one I was in was 38,000 square feet. I think each of the WTC was 5 million square feet. Think about it.

 

 

Because I don't believe flight 77 hit the pentagon and they have the footage so why not show it if they have nothing to hide?

 

Have you even watched the video?

 

If you did you would have seen numerous firemen reporting seeing huge plumes of dust and hearing huge explosions on the lower floors of the buildings soon after the planes hit.

 

Again if they have nothing to hide then why did the US government fight so hard to block the release of the radio transmissions from the firemen on that day? and why did Bush put a gagging order on the police and firemen?

 

A gag order? That's laughable mate. NYC cops and firemen would not adhere to that, not even for a day. That, I'm afraid, is utter nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched the first 35 minutes of the video and will watch the rest tomorrow. I've seen plenty wrong with it so far.

 

In answer to your staement above, that sort of thing HAS NOT happened before. A massive impact followed by a massive, extremely hot fire in a building of that kid of weight has NEVER happened before. The ones in the video don't compare I'm afraid.

 

Really?

 

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

 

However you will probably just ignore it like you did when I proved what a load of rubbish that popularmechanics site was spouting about the WTC 7 being a diagonal collapse.

 

As for the noises, I am pretty confident that they were structural failures. I've been in a building one that was being demolished. It is absolutely incredible how loud it is. It sounds like bombs going off. The one I was in was 38,000 square feet. I think each of the WTC was 5 million square feet. Think about it.

 

So you're pretty confident you know what the noises were from the comfort of your own home?and are able to dismiss all the eyewitness accounts from the firemen who were IN the buildings. :hmm:

 

A gag order? That's laughable mate. NYC cops and firemen would not adhere to that, not even for a day. That, I'm afraid, is utter nonsense.

 

The US government fought for nearly two years to prevent the release of the tape of their radio transmissions on that day.

 

The full tape has still yet to be heard to this day,so yeah I'd call that a gagging order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

 

However you will probably just ignore it like you did when I proved what a load of rubbish that popularmechanics site was spouting about the WTC 7 being a diagonal collapse.

 

So you're pretty confident you know what the noises were from the comfort of your own home?and are able to dismiss all the eyewitness accounts from the firemen who were IN the buildings. :hmm:

The US government fought for nearly two years to prevent the release of the tape of their radio transmissions on that day.

 

The full tape has still yet to be heard to this day,so yeah I'd call that a gagging order.

 

Yes, really. There is a big different between a B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building and a 757 crashing into the WTC, and I'll tell you why. The 757 weighs TWELVE times the weight of a B-25. The 757 was travelling at 550mph (trust me, he didn't have the brakes on) vs less than 230 mph for a B25 (the pilot wasn't trying to crash into the building). The fuel used in a 757 burned infinitely hotter than the fuel of sixty years ago, and there was a lot more of it. The B25 crashed on its approach, it would have been quite low on fuel. Finally, the Empire State is quite a bit different to the WTC in construction. The Empire State was built far, far more solidly than the WTC.

So really, the WTC has never happened before.

 

I'll have a look at your evidence discounting popular mechanics.

 

As for the "comfort of my home", well I wasn't in the buildings that day, but I was in New York and trust me, it wasn't fun. As for hearing explosions, please, show me the evidence of that including that of the firefighters and how they would know the difference between and source of anything that was going on that day.

 

One last point. There was no gag order on the police or firefighters. Never was. As for holding off the tapes, well, I've heard plenty of them, but there aren't as many as you think. The radios weren't working, and in fact they still don't -- incompetance of the worst sort. There isn't a "full tape", but rather a number of barely audiable radio transmissions between command posts and firemen. What do you expect these tapes to say? That they can see explosions going off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, really. There is a big different between a B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building and a 757 crashing into the WTC, and I'll tell you why. The 757 weighs TWELVE times the weight of a B-25. The 757 was travelling at 550mph (trust me, he didn't have the brakes on) vs less than 230 mph for a B25 (the pilot wasn't trying to crash into the building). The fuel used in a 757 burned infinitely hotter than the fuel of sixty years ago, and there was a lot more of it. The B25 crashed on its approach, it would have been quite low on fuel. Finally, the Empire State is quite a bit different to the WTC in construction. The Empire State was built far, far more solidly than the WTC.

So really, the WTC has never happened before.

 

Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: ?They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]?

 

Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because ?the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure?.

 

Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.

 

Heat energy is rapidly dissipated through steel,i.e. it doesn't just accumulate in one spot as it spreads out. The larger the piece of steel, the more it spreads.The design of the WTC was such that even if one area was weakened, the stress load would redistribute to other areas.

 

Demolition is the most rational explanation for the sudden, catastrophic and symmetrical failure of a steel structure-core and periphery literally "exploding" into free fall, shredding and pulverizing everything in its path at a rate of TEN FLOORS PER SECOND. Unfortunately "explosives" are not part of the official story so they have to come up with contrived solutions that point away from this more rational explanation.

 

As for the "comfort of my home", well I wasn't in the buildings that day, but I was in New York and trust me, it wasn't fun. As for hearing explosions, please, show me the evidence of that including that of the firefighters and how they would know the difference between and source of anything that was going on that day.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914230246/...74592-3,00.html

 

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/below-belt.html

 

If you watched the video you would see numerous accounts from not just firefighters but members of the public who heard explosions on the lower floors of the twin towers.

 

The radios weren't working, and in fact they still don't -- incompetance of the worst sort. There isn't a "full tape", but rather a number of barely audiable radio transmissions between command posts and firemen. What do you expect these tapes to say? That they can see explosions going off?

 

Isn't it amazing just how many things weren't working that day?as they also claimed to have lost flight 77 from radar for at least 30 mins.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...A32597-2001Nov2

 

Again if you watched the video you would clearly hear firefighters on the tape calling in explosions on floors 7 and 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...