Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 [117] 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Posted by Ideology on Oct-23-2008 18:56:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I know you think I'm wrong, but unfortunately 2+2 does not equal 5, as they have you believing right now.

First of all, I'm going to point this out. Stop with this, "I know the truth and you're a blinded bot" bullshit. It's really getting old.

[quote]There are so many eyewitnesses to testify secondary and tertiary explosions, everyone just chooses to overlook what they have to say, in favour ignoring logical thought process and analytical thought.

There are eyewitnesses to hearing blasts. No one saw the bombs. No one saw the explosion of a bomb. No one knows who set the supposed bombs. You have nothing. All you have is hearsay. What people think they heard. Guess what? In a court of law, hearsay is not evidence. Neither is it satisfactory for you to use it either.

quote:
No one sees history as context in daily life and common reality, but you can be sure that they have been planning this for a long time. A Project For A New American Century outlines the NeoCon's agenda pretty well; A new Pearl Harbour indeed. Let alone think that those who failed to see Project Northwoods to fruition would let their idea go to waste; Kennedy and any resistance long since dead.

We go back to the use of actual truth used in support of unsupported conspiracy theories. I loath the Project for a New American Century. But guess what. That's not a secret conspiracy. They even have a website, you should check it out. The neocons have no kept their agenda secret. They advocate regime change in Muslim countries, which just so happens to be the greatest oil producing region of the world. Now, are you advocating the notion that Neocons (whose philosophy wasn't even in existance in the early 1960's) killed Kennedy? What's you evidence?

quote:
A deliberate failure of defense, killing many many Americans. Not only did the American Government know about 9-11 and fail to prevent the attack, they watched it unfold, protecting the hijackers as they made their way toward their *chuckle* destiny. One of the hijackers is even reported to have lived with an FBI informant.

The American government knew that OBL was planning an attack inside America. That much is true. But what is your evidence to assert they knew IN DETAIL the 911 operation? They failed in protecting, that much is also true, but that is simply a failure. That is not evidence for a conspiracy. As for NORAD's supposed stand down, I don't know enough about that to comment right now.

quote:
The Bush administration has lied on every front about the Attack. Whether we're talking about Bush 'forgetting' where he actually saw the attack, claiming he saw the first plane strike the towers, when in fact the first impact was not shown live on television. Or SecDef Rummy lying about how no one would have ever conceived of terrorists using planes against them as weapons - of course we all know differently by now.

The Bush Administration are liars. I don't know if they lied about 911 though. Have they used it to push forward their grandiose vision for the Middle East, yes? Remember, Al-Qaeda's #1 goal is not the destruction of America, but it is the creation of an Sunni Islamic revolution in the Middle East region. Attacking America (which supports oppression in the ME), provokes America into retaliating against Muslims, thereby stoking Muslim resentment, and furthering the Islamists cause. 911 was designed to provoke America into a response that would anger Muslims so much that they would enlist en masse to the Islamic Revolution, overthrow their oppressive governments, and install Islamic states throughout the region.

Bush says a lot of stupid stuff. He mis-speaks like no other President in our history. But to say, this is evidence there is a 911 conspiracy, based on a misquote, is ludicrous.

quote:
If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes - and we should know by now that it has survived a pretty devastating fire in '75. LINK

That article has nothing to do with this discussion. It's about Venezuela...

You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.

quote:
When could they have set the place up for demolition? It is possible that in 1996, when Securacom took over WTC security and installed a new $8.3 million security system, that the explosives and charges were also put in place. Sitting on the board of Securacom was the director Marvin Bush, George Bush�s younger brother.

So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...

quote:
Now, we all know that the FBI aided and abetted the attacks on the WTC in '93, and if not, you should.

Are you expecting me to accept this notion just because you say so?

quote:
So, in light of the corruption of past administrations, why should you give the current one credit whatsoever? Wouldn't it be a bigger leap in judgement to take their word?

For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-23-2008 21:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Ideology
There are eyewitnesses to hearing blasts. No one saw the bombs. No one saw the explosion of a bomb. No one knows who set the supposed bombs. You have nothing. All you have is hearsay. What people think they heard. Guess what? In a court of law, hearsay is not evidence. Neither is it satisfactory for you to use it either.

The explosions and their witnesses are a facet on this chunk of coal yet to be made a diamond. Clearly there are other factors which should be cause for just as much concern as reports of explosions nowhere near the fire, or the plane crash.

quote:

We go back to the use of actual truth used in support of unsupported conspiracy theories. I loath the Project for a New American Century. But guess what. That's not a secret conspiracy. They even have a website, you should check it out. The neocons have no kept their agenda secret. They advocate regime change in Muslim countries, which just so happens to be the greatest oil producing region of the world. Now, are you advocating the notion that Neocons (whose philosophy wasn't even in existance in the early 1960's) killed Kennedy? What's you evidence?

Haven't you noticed that they don't care if people know what they are doing? The stiff-arm is in full effect. Clinton almost lost his presidency over a blow job, how has Bush remained in Office so long after his venomous lies to Congress propelled the Nation into a horrible war, costing so many lives? The NeoCons themselves are the offshoot of the initial corruption of the Republics during Kennedy's brief stint as human/President. Just Google "Nixon and Prescott Bush" and see what sort of results you get.

quote:

The American government knew that OBL was planning an attack inside America. That much is true. But what is your evidence to assert they knew IN DETAIL the 911 operation? They failed in protecting, that much is also true, but that is simply a failure. That is not evidence for a conspiracy. As for NORAD's supposed stand down, I don't know enough about that to comment right now.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/...nial/index.html

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikilea...anslated_by_CIA
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/C...ments_1994-2004

Ten years of messages and interviews with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have been leaked. Translated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the documents were posted in September.One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest/"

quote:

The Bush Administration are liars. I don't know if they lied about 911 though. Have they used it to push forward their grandiose vision for the Middle East, yes? Remember, Al-Qaeda's #1 goal is not the destruction of America, but it is the creation of an Sunni Islamic revolution in the Middle East region. Attacking America (which supports oppression in the ME), provokes America into retaliating against Muslims, thereby stoking Muslim resentment, and furthering the Islamists cause. 911 was designed to provoke America into a response that would anger Muslims so much that they would enlist en masse to the Islamic Revolution, overthrow their oppressive governments, and install Islamic states throughout the region.

Al Qaeda doesn't exist, my good man, not in the context which you believe it does. It is a ghost name that anyone can use, because the US needs terrorists. Think about it: If people just blow shit up without a name to represent their deed, it is just anarchy, or wanton radical destruction.. it might even be interpreted in a poor political way for the United States. If you are interested in learning more about the Al Qaeda, watch The Power of Nightmares, it's available on googlevid in full.

quote:

Bush says a lot of stupid stuff. He mis-speaks like no other President in our history. But to say, this is evidence there is a 911 conspiracy, based on a misquote, is ludicrous.

Bush takes orders through a microphone in his ear, you haven't noticed that? lol

quote:

That article has nothing to do with this discussion. It's about Venezuela...

My bad, I must have copied the wrong link, or wasn't thinking clearly.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

quote:

You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.

Certainly I have answered that question: If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes. They also knew from their experience in 93 that it would take more than a truck bomb to collapse a tower. In regards to the FBI's involvement, [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
.

quote:

So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...

George Bush Sr. announced the New World order Sept. 11, 1991/ Not to mention, his dad and Rockefeller's father were all about the Nazi rise to power. World domination seems to be a past-time for these lot.

quote:

For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...

Here is a list of American False Flag Operations, complete with resources and additional reading.

You tell me if they're capable of it, lol.

For the record, I hate replying in quotes.

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-23-2008 21:16:

This my argument from the other thread, it serves more purpose over here.

quote:

Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.

Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-23-2008 22:17:

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20060915-2.html

quote:

You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.

Perhaps it was for addional shock value? I can't say that anyone knows for certain (outside of those who planned it.) Maybe it was so they could also set up more of their police state infrastructure in our airports? I mean, what are checkpoints on the ground if people can fly right over them? Our no-fly lists can now prevent people from flying altogether

quote:

So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...

There are literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of circumstantial items which could be construed as evidence, evidence which many of us wish would be further investigated and not simply swept under the rug as they seem to have done (and continue to do.)

Also, not all of us are pointing fingers at any one particular group so please don't try to pigeonhole all those who question the "official theory" as being in one. Skepticism isn't an ideology. It's universal.

quote:

For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...

As I and many others have repeatedly said, it definitely wasn't "our government" as it was probably more like a rogue faction operating from behind, above, or within it. IMO, it could have even been the same people who were behind the drug smuggling operation which was at the center of the Mena, AK and Iran/Contra scandal's - which are other issues altogether (and which has been covered by noted individuals such as J. Orlin Grabbe, etc.)

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-23-2008 23:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X

I still wonder what to make of his speech at the White House Rose Garden where he was talking about explosives being placed in the towers, though. That didn't sound to much like misspeech to me.

Or when he lied about when he first learned about the plane? Fuh-king brutal.

'I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - you know, the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I go, "Well there's one terrible pilot." And I said, "There must have been some horrible accident." But I was whisked off there..and didn't have much time to think about it.'

Not to mention that Bush was at a publicised event, his whereabouts known for 3 days.. the terrorists could have dove a plane into the school, killing him.. no one knew the targets, yet the secret service did absolutely nothing.. just whispered something in his ear and he sat there like a fucking idiot. If there had been a real threat, he would have been in a secure bunker in 10 seconds flat.

Le sigh.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-24-2008 04:51:

I thought this was pretty good.

100 Professors Question 9/11 Commission Report

quote:
"The whole idea of the pancake theory ... that NIST talks about means that you have no resistance on the way down at that particular floor level that was supposedly weakened significantly. And by significantly I mean all around the perimeter, all at the same time. What an amazing thing that all of the bolts would have failed at the same time. All of the welds would have failed at the same time. And the whole thing comes down very nicely. There isn't even an explanation for how the core of the structure [collapsed]. It contained the elevators and the stairwells. It is an extremely highly structurally resisting part of the structure. So it is a very strong part of the structure. And it ... was virtually ignored [in the NIST report]. They just talk about the trusses that go across from column to column. And all of them fail at the same time. They start coming down. Even if you were to accept that, you've got resistance as the floors come down."

"I think Building number 7 is the big, big question mark and I don't know that there is an engineering explanation for that other than controlled demolition."

- Robert M. Korol Ph.D., P.Eng � Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University. Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Well known for research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies. Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year."

http://www.911podcasts.com/display....206&epi=0&typ=0

Posted by Krypton on Oct-24-2008 17:53:

Haha, I was banned. Now I'm back...

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
The explosions and their witnesses are a facet on this chunk of coal yet to be made a diamond. Clearly there are other factors which should be cause for just as much concern as reports of explosions nowhere near the fire, or the plane crash.

That still proves absolutely nothing. All you have is a hunch. Remember, we're talking about very serious criminal allegations which you are making. This "hunch" would never be admissible in court.

quote:
Haven't you noticed that they don't care if people know what they are doing? The stiff-arm is in full effect. Clinton almost lost his presidency over a blow job, how has Bush remained in Office so long after his venomous lies to Congress propelled the Nation into a horrible war, costing so many lives? The NeoCons themselves are the offshoot of the initial corruption of the Republics during Kennedy's brief stint as human/President. Just Google "Nixon and Prescott Bush" and see what sort of results you get.

There is no love lost for me concerning neocons.

quote:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/...nial/index.html

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikilea...anslated_by_CIA
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/C...ments_1994-2004

Ten years of messages and interviews with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have been leaked. Translated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the documents were posted in September.One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest/"

Actually...

OBL had foreknowledge of the attacks: CLICK

OBL says he ordered the attacks: CLICK ... "Each state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security." ... "To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said. "I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security." ... "We fought you because we are free .... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," he said.

OBL claims to have personally led the 9/11 hijackers: CLICK

OBL claims to have instructed Mohammed Atta: CLICK ... "It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."

OBL was videotaped with TWO of the 9/11 hijackers: CLICK

quote:
Al Qaeda doesn't exist, my good man, not in the context which you believe it does. It is a ghost name that anyone can use, because the US needs terrorists. Think about it: If people just blow shit up without a name to represent their deed, it is just anarchy, or wanton radical destruction.. it might even be interpreted in a poor political way for the United States. If you are interested in learning more about the Al Qaeda, watch The Power of Nightmares, it's available on googlevid in full.

I never said it existed as a cohesive paramilitary force. In fact, I posted a thread specifically to show "The Power of Nightmares". Nonetheless, Al-Qaeda's core group, do finance and provide moral support to terrorist operations.

quote:
Bush takes orders through a microphone in his ear, you haven't noticed that? lol

Again, this misquote is no evidence for a conspiracy. What charge would you bring based on his misquote, huh?

quote:
My bad, I must have copied the wrong link, or wasn't thinking clearly.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

A few things are missing in that fire. First of all, a jet didn't fly at 500mph into the building, emerging on the complete other side. Second, there was not thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel to generate a raging inferno. Third, since the building was sparsely populated, there would not have been a large amount of combustibles, i.e., paper, furniture, etc.

Certainly I have answered that question: If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes. They also knew from their experience in 93 that it would take more than a truck bomb to collapse a tower. In regards to the FBI's involvement, [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
.

How do you know what they knew? Did you talk to them? And who are "they" which you are referring to? I'm still listening.

quote:
George Bush Sr. announced the New World order Sept. 11, 1991/ Not to mention, his dad and Rockefeller's father were all about the Nazi rise to power. World domination seems to be a past-time for these lot.

Which is evidence for what? You know, there is a new world order. In 1991, the USSR collapsed. The world order was thus, changed. Ever thought about that???? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

quote:
Here is a list of American False Flag Operations, complete with resources and additional reading.

You tell me if they're capable of it, lol.

For the record, I hate replying in quotes.

In none of those attacks, did our government purposefully kill 3000 of it's own people, and destroy it's financial heart. Additionally, why would a military send a missile at it's own headquarters? Why? And who fired the missile? Where did the missile come from? What kind of missile was fired? Where are the missile parts? We need EVIDENCE, not hunches and inferences.

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-24-2008 20:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Haha, I was banned. Now I'm back...

What for? For replying in quotes!? Paragraphs please, this shit takes so long.

quote:

That still proves absolutely nothing. All you have is a hunch. Remember, we're talking about very serious criminal allegations which you are making. This "hunch" would never be admissible in court.

Really, you don't think Able Danger and its omission by the Commission isn't grounds enough to suspect a cover up? And if not just a cover up, then a complete conspiracy? Go read about Able Danger, if you haven't already ignored the questions it brings up.

quote:

There is no love lost for me concerning neocons.

You're missing the point. Of course. I bet you didn't watch the driver tax JFK's brains either.

quote:

Actually...

OBL had foreknowledge of the attacks: CLICK

OBL says he ordered the attacks: CLICK ... "Each state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security." ... "To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said. "I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security." ... "We fought you because we are free .... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," he said.

OBL claims to have personally led the 9/11 hijackers: CLICK

OBL claims to have instructed Mohammed Atta: CLICK ... "It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."

C'mon, you actually believe that he denied for 3 years his involvement with the attacks, and then miraculously admits to it? Just in time for election season?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHAR...osamatape2.html

quote:

OBL was videotaped with TWO of the 9/11 hijackers: CLICK

I'd need to see the video, not the article talking about it.

{quote]
A few things are missing in that fire. First of all, a jet didn't fly at 500mph into the building, emerging on the complete other side. Second, there was not thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel to generate a raging inferno. Third, since the building was sparsely populated, there would not have been a large amount of combustibles, i.e., paper, furniture, etc.
[/quote]

Fire doesn't explain how every bolt holding everything together failed miraculously at the same time. Or why one plane brought them down, when they were designed effectively to withstand numerous. Hydrocarbon fires don't burn anywhere near hot enough to liquify steel.

quote:

How do you know what they knew? Did you talk to them? And who are "they" which you are referring to? I'm still listening.

Did you not watch the news clip? lol. Here is the NY Times, Oct 28, 1993

They knew about it, were to infiltrate the bomb making and supply a harmless powder instead instead of explosives.. they chose not to, and watched it unfold, fully aware of what was to happen.

quote:

Which is evidence for what? You know, there is a new world order. In 1991, the USSR collapsed. The world order was thus, changed. Ever thought about that???? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Because they are conspiring against us?

quote:

In none of those attacks, did our government purposefully kill 3000 of it's own people, and destroy it's financial heart. Additionally, why would a military send a missile at it's own headquarters? Why? And who fired the missile? Where did the missile come from? What kind of missile was fired? Where are the missile parts? We need EVIDENCE, not hunches and inferences.

Do you think these people give a shit about humanity? Do you think the same people who used depleted uranium gives a shit whether someone is blown up in a scam that will make them billions? Pff.

The only part of the Pentagon that was harmed was the newly reinforced wall. Lol That was not a crash site.

Posted by Krypton on Oct-24-2008 23:05:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
What for? For replying in quotes!? Paragraphs please, this shit takes so long.

For something stupid. I use quotes because I want to reply tospecific statements you make.

quote:
Really, you don't think Able Danger and its omission by the Commission isn't grounds enough to suspect a cover up? And if not just a cover up, then a complete conspiracy? Go read about Able Danger, if you haven't already ignored the questions it brings up.

We're talking about bombs in the twin towers? How is Able Danger related to that?

quote:
C'mon, you actually believe that he denied for 3 years his involvement with the attacks, and then miraculously admits to it? Just in time for election season?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHAR...osamatape2.html

Actually he denied only once the week after September 11th, then subsequently acknowledged involvement and gave praise to the terrorist operation. It totally fits in line with the intended goals of Al-Qaeda. To stoke an Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East, which can only be done if they have an enemy to fight, namely American hegemony in the region.

quote:
I'd need to see the video, not the article talking about it.

So, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. is lying about the video tape? I can't find the video. Probably because it's in the al-Jazeera archives or something. But it was shown on al-Jazeera and that is accepted fact.

quote:
Fire doesn't explain how every bolt holding everything together failed miraculously at the same time. Or why one plane brought them down, when they were designed effectively to withstand numerous. Hydrocarbon fires don't burn anywhere near hot enough to liquify steel.

Didn't I just say, it wasn't just fire? Can you give me something that states the twin towers could withstand multiple airliner collisions? Additionally, the liquification of steel is not needed for the structure to be compromised.

quote:
Did you not watch the news clip? lol. Here is the NY Times, Oct 28, 1993

They knew about it, were to infiltrate the bomb making and supply a harmless powder instead instead of explosives.. they chose not to, and watched it unfold, fully aware of what was to happen.

So what's the conspiracy? Sounds to me like gross incompetance.

quote:
Because they are conspiring against us?

Perhaps in the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, everyone is conspiring against you guys. Still Bush's reference to a "New World Order" was clearly in the context of the fall of the Soviet Union.

quote:
Do you think these people give a shit about humanity? Do you think the same people who used depleted uranium gives a shit whether someone is blown up in a scam that will make them billions? Pff.

The only part of the Pentagon that was harmed was the newly reinforced wall. Lol That was not a crash site.

What people? Who are you referring to? You know, in order to charge criminals in a court of law, you need to know who to charge. The most ludicrous thing I've ever heard is a military which launches a missile at its own supreme headquarters. Again, where are the missile parts? Who fired the missile and why are they speaking out? From where was the missile fired? What type of missile? Again, find me missile parts.

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-24-2008 23:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
For something stupid. I use quotes because I want to reply tospecific statements you make.

Damn the man.

quote:

We're talking about bombs in the twin towers? How is Able Danger related to that?

The FBI [at the top] hindered the Able Danger investigation. They knew well in advance. They even knew that two of the hijackers attended schools run by the US Military. You're right, this has nothing to do with explosives in the building, I digressed for no apparent reason.

You're the one that is getting away from the facts at hand, stop pandering to plausible denial, and sucking on the teat of authoritative amoral assholes.

This is what supports the idea of controlled demolition.

Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.

Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

The only way for a building can fall through the path of least resistance (which it did, that's a scientific fact) is for each floor before to be removed before the floor above it connects with it; otherwise you can expect to have a delay when kinetic energy is absorbed into the mass of the subsequent floor. Get it?

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-24-2008 23:46:

I'd say any of these people fit the bill.

George W. Bush � eldest son of Bush crime family; guilty of election fraud in 2000, 2004; guilty of war crimes, war profiteering, treason, crimes against humanity; likely "signed-off" on 9-11 plot

Dick Cheney � former PNAC member; guilty of war profiteering, treason; was in bunker on 9-11 directing several "war games"; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about riming of 9-11 activities

Donald Rumsfeld � former Secretary of War and PNAC member; close friend of Cheney; was at Pentagon on 9-11; once slipped and said "when that missile hit the Pentagon"

Paul Wolfowitz � Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member; Deputy Secretary of War on 9-11; chief architect of Iraq war; now heads World Bank

Richard Perle � Zionist; former assistant Secretary of War, chairman War Policy Board, and PNAC member; nicknamed "Prince of Darkness"

Dov Zakheim � rabid Zionist; Shul Rabbi; former CFR member; Pentagon comptroller when a trillion dollars was reported missing on 9-10-01; former CEO of fly-by-remote manufacturer; possible 9-11 mastermind

George Tenet � Director of the CIA on 9-11; was awarded the "Medal of Freedom" by Bush for his fine work on 9-11

Robert Mueller � FBI Director on 9-11; under his "leadership" , FBI field agents' warning of an imminent attack were stifled

Richard Meyers � in charge of USA air defenses on 9-11; lied to 9- 11 Omission Commission about reasons for air defense failure on 9- 11; promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Ralph Eberhardt � NORAD Commander on 9-11; fanatical supporter of missile defense scheme, militarization of space; enthusiastic supporter of merging law enforcement and the military

Larry Arnold � NORAD Commander Major General on 9-11; has used 9- 11 to push militarization of USA

Douglas Feith � Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member; effectively he and Wolfowitz were in command of War Department on 9-11; Undersecretary of War for Policy

Michael Chertoff � Zionist; likely Mossad agent; Assistant Attorney General on 9-11; freed over 100 Israeli spies in the US after 9-11; promoted to head Homeland Security

Jerome Hauer � "terrorism" expert who put John O'Neill at the WTC on 9-11; lied to Dan Rather on CBS News on 9-11 about the controlled demolition of WTC buildings

Jack Abramoff � ardent Zionist; entertained USG "terrorist" patsy Mohammed Atta on his yacht just before 9-11; convicted criminal lobbyist

Philip Zelikow � led the 9-11 Cover-Up Commission; personally wrote the 9-11 Omission Commission Report, a best-selling work of fiction; appointed Counselor of US Department of State

Porter Goss � former House Intelligence Chair; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; promoted to Director of CIA, resigned after "hookergate"

Bob Graham � former Florida Senator; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; ran for President in 2004

Marc Grossman � Under Secretary for Political Affairs on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-11 financier, on or shortly after 9-11

Richard Armitage � former member of PNAC, Deputy Secretary of State; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and 9-
11 financier, shortly after 9-11

Elliot Abrams � former member of PNAC, National Security Council; pleaded guilty in 1991 to lying to Congress about Iran-Contra affair

Lewis "Scooter" Libby � former PNAC member; studied political science at Yale under Paul Wolfowitz; aid to Cheney; convicted for lying about outing of Valerie Plame

William Kristol � Zionist; PNAC co-founder; adherent of Leo Strauss; editor of The Weekly Standard; strong advocate of the Iraq war

John Ashcroft � protected "terrorist" patsy Abdussattar Shaikh from subpoena after 9-11; stopped flying commercial aircraft in 2001

Condi Rice � National Security Adviser on 9-11; promoted to Secretary of State; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission while under oath

Colin Powell � Secretary of State on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad two days after 9-11; former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; helped cover up Vietnam My Lai massacre

Jeb Bush � brother of George Bush; PNAC member; Florida governor; guilty of election fraud in 2000; declared martial law in Florida four days before 9-11

Marvin Bush � brother of George Bush; on board of Securacom, US- Kuwaiti company paid $9.2 to manage WTC security October 1996 to 1998; on board of HCC Insurance, big WTC insurer

Wirt Walker � cousin of George Bush; principal at Securacom, US- Kuwaiti joint-venture that managed security for WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, all of which figured into 9-11

Larry Silverstein � he and partner Frank Lowy obtained 99-year lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; made several billion dollars on 9- 11 insurance fraud; admitted to "pulling" WTC 7

Rudolph Giuliani � mayor of New York on 9-11; hailed as "hero" for his "gutsy" leadership on 9-11; allegedly involved with FEMA and former NYC Police Chief Kerik in Operation Code Angel

They forgot to add Mrs. Elizabeth Battenberg who knighted Giuliani for services rendered. http://i.am/ jah/britmon.htm

Bernard Kerik � former NYC Police Chief; "sidekick" of Giuliani; allegedly involved with FEMA in WTC demolition "war games" called Operation Code Angel

A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard � now number three Executive Director at the CIA; until 1998, managed firm used to place "put options" on United Airlines which has left $2.5 million in "profits" unclaimed

Mark Loizeaux � as CEO of CDI was instrumental in "recycling" steel from WTC crime scene; CDI also buried the rubble from the crime scene of the Murrah Federal Building

Benjamin Chertoff � 25-year-old cousin of Michael Chertoff; senior "researcher" for Popular Mechanics' hit piece on 9-11 Truth Movement

Mahmoud Ahmad � head of Pakistan's ISI; had Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh wire $100,000 to lead 9-11 "terrorist" patsy Mohammad Atta

Abdussattar Shaikh � FBI informant to the San Diego office; helped bring "terrorist" patsies to USA; protected by Attorney General Ashcroft

Warren Buffett � world's second richest person; was hosting golf charity event at the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha; Bush flew to Offutt afternoon of 9-11

George H. W. Bush � Bush crime family Don; Skull and Bones; CIA operative involved in JFK assassination; former head of CIA; son of friend shot Reagan when he was VP; war profiteer

Tony Blair � British Prime Minister; ally and partner in crime of George Bush; London 7-7 bombings were also "false flag" operations

Benjamin Netanyahu � former Israeli Prime Minister; said 9-11 was "good" for US-Israeli relationship

Posted by Krypton on Oct-24-2008 23:50:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Damn the man.

The FBI [at the top] hindered the Able Danger investigation. They knew well in advance. They even knew that two of the hijackers attended schools run by the US Military. You're right, this has nothing to do with explosives in the building, I digressed for no apparent reason.

So I'm not going to address.

quote:
You're the one that is getting away from the facts at hand, stop pandering to plausible denial, and sucking on the teat of authoritative amoral assholes.

If by that you mean, "accept my opinion without question", then sorry, I'm never going to do that.

quote:
This is what supports the idea of controlled demolition.

Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.

Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

The only way for a building can fall through the path of least resistance (which it did, that's a scientific fact) is for each floor before to be removed before the floor above it connects with it; otherwise you can expect to have a delay when kinetic energy is absorbed into the mass of the subsequent floor. Get it?

So by your theory, the section above the impact could have fallen, but the remaining bottom structure should have remained intact?

Posted by Krypton on Oct-24-2008 23:51:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I'd say any of these people fit the bill.

While I certainly believe several of those people should be charged for war crimes, I don't believe they are all secretly coordinating a conspiracy to take over the world...

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-24-2008 23:56:

In reference to the assertion that the planes were built to withstand plane impacts.

This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767�s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[10] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were �only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.�
In fact, Hoffman observes that �a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.�[13]

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:

�Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed� The building structure would still be there.�[14]

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/20...-designers.html

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-24-2008 23:56:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Damn the man.

The FBI [at the top] hindered the Able Danger investigation. They knew well in advance. They even knew that two of the hijackers attended schools run by the US Military. You're right, this has nothing to do with explosives in the building, I digressed for no apparent reason.

You're the one that is getting away from the facts at hand, stop pandering to plausible denial, and sucking on the teat of authoritative amoral assholes.

This is what supports the idea of controlled demolition.

Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.

Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

The only way for a building can fall through the path of least resistance (which it did, that's a scientific fact) is for each floor before to be removed before the floor above it connects with it; otherwise you can expect to have a delay when kinetic energy is absorbed into the mass of the subsequent floor. Get it?

Don't dodge my words! Hehe, the list was not meant to distract you, sorry.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-25-2008 23:59:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Don't dodge my words! Hehe, the list was not meant to distract you, sorry.

But he says he's not! He's debating you, remember!? lol

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 00:01:

But I can't prosecute them, thus rendering my argument null. :/

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 00:05:

http://journalof911studies.com/volu...-Demolition.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...lapseWTC7_6.pdf

Flight path animation with data provided from Flight 77's Black Box. Juxtaposed with Official Story's bullshit path.

Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 04:05:

I believe this is 9/11 truth...

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 04:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I believe this is 9/11 truth...

You can best believe I am watching this. Report in an hour.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 04:54:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
You can best believe I am watching this. Report in an hour.

The writers, Larry Klein and Garfield Kennedy, are apparently proponents of the (Laws of Physics defying) "pancake theory."

I liked this next one a lot better since it delves a lot deeper than the BS story that we've been spoon-fed by the mainstream media and the Bush administration. The film maker of this one interviews retired pilots, military brass, first hand eyewitnesses, etc., and actually asked REAL QUESTIONS.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

http://www.takebackwashington.com/re.html

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 05:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
The writers, Larry Klein and Garfield Kennedy, are apparently proponents of the (Laws of Physics defying) "pancake theory."

http://www.takebackwashington.com/re.html

Yeah, which is exactly why I want to watch it

Taking notes, too. lol, Thus far, it's a load.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 05:21:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Yeah, which is exactly why I want to watch it

Taking notes, too. lol, Thus far, it's a load.

I saw it when it came out and although I thought at the time that the production quality was good, I also didn't think that it held any kind of revelatory information or anything that we haven't seen or heard a million times in the official theory.

9/11 Ripple Effect on the other hand actually delves into the facts and explains such things like how the faulty computer model that the ASCE used to recreate the Pentagon attack didn't even include the engines on Flight 77, etc.

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 05:25:

quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Don't dodge my words! Hehe, the list was not meant to distract you, sorry.

It's funny how he can post in a hundred other threads but still has yet to answer you. lol

And he wonders why I call him a troll!!

Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 05:55:

christian cross cut out on steel - who are they trying to reach. lol

it's a pilgrimage? - fuck off

filmed like a drama, plays on emotions rather than addressing issues

ASCE has been accused of scandal numerous times, including Katrina douchery
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5...2WUPqQD93UCLVO2

referring to the wind as what they were designed to withstand, downplaying strength.

"survivor" 'lurched back and forth' - he isn't saying anything, where did he witness this 'lurching'? What does that imply, where did he get this vista view of the whole dynamics of the building?

the trusses? do you realise the amazing odds that are generated to factor the fail of every truss every single time, without the loss of kinetic energy? it's impossible.

goes back into history about wtc 93, more labelling of islamic radicals

huge void across six floors. compare to pentagon

"building saturated by jet fuel" how much was initially exploded, how long would that burn

goes on to discount jet fuel as the real culprit, stating that its true role was to act as an incendiary, igniting the other combustables, aka office fires

johnathan barnett is a supporter of dr. greenig, proponent of the acid rain theory of wtc7. lol

plays on more emotions, talking about people jumping from the buildings, absolutely off-point

al smith, wastes time talking about dry wall, semantics, rubber? reinactment necessary? so much filler. this isn't a survivor story,lol

how do they know the spray on fireproofing was destroyed? that speaks on no terms about any of the floors below, which were unaffected by fire.

10 second sound bytes by 'professionals' little to no content

pushed office content into the north east corner? lol.. who went up there to check? rather unsubstantiated

remember that a lot of smoke means less fire. less oxygen is available for spreading the blaze.Fire moves as well, following the fuel.. and when the fire moves and steel cools, it strengthens.

again, referring to the victims, playing on emotions
the witness/survivor refers to the towers as 'going over' which is the only possibility in anyone's mind, considering the circumstances. it should have topped at the wound, if it did at all

heartbeat used as atmosphere. why are they trying to induce fear on a subconscious level?

if they [the buildings] were hit in different areasm how did they collapse the same? a corner of a building, much lower down is much different than the facial damage done higher up on the north tower.

"now I know it can happen".. more fear mongering on a suggestive level.. 00oo00 it might happen again.. by the same people. lol

They don't even mention Wtc7, naturally. which fell in the same manner. doesn't it occur to you that the three buildings fell the exact same manner, all at virtually free fall speed? yet they endured three distinctly differnt fires in different locations. there is no symmetry in nature. read that again: there is no symmetry in nature.

i'm sorry to reference youtube, but this easily debunks the pancake theory.

i've explained how free fall speed was attained, numerous times, but for the nth time i'll remind you that even the slightest deviance in fall would be accumulated over the duration of the collapse. if a half of a second was added to each of the 110 floors, you'd find yourself with another 5.5 seconds tagged onto the collapse time. the towers collapsed in 10 seconds. 13 at the very most. NIST reports their collapse at 9 and 11 seconds, respectively.

So, in effect, sir, you support an explanation of faulty logic and lies. You are perpetuating the cover up.

Sorry for the point form, but man, that doc. was dumb.

Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 [117] 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »