TranceAddict Forums

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 shaolin_Z on Oct-27-2006 23:13:

Cheney's stand down orders


Posted by xstalkrx on Oct-28-2006 16:46:

There is no conspiracy.

No, Bush did not fly planes into the WTC so he could get some oil.

If the conspiracy was so OBVIOUSLY real as many claim, then those in the house..senate...etc. would be doing something about it. The Dems would be bringing evidence to the table for his impeachment.


Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-28-2006 19:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium


I am still amazed at your ignorance. Well, go on, ask for more laws taking your freedoms, more terrorist attacks, more wars for oil. Frankly, its pointless talking to you because no matter what is said to you you think that everything's fine: the government is doing a good and RIGHT job, the invasion of Iraq was justified and there was a terrorist coonnections to it, US government didnt have any knowledge of 9/11 attacks beforehand, weapons of mass destruction were OBVIOUSLY found, bla bla bla. Man, you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met in my whole life. You deserve a medal for that!


Wow, you really need to take a step back out of your absinthe bottle.

There's is a much larger clash of civilizations going on; a battle of ideologies which you haven't even considered in ANY post I've seen with your name on it.


Posted by ogvh5150 on Oct-28-2006 21:54:

quote:
Originally posted by xstalkrx
There is no conspiracy.


I keep saying that as long as things are done by revelation through obfuscation, then there should be no conspiracy.

quote:

No, Bush did not fly planes into the WTC so he could get some oil.


Sort of when a mob boss puts a contract out and denies any involvement in the "disappearance" of an employee or foe.

quote:

If the conspiracy was so OBVIOUSLY real as many claim, then those in the house..senate...etc. would be doing something about it. The Dems would be bringing evidence to the table for his impeachment.


Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is one for starters:

On September 9, 2004, McKinney participated as a Commissioner in the The Citizens' Commission on 9-11. On Oct. 26, 2004, she was among 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 that signed the 9/11 Truth Movement statement calling for new investigations of what they perceived as unexplained aspects of the 9/11 events including allegations of failure of US intelligence to act on warnings of upcoming attacks, the breakdown of military air defense, and omissions and distortions in the official investigations.

Bipartisan politics should have no influence, since no political party influenced the alleged 19 hijackers into taking thousands of lives that fateful day.


Posted by Carlos Pereira on Oct-29-2006 08:59:

Bush is too much Hat and not enough Cowboy. That's all I gotta say


Posted by ogvh5150 on Oct-31-2006 15:21:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 Mastermind) described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. 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.
Press conference on Sept 15th, 2006


Posted by ogvh5150 on Oct-31-2006 15:40:

quote:
Backers hail 9/11 theorist's speech
By Michael Riley
Denver Post Staff Writer
DenverPost.com
Article Last Updated:

The standing ovation has finally died down, and Steven E. Jones, a soft-spoken physics professor, finds himself pinned against the stage by some of the enthusiastic fans who packed a University of Denver auditorium over the weekend to see him.

A man with a "Got truth?" T-shirt offers Jones a careful explanation for why the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were operated by remote control. Another quizzes him about the size of the footprint of the Pentagon crash - too small, he says, for the Boeing 757 that "officially" smashed into it on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Can I just shake your hand?" a woman in a baggy red sweater asks Jones. "You're doing such important work."

If anything, Jones appears embarrassed by all the attention. Quiet and self-effacing, he's an unlikely hero for 9/11 conspiracy theorists of every stripe, but that's exactly what he's become.

A physicist whose background includes work on nuclear fusion, Jones was put on leave by Brigham Young University in September after publishing a paper saying that the twin towers couldn't have collapsed solely as a result of the planes that rammed the upper floors on Sept. 11. The paper theorizes that explosives planted inside the building must have been involved and that the buildings' collapse was essentially a controlled demolition.

Though Jones doesn't specify who he believes planted the charges, he concedes it would have had to be "an inside job" and likely would have included either very powerful figures on the American scene or entities inside the government.

"It's a thought that I admit has made me lose some sleep," Jones said.

Neither the 9/11 commission nor other extensive government reports have found any evidence of a secondary cause of the towers' collapse.

But Jones and his work reflect the mainstreaming of a movement that has defied the Bush administration's efforts to put it to rest and mystified people who have studied the events of that day closely: A startlingly large percentage of the population simply doesn't believe the official explanation for the towers' fall.

A national poll by the Scripps Survey Center at Ohio University conducted in the summer found that more than a third of people questioned believed the government either planned the attacks or could have stopped them but didn't.

That has worried government officials enough that the State Department recently published a report titled "The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories," an effort to debunk many of them. Separately, the National Institute of Standards and Technology - the government arm that investigated why the towers collapsed - published a seven-page document in September that attempted to answer some of the skeptics.

"We've watched it gain momentum," said Brent Blanchard, director of field operations for New Jersey-based Protec Documentation Services, which studies and monitors building demolitions.

"It's really been fascinating in a way," he said. "We've been able to watch the birth of the completely out-of-control allegations that could not be true for so many reasons."

Among the most basic of those, Blanchard said, is that there's a consensus that the collapse of the towers began at or near the point where the planes entered the buildings, rather than at the base, where traditional demolition occurs. That means that the explosives would have had to survive the initial crash and superheated fires until they were detonated - for nearly an hour in the case of one tower, 102 minutes in the case of the other.

"That's absolutely impossible," Blanchard said.

Beyond that, he said, planting the explosives in secret would have been an incredible logistical undertaking.

But to the growing Sept. 11 conspiracy movement, Jones provides what even advocates concede they had been lacking: a scientific approach backed up with meticulous data analysis and carefully devised experimental testing.

Jones - who has agreed to retire from BYU at the end of 2006 - said in an interview that his first doubts emerged when he saw a video of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the 47- story office building that collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition.

The physicist said that in more than a year of investigation, he found thermite residue in samples of dust found near ground zero and on one of the steel beams used in a Sept. 11 memorial. Thermite is a compound that, when ignited, produces incredibly high temperatures and is used by the military in incendiary grenades and to cut through steel.

Some government reports have also identified a significant presence of odd substances - including sulfur and zinc - and have noted that there is no obvious explanation for their presence. Jones said sulfur and zinc are part of a typical thermite fingerprint.

"I'm not willing to say yet that this is conclusive, but it does deserve explanation. What we're asking for is more study and a major investigation," said Jones, who has helped organize a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

For many observers, Jones' work says less about a hidden conspiracy behind Sept. 11 than it does an unease with the event and what has followed.

"First of all, there is the event itself," said Christopher Farrell of the conservative think tank Judicial Watch. "It shocked, upset and offended people. Then after the fact, there were a number of contradictions or holes in the information available."

Blanchard is more blunt: "The government's done a lot of things in the last couple of years that has caused people to doubt their integrity about anything, including this stuff about WMD and other problems."

After Jones' lecture Saturday, a distinguished man with graying hair said he came because he had heard the physicist on the radio and thought it was remarkable that a scientist from so conservative a state as Utah would be a doubter.

"As you study this whole thing more, it seems to me there are a lot of valid questions," he said.

The man said he was a businessman and didn't want his name in the paper.

"I'm still in the business world," he said, "and I'd be ridiculed just for being here."


ARTICLE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR EDUCATIONAL, NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-31-2006 23:19:

evidence of nothing i like it how the fact that steven jones' research a) hasn't passed peer review and b) is rejected by the world's engineers isn't included in that story. what a load of crap.

especially this part

quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
The collapse took just 6.5 seconds, only a half-second more than the free-fall time a ball bearing would take when dropped from that height. That simply couldn't take account of the normal resistance of steel columns and concrete that should have slowed the collapse by at least a few seconds, he said, but it did fit the model of a controlled demolition


bullshit.

quote:

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates thatparts of the building were hitting were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.


source

repeating fallacies ad nauseum doesn't make them any more true. should we now have a pissing contest where i line up all the structural engineers to disagree with a physicist who isn't qualified enough to tackle the complexities of building collapse in the first place? and let's not get onto his work in nuclear fusion shall we?


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Nov-02-2006 02:01:

interesting tidbit i came across randomly.

quote:

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI�s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI�s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

...

At 439 ft. tall Hudson�s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson�s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson�s is the largest single building ever imploded.



source

is someone going to argue that this smaller building would take more time to wire than the WTCs 1,2, & 7?

24 days to place the charges. 36,000 feet of detonating cord. if the administration really did wire those towers, fuck it must've been the most efficient use of government time in the history of public service


Posted by ogvh5150 on Nov-02-2006 05:02:

quote:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Global Security)

No one exemplifies the model of the terrorist entrepreneur more clearly than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid followed a long path to his eventual membership in al Qaeda. Highly educated and equally comfortable in a government office or a terrorist safehouse, KSM applied his imagination, technical aptitude, and managerial skills to hatching and planning an extraordinary array of terrorist schemes. These ideas included conventional car bombing, political assassination, aircraft bombing, hijacking, reservoir poisoning, and, ultimately, the use of aircraft as missiles guided by suicide operatives.

Like his nephew Ramzi Yousef (three years KSM�s junior), KSM grew up in Kuwait but traces his ethnic lineage to the Baluchistan region straddling Iran and Pakistan. Raised in a religious family, KSM claims to have joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 16 and to have become enamored of violent jihad at youth camps in the desert. In 1983, following his graduation from secondary school, KSM left Kuwait to enroll at Chowan College, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina. After a semester at Chowan, KSM transferred to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, which he attended with Yousef�s brother,another future al Qaeda member. KSM earned a degree in mechanical engineering in December 1986.


Posted by ogvh5150 on Dec-05-2006 01:16:

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

video link site one

video link site two


Posted by venomX on Dec-05-2006 01:30:

quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

video link site one

video link site two


Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building?


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-05-2006 01:34:

quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

video link site one

video link site two


Jones points to something he says are demolition squibs on WTC 7.



Note the dark area in the right hand corner. (South west corner. This video was taken from the north west.) Jones and the conspiracy theorists call these demolition squibs.

But had the "Scholars" done a little research, they would have uncovered this photo of the south side...



Note the damaged south west corner. (This photo was taken from the south west.)



Now look at them together.



Squibs? Or a damaged window area doing what a damaged window area would do during a collapse, falling apart...

debunking 911.com


Posted by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2006 01:41:

quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building?


Nothing personal, but I find it interesting how all the emerging evidence that fits with control demolition theory like a glove is desperately crammed in the pancake theory box, where much of it doesn't fit and keeps popping out.

[EDIT]

Some examples

Seismic evidence:

- spikes in seismographs preceding collapse of eigther tower
- difference of almost twice in total energy (hence potential energy) of two vitrually identical systems (Laws of Physics: Conservation of Energy & Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy). Obvious conclusion: Additional Kinetic Energy increasin Potential Energy in other collapse.

Witness testimony on explosions:

- by Firemen, Policemen, and civilians at the scene
- by WTC staff memebers of explosion in the basement preceding collapse

Rate of fall:

- far too short for pancake theory to be scientifically plausible. Only few second over free fall speed. Pancake theory would require atleast 45 seconds due to resistance to fall offered by each sussesive floor and law of conservation of momentum.
- Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, have any significant fires, or significant damage. It fell down at virtually free fall speed. Inwards dip and collapses on it's footprint, signature controlled demolition.

Structural Integrity:

- fire has never caused a modern steelframed high rise to collapse (for an excellent example, check out Madrid Fire lasting almost a day)
- airplane crashes have never caused a modern steelframe highrise to collapse (B52 bomber, which has a few tousand KGs of explosives, in Empire State Building)
- Twin Towers designed to be able to withstand atleast one 707 hit, architects and engineers said it could easily withstand multiple hits as the structure was over engineered (which takes into account jet fuel btw)


Video Evidence:

- dust clouds shooting out of floors below collapsing towers
- dust clouds rising from bottom of tower before collapse

Molten Steel discovered eight weeks after collapse at ground zero

Typical control demolition features:

- taking out core structure by planting explosives in base of a structure (especially for larger and stronger structures)
- fast collapse speed and accelerated fall
- explosives need careful placement to ensure structure collapses on footprint

Thermite, Phosphorus, and Manganese found in samples of columns by BYU Physics PHD & Prof Steven Jones; Thermate (which can be made with the three) is a typical demolition explosive that easily cuts through structural steel


Posted by venomX on Dec-05-2006 01:44:

quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Nothing personal, but I find it interesting how all the emerging evidence that fits with control demolition thoery like a glove is desperately crammed in the pancake theory box, where much of it doesn't fit and keeps popping out.


It's a sincere question. I don't have time to do research right now, I have a final tomorrow. I'm pretty much staying neutral on this topic and you guys here post a lot of useful information on both sides. I just wanted to know if anyone knew if it was a possibility.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-05-2006 01:51:

quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Very interesting, they do look like explosions, and they're preceding the collapse. Is there any way that the explosion like squibs could happen from the sheer pressure of the top collapsing on the rest of the building?


thats exactly what occured. explosive "squibs" are very particular, and do not fit into the pattern shown in any 911 video. explosive squibs explode instantly, ie their maximum "volume" shall we say, is expended immediately- they dont get bigger with time. so if you look at the various collapse videos of all towers, where the so-called squibs get bigger and spew out more debris, they can't possibly be explosive squibs because this is not how explosions occur. what youre seeing spewing out due to collapse and pressure.

theres a ridiculous amount of evidence in this thread and others relating to the collapse of WTC7, and the massive, terminal fires the building had. it was creaking and groaning and bulging before its collapse, all documented by testimony by fire fighters at the scene. the building collapsed due to fire, pure and simple.


Posted by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2006 02:12:

quote:
Originally posted by venomX
It's a sincere question. I don't have time to do research right now, I have a final tomorrow. I'm pretty much staying neutral on this topic and you guys here post a lot of useful information on both sides. I just wanted to know if anyone knew if it was a possibility.


That's cool. There needs to be an expressionless smiley for a nuetral tone so people don't take it the wrong way .


Posted by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2006 02:39:

So basically, I don't find the pancake theory even remotely plausible as the evidence hardly fits with it. The FEMA investigation conluded in their report that it only had a low probablity of occurance (and that's the only hypothesis for collapse they considered btw). Doesn't sounds like a very scientific approach at all, to confine yourself to a single theory that has a very low probability. Also keep in mind how the steel columbs were immediately shipped and sold to Asia (India & China) as scrap metal, where they were melted down.

1) That's illegal; removing evidence from a crime scene.
2) If it did indeed collapse due to "structural flaws," it's impossible to investigate that with out the (essential) evidence. So how can that assertion be made in the first place without verifying it?
3) It makes any investigation into the cause of collapse very difficult.

So the question is, what would give anyone the motivation to do that? I think the answer shouldn't be very difficult to determine.

[EDIT] "should" changed to "shouldn't"


Posted by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2006 02:50:

So I'm kind of curious, how many of the advocate for the pancake theory have acutally taken physics, probability, and logic courses? Most of them seem to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding in any of those areas.

(@ colonelcrisp: I'm not taking a stab at you here. I'm aware of what your area of study was.)


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-05-2006 02:59:

id like to know how many conspiracy theorists have taken demolitions courses or worked in that field.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-05-2006 03:03:

quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Also keep in mind how the steel columbs were immediately shipped and sold to Asia (India & China) as scrap metal, where they were melted down.

1) That's illegal; removing evidence from a crime scene.
2) If it did indeed collapse due to "structural flaws," it's impossible to investigate that with out the (essential) evidence. So how can that assertion be made in the first place without verifying it?
3) It makes any investigation into the cause of collapse very difficult.


i know shaolin has me on ignore, but for the rest of you- this is another oft-repeated assumption that just isn't true. yes, steel was melted down and sent overseas, but not before some of it was tested. are we really expecting an inch-by-inch investigation into thousands of tonnes of steel? thats just not possible.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-05-2006 03:11:

quote:

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST�s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

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.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence�as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse�support this sequence for each tower.

NIST�s findings do not support the �pancake theory� of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system�that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns�consisted of a grid of steel �trusses� integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST�s findings also do not support the �controlled demolition� theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.


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

whether there are flaws in the NIST investigation or not, the simple fact is nobody else has managed to provide the same amount of investigation as the NIST investigators, and anything outside this official investigation is just conjecture and assumption. the idea that internet sleuths have somehow found or rationalised evidence better than the hundreds of experts utilised by NIST just isn't credible.


Posted by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2006 06:39:

Bush Admin Chief Economist for US Dep. of Labour Says U.S. Government Behind 9/11

quote:
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001--2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an "inside job," and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This interview footage was recorded in June 2006 at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference.



Posted by colonelcrisp on Dec-06-2006 18:56:

quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z

(@ colonelcrisp: I'm not taking a stab at you here. I'm aware of what your area of study was.)



aww thanks.... did you guys miss me 3 more classes and i get my degree FTW


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-07-2006 03:38:

i thought this was pretty funny

What I Learned from 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

link


The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.

It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.

If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.

The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.

The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.

Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.

Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.

The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.

Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.

When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.

The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.

Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).

The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.

The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.

Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.

A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!

If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.

The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.

Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.

Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.

The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.

The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.

Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.

Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."

More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.

Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.

When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.

When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.

When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).

Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.

The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.

No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb.

Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000�F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700�Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.

If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.

Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.

When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.

Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.

If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.

When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.

It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.

Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.

Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."

If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveilance film), it must be fake.

The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.

Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" consipiracy, and don't get me started.

George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.

When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.

If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the world's top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.

If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet. Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.

I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.

Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.

The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.

"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.

The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.

If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.

If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.

Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.

The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.

The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.

When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.

Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.

It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.

It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.

People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.


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 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.