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 »

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So you don't buy into the Bush-gnome theory then? I don't know enough information yet to actually make an informed decision regarding that question. I just thought the fact that it did actually fall was far more important than the reason why....

Then refrain from joking on a serious matter.

Understand that you cannot counter the fact that WTC 7 fell not because of jet fuel nor airliner impact. This is as unexplainable as the JFK magic bullet theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Bush was in office for about 8 months, the administration managed to make an elaborate conspiracy in that time? It's physically impossible. You people are idiots. If there was a conspiracy, the democrats would be the first to point it out because both parties have agendas to make each other fail, which is why our country fails. There is a commission that has studied this, and there is no conspiracy. They have concluded that this was a failure on all levels, not just a failure of the executive branch.

Rather than interject with comments that make you look uninformed offer something worthwhile at the table.

There is no republican/democratic conspiracy. There is no conspiracy at all if all the events were laid out right in the open for everyone to see.

There are 9/11 victims and families that don't buy into the official findings. Are they conspiracy theorists? Obviously not.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Rather than interject with comments that make you look uninformed offer something worthwhile at the table.

I'm pretty sure I made myself quite clear that I felt I didn't have enough information.
If that's not enough, then I'm happy to say you're barking up the wrong tree...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm pretty sure I made myself quite clear that I felt I didn't have enough information. If that's not enough, then I'm happy to say you're barking up the wrong tree...

He wasn't talking to you

This poll continues to be a source of embarrassment to this board, imho.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r There's an automatic assumption here that just because there were tons of rubble means somehow that ALL the oxygen was miraculously cut off. I'm willing to bet that obviously, it wasn't and since they did find molten liquid, it only furthers my point.

I don't think you have a point other than to be argumentative simply for argument's sake. You're obviously just talking out of your ass again, but I've gotten used to it so whatever.

The level of oxygen in the atmosphere (let alone any pockets of air that could have been trapped under thousands of tons of debris) would be insufficient to produce enough heat to raise the temperature of steel to that of it's melting point (around 1510�C). Steel is too thermally conductive and hardens as soon as it cools.

Even an Oxyacetylene torch itself (which burns at around 3400 degrees Celsius) wouldn't be able to create the pools of molten steel that were found in the sub-basement levels of those towers. And due to the thermodynamics of the steel beams, their heat dissipating properties would only be further increased by the fact that they were anchored to the cool bedrock (almost 80 feet below the earth's surface and 70 feet below sea level.)

That's the reason why so many people think that Thermite could have been used to take the buildings down.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X He wasn't talking to you

Sometimes you have those people that can offer worthwhile information and then there are those that badger the truth seekers with childish rhetoric and name calling. See next comment for example.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco This poll continues to be a source of embarrassment to this board, imho.

Did someone just make you an admin? If not, don't speak for them. You are speaking for yourself and not others.

The anonymity offered by the poll is one of it's strong points.

Leaving comments for or against is totally up to those that do not want to remain anonymous no matter how silly they may be. But it comes at a price. Chiding one for their beliefs is tanamount to schoolyard bullying.

And lord knows we have a lot of long distance gangsters on forums and bbs's such as this.

As the author of this poll I commend people for voting. Voting your beliefs, whether for or against, without leaving a comment is fine. Be sure to check out my other polls.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Bush was in office for about 8 months, the administration managed to make an elaborate conspiracy in that time? It's physically impossible.

And Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were never in the White House before? Not even since the 1970's when they served under Gerald Ford? Interesting.

quote:

Presidential assistant Donald Rumsfeld, right, and his deputy Richard Cheney meet with reporters at the White House in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Nov. 7, 1975. http://www.salon.com/politics/featu...gate/print.html

Cheney-Rumsfeld Surveillance Plans Date Back to 1980s

Cheney-Rumsfeld Surveillance Plans Date Back to 1980s

Commentary/Analysis, Peter Dale Scott,
New America Media, Jan 03, 2006

Editor's Note: Illegal eavesdropping and illegal detentions of U.S. citizens marks a revival of presidential powers curtailed since Watergate, and likely grew out of a secret Reagan-era program that planned to suspend the U.S. Constitution in the event of a national emergency.

Revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in warrantless eavesdropping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prompted President Bush to admit last month that in 2002 he directly authorized the activity in the wake of 9/11.

But there are reasons to suspect that the illegal eavesdropping, and the related program of illegal detentions of U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, began earlier. Both may be part of what Vice President Dick Cheney has called the Bush administration's restoration of "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- practices exercised by Nixon that were outlawed after Watergate.

In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed just such emergency surveillance and detention powers in a super-secret program that planned for what was euphemistically called "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the event of a nuclear disaster.

At the time, Cheney was a Wyoming congressman, while Rumsfeld, who had been defense secretary under President Ford, was a businessman and CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle. Overall responsibility for the program had been assigned to Vice President George H.W. Bush, "with Lt. Col. Oliver North...as the National Security Council action officer," according to James Bamford in his book, "A Pretext for War."

These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any "national security emergency," which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Clearly 9/11 would meet this definition.

As developed in the mid-1980s by Oliver North in the White House, the plans called for not just the surveillance but the potential detention of large numbers of American citizens. During the Iran-Contra hearings, North was asked about his work on "a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution." The chairman, Democratic Senator Inouye, ruled that this was a "highly sensitive and classified" matter, not to be dealt with in an open hearing.

The supporting agency for the planning and implementation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA was headed for much of the 1980s by Louis Giuffrida, whose COG plans for massive detention became so extreme that even President Reagan's then Attorney General, William French Smith, raised objections.

Smith eventually left Washington, while COG continued to evolve. And in May 2001 Cheney and FEMA were reunited: President George W. Bush appointed Cheney to head a terrorism task force and created a new office within FEMA to assist him. In effect, Bush was authorizing a resumption of the kind of planning that Cheney and FEMA had conducted under the heading of COG.

Press accounts at the time claimed that the Cheney terrorism task force accomplished little and that Cheney himself spent the entire month of August in a remote location in Wyoming. But this may have just been the appearance of withdrawal; as author James Mann points out in "The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," Cheney had regularly gone off to undisclosed locations in the 1980s as part of his secret COG planning.

As to the actual role of Bush, Cheney and FEMA on 9/11 itself, much remains unclear. But all sources agree that a central order at 10 a.m. from Bush to Cheney contained three provisions, of which the most important was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, "the implementation of continuity of government measures."

The measures called for the immediate evacuation of key personnel from Washington. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld refused to leave, but Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was helicoptered to a bunker headquarters inside a mountain. Cheney also ordered key congressional personnel, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to be flown out of Washington, along with several cabinet members.

During Cheney's later disappearance from public view for a long period after the attack, he too was working from a COG base -- "Site R," the so-called "Underground Pentagon" on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, according to Bamford.

Many actions of the Bush presidency resemble not only what Nixon did in the 1970s, but what Cheney and Rumsfeld had planned to restore under COG in the 1980s in the case of an attack. Prominent among these have been the detention of so-called "enemy combatants," including U.S. citizens, and placing them in special camps. Now as before, a policy of detentions outside the Constitution has been accompanied by a program of extra-constitutional surveillance to determine who will be detained.

As Cheney told reporters on his return last month from Pakistan, "Watergate and a lot of things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority" of the president. But he defended as necessary for national security the aggressive program he helped shape under President Bush, which includes warrantless surveillance and extrajudicial imprisonment -- in effect, a new Imperial Presidency.

At least two Democrats in Congress have suggested that Bush could be impeached for his illegal surveillance activities. The chances of impeachment may depend on whether Congress can prove that planning for this, like planning for the Iraq War, began well before 9/11.

PNS contributor Peter Dale Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina� (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) and is completing a book on "Deep Politics and the Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/vi...8930f269e2bde50

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Did someone just make you an admin? If not, don't speak for them. You are speaking for yourself and not others.

Anyone would claim 9-11 was a big conspiracy is the same kind of person who would claim that the Holocoust never happened.

This thread has nothing to do with real debate of genuine issues; You guys are kidding yourselves. I feel sorry for you that your lives have been wasted like this.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Anyone would claim 9-11 was a big conspiracy is the same kind of person who would claim that the Holocoust never happened. This has thread nothing to do with real debate of genuine issues; You guys are kidding yourselves. I feel sorry for you that your lives have been wasted like this.

It's funny that you say that, considering how we're actually presenting plausible evidence to support our positions - while all you do is try to childishly engage us with your mawkish clamor.

I'm beginning to think that maybe you're just another one of these guys (but a lot dumber):

http://www.libertyforum.org/showfla...sb=5&o=21&part=

And for the record, I have no doubts that the Holocaust happened.

I also have no doubts that most people don't fully understand the origins of the Nazi movement and how it was perpetuated by international bankers.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Bush was in office for about 8 months, the administration managed to make an elaborate conspiracy in that time? It's physically impossible.

I disagree. 8 months is plenty of time to plan a military exercise if that is what they did. Don't forget that wolfy and rummy have been around alot longer than 8 months.

Colin Powel would have had to be involved tho, and I think he would have objected. Could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's funny that you say that, considering how we're actually presenting plausible evidence to support our positions - ...Number=294039222&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=[/URL]

@"Plausible".....only in your warped mind!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco @"Plausible".....only in your warped mind!

You're boringly ignorant, donny.

I wish your dad had never bought you a computer.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I don't think you have a point other than to be argumentative simply for argument's sake. You're obviously just talking out of your ass again, but I've gotten used to it so whatever. The level of oxygen in the atmosphere (let alone any pockets of air that could have been trapped under thousands of tons of debris) would be insufficient to produce enough heat to raise the temperature of steel to that of it's melting point (around 1510�C). Steel is too thermally conductive and hardens as soon as it cools. Even an Oxyacetylene torch itself (which burns at around 3400 degrees Celsius) wouldn't be able to create the pools of molten steel that were found in the sub-basement levels of those towers. The thermodynamic properties of the steel beams plus the fact that they were anchored to the bedrock (almost 90 feet below the earth's surface) would only further increase their convective properties. That's the reason why so many people think that Thermite could have been used to take the buildings down.

So talking about 'thermite' as a foreign source isn't talking out of one's ass????

For the record:

quote:

Thermite A thermite reaction (a type of aluminothermic reaction) is one in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a great deal of heat. Iron oxide is the most commonly used oxide because it is inexpensive, and molten iron is useful for welding.

>>Source<<

Based on what a thermite reaction is and the conditions, I would believe a thermite reaction based on the materials already at the site way before suggesting some scheme of somehow physically bringing that amount of material just to create some illusion of a conspiracy...

Now that's talking about of one's ass...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So talking about 'thermite' as a foreign source isn't talking out of one's ass???? For the record: >>Source<< Based on what a thermite reaction is and the conditions, I would believe a thermite reaction based on the materials already at the site way before suggesting some scheme of somehow physically bringing that amount of material just to create some illusion of a conspiracy... Now that's talking about of one's ass...

I'm still trying to figure out what you are even saying here. Are you saying that a thermite reaction could have naturally occurred about 80 stories below where the fires were actually buring?

You don't think that if someone were planning to take down those buildings they wouldn't bother to use demolition or military grade Thermite? How about Cordite? Whatever it could have been, I doubt that they used the commercial blend.

quote:

THERMITE COMPOSITION - COMMERCIAL BLEND High quality thermic composition specially blended to produce molten slag alloys and extreme heat in excess of 4500� F to weld metals together or cut through it like a cutting torch. The military used thermite to destroy equipment, documents and other incendiary uses as well as remote welding. Normally difficult to ignite, it can be easily ignited using thermic prime composition, thermic igniters or a small amount of potassium perchlorate and/or magnesium powder. Easily cuts through 1/8" sheet metal in seconds - heavier metals slightly longer depending on thickness. Virtually dozens of uses for camping and survival in any weather or climate. Comes with instructions. SECTHERM - $7.95/LB - $36.25/5 LBS - $62.00/10 LBS (FLAMMABLE SOLID) http://www.firefox-fx.com/specialfx.htm

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e Colin Powel would have had to be involved tho, and I think he would have objected. Could be wrong.

THAT IS WHY HE LEFT!

lol, A conspiracy!

I'll start believing in these conspiracies when those JFK documents leave the vaults in about 20 years, and reveal something spectacular.

Back and to the left, back and to the left! lmao, hilarious entertainment.

We also didn't go to the moon! CONSPIRACY! omg CAPRICORN ONE! hahaha

Your more serious posts:

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn? In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood. So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r There's no way the jet fuel could have done that by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I just thought the fact that it did actually fall was far more important than the reason why....

Then you see comments like this from:

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Anyone would claim 9-11 was a big conspiracy is the same kind of person who would claim that the Holocoust never happened. This has thread nothing to do with real debate of genuine issues; You guys are kidding yourselves. I feel sorry for you that your lives have been wasted like this.

donny:
Now you're equating people on this thread as Holocaust deniers? That's too bad because I thought you had the potential to actually make valid points and arguments. But instead you chose to go down fighting with a weak attack by smearing the memories of peoples' lives with childish rants attacking this thread by equating it as anti-Holocaust.

Stick to the thread topic. If you want to deny the Holocaust then start your own racist thread.

But keep posting here. It's like arguing you're not gay in a gay bar.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You're boringly ignorant, donny. I wish your dad had never bought you a computer.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm still trying to figure out what you are even saying here. Are you saying that a thermite reaction could have naturally occurred about 80 stories below where the fires were actually buring?

Yes. It's definately plausable.
All the materials needed were already existing according to the definition of a thermitic reaction.
By the time they could even come close to finding anything 80 stories below, the thermitic 'blob' (for lack of a better word) had obviously eaten it's way down that far.
Remember, we're talking about a molten mass that had a lot of time to drill down.

quote:

...Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next�a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. So the engineers who designed it to withstand a 707 collision forgot that jets carry fuel? The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building�paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. This misleads the reader into thinking that 800�F to 1500�F temperatures were reached and sustained, for which there is no evidence. Since jet fuel boils easily and has a low flash point, it would have burned off quickly in the first few minutes after the crashes -- a point granted even by the government's official reports. Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing. Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor...

>>Source<<

quote:

You don't think that if someone were planning to take down those buildings they wouldn't bother to use demolition or military grade Thermite? How about Cordite? Whatever it could have been, I doubt that they used the commercial blend.

Let's say for a second that Thermite was used.
It's not out of the realm of possibility of course (we are talking about terrorists after all) but the real question then is HOW did they land up getting that much onsite without being detected??
I'm assuming of course that quite a bit would have to be used to be effective it would have had to been at least at the level of the plane's impact, therefore it would have to be on the plane...
Do we see where this is going and what's being suggested?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

Right, this was all over the news, I remember! There's no way something like that would escape being a headline story...you and your "sources" again.

It's interesting to see and watch how the mind of a conspiracy theorist justifies and accepts certain "facts", while ignorring base logic....a real study in the power of the human mind to convince itself of anything it wants to.

For that Trancer, you serve a purpose...a near meaningless purpose, but a purpose none-the-less.

Trancer-X loves this topic. I don't need to read it, to know what he said already.

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e Link

DonnyB and others who are just dismissing this coverup, click this link and what the movie.
Now I am not suggesting this whole thing is a conspiracy, but in this Pentagon movie, you will see there is NO PLANE. Where did an aircraft the size of 50(?) metres dissapear to. No wings, No Rolls Royce engines, No Fuselage...

Before you come up with some 'conspiracy theorist' claims, watch the movie. If you still doubt it, say what you like.

Alright, I clicked that link. And it said something about a mind control machine.

RUBBISH, complete garbage!

^^^ Really? That's TFF.

"There is no plane that hit the Pentagon"......eeesh.

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