|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 41)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
No, I understand that you are an or another words a very close minded individual.:( |
and your command of english is on par with an 8 year old. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and your command of english is on par with an 8 year old. |
And your mental capability is on par with a 5 year old. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
oh, thats a good one!
thought youd like to know, i had my property re-valued. its sitting at about $180,000 right now. now i only owe $155,000 on the loan. so ive made $25,000 in equity since march.
how those shares going? |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, thats a good one!
thought youd like to know, i had my property re-valued. its sitting at about $180,000 right now. now i only owe $155,000 on the loan. so ive made $25,000 in equity since march.
how those shares going? |
that's an aweful lot of money for a house in Tasmania? :p |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
And your mental capability is on par with a 5 year old. |
and your penis is the size of a two year olds...
i just couldnt resist:D |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, thats a good one!
thought youd like to know, i had my property re-valued. its sitting at about $180,000 right now. now i only owe $155,000 on the loan. so ive made $25,000 in equity since march.
how those shares going? |
oh, thats a good one!
thought youd like to know, i slept with your sister.
Have you begun talking with the opposite sex yet? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| ^^ yeah, thats what i thought. your shares aint doing anything :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Blast ... it looks like Pk did much of the dirty work for me. I think the point that PK made, and I would attempt to convey is that one cannot make any kind of comparison on engineering structures without going into details. |
Yes, and pkc is not an engineer, architect, or physicist. Neigther am I. I don't pretent to understand all the technical details, engineering knowledge, architectural knowledge, and details that go in to it. He doesn't eigther, and neigther do you. I think we can agree on that much? In order to "refute" pkc's arguemnt (which isn't really his argument to begin with and is more like a "debunking 9-11 conpiracy" google search, copy, and paste), I'd have to have a solid understanding and education in those areas that neigther one of you does eigther. So it's not really "his" or your arguemnt eigther one of you is asking me to refute. I'm presenting (atleast for the most part) my own arguemnts while you guys are not. No one is addressing any of those, atleast in any meanigful fasion (i.e. something that's not a copy/paste, as with the WTC Empire State Building example). And apparently you guys didn't get why I brought up those examples in the first place. No modern steel highrise skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire or impact from an airplane of any type. Why the hell should I believe that WTC would, espeically building 7? Especially for an event so conviniet for the PNAC team and this administration?
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think you're trying to go in 10 different directions at once without closing or addressing the issues that others are making in any specific issue. |
I'm sorry, could you please elaborate on that one? :conf:
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
For example, you bring up the empire state building as an example yet you never address the counterarguments raised to dismiss that comparison. |
Read above for explaination.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You seem to cherry pick the circumstancial evidence that suits your needs |
Like?
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there and accuse you guys of the exact same thing. For example, you dismiss"
a) Witness testimony by firefighters, rescue workers, police, potential victims etc.
b) NORAD's standard procedures, which is to shoot and intercept, not being carried out. Security drills being carried out of the exact same event months prior 9-11 and on 9-11, the latter which easily serves to confuse air defense. None of this would have ever happened if standard procedure was allowed to be carried out.
c) Intelligence warnings from internal (American) intelligence and foreign intelligence in conjuncation with b) and other things I can't think of at the moment leave no room for doubt that they knew about the attacks.
d) Forensic edivence that was illegaly removed and destoryed by the Goverment, making any investigation into why the Towers collapsed incredibly difficult. That, plus, the Administration blocking independent investigation into 9-11.
e) Project For a New American Century's "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" document which is essential a call for increased military spending, American military, economic, and strategic global dominance.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
without confronting the nonsensical byproducts that your theory implies. |
OK, I lost you again. You're going to have to be more specific. The entire pancake thoery itself i quite nonsensical for reason's I've already stated before.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm afriad that Pk has done a very detailed rebuttal that you will have to address point by point if you hope to properly debate this issue. |
No he hasn't for the reason I stated above already. You can't debate an issue on a level that is beyond your comprehension (i.e. referrence to architectural and engineering knowledge and understanding required to construst or deconrtuct any argument made on that level).
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How can anyone expect to digest the posts that you make unless you rebutt counterargument made by others. |
Again, read above.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The reason why I'm so turned off by these threads is that I don't think that anybody has properly addressed any argument I've made with respect to this issue to fruition. As such, why should I waste my time to do research, post rebuttals, and argue with people when they are unwilling to make the same sacrifice? |
What research? A convinient google search that turns up a page that supposedly "debunks" alternate theories in hopes of propagating a theory that is highly unlikely and defies common sense to begin with?
If I were to do "research," it would be alot harder for the sole reason that there wouldn't already be a convenient package that I could copy/paste. So I think your claims and accusation are pretty unfair to being with. I guess I could sacrafice alot of time and effort but that would really serve any real purpose since neighter one of us has the architectural or engineering backround to have any meanigful debate on such a detailed level. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yes, and pkc is not an engineer, architect, or physicist. Neigther am I. I don't pretent to understand all the technical details, engineering knowledge, architectural knowledge, and details that go in to it. He doesn't eigther, and neigther do you. I think we can agree on that much? In order to \"refute\" pkc's arguemnt (which isn't really his argument to begin with and is more like a \"debunking 9-11 conpiracy\" google search, copy, and paste), I'd have to have a solid understanding and education in those areas that neigther one of you does eigther. |
the point is that
a) youre an intelligent guy who can
b) understand the arguments that ive raised, regardless of whether any of us are structural engineers and
c) at least get a handle on whether these arguments sound plausible or not.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So it's not really \"his\" or your arguemnt eigther one of you is asking me to refute. I'm presenting (atleast for the most part) my own arguemnts while you guys are not. No one is addressing any of those, atleast in any meanigful fasion (i.e. something that's not a copy/paste, as with the WTC Empire State Building example). And apparently you guys didn't get why I brought up those examples in the first place. No modern steel highrise skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire or impact from an airplane of any type. Why the hell should I believe that WTC would, espeically building 7? Especially for an event so conviniet for the PNAC team and this administration? |
you brought up that example without (as youve already admitted) having any idea of the structural differences between the WTCs and any other steel building. and, do i need to point out, that just because something hasnt happened before is evidence of absolutely nothing. another non sequitur.
i dont understand how you can just dismiss 'my' arguments re WTC7 in the other 9/11 thread without attending to them. how much of the info that you have been using has come from equivalent sites proposing conspiracies? youre all too happy to agree with trancer x or ogv when they post their long-winded quotes. the debunking site i got all that info from was born from all the poor research & misrepresentation of 'facts' the conspiracy theorists have made.
at the very least you should take the time to see how publicly available information is cherry-picked for out-of-context information then used to build the rest of the house of cards. its just bad research in a lot of cases.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there and accuse you guys of the exact same thing. For example, you dismiss\"
a) Witness testimony by firefighters, rescue workers, police, potential victims etc.
b) NORAD's standard procedures, which is to shoot and intercept, not being carried out. Security drills being carried out of the exact same event months prior 9-11 and on 9-11, the latter which easily serves to confuse air defense. None of this would have ever happened if standard procedure was allowed to be carried out.
c) Intelligence warnings from internal (American) intelligence and foreign intelligence in conjuncation with b) and other things I can't think of at the moment leave no room for doubt that they knew about the attacks.
d) Forensic edivence that was illegaly removed and destoryed by the Goverment, making any investigation into why the Towers collapsed incredibly difficult. That, plus, the Administration blocking independent investigation into 9-11.
e) Project For a New American Century's \"Rebuilding Americas Defenses\" document which is essential a call for increased military spending, American military, economic, and strategic global dominance.
|
ok, eyewitness testimony for you:
| quote: |
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'.\"--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR \"POP, POP, POP, POP, POP\"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF
First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think \"BOMB\" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.\" --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... :blink:
\"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these liars put the \"....\"
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case. ;) These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem like there are more people hearing explosions than there really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and Stephen Gregory's interview split in two as if there are different people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping you wont notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.\" -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, \"ITS BLOWING\".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling \"run\".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called \"Explosion\" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.
\"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…
In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site this may sound like damming evidence. They are saying “detonated” and “they had planned to take down a building”. They even say “Boom” to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they’re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom…
This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn’t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn’t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.
A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says
The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.
The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.
When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.
Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that the misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:
1. Although the newswomen begin the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in \"first tower when it was struck,\" at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says \"Oh yeah.\" But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11...ices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.
2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to \"call [the] main office in Illinois.\" Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tr...r/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).
3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: \"There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack.\" Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as \"towards One Word Trade\" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.
I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was \"dragged\" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.
USA Today
As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.
There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
----------
• Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 *
• Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
• Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
• Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
• Car #50: B6-108 *
• Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
There were fireman who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/.../wtcaudio8.html
So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorist.
Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval. |
as for b) c) d) e) its all circumstantial at best, and certainly is far removed from being a smoking gun.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
What research? A convinient google search that turns up a page that supposedly \"debunks\" alternate theories in hopes of propagating a theory that is highly unlikely and defies common sense to begin with?
If I were to do \"research,\" it would be alot harder for the sole reason that there wouldn't already be a convenient package that I could copy/paste. So I think your claims and accusation are pretty unfair to being with. I guess I could sacrafice alot of time and effort but that would really serve any real purpose since neighter one of us has the architectural or engineering backround to have any meanigful debate on such a detailed level. |
defies common sense? are you listening to yourself? youre the one advocating the most ludicrously complicated and convoluted conspiracy of ALL TIME. should i throwback to your argument, and argue that something like this has never happened before, thus it just couldnt be true?
if you even took 5 mins to read just how much thermite would be needed to bring those towers down, doesnt that make you question anything? whilst we are not experts, there are plenty of experts from around the world that have examined all the available data- if you readily admit youre not expert enough to critique it yourself, how can you be expert enough to ignore them entirely?
there ARE convenient packages for you to cut n paste- as already noted, that site in particular came into being to counter the badly researched hypotheses of similar conspiracy sites.
sorry, all im hearing from you guys is that suddenly none of us can argue this topic coz theres a whole lot of information none of us truly understand. now, assuming this is entirely accurate, im wondering why you consider yourself knowledgable enough to have an opinion on 9/11 in the first place. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
STFU and READ:
start document
Seekin' that Ol' 911 Truth
(Submitted by a WRH reader)**
First two simple questions:
Q1: On September 11 2001, how many buildings collapsed in New York City?
A: Two? No, THREE. The Twin Towers were hit by aeroplanes, but WTC 7, a massive 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper also collapsed. It was NOT hit by a plane. The evidence is clear - this was a controlled demolition. http://wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)
Q2: How long did it take the FBI to bring charges against Usama bin Laden in connection with 911? One hour, eight hours, a day, a week?
A: Usama bin Laden is NOT on the FBI most wanted list in connection with 911. Why not? According to FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb, The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4673 http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm (accessed 20 August 2006)
If you believe 911 was an inside job, YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Below are just a small selection amongst the millions of credible persons including engineers, scientists, intelligence analysts, actors, theologians, philosophers, authors, investigative journalists, lawyers, military personel, politicians, family members and eye-witnesses who believe the investigation into the events of September 11 2001 must urgently be reopened.
Seekin' that ol' 911 Truth August 2006
On July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of great importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a 911 panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/articles/se...ns_momentum.htm http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?...&ShowVidNum=10&
Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100
Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.
Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories!
The seekers after 911 truth have been around for almost 5 years now, and they're NOT GOING AWAY - they're growing day by day!
In April Charlie Sheen made national news (CNN Showbiz Tonight 7pm) three nights in a row, with coverage continuing every day the following week. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/f...ghts-sheen.html http://prisonplanet.com/articles/ju...nautoftruth.htm
What newsworthy event prompted such coverage? Mr. Sheen announced that he thinks the government has been covering up the truth about 9/11. Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job! http://9eleven.info/ http://www.911truth.org/article.php...060323162638376
Two of Sheen's fellow actors, Ed Asner and Ed Begley, Jr, agree with him. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
And so does movie director Aaron Russo. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Maybe you dont care what they think, they're just actors. Perhaps you want the opinion of scientists. Well, how about an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of physics at BYU? Professor Jones has found forensic evidence of thermate, an explosive, being used to cut through key support pillars in the WTC buildings. http://www.9eleven.info/911JonesPaperhtm7.htm http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=4688 http://www.question911.com/linkout....%20Evidence.wmv
Or perhaps MIT Engineer Jeff King who also believes the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
News+WTC+911+Conspiracy+Flight+77&search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=2
What about a mathematician? Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney
Maybe theyre too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson mechanical engineering professor Judy Wood? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/m...essor-from.html http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Or how about Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories), the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001. He found the official reports to be full of lies and contradictions. http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041112144051451 http://www.snowshoefilms.com/
Maybe you dont care for eggheads. http://www.st911.org/ http://physics911.net/spine.htm http://911physics.co.nr/
You want to hear from true patriots, military men, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman, who says the 'official story of 911 is a bunch of hogwash and impossible'. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Or USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson, an authority on aircraft crash investigation. http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Or former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
Or how about military men from other countries who are also skeptics of the 'official' story of 911? Here's a few:
Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc...ies/Hellyer.mov
National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....&articleId=1788
Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong? http://www.etruscanpress.org/02_september_11_2001.html
Maybe youre not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA? http://www.tarpley.net/welcome.html
Or authors Gore Vidal, Bill Douglas or Christopher Bollyn? http://www.informationclearinghouse...rticle13969.htm http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm
Or if you prefer your message in song, what about putting some of the hard questions to music? Les Visible: 9/11 Was An Inside Job (music) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pag...fm?bandID=97737
Maybe you dont trust actors, authors, musicians or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology? http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
The respected Presbyterian Press has recently published his book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 https://www.ppcbooks.com/index1.asp
Not just into Christianity? What about MUJCA-NET, a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth. http://mujca.com/
How about philosophers? What about distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, Jim Fetzer. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/...s23Apr2006.html
Or Dr. Jim Hoffman? http://911research.wtc7.net/
What could theologians and philosophers know about national security? You want to hear from insiders to the covert world. How about CIA analyst and former presidential adviser Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security whos career spanned JFK to GHW Bush. http://www.electricpolitics.com/pod...y_mcgovern.html
Or Bill Christison, a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm
Or how about David Shayler, the MI5 Whistleblower? [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Or former cop Michael C. Ruppert? http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml#ruby
Or former 9/11 Commission Member and democrat senator, Max Cleland, who blasts Bush and claims "The White House Has Played Cover-Up". http://www.democracynow.org/article...4/03/23/1546256
Other members of the 9/11 Commission panel also believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." http://unsungwar.com/
Or what about Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the official government 9/11 Commission Report? In their book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. Kean and Hamilton reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.
"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.
The commission even debated referring the militarys lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report? http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bull...ic.php?p=117589 http://www.informationclearinghouse...rticle14531.htm
Or Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, or Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041101130426916
Or Michael Meacher MP former UK Minister for the environment who says "The war on terror is bogus", or Andreas Von Bulow, former German Secretary Of Defense, who says "The official [9/11] story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one." [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Or Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, who was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks. http://www.justacitizen.com/
Or Daniel Ellsburg, famous Vietnam 'Pentagon Papers' whistleblower and former American military analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/d...ut-for-911.html
Or how about the FBI? Did you know that the reason Usama bin Laden isn't on their most wanted list in connection to 9/11 is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting him to the crimes? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/f...e-connects.html
What about another country's government, such as the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chavez, supported by billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez, which is set to launch an international investigation into 9/11? http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/83785
Maybe they're all too far left for you! You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan? http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070 http://www.electricpolitics.com/pod...06/02/post.html http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts http://www.informationclearinghouse...rticle14531.htm
OK, hes a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. So how about Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html http://www.house.gov/paul/ http://demopedia.democraticundergro...ex.php/Ron_Paul
#Congressman_Ron_Paul_Admits_Conspiracy_to_Create_World_Government
Maybe you need to hear from someone in GWs administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during Bushs first term? He believes the events of 9/11 were a staged event, orchestrated by people within the Bush government. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Since the attacks of 911 were obviously a crime, maybe you want to hear from trained legal minds. People whose job it is to carefully investigate the details of a crime and reach a well considered conclusion.
Well, how about attorney Philip Berg? Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against the Bush admin on behalf of WTC survivor William Rodriguez says "They (Bush et al) made it happen or let it happen. And if they let it happen, then they made it happen. And they must be held responsible." http://www.911forthetruth.com/
Or attorney Stanley Hilton? http://www.suetheterrorists.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton
Or Bill Veale, with 30 years of legal experience. After much research he has come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were in essence an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U.S. government. http://www.vealetruth.com/?page_id=6
Maybe none of the above does it for you. You want to hear from "eye-witnesses" - people who were there on the scene on that fateful day. May I suggest you listen to the firefighters who were in the building at the time? [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
What about first responder, NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli who says the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.
"It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible", Fireman Lou says. http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...wistedwords.htm
Or perhaps to news reporters who were on the scene who repeatedly described hearing "explosions"? http://tinyurl.com/bzg64 (you need to fast forward a little...) http://www.letsroll911.org/articles...demolition.html
Or how about WTC survivor William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked at the WTC for about 19 years, and was decorated as a 911 hero by Bush. He testifies that he heard and felt explosions in the basement of the North Tower BEFORE the planes hit overhead. William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" It's a good question! http://williamrodriguezwtc.blogspot.com/ http://www.911forthetruth.com/
What about the families who lost loved ones on 911? http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=endorsements
Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Monica Gabrielle of New Jersey lost their husbands Kenneth, Alan, Richard and John who all worked in the WTC. Sally Regenhard lost her firefighter son Christian, and Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby.
None of these people are satisfied with the official story of what happened on 9/11. Will you listen to their questions? http://www.911pressfortruth.com/families
Well, if you don't believe any of them, why not listen to the OWNER of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, who admits on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7?!
Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:
"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, weve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
In the demolition industry, pull is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/wtc_7_archivel.htm http://www.letsroll911.org/articles...demolition.html http://www.wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link)
So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!
And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?
Maybe you dont want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/f...ghts-sheen.html
Or a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll taken from July 6 to 24, 2006, concluded that more than a third [36 percent] of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them, so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East. A poll done by the Zogby polling organization two months earlier, between May 12 and 16, 2006, concluded that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were unsure. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm
Maybe you dont care what the American people think?
Yea, we know.
[Ref. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11205 ]
- -
WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVES COULD THERE BE FOR A 9/11 INSIDE JOB??
These are some of the plutocracy's 'foreign policy' and other lesser goals that 9/11 (the "new Pearl Harbor") has helped them to pursue:
* to get the American people's support for an endless bogus "war on terror" which will ensure continued gargantuan military budgets. This will continue to enrich and empower the plutocracy and the military/industrial complex. http://www.addictedtowar.com/
* the WTC buildings needed massive repairs - or to be demolished altogether - which would have caused a financial loss to the owners. But instead the owner (the Silverstein group), who had conveniently insured the WTC complex against terrorism only weeks before, got paid out billions in insurance, allowing them to not only rebuild, but make a hefty profit also http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...16/18297965.php
* insider trading - there were 'put options' placed on airline stocks (a sort of bet that the stock will go down) days before the attacks which made someone millions of dollars
* to help James Baker negotiate massive repatriations from Iraq to Kuwait, making the Bush family/Carlysle Group billions in the process.
* it has been suggested there was a massive amount of gold bullion in the basement beneath the WTC that was looted on 9/11 (unconfirmed).
* the removal of Saddam Hussein
* the removal of the Taliban
* a possible war on Iran?
* to help further the goals of Israel
* the establishment of permanent military bases in the oil rich Middle East
* to keep the price of oil artificially high, so as to ensure continued massive profits for the OPEC countries/oil companies. http://www.gregpalast.com/big-oil-a...ollar-war-bonus http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-...rld-for-big-oil
* the spread of "globalisation" and "corporatism" (i.e. big business and money) e.g. massive contracts for Halliburton and other crony firms with ties to Washington, control of the production and price of oil http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programm...ght/4354269.stm
* "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite and
* is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through peoples intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries policies and the behavior of people. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....&articleId=1788
* arguably to reassert their control of the opium trade (if this sounds crazy, then remember, Britain had opium wars with China in the 19th Century to keep control of this lucrative trade, so this is nothing new). btw, Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816...ghan_opium_boom
* to establish a precedent for the role of "pre-emptive" war in their efforts to shape the world according to their belief systems (this will make their next "pre-emptive" war easier to push through).
* to shake the "Vietnam Syndrome" and get the American people accustomed to the deaths of thousands of their sons (about 2,800 so far plus tens of thousands more maimed or injured) in order to serve the goals of the plutocracy
* the spread of "democracy" (TM) and "freedom" (TM) across the Middle East
( For example, I believe Hitler was sincere in his desire to establish a "glorious thousand year Reich". Likewise, the ideologues in Washington also have certain belief systems about how the world should be, and are more than willing to use violence and military force to achieve their aims.
This isn't conspiracy theory, btw. Just look at the "shock & awe" campaign which murdered and maimed tens of thousands of innocent people in Baghdad, or you can read their own words here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through their visions for the world, and see how many you agree with.)
* to pass legislation that removes the rights of dissenters who object to these goals (e.g. the PATRIOT Act, 'anti-terrorism' laws, government domestic surveillance etc.)
So there are plenty of motives for a 9/11 inside job!
SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Even if you are still skeptical, but think there are too many questions about the events of September 11 2001 that need answers, here are a few suggestions:
Ask Oprah to host a three-part special that investigates 9/11 http://oprah.bravocharlie911.com/
Sign the petition to release the 9/11 information that is currently being held by the U.S. government to an independent review: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172
Get informed and share these links to several 9/11 investigative documentaries with your friends:
Loose Change Second Edition Not perfect, but well researched and very thought provoking. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
911: In Plane Site Hard-hitting investigative journalism. http://unsungwar.com/
911 Press for the Truth The families of 911 victims speak out and question the official story of 911. http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Rise Short and sweet - to the point! http://unsungwar.com/videos/Rise.swf
9/11 Revisited This film provides stunning evidence that pre-planted explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC twin towers and WTC 7. http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html
9/11 Eyewitness A rigorous scientific analysis of the destruction of the WTC towers. http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911Eyewitness.php
Here is an archive of a large selection of thought provoking documentaries you may like to check out. http://www.question911.com/links.php http://www.universalseed.org/
"The most powerful weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." Don't give them yours! http://www.snowshoefilms.com/
Perspective 9-11 This research will give you an insight into the story behind the 9-11 attacks. http://tinyurl.com/layem
American Scholars Symposium Scholarly panel which met in Los Angeles for two days to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. The consensus: no doubt, it was an inside job. http://www.infowars.com/articles/se...ns_momentum.htm http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?...APS&ShowVidNum=
10&Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100
Everybody's Gotta Learn Some Time Compelling film outlining many disturbing and heavily censored facts associated with the worst terrorist attacks in American history. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
David Shayler - ex-MI5 whistleblower David Shayler introduces 911 Truth Bristol's Face the Facts and explains why 911 is of vital importance today. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Unitarian pastor Davidson Loehr explains the PNAC drive to reshape a new world order and the connection to the attacks of 9/11. http://www.jonesreport.com/articles...tin_pastor.html
Pentagon Strike What hit the Pentagon? http://unsungwar.com/videos/pentagonstrike.swf
9/11 Special: Dutch Television Documentary (20 minutes) Two senior government ministers express grave doubts about the official 9/11 stories and the so-called "war on terror". [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Discover the Truth about the Events surrounding 9-11-01 via Video Presentations from some of the top Scholars, Researchers, and Analysts from the International Community. http://911busters.com/
TerrorStorm (Alex Jones) Alex Jones' latest film covers in detail the proven history of government sponsored terrorism, and focuses on the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold by Anthony Hilder Sometimes quite opinionated, a bit long, but some valuable information never-the-less. Worth watching. [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
911 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands A Video Exposing the Core Facts of the September 11th Attack http://wtc7.net/store/videos/proof/index.html
Watch David Ray Griffin, professor of theology, and other speakers who speak candidly and lucidly about the events of 911. http://911busters.com/911_new_video...ions/index.html
. . .
And finally, if you still think it's all bunkum and you can debunk the 9/11 "tin-foil hat" conspiracy brigade, then take the million dollar challenge! I'm sure you could use a spare million bucks?
http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm
** Please note that this reader and I disagree on the issue of what hit the Pentagon.
end document |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
(Submitted by a WRH reader)**
First two simple questions:
Q1: On September 11 2001, how many buildings collapsed in New York City?
A: Two? No, THREE. The Twin Towers were hit by aeroplanes, but WTC 7, a massive 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper also collapsed. It was NOT hit by a plane. The evidence is clear - this was a controlled demolition. http://wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/ (Click on WTC 7 link) |
WOW :eyes:
i followed that first link, just coz im curious. you just lost every last bit of credibility i felt you still had. in all honesty, i thought you were better than this.
i suggest everyone compare the information at
http://wtc7.net/ http://911physics.co.nr/
with the information at
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
and then see if you cant decide which sounds more plausible. i especially liked this bit at the end
| quote: |
It is indeed possible that WTC 7 was broadcasting a homing signal for the planes which struck the WTC. |
wow, thats like the best bit of investigative journalism ive ever seen! :haha:
anywayz, im done with these threads. youre not rebutting anything ive posted, so ill leave you all to your insecure fantasy world. but hey, feel free to post more links to what charlie sheen thinks, coz afterall he is an expert in the field of structural engineering and global politics :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yes, and pkc is not an engineer, architect, or physicist. Neigther am I. I don't pretent to understand all the technical details, engineering knowledge, architectural knowledge, and details that go in to it. He doesn't eigther, and neigther do you. I think we can agree on that much? In order to "refute" pkc's arguemnt (which isn't really his argument to begin with and is more like a "debunking 9-11 conpiracy" google search, copy, and paste), I'd have to have a solid understanding and education in those areas that neigther one of you does eigther. So it's not really "his" or your arguemnt eigther one of you is asking me to refute. I'm presenting (atleast for the most part) my own arguemnts while you guys are not. No one is addressing any of those, atleast in any meanigful fasion (i.e. something that's not a copy/paste, as with the WTC Empire State Building example). And apparently you guys didn't get why I brought up those examples in the first place. No modern steel highrise skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire or impact from an airplane of any type. Why the hell should I believe that WTC would, espeically building 7? Especially for an event so conviniet for the PNAC team and this administration?
|
Certainly nobody here is a structural engineer and I don't mean to imply that I'm more knowledgable about structural engineering than anyone else here. However, if we're going to be making comparisons with respect to the empire state building to the world trade center than I think we have to get into a level of detail that trancends the claim that "no modern steel highrise skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire or impact". I mean let's look at this from a statistical standpoint, how many 9/11 type incidents have ocurred with the same parameters. I'm going to say exactly 0. How fast was the B-25 going? What was its gross weight? What was its fuel volume? What floor did it hit? What are the dimensions of the empire state building vs. the wtc? How was its structural integrity different? We're all these factors so similiar that we can make this comparison? Please don't bring PNAC or any other irrelevant issue into this discussion. This is a pure engineering analysis of how the two incidicents can be comprable if at all. I mean really, how can you say that based upon the fact that the empire state building didn't collapse is proof that, from an engineering standpoint, the wtc couldn't have collapsed because this is so convenient for PNAC? Isn't that like saying Saddam has WMDs because look at all the genocide that he did!!?
| quote: |
I'm sorry, could you please elaborate on that one? :conf:
Read above for explaination.
Like?
|
Well can you address why the US government would resort to such extraordinary means and complexity to bring down two buildings when such efforts are simply not necessary to acheive their goals? There have been a number of issues that I've raised from an extremely technical standpoint about the feasibility of demolitions that nobody ever addressed. What comes to mind are the explosives one could possibly use. If you would like I can resurrect my arguments.
| quote: |
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there and accuse you guys of the exact same thing. For example, you dismiss"
a) Witness testimony by firefighters, rescue workers, police, potential victims etc.
|
And in one of my very first posts to address the 9/11 arguments I quoted approximately 20-30 quotes from bystanders about the pentagon plane strike and nobody ever tried to refute my arguments. Part of the problem are that eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts nor are they reliable in every instance. Is this going to be a pissing match where you only trust your eyewitnesses and refute all others? Or should there be some reconciliation that they're generally not going to be reliable to the fullest extent?
| quote: |
b) NORAD's standard procedures, which is to shoot and intercept, not being carried out. Security drills being carried out of the exact same event months prior 9-11 and on 9-11, the latter which easily serves to confuse air defense. None of this would have ever happened if standard procedure was allowed to be carried out.
|
Without knowing the specific evidence you're referencing, there's an entire show on the history channel called 'military blunders' that documents the snafus of the government/military. Considering I have a very low opinion of the government and the military you'll have to excuse me for thinking of them as paper pushing retards that can't effectively handling any crises. I mean there were plans for Katrina no?
| quote: |
c) Intelligence warnings from internal (American) intelligence and foreign intelligence in conjuncation with b) and other things I can't think of at the moment leave no room for doubt that they knew about the attacks.
|
More government incompetance. I'm not surprised. Are you siding with conservatives in that Clinton was behind oklahoma city?
| quote: |
d) Forensic edivence that was illegaly removed and destoryed by the Goverment, making any investigation into why the Towers collapsed incredibly difficult. That, plus, the Administration blocking independent investigation into 9-11.
|
I'm curious .... what do you have to support this? Haven't heard it before.
| quote: |
e) Project For a New American Century's "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" document which is essential a call for increased military spending, American military, economic, and strategic global dominance.
|
Irrelevant to the engineering facts at hand.
| quote: |
OK, I lost you again. You're going to have to be more specific. The entire pancake thoery itself i quite nonsensical for reason's I've already stated before.
|
As I said, I'm new to this discussion so please educate me as to your, 'my' nonsensical pancake theory. :)
No he hasn't for the reason I stated above already. You can't debate an issue on a level that is beyond your comprehension (i.e. referrence to architectural and engineering knowledge and understanding required to construst or deconrtuct any argument made on that level).
Again, read above.
What research? A convinient google search that turns up a page that supposedly "debunks" alternate theories in hopes of propagating a theory that is highly unlikely and defies common sense to begin with?
If I were to do "research," it would be alot harder for the sole reason that there wouldn't already be a convenient package that I could copy/paste. So I think your claims and accusation are pretty unfair to being with. I guess I could sacrafice alot of time and effort but that would really serve any real purpose since neighter one of us has the architectural or engineering backround to have any meanigful debate on such a detailed level. [/QUOTE] |
|
|
|
|
