4 of 33
4
Official 9/11 Story is a hoax
Posted: 07 June 2006 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Rune Nordsman - 07 June 2006 06:18 PM

by stuffing an excessive amount of explosives in the right places
—why would one do this when the fire department could’ve easily put these fires out?
Does it really make sense to you to destroy a building because 2 floors had small fires?

Once again:  “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”  You yourself used that quotation to support your theory earlier on.  You were willing enough to accept what it said when you thought it lent weight to your argument.  Are you going to argue against it, now that it shows that they thought there was reason to knock down the building?

Watch Loose Change—there is a nice shot of the collapse in real time.
That would be helpful if I actually had “Loose Change”, whatever it may be. Could it be one of the videos listed on this page that you used to base your times on?
—Google loose change—grab some popcorn and watch—you will find every assertation supported somewhere else with a few exceptions—if you don’t have time to watch it all (I would highly recommend it),then wait till it completely loads and then scroll forward to the building collapses

I’m not going to spend several days downloading a 200 Mb video, and I’m certainly not going to pay for the DVD.  However, I have seen many, many video clips of the buildings falling, and as I’ve said, none of them could have given an exact time frame for the fall of the buildings.  You said that you timed the fall yourself; why can’t you provide us with a link to that one particular video clip that shows the same images you used for that timing?  All of the video clips are out there individually on the Internet.  I already provided you with a page that lists many of them.  Why don’t you show us which one it was that you timed?

For one thing, the buildings were old, and the steel would have gone through decades of stress since it was tested. Also, what “steel” are you referring to? The beams, or the rivets and bolts?
—-Once again, here you are talking about a physical impossibility
—let’s say that the rivets and bolts gave way, let’s say the floors gave way, let’s say that the columns pulled in—having conceded all of that—you again come to resistance—let’s say the buildings took 20 seconds to fall(which they clearly did not)—this would mean that every floor fell, impacted the floor beneath it, pulverized it to dust—each floor in 1/4 of a second

So in other words, you’re saying that there was either a giant vacuum apparatus that sucked the buildings down, or else that some sort of force-field pushed down on the buildings and made them fall faster.  Because whether it was explosives planted to knock out some of the supports, or whether it was fire that weakened the supports, the building would have fallen in the same amount of time.  But you insist that it fell faster than that.  You’re still not addressing that basic contradiction in your theory.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Do controlled demo collapses fall at exactly free fall speed? I haven’t looked into that, but I would think they probably fall slightly slower- timing the explosives to cut all supports out at exactly the right moment to not impede a complete free fall seems like it would be incredibly and unneccessarily hard. The fact that these buildings fell anywhere close to free fall speed is a red flag. So is the fact that the concrete in the towers was pulverized into a rapidly inflating cloud of dust; my experience dropping concrete from buildings and my intuition tell me that concrete and steel structures falling on same don’t quickly inflate into a dust cloud; it’d be more like a car wreck; the concrete and steel would break, shatter- but not explode into a dust cloud.

Again, the controlled demo evidence is just one of the many red flags;

Decades of warnings and preparations for planes as missiles that were lied about.
Standard Operating Protocol for air defense grossly violated 4 times; War games, at least one mimicking the exact 9/11 attacks; more lies from the Bush Administration/DoD- FAA is gagged
Insider trading
$100,000 wired to Atta by ISI Chief Ahmed, who was in DC meeting w/ the NSC the week of 9/11
Al Qaeda is a CIA creation- cooperativeresearch has much mainstream documentation of a continued relationship w/ them, Bin Laden, the Taliban, ISI. British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook died mysteriously shortly after he said Al Qaeda is basically the “database” of terrorist contacts the CIA uses for trafficking in drugs/arms
Whatever hit the Pentagon, it wasn’t Hani Hanjour flying- all his instructors said he couldn’t fly a Cessna
Why didn’t the anti-missle batteries at the White House and Pentagon take out “flight 77”? How can they expect us to believe they couldn’t track it on radar, when they have systems that can track multiple incoming ballistic missiles?
World history of falsified attacks and threats used by US govt and many govts in history as pretexts for imperialist conquests and suppressing dissent

For many, many more:

Coincidence Theorist

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 07 June 2006 03:53 PM

But first, in response to your very valid questions and concerns- search skyscraper fires; there have been a number of fires. . .

Why do you constantly insist on trying to compare things that don’t compare?  The Windsor Building was not one of the World Trade Center buildings.  It wasn’t even built of the same materials.  The fire was of a completely differnent type.  The same goes with all the other building fires that keep getting compared to the WTC fires.  What happened to those two towers in New York was completely unique in history.  Those particular combinations of events and objects had never before occurred.  There is no comparison.  Just because another event involved a building and a fire, that does not make it the same.  I might as well say that humans can’t actually live on land, because jellyfish are also made of the similar basic substances as humans are yet die quickly when washed ashore.

The building’s designer expressed surprise at their collapse.

What, do you expect him to say, “Yup, I always thought that would happen!”?

Experienced people who expressed dissent have been paid off and intmidated. . .

That’s just your opinion of what happened in a few examples.  Why couldn’t Van Romero change his mind, and were’s the evidence showing that his budget was any sort of a bribe?  Why was Kevin Ryan fired?  Plenty of experienced people who expressed dissent are still expressing dissent quite loudly, as are many inexperienced people, and haven’t had any problems.  You can also probably find plenty of people who support the government’s findings and have ended up losing jobs or funding.

The government’s own reports conclude the plane damage did not contribute significantly to the collapse- they don’t claim the planes took out a lot of columns- the buildings were shredding the planes at the same time;

“Didn’t contribute significantly” doesn’t mean “didn’t contribute”.  Besides which, I thought you were saying that the government’s own reports were flawed, erroneous, deceptive, and full of lies?

it is blamed on fires aided by the knocking off of insulation by the plane crash.

So the airplane crash did contribute, and did what an ordinary fire (such as all the ones in all those other buildings around the world that you’ve been bringing up) wouldn’t have been able to. . .

They also say most of the jet fuel burned off quickly, but started fires of paper, desks, carpet etc.

The reports say that most of the aerosol fuel burned off quickly, while the liquid puddles took several minutes at least.  And then there’s the burning of all the material that was part of the building and offices.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

The fires were not so severe that surivivors couldn’t walk to the edge of the crashed floors- there are pictures.

All that means is that those people weren’t in the middle of the fire.  It doesn’t mean that there were no fires inside the building.

Firemen are on tape reaching the area and saying the fires were containable.

What firemen, what tapes, and what fires in what buildings?

Molten steel was found in the basements of all 3 towers.

I actually haven’t ever seen any evidence of that.  One man said that he saw pools of liquid metal, and that seems to be where most of the reports of that come from.  There were plenty of people who saw twisted steel beams and refered to them as “molten”, but of course there’s a great distance between metal being softened or twisted and metal being melted (liquified).

The S tower was hit second, yet collapsed first;

Which doesn’t really mean anything more than that it fell first.  It’s not like a fire caused by a crashing jet would be a controlled event, identical in every instance.

all floors were engineered to hold 5 times their load-

First, just because something is designed to do something doesn’t necessarily mean that it will do it.  Do you think that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed to whip around like a dying snake, or that the St. Francis Dam near LA was designed to burst and drown 500 people?

Secondly, that holding five times their load counts on the support structures being intact and undamaged.

Third, there was more than five times the weight of a single floor pushing down.

it doesn’t matter that there was more building on top because the plane hit lower.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here.

No one has ever suggested the buildings were getting unsafe because of their age, but people were talking about the need to get rid of those buildings because they were obsolete, and the cost involved would’ve been huge because of the asbestos.

Are you trying to say that the buildings were knocked down to save money?  Because a whole lot more money was spent dealing with the crashes and collapses than would have been involved in simply demolishing the buildings.

All tests by scientists with models have failed to duplicate the results; they haven’t tried controlled demolition.

And how do you know this?  Besides, no scientist could know everything that happened inside the buildings, so any model would be incomplete.

The Bush Administration ordered the EPA to declare the air safe 3 days later; now, thousands more will die as a direct result. A federal judge recently refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the EPA and had very harsh words for them.

Umm, what?

Pictures are worth 1000 words
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html

Okay, so they have a lot of pictures of the buildings falling down.  Nobody disputes (at least, nobody here so far!) that they fell.  Where are the pictures of the explosives being placed or in place already, or of the pools of molten metal, or of secretive government operatives at work, or any of that?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

What the hell are they putting in the air in Texas?  How do they find US?  We are a simple village of intellectuals, but they find us dammit, they find us!  They find us with their damned conpirational

1 entry found for conspirational.
con

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

cont’d

http://rune-nordsman.dailykos.com/main/2

Website: http://TruthCourier.com

A concerned composer from Austin Texas

This is what it does to you people.  Genetic paranoia…..  you name it.  You can’t argue with facts, and I have presented them with all the proper research.  I know how to google, therefore my research is impeccable.

3 entries found for impeccable.
im

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 10:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2006-06-06

The posters here are special. You are fellow Americans and I posted here specifically because the posters here are skeptics. I like skeptics, especially intelligent skeptics. I believed the official tail until recently. I was told independently by 2 separate people who I respect intellectually. I still didn’t take it to heart. Then I saw Loose Change and I got sick to my stomach. I went further and checked out 911truth.org and 911proof.com and st911.org. No one has ever called me a conspiracy theorist until recently, when I’ve tried to inform people of the facts. I developed my test in an attempt to reach people. I realize the truth behind 911 is difficult to handle and very much world shattering, however, it is the truth. The difference between a skeptic and an ideologue is the ability to absorb information that may threaten your world view. Believe it or not, conspiracies do exist. For those of you who are interested in the truth and not a justification to believe what you want to believe, I highly recommend looking at the 40 questions of 911 link posted earlier. If you’re like Accipiter, you will find some sort of answer for them all, be it valid or not, and then I’m sure you’ll sleep fine after that. I do not mean this disrespectfully, but if you can actually look at the wealth of evidence and see absolutely no reason to question the official tail, there isn’t anymore that can be said to you. Unlike the nasty, insulting comments that those of us who have awakened have to constantly absorb, I do not resent you for your belief in the myth and your denial that there is in reality a different story. I do hope, that as skeptics, you will question your own beliefs and truths on occasion. For those interested the link to the $1,000,000 reward for proving the government story is http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Loose Nuke - 07 June 2006 11:10 PM

Do controlled demo collapses fall at exactly free fall speed? I haven’t looked into that, but I would think they probably fall slightly slower- timing the explosives to cut all supports out at exactly the right moment to not impede a complete free fall seems like it would be incredibly and unneccessarily hard. The fact that these buildings fell anywhere close to free fall speed is a red flag.

Did they fall close to free-fall speed, though?  I have yet to see any evidence.  And “close” to free-fall speed?  How close?  A matter of a couple seconds can have a huge influence.  12 seconds would be enough time for a building nearly twice the height of WTC 1 to fall down at free-fall.

So is the fact that the concrete in the towers was pulverized into a rapidly inflating cloud of dust; my experience dropping concrete from buildings and my intuition tell me that concrete and steel structures falling on same don’t quickly inflate into a dust cloud; it’d be more like a car wreck; the concrete and steel would break, shatter- but not explode into a dust cloud.

Why not?  There were apparently plenty of thin sheets of concrete used as insulation in the buildings.  Having thousands of tons of rubble fall onto that would be enough to result in plenty of dust, I would think, and of course the air displancement caused by all that debris would force the dust outwards.  And who says all the dust was concrete?

Again, the controlled demo evidence is just one of the many red flags;

A controlled demo would still have had the same resistance from the floors that a progressive collapse caused by the fires would have, so the building would have fallen in about the same amount of time either way.  The only ways for the building to have fallen faster would be to have some sort of force actively pulling or pushing it down, to have a hollow building, or to completely obliterate every single floor with explosives.  Obviously none of those options other than the last was even remotely possible, and the amount of explosives needed and the amount of time and effort to place the explosives for the latter option would have been too great to have gotten away with.

Decades of warnings and preparations for planes as missiles that were lied about.

Actually, no.  There wasn’t really much warning about using airplanes as missiles, and certainly nothing specific.

Standard Operating Protocol for air defense grossly violated 4 times;

How, and says who?

War games, at least one mimicking the exact 9/11 attacks;

Again, says who?  And how “exact” of a “mimicking”?  If it only sort of vaguely resembled some of the aspects of the terrorist attack, then that wouldn’t mean anything.  War games are supposed to simulate possible events, after all.

more lies from the Bush Administration/DoD- FAA is gagged
Insider trading
$100,000 wired to Atta by ISI Chief Ahmad, who was in DC meeting w/ the NSC the week of 9/11

Huh?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Al Qaeda is a CIA creation-

No, it’s not.  And while the CIA has had some involvement with it in the past, all that I’ve actually seen shows that it wasn’t even direct involvement.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook died mysteriously shortly after he said Al Qaeda is basically the “database” of terrorist contacts the CIA uses for trafficking in drugs/arms

Okay, now that really is getting a bit silly.

Here’s what Cook said in his article.  What he’s saying is that the CIA had (in the far past) had some connections with Al Qaeda.  That was hardly a revelation, as that information had been floating around everywhere already by the time Cook wrote that article.  He didn’t make any new announcements, or give any indication that he was going to do so.  He did not say that the CIA uses Al-Queda to traffic drugs or arms.  He only talks about what happened in the 1980’s during the fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan and repeats what is already widely known.

Whatever hit the Pentagon, it wasn’t Hani Hanjour flying- all his instructors said he couldn’t fly a Cessna

It doesn’t take much skill to keep an airliner airborne once it’s already in the air, it’s taking off and landing that’s tricky.  You have to admit that the pilot did a rather poor job of the landing.  And his flying technique as he was maneuvering around to hit the Pentagon was very poor as well.

Why didn’t the anti-missle batteries at the White House and Pentagon take out “flight 77”?

Umm, what anti-missile batteries?

How can they expect us to believe they couldn’t track it on radar, when they have systems that can track multiple incoming ballistic missiles?

Well, for one thing, the radars that tracking incoming missiles are all pointed outwards from the country. . .

World history of falsified attacks and threats used by US govt and many govts in history as pretexts for imperialist conquests and suppressing dissent

As well as much history of actual attacks and threats against governments and nations.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2006 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Rune Nordsman - 08 June 2006 02:28 AM

You are fellow Americans

Don’t be so sure of that!

Believe it or not, conspiracies do exist.

Nobody here doubts that conspiracies exist (or if they do, then they haven’t told me about it).  After all, what do you think a group of terrorists plotting to take over airplanes and fly them into buildings is?  It’s a conspiracy.

There was obviously some sort of a conspiracy committed by some persons.  The question is who those persons were and what the conspiracy entailed.  Many people feel that there are problems with the government’s findings and reports on the matter.  And there probably are many such problems.  But there is a major difference between the government making errors, the government overlooking things, and the government running a conspiracy.

For those of you who are interested in the truth and not a justification to believe what you want to believe, I highly recommend looking at the 40 questions of 911 link posted earlier.

Oh, I have been looking.  And yes, I do see a lot of serious problems with many of those questions.  Some are simply based on incorrect information.  Some are based on irrelevant information.  Some are based on nothing at all.  Some just distort things.  And of course, some I don’t know much about.

if you can actually look at the wealth of evidence and see absolutely no reason to question the official tail

There’s always reason to question.  But there is also reason to question the unofficial tales as well.  Especially since the unofficial tales have so many obvious problems with them, while the only problems I’ve seen with the official tale really only seem to be problems of omission (and I don’t always know if the omission is by the government, or by the media, or just due to my not having found the information).

Just as a side note, and I don’t mean any disrespect with this, but “tail” is the thing on the end of a dog, and “tale” is a story.  People will have an easier time listening to you if you don’t have them wondering why you’re constantly talking about physiology!

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2006 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-06-06

Accipiter- you are a masterful Devil’s Advocate. Keep in mind, there are plenty of visitors who are just reading the comments- they’re following the links as well as my logic. You present a plausible-seeming, possible alternative for many of the questions I raise and evidence I present. You’ve asked again for proof I already offered with previous links; I take it you are not curious about why 42% of Americans suspect a coverup- it seems you enjoy trying to discount the reasons for skepticism of the official account, and the need for real answers. You are trying too hard to find ways to continue accepting the official story. False-flag terror is nothing new to the CIA, FBI, DoD and the elite class that controls the media and both parties. Of course they conspire to create wealth and power for themselves, just like any bank robber. Do you believe they lied us into war? They lied about the air being safe to breathe after 9/11; more people will die from that than got killed in the attacks- the first fireman already did. So do you think they care about using the deaths of 3000 people to advance their fascist, imperialst agenda? Do you think they exploited 9/11 to drum up support for Iraq? The Dems are the same- Kerry is a Skull and Bones member, frequent Bilderberg attendee- how come every president since Ford has had some connection to this group? How come 9/11 happened, when if they did nothing, the patsies wouldn’t have been able to get VISAs, and the jets would’ve been intercepted? David Schippers, one of the attorneys prosecuting Bilderberg Clinton’s impeachment, said FBI agents came to him months before 9/11 and told him the date, place, method of the attacks, said this info was widely known in the Bureau, and that they had been threatened with prosecution if they went public. Schippers tried repeatedly to talk to Ashcroft and the White House, but they wouldn’t take or return his calls. Now he’s representing FBI Agent Robert Wright in his fight to get the FBI to let him publish his book about the FBI’s obstruction of his investigation pre-9/11 into terror financing. Search Cooperative Research for mainstream documentation of what I’ve said- just search “Schippers” or “Ashcroft” and see what comes up. 
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Here are the links again documenting the other things you asked about:

Firemen- explosives and lack of fire
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm

Molten steel- scan this article- pictures, video, analysis
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I’ve nailed my tinfoil hat on with a sledge; you’re wasting your energy trying to reshrink my mind. The world is not the way it’s presented on TV. Why don’t you put some of your mental power into understanding why the unanswered questions and the evidence presented has made 42% of Americans suspicious there’s been a coverup? Or into investigating how they did it and covered it up and are not getting away with it?

 Signature 

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 33
4