WikiLeaks received over a million text messages (i think theyve published about 500.000 so far) by an anonymous person that were made 5 hours before the 9/11 incident till 24 hours after.a
All 911 conspiracy theory followers are going to look into this. I seriously hope nothing is found, but if they do, there is going to be a SERIOUS shitstorm.
More than half a million pager messages sent on the day of the Sept 11 attacks – some by security officials in New York and the Pentagon – are being leaked onto the web. The intercepted exchanges are being posted online "as live" by the controversial Wikileaks website, with messages appearing in the order they were sent during the day.
The release began at 8am GMT and will continue for 24 hours. The majority of the messages posted in the first four hours offer little illumination, with most either automatic alerts sent by computers or anodyne personal memos.
Wikileaks has not revealed how it obtained the records. The site has an impressive track record of securing and publishing confidential documents, but has been criticised for taking a reckless approach to privacy.
"The archive is a completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its revelation will lead to a more nuanced understanding of the event and its tragic consequences," it wrote in a release announcing the project.
While Wikileaks states that "text pagers are usually carried by persons operating in an official capacity", personal messages sent by members of the public who owned pagers in September 2001 are also included in the records.
One reads: "Mornin HoneyPot, I hope Peach made it to school today. She was dressed and ready when I left. Learn lots in class today, pay attention and stay awake!"
Conspiracy theorists are hoping that the messages will reveal a "smoking gun" showing that US intelligence agencies had advanced knowledge of the attacks, which left 3,000 people dead.
To help sort through the mass of information, Wikileaks is encouraging readers to post any interesting discoveries on a specially-created page on the social news website Reddit.
A preview of some of the most revealing messages trailed online included several moving eyewitness testimonies. Others messages reflect the panic and misinformation that swirled on the day of the attacks.
"It’s reported that a US military helicopter circled the building then crashed into or next to the Pentagon – it’s not clear to whether it was the White House or the Pentagon – they are being evacuated," reads one.
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Egads!_Confidential_9/11_Pager_Messages_Disclosed As the World Trade Center and Pentagon were ablaze on September 11, 2001, the U.S. Secret Service's presidential protective detail was informed that a "Korean airliner has been hijacked" en route to San Francisco, prompting already-skittish agents to worry about another wave of terrorist attacks.
That morning and afternoon, Secret Service agents assigned to protect the president and his family found their pagers constantly buzzing with alerts both true and false. There was a false alarm about a car bomb in downtown Washington, D.C., a report of "two Arab males detained" after asking for directions to the presidential retreat at Camp David, and reassurances that "Twinkle and Turq" -- code names for the Bush daughters -- were safe and accounted for.
This unusual glimpse into the events of 9/11 comes from messages sent to alphanumeric pagers that were anonymously published on the Internet on Wednesday. The pager transcripts, which total about 573,000 lines and 6.4 million words, include numeric and text messages also sent to private sector and unclassified military pagers.
It's impossible to tell whether the logs have been faithfully reproduced in their entirety. But there's evidence they have been: I spoke to three journalists working on September 11, 2001 whose correspondence appeared in the logs or who were familiar with the messages circulated in their newsrooms that day. All three say the logs appear to be legitimate.
This trove of messages is likely to become a boon for historians, a new source of concern for privacy advocates, and, depending on the details, a point of embarrassment or pride for the government agencies and corporations whose internal conversations have been divulged. The files were posted on WikiLeaks.org, which has made a speciality of disclosing confidential documents and boasts that it is "uncensorable."
One string of messages hints at how federal agencies scrambled to evacuate to Mount Weather, the government's sort-of secret bunker buried under the Virginia mountains west of Washington, D.C. One message says, "Jim: DEPLOY TO MT. WEATHER NOW!," and another says "CALL OFICE (sic) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 4145 URGENT." That's the phone number for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Continuity Programs Directorate -- which is charged with "the preservation of our constitutional form of government at all times," even during a nuclear war. (A 2006 article in the U.K. Guardian newspaper mentioned a "a traffic jam of limos carrying Washington and government license plates" heading to Mount Weather that day.)
FEMA's response seemed less than organized. One message at 12:37 p.m., four hours after the attacks, says: "We have no mission statements yet." Bill Prusch, FEMA's project officer for the National Emergency Management Information System at the time, apparently announced at 2 p.m. that the Continuity of Operations plan was activated and that certain employees should report to Mt. Weather; a few minutes later he sent out another note saying the activation was cancelled.
The first pager message reporting the attacks on the World Trade Center appears to have been sent by Morgan Stanley at 8:50 a.m. ET, saying that "an Aloha call is starting" due to a fire in the complex's south tower. Morgan Stanley leased 840,000 square feet in that building, on over 20 floors.
As the fires spread, and as police and firefighters rushed to the scene, Wall Street firms activated their emergency response plans. Shortly after 9 a.m., Fidelity evacuated its nearby offices at 200 Liberty Street, and sent out a messaging saying: "Those in the area should meet at the Winter Garden. Our plan is to meet there and (have most employees) work from home." (The Winter Garden is a glass-enclosed atrium that was damaged later in the day when the towers collapsed.)
"On that particular day, literally within minutes of the first attack, we already had one of our security people... lining up space outside the New York area for some of our employees," Anne Crowley, a spokeswoman for Fidelity who was with the company in September 2001, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview.
By 10:29 a.m., Fidelity's Boston offices on Summer St. had been closed, and an alert went out: "National Master Console has been re-routed to Merrimack." It was followed by: "The FBSI war room is operational," referring to Fidelity Brokerage Services Inc.
"That quick thinking led us to be able to move hundreds of New York employees to backup locations (and) enabled us to continue to operate some of our important functions," Crowley said. Even with U.S. equity markets closed, Fidelity's phone centers continued to take orders and could even process some international ones. Crowley said she didn't know what Fidelity's war room referred to, but said the National Master Console is the firm's main phone operation that was shifted to Merrimack, N.H.
Similarly, Bank of America ordered the evacuation of all bank "high rise buildings only," while noting that there is a "nation-wide run on cash." Mastercard evacuated its new York and Delaware offices; MBNA decided to shutter everything but inbound call centers. Another message says: "SITUATION LOCK DOWN ALL AT&T LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN EVACUATED."
How the messages were captured
The pager logs seem to represent messages transmitted on September 11, 2001 through the networks of Arch Wireless, Metrocall, Skytel, and Weblink Wireless.
It's not clear how they were obtained in the first place. One possibility is that they were illegally compiled from the records of archived messages maintained by pager companies, and then eventually forwarded to WikiLeaks.
The second possibility is more likely: Over-the-air interception. Each digital pager is assigned a unique Channel Access Protocol code, or capcode, that tells it to pay attention to what immediately follows. In what amounts to a gentlemen's agreement, no encryption is used, and properly-designed pagers politely ignore what's not addressed to them.
But an electronic snoop lacking that same sense of etiquette might hook up a sufficiently sophisticated scanner to a Windows computer with lots of disk space -- and record, without much effort, gobs and gobs of over-the-air conversations.
Existing products do precisely this. Australia's WiPath Communications offers Interceptor 3.0 (there's even a free download). Maryland-based SWS Security Products sells something called a "Beeper Buster" that it says let police "watch up to 2500 targets at the same time." And if you're frugal, there's a video showing you how to take a $10 pager and modify it to capture everything on that network.
Law enforcement agencies knew of the benefits of monitoring pagers long ago. A 1997 FBI bulletin describes the "use of a clone pager to simultaneously receive the transmission emitted from the pager's service provider to the pager," and the federal courts have a standard form for judges to use when approving interceptions. (The American Association of Paging Carriers has, helpfully, provided its members with a list of how to comply.)
Whatever their origin, the logs are likely to raise more questions than they answer. Take this intriguing message that was sent by Jim Massa, then Cisco's director of federal operations, at 4:18 p.m. It said: "NEED TO DISCUSS FBI TEN THOUSAND UNIT REQUIREMENT ASAP." The recipient appears to be Cisco Chief Development Officer Charlie Giancarlo, who left the company in 2007 and now works at a venture capital firm in Menlo Park, Calif. called Silver Lake.
A Cisco representative said in e-mail to CBSNews.com: "I know we worked closely with law enforcement after the attacks but I don't have any specifics." Massa did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
One possibility is that the FBI urgently needed routers or other Cisco gear to upgrade its own network. But technical experts that CBSNews.com contacted believed it's more likely that the FBI was working with Internet service providers to reconfigure their networks with Cisco hardware to allow wiretaps to be conducted more readily. Around that time, Cisco was beginning to develop wiretap capabilities for its routers -- a concept that eventually became known as "lawful intercept."
The logs are silent on precisely that point. They do show, however, how U.S. network providers scrambled to respond to one of the most unexpected and extensive disruptions in recent memory.
After 7 World Trade Center collapsed (it had been damaged by debris earlier), Sprint lost its payment-processing system called SpeedPay. A subsequent note said: "SpeedPay is down. Site lost power with further collapse of building around 5PM. They are mobilizing to relocate equipment to New Jersey site." A Sprint spokeswoman said that the executives who were with the company on 9/11 are on holiday break and unavailable for comment.
The major telecommunications hub at 60 Hudson Street, about eight blocks from the World Trade Center, was evacuated around 9:20 a.m. About four hours later, it was starting to show signs of overheating, with temperatures reaching the 80s. A WorldCom message worried that New York City might cut power to 60 Hudson, saying, "NYC1 has 4 to 8 hours of battery power if main power was to be cut." A relieved followup said that the company's network operations center had learned that the power would remain on.
Air Force One reportedly threatened
Other tidbits from the logs include:
* A Secret Service page at 10:32 a.m. warned: "ANONYMOUS CALL TO JOC REPORTING ANGEL IS TARGET." Angel is the Secret Service codeword for Air Force One; JOC means Joint Operations Center. When the president's plane had departed Florida about half an hour earlier, it was en route to D.C. That anonymous threat seems to be what diverted President Bush on a high-speed flight across the country, first to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and then to an underground command center in Nebraska.
* Amidst the confusion that day, the Secret Service's New York field office gave contradictory instructions to agents. At 9:06 a.m., their pagers lit up with these orders: "MEET AT THE BASEBALL FIELD BEHIND THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL ON WEST STREET NY." Ninety minutes later: "ALL NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE PERSONNEL RESPOND TO STUYVESANT HIGH SCHOOL AT THE CORNER OF CHAMBERS AND WEST STREET ASAP." Later: "ALL NYFO PERSONNEL ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST PAGE REGARDING STUVYSANT HIGH SCHOOL."
* One message said: "#2 MCLL EXEC WAS ABOARD ONE OF THE PLANES. 1 OF THE ONES WHO BETRAYED HARRY. NO TEARS HERE." Metrocall founder Harry Brock had been ousted as president six years earlier. Metrocall chief operating officer Steven Jacoby died on Flight 77 that day.
* Brinks, the armored car operator, received a series of requests for immediate deliveries from banks running low on cash after Americans rushed to withdraw currency: "Micheal, branch officer, is requesting a same day cash delivery. His branch is low on cash. The charge will be $50.00. Please respond to confirm."
* A press aide for then-California governor Gray Davis spent the day fending off requests for interviews and updates from KABC, the Oakland Tribune, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the National Guard, KTTV, Fox News, and someone who wanted to know, "Are the schools going to be closed for the rest of the week?"
What's unclear is what the impact of the release of the 9/11 data will be. Nothing immediately apparent in the 573,000-or-so lines of text suggests a rethinking of how we view the events of that day (although conspiracy fanciers are sure to highlight excerpts such as the message suggesting "military planes" forced down a commercial jet, and one saying there was an "explosion and fire at Pentagon").
We've seen something like this before. A few years ago, AOL published the mostly-anonymized search histories of over 650,000 of its users, which gave rise to the kind of data excavation that's currently taking place in connection with the disclosure of the 9/11 pager traffic. In the last few days, the same kind of collective analysis of thousands of files has accompanied the leaked global warming e-mail messages.
This should be a lesson to anyone who would prefer their personal details not go on public display: Without end-to-end encryption, and perhaps even with it, your correspondence is vulnerable to interception and publication. And if you're the Secret Service responding to threats against the president, or FEMA organizing an evacuation to an underground bunker, why are you letting anyone with a $10 pager and a Windows laptop watch what you're doing?
I will say its interesting to see mention of car bombs infront of the state building, finding out that Air force one was a target and the like. Apparently more happened than was either reported on or I recall seeing on the news.
The conspiracy people are just going to use the fact that nobody knew what the fuck was going on that morning as evidence for their stupid theories. Makes me sick.
A lot of these are just automated messages and personal stuff too, I've seen about 1-2 interesting government related messages yet so far, most interesting:
2001-09-11 09:21:44 Skytel [005414004] B ALPHA US bombers are in the air in-route to Clasified targets waiting for strike orders. 2001-09-11 09:21:46 Skytel [005414004] B ALPHA (62
If the government didn't cover up so much information there might not be any conspiracy theories at all. The theorists are merely exercising freedom of speech. The theories are valid and plausible until proven wrong, but they are still likely incorrect.
I doubt the leak is about what we will find in them at all, for me it is a wake up call about why we shouldn't allow our own constitutional rights to be raped left and right. This comes just after Obama puts his support in extending key Patriot Act provisions. This leak will remove anyone's doubt about how real domestic surveillance is and how much abuse it call lead to. If these messages were released, there is plenty more where they came. Some one out there is sending Obama, the government, congress etc.. a very loud message.
On November 26 2009 14:36 BloodyC0bbler wrote: I will say its interesting to see mention of car bombs infront of the state building, finding out that Air force one was a target and the like. Apparently more happened than was either reported on or I recall seeing on the news.
I remember hearing about the car bombs, and various other crap the media didn't bother to fact check.
They're not going to find anything of revealing character, but it should help us understand and relive the chaos of that day. I personally remember hearing on the news that 7 planes had been hijacked, something that was pretty quickly proven not to be true, but the rumors going around and the chaos was just crazy
wow, over one million text messages for that day? i bet you could find a lot of things in that.
race to find cybersex via text?
i'm also wondering who the anonymous leaker is. a hacker? telecommunications employee? government whistleblower? homeless person that found a back up hard drive in the garbage? nevermind, didn't finish reading ^^;
It's your government that blew up towers to have an excuse to attack iraq and middle east in general, but it weren't really american people behind it. I'd say who, how and what for exactly, but i don't want to talk about that, it's all very obvious and pretty widely known and it isn't really a conspiracy, but your tv, newspapers and internet news won't give you clues, and it's for a reason. And it will probably be better to tag my post as dumb and move on, as most will do.
On November 26 2009 14:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I hope something is found.
9/11 obviously has some degree of government involvement and cover-up.
you and other conspiracy theorists make me want to throw up sometimes
People like you are sickening.
The notion that we should completely ignore all evidence because 'no conspiracy theory has ever or will ever be true' is utterly absurd. History is riddled with conspiracies from start to finish at the very least their arguments are historically fallacious, conspiracy denies urgently need to grow up.
Are you not aware of the declassified operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods the plan to fly planes into buildings in Florida, blame it on Cuba and then invade? Apparently they thought this plan was good enough to hold onto.
Are you not aware of the Nazi coup attempt in the United States in 1933. The attempt to overthrow the Government of Franklin Roosevelt that only failed because marine corps Major General Smedley Butler the man chosen to lead the coup blew the whistle at the last minute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Prescott Bush the grand daddy of the recent president Bush was involved in this plot. Prescott was a convicted Nazi prosecuted under trading with the enemy act. The Bush family fortune was built by profiteering from concentration camps. George Herbert Walker Bush joined the CIA and was deeply involved in the vicious terrorist campaigns waged against central American nations especially Cuba.
Bush senior was a cold blooded terrorist as is described in a couple of very good unauthorised biographies of the man including 'Bush the unauthorized biography' (available to read for free online at www.tarpley.net and 'family of secrets' http://www.familyofsecrets.com/buy-now/)
During the 1980's a secret Government was uncovered within the United States in the Iran-Contra debacle, first it was uncovered that the United States and Israel were smuggling arms to Iran against their own arms embargo. Later during investigation it was discovered that the Reagan Administration (with Bush sr as vice president) were sending planes with guns to the Terrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the planes would fly back with drugs. The Government was caught out running drugs for guns trades with Terrorists at the same time as predending to wage a 'war against drugs'. The organisation that was uncovered during this scandal had their own private army, navy, air force and intelligence assets that were being deployed for ends that are criminal to say the least.
Both these scandals the Nazi coup of 1933, and the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the dark underbelly of the American power structure but no body was charged with treason, nobody was brought to justice and it is this same group of diabolical villains who were behind the 9/11 attacks amongst other events I have not discussed.
The criticism that 'anyone who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy believes the moon landing is fake' is a nothing argument that only discredits the morons who make this claim as these two conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with one another. I suppose next you will be telling me that Julius Caesar was not killed in a conspiracy but fell over backwards on a dozen knives?
For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'. Don't bother to blame the conspirators blame the conspiracy deniers because it is only through the efforts of these small minded loud mouthed buffoons who refuse to look at any evidence and reject even the possibility that the rich and powerful might not have our best interests at heart that allow these travesties to take place.
Only after the conspiracy deniers wake up may this world finally enjoy peace.
On November 26 2009 15:35 Choros wrote: For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment happened, ergo government invented AIDS to kill black people.
After a public lecture in 2005, I was buttonholed by a documentary filmmaker with Michael Moore-ish ambitions of exposing the conspiracy behind 9/11. “You mean the conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to attack the United States?” I asked rhetorically, knowing what was to come.
“That’s what they want you to believe,” he said. “Who is they?” I queried. “The government,” he whispered, as if “they” might be listening at that very moment. “But didn’t Osama and some members of al Qaeda not only say they did it,” I reminded him, “they gloated about what a glorious triumph it was?”
“Oh, you’re talking about that video of Osama,” he rejoined knowingly. “That was faked by the CIA and leaked to the American press to mislead us. There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since 9/11.”
Conspiracies do happen, of course. Abraham Lincoln was the victim of an assassination conspiracy, as was Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, gunned down by the Serbian secret society called Black Hand. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy (although some conspiracists think Franklin Roosevelt was in on it). Watergate was a conspiracy (that Richard Nixon was in on). How can we tell the difference between information and disinformation? As Kurt Cobain, the rocker star of Nirvana, once growled in his grunge lyrics shortly before his death from a self-inflicted (or was it?) gunshot to the head, “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.
Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition.
Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black helicopters and the New World Order.
“When something momentous happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both equally fictional.
What should we believe? Transcendentalists tend to believe that everything is interconnected and that all events happen for a reason. Empiricists tend to think that randomness and coincidence interact with the causal net of our world and that belief should depend on evidence for each individual claim. The problem for skepticism is that transcendentalism is intuitive; empiricism is not. Or as folk rock group Buffalo Springfield once intoned: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep ...
To those who turn up their nose at 9/11 conspiracies without a second thought, please go watch videos on youtube about the physics of buildings falling down. You don't have to walk with anything except "no one can explain what happened". See if that makes your stomach turn.
On November 26 2009 15:05 Superiorwolf wrote: If the government didn't cover up so much information there might not be any conspiracy theories at all. The theorists are merely exercising freedom of speech. The theories are valid and plausible until proven wrong, but they are still likely incorrect.
The theories are invalid till they have evidence supported by peer review. If you have a 100 pieces leading up to one theory, picking the piece that seems odd or badly worded and pulling it out of context to try discredit the one theory, thats not how it works because you'll have to counter the other 99 pieces. How much real evidence when subjected in full context(showing videos ending when the debri hits the ground claiming 'the tower fell at free fall!, No, the debri landing shows that the debri was at free fall, as one would expect) does the conspiracy theorists have? Not one piece. How we know this? Because if they had one real piece, that would have someone look into it that isnt partial on the matter, then another to disprove that guys claim and so on.
I like to post this one whenever conspiracys creep up, that 30% of swedes under 30 think 911 wasnt an accident because they've seen conspirarcy videos that pull things out of context and tell a nice mystic story... thats 29.9999% to many.
On November 26 2009 14:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I hope something is found.
9/11 obviously has some degree of government involvement and cover-up.
you and other conspiracy theorists make me want to throw up sometimes
People like you are sickening.
The notion that we should completely ignore all evidence because 'no conspiracy theory has ever or will ever be true' is utterly absurd. History is riddled with conspiracies from start to finish at the very least their arguments are historically fallacious, conspiracy denies urgently need to grow up.
Are you not aware of the declassified operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods the plan to fly planes into buildings in Florida, blame it on Cuba and then invade? Apparently they thought this plan was good enough to hold onto.
Are you not aware of the Nazi coup attempt in the United States in 1933. The attempt to overthrow the Government of Franklin Roosevelt that only failed because marine corps Major General Smedley Butler the man chosen to lead the coup blew the whistle at the last minute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Prescott Bush the grand daddy of the recent president Bush was involved in this plot. Prescott was a convicted Nazi prosecuted under trading with the enemy act. The Bush family fortune was built by profiteering from concentration camps. George Herbert Walker Bush joined the CIA and was deeply involved in the vicious terrorist campaigns waged against central American nations especially Cuba.
Bush senior was a cold blooded terrorist as is described in a couple of very good unauthorised biographies of the man including 'Bush the unauthorized biography' (available to read for free online at www.tarpley.net and 'family of secrets' http://www.familyofsecrets.com/buy-now/)
During the 1980's a secret Government was uncovered within the United States in the Iran-Contra debacle, first it was uncovered that the United States and Israel were smuggling arms to Iran against their own arms embargo. Later during investigation it was discovered that the Reagan Administration (with Bush sr as vice president) were sending planes with guns to the Terrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the planes would fly back with drugs. The Government was caught out running drugs for guns trades with Terrorists at the same time as predending to wage a 'war against drugs'. The organisation that was uncovered during this scandal had their own private army, navy, air force and intelligence assets that were being deployed for ends that are criminal to say the least.
Both these scandals the Nazi coup of 1933, and the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the dark underbelly of the American power structure but no body was charged with treason, nobody was brought to justice and it is this same group of diabolical villains who were behind the 9/11 attacks amongst other events I have not discussed.
The criticism that 'anyone who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy believes the moon landing is fake' is a nothing argument that only discredits the morons who make this claim as these two conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with one another. I suppose next you will be telling me that Julius Caesar was not killed in a conspiracy but fell over backwards on a dozen knives?
For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'. Don't bother to blame the conspirators blame the conspiracy deniers because it is only through the efforts of these small minded loud mouthed buffoons who refuse to look at any evidence and reject even the possibility that the rich and powerful might not have our best interests at heart that allow these travesties to take place.
Only after the conspiracy deniers wake up may this world finally enjoy peace.
Thank you. There wasn't enough utility for me to research and write out something logical, but i'm glad some1 did it.
Every once in a while, a conspiracy is right, and when it is, conspiracy theorists grab on to it like a lifeline. Just because it was right before doesn't mean its right now... I could say the same thing about me being a psychic and guessing random numbers that people pick. Every once in a while I'm right, but it still doesn't mean I'm a psychic.
On November 26 2009 14:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I hope something is found.
9/11 obviously has some degree of government involvement and cover-up.
you and other conspiracy theorists make me want to throw up sometimes
People like you are sickening.
The notion that we should completely ignore all evidence because 'no conspiracy theory has ever or will ever be true' is utterly absurd. History is riddled with conspiracies from start to finish at the very least their arguments are historically fallacious, conspiracy denies urgently need to grow up.
Are you not aware of the declassified operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods the plan to fly planes into buildings in Florida, blame it on Cuba and then invade? Apparently they thought this plan was good enough to hold onto.
Are you not aware of the Nazi coup attempt in the United States in 1933. The attempt to overthrow the Government of Franklin Roosevelt that only failed because marine corps Major General Smedley Butler the man chosen to lead the coup blew the whistle at the last minute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Prescott Bush the grand daddy of the recent president Bush was involved in this plot. Prescott was a convicted Nazi prosecuted under trading with the enemy act. The Bush family fortune was built by profiteering from concentration camps. George Herbert Walker Bush joined the CIA and was deeply involved in the vicious terrorist campaigns waged against central American nations especially Cuba.
Bush senior was a cold blooded terrorist as is described in a couple of very good unauthorised biographies of the man including 'Bush the unauthorized biography' (available to read for free online at www.tarpley.net and 'family of secrets' http://www.familyofsecrets.com/buy-now/)
During the 1980's a secret Government was uncovered within the United States in the Iran-Contra debacle, first it was uncovered that the United States and Israel were smuggling arms to Iran against their own arms embargo. Later during investigation it was discovered that the Reagan Administration (with Bush sr as vice president) were sending planes with guns to the Terrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the planes would fly back with drugs. The Government was caught out running drugs for guns trades with Terrorists at the same time as predending to wage a 'war against drugs'. The organisation that was uncovered during this scandal had their own private army, navy, air force and intelligence assets that were being deployed for ends that are criminal to say the least.
Both these scandals the Nazi coup of 1933, and the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the dark underbelly of the American power structure but no body was charged with treason, nobody was brought to justice and it is this same group of diabolical villains who were behind the 9/11 attacks amongst other events I have not discussed.
The criticism that 'anyone who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy believes the moon landing is fake' is a nothing argument that only discredits the morons who make this claim as these two conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with one another. I suppose next you will be telling me that Julius Caesar was not killed in a conspiracy but fell over backwards on a dozen knives?
For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'. Don't bother to blame the conspirators blame the conspiracy deniers because it is only through the efforts of these small minded loud mouthed buffoons who refuse to look at any evidence and reject even the possibility that the rich and powerful might not have our best interests at heart that allow these travesties to take place.
Only after the conspiracy deniers wake up may this world finally enjoy peace.
^ This.
For all our beloved conspiracy-theorists-make-me-sick-let-me-get-back-to-my-perfect-little-world-where-no-corruption-is-possible naive and fucking retarded forum goes, here is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And incase you're too lazy to actually fucking click on the link, I'll quote beginning of the wiki article:
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.
The plan stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.
Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.
Ceril I'm sorry your countrymen have been taken in. If you want I think we should start a thread (or find one to revive?) because I don't want to take over this one. I meant only to test the mettle of the decriers by giving them the most accessible and fundamental form and line of inquiry. My point is that no one agrees from an engineering forensics perspective about what happened, and sadly none of the usual forensics work was allowed to happen, for many reasons you could muse about. It is galling to me that lots of otherwise sensible people have lingering doubts. Shouldn't this part of history be as true as possible, especially at this day in age? But it isn't, it's shrouded in rhetoric, emotion, and divergent views of what occurred wrapped in a blanket of vague tragedy. That's fucked up.
Re: OP: Pursuant to truth, I guess this is objective, but most public perusal will only result in more mystification, if only because millions of text messages are essentially meaningless to a person randomly reading them, who will try to ascribe meaning where it's difficult to assemble any.
And nothing will be found in these texts, if there were, they would have been disposed of anyway. It's one thing to make mistakes on the day of such a major event going through real-time, but 8 years later, and in the form of messages? Probably not...
when there are people like these in the US blindly following who ever is on TV.
It is hard to not question what this government have done and is doing when people like Sarah Palin has this many supporters. As funny as this video is the sad part is that is most Americans and they are going to decide who's going to be in office. But that doesn't matter anyway because the people in charge is just going to put up 2 puppets from each party and the end result will be just the same shit but different toilet.
911 has way to many loop holes to be as legit the government say it is. You have to look at both sides of the story before you start calling people names on being stupid for believing 911 conspiracy theories.
Choros, unsurprisingly your whole post smacks of the very misinformation you try to bring to light. Operation Northwood has nothing about flying planes into buildings (at least according to the wiki page you linked). Few people have heard about the Business Plot, and for good reason, reputable historians have discarded the idea that it was a serious coup, one historian on the page you linked putting it as simply "influence peddling by a small core of financiers". All your other claims are not corroborated with actual evidence except an "unauthorized" biography of Bush Snr. Precisely why is this unauthorized biography a more legitimate source than other biographies by reputable historians who come to pedestrian but reasonable conclusions about what happened? If you're serious about history, go out and read some books, do some research, find original documents, find out for yourself. Don't just read bullshit online to feed your sensationalist appetite.
The point with Operation Northwood is not about flying planes into buildings, but that the American government has at one point (which we know of) considered attacking its own civilians to mislead people into war.
On November 26 2009 17:02 searcher wrote: Precisely why is this unauthorized biography a more legitimate source than other biographies by reputable historians
1. Anyone who writes anything about conspiracies gets flamed by idiots (many in this thread) and as a result does not because a 'reputable historian'. 2. Do you really think someone will authorize a biography about themselves if it is full of negative/incriminating evidence? -_-
On November 26 2009 17:02 searcher wrote: If you're serious about history, go out and read some books, do some research, find original documents, find out for yourself..
lol, have you even looked at the 9/11 conspiracy evidence? There is more evidence suggesting the American government was involved then any other country
Just to add my own comment on the conspiracy... I love the comments that arise such as "engineers can't agree" or "physicists can't agree" on part X or Y. Well guess what, only 9 out of 10 of dentists recommend the toothbrush I currently use. Maybe the last 1 believe that this toothbrush will make my right foot grow 6 inches in width.
For those saying that, "nothing will be found". Are you really that ignorant or do you just trust your government THAT much to believe it is impossible for them to do wrong? If you do trust someone to rule over you without question you need to read some history.
Empires have fallen and risen all throughout human civilization. Even thou were a thousand times more technologically advanced than we ever were our basic human emotions haven't changed much. Especially in regards to greed and power.
Questions are good. If nothing is found then nothing is found, but don't be so stupid as to follow without question.
On November 26 2009 17:02 searcher wrote: Precisely why is this unauthorized biography a more legitimate source than other biographies by reputable historians
1. Anyone who writes anything about conspiracies gets flamed by idiots (many in this thread) and as a result does not because a 'reputable historian'. 2. Do you really think someone will authorize a biography about themselves if it is full of negative/incriminating evidence? -_-
On November 26 2009 17:02 searcher wrote: If you're serious about history, go out and read some books, do some research, find original documents, find out for yourself..
lol, have you even looked at the 9/11 conspiracy evidence? There is more evidence suggesting the American government was involved then any other country
Maybe those conspiracy theorists are reputable historians then. But what makes them more reputable than all the other authors of biographies of Bush? And your second comment is just fail, it's not actually saying what I said back to me. The onus is on you to prove this conspiracy theory is true, not me to prove it's false. But in the end, what's the point in debating this, just wait 30 years and like Operation Northwood the documents will be declassified and you'll all celebrate and tell us how you were telling us from the beginning. I'm sure any minute now the Bilderberg Group will unleash their one world government on us, they've just been screwing around in fancy hotels for 55 years doing nothing. Also, when will the thousands of astrophysicists and geologists give up and acknowledge that they've just been pretending to study grey dust samples all along, and that we've never actually been to the moon? Most of these scientists are probably Jews as well - what has Hitler been telling us all this time? Surely the US government have had enough time with the downed UFOs, can it do any harm to make them public now? I wonder if Paul McCartney will reveal on his deathbed that he has been a body double to replace the real Paul in 1966? Anyway, this whole New World Order can't come sooner, it will be cool to see who our Antichrist leader is, it's such a pity that they're taking their time with it, it must be quite demoralizing for those who have died without ever seeing their plans for world domination come about in any meaningful way.
On November 26 2009 17:16 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Just to add my own comment on the conspiracy... I love the comments that arise such as "engineers can't agree" or "physicists can't agree" on part X or Y. Well guess what, only 9 out of 10 of dentists recommend the toothbrush I currently use. Maybe the last 1 believe that this toothbrush will make my right foot grow 6 inches in width.
Guess what? The laws of physics don't agree with how we were told the towers fell and how they actually did fall.
Well 9/11 is probably just incompetence. Then the central government had the gall to blackmail the US into spending more money on security and going to war in Iraq.
If 9/11 had been a successful government conspiracy, it would be one of the rare events that the government actually effectively carried out its mission (wayward as it would be) and also managed to keep it all wrapped up in secrecy.
On November 26 2009 17:42 TanGeng wrote: Well 9/11 is probably just incompetence. Then the central government had the gall to blackmail the US into spending more money on security and going to war in Iraq.
If 9/11 had been a successful government conspiracy, it would be one of the rare events that the government actually effectively carried out its mission (wayward as it would be) and also managed to keep it all wrapped up in secrecy.
But they didn't manage to keep it all wrapped up in secrecy. Hence Loose Change and every other piece of evidence against it. Why do people use this line of reasoning? If the government had covered it up successfully, people wouldn't contest it as much.
You dont have to be crazy conspirator to see that a lot of things in 9/11 doesnt make sense.
At first I was also very sceptical about all these conspiracy theories, but its pretty obvious now that USA actualy benefits for it ( US companies winning the oil contracts in Iraq for example).
I'd like the debris of the 9/11 accident to be studied by multiple parties in some kind of peer review process, but can anyone tell me where that debris went?
On November 26 2009 17:45 Badjas wrote: I'd like the debris of the 9/11 accident to be studied by multiple parties in some kind of peer review process, but can anyone tell me where that debris went?
Well, certainly not the initial conspiracy of ramming the plane into the towers. Now opportunistic conspirators like if the certain building owners engaged in destructive arson when given the opportunity, then that would be something completely different.
And when I say keeping it wrapped up in secrecy, I'm not talking about conspiracy theorists challenging the official story. I'm talking about conspirators coming forward and owning up to it. We're still not that far removed from the event. So if it's a conspiracy, I'd give it another 10 years for someone to come forward.
On November 26 2009 17:02 searcher wrote: Choros, unsurprisingly your whole post smacks of the very misinformation you try to bring to light. Operation Northwood has nothing about flying planes into buildings (at least according to the wiki page you linked). Few people have heard about the Business Plot, and for good reason, reputable historians have discarded the idea that it was a serious coup, one historian on the page you linked putting it as simply "influence peddling by a small core of financiers". All your other claims are not corroborated with actual evidence except an "unauthorized" biography of Bush Snr. Precisely why is this unauthorized biography a more legitimate source than other biographies by reputable historians who come to pedestrian but reasonable conclusions about what happened? If you're serious about history, go out and read some books, do some research, find original documents, find out for yourself. Don't just read bullshit online to feed your sensationalist appetite.
All the Authorized biographies of Bush are written out of a page of two of dot points that have been authorised. The Authorised biographies make no mention of his time in the CIA, Bush even said he was never part of the CIA even though he was the head of it for a year or so. The authorised biographies are whitewashes that disguise the truth about this devious man.
Ofcourse the Wiki article about the Business plot says basically nothing. The people behind this coup attempt were powerful indeed probably including the infamous Rockefeller dynasty. The people involved were so powerful they say too it no one was braught to justice and saw to it that this issue was effectively brushed under the carpet even though it was a very important part of the history of the United States.
Likewise do you ever hear the Iran-Contra scandal discussed even though the implications of this are so serious.
How can you seriously tell me that a plan to carry out false flag terrorist attacks in order to justify war is irrelevant to 9/11?
Why don't you go and read a book? Reading just the introduction to the biography I mentioned would be a good place to start http://www.tarpley.net/bushint.htm.An extensive explanation of how the official biographies of Bush are deceptive is contained in this introduction, definitely worth the read.
On November 26 2009 17:42 TanGeng wrote: Well 9/11 is probably just incompetence. Then the central government had the gall to blackmail the US into spending more money on security and going to war in Iraq.
If 9/11 had been a successful government conspiracy, it would be one of the rare events that the government actually effectively carried out its mission (wayward as it would be) and also managed to keep it all wrapped up in secrecy.
But they didn't manage to keep it all wrapped up in secrecy. Hence Loose Change and every other piece of evidence against it. Why do people use this line of reasoning? If the government had covered it up successfully, people wouldn't contest it as much.
The government knows that no matter how obvious it is most people will still believe the official story. In plane sight so they say.
Heed the words of Joseph Goebbels;
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And what better way to defend a lie than by simply ridiculing anybody who questions the official story and by refusing to look at any of the evidence because anyone who says otherwise believes that the moon landing was staged....
There have been some whistle blowers by the way like the guy in the official 9/11 commission who resigned in disgust because the Government would not let him look at any evidence and would edit everything he wrote and the high ranking intelligence official who came out and said that he had come across this conspiracy before it happened only to be shut down by the CIA who were defending the Terrorists.
You are aware that the CIA flew Bin Laden's brothers out of the US on a private Jet immediately after the attacks? Yet another interesting piece of evidence suggesting something is not quite right.
So your saying Osama Bin Laden works for US governament? I doubt any terrorist group will come forward to take the responsibility they hasn't done, you think they will just cooperate so their land get invaded?
On November 26 2009 18:22 furymonkey wrote: So your saying Osama Bin Laden works for US governament? I doubt any terrorist group will come forward to take the responsibility they hasn't done, you think they will just cooperate so their land get invaded?
Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question. I personally think that Bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks in anyway however he just got blamed for it. The Pakistani intelligence agency however took Saudi money and handed it over to Terrorists so maybe they had something to do with it. Incidentally the former head of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) said in a CNN interview he had no doubt 9/11 was an inside job.
On November 26 2009 18:22 furymonkey wrote: So your saying Osama Bin Laden works for US governament? I doubt any terrorist group will come forward to take the responsibility they hasn't done, you think they will just cooperate so their land get invaded?
Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question. I personally think that Bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks in anyway however he just got blamed for it. The Pakistani intelligence agency however took Saudi money and handed it over to Terrorists so maybe they had something to do with it. Incidentally the former head of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) said in a CNN interview he had no doubt 9/11 was an inside job.
I want 100% undeniable proof that 9/11 was an "inside job". Can I get this plz?
On November 26 2009 16:33 Kuja900 wrote: huh i never noticed the number 911 and the date 9/11 were the same until I read this thread, sorry lol moment of zen ^_^.
On November 26 2009 18:22 furymonkey wrote: So your saying Osama Bin Laden works for US governament? I doubt any terrorist group will come forward to take the responsibility they hasn't done, you think they will just cooperate so their land get invaded?
Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question. I personally think that Bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks in anyway however he just got blamed for it. The Pakistani intelligence agency however took Saudi money and handed it over to Terrorists so maybe they had something to do with it. Incidentally the former head of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) said in a CNN interview he had no doubt 9/11 was an inside job.
I want 100% undeniable proof that 9/11 was an "inside job". Can I get this plz?
Sure, how about the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to collapse from the fuel fires alone. I would refer you to architects and engineers for 9/11 truth for more information. http://www.ae911truth.org/ Edit: This interview is good to watch regarding my above comment http://www.ae911truth.org/omnitv_interview.htm.
On November 26 2009 17:45 Badjas wrote: I'd like the debris of the 9/11 accident to be studied by multiple parties in some kind of peer review process, but can anyone tell me where that debris went?
On November 26 2009 18:22 furymonkey wrote: So your saying Osama Bin Laden works for US governament? I doubt any terrorist group will come forward to take the responsibility they hasn't done, you think they will just cooperate so their land get invaded?
Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question. I personally think that Bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks in anyway however he just got blamed for it. The Pakistani intelligence agency however took Saudi money and handed it over to Terrorists so maybe they had something to do with it. Incidentally the former head of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) said in a CNN interview he had no doubt 9/11 was an inside job.
I want 100% undeniable proof that 9/11 was an "inside job". Can I get this plz?
Sure, how about the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to collapse from the fuel fires alone. I would refer you to architects and engineers for 9/11 truth for more information. http://www.ae911truth.org/
Another nice joke is how they thought the steel structure would melt from the flames, but those ten or so passports from terrorists _inside_ the plane didn't burn to a crisp. I'd believe it of course if it weren't just the government handing out the info.
On November 26 2009 14:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I hope something is found.
9/11 obviously has some degree of government involvement and cover-up.
you and other conspiracy theorists make me want to throw up sometimes
People like you are sickening.
The notion that we should completely ignore all evidence because 'no conspiracy theory has ever or will ever be true' is utterly absurd. History is riddled with conspiracies from start to finish at the very least their arguments are historically fallacious, conspiracy denies urgently need to grow up.
Are you not aware of the declassified operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods the plan to fly planes into buildings in Florida, blame it on Cuba and then invade? Apparently they thought this plan was good enough to hold onto.
Are you not aware of the Nazi coup attempt in the United States in 1933. The attempt to overthrow the Government of Franklin Roosevelt that only failed because marine corps Major General Smedley Butler the man chosen to lead the coup blew the whistle at the last minute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Prescott Bush the grand daddy of the recent president Bush was involved in this plot. Prescott was a convicted Nazi prosecuted under trading with the enemy act. The Bush family fortune was built by profiteering from concentration camps. George Herbert Walker Bush joined the CIA and was deeply involved in the vicious terrorist campaigns waged against central American nations especially Cuba.
Bush senior was a cold blooded terrorist as is described in a couple of very good unauthorised biographies of the man including 'Bush the unauthorized biography' (available to read for free online at www.tarpley.net and 'family of secrets' http://www.familyofsecrets.com/buy-now/)
During the 1980's a secret Government was uncovered within the United States in the Iran-Contra debacle, first it was uncovered that the United States and Israel were smuggling arms to Iran against their own arms embargo. Later during investigation it was discovered that the Reagan Administration (with Bush sr as vice president) were sending planes with guns to the Terrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the planes would fly back with drugs. The Government was caught out running drugs for guns trades with Terrorists at the same time as predending to wage a 'war against drugs'. The organisation that was uncovered during this scandal had their own private army, navy, air force and intelligence assets that were being deployed for ends that are criminal to say the least.
Both these scandals the Nazi coup of 1933, and the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the dark underbelly of the American power structure but no body was charged with treason, nobody was brought to justice and it is this same group of diabolical villains who were behind the 9/11 attacks amongst other events I have not discussed.
The criticism that 'anyone who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy believes the moon landing is fake' is a nothing argument that only discredits the morons who make this claim as these two conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with one another. I suppose next you will be telling me that Julius Caesar was not killed in a conspiracy but fell over backwards on a dozen knives?
For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'. Don't bother to blame the conspirators blame the conspiracy deniers because it is only through the efforts of these small minded loud mouthed buffoons who refuse to look at any evidence and reject even the possibility that the rich and powerful might not have our best interests at heart that allow these travesties to take place.
Only after the conspiracy deniers wake up may this world finally enjoy peace.
The thing is that history repeats itself... deception, killing, overusing the power... why do you think it would stop now?
those posts below show evidence that the USA government had at least tried with the idea of blaming another country about a terrorist attack for going and invading that country... isnt that EXACTLY what just happened? for me it is just too similar, and then you look at the bull shit information given by the government expecting you to believe every single word when all the evidence points to another direction...
I got the first suspicions with this:
- The fuel of the plane managed to burn the STEEL of the buildings in less than 10 minutes which caused an almost free fall of the buildings... yet they found the passports of the terrorists UNTOUCHED... they could even read the names and have the pictures... yeah right....
- The WTC 7 fell because of the impact... but what about all the other buildings that were closer to the WTC... why those didnt fell?
I am not a conspiracy theorist but YOU MUST MAKE QUESTIONS.
On November 26 2009 14:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I hope something is found.
9/11 obviously has some degree of government involvement and cover-up.
you and other conspiracy theorists make me want to throw up sometimes
People like you are sickening.
The notion that we should completely ignore all evidence because 'no conspiracy theory has ever or will ever be true' is utterly absurd. History is riddled with conspiracies from start to finish at the very least their arguments are historically fallacious, conspiracy denies urgently need to grow up.
Are you not aware of the declassified operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods the plan to fly planes into buildings in Florida, blame it on Cuba and then invade? Apparently they thought this plan was good enough to hold onto.
Are you not aware of the Nazi coup attempt in the United States in 1933. The attempt to overthrow the Government of Franklin Roosevelt that only failed because marine corps Major General Smedley Butler the man chosen to lead the coup blew the whistle at the last minute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Prescott Bush the grand daddy of the recent president Bush was involved in this plot. Prescott was a convicted Nazi prosecuted under trading with the enemy act. The Bush family fortune was built by profiteering from concentration camps. George Herbert Walker Bush joined the CIA and was deeply involved in the vicious terrorist campaigns waged against central American nations especially Cuba.
Bush senior was a cold blooded terrorist as is described in a couple of very good unauthorised biographies of the man including 'Bush the unauthorized biography' (available to read for free online at www.tarpley.net and 'family of secrets' http://www.familyofsecrets.com/buy-now/)
During the 1980's a secret Government was uncovered within the United States in the Iran-Contra debacle, first it was uncovered that the United States and Israel were smuggling arms to Iran against their own arms embargo. Later during investigation it was discovered that the Reagan Administration (with Bush sr as vice president) were sending planes with guns to the Terrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the planes would fly back with drugs. The Government was caught out running drugs for guns trades with Terrorists at the same time as predending to wage a 'war against drugs'. The organisation that was uncovered during this scandal had their own private army, navy, air force and intelligence assets that were being deployed for ends that are criminal to say the least.
Both these scandals the Nazi coup of 1933, and the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the dark underbelly of the American power structure but no body was charged with treason, nobody was brought to justice and it is this same group of diabolical villains who were behind the 9/11 attacks amongst other events I have not discussed.
The criticism that 'anyone who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy believes the moon landing is fake' is a nothing argument that only discredits the morons who make this claim as these two conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with one another. I suppose next you will be telling me that Julius Caesar was not killed in a conspiracy but fell over backwards on a dozen knives?
For god sake know your history, if you know the history of the events I have described here you will find that the 9/11 plot is just the latest chapter of an evolving story, the saga of the 'fall of the republic'. Don't bother to blame the conspirators blame the conspiracy deniers because it is only through the efforts of these small minded loud mouthed buffoons who refuse to look at any evidence and reject even the possibility that the rich and powerful might not have our best interests at heart that allow these travesties to take place.
Only after the conspiracy deniers wake up may this world finally enjoy peace.
Poll: 9/11??? (Vote): Was a 100% inside job. (Vote): May have had ties to the US. (Vote): I don't know but it's interesting. (Vote): Was not an inside job. (Vote): LOL conspiracy theorists r dumb
people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
On November 26 2009 14:27 Bosu wrote: Nothing will be found.
9/11 conspiracy nuts are more crazy then people who think we never landed on the moon.
meh , the collapse of tower 7 was never explained well if you ask me the fire chief said on video it was pulled , they must have been pretty quick putting the explosives up if that is the case...
I don't understand why people are so skeptical of these conspiracy theories, to the point of almost automatically denying them. Not just about 911, but in general.
Just looking at history shows precedents of all kinds of unimaginable things. There have been false-flag terrorist attacks, world wars, genocide, institutions such as slavery, empires which have risen and fallen. No country has had the same government indefinitely, and no currency has lasted indefinitely. Just because people haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it won't happen.
Is it really so difficult to believe that the government would fly a couple planes into buildings? I mean it sure has worked out for them pretty nicely. Keeping people in a constant state of fear is very profitable and also very empowering for the government.
I mean two planes took out 3 major buildings? Seriously? Someone flew an impossible course to hit the pentagon, which just happened to be the part the were renovating. They also immediately start flashing images of the terrorists just after it happened (thats important...need to flash those images while the public is still in shock) because they found a piece of the passport in the wreckage...hahahaha.
And then theres building 7...wasn't hit by anything, it just fell down. + Show Spoiler +
And there just happened to be a military training exercise going on at the same time. Hm, what are the odds of that.
And the building owner took out massive terrorist insurance a few months before hit happened or something. Geez, I guess they knew people would believe anything.
Guys, I'm not even a big 911 researcher, there are many other things which I just haven't spent time reading, these are just obvious things.
It got us into Afghanistan, but we wanted to go into Iraq....Weapons of Mass Destruction! Those terrorists have nuclear weapons and biochemical labs. No. That was a lie. And we are still in Iraq, can't pull out now... But forget about that. Iran, which hasn't invaded another country in like 400 years or something, is making nukes. They will have them in 6 months. (they've been saying that for a few years now?)
The truth is that these Muslim countries don't conform to our imperial money system. Saddam was dumping our dollars for euros when we invaded. Iran has done the same thing. Those Muslim countries don't have NWO central banks either that are tightly integrated to the IMF and others. In fact Muslim law prohibits the charging of interest, because it is known as usury. Over there, banks charge fees instead of interest, unlike any other place in the world. Edit: I'll leave it to the reader to extrapolate a better understanding of the Jewish/Muslim conflict from what I've written. However, make no mistake, the money system is what is corrupt, it doesn't matter who controls it, in fact no one can control it. It is an unstoppable machine.
On November 26 2009 19:37 Itachii wrote: people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
On November 26 2009 19:37 Itachii wrote: people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
True, they are just as stupid as the people who believe in the official version.
As long as there is no conclusive evidence for either everyone should be skeptic towards all conspiracy theories, be they spread by Youtube scientiest or by government officials.
On November 26 2009 19:37 Itachii wrote: people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
True, they are just as stupid as the people who believe in the official version.
As long as there is no conclusive evidence for either everyone should be skeptic towards all conspiracy theories, be they spread by Youtube scientiest or by government officials.
false equivalency argument
there's plenty of conclusive evidence for what happened, there's no evidence at all for any conspiracy, just a bunch of dumbasses on the net "asking questions"
when the conspiracy theorists have answers and not questions then i'll listen
On November 26 2009 19:15 RaptorX wrote: - The fuel of the plane managed to burn the STEEL of the buildings in less than 10 minutes which caused an almost free fall of the buildings... yet they found the passports of the terrorists UNTOUCHED... they could even read the names and have the pictures... yeah right....
I would be more surprised if there was something to point that 9/11 wasn´t an inside job. I mean buildings collapsing on their own just like demolished buildings isn´t exactly "terroristlike", especially buildings build to withstand numerous terrorist attacks. Also the odds for all those things happening at once is just too much, I mean some of the planejackers on the official list ARE STILL ALIVE today.
I understand some people are compeletely brainwashed by patriotism so that they can´t demand any kinds of proof from their goverment, but history shows that those in charge have always had their way with people. It´s like religion: my God is neat because you can´t prove otherwise -_-
But w/e, a lot of those conspiracy "proofs" are still pure idiotism.
On November 26 2009 19:37 Itachii wrote: people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
I expect you show some proof why that stuff is BS ? I mean how do you explain those buildings coming down with your "non-pseudo" science? There just happened to be a shitload of thermite?
And cmon a crashing plane does not " disappear" compeletely when hitting the earth just compare the pictures from real plane crashes and that which hit pennsylvania or w/e.
Jalstar has this shit under control. Also Lol at people like THEY FLEW AN IMPOSSIBLE COURSE, do you think they got fucking scud missiles ready to shoot down wayward airplanes? Fuck no. That's because you can't usually take into account SUICIDAL pilots/people in charge.
On November 26 2009 20:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote: And cmon a crashing plane does not " disappear" compeletely when hitting the earth just compare the pictures from real plane crashes and that which hit pennsylvania or w/e.
On November 26 2009 19:37 Itachii wrote: people who believe in all this, reading this crap, listening to pseudo sciencists on YT and spreading this whole BS arround deserve to have net cut off
True, they are just as stupid as the people who believe in the official version.
As long as there is no conclusive evidence for either everyone should be skeptic towards all conspiracy theories, be they spread by Youtube scientiest or by government officials.
there's plenty of conclusive evidence for what happened, there's no evidence at all for any conspiracy, just a bunch of dumbasses on the net "asking questions"
Then please, provide me with some of the plenty of conclusive evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
EDIT: Actually I don't even want to troll you into posting more links. Just don't be a jackass on these forums and call people who asks questions "dumbasses". Dumb is who just believes what he is being told without asking questions.
I am looking forward to the NYC trials, maybe after 10 years there will be the first sentencing regarding 9/11.
On November 26 2009 20:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote: And cmon a crashing plane does not " disappear" compeletely when hitting the earth just compare the pictures from real plane crashes and that which hit pennsylvania or w/e.
Just stop now.
Just a question, do you know how big an airline jet is?
"The archive is a completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its revelation will lead to a more nuanced understanding of the event and its tragic consequences"
I love this description of the event. It sells its importance but weighs in politically proper. I dig.
I'm checking out the real content that the thread provides. I was just so impressed by the way that this was put that I had to mention.
When someone quoted the northwood wiki article, they left out a very important point:
President Kennedy personally rejected it.
Ok, I can see the CIA or possibly the defense department trying to plan it as semi-plausible. I can see Cheney finding it interesting and pushing it forward. But I don't believe it because any non-Nixonian politician would reject it in a heartbeat. Random terrorism acts, plausible. Targeting the pentagon, world trade center, and the white house, right, why when any reasonably tall building would look good enough on the news? President Bush could also have killed himself with a bomb and faked an assassination, and boy that would have made the US go to war as well, but he wouldn't want to do that.
Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense? Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.
Governments have always been part in these terrorist games, that´s why they have these secret services.
IMO saying that people should be punished for not believing the official stories is kinda lame. It´s always easier thinking: "this is the truth, we are the good guys, there just happens to be shitload of people hating us for a reason no one really knows.."
All I´m saying people should stop thinking they know the truth about anything, there is no such thing. People are quite complicated beings and thinking they are always compeletely honest to you is naive. Ask:" I was in charge the world would be a much better place for anyone, so why is it like this now?"
I admit I don´t know shit; about 9/11, about anything.
PS. don´t think these messages will prove anything, if it was an inside job they would´ve already covered this "lead" too.
To me its actually kind of funny how jalstar believes that its perfectly normal a passing by detective from nypd to find a fallen intact passport from the crashed into a building plane 300 meters above.
Everyone who thinks that the Bush government aren't capable of a stunt like this are either stupid or gullible. I'm not saying the government orchestrated 9/11 but they "might" have something to do with it, worse things have happened in USA's history.
Some of y'all should definately read up on the history of your own country and how the government, CIA and FBI have handled different matters.
On November 26 2009 15:25 Not_Computer wrote: wow, over one million text messages for that day? i bet you could find a lot of things in that.
race to find cybersex via text?
2001-09-11 06:31:26 Metrocall [1162127] D ALPHA From: 4044766632@airmessage.net Subj: Message from a two-way device Good morning sexy man!! Got my zebra thongs on!!! Feeling a little animalistic!!!
it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Selective reading is the key to any conspiracy theory. It wouldn't surprise me if some people in the bush administration were aware something may have been going on. But I really don't think for one minute that the entire thing was a finely orchestrated plan. I just don't understand how some people are completely willing to lap up the ideas of one thought process, and ignore or downright refuse to believe another for no real reason, other than the fact they've already made up their minds.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Even more hilarious is that if you have read those plausible sources and if you think for 2 seconds, they are plausible just as the fucking conspiracy websites.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
I think this is true on both sides, people are going to read what they want to hear anyway. I use to be believe in the official story, but then I read a lot of conspiracy websites and it changed my perspective on things. I don't think anyone can deny that governments in the past have exploited tragedy for their personal gains. It's been documented but never really talked about. Thats the thing that really struck out at me. I've always trusted my intuition, and when I put the pieces together, I always get the feeling that something doesn't make sense. I completely understand why people would laugh at the idea that there would bombs in the buildings, it does sound a little ridiculous and over the top. But I don't think those details are important in a debate like this. I think what is more important is the fact that our government exploited a tragic event in order to go to war. This is what disturbs me the most.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Perhaps I've been reading the wrong stuff. Tell me how Building 7 fell down the way it did? Trying to be open minded here.
a healthy dose of skepticism is valuable in all theaters. It applies to the officially released story but also applies to conspiracy theories as well. Based on my own judgment, a truly well-organized false flag operation for 9/11 is surely too difficult for the government to conduct and then keep it all under wraps. There would be too many eyes and ears.
The most likely scenario is incompetency. I expect far more incompetency was involved than that is laid out in the 9/11 commissions report. Most of the government cover up would be protect the political careers of anyone involved by hiding their disastrous failures leading up to the tragedy.
The next likeliest scenario is another kind of incompetency and pseudo-conspiracy, the case where 9/11 was the result of an intelligence operation go awry. Consider the situation where the CIA was trying to apprehend Osama bin Laden in the act of terrorism, baited him into organizing the operation, even gave him the funds to do it, but then messed up the opportunity to capture him or stop the act of terrorism. Now in this case, the intelligence agency at fault would have better reason to close ranks to cover up the mess up for mutual benefit. There would still be a lot of eyes and ears though.
Less likely is that all went as the official story stated, and even more unlikely is that 9/11 was a pure false flag operation.
On November 26 2009 20:40 igotmyown wrote: Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense? Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.
Yep, that's the point, it just doesn't make sense at all that such a huge conspiracy could be done without leaks, plus what the Bush administration would risk by doing that would be just too big... Imagine if the public found out, at the very list he would be pushed out of office if not prosecuted and maybe even executed if found guilty.
I don't believe any political agenda would justify that in the eyes of self serving politicians.
On the other hand, i do believe is posible that some people inside the U.S. goverment might have known or suspected about the attacks, but decided to look the other way (something similar to what might have happened in Pearl Harbor), but i just can't imagine the U.S. goverment being directly involved, there are just too many flaws in the logic of such event.
Just remember that the official story with osama and his dudes is a conspiracy theory too. It's not more plausible than other theories floating around, all of them have holes in them. Until the government or somebody else gives more info one way or another, the only real edge it has over other theories is government backing.
If you think you know what happened there you're an idiot. Or holding facts.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Perhaps I've been reading the wrong stuff. Tell me how Building 7 fell down the way it did? Trying to be open minded here.
On November 26 2009 17:45 Badjas wrote: I'd like the debris of the 9/11 accident to be studied by multiple parties in some kind of peer review process, but can anyone tell me where that debris went?
On November 26 2009 17:45 Badjas wrote: I'd like the debris of the 9/11 accident to be studied by multiple parties in some kind of peer review process, but can anyone tell me where that debris went?
On November 26 2009 20:40 igotmyown wrote: Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense? Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.
Yep, that's the point, it just doesn't make sense at all that such a huge conspiracy could be done without leaks, plus what the Bush administration would risk by doing that would be just too big... Imagine if the public found out, at the very list he would be pushed out of office if not prosecuted and maybe even executed if found guilty.
I don't believe any political agenda would justify that in the eyes of self serving politicians.
On the other hand, i do believe is posible that some people inside the U.S. goverment might have known or suspected about the attacks, but decided to look the other way (something similar to what might have happened in Pearl Harbor), but i just can't imagine the U.S. goverment being directly involved, there are just too many flaws in the logic of such event.
Wasn´t Obamas campaign anti-war? Suddenly we have bank crisis and now Obama sending more troops overseas... Almost like there is someone else pulling the strings...
It all goes damn well to someone again and again, you see if you dig into the backgrounds of pretty much all other wars 1900 onwards. Trick people into war / your side... It´s not always as apparent or as easily revealed as Shelling of Mainila
PS. There are some people acting like cosmic shmucks here, remember: your "truth" is still only a relative truth.
come on, if it was really true, there would be hard evidence uncovered somehow by the press, investigators or squealers and the mastermind(s)(Bush?) would have his body torn and dismembered by the american public by now lol
On November 26 2009 23:43 udgnim wrote: I love how all conspiracy theorists are experts on how huge ass burning buildings should properly topple down .
Well I´m quite sure redhot melting steel in the bottom of the building doesn´t fit if the fires were higher and not hot enough to melt steel. But of course I might be wrong, better stick to the official story as always.
On November 26 2009 15:31 Magic84 wrote: It's your government that blew up towers to have an excuse to attack iraq and middle east in general, but it weren't really american people behind it. I'd say who, how and what for exactly, but i don't want to talk about that, it's all very obvious and pretty widely known and it isn't really a conspiracy, but your tv, newspapers and internet news won't give you clues, and it's for a reason. And it will probably be better to tag my post as dumb and move on, as most will do.
While my belief that US government has played its part in all of this is not 100%, I do think a lot of events that took place on 9/11 are questionable and unexplainable from the official explanation released by the US government.
The world trade center was designed to take hits from Boeing 707 which is similar to Boeing 767 in mass which was the plane that crashed into the building.
If you understand anything about structural engineering, you would be amazed at how much novel safeguards and design elements were put in place to strengthen and to protect the building.
World trade center was among the first to use the steel structure, with rigid steel beams, also it used rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns with floor trusses around the core (centre) of the building. In plain English, it's like a mosquito net and the planes being struck in the building is like a pen you poke through the net. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. By anticipates loads, we are talking worst case scenarios, like earthquakes and hurricanes. It is also designed to withstand fire. When it comes to the design of WTC, far more greater measure was taken.
If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true, then it would probable be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. You can examine other similar cases for modern sky scrappers and you would not find a precedent. Moreover the free-fall of the building and the Squibs that appear at regular intervals about 10 floors below demolition waves are all signs of controlled demolition. It is not really possible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance.
P.S Operation Northwood has indeed taken place in 1962's and while JFK has opposed the plan, JFK was assassinated in 1963. I would not know as to if there was any linkage between the two, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was.
The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
On November 26 2009 18:27 Choros wrote: Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question.
Yes it is.
The US government supported the mujahideen that were indigenous to Afghanistan in the war with the USSR. Even if weapons had gone to foreign mujahideen in Afghanistan, it would be disingenuous to claim that they worked for the US.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Even more hilarious is that if you have read those plausible sources and if you think for 2 seconds, they are plausible just as the fucking conspiracy websites.
Are you trolling? They're actually debating verifiable facts. If one side was saying that you get HIV by having sex with an infected person and the other side was saying that you get HIV by, say, overexposure to mercury, would you just go "hmm well these both sound about equally plausible, I'm just gonna randomly decide which one is right"? Of course, you would not. You would compare both sides' arguments and counterarguments and then decide what makes the most sense. If you actually did your research, you would find that the counter-conspiracists are to refute pretty much every conspiracist argument. If the conspiracists say that the explosion and fires wouldn't have caused a high enough temperature to cause the steel girders to melt in order to allow a collapse, and then you have the counter-conspiracists stating that, while the temperature indeed was not high enough to cause steel to melt, it was high enough to cause loss of structural integrity to a sufficient degree to allow for the girders to collapse (which is a simple, physical fact), then there's simply nothing more to say. Argument destroyed, counter-conspiracists win, GG.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
I think this is true on both sides, people are going to read what they want to hear anyway. I use to be believe in the official story, but then I read a lot of conspiracy websites and it changed my perspective on things. I don't think anyone can deny that governments in the past have exploited tragedy for their personal gains. It's been documented but never really talked about. Thats the thing that really struck out at me. I've always trusted my intuition, and when I put the pieces together, I always get the feeling that something doesn't make sense. I completely understand why people would laugh at the idea that there would bombs in the buildings, it does sound a little ridiculous and over the top. But I don't think those details are important in a debate like this. I think what is more important is the fact that our government exploited a tragic event in order to go to war. This is what disturbs me the most.
What I don't understand is how many, many people fail to follow a path of reason when it comes to 9/11. This is how it should go: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. I guess it could possibly have been an inside job. This merits further attention. Let's see if there are any counterarguments. Oh, there are. *reads* Hm, those actually did a fantastic job of rebutting the conspiracy arguments. Let's see what the conspiracists have to say to that. Oh, nothing at all. Case closed then, the counter-conspiracists are right.
This is how it actually goes: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. Must have been an inside job. Case closed then, the conspiracists are right.
Then, they like to think that they're open-minded and Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions, when really they're close-minded for skipping the last few crucial steps.
Also, you're right in stating that what's really worrying about the whole situation is how, once 9/11 happened, the Bush administration simply tried to figure out a completely immoral way of turning it into economic and political gain.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Perhaps I've been reading the wrong stuff. Tell me how Building 7 fell down the way it did? Trying to be open minded here.
Oh shit, men in black suits at my door. Gotta split.
Yeah, see how it easy it is to find convincing counterarguments? Would you still think that the collapse of building 7 was due to a controlled explosion? I never even understood that argument in the first place. It wouldn't make sense even if there was a conspiracy. Why would they bring down a building that wasn't hit by one of the planes? Apart from looking completely suspicious, there's simply no further gain in bringing down an additional building. It's not like the public is going to be even more shocked that WTC 7 went down along with the twin towers.
Scenario A: "Oh my God, did you hear? Terrorists took down the twin towers!" - "Hm, that's pretty bad, I guess." *shrug*
Scenario B: "Oh my God, did you hear? Terrorists took down the twin towers AND building seven!" - "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. LETS BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF IRAQ ASAP."
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane. If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too.
Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely.
Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too.
And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything. E.
I´m still waiting this one to come down neatly, god damn it´s 40 years older design too...
I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professors to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.
On November 26 2009 20:40 igotmyown wrote: Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense? Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.
Yep, that's the point, it just doesn't make sense at all that such a huge conspiracy could be done without leaks, plus what the Bush administration would risk by doing that would be just too big... Imagine if the public found out, at the very list he would be pushed out of office if not prosecuted and maybe even executed if found guilty.
I don't believe any political agenda would justify that in the eyes of self serving politicians.
On the other hand, i do believe is posible that some people inside the U.S. goverment might have known or suspected about the attacks, but decided to look the other way (something similar to what might have happened in Pearl Harbor), but i just can't imagine the U.S. goverment being directly involved, there are just too many flaws in the logic of such event.
Wasn´t Obamas campaign anti-war? Suddenly we have bank crisis and now Obama sending more troops overseas... Almost like there is someone else pulling the strings...
No, you weren't paying attention.
As far as Afghanistan was concerned, Obama was, by far, the most hawkish viable candidate in the race.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.
He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.
And I imagine the Empire State Building didn't go down when it got hit by a plane because that plane was much smaller and travelling much slower.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane. If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too.
Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely.
Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too.
And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything.
I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side.
What was the point of this post? You're bringing in semantics and the fact that President Obama believes in god as your arguments? Very convincing.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.
He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.
Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane. If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too.
Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely.
Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too.
And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything.
I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side.
What was the point of this post? You're bringing in semantics and the fact that President Obama believes in god as your arguments? Very convincing.
Obama believes in God! You know who else believes in God? Muslims. You know what a lot of Muslims are? Terrorists. Thus, Obama = Terrorist. QED
Also, you are correct. The 90000L of jet fuel burning at 700 degrees celsius probably didn't do anything.
You compeletely missed the point, watch any of Bushes pre-Iraq rallying speeches and maybe you´ll see: the man is a prophet. My point is that to American people God and Country have enough meaning that with those you can cover pretty much anything else. I think it´s insane to let that kind of pure manipulation to happen, but then again I´m not part of that culture and so I´m not sure if that kind of speech has so much importance there.
Saying God wants Saddam dead to boost your support is wrong in pretty much any possible way IMO. Hardly acceptable way to lead any country.
Religion itself has nothing to do with anything nor do I have anything against anyone for any reasons anyway, just to be on the safe side.
On November 26 2009 21:41 vGl-CoW wrote: it's pretty hilarious how most conspiracy believers in this thread use the fact that "at least they're asking questions" to defend their beliefs, but prefer to stay blind to the completely plausible non-conspiracy answers they could find all over the internet if they just bothered to read any sources that weren't on fucking conspiracy websites
good job being open minded
Even more hilarious is that if you have read those plausible sources and if you think for 2 seconds, they are plausible just as the fucking conspiracy websites.
Are you trolling? They're actually debating verifiable facts. If one side was saying that you get HIV by having sex with an infected person and the other side was saying that you get HIV by, say, overexposure to mercury, would you just go "hmm well these both sound about equally plausible, I'm just gonna randomly decide which one is right"? Of course, you would not. You would compare both sides' arguments and counterarguments and then decide what makes the most sense. If you actually did your research, you would find that the counter-conspiracists are to refute pretty much every conspiracist argument. If the conspiracists say that the explosion and fires wouldn't have caused a high enough temperature to cause the steel girders to melt in order to allow a collapse, and then you have the counter-conspiracists stating that, while the temperature indeed was not high enough to cause steel to melt, it was high enough to cause loss of structural integrity to a sufficient degree to allow for the girders to collapse (which is a simple, physical fact), then there's simply nothing more to say. Argument destroyed, counter-conspiracists win, GG.
I`m not trolling (it sucks that nowadays every second post on tl.net is considered trolling)
on topic. Yes, what you say is true. But from what I`ve read (on conspiratory sites ofc) and seen (on cnn) very big part of the jet fuel actually burned out of the building (the big explosion you see when the plane hit the wtc) and according to the conspiracy theoirsts there was not enough fuel left in the building to actually cause structural damage. I am not saying this is true ofcourse. But this is something that makes sense. And when I looked on anti-conspiracy sites to see evidence that this is wrong, they were saying that actually there was enough fuel left in the building to melt the support beams.
Both statements cannot be proven.
What does not makes sense to me and "raises question" is the things that came after 9/11 : The war on terrorism, causing wars in Afganistan and in Iraq (and very possibly in Iran), leading to unhuman ammount of money going to US companies making weapons. US companies winning contracts for the Iraq oil etc. and 9/11 is the perfect excuse for these things.
On November 27 2009 00:26 vGl-CoW wrote: What I don't understand is how many, many people fail to follow a path of reason when it comes to 9/11. This is how it should go: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. I guess it could possibly have been an inside job. This merits further attention. Let's see if there are any counterarguments. Oh, there are. *reads* Hm, those actually did a fantastic job of rebutting the conspiracy arguments. Let's see what the conspiracists have to say to that. Oh, nothing at all. Case closed then, the counter-conspiracists are right.
This is how it actually goes: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. Must have been an inside job. Case closed then, the conspiracists are right.
Then, they like to think that they're open-minded and Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions, when really they're close-minded for skipping the last few crucial steps.
Uh, while your accusing others of not being open minded, it is funny that you make some completely false portrayal of them in the most convenient way. Most so called "conspiracy theorist" simply think there should be more investigation, rather than believe a certain side.
Your line of reasoning: there are conspiracy and non-conspiracy explanations for 9/11, so assume the non-conspiracy. The problem with that is the explanations are incomplete, so you are basically saying just because a conspiracy cannot be proved the entire incident should be ignored beyond the official story.
That's like if there is a death and it could have been a natural medical problem or it could have been poisoning, let's just assume it was a natural death and not investigate completely.
The problem with the official story is they never did a complete investigation. And there is absolutely zero excuse not too. For one of one thousand examples, iirc, a 9/11 commission was interviewed on public radio and he was asked, why was not the proper procedure followed for military jet intercept? Answer: "I really want to know but I couldn't find out" (can't remember exact words by now).
Everything should have been investigated in complete detail. Not only did 3000 people die the incident had a profound influence in the future.
On November 26 2009 20:40 igotmyown wrote: Bush was elected while campaigning on a let's stop playing the world police officer platform and didn't wasn't interested in global affairs until after the WTC attacks. Then afterwards a high death toll attack on important american institutions, terrorists or some sinister hidden conspiracy? What makes sense? Muslim CIA agents posing as terrorists, okayed by multiple levels up to the president, and not one person who hears about it has second thoughts and leaks it, including the agents who are required to 1) kill themselves 2) kill lots of americans and 3) start a global war and risk enormous anti-arab sentiment to their own race? Makes a ton of sense to me.
Yep, that's the point, it just doesn't make sense at all that such a huge conspiracy could be done without leaks, plus what the Bush administration would risk by doing that would be just too big... Imagine if the public found out, at the very list he would be pushed out of office if not prosecuted and maybe even executed if found guilty.
I don't believe any political agenda would justify that in the eyes of self serving politicians.
On the other hand, i do believe is posible that some people inside the U.S. goverment might have known or suspected about the attacks, but decided to look the other way (something similar to what might have happened in Pearl Harbor), but i just can't imagine the U.S. goverment being directly involved, there are just too many flaws in the logic of such event.
Wasn´t Obamas campaign anti-war? Suddenly we have bank crisis and now Obama sending more troops overseas... Almost like there is someone else pulling the strings...
No, you weren't paying attention.
As far as Afghanistan was concerned, Obama was, by far, the most hawkish viable candidate in the race.
I thought it wasn´t war in Afghanistan, more like anti-terroris-world-police-work. Well he was against war in Iraq atleast.
It's kinda showing that everyone who outright rejects the theories is American or Canadian. Most of the rest of the world accept that, at the very least, everything America wanted to happen happened, right when they needed it too, and due to the plausibility of the theories at the very least it merits further investigation.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.
He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.
Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.
Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down.
The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board.
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner.
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol.
I advise you to read this.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.
Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions.
I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty
I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way.
He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it.
Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?.
Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down.
The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board.
Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel. The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s. The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174 = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.
It has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers.
I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.
When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.
*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.
I don't think the story is that fire melted steal, but rather that the heat expanded the floor trusses, putting pressure on the steal columns that already had been damaged.
One thing to remember when posting other skyscrapers not falling from fire is taking into account construction.Tube in a tube construction. So, we get fire yes? Clearly seen, jet fuel and hmm, wonder if there was anything else to burn in that building, like i dont know... floors, celinings, people, office materials... things like that. Then you have the old damaged fireproofing, not cement clad, further damaged by an aircraft. Now then, I admit steel not melting at jet fuel burning point is a bit disheartening and in favour of the conspiracy theologists, I sure hope I could comeup with an explanation. How would you go about making steel give like that? sigh, I wish I knew if people in the medieval age melted steel for armor or if they prefered to heat it up and hammer it into form. Strange, they did like the hammering bit, how the frack can you deform non melted steel with just a hammer thats not even possible. Gee, I wonder how much easier steel is to deform at 700C, I wonder what happens if you takeout 50% of steels structural integrity with that much pushing down, at a 1000 its 10% Come on guys, ask yourselfs the tough questions and open your eyes to science.
On November 27 2009 01:43 Superiorwolf wrote: I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.
When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.
*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.
I love how you guys are still completely ignoring every post that counters your asinine claims. The fire didn't melt the steal. The fire weakened the steal. This is what happens when you heat steal. Combined with the impact from the plane, the structural integrity of the building near the impact point was no longer sufficient to hold the weight above it.
You can tell who in this thread doesn't have a degree in engineering.
lol do you think a tiny experiment can prove anything? If one scientist say it is so it DOESN'T mean it is de facto standard.
That fucking Danish alcoholic scientist which the Truth Movement reffering to is rejected by all other high knowledge scientists in Europe. There were some interesting documentaries about the Truth Movement here in Sweden. Conclusion is that they are a bunch of idiots and it is a pity people believe in there lame theories.
On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
Exactly, and proving that it's a conspiracy by lighting a 4 foot tower of paint cans or whatever that was in the youtube video is ridiculous.
I was a little bit intrigued by this at first, but then i saw a few of the terribly constructed and extremely biased "Scientific videos", "experiments" and "math" created by conspiracy people... And if anything 95% of the proof people are using has made me think the government is right.
You cant just say "Steel does not melt at 700 celcius - Bush is the devil" you have to think of all the incredible amount of factors that play a role in a building comming down.
Grainy video of something resembling a plane does not help the cause either.
On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
lol yeah exactly. I wonder if he can calculate the whole Big-Bang too?
On November 27 2009 01:43 Superiorwolf wrote: I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous.
When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit.
*I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable.
I love how you guys are still completely ignoring every post that counters your asinine claims. The fire didn't melt the steal. The fire weakened the steal. This is what happens when you heat steal. Combined with the impact from the plane, the structural integrity of the building near the impact point was no longer sufficient to hold the weight above it.
You can tell who in this thread doesn't have a degree in engineering.
I can´t but I guess you have one.
So, if heat weakens the metal ( as it usually does), shouldn´t it like slowly bend rather than suddenly give in at some point and start smashing the lower parts of the building. And I understand that there were more flames on one side than on the other so shouldn´t the weight on top like bend to the one side? And even if it couldn´t suddenly hold any of the weight shouldn´t the lower storeys that have always hold the same weight on top of them still hold the dead weight or atleast offer some resistance? Of course if the weight coming down already had some velocity the structure can´t withstand the force, but I don´t think that was the case.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
yeah, the fact that his calculations are wrong is without doubt, but the fact that the ancient people used to make swords proves 100% that the wtc collapsed becouse of the plane.
On November 27 2009 01:52 Cloud wrote: Oh cool, let's use highschool math and a calculator that can do powers and square roots to determine if a building can be taken down by a plane.
Exactly, and proving that it's a conspiracy by lighting a 4 foot tower of paint cans or whatever that was in the youtube video is ridiculous.
I was a little bit intrigued by this at first, but then i saw a few of the terribly constructed and extremely biased "Scientific videos", "experiments" and "math" created by conspiracy people... And if anything 95% of the proof people are using has made me think the government is right.
You cant just say "Steel does not melt at 700 celcius - Bush is the devil" you have to think of all the incredible amount of factors that play a role in a building comming down.
Grainy video of something resembling a plane does not help the cause either.
I think that paint can video was just to show idiots that fire doesnt burn downwards... And I agree that the problem with this "conspiracy" is those real "conspiracy theorists" who believe their mother is an alien because the letters in a candywrapper could be arranged to say so. They come up with all the retarded "evidence" and stick to it no matter what.
But if someone could come up with "real evidence" without all that retarded stuff I believe it could be quite interesting.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
It's not like its easy or cheap to make a building that can withstand the force of a fucking commercial airliner slamming into it. Not to mention that sort of shit just doesn't happen every day... or ever.
Alot of the so-called "evidence" for a "conspiracy theory" is complete forgery. I can't say without the shadow of a doubt that there was no conspiracy theory but I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's almost certainly not the case.
E. I just think it´s stupid to make a building that loses all integrity if it´s hit by something at the top.
It's not like its easy or cheap to make a building that can withstand the force of a fucking commercial airliner slamming into it. Not to mention that sort of shit just doesn't happen every day... or ever.
Not what I meant. I was talking about the supportive structures that were not directly hit by anything. It seems that the building was fine for some time and then it could no more stand the weight of the damaged part. Can it be so hard to build it so that if the top is smashed the building itself could still stand?
Just wanna say, in particular to 1tym and those who use the fact that the towers were suppose to be able to take a 707 impact is that yes, they were built to be able to withstand an impact from a 707, but NOT at "cruise speed". When designing a tower what would cause a giant airplane to potentially fly low enough to hit a building? When its Landing or taking off. So it wouldn't be anywhere close 607 miles per hour. Nobody ever planned a building to take a full speed jet liner.
The heat from all that fuel in the planes made the steel weak and bend which put more stress on the other beams. If one of those other beams gives away, the other beams cannot hold up all that weight from the top of the building. And when the top starts collapsing, there is no stopping it because then the beams below would've had to withstand not only the dead weight of the floors above, but the momentum from the velocity of these floors above. That is why you see the floors go down basically straight and even while coming down.
The thing is that it doesnt matter who, how and why did the wtc shit. Conspiracy or not, the outcome was what bush (im not talking about that stupid little piece of shit, im talking about his government) needed most, a war, a reelection and more power by sending other people`s sons to kill or die half the world away.
So, leaking text messages... wtf, it doesnt change anything.
I feel sorry for many us citizens that are being trained to think what us government want them to think. Think for yourself, question the authority.
On November 27 2009 02:57 randombum wrote: Just wanna say, in particular to 1tym and those who use the fact that the towers were suppose to be able to take a 707 impact is that yes, they were built to be able to withstand an impact from a 707, but NOT at "cruise speed". When designing a tower what would cause a giant airplane to potentially fly low enough to hit a building? When its Landing or taking off. So it wouldn't be anywhere close 607 miles per hour. Nobody ever planned a building to take a full speed jet liner.
That's the thing about conspiracy theories they are always wrong because they relay off of half assed assumptions such as that video with a setting like 5 inch steel on fire with "jet fuel" i'd like to see how they were allowed to take jet fuel home with them.
It's a building used for office space with shitty drywall it's also a confined space and fires burn up have you ever eaten fire or did fire play you are safe as long as you have the fire on you and no other body part above the fire and the fire doesn't melt the steel it warps the steel and as the steel is under the forces of keeping a broken tower up the more stress you put on the steel and weaken it the faster it fails.
common sense my ass it's a building if it's a structural part it's going to be under high loads even higher loads if it's holding up a building with giant holes in it, fire doesn't have to melt anything it just has to weaken or warp it enough for physics to do the rest.
And indeed the twin towers were meant to withstand a low flying plane at landing speeds not at full throttle suicide bomber style =p
On November 27 2009 03:03 coltrane wrote: Maybe I will be controversial on this....
The thing is that it doesnt matter who, how and why did the wtc shit. Conspiracy or not, the outcome was what bush (im not talking about that stupid little piece of shit, im talking about his government) needed most, a war, a reelection and more power by sending other people`s sons to kill or die half the world away.
So, leaking text messages... wtf, it doesnt change anything.
I feel sorry for many us citizens that are being trained to think what us government want them to think. Think for yourself, question the authority.
I am all for questioning authority and people doing their own research as to why the towers fell and if the government was involved. However, anyone who doesn't believe that the towers could have fallen due to the impact damage and fire are being ignorant.
There is plenty of evidence that proves why the towers fell.
Haha... To everyone who still claim that the fire was the main factor for the collapse of two carefully and extraordinarily designed modern towers...
The common sense tells you that the fire burns upwards. When a fire burns, the hot air is less dense and thus rises. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel since it just doesn’t get as hot as the melting point but let's just say it can for the sake of argument.
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.
The only part that reached the maximum temperature is where plane hit, which was the upper part and the bottom parts were hardly affected (since fire burns upwards) by heat. The disintegration of steel structure in certain area is not enough to cause "gravitational collapse" so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. How can the undamaged stories below the impact zone offer no resistance at all? (Sky scrappers are designed like Pyramids with more supporting structures as you go lower)
Also if you refer to the calculation, the kinetic energy released by the plane crash was well within the limit the towers were built to survive. Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Operation Northwoods was once a conspiracy theory. Now it's part of history. Only time will tell if US involvement in 9/11 is conspiracy theory or not.
On November 27 2009 03:40 1tym wrote: Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Two planes piloted by hijackers were flown into the WTC which lead to their eventual collapse.
Sounds pretty encompassing and a million times more likely than hundreds or thousands of people accepting their roll in killing thousands of civilians without leaving any "real" evidence behind.
Is 1tym completely ignoring the posts about steel warping from heat and it has nothing to do with melting it?
Heres a question for you 1tym and your calculator. Take everything above the collapse point, that starts leaning over and then drops, like if say... steel had given away and then snapped , sidetracking here. Ehm, taking everything above the collapse point. concrete, steel, wood... yeah everything. Now lets say the average floor is 3 meters. Calculate all that energy, dropping down 3 meters and slamming into the next floor. Do you realy think the structure is built to withstand that? =) Keep calculating everything in there as it goes down into the ground... and you should endup close to a kiloton or so of energy, going down into a 'small' area. Ground zero was hit by a tiny nuke in comparison.
Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote: Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
"David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Reptilian_shape-shifting_aliens
On November 27 2009 03:40 1tym wrote: Haha... To everyone who still claim that the fire was the main factor for the collapse of two carefully and extraordinarily designed modern towers...
The common sense tells you that the fire burns upwards. When a fire burns, the hot air is less dense and thus rises. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel since it just doesn’t get as hot as the melting point but let's just say it can for the sake of argument.
Common sense tells you to inform yourself (at least google) a little better:
Ever heard of heat transfer? Well, one of the 3 methods is radiation, and that doesn't discriminate any direction, also, the tower isn't just one big box made of steel you know? There are a shitload of flammables inside it, from office utilities to cleaning chemicals, not to mention gas pipes and other such objects, and all of them can make fire to run downward.
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.
The only part that reached the maximum temperature is where plane hit, which was the upper part and the bottom parts were hardly affected (since fire burns upwards) by heat. The disintegration of steel structure in certain area is not enough to cause "gravitational collapse" so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. How can the undamaged stories below the impact zone offer no resistance at all? (Sky scrappers are designed like Pyramids with more supporting structures as you go lower)
Dude the amount of stuff you assume is overwhelming.
You say fire only burn upwards as if someone just lighted a fucking bonfire inside the building (By the way, did you know a candle's flame can reach over 1000°C?) Even if the fuel's flame only reached 700°C or whatever you want to believe, do you think the supersonic shocks of the explosion(s) and whatever other stuff happened inside the building after the crash don't matter one bit?
Then you say skyscrapers are designed like pyramids, where the hell you do you get your facts from? I can't even picture a god damned sky scraper with that design, pyramids are basically huge blocks of rock on top of each other (think a huge stair), there were only chambers inside (some of) them because they carved the rock after building the whole pyramid and made some kind of cave or tunnel.
The twin towers were designed to be like giant hollow tubes, you can easily google that, and if your extraordinary powers of common sense don't let you arrive at the reason for that then here's a wiki:
Also if you refer to the calculation, the kinetic energy released by the plane crash was well within the limit the towers were built to survive. Refer to my earlier post.. I know there is no simple equation to determine this as there are various factors that will come in play in different circumstances, but you have to admit a lot of the events that took place on 9.11 was not sufficiently comprehensive through the official explanation provided by the US government.
Did you know that the kinetic energy equations(1/2*mV² and such) from that stupid site only apply to (ideal) rigid bodies? A plane that explodes and a building that can be brought down like that are not exactly rigid bodies.
Then you quote your figures as if you took them from some official site (like from the engineers who designed them, not the tourist guide that want to impress with some exaggerated facts like "hey did you know the tallest buildings of the world are so well built that they can withstand a boeing 707 hit?)
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote: Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
Yes, I see now but...
you have talked to atleast 100 engineers about 9/11 o.O who´s the nolife now
Why do people so badly want to believe that government, the agency in the world most responsible for the stripping of inherent human rights, is correct about everything? It's like you're begging to not be free. It's INCREDIBLY ironic that the government supporters call theorization against power "sickening". We have all watched as the years go on and our government ignores the constitution less and less, etc. While 9/11 might be everything our administration claims it is, it is still very stupid and misguided to support them. Regardless if it was a hoax or not, did we use the death of a few thousand as an excuse to cause the death of a few hundred thousand? Yes.
All of the other countless proven events of corruption make theories on 9/11 much easier to believe.
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote: Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
On November 27 2009 04:30 sith wrote: Is this seriously a fucking thread about the validity of the "PLANES DID NOT BLOW UP TOWERS" theory? Get real retards.
How many of you people that are arguing are structural engineers? Wait, none of you? Whats that sound I hear? It's the sound of a collective SHUT THE FUCK UP from every single person with a bit of damn sense in their brain. Stupid fucking youtube video's about "fire burning upwards" literally doesn't prove shit. In fact it makes your case even more stupid, since now it's obvious you don't have anyone who knows anything about engineering on your side and you're just spouting shit.
I'm not a structural engineer either, but 99% of the engineers I've talked to strongly agree that the planes could have and did cause the collapse. I think it's silly for people to argue out of their area of expertise and trust random calculations and random websites without a thought for the experts.
Stuff like this literally makes me sick.
Yes, I see now but...
you have talked to atleast 100 engineers about 9/11 o.O who´s the nolife now
ad hominem
At a top ten university in the world, while majoring in 4 different engineering fields, over the course of 5 years, I never met a single engineering major, grad student, or professor that thought anything was unusual about the impact and fire collapsing the buildings. How many Nobel Laureates have you taken a class from? At this point I honestly believe you guys are just trolling, so have fun. If you aren't, and actually want to learn something, go take some materials science and civil engineering night courses at your local university.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/video/wtc7.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200062-11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://aaronhollman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Empirestate540.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/527/notfunnye.png)
![[image loading]](http://tango.nncdn.com/nn/0/485/763/o_500505.gif)
