Jump to content

profiting off of 9-11


FthrJACK

Recommended Posts

i just saw that :

(cutted)

To summarize, don’t attach any importance to the true. Just think what you want to have what you want. Cool !!! (j/k of course)

Thanks Atomizer for all those links. Hope one day we can learn what really happened and try to prevent it in the future.

ps: I edulcorate my post in response to atomizer.

You summarized BAD, and even if you were j/k, you're SAD (like Death).

Who are you to assume i'm this sort of guy ? do you know me? something about me? about my life? about my grandma's mother maybe? (please don't answer, that's only some sort of introducing rhetoric effect :P )

The thruth is important. But this importance is of very little importance (sic) in front of the possibilities to use the thruth in a so wide variety of ways. As a consequence, looking for the thruth (moreover when it seems to be hidden at first) to reveal it to anybody, or just to explain it to poorly-minded people is a waste of time and can be very harmful (don't forget, you're unable to say all the truth unless you're God)

You're hoping to prevent such events ? Thus forget about the truth on 9/11, because you don't need to know it to prevent such events. That's my opinion, because acting in such way may also prevent other events you didn't took care of at first, because it's targeting not the consequences of "errors" (9/11), but the roots that created the possibility of such "errors" (to be determinded soon, hold on a moment please).

I hope you understand now better (don't think i care about :rolleyes: )

++

Link to comment
Share on other sites


How come this isn't closed, but the other topic is hey?...

The mods are doing some house cleaning :)

I'm trying to persuade them to keep this open, unless it gets totally out of hand. So far so good i think. It's obviously a touchy subject, but my experience has been that usually the ones that start slinging insults come back later with a bit of a different attitude once they do some research, or, they don't answer to my challenge to provide evidence to support their POV and don't come back at all. I have similar topics on 3 other high-profile boards and they are running OK as well. I've gotten support everywhere, as well as disbelievers, and that's fine. I'm not very "socially skilled", so i'm not the best person to be debating this, but i feel that, as long as i live in this country, i have to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H

ow come this isn't closed, but the other topic is hey?...
Good question, but this is about wether there is a conspiracy or not. Not about who. ( and I'll destroy the end of the story for you. There ain't no conspiracy. :) )
BTW, my sarcasm is not directed at anyone here, this just gets my dander up smile.gif

Good sarcasm can be used to reinforce a point. No problem there.

I understand that there was little in the way of concrete in the WTCs as it was used only in floor slabs. The elevator shafts were wrapped in a few sheets of gypsum board. Of the concrete in the floor slabs, what was it's composition and how was it applied? Was there air-entrainment to lighten the load? Addatives to increase strenth and reduce the thickness needed? Organic compounds can be added to concrete to increase it's flexibility and strength (not increase it's heat tollerance).

Below is an nice brief overview of smoldering-

Smoldering.

Typical values in smoldering are around 600 °C for the peak

temperature

and this for weeks on end and these are 'typical values'. One of the reasons for the firemen to be hosing down the pile was to keep the surface temperature down so workers could work.
net heat released by the reactions is partially

transferred by conduction, convection and radiation ahead of the reaction and

partially lost to the surrounding environment

If lots of things in the environment are smoldering, things are going to get hot.
plane turns off it's transponder that it somehow becomes invisible.
From what I understand, the signal given off by aircraft is used in locating it. And this is used by other aircraft in air collision avoindance also.
And why would NORAD be looking off-shore when it knew this was a domestic threat
Because their job is to look for incoming stuff? (yeah, yeah, a little sarcasm)
Pentagon, why didn't it's built in missile defense system kick in
Well, to be honest, I didn't and don't know if they have one. If they didn't, I can imagine they do now.
NORAD had planes over multiple cities minutes after that private plane whacked the building in NY
New policy or properly enforcing some old ones. We weren't jumpy before.

Steven Jones- He's one of the people in the bickering I referred to. Here.

DL

Edited by DL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there was little in the way of concrete in the WTCs as it was used only in floor slabs.

110 floors, each 4 in. thick and reinforced. Each floor was close to an acre in size. That's a lot of concrete. Should've been a massive pile -- had ~70% not been pulverized into ~100 micron size dust which simply does not happen in a collapse, or even in normal demolitions.

Of the concrete in the floor slabs, what was it's composition and how was it applied? Was there air-entrainment to lighten the load? Additives to increase strength and reduce the thickness needed? Organic compounds can be added to concrete to increase it's flexibility and strength (not increase it's heat tolerance).
I'm almost certain that the specs for the concrete are available. That's something i'm sure you can dig up yourself. As for additives, i don't see the relationship between additives, especially those which would make it stronger (mainly less water) and the pulverizing of the concrete. What caused the concrete to go AWOL is the question???
From what I understand, the signal given off by aircraft is used in locating it. And this is used by other aircraft in air collision avoidance also.

Partially correct. What the government insinuates is that a plane with no transponder is somehow "invisible". This is plain fiction as this completely ignores what radar is. Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information. The FAA was not at fault on 9/11, NORAD was. Blame was shifted to the FAA so NORAD wouldn't have to explain the details as to why they screwed up. And actually, i don't think they screwed up. NORAD didn't respond because of all the exercises that they were involved in.

I cannot stress the importance of understanding what happened with NORAD enough. This is a key area that is studied by a lot of experts, and for good reason. Basically there's 2 lines of thinking: NORAD was ordered to stand-down / NORAD was confused. And then there's the official version(s): FAA incompetence and whatever other garbage they've manufactured by now. The FAA was certainly NOT incompetent. They are responsible for many thousands of flights every single day and that do a pretty bang-up job. Furthermore, on 9/11 the FAA did what had never before been done in aviation history: they safely brought down over 4,500 aircraft and did it quickly and efficiently. But then, all of sudden, they all become a bunch of idiots?

Blame was placed on the FAA to shift it away from NORAD.

A common tactic used in a false-flag events is to run simulations, exercises, or war games that are similar to the event you have planned. Again, this will sound very strange until you research it, so hold on to your seat... You want to blow up your train station so you can blame it on "terrorists" to rally your people to support a war they don't want to fight. What do you do? You schedule a training exercise that simulates the same event, in the same place, at the same time, except instead of an empty briefcase stuffed with newspaper, you substitute a real bomb. (Careful observers may note a certain similarity to a recent event).

On and prior to 9/11, the military and NORAD and the FAA (i think) were running all kinds of training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Global Guardian). Instead of having as many planes as they [NORAD] should have to cover the north east US, a lot of planes were sent south and north, as far as Canada, to fight imaginary Russians. One of those operations, and i forget which, was a simulated attack on the WTC and, i'm pretty sure, the Pentagon. Part of the exercises included inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of NORAD. Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because NORAD had up to 22 unidentified targets running around and not enough planes to scramble. They simply didn't know which planes were the real threat. This allowed the real planes to reach their targets which they NEVER would've been able to do otherwise. This is all well documented. Some people claim that this actually helped shorten the response time, but this is absolutely false. It only added a massive amount of confusion.

However, all of this could have been avoided and the towers would still be standing if US intelligence would not have purposely ignored warnings and stopped investigations. bin Laden could have been caught a number of times in the past, but the same excuse surfaces over and over, which is a "concern" for non-combatant casualties. However, when the US invades Iraq and drops bombs in the heart of Baghdad with the purpose of targeting 50 terrorist leaders and kills/cripples/wounds hundreds of Iraqi civilians in the process, they sure weren't concerned with civilians then, now were they? BTW, they failed in their objective -- on all 50 counts. Deciding a celebration is called for anyway, president Bush, who never served in the military, dresses up in his little military costume and boards an aircraft carrier and congratulates the men on a job well done.

Warning Signs (277)

Barry Zwicker: NORAD on 9/11: what ..

Al Taqwa Bank (19)

BMI and Ptech (19)

Al Qaeda Financing (141)

Able Danger (57)

re: NORAD radar - Because their job is to look for incoming stuff? (yeah, yeah, a little sarcasm)
They also are heavily involved in domestic activities as well -- and long before 9/11.
re: Pentagon missile defense - Well, to be honest, I didn't and don't know if they have one. If they didn't, I can imagine they do now.

Actually, i'm not sure it's one, i think it's 5 missile batteries, plus a lot of radar coverage. When asked about why everything just... well... failed on 9/11:

"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"

--'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)

If you don't agree this was a flat out lie, i'll be happy to provide resources. I also suggest you look at Warning Signs (277)

re: NORAD and crash in NY the other day - New policy or properly enforcing some old ones. We weren't jumpy before.
NORAD had been doing this previous to 9/11. We have a trillion dollar defense system in place to protect the US -- i don't think it's sitting there collecting dust, waiting for the Russians to bomb us. After the cold war a lot of restructuring happened at NORAD.
Steven Jones- He's one of the people in the bickering I referred to. Here.

I just skimmed through that for now, but it i find his unprofessional comments regarding Steven a little out of whack. Scientists are usually more professional than that. And to discredit the authenticity of a photo because it's out of focus??? Take a piece of aluminum yourself and melt it and see what you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I sat through one of those conspiracy vids and it was a long one. Interesting things to note:

*They talk about 'explosions' prior to the collapse commencing and as evidence they show an external shot, you hear a boom and then you see the sides of the building blowing out. Well, it looked to me like the sides of the building were bellying out before you see any of the sides blowing out. Looks to me like the exterior wall was bowing and holding up pretty good and the collapse had started on the interior first. But that is only what I could make out from the vid I saw with a regular video program. Also, if demolitions were used to get it to fall on it's own footprint, they failed in one structure because you can see the top toppling to one side.

*They had a photo of a main support column that had an angular cut in it like what would be seen in a demolition. Only problem was, even in the poor image, was that it had been cut with an oxy-acetaline torch. That was very clear and obvious.

*'Explosions' in the lobby and the wreckage therein. If the damage to the lobby was from explosions in the building, then why is there glass on both sides of the frame? Sound and shockwaves travel faster through denser objects if I'm not mistaken. These guys were at the terminating end of the shockwave and it had nowhere else to go.

*They comment on the damage to nearby buildings and how could the material get that far out without explosives but fail to note that many floors of side structure peel away and lean out before collapsing and that isn't taking into account any of the spring action you can get with steel.

Steel fibers are added to concrete where a high impact resistance is essential
Here

This conflicts with what some are saying:

The buildings are also thought to have

been the first buildings to use non-asbestos fireproofing. The

fibbers of the spray-on fireproofing product were reportedly ceramic

rather than asbestos. At the heart of the structure was a vertical

steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.

Here.I've heard mention of asbestos in the buildings and it did not have any concrete in it's core.

This quote contradicts some of the above and contradicts what is shown in some webpages:

The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry.
HereThis webpage also points out that the structure is different than many other steel structures in that it used the 'hollow tube' design so the inner support columns would not have been as stout as in other buildings and the floor space was wide open with no columns and trusses instead of beams.

*The narrarator also talked about how the building was air-tight, blah, blah, blah and he quickly mentioned and continued on without giving it any significance, that oxygen had to be introduced into the structure for people to breath. Excuse me? (Don't remember if this was in the vid I just watched or another one.)

*The last thing in the video and the last for me in this topic is the recording of Christopher Hanley and Kevin Cosgrove in their final moments. You hear floors collapsing, Kevin screaming and what you don't hear is sound from an explosive device.

Video is here.

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again i had to split my reply because of formatting issues...

Well, I sat through one of those conspiracy vids and it was a long one. Interesting things to note:

*They talk about 'explosions' prior to the collapse commencing and as evidence they show an external shot, you hear a boom and then you see the sides of the building blowing out. Well, it looked to me like the sides of the building were bellying out before you see any of the sides blowing out. Looks to me like the exterior wall was bowing and holding up pretty good and the collapse had started on the interior first. But that is only what I could make out from the vid I saw with a regular video program. Also, if demolitions were used to get it to fall on it's own footprint, they failed in one structure because you can see the top toppling to one side.

If you look at the photographs in the NIST report, they explain the sides bowing in actually. I completely agree, as i've seen this very clearly in videos i've seen. Now i admit i'm shooting myself in the foot here because if the sides were bowing it, this would coincide with the floor joists sagging, therefore pulling the sides in, and supporting a progressive collapse. However, i think i've brought a lot of information to light that seriously attacks a fire/damage only collapse. If you want to hear more evidence of explosions, plus watch a REALLY INTERESTING video, see: William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero

As for the top falling over, rather than vertically downward, i don't know quite what to make of that.

*They had a photo of a main support column that had an angular cut in it like what would be seen in a demolition. Only problem was, even in the poor image, was that it had been cut with an oxy-acetaline torch. That was very clear and obvious.

I agree 80%. I even took that photo and blew it up and enhanced it and, yes, it looks a lot like a torch cut. Couple things about that though:

1) why would it be cut on a ~45 deg. angle? I've cut a lot of steel after a demo and unless there's other material in the way, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.

2) the cut is not only at an angle, but is also very straight.

3) if you look closely at the top edge of the back of the beam, there appears to be a small "V" cut. Such cuts are used in demolition (i think to make sure the top part of the beam doesn't slip laterally).

However, having said that, there is equally convincing evidence it was not cut while the tower was still standing; mainly the lack of rust at the cut and the way the slag is oriented.

*'Explosions' in the lobby and the wreckage therein. If the damage to the lobby was from explosions in the building, then why is there glass on both sides of the frame? Sound and shock waves travel faster through denser objects if I'm not mistaken. These guys were at the terminating end of the shock wave and it had nowhere else to go.

An explosion in the lower levels does not necessarily equal pressure in the lobby. That could be a reason as to why the glass fell where it did. Not sure if i'm clear on your last sentence; if you're suggesting that a hit at the top of the tower could've destroyed the lobby, i won't argue that. However, watch the vid i linked to above.

*They comment on the damage to nearby buildings and how could the material get that far out without explosives but fail to note that many floors of side structure peel away and lean out before collapsing and that isn't taking into account any of the spring action you can get with steel.

Yeah, again, that's a weak point in my view. There are reports however that steel was found up to 600 ft. from the base and aluminum up to 700. A more interesting point is that there were buildings right next to the towers which were on fire and sustained MAJOR damage (5, 6), yet did not totally collapse, while WTC 7, which was a lot further away, "collapses", symetrically, at demolition speed.

Steel fibers are added to concrete where a high impact resistance is essential Here
This conflicts with what some are saying:
The buildings are also thought to have been the first buildings to use non-asbestos fireproofing. The fibbers of the spray-on fireproofing product were reportedly ceramic rather than asbestos. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Here.
I've heard mention of asbestos in the buildings and it did not have any concrete in it's core.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out fibers used in the insulation, although, it is my understanding that concrete may used as an ingredient in fire proofing. The towers had a mix of materials; there was a good bit of asbestos insulation, though not all of it was asbestos (the laws regarding asbestos were enacted during the towers construction). As far as a "steel and concrete core", that's incorrect to the very best of my knowledge -- steel only. The only concrete was in the floors (nearly an acre each x 110).

This quote contradicts some of the above and contradicts what is shown in some web pages:
The twin towers were the first super tall buildings designed without any masonry. Here
This web page also points out that the structure is different than many other steel structures in that it used the 'hollow tube' design so the inner support columns would not have been as stout as in other buildings and the floor space was wide open with no columns and trusses instead of beams.

The design of the towers was certainly revolutionary, no doubt there. However, the assumption that "hollow tubes" aren't as strong as traditional steel is wacky. In addition to the massive 47 core columns, the outer walls were also load bearing. If a natural, progressive collapse occurred due to fire, i could see the outer walls failing, but what about the core? I think it was the 9/11 commission report that dealt with the core by suggesting it didn't exist and that the center of the building was simply "hollow" and was used to house the elevator shafts.

*The narrator also talked about how the building was air-tight, blah, blah, blah and he quickly mentioned and continued on without giving it any significance, that oxygen had to be introduced into the structure for people to breath. Excuse me? (Don't remember if this was in the vid I just watched or another one.)

I haven't come across that one :) The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed in that there were louvers that closed to prevent fire from traveling vertically. Whether the louvers did their job or not, know one knows. Again, why was most of the steel shipped off to China before it could be analyzed? There was a HUGE fuss over this by experts and others to stop this nonsense but it was allowed to continue. Had the mayor not broken federal law (you can't destroy evidence at a crime scene), we would know what happened.

*The last thing in the video and the last for me in this topic is the recording of Christopher Hanley and Kevin Cosgrove in their final moments. You hear floors collapsing, Kevin screaming and what you don't hear is sound from an explosive device.

Video is here.

I'd suggest watching the William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero video first. You'll probably enjoy it. After that:

9/11 Truth: What Is Thermite? -- you MUST SEE THIS!!! In addition to it's outstanding entertainment value, it demonstrates what thermite looks like when burning (on the hood of a French car) and what it is capable of. Keep in mind though that thermite can be manipulated in sevral ways to achieve a particular effect. Here it simply burns, but it can be mixed to explode as well, such as for a linier shaped charge that will cut steel instantly.

Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones

MIT engineer and research scientist..

9/11, Shock & Awe: clip from "Hijac..

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

source: here

Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress

The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when the Democrats lost control of both houses, the latest Times/CBS News poll found. (Sept. 21, 2006)

Complete Results

Poll Shows a Shift in Opinion on Iraq War

Americans increasingly see the war as distinct from the fight against terrorism, according to a new poll. (Aug. 23, 2006)

Complete Results

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with atomizer, however I feel as a british citizen i haven't really belived the american media since it happened, always seemed to far fetched, also we seem to ahve lots of documentires trying to explain it all the time, apparently certain ones have been banned, but there are a lot of controversal (at least thats how they like to advertise them) about what happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read most of this thread, but i don't have enough time to read it all. Also i have extensively studied both sides of this argument, mostly because i enjoy trying to figure out why the other sides feels the way they do about the subject at hand.

A month or so ago i watched the homemade movie "Loose Change" made by Dylan Avery and some of his friends. In this movie he claims that he US government, for whatever reason, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

He is arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if this is true, the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people. Then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

It has also been said that the government didn't have enough time to remove Dylan Avery's website. The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to stop this website long before it became popular? I find that highly unlikely.

Steel does melt at 1525° C, and even though jet feul burns at only 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C. I cite the following sources for this fact.

National Institue of Standards and Technology Fact Sheet

Popular Mechanics

Guide to loose change movie

Now, i'm not going to say that the government did everything perfect here, that's not the case. But, think about this. Shortyly after 9/11 we began a preemptive strike of sorts on Iraq. If we had not done this it can almost be guarunteed that another attack would've occured. And undoubtably the government would be blamed for not noticing the facts. You cannot sit idly by when you have a capable enemy with a deep hate for your whole country.

That's all i have for now, please pardon any mistakes

edit:spelling and grammar

Edited by underdone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A month or so ago i watched the homemade movie "Loose Change"...

I will link to that stuff, but i don't give it a very high score on the credibility scale. Keep digging and you'll find far better evidence supporting the government was deeply involved. Here's some questions to ask yourself:

1) who had anything to gain by this? Who is profiting?

2) who had the means and motive?

3) what are false-flag operations and how common are they?

4) is it really true that a LOT of people would have to be involved to pull this off?

5) how many corporations own the vast portion of all forms of main-stream media and who are they?

6) why didn't NORAD intercept any of the planes in over 1 1/2 hours?

7) who coined the name "al-Qadea" and when?

8) is there really a global terrorist network?

9) is there really a link between "al-Qadea" and the Talliban?

10) what's this about "peak oil"?

He is arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if this is true, the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people. Then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
I dunno. Don't want to kill all the tax payers? :)
It has also been said that the government didn't have enough time to remove Dylan Avery's website. The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to stop this website long before it became popular? I find that highly unlikely.

That point may be far more relevant than i give it credit for. However, several other websites and photographs and videos have "disappeared" since 9/11. Why, i don't know. Maybe some simply moved on to other things, but some of the content that was supposedly posted on some of these sites was rather damning. It is also interesting that there are no cached copies for some of these sites on Google, MSN, Yahoo or the Internet Archive.

Steel does melt at 1525° C, and even though jet fuel burns at only 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C. I cite the following sources for this fact.
Absolutely correct. I incorrectly substitute "melting" for "weakening" myself sometimes. I don't think anyone is claiming that the steel melted, but rather that it simply lost a lot of its strength due to heat. Several problems with that: One tower fell in 58 min.. That doesn't seem like enough time to heat 47 core columns and the exterior walls to the point of failure. Also, the estimated temp. of the fires was ~1300 F and, as you stated, steel loses about 1/2 it's strength at ~1100 F. The core columns were also protected with drywall. If you read the final NIST report, you'll find that out of ~237 pieces of steel tested, only 6 showed signs of reaching temps above 600 C for 15 min.. The rest were less than 250 C (there is no substantial weakening at this temp).
Now, i'm not going to say that the government did everything perfect here, that's not the case. But, think about this. Shortly after 9/11 we began a preemptive strike of sorts on Iraq. If we had not done this it can almost be guaranteed that another attack would've occurred...

Don't be so sure about that before you study the facts. Most of us get our information from main-stream media and what the government tells us. I think you'd agree that our government has lied many times in the past. Is there any reason to believe they stopped at some point? Go back a few posts and find the 3 links i posted to link to a 3 part documentary.

Should also add this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv -- Obviously this is nothing convincing by it self, but watch what happens in the narrow gap between the two buildings in front of the base of the tower. You'll see white smoke rising just prior to the collapse. I could see black smoke resulting from burning JP-8 and debris (like at the top of the tower), but why white?

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will link to that stuff, but i don't give it a very high score on the credibility scale.
I agree with you there, almost every point he makes is backed up by a single garbled transmission, or an interview of one person. If the person in the interview was at the actual event he is in all probability suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. One of the symptoms of this disorder is memory loss. Memory loss can lead to memory bias, which according to wikipedia is "A memory bias is a type of cognitive bias, which may either enhance or impair the recall of memory, or they may alter the content of what we report remembering." This in itself should refute all eye-witness stories because of the effect traumatic events have on the human brain.

Wikipedia Memory Biases

Wikipedia Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

1) who had anything to gain by this? Who is profiting?

2) who had the means and motive?

3) what are false-flag operations and how common are they?

4) is it really true that a LOT of people would have to be involved to pull this off?

5) how many corporations own the vast portion of all forms of main-stream media and who are they?

6) why didn't NORAD intercept any of the planes in over 1 1/2 hours?

7) who coined the name "al-Qadea" and when?

8) is there really a global terrorist network?

9) is there really a link between "al-Qadea" and the Talliban?

10) what's this about "peak oil"?

1. According to wikipedia Al-Quadea who was attributed for the 9/11 attacks is "Al-Qaeda is an armed Sunni Islamist terrorist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate."

a. It sounds to me like Al-Quadea would profit through this by furthering their stated goals.

2. Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests in the past.

3. I've never heard of this before, but from what i have learned. In theory it sounds like a good idea for military perparedness. But clearly more caution needs to be excercised when doing these around unfriendly or even friendly countries.

4. I'm going to decline a definitive answer on this one due to lack of knowledge about the inner workings of our government.

5. I do not know the exact number here, but i would venture that its a large majority. Which makes sense it is not cheap to broadcast media accross an entire nation, let alone the world.

6. This one is really long so i'll just put a link Popular Mechanics - 9/11 Theories

7. I was unable to find enough evidence for a conclusion, but the opinions of when and why vary. Wikipedia says that it was fromed some time in 1990 with no mention of a person who coined this term. Others say that the bush administration came up with this term to label them. I don't like either of these explanations but the latter makes more sense. If the group had been left unlabeled people would be sure of where to direct their anger or whatever they felt from the 9/11 events.

8. No, there is not a global terrorist network. But there are plenty of terrorist cells that have committed crimes around the world.

9. Absolutely, and i quote from wikipedia

In 1996, Saudi Citizen and former CIA agent Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization.
10. Peak oil is the peak of the entire planets oil production. I do not doubt that we are very close to this peak. I'm going to assume that you were referring to the so called invasion of Iraq, correct me if i'm wrong. If this was the intent, why did we not invade their close neighbor Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has around 2x more oil than Iraq does.

Wikipedia Al-Qaeda

Wikipedia Taliban Movement

Wikipedia Peak Oil Theory

Map of Oil Distribution

He is arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if this is true, the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people. Then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
I dunno. Don't want to kill all the tax payers? smile.gif

That wasn't really my point, i was trying to say that if they can kill thousands. What's stopping them from killing a college students family?

It has also been said that the government didn't have enough time to remove Dylan Avery's website. The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to stop this website long before it became popular? I find that highly unlikely.
That point may be far more relevant than i give it credit for. However, several other websites and photographs and videos have "disappeared" since 9/11. Why, i don't know. Maybe some simply moved on to other things, but some of the content that was supposedly posted on some of these sites was rather damning. It is also interesting that there are no cached copies for some of these sites on Google, MSN, Yahoo or the Internet Archive.

Very good point, i never noticed that none of the sites archived it. I'm not quite sure what would cause them not to archive it.

If you read the final NIST report, you'll find that out of ~237 pieces of steel tested, only 6 showed signs of reaching temps above 600 C for 15 min.. The rest were less than 250 C (there is no substantial weakening at this temp).
I know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed. And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.
Don't be so sure about that before you study the facts. Most of us get our information from main-stream media and what the government tells us.

I agree that the government has and still does not tell us the whole truth. However, you must take into account what would happen if the government told us everything that happened. National panik would undoubtably ensue soon after. So, i think that in this case ignorance is bliss. However there are some cases where i wonder why the information was witheld.

watch what happens in the narrow gap between the two buildings in front of the base of the tower. You'll see white smoke rising just prior to the collapse.

I watched this video multiple times and i saw the white smoke. I'm not a structural engineer so i'm not sure of what could cause this to happen. But i do know that this video is extremely poor quality, which makes it likely that the video was edited. And if it wasn't that the brain is making assumptions from the image due to lack of conclusive data. Or, maybe the white smoke was caused by a fire down below being sprayed on by firefighters or from other sources of water or a similar subtance.

And as a final note to atomizer: I may disagree with your point, but i respect your ability to intelligently argue it.

edit: dead link

Edited by underdone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. According to wikipedia Al-Quadea who was attributed for the 9/11 attacks is "Al-Qaeda is an armed Sunni Islamist terrorist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate."

a. It sounds to me like Al-Quadea would profit through this by furthering their stated goals.

2. Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests in the past.

3. I've never heard of this before, but from what i have learned. In theory it sounds like a good idea for military preparedness. But clearly more caution needs to be exercised when doing these around unfriendly or even friendly countries.

4. I'm going to decline a definitive answer on this one due to lack of knowledge about the inner workings of our government.

5. I do not know the exact number here, but i would venture that its a large majority. Which makes sense it is not cheap to broadcast media across an entire nation, let alone the world.

6. This one is really long so i'll just put a link Popular Mechanics - 9/11 Theories

7. I was unable to find enough evidence for a conclusion, but the opinions of when and why vary. Wikipedia says that it was formed some time in 1990 with no mention of a person who coined this term. Others say that the bush administration came up with this term to label them. I don't like either of these explanations but the latter makes more sense. If the group had been left unlabeled people would be sure of where to direct their anger or whatever they felt from the 9/11 events.

8. No, there is not a global terrorist network. But there are plenty of terrorist cells that have committed crimes around the world.

9. Absolutely, and i quote from wikipedia

In 1996, Saudi Citizen and former CIA agent Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization.
10. Peak oil is the peak of the entire planets oil production. I do not doubt that we are very close to this peak. I'm going to assume that you were referring to the so called invasion of Iraq, correct me if i'm wrong. If this was the intent, why did we not invade their close neighbor Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has around 2x more oil than Iraq does.

I'm familiar with the you links you provided regarding the above. Each of those questions is an investigation in its own right however and i encourage you to dig deeper. I tend to agree that al-Qaeda was manufactured by the US government and that there is no terrorist network as the administration claims, though the threat of terrorist attacks has never been greater than it is today i think. Information from the CIA has only reinforced that. Now we have a problem; why would the government manufacture a non-existant threat? Well, this carries us right into what a false flag OP is (i'm not quite sure if you correctly understood it)...

A false flag operation is a means to achieve a goal by deception. Quite often it is simply a matter of "attacking" yourself and blaming it on someone else. This rallies the people to support your goal. Let's say i have an interest in starting a war for political reasons. After setting the seeds of blame for months/years to get the peoples attention, i could then bomb the white house. Now i've really got their attention and they're really mad. I funnel that anger and at the small end of the funnel i place a terrorist network with pictures of people who look very "suspicious". The people care less about the target than they do about avanging the US, so this only makes it easier to create a target. So i have now manufactured a reason for war that will help me achieve my goal. Even though the both the attack and the reason for the war were manufactured, it doesn't matter as long as i can keep the majority of the people believing them. And if they start to sway, heck, i can always change the rules of the game -- or attack myself again.

Obviously there are similarities to 9/11 in that example, but you'll also find that this example is similar to the Reichstag fire which put Hitler in power, led to a police state, reduction of freedoms and, eventually, the invasion of Poland. It is also similar in principle to events that took place in the Tonkin Gulf that got us into Vietnam (officially anyway). It is also similar in principle to what would have taken place had Operation Northwoods been approved by Robert McNamara and which would have led to war with Cuba. It is also similar to many other false flag events throughout history, the first of which may have occurred in ancient Rome. The point is, if 9/11 was a false flag event to faciliate the persuit of a political agenda, it certinly wasn't a noval idea, no matter how repulsive it may seem to many people.

That wasn't really my point, i was trying to say that if they can kill thousands. What's stopping them from killing a college students family?
Again, i can only speculate, but i would think that you don't want to just start rubbing people out willy-nilly. There are many, many people and organizations fighting to expose the truth to 9/11 including government whistle blowers. I think they'd be in more danger than most, however since they already got their story out it would look awful suspecious if they drove off a cliff, not to mention the effect this would have on others trying to expose the truth (this would only further solidify their efforts).
I know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed. And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.

According to the final NIST report, gross weight of the 767 that whacked WTC 1 was 283,600 (it was lightly loaded in terms of passengers, luggage and fuel (~10,000 gal. at impact)). I'm not sure about the stats for the WTC 2 plane. Still, this leaves the speed problem. Although i don't have an education nor extensive background in engineering, it appears that most things that are designed with a particular criteria in mind can usually surpass expetations. By how much depends, to a point, on what it is: Aircraft have to be kept light and the line between spec and real-world is probably thin. A building however is another story. I'm not really trying to suggest anything, just bringing up a point. However, i've found very conflicting reports of what aircraft velocity was used for the towers and have seen figures as high as 600 mph:

Robertson conducted a study to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139]A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). [ref][ref2, NIST, pg 15, 17 (html ver) however NIST states no evidence found to support claim]

I'm pretty sure however that the 600 mph figure was not used during the design, but rather as a "what if" scenerio.

re: WTC 1, NIST claims 6 core colums were severed and 3 damaged. There were 47 columns. They claim that 43 columns had their insulation stripped on one or more floors. The building did what it was designed to do, which was to redistribute the weight carried by the severed steel to surrounding steel. So now we have a big ball of fire which then continued to burn and, according to NIST and others, caused the towers to collapse (along with the damage of course). I mentioned the tempatures recorded by NIST for the steel previously. Nearing the collapse, people are photographed standing in the hole where the plane hit and i can't see any fire worth mentioning behind them, though there is fire above them (if you haven't seen them, i'll dig them up). So the steel is heated for about an hour and... splat. My question is, is it possible to heat both the outer walls and central core columns to a tempature sufficient to cause failure in an hour?

The other MAJOR problem is the lack of concrete. ~110 floors, each nearing an acre in size and 4" thick with reinforcement wire. That's a LOT of concrete, yet ~70% of was pulverized into a fine dust (~100 micron in size). I have some experence in demolition and i've seen quit a few photographs of demolitions. This simply does not happen, even when traditional demolition charges are used. The concrete, for all intents and purposes, pretty much dissapeared. Why? And why did the same thing happen not only to WTC 1 and 2, but 7 as well?

Then we have NASA thermal images that show tempatures in the 1000 F area 5 days after the collapses under wtc 1, 2 and 7. If the estimated temp of the fire was 1300 F, why would temps close to that, and even exceeding that for one tower, be recorded 5 days later after thousande of gallons of water had been dispensed? There should've been no fuel source to support tempatures that high.

I agree that the government has and still does not tell us the whole truth. However, you must take into account what would happen if the government told us everything that happened...
I will hesitantly agree, however if information is being witheld regarding 9/11, as i'm certain it is, it needs to be made public. I don't claim to be any sort of finger on the pulse of US opinion, but it appears to me that the 9/11 truth movement is only gaining steam as time passes. Films like TerrorStorm and Loose Change 2 have both allegedly hit the top 100 most watched videos on Google. Point is, i hope the hand of truth is forced now, while people care, then 30 years from now when no one will care.
I watched this video multiple times and i saw the white smoke. I'm not a structural engineer so i'm not sure of what could cause this to happen. But i do know that this video is extremely poor quality, which makes it likely that the video was edited...

The guy that filmed it is in the public eye in some form. I forget if he's a journalist or what. I watched an interview with him and he seems very ethical. He didn't really try to prove it was an inside job, he just had a lot of questions. What was also very interesting about the whole film, which contains audio, are the sounds he recorded. The distance between the camera and the tower is known and when you remove the delay, you hear the sound of a rather significant "BANG" ~9 seconds before the collapse. This was recorded (and felt) by others as well.

And as a final note to atomizer: I may disagree with your point, but i respect your ability to intelligently argue it.
Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. I enjoy a good debate -- besides, if i can keep you on the hook long enough, you'll start digging deeper and i'll win ya over :)

For your enjoyment:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. [Rebuilding Americas Defences, Project for the New Anerican Century (PNAC), pg 50-51 (link to PDF)]

All worth while videos:

9/11, Shock & Awe: clip from "Hijac..

Barry Zwicker: NORAD on 9/11: what ..

Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...