Jump to content

profiting off of 9-11


Recommended Posts

@DL - i had to break up my reply. the length had something to do with the formatting problem.

"The Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The BBC and The LA Times" reputable? No, they aren't.
If they are not generally reputable, then they generally lie. What evidence do you have to supports this?
"FBI HAS NO HARD EVIDENCE", I believe that has been proven otherwise lately and no, I am not going to go chasing down the info.

You're missing the point which is that the invasion of Afganistan was based on the alledged fact that Usama bin Laden orchristrated the attacks. If this was a fact, why was he, and why is not currently wanted for anything connected to 9/11 by the FBI?

FBI page: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

re basment explosions:

Unfortunately, the surviving firemen who have been interviewed and the radio calls never state or show anything like that.

Totally incorrect. The main stream media hasn't reported it.

William Rodriguez presentation

Pt4) Pre Collapse -- Sub Basement Explosions

bombs wtc basement

Pt7) The shifted slurry Walls - retaining walls of basement

waitness to explosions/basement collapse (911 mysteries pt2)

Dozens of first responders and eyewitnesses reported the same thing. This was all kept out of the 9/11 commission report. There are several videos that clearly show, both in video and audio, that at least one major explosion occured in the besements ~9 to 12 seconds before the collapses, but they're not going to seek you out -- you have to do the research. There's also sisemic evidence that suggests the same.

You also made a point that you were suprised that the pile was so small. It is interesting you mention that, because many experts had the same question. When the buildings collapsed (including 7), the pile was actually smaller than it should have been. The reason is that almost ALL of the concrete was pulverized into dust ~100 microns in size (which, according the EPA, was safe to breath of course, along with the asbestos). This is also completely impossible in a natural collapse. Demolition is something i have some expierence with and i don't care how high the towers were, concrete does absolutly not ever turn to dust, be it freshly cured or 50 years old. This is even more true with WTC 7, which did the same thing. The only explanation i have been able to find that would cause this is an immediate and drastic rise in temperature. Such a condition would vaporize the moisture in the concrete and cause it to literally explode.

Also, buildings very rarely, if ever, simply fall into their own basements -- they topple -- yet 3 steel buildings, for the first time in history, all collapsed, due to fire, all in one day, and all symmetrically into their own basement. In the case of 7, you can actually see the "kink" in the roof prior to collapse. Again, this is typical demolition stuff (the kink is the result of inner supporting members being cut first to facilitate an implosion, rather then an explosion).

I'll be glad to entertain any reasonable explanation offered to any of the points discussed, but speculation doesn't cut it. Explain to me why Atta would carry with him his will (convenient for the government)on a mission to fly a plane into the WTC. Would you?

Explain why a bunch of terrorists so dedicated to their religion would be seen getting drunk and paying for lap dances in a stripper club a day before the attack and, again, conveniently enough for the government, leave a copy of the Coran and their business cards behind. Explain to me how intelligence form Egypt, Argentina, Morocco, Brittan, Germany and Russia all warned the US about impending attacks, including "planes" and "buildings" and "New York", yet the administration says "i don't think anybody could have imagined.......". Explain the 6-Aug PDB titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Explain the long and well known relationship between the Bush and bin Laden family and why that has no bearing on 9/11.

This stuff is hard to swallow and i know it is. It is not at all comfortable for anyone. There are times when i swear that i do NOT want to be right, especially with this stuff. But once i started investigating, i went at it tooth and nail and i did not care where the chips fell. I wanted the TRUTH. Period. I went at it with the belief that the official story was at least close to the truth, but i was forced to change that belief as the mountains of evidence rolled in. It seems impossible that this can be kept under cover, but where do most of us get our news? CNN? FOX? AOL/Time Warner? When you learn that these corporations are owned by massive government contractors and have members of corporate oil sitting on their boards, then you understand exactly how a lid can be placed on this. The whistle blowers are coming out of the woodwork, but you have to find them, because you're not going to hear about it on CNN when the most important thing they are covering is Michael Jackson's sexual preferences.

If you have evidence (not speculation) that can compromise anything i have stated, then please let it be known. If not, then i suggest to all of you; please research this on your own. Read the NIST report. Find out why the EPA said the air was safe. Learn about false-flag operations and why what happened on 9/11 is nothing out of the ordinary.

Watch the 3 videos linked to in the first post.

I'm sure we can ALL agree that the government has lied to us many times in the past. Is there any reason to believe they never will again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can u all tell me what was the reason for the war on iraq?

nuclear weapons right?

just let me ask , where the heck are the nuclear weapons !!!!!!!!!!!

bush wants 2 things

first : make the american people beilive that he is protecting them from terrorists , so he always remind them with 11/9 so they will think , if Bush gone ,the terrorists will eat them alive , and that makes him stay the brisedent of the united states for along time

second : Oil

but beilive me when its time for the truth , u will see what will make u all wish to kill Bush 30000 time , by the way , this is the real number for ur dead soldiers in iraq and the number is getting bigger every day

and soon i will post a movie that proves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can u all tell me what was the reason for the war on iraq?

nuclear weapons right?

Well, first you have to decide whether you are willing to trust main-stream media that is owned by government defense contractors, much less Bush and his crew. If your answer is something along the lines of "no", then you have to question everything they tell us. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Operation Iraqi Liberation, as it was first named, was launched in 2003 as a preemptive strike to stop Iraq's alleged WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program. At least that is the official version. As we all know, no WMD's were ever found, not even the ones we sold them years ago.

On the other hand, Iran is actively perusing nukes but several estimates put them 9 to 15 years until launch day. Of course the government, i'm sure, would like to expedite that time line. According to what i am learning about the invasion of Iran, which is already laid out, this could be an extremely dangerous undertaking because China has interests there. China is already suffering rolling blackouts (even their GM factory has to shut down 2-3 days a week) because there is not enough oil to produce power. China has nuclear weapons... and a thirst for oil. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together.

What is happening is a battle for control of the worlds remaining oil and natural gas supply. Countries throughout the world are well aware of this and are positioning their military forces accordingly. If left unchecked, several experts see this ending in a showdown between the US and China.

Oh, and by the way, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists". Bush doesn't leave much room for any country who doesn't want to get involved. Abstinence = a potential target in this illegal, open ended war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some research by the NIST Fire research lab may give us some insight into the performance of High Strength concrete under fire conditions. NIST noted that normal strength concrete loses about one quarter of its strength at about 300 Degrees C. It loses about three quarters of its strength at 600 C. HSC appears to be subject to significant explosive spalling between 300 and 650 degrees C. This event could lead to premature collapse during a fire Some experiments indicate that the rate of explosive spalliing is related to rate of temperature rise, aggregate composition, thermal induced mechanical stresses, and moisture content of the concrete." From this site.

This site says everything I believe and in a much more educated way than I could ever express about the World Trade Centers. The thought of orchestrating terrorists, explosives, fires, agents, disinformationists, flights and the murder of thousands is, well, unbelievably ridiculous. As to the witnesses, people make the worst ones.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first statement is irrelevant because the towers frame (supporting members) were not concrete, nor even steel reinforced concrete. They were box steel (both the inner core and outer walls). Unless i'm not understanding something you're trying to point out, i fail to see the relationship between how concrete acts during a fire and how steel acts during a fire. Further more, any concrete building is also reinforced with steel (rebar). The hi-rise in Madrid was exactly such a structure. It was a complete raging towering inferno for ~20 hours and did not collapse. Aluminum desks were still in tact.

The second website you refer to has a lot of valid math, but not as many valid points. The guy knows his math (obvious enough as he is a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems), however what is missing is a lot of common sense, physics and the knowledge he would have had, had he read the FEMA and NIST reports. I can't fault him for the latter however, as he may have compiled his data before they were released and he didn't date his work. He may well have read the 9/11 commission report, because his line of thinking seems to mirror it.

He says...

Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
Even though he supports my own point of view (and thousands like mine), i point this out as it demonstrates a serious lack of common sense. There was not anything close to 90,000 L of fuel spilled on a few floors because the vast majority of the fuel blew right out the windows and walls and burned outside the building. He also fails to mention that the remaining fuel burned off within minutes.
However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Again, he reinforces the point of view that the steel could not have melted given the fuel source available. He may also be correct in his assumption that it is highly unlikely that the max temp reached by the steel exceeded ~750 C (1382 F). Rightly so as no fuel source available could've supported a fire much hotter than that. In fact, the estimated temp of the fire within the building was ~1300 F. Had the NIST report been available to him, or had he read it if it was, he would've learned that the highest temp. reached by the ~1% of the core columns tested was ~230 C (~450 F). Steel loses no significant strength at this temp. As any welder or blacksmith or steel fabricator knows very well, it takes a long time to heat steel. The more mass, the longer it takes. There is also thermal conduction to be considered: as you heat steel, that heat is absorbed by the the rest of the piece you are heating, requiring even more time. I doubt an army of 20 people with oxyacetylene torches, which burn at 6000 F+, could've heated the steel to a sufficient temperature, in 58 minutes, to cause the steel to fail -- on 3 buildings much less.

Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowable—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure
I'll concede that the angle brackets attaching the floor joists to the walls may have been the weakest points in the structure and, sure enough, this is used by the experts to explain the collapses. Problem is, these same experts, just as Tom does, fail to explain what happened to the 47 core columns. These box columns were massive and started off at a thickness of 4" on all 4 sides and were anchored in solid bedrock. [Building the World Trade Center (1983) - Documentary] They tapered off in thickness to .25" at the top of the towers. If the floors begin to fail and a progressive collapse ensued, what happened to the columns? Why would they magically fall over, most cut into 30' pieces (sized for the trucks that would be transporting them)?
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward...

Absolutely untrue. The walls bowed inward, not outward. This is clearly visible in several video's as well as the NIST reports.

...the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour.
Whoops. He forgot about physics here. As each floor falls onto the one below, there is a delay as that floor is loaded and it's brackets fail. NIST couldn't even reproduce this in physical models (nor could anyone else), which is why they turned to computer models.
However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

Huh? Intense heat of the jet fuel? Quick ignition? What does "quick ignition" have to do with anything? He spouts off plenty of figures and formulas and then, without any explanation, tosses in "quick ignition" as a contributing factor? Even armed with a good knowledge of math, he still can't overcome what he lacks in common sense and the information contained in many official and unofficial reports. He's totally fails to comprehend, or refuses to mention, that the vast majority of the 90,000 L of kerosene blew right out the windows and assumes it somehow remained in the building. I don't think we would need to conduct a test to prove that if you pour a gallon of water on a 2' x 2' piece of plywood, most of it is going to run off the sides. He also fails to mention that the remainder of the fuel burned off within minutes. ~20 min. seems to be a well accepted time. Then he fails to explain how 47 box steel core columns could have possibly been heated to a temperature hot enough to cause failure in 58 minutes, much less what happened to them after the floors failed, yet earlier he states:

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

And the samples tested by NIST indicate that the steel did not reach a temperature even near that.

He also fails to explain the molten metal that burned for weeks after the collapses below 1, 2 and 7 and, just like the 9/11 commission report, fails to mention WTC 7 at all.

Now both Tom, i, and thousands of others fully agree that there were no fuels available to melt steel, so what caused the 3 piles of molten metal below the 3 buildings that he fails to mention? You cannot form an accurate conclusion unless you consider all the data available and he left out major chunks of that. If you want a possible answer as to what caused the piles of molten metal, see this presentation by Steven T. Jones.

Thanks for providing that though! I appreciate your seeking out that information and this is needed for a good debate. People need to be asking questions and seeking out answers. Keep digging my friend :)

UPDATE: Here's a nice little clip that does a decent job of explaining why NORAD failed to respond on 9/11:

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

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wooo ! long posts i will not read.

just to say : atomizer, i will not do my own researsh on this topic, and i will not try to prove you anything.

my opinion is not far from epic's one (i don't know if he was pejorative, i am not) :

you can be true, you can be false, i dont care (except if it make me laugh, but you're far from accessing this goal :lol:).

if you're true, you can prove it and expose it on public place ; or fail to do so because "consipirators and associates" did a good work hiding their traces (hey, imagine, they may have set "traps" for people like you trying to take them down ? such a "conspiracy" would have required lots of anticipation ! and finding such "evidences" seems to prove there were no "conspiracy", don't you think ?).

if you're false, you're loosing your time.

i don't care because TRUE or FALSE is definately NOT IMPORTANT (yes, if i were speaking before, i'm no longer).

What IS important is WHAT YOU WANT ? !

-> jail Bush and its "team" ? whooo ! it would be very useless for people who die(d) in the WTC and in Irak ! And for those still alive, it would be even less...

-> other thing ? ANY other thing can be achieved without all those "researches", "evidences", ... (and in a MUCH MORE efficient way)

Move on, atomizer, you can say for example that disallowing OPEC members to sell their oil in any other devise than dollar is enslaving both them and you in a viciously cyclic dependant relation ; and this would be a constructive/productive subject.

But the topic you choosed, "conspiracy theory" (as said DL), is making cycles inside itself... you feed it, another feeds it, "consipirators" feeds it, and no one ever eat ! :wacko:

You're owned by these cycles... look over !


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.

Edited by Cirano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cirano -- i sympathize with your feelings, however i beg you, all of you, to not toss around insults and risk having this thread closed. This is too important an issue and people need to be made aware of what is being kept from them. I know it's hard to swallow the insults, but that is the best way to handle such people.

You have to realize that most of us have been well conditioned by the corporate owned mass-media and our government. There is a reason for everything, just as there are reasons why some people simply cannot comprehend that our "trusted" government could not possibly perpetrate such a scheme, regardless of the mountains of evidence which prove that it happens all the time.

I was ignorant myself on 9/11 and, in fact, just wanted to bomb the living crap out of whoever the government told me was responsible. It took years until i woke up and figured out who was actually responsible. I thought 9/11 was pretty much a dead issue by now, but in fact it is more alive now than it ever was. The shear number of resources available for study is literally overwhelming.

And now, for your viewing pleasure (perhaps not for the faint of heart): 9/11, Shock & Awe

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their objective was to get all aircraft out of the sky. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff (sorry for the pun). There were no aircraft flying into the country. They were all domestic commercial aircraft. It was a whole new ball of wax. They wanted all aircraft out of the sky.


Aircraft crashes into New York building

Small plane smashes into high-rise Manhattan apartment block

Witness: There were people screaming, a huge flame

President informed but crash believed to be accident

NORAD orders fighter aircraft patrol U.S. cities as precautionary measure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

• NEW: Plane registered to Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle

• NEW: Emergency call from plane indicated a possible fuel problem

• FDNY confirms at least one person was killed

• NORAD scrambles fighter aircraft though terrorism isn't suspected

source: CNN

oh, and thanks Cirano :)

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Estimate: 650,000 Civilians Have Died in Iraq

source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

Way to go Bush/Cheney -- i'm sure this will help discourage the terrorists.

North Korea Seeks Direct Talks with United States

North Korea's number-two leader is quoted as saying the future of nuclear tests in his country depends on the United States....
source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

Corruption Compromises U.S. Border Security

The Department of Homeland Security is battling corruption in its ranks...

source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

JUST ADDED: Iraq War Veteran Speaks Out

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post yesterday but there was lightning in the area. Anyway, I just went out for a scrounge around the web to look up stuff on th WTC's, NIST(they analyzed some of the debri from the collapses), and similar stuff. Good Gawd!!!!! The stuff that's out there. There is the 'No Plane Theory' :blink: (because the author's analasys showed that the tail of an aircraft didn't slow down properly on impact. I don't know how it's supposed to slow down), fusion weapons :yes: , thermate explosives and the list goes on. There is even bickering between the different theorists.

Back on to the main part of this thread. I don't suppose that linking to a periodical's web page on this topic will to any good if the periodical is under the influence of Big Brother. And I'll venture you have probably already read it. But here it is anyway. It addresses numerous points. Points I am not inclined to go chasing after.

I recently saw a tv program on the ironworkers, who normally work at building the buildings, that were brought in to pull the tons of steel out of the rubble. They worked there for months. They know how buildings are built like nobody's business. I never heard of anything where they saw anything amiss. How can so many people be involved and so little comes from those that were there? Sure, a lot of people can say this doesn't look normal or that doesn't look normal and reverse engineer a situation where the streetsweepers clean up the street, therefore there is a coverup. To many things about this situation are unique. Exceedingly tall structures, fully fueled large aircraft and the aircraft flying in at cruise speed (450 mph). Why can't the outcome be unique also?

I saw the NIST reports you refered to and they did show the walls bending in and not out as the first link I gave stated. That first link was published in Dec. of 2001. Also, it has been said that the towers should have toppled and not pancaked. One of the NIST reports shows one of the towers toppling above the aircraft impact zone.


npr. National Public Radio. I won't even say anything about them.

Foxnews on the 650,000. I'll grant that the numbers are going to be high but not that high. "discourage the terrorists"? You make it sound like the coalition forces killed them all. Even the participants of the survey you refer to attribute 31% to coalition forces (how many of the 31% were 'insurgents'?) and I am inclined to think their view, ahhhhh never mind.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Good Gawd!!!!! The stuff that's out there. There is the 'No Plane Theory' :blink: (because the author's analasys showed that the tail of an aircraft didn't slow down properly on impact. I don't know how it's supposed to slow down), fusion weapons :yes: , thermate explosives and the list goes on. There is even bickering between the different theorists.

Yeah, it's wild isn't it? I encourage you to keep digging, because you ain't seen nothin' yet :) It is difficult to sort fact from fiction at first, but it will become much clearer if you keep investigating. I strongly recommend: http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp...ect=911_project -- this is a most comprehensive timeline of the events surrounding 9/11 based solely on over 7000 main-stream news reports, all stiched together in a way that makes sense out of it all. Yes, even the main-stream media leaked a lot of little details over the years, especially the day of, and maybe for a few days after 9/11. The problem was that much of it was either buried in another story or well away from the front page and NO main-stream media outlet has bothered to connect the dots, which is why the masses are in the dark (though i'm not so sure i can call them the "masses" any longer as many, many people are waking up).

The "no-plane" gibber is applied to all 3 planes (WTC 1, 2 and Pentagon). I don't know about flight 11, other than it seems strange that an allegedly in-tact plane that nose dives into the earth would leave a debris field that stretches 6-8 miles??? I don't want to say too much on this, as whether planes, rockets, global hawks or rocks were used, i think it's pretty irrelevant. Personally, i'll stick with the planes theory at WTC 1 and 2. The Pentagon is another story and there is some pretty convincing evidence that something other than a plane hit it, namely that a 757 can't possibly fit through a 16 ft. hole without leaving all kinds of debris on the "Pentalawn" (nor was there a scratch on the lawn, which is why it's now called that :) ). However, i won't argue that either way. Study who allegedly flew the plane and who trained him and you'll learn a lot more. Also study the estimated g-forces (allegedly 3.5 G's - 270 deg. turn at 450+ mph. while descending 8,000 ft. -- yeah, we have some pilot here. One might think he'd be pretty good with a single engine Cessna, but...) the plane had to have sustained during final in relationship to what the FCS (flight control system) will actually allow (1.5 G's). Supposedly the FCS cannot be overridden by the pilot, no matter what.

As for thermate, which is thermite with a few extra ingredients, don't laugh too hard. You need to listen to what Dr. Steven Jones has to say. He stands with a lot of other experts that support his theory, which seems very solid to me. Furthermore, he managed to get samples of previously molten metal (from a 9/11 tribute monument) and have a lab test it. The results are consistent with the byproduct of thermate. And don't forget about the piles of molten metal found under all 3 towers, nor the molten metal pouring out of WTC 1 and 2 just prior to collapse. Again, what could burn hot enough to melt steel?

I don't suppose that linking to a periodical's web page on this topic will to any good if the periodical is under the influence of Big Brother. And I'll venture you have probably already read it. But here it is anyway.

Actually i haven't read it (bad bad bad) but i will shortly. In order to get a grip on that article, you have to look at a few things (this is all documented):

The Israelis, our "ally", had a massive intelligence gathering operation in process in the US prior to 9/11 and will not release information pertaining to 9/11 as a result of this operation.

see: Israeli spies part 1 and Israeli Spies part 2 -- there is a lot more info on this as well.

5 Israelis, dressed as Arabs, were arrested on 9/11 by the FBI because they were seen cheering the attacks. They were later deported.

2 Israelis working for the Odigo instant messaging company two blocks away from the WTC were sent warnings two hours before the attack. Shortly after 9/11, Odigo was purchased by Comverse Infosys, an Israeli company having offices throughout the US and whom specializes in electronic eavesdropping technology used by the US.

The secretary of Homeland Defense, Michael Chairtoff, holds a dual citizenship; US and Israel.

The cover story titled "9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Sand Up To The Facts" in the March, 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics was written by 25 yr. old senior researcher, Benjamin Chairtoff, who is Michael Chairtoffs' cousin.

So, like i said, the main-stream media is "tainted" to say the least. Also consider that, in 1989, there were about 50 corporations that owned the media (we're talking TV, cable, radio, magazines, music, news, etc.). As of 2004, that number dropped to FIVE! It's very scary that so few people have so much control over virtually everything we see, read and listen to. And then look who's sitting on the boards of those coporations and it gets worse (defence contractors and coporate oil).

I recently saw a tv program on the ironworkers, who normally work at building the buildings, that were brought in to pull the tons of steel out of the rubble. They worked there for months. They know how buildings are built like nobody's business. I never heard of anything where they saw anything amiss. How can so many people be involved and so little comes from those that were there?
I think CDI had the clean-up contract, or the bulk of it, no? One of the biggest problems here is that many of the first responders were ordered to SHUT UP (and bribed according to some reports). What i'm not sure of is why, but i'll guess it had to do with, you guessed it, "national security". Now this ticked off a lot of people, including some firemen who leaked recordings to the... well, i don't know who, i just know they were released. One of the recordings is where a fireman in one of the towers clearly states that he had 2 isolated pockets of fire that could be knocked down with 2 lines. In the later stages, just before the collapse, we can see that there is a lot less flame and a lot more black smoke, which are 2 indicators that the fire was dying because of a lack of oxygen. And then there's the photo's of the girl standing in the hole the plane caused (NIST report). Not seen in many photo's is a man standing on the opposite side of that hole.

It is very important to consider some other key information: The WTC site was a crime scene (duh). Giuliani very quickly had almost all of the steel shipped to China to be recycled. He broke a federal law by doing that and he KNEW he did (i think the mayor ought to know these things). Don't you think that, for future safety, it might be important to understand why the towers collapsed? Heck, as far as anyone knows, any tower may now suddenly collapse from fire. More importantly, had the steel been saved, it could have been analyzed and the exact cause of the collapse would've been found. I don't know about anyone else, but it shocks the living crap out of me that no one -- NO ONE -- in the white house seems to have had, nor do they now have, any interest in preforming ANY investigation as to the events of 9/11. The families of the victims had to push like mad just to introduce legislation to get the 9/11 Commission going and it was resisted by the administration every step of the way and it came 411 days after 9/11 (longer actually) and was set up with a budget of 3 million (topped out at 15) and was under an 18 month deadline AND it ended up being headed by Philip Zelikow. And this is, according to Bush, an independent investigative committee yet Philip, for all intents and purposes, is part of the administration and writes what later becomes Bush's preemptive strike doctrine -- which is ILLEGAL.

I saw the NIST reports you referred to and they did show the walls bending in and not out as the first link I gave stated. That first link was published in Dec. of 2001. Also, it has been said that the towers should have toppled and not pancaked. One of the NIST reports shows one of the towers toppling above the aircraft impact zone.

Yeah, there's lots of video of the top part of the one tower toppling. I don't know what that means, if anything, other than some people think that if any of the concrete was not going to be pulverized, it should've been that part. But then ther.... well, you'll find out. What the NIST report fails to explain in detail, among other things, is why almost all of the concrete from 3 towers is turned to ~100 micron size dust. This is impossible. Sorry. Nope. Zero. Nada. Think about that, then tie it together with something you mentioned earlier and an explination i mentioned earlier.

Foxnews on the 650,000. I'll grant that the numbers are going to be high but not that high.

No, i'm saying that is accurate at all. I just linked to the article. However, given what is known for a fact in previous wars, i certainly have no faith whatsoever that the official figures are anywhere near accurate. Look at Vietnam.

UPDATE: I really apologize for these long posts, but you have to understand that even though they are long, there is a TON of info i'm holding back to try to keep each post as short as i can.


I can't possibly go on breathing without attempting to debunk comments made by the "panel of experts" assembled by Popular Mechanics in their Mar., 2005 story...

The planes: There is no one of any significance that i am aware of that is claiming anything other than planes hit WTC 1 and 2 and that flight 11 was a plane (PA crash). The Pentagon is perhaps another matter.

The "POD": The fact is, there is some very sketchy evidence to support some sort of explosion at WTC 2, right at the nose of the plane, just a split second before it hits. Some scream "reflection", but reflections don't show up on 3 different cameras at 3 different angles. But again, i'm not aware of any one worth listening to that is exploring this theory. I'm certainly not.

No Stand-Down Order: Uh oh! They picked one of the easiest to debunk topics that happens to be studied by a lot of experts -- too bad for them. 2 ways to look at it: There WAS a stand-down order / there was NOT a stand-down order. Either one can be argued, but i prefer the latter as it is far better supported with solid evidence.

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. Now go research the London 7/7 bombings (and several others) and see what i mean.

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 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 NORAD's radar screens (i think the Pentagons screens too). Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because the military 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 absolutly false. It only added a massive amount of confusion.

Popular Mechanics, just like the government and mass-media, would like to have us believe that when a plane turns off it's transponder (which 3 planes did at nearly the exact same time i think -- imagine that) that it somehow becomes invisible. I suggest everyone inform our enemies right of way that if they intend to bomb us or send a missile or two over, they NEED TO HAVE THEIR TRANSPONDER TURNED ON otherwise they will slip right through our trillion dollar defense systems and we'll all die. And why would NORAD be looking off-shore when it knew this was a domestic threat? And what about the satellite systems? And the Pentagon radar systems? Speaking of the Pentagon, why didn't it's built in missile defense system kick in when the plane was approaching? Someone trip over the cord and unplug it? (BTW, my sarcasm is not directed at anyone here, this just gets my dander up :)).

It is also interesting to note that FEMA just happened to be training for an exercise in the area and arrived at the WTC site on 10, Sep. If you poke around, there's also quite a few more "strange coincidences", not to mention the "put" options placed on American and United airlines.

Intercepts Not Routine: NORAD scrambled 67 planes in a period of about 9 months prior to 9/11. They average ~100 / yr. Average response time: ~10 minutes. Just look at yesterday; NORAD had planes over multiple cities minutes after that private plane whacked the building in NY. I'll stop there unless asked to eloborate further.

Widespread Damage: Already well covered earlier. See William Rodriguez : 9/11 Hero for starters. Dozens of others available.

"Melted" Steel: Ok, even i misuse this term. No one worth listening to, that i'm aware of, claims the fire alone "melted" the steel. A well accepted account is that the steel was weakened, not melted, and this caused the collapse -- though it'd be the first in history. They say; "NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F". Well, maybe so, but NIST also says that of the ~1% of the steel they tested from the core columns, none got hotter than ~450 F. Why would Popular Mechanics fail to mention that little detail? Of course had the mayor not sent everything to China to be melted, we'd all know a lot more.

Now, the fact is, there WAS melted, molten steel under all 3 buildings. If the fires didn't cause this, what did? see: Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones

Puffs Of Dust: I won't touch that one. Could've been compressed air as the building collapsed. 1 point for PM.

Seismic Spikes: I'm weak in this area, but from what i understand there is evidence -- not proof -- that some of the seismic activity indicates strong, ground level explosions that don't coincide with the plane strikes or the collapses. This is reinforced by a lot of other data.

WTC 7 Collapse: Don't care how badly 7 was damaged according to them, it would've toppled, not fall at nearly free fall speed, in it's own basement, symmetrically, and become a pile of dust. Again, concrete does not get pulverized to ~100 micron sized particles, even in normal demolition operations. Funny how badly damaged 5 and 6 were, being they were right next to the towers, yet neither collapsed totally. Oh! And speaking of WTC 6, watch the videos of the first tower collapsing and watch what happens to the roof of 6 at the same time as the first tower just starts to collapse. Interesting.

The rest of the article i won't argue with as much of it deals with flight 11 and i'm weak in that area.

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-_- Even the government of China does not have that much resources and power to fake something like this. I have friends who were there, and it happened in the way you'd expect - a plane crashes into the building, the building collapses later due to damage. Nothing more and nothing less.

Conspirators always like to take insignificant 'details' and attempt to argue their points with them.

You can, in fact, make substantial amounts of 'evidence' in an attempt to 'prove' something that you know is wrong, like saying the Earth is flat. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's say you're right, in which case you should have no problem poking all kinds of holes in these alleged facts, yes?

I spent hundreds of hours doing my homework and presented a lot of information. If you're right however (and i hope you are), i'm perfectly willing to accept that, but you've got to give us something more convincing than "nothing more and nothing less". Roughly 30%+ of the people in the US, and ~66% in foreign countries polled, believe otherwise. Enlighten us. And i'm not trying to be a smart@zz, i'm dead serious. Just pick one item and go from there.

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...