If the government was in charge of 9/11 what's the deal with terror?

I agree, there would be traces of an explosion in the aftermath, but go through some of the links. FEMA never did or allowed antone to check for evidence of explosives used, their resoning was that they already knew the cause of the devestation.

Seems like FEMA's reports came out very quickly detailing how the burning of large puddles of jet fuel burning for 40 min and 110 min. is what brought the buildings down. But in light of all of the eyewitness acounts and videos and seismic evidence showing explosions just before the collapse, not to mention the crater left where the smaller building 7 was, FEMA should have at least entertained the possibility that terorrists planted exploseives in the buildings!

But they didn't, so that part makes no sense at all when compared with the traditional 911 story. It does however make sense if you wanted to play down witness' reports and sweep something under the carpet.

Originally posted by ledbedder20
I agree, there would be traces of an explosion in the aftermath, but go through some of the links. FEMA never did or allowed antone to check for evidence of explosives used, their resoning was that they already knew the cause of the devestation.

Seems like FEMA's reports came out very quickly detailing how the burning of large puddles of jet fuel burning for 40 min and 110 min. is what brought the buildings down. But in light of all of the eyewitness acounts and videos and seismic evidence showing explosions just before the collapse, not to mention the crater left where the smaller building 7 was, FEMA should have at least entertained the possibility that terorrists planted exploseives in the buildings!

But they didn't, so that part makes no sense at all when compared with the traditional 911 story. It does however make sense if you wanted to play down witness' reports and sweep something under the carpet.

Where can I find the links to support this or are you just spouting off opinion?

Istvan do you have a link showing that study that jet fuel couldn't have damaged the steel structure?

Thx.

I thought someone posted 95 links, I've already posted a few. I'm not here to do people's research for them and since every time one of you guys says something ridiculous and I post something proving a subject, you guys keep coming back with ridiculous stuff. So, it doesn't really seem like you really have a mind somewhat open enough to admit that you're wrong, much less change your opinion, so for me to go back through all of my links every time is a waste of time.

So do your own research, read the FEMA reports, read reports by engineers about the FEMA reports and then start making accusations, but until then, your actions make you look not only ignorant, but lazy.

That was to skibum, not you slank.

I believe I posted a link about that subject, go back in the thread a little.

Also, maybe in the same link, molten steel was found almost a month after the attacks at the bottom of the wreckage. Experts have said that that shouldn't have been there. I don't know what it means, but still a little suspicious.

I know in mines, there are pops and explosions from compression stress fractures, I would guess those would be possible in a tower beginning to crack, but am no expert on that.

It might be a possible explanation of why people heard pops and explosions. A truly dispassionate objective expert would probably be able to give better reference one way or the other.
.

I'm not the one making the claims, so I'm not the one who has to prove anything.


You say FEMA says so and so then I go check the links you give and find out you haven't even read your own link.You post wrong links to try to verify some of you information, gee i wonder who that makes look bad?

Here's a link to an interview with Osama Bin Laden, in which he says he was not responsible for the attacks. And I'll tell you why I believe him, when a terrorist commits an act of terror, they usually want you to know who did it and why they did it, so they can further advance their cause. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility for the same event! So it doesn't mesh, that having such a well organized group and the ability to hide, that bin Laden would lie about the attacks, it wouldn't help advance his cause if he did the attacks and take responsibility for it.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Well skibum, I'm not here to prove anything to anybody, I'm here to spread information, so I don't owe you anything, you want to be irrational, then that's on you, but I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to change your mind.

And if I posted a bad or wrong link, then I apologize. Please let me know which one because I can't seem to find it.

I guess one of my bigger hesitencies in completely believing it was staged is the insurance companies. You know how insurance companies are all over a situation if they have to pay out money. I suppose you could argue that even they were in shock for a while.

1) Would they have known? [been told]

Insurance companies own huge portions of the Market, would they have been scared off by the threat that the truth would have collapsed the NYSE or something? But 4 to 7 billlion is a HUGE payout.

2) Would the instigators have been able to pay them off somehow? [Government money or something?]

3) Would the instigators have simply used good old fashioned mafia style intimidation?
.

I will try not to get to personal here, but the more emotionally attatched one is to a particular view, the more subject it is question. I realize it may upset some people to talk about and dwell on a subject that they may find upsetting and disturbing, but the search for truth should know no bounds.

Truth does not adhere to our emotional attachments, It simply is what it is.

911 is such a significant event, it demands more scrutiny not less, especially in light of the fact that 2 wars have been fought on the basis of the conventional explanation.
.

That's why the owners, The Silverstein Group, are in court with their insurance carrier. But I assure you, that whoever is behind 911 (I believe it's the government) considers 7 billion pocket change. Look at some of the richest families in the world, the Rockefellers, Bin Ladens, Rothchilds, etc.. They could put 10 billion and still be wealthy for the rest of their lives. Not the best point , but still a point.

This includes some of the story:

letsroll911.org...

His point wasn't that they caused more damage than they had tried to, his point was that more damage was caused than he would have thought if planes hit the WTC towers. See, a little difference in context than we're led to believe, show that video to an arab who speaks the language, I found someone and they translated the point as though Bin Laden was surprised at the damage in general, not that they had been overly successful in a mission.

Ok im not sure what you are arguing here. You seem to be saying the same thing I said

What i said was "... Didnt you see the video of OBL prasing the work, saying that even he didnt think the towers would come down that the were hoping for at most lots of loss of life and large fires. "

While we are on this topic you said:

Here's a link to an interview with Osama Bin Laden, in which he says he was not responsible for the attacks. And I'll tell you why I believe him, when a terrorist commits an act of terror, they usually want you to know who did it and why they did it, so they can further advance their cause. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility for the same event! So it doesn't mesh, that having such a well organized group and the ability to hide, that bin Laden would lie about the attacks, it wouldn't help advance his cause if he did the attacks and take responsibility for it.

First, that info on that link seemed totally made up to me. It made OBL out to be a saint. I was literally laughing when i read this...


"I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle."


What about all those embassay bombings, in africa, the beheading of civilians in iraq.. need i say more? Furthermore, do you think that NO person who speaks arabic has viewed that tape and came to the same conclusion that you have. Do you think NO arab country, or group of arabs would speak out against the wrong US interpretation of the binladen tapes DO you think the US would be THAT STUPID to purposfully mistranslate the binladen tapes and the broadcast them to the world!?!? I dont know if you said what you said to wrile me up or if you really beleive that link, if its the latter, showing utmost restraint, i honestly dont know what to say... Well i do know what to say, but it would be vastly inappropriate.

Breif intermission:
Look everyone this commercial jet liner is fireing a missile on the tarmac!!!




Ok.. back to the structure and colapse of the WTC

As far as the structure of the WTC towers, they most definitely had a CORE support structure!

OK im sorry, i was tired last night, what i meant to say was that the support beams that would usually run vertically down a buildings structure all across the floor was not present in the WTC. In order to make the most efficient use of space, the engineers developed the elevator shafts in the middle of the WTC, along with the support beams this would create "wide open" floor space and no obtrusive load bearing beams in the middle of the office space. To compensate the Skin of the tower, what gave it its definitive look was like a steel net that ran all the way down distributing the load. Please see link below if you dont read the column (which i highly suggest you read) At least look at the diagram to see what im talking about, if you still dont follow me. There is nothing madeup or covered up here this is commonly available public knowledge of how the WTC was built. Solid facts.

www.dailyillini.com...


Floor plans:



Besides the ones in the middle do you see any support beams anywhere else like you would in a usual office building?

This is from a Uni in AU's civil engineering dept.
PLEASE READ THIS WHOLE THING BEFORE commenting to my post PLEASE

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

That says what im claming better than i ever can.

Now they even claim that what they comment on is speculation, but i trust their speculation due to their level of education, and their time spent on this subject.


OK, so now that we know that A) the secondary support beams were located in the middle near the elevator shafts B)the airplane took out a lot of the support beams, not all all of them, thats why remained standing for some time...3) the fire did the rest??

On to the fires....it DID NOT MELT THE STEEL!
(did he just say what i think he did?? is what you are probably asking yourself)


Henry Koffman of USC

Many people believe the steel either melted or came close to melting. Henry Koffman, director of the Construction Engineering and Management Program at the University of Southern California, make such a remark in an interview:

"The bottom line, in my opinion, is that intense heat from the jet fuel fires melted the steel infrastructure, which went past its yield strength and led to the collapse of the buildings,..."

Professor Eagar of MIT

Thomas Eagar is a professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society published his analysis that explains the fire could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel. His main points were:

Steel melts at 1500�C (2700�F).

Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of approximately 1000�C (1800�F) when mixed with air in perfect proportions,but this only causes steel to glow a bright red. Therefore, theories that claim the steel melted violate the laws of physics.

Professor Connor of MIT

An article in October 2001 of Scientific American quotes Connor:


"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection"



Wow of course the steel didnt MELT .. MELTING would mean that it turned into molten metal, a LIQUID... sorry if I used the word MELT anywhere i did not mean to...I was hinting that the temps got high enough to warp the steel. At the temp of 1100 F the steel has HALF of the structural integrity that it had at room temp. so that means its only a matter of time before things come crashing down....

LASTLY those "series of exposions" that you may see from various videos are the floors pancaking one another..thats why the bulding fell. all you need is for 1 floor to give way.. the rest is history... Even more lastly, the shiny silver body of the planes looks like a AA plane to me. Niether of the 2 planes looked even remotely military. Show me one proof of evidence that they were military. (please dont give me the pathetic pod picture either)

The planes could not damage significant amount of steel beams for several reasons:

The first plane crashed right in the middle with low speed, hitting the core from the longer side. The second jet slipped off the core, ending up at the floor area and could have left the core hardly damaged (interesting that both planes stopped exactly inside the buildings...)

The steel beams were strong enough to support this massive building, I doubt that the hollow wings could cut in half any of them, only the plane's body could push them outwards with the mass of concrete.

The collapse caused by fire... is nonsense. There was no inferno, after the crash the furniture and contents started burning, I believe, that the buildings should have been standing for several hours , which would be enough to stop the fires.

Patriot -

I enjoy your contribution to this discussion - It's a f*cked up and extremely emotional issue, and I admire the fact that you can present your evidence and not let this thread turn into a flamewar.

Takes guts and maturity. So, thank you.

I will admit that there is evidence to back up both sides of the WTC collapse issue - everybody here has their gut instincts as to why they collapsed, and I think most of us come here for intelligent dialogue to try to deal with that helpless feeling of not being able to reconcile what we think we're seeing with what we're being told we're seeing.

There is a lot of grey area in terms of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Do you think you can help me understand why WTC 7 collapsed?
Perfectly within it's own footprint?

First of all Istvan, look at the floor plan i posted, how on earth could a commercial jet liner (even if it was going "slow" which is probably over 200 mph) miss the core of the building... If you superimpose a 737's image over that floorplan youd see that its close to impossible for it to miss the core. With the kinetic energy of that plane it would have been very easy to damage the core enough so that the fires could do the rest. Believe what you may.. im not here to force my beliefs on anyone, im just stating stuff I see that makes sense in my head. (i guess and you are doing the same too)


Where can a airplane "squeeze through" here?.... there just isnt enough space.. it had to have hit the support columns really hard even in the angle it was coming in at.

www.thewebfairy.com...

Bunkbuster, thanks for your post, and yes I agree it is hard to keep the tone of our debates to a civilized level, (I often find myself hitting the delete key ) But I try And thank everyone that does the same.

You are right, and you know what theres a first time for everything...
Building 7 really did peak my interest. According to me, WTC 1,2 fell due to A) hot jet fuel, B) its architecture, and C) the plane knocking otu key support columns. WTC7 had none of the above but fell just like it was imploded. This really puzzled me, because ive seen implosions live before and this was textbook implosion. So i went to some of the "conspiracy theory sites" and found (ill be damned ) credible evidence that WTC7 was indeed imploded. Larry Silverstien, owner of the WTC complex was told that the fire could not be contained via the cheif of the FDNY, and he gave the order to "pull it" according to this site which gets its sources from a PBS documentary, which it also had a clip of on the web. So that is cut and dry as to what happend with WTC7, in my eyes. Now the "WHY". Why did he decide to "pull" the building? Some say it was a massive gov coverup, gov documents existed in the building that needed to be destroyed. I personally think that it was A) to minimize fire to other neighboring buildings, B) for the insurance money.

RE this topic i have 2 final things to say...

Even after I have laid out for you all, as much scientific proof and credible sources as i can muster to support my theory, there are those of you who will continue to believe that the WTC 1,2 was indeed taken down via explosive charges, and thats cool. Like i said, I just wanna post some food for thought, im not here to impose my ideas on anyone. But I have one question for you all. According to your logic and reason, the gov did this to cause fear and panic in the public right? As I recall one of you (maybe on another thread) exclaimed "more fear, more control they have over you" . Which is a good theory. But if they wanted to inflict upon us max fear, why o why did they have the buildings implode? why not explode the buildings? that way instead of neatly crumbling down it would go all over the place, into other buildings, killing 10x more people causing 10x more damage. They could have easily claimed that AQ had truck bombs in the building which were much more laden with explosive or made up somthing... Either way you look at it, implosions are used to minimize mess, and if i was the gov orchestrating a feat of this magnitude, in order to inflict the maximum amount of fear upon the people (perish the thought) I would make it as messy as possible.

Now i know probably none of you care about this last part, but im going to say it anyway (cause this is my post. ) The fact that the buildings stood for as long as they did, and came down the way that they did, was a small miracle on that day in hell.



[edit on 20-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

[edit on 20-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

but what about all the people that are arrested around the world, the people that seem to be connected to 9/11 attack? The Dutch government recently told that two of the highjackers tried to take flight lessons in the Netherlands. Alot of people that are linked to the 9/11 attack are arrested around the world by different countries. How does these countries fit in this government conspirincy theory?

What about the attack in Spain, is that also been set up?

It makes me sick of the thought this was a conspiricy of your government. If it's true, I want to die now. Even when im not an american citizien. If this is were the world is going to, I don't want to live any longer.

[edit on 20/8/2004 by rai76]

Good point.. as i said there is way too much speculation, misty conclusions, and open ends to support a massive government planning. The only level that our gov was responsible for 9/11 was letting these scumbags into the US in the first place (poor immigration screening), not enough inter agency communication, and just a relaxed state of non-readiness. It was more of not knowing what was going on, than knowing everything that was taking place/making it happen

Sorry if I fanned any flames guys, especially to RP and skibum. I sincerely am.

But one thing I need to mention now is that just because we can't rationalize the speculated reasons doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence.

People have told me that if it looks like, sounds like and walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Well everything I've seen has shown me a duck. It's not the same duck that the media has tried to portray to us though. So I think that if we SEE something, then don't discredit it because the media says it's something else.

None of the UA or AA passenger lists contain the names of the supposed hijackers. They don't even have any arabic names on there. At first I thought that it was some respectful discretion on their part not to publicize "evidence" or maybe just in respect to the family members of those who perished on those flights, but then I dug and found that UA, at least, said there were never any more names on the passenger lists.

I thought I saw it on UA's site, but now it's not there, so I'm sorry. That's just one of those things that slowly convinced me along the way and I can't currently provide anything to back that up.

However, it is well documented that at least 4 or 5 of the "hijackers" are alive and well and have been fighting to clear their names.

But, you guys are right. I think in light of everything I've seen and some of the posts I've read, people believe what they want to believe. I think it goes beyond evidence and into their gut instinct, maybe deeper. Plenty of people tell me I sound crazy, but I can't understand it, because I think I sound completely sane.

That's just one of the great things about being human is that we're all unique, even though we all share a connection.

Originally posted by ledbedder20


However, it is well documented that at least 4 or 5 of the "hijackers" are alive and well and have been fighting to clear their names.

I think these hijackers that are "still alive" are probably just victims of identity theft.

If I were entering the U.S. to commit a terrorist act I don't think I would give my real name either.

Also just because someone shares a name with one of the terrorists doesn't mean the terrorist is still alive.

I really do want to see things the way that you do.
I watch the clips that are pointed out, I look at the pics, then I look for others, most of the theories aren't very plausible.

When I go to the sites that I am directed to, and for instance, they say they weren't planes at all that hit the towers. Just look at all the films all the witnesses statements. Usually the people they quote are taken entirely out of context. They say joe shmoe said this but when you go look at the original text, you can tell the site is full of crap. They take one audio clip saying there were no window and it must have been a cargo plane , then I go look at the numerous other eyewitness accounts saying it was a passenger plane. As for the Pentagon you can theorize all you want, I actually saw the PLANE hit the pentagon, numerous others did too. you can say it was a cruise missile then quote someone saying it was but that quote is taken totally out of context. I know people who actually saw the airplane pieces in the pentagon that the theorists say aren't there.

You may see a pod I see a shadow cast by the engine, I really do look for the pod.


I'm not trying to piss anyone off I'm trying to have a discussion.