9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i would not trust the people who created loose change with my gold fish. someone got a mac pro and had nothing better to do with it but play film maker. big deal. this conspiracy is now an industry but so is selling crack.

    afa the missile (which i am sorry i even brought up) there are eye witnesses who saw the planes. regular people who lived close enough to witness in detail and report what happened. they have no reason to lie but you are not interested in that. go search youtube if you are. as for the rest of your post relating to that i really have no idea what you are trying to say.


    Builing 7:
    That isnt what i am saying and that is the whole point. DEMOLISHING BUILDING 7 WOULD NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. how or why do you think it would.

    The loose change people are not exactly brain surgeons.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    That only proves that FEMA, a government agency, doesn't believe that the building was brought down by a demolition. Interestingly, it doesn't even attempt to disprove this theory; it simply omits it altogether. Well, atleast the government decided to make a report about WTC 7, instead of ignoring it completely as they did in the 9/11 commission. But note that they still tend to ignore the thorniest issue; by simply not addressing the possibility of demolition, they save themselves a lot of work. The type of work that some citizens have felt a duty to do:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Scott, FEMA doe not work to make you happy. If you said that a large fan caused a giant hurricane would you want them to investigate that also?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Have you actually seen the film?

    "Memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're an interpretation, not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts."- Memento (movie)

    The US government says it's a plane, and how many people have seen a missile in flight? Just answer me this: why is it that the government hasn't released footage of what hit the pentagon? That would get us to the facts; but for some reason they can't bring themselves to part with it.


    Ok. I am quoting from a book, so it does get a bit heavy if you don't read it from page 1 on..


    It would disprove the government's story (www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) that it fell due to fires, for starters. And if it was demolished, who demolished it? And why?

    No, but you don't need to be a brain surgeon to realize that the government story is full of holes. You just need the time and a willingness to believe that there some elements of the government that truly are spooky. But I understand that it could be frightening to imagine that the government could be involved in such heinous acts and that it would be much nicer to believe that the government had nothing to do with it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Very funny. But in a 2004, a Zogby poll found that "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals "
    (http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)

    True, it doesn't specify how many of them felt that demolitions were involved in the 9/11 building collapses. But the fact that it's asking for a new probe might lead one to believe that the demolition theory is something they have in mind.
     
  9. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Destroying offices is pointless as backups are sent to a different location. This is standard IT disaster recovery.

    According to http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

    Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11

    That source is a little dated though. I'm curious if anyone has an update on this.

    It really strains credibility that we have towers loaded with explosives, (even in the basement which didn’t do anything) and the planes have to hit the floors with the explosives so the needlessly complex conspiracy looks real. Meanwhile the government hijacks one of their own planes and hides it but sends a different plane or a missile to blow up the pentagon instead. Meanwhile they hide another plane and pretend it crashed. Meanwhile they load up a building with explosives which isn’t going to be hit by the planes as part of the needlessly complex charade. Then they wait for seven hours and hit the button to blow it up as part of an insurance scam? What? Does that really sound plausible? For this conspiracy to happen, tens of thousands of people would need to be involved including the fire dept, (who are going to lose many lives) the police, government ect ect. The money involved in this operation would make a few hundred million seen insignificant.

    Poles knocked down, eyewitness accounts, wreckage from a plane. Yes the missile theory has been ‘proven moronic’.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  10. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    There is evidence of fire, evidence of building damage, no evidence of planted explosives. NIST says the minimum blast sound would be 140 decibels a half mile from the building. Yet none of the cameras capture any explosions in the seconds before the building falls.

    I mean for fuck sake, there is not even any real motive. I've heard that it was to get rid of "evidence", but don't you think it would be an easier task to get rid of evidence in some other fashion rather than rig a busy skyscraper with explosives and publicly demolish it? It's fucking ridiculous.

    Where are the explosions? None of the cameras capture any. None of the people close to the building report blasts in the seconds before the building fell.

    You people have a fascination with bombs in the basement for some reason, even if the collapse is supposed to have initiated in the upper floors.

    Again, that is a blatant lie. The WTC 1 & 2 are even more obvious of a natural collapse. Completely silent initiation of collapse means there were no explosives. Even cameras that were virtually underneath the towers at the time of collapse pick up no sound beyond the expected rumble.



    Jim Marrs.. Ok, lets rebuild a replica of the WTC towers and fly an identical plane into the tower under the same conditions... Then let us offer Jim Marrs the chance to stand in the lobby of the building to prove his confidence that the building wouldn't collapse. Lets offer YOU the chance to do the same thing. I bet you would turn that offer down.

    Let's also examine the fire damage theory. Close-up video footage of the tower minutes before it collapses shows the tower bowing in, in the areas worst affected by heat, and then in the same video footage you see that the collapse initiates directly from this bowed area. And since it happens silently, there are no "bombs".

    I don't know... these are your conspiracy theories, not mine.

    You know, I don't mind most conspiracy theories. Sure they offend me because of their irrationality, since deliberate acts of human stupidity irritates me. But personally, I find something utterly disgusting about the 9/11 truth movement. Seriously... watch the YouTube videos created by "truthers" when they are at ground zero. They are out and out liars and they will literally step all over the victims of 9/11 for the sake of their own entertainment.
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I personally haven't seen all that much possible evidence that Silverstein knew, so I will grant you that he may not have personally known. While 4.6 billion dollars is still a lot of money, I personally don't know if he has gotten himself rich from the whole thing or if he now wishes he'd never leased the buildings. I am personally much more interested in the evidence for the motivations of others, such as the Bush clan, which is linked to in the article I gave before:
    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml

    Yes, they go for the idea that Larry Silverstein knew that the building was pulled. And no, the Bush family isn't 'all powerful' but they certainly have a lot of connections as the article makes clear. But honestly, even if they got a few things wrong, the rest of what they say is quite interesting.


    Evidently, you haven't heard some of the testimonials of some of the people who were in the WT basements. It's understandable, as many people haven't heard of their testimonies. Jim Marrs, however, is a very thorough reasearcher. He may get a fact or 2 wrong now and again as some internet researchers have pointed out, but the sheer -quantity- of evidence he gets is impressive. Here's something you probably haven't heard before:
    "Arriving at 8:30am on September 11, Rodriguez went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud, massive explosion that seemed to emanate from betwween sub-basements B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

    At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking", said Rodriguez. Seconds later there was another explosion way above, which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.

    Upon hearing about the plane, Rodriguez started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's fire. When asked later about those first explosions, he said: "I would known if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He was clear about hearing explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

    Rodriguez said a fellow worker, Felipe David, came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms""

    The explosives were on a lot of floors and there is no evidence that the planes were required at all to trigger them. There is speculation that the explosions were triggered remotely. Some even speculate that the place it was all being controlled was in WTC 7. However, I'm now relying on memory, although I do believe it's somewhere within Jim's book.

    There has been speculation that the actual plane that supposedly crashed in the pentagon was actually brought down elsewhere, but it is certainly intriguing as to what would have happened to it if it didn't crash into the Pentagon.


    It's only needlessly complex if the speculated motives for taking down WTC 7 are false.


    The insurance part is, in my view, perhaps the weakest link. I have seen no direct evidence that Larry has indeed benefitted from everything that happened, although some have certainly claimed it. The most compelling is what happened; despite certain elements within the government's efforts to remove the evidence, enough has remained to make a strong case for demolitions to have taken place in all the attacked buildings (yes, even the Pentagon). At the very least, don't you think there should be more questions as to why certain government elements removed and frequently trashed so much of the evidence that would have made it so much easier to find out what really happened?


    There was apparently a high up consultant for the fire department that has tried to hush up what firemen were trying to say. Again, however, I'm going on memory. I think it's clear, however, that the majority of the firemen played no part in the 9/11 conspiracy. Many, in fact, support the claims that there were detonations in the towers.


    I'm not so sure so much money was needed; I think the key for this operation wasn't money but having people in high places.


    The eyewitness accounts of a plane I have dealt with in a previous post (and not all of them are sure it was a plane, btw). In terms of the poles, a missile could atleast knock down one, which apparently it did, according to Steve Riskus. But Steve Riskus did a little more then observe that. Again from "The Terror Conspiracy":
    "Steve Riskus, a 24 year old computer worker, who said he saw the craft pass over him and strike a lamppost before plunging into the Pentagon. He immediately began snapping photographs from less than 200 yards away and later that day posted his photos on a newly acquired website. His photos, along with others not controlled by the government, caused major problems for the later official version of the Pentagon crash.

    They depicted a clean green lawn in front of the damaged wall, which contradicted the official claim that the plane hit the ground before entering the building. They also showed one highway lamppost knocked down but not others nearby it within range of the plane's wingspan.

    One website even posted numerous official photos of the Pentagon crash and challenged viewers to find any trace of the aircraft. Interestingly enough, years after 9/11, neither the mass media nor the FBI had taken any notice of Riskus' pictures or the questions being raised. It is well worth noting here that the FBI confiscated all the security videos in the vicinity of the crash within minutes; somewhat later, the Pentagon released a mere five frames from one of these videos, which show a barely discernable object slamming into the building followed by a huge fireball...

    Even the familiar photo of a small piece of red and white painted fuselage on the Pentagon lawn has been called into question because it does not appear in the very first photos of that area... Many researchers believe this evidence was planted at a later time."
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Scott, use you head. The buildings could just have been sold. i think this is getting way past stupid.

    Scott, how do you walk around planting all those explosives with no one seeing the people doing it?

    just explain that.

    I recommend you read up on the demolition procedures and just how much it would take to take buildings like that down and what is involved with controlled demolition of enormous buildings.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am not trying to be funny.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    you would be a horrible investigator. are you over 14?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    There's little evidence of anything solid from that building, thanks to certain circumstances. Again, from Jim Marrs' book:
    "The FBI took charge of the criminal investigation while the little understood Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took responsibility for determining what happened to cause the collapse of the twin towers. FEMA seemed determined to haul away the evidence, even before a full and impartial investigation could be made. Such premature destruction of evidence was called into question by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old fireman's publication Fire Engineering in its January 2002 issue:
    "For more then three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap", wrote Manning. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
    "For more than three month, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap... Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure"


    I'm not sure with WTC 7, but as to the other towers, many have claimed that the videos show evidence of explosions. But someone has certainly reported seeing one:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040412230000/http:/www.trismccall.net/jersey_city_journal.html

    Anyway, there was no one that close to hear up close in the case of WTC 7, unlike towers 1 and 2 because:
    "..firemen who were allowed to enter the building as they had in the towers were ordered out at 11:30am. At 5:25pm, the 47-story structure suddenly collapse into its footprint".

    As to how far out one had to be I'm not sure, but I certainly wouldn't trust NIST, if it's track record on its so called evidence for 9/11 is any indication:
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html


    In the case of WTC 7, atleast, yes, to get rid of evidence. The claims are made in various articles, which are linked to from the bottom of this one:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

    In any case, as to a simpler method, can you name one?


    Actually, in the case of WTC 7, there is agreement that the collapse began from the bottom.


    Can you site these virtually undearneath cameras? Anyway, no need for cameras; there were lots of witnesses to a basement blast in one of the towers:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1986906&postcount=156

    There's no need to build a replica. You just need to read a certain amount of the evidence before it becomes evident that the most plausible theory is that the buildings were demolished.


    I'm assuming you're talking about WTC 7. Anyway, I'd like to see a citation to your claim that it happened 'silently'.



    I never claimed that the president knew. Who knows, maybe he did, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is so.



    No matter which way you look at it, 9/11 was a conspiracy. From wikipedia:
    "A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. "

    No one disagrees that whoever set 9/11 in motion had to be fairly powerful. It's up to the individual to decide if it was directed by foreigners, individuals a little closer to home, or both.


    Are you aware that some of the people in the 9/11 truth movement are the very ones who have lost loved ones there?
     
  15. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Everyone...I confess. It was me.
     
  16. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    It is just a ridiculously complicated and risky way to make some money.

    I have.

    I've heard of William Rodriguez. His story seemed to grow from the initial one given to cnn on the day.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

    He tells of hearing two bangs. This may have been the sound from the collision traveling down the building quicker that it did through the air. Someone coming out the elevator burned would also not be a surprise as the explosion shot down through the shafts.

    The point I made though was that if there were bombs in the basement they didn’t do anything. The buildings started collapsing at the point of impact while the bottom stood firm. So this is an unconvincing story to back something up which doesn’t even make any sense.

    Most of these points are made here.
    http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

    There’s no evidence of explosives on any floors. The collapse happened at the top.

    It’s needlessly complex if you have a building loaded up with explosives but you have to hijack planes and smash them into it.

    It’s needlessly complex if you steal a plane and then use a different one or a missile and just hope that no one gets some footage.

    It’s needlessly complex if you steal a plane but don’t crash it and just pretend that a plane crashed there.

    It’s needlessly complex to demolish a building with bombs but pretend that the bombs weren’t there because you are running with the completely unnecessary 'fly planes into WTC' plan. My head hurts.

    Terrorists bomb things all the time. If the buildings were actually loaded with bombs just blow them up say the terrorists did it!
    The rubble from WTC took a long time to remove. The evidence was investigated. The conspiracy theorists just don’t like the mundane results. Perhaps people expect a CSI situation where we leave everything it’s in place so every CTer can come and have a look around to confirm their preconceived ideas. That certainly wasn’t going to happen at the Pentagon for obvious reasons and New York was not going to be left looking like a war zone.

    Many? I don’t think so. There may possibly be a few CTers among the NYFD but most likely you are referring to the cherry picking and distortion of firefighter testimony where explosions = bombs.

    Where are these photos? Link please.
    Yes and there was a bestseller in France doing the same thing. Did people expect the plane to look the same as it did at take off? The wreckage was there though. It’s a non issue.


    Which is hardly compelling…

    Five light poles were knocked down. Perhaps someone pushed them over afterwards as well.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    lol Cheski

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If the insurance policy was generous enough, it may have been better to do what Larry did. But on this issue, I admit that I have no evidence that Larry knew in advance, nor whether he profitted or lost money from what happened on 9/11.


    There's more then one theory. One, positing truck bombs which were used in the first attack on the World Trade Center, I just found right now:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/011007_thought_bombs.htm

    Another was that there were some emergency drills before 9/11 that were in fact used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy":
    "..if there were bombs in the towers, who did they get there?

    With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...

    ..Yet another theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told
    magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.

    Reporting in The American Reporter[/quote], an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.

    Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

    Many people lost their lives in the collapse of the Twin Towers because the public address system advised workers to return to their desks. Who exactly ordered that broadcast over the loudspeakers in the South Tower as workers were trying to evacute, "Remain calm, damage is in Tower One. Return to your desks."? Many people lost their lives because of these announcements. Minutes later the towers collapsed unexpectedly."

    I'm amenable to a combination of the 2.


    I'm sure it's complicated. I also feel confident that there are elements within the US government that could do it. I even read somewhere (perhaps in a book from Jim Marrs) that they found traces of an american made explosive. I was looking for the source of that, but couldn't find it.
     
  19. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    There were people in the cleanup operation with experience in controlled demolition, and none of them describe any remnants of demolition materials.

    Look at 8 minutes 30 seconds of this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZRmzCm8&feature=related


    I'm not going to read the whole thing, you will have to post excerpts that support your case.

    Well there were people close enough to jog out of the way of the plume of smoke that followed. Controlled demolitions make explosions heard for miles, and there were certainly cameras within that zone. I remember when a bridge close to my house was demolished (about 1.5 miles), and even though I didn't know it was happening that day, I heard a huge explosion. I turned on the local news to find live pictures of the bridge demolition.

    Conspiracy theorists really underestimate the noise produced in a controlled demolition:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

    Another thing that is important to debunking a controlled demolition is that 267 floors combined were "demolished" that day, and yet all of the windows in the surrounding buildings were still intact (except of course for the ones directly damaged by falling debris). The sound blast of demolition charges would have been so huge that most windows would have blown out.

    Again, I'm not going to read that. Post excerpts.

    Again, you need to post excerpts.

    I can propose a simpler method of removing whatever incriminating evidence it is your imagination has dreamt up. How about remove it in your suitcase? Or stuff it down your pants? Whatever "it" is... Or how about you don't put "it" in the building in the first place?

    That seems more rational than the nonsensical and impossible task of rigging a 610 foot skyscraper for demolition and hope nobody notices.

    I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I thought NIST says it initiated from the 13th floor.

    Yes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H52NAOzcwwU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o

    This makes no sense for 2 reasons: Demolition materials required to bring down that building would have made multiple explosions audible for miles and not limited to those on a certain floor. Secondly, the basement was irrelevant as the collapse initiated from where the planes hit and it was a pancake collapse.

    You got nothing.

    No witnesses of explosions seconds prior to collapse, no explosions recorded on any of the cameras.

    I wouldn't expect that to be many. Regardless, their demonstrations at ground zero (especially on anniversaries) reminds me of fundamentalists protesting at the funerals of gay people.

    How do you think the victims families feel when conspiracies yell that the last calls their loved one made were faked? What do you think any sensible person feels when they are not allowed to remember what happened with conspiracy nuts shouting in their ear, figuratively and literally?

    Personally I find it a shame that the history of 9/11 has been hijacked by fools like you who just want to get their cheap thrills.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    As I've mentioned before, I don't even have evidence that Larry even made money (though as I've mentioned, some people have claimed that he has), so I'll leave this point alone..

    It's more that they didn't include a lot of what he had to say. The mainstream media, NIST and the FBI all seemed generally uninterested in his story. Again from Jim Marrs' book:
    "Rodriguez spent hours giving closed-door testimony before the 9/11 Comission, yet his eyewitness account does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. He also tried to talk to investigators for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), but was ignored. "I contacted NIST...four times without a response" he recalled. "Finallly, [at a public hearing], I asked them before they came up with their conclusion...if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces."
    He also said he contacted teh FBI, but they never followed up. The media also seemed uninterested. Rodriguez said CNN spent most of a day filming and interviewing him at his home but, when the interview aired, it was severely edited. Rodriguez said one reporter not so subtly warned him to keep quite or he could be in jeopardy. "You do not know who you are dealing with!", he was told. His response was, "I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

    In late 2004, Rodriguez filed suit in a Philadelphia federal court under the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, naming George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others as being complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Rodriguez claims that top officials either planned the attacks or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed for the purpose of exploiting a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq... (for details see www.911fortruth.com)."


    I have never heard of any evidence that the explosion shot down through the shafts; only a theory with no evidence whatsoever.

    Yes, they did. Aside from the harm they did to atleast one person, they also weakened the foundation of the building.

    It did indeed collapse from the top downward, but the bottom was no longer nearly as firm as it had been before that initial explosion. Remember that if the demolition was to succeed at being unnoticed, the building couldn't start collapsing from the bottom; that would raise a lot more suspicions that the buildings fell down as a result of demolitions and not as a result of the planes; this is exactly the types of the suspicions that were voiced regarding WTC 7. However, in that building, there were no people inside when it collapsed, so there are no witnesses to say that they heard detonations.


    It makes lots of sense, although if you don't want to see the sense in it, you won't. I think it should be pointed out that Rodriguez' story is one of many, although I don't believe many have gone to the lengths he has to get it out.


    I skimmed through it. You seem to have raised a few of the questions that are in the link; I have addressed them.


    Take a look at the movie zeitgeist for video evidence.


    Not if you want to fool people into thinking that the planes were the ones that brought the buildings down.


    I admit I'm not sure why they didn't use a plane to hit the pentagon. But just because you don't know a motive doesn't mean you should disgard the evidence pointing towards a certain explanation of what happened.


    It seems you're essentially repeating your previous point, that is, the lack of a known motive.


    It's not 'completely unnecessary'. I would argue the opposite; it's -essential- that you not give people the idea that the buildings were brought down by explosives. Because if people think that the buildings were brought down by explosives, the next question would be, how did they get there. Yes, you could say that terrorists did it, but the terrorists would have to have to have gotten into the building and planted the explosives. And if we take a look at the people who had such a chance, it doesn't look so good for the security firm that was in place in the World Trade Center, or George Bush's brother Marvin Bush..

    True.

    If by evidence you mean the rubble, you would be mistaken. I've already mentioned that Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year-old firemen's publication Fire Engineering[/quote] makes it perfectly clear that this wasn't happening at all.


    Yes, many. Even though you don't think so. Take a look at "The Terror Conspiracy", you may find yourself surprised.


    More then a few, believe me.


    Explosions do generally mean something exploding, yes. Explosives tend to explode quite well. And there was a lot of testimony of such explosions.

    I just typed in his name (which is apparently an alias) on google and got it:
    http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

    I also found a fairly dedicated detractor of his here:
    http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2007/02/steve-riskus-exposed-as-fraud.html

    I couldn't make anything out of Steve's stuff and didn't spend the time to undertsand whether Steve or Steven are right. I'm just bringing you the news as I come to it. Honestly though, I found the "Loose Change" movie to do a very good explanation of why it was a missle and not a plane.


    Other then a piece of the fuselage, which early photos don't show, and which has never been verified to actually come from the plane in question, there are no public photos of any of the plane wreckage. Supposedly it's hidden away in some government alcove or other but, as a certain online game character says: "I remain unconvinced". (I can just hear John99 concluding that I am, indeed, 14

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).


    Well, as I've said, Steve says he says the craft hit own pole; as to the others, yes, I have heard that they were indeed pushed over. I remember reading about it, but no, I can't cite you anything on this one right now (hard to always have a citation on hand).
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What experts we talking about here? People from FEMA, who were carting away the evidence? Or people from NIST, another part of the 'half-baked farce' as Bill Manning puts it?

    Yes, 'experts' say there was no evidence. It took them 3 long months to get rid of it all, but they finally managed it.



    Ok:
    "At 5:20 P.M., WTC7 collapsed. I watched it happen from across the river, and no revisionism is going to screw with my recollection here -- the building came down straight and flat, as if supports beneath it had been cut. I'm no physics student, but you don't have to be one to realize that a burning building would never have fallen that way. Fires just don't burn symmetrically. South side fires, caused by contact with burning material from the North Tower, would have prompted a collapse across Vesey Street, in the direction of Ground Zero. Bear in mind, again, that this was a major skyscraper -- more than forty floors. For WTC7 to have pancaked as it did, it would have had to have been experiencing structural weakness at all sides.

    The unnerving media silence about Building Seven was later broken by a tentative explanation that, again, makes no sense. According to FEMA, huge tanks of diesel fuel stored in the basement may have caught fire, substantially weakening the steel. (This official story, by the way, is mostly guesswork -- there's no proof at all that the diesel fuel was in any way involved). Although they knew of the existence of the diesel fuel, firefighters opted against entering WTC7 and putting out the blaze. Strange, huh? Remember, the North Tower collapsed at 10:30. The city had seven hours to react to the fires that had, ostensibly, been caused by its fall. It's worth remembering that no steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, diesel or otherwise."

    (http://web.archive.org/web/20040412230000/http:/www.trismccall.net/jersey_city_journal.html)


    The following page says that not only were explosions heard, but NIST ignored what they meant:
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

    "While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are apparently unique to demolitions, including:

    * Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
    * Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis
    * Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
    * Total destruction of the building"


    Were you about 1.5 miles from any of the towers?


    Personally I think that, using some sophisticated techniques, the noise could be mitigated to some extent. As to that dust cloud at the ending of that demonstration though.. remind you of something?


    I didn't see any windows being blown out from the buildings nearby in the demolition video you showed me, but perhaps some glass from nearby buildings did break? I haven't heard that none did. You could say it was debris, but perhaps it wasn't all debris..


    Done, above.


    Alright:
    [WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
    (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml)

    The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles

    Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

    Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
    http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/fea...or_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflash=false&


    Not all government officials are corrupt. I never said that the people who had the incriminating evidence were corrupt. But if you blow up the building that houses the evidence of the ones who -are- corrupt, well, that can work out quite nicely for said corrupt officials.


    I haven't seen such a claim, but I wouldn't trust NIST anyway.


    I thought you meant cameras in the basement. In any case, I definitely heard what sounded like a bunch of explosions. And the buildings definitely appear to be exploding; even one of the reporters said so "A huge explosion..".


    I heard a bunch. They don't sound like the example demolition you showed me; it sounds more like there were a lot of small explosives instead of the larger ones in the example.


    There is lots of evidence that shows that the this whole pancake collapse theory is a 'plausible impossible', as David Ray Griffin puts it. To find out why, you are going to have to look at the link I provide, because the argument is a bit long and there's no point in my copying it over here:
    http://truememes.com/mackey.html


    Well, you're free to believe this is you wish.


    I've already shown you evidence to the contrary in regards to witnesses.


    Well, whatever it reminds you of, the point is there are a lot of people who believe that the official story regarding 9/11 is seriously flawed.


    I don't know, I'm not one of said victims. I have heard, however, that some of the calls were indeed made up, but not by the victims, who apparently never made the calls to begin with. If I were a victim and I had heard this, my anger would be towards the people making up stories.


    The real question is, who is the sensible person? The person who refuses to listen to anything but the official story? Or the person who looks at all sides of the story in order to try to determine the truth.


    Yeah.. cheap thrills. To tell you the honest truth, it is -really- hard to deal with people who think that I'm a 'fool' getting 'cheap thrills' out of this. It's taken me a fair amount of time to learn what I know, and more time to research what I write in my articles here. So when I get comments like this.. it hurts. All I know is I'm trying to uncover the truth to the public.
     
  22. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Rodriguez probably deeply believes what he heard. However there is no evidence for explosions in the basement (apart from him his testimony) and there is a very likely simple explanation. Getting a blank or no response is what you expect and doesn’t imply a conspiracy.

    Our memory is not always reliable.

    Very dramatic but he’s still alive right? Were there any details on who the reporter was?

    As I said he may deeply believe he is right but his testimony has a likely simple explanation and his conclusion contradicted by more reliable evidence.

    I thought fuel went down the shafts. I can’t even remember where I read that now. I’ll look it up.

    No the building pancaked. For that to occur, the lower floors had to hold firm. Otherwise it would have collapsed from the bottom.

    Read what you are saying. It sounds like you are rationalizing how the collapse was nothing like a controlled demolition as proof somehow that it was a controlled demolition yet done cleverly.

    There is no evidence for bombs and the building certainly did not fall as if it had been bombed.

    You may have people who heard two bangs but that doesn’t equal a conspiracy. Once again why would you load up the building with bombs, which not one person saw, and then fly planes into it?

    The 9/11 section of this movie has been taken apart. If there is a particular part which you think is convincing then I will address that.

    But why would you want that? Why go to the trouble? It would increase the cost, complexity and risk tenfold for the same result.

    Perhaps but when the theories start to sound absurd maybe there is a problem.

    So you could just blow up the empire state building instead…. OR blow up the WTC and also steal planes and fly them into just the right floors while setting off bombs in the basement at almost exactly the same time, and hope that no one notices…

    From the beginning Manning believed that it was impossible for fire and the planes to bring the buildings down.

    There was steel at the WTC site for months. Investigators had access to steel at the scrapyard.

    I don’t. (No offense I don't think you are lying)

    Two planes full of jet fuel crash into two of the largest buildings in the world. The fire burns away and the buildings completely collapse. Should that be completely silent? Are you surprised that there were some explosions?

    With all the footage we have there is nothing about the collapse that gives any indication of a controlled demolition. Distorting witness testimony is desperate and dishonest.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

    I know, I used to have a list of all the witnesses who describe seeing the plane. I’ll find it later.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  23. Sock Puppy I cAn haZ INfrakShun? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    184
    Scott, that isn't true; it specifies that the collapse was due to fire.

    Having said the above, there is no need to disprove the theory of demolition. From the first paragraph of the FEMA report:

    Frankly: look at bloody Figure 5-5. Are they bloody kidding? There are steel girders just floating on concrete, seemingly; the "cantilevers" from Figure 5-10, their inside ends just wobbling in space without steel underneath, just riding on the concrete, seemingly. Were they utterly, horribly mad when they built this monstrosity? I'm not surprised in the least that it fell. "Transfer girders", my arse.

    I have; and Dylan Avery is a disingenuous twit. I recommend "Screw Loose Change", which goes through each of Dylan Avery's hypotheses and debunks them one by one. One thing that SLC actually missed, I think, was that Dylan Avery deliberately moves his camera angle at the Pentagon in order to avoid the massive, massive hole in the side of the building where the plane went in, then promptly holds the telescope up to his eyepatch and announces "I cannot see the impact". (I should probably write these guys about this...or maybe they did get this part. Can't remember.) Anyway, here's the links:

    http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3510627231880509973

    So should we similarly discredit the memories of the people who claim they heard a bomb go off in the towers?

    They have done. From the parking lot camera alone, with its measly one-frame-per-second, you can see that it's a plane hitting the building. Hell, you can practically read the bloody markings on the tailfin. And look, in that video (and I know you know which one I'm talking about) and tell me: just how big a missile is this then? Because it looks to be about the size of a passenger plane. It's absurdly huge. Look at the perspective of the thing.

    Nicer and spookier are relative things. For some people, it's nicer and more reassuring to believe that the US government did it, rather than examine the religious ideologies behind terrorism, because that might get one thinking the fearful thought "Just how prevalent is this opinion, anyway?" Then that leads to the worry that we enable this form of hatred both by US behaviour abroad and by the economics of the petroleum industry, the largest single transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. It's much easier simply to blame the US government, close one's eyes, and let the excited hypothalmus go back to sleep as we ponder whether to buy the red Che shirt or the keffiya at Urban Outfitters on Saturday.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page