Posted by: ukula
- [18440414] Wed, May 04, 2005, 16:18
I've just watched a few 9/11 conspiracy documentaries and I must say that I find them very disturbing. This coming from someone who voted for Bush and someone who never had any reason to doubt the government's terrorist theory. Has anyone else viewed these videos?
Is it possible that our government orchestrated a new "Pearl Harbor" to justify three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Terror)?
Things that are the most disturbing:
1. If you watch video of the Pentagon aftermath and look at pictures of the building before the roof collapsed it certainly does not appear that a plane the size of a Boeing 757 ever hit the Pentagon. If that is the case, then why is the government lying to us? and why have we never seen any Boeing wreckage or the actual impact from one of the many security cameras on top of the Pentagon? If that is true, then what happened to the actual flight 77?
2. Why does the 2nd plane to hit the Towers look very similar to a military plane (from the actual footage), including no AA logo and no windows (from eyewitnesses), and something on the underside of the plane that resembles a missile pod (from video analysis)? Why is there a 'flash of light' from both planes a half-second prior to impact (this can be viewed from many different angles on plane #2)? If these were military planes what happened to the actual flights?
3. Why did WTC7 mysteriously collapse at 5:30? The landlord of WTC admitted on PBS that they "pulled" it (demolished it with explosives) because the fires were out of hand (even though video shows that they were very small fires). According to companies that demolish buildings with explosives, it takes a few weeks to setup a building with explosives prior to a controlled demolition. If that is the case, why was this building lined with explosives at least two weeks prior to 9/11?
4. Why were there so many eyewitness reports of bombs going off in the towers (from live coverage on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc..)?
5. Why did eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania claim that flight 93 was shot down by a military aircraft? The wreckage was apparently spread over eight miles - consistant with a plane being shot down versus one that just crashed due to a struggle with the pilot. What is the truth?
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
nerveclinic
ID: 4711362616 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 03:42
Sarge "Works for me".
Ah are you following the current discussion? The link you provided is discussing the collapse of the world trade center. We've been discussing B7.
I see no reason to even worry about the World trade center at this point because until the Government can explain how B7 collapsed like a controlled demolition, even though it was not hit by the plane, everything else is open to question.
896
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:20
Yes NC, I have been following. However with satisfactory presentations that WC wasnt deliberate, I see no logical reason to assume any other was. They are pieces of the same puzzle. Remove trhe foundation upon which some of it stands, and the whole thing collapses. House of cards...thats all it is.
897
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 09:08
Controlled demolition of building 7 has a lot of holes in it. First one is:
1. How was it rigged with nobody knowing? There's plenty of discussions above about elevator contractors access etc concerning the WTC buildings up to the day of the impact, but what about building 7? A controlled demolition requires hundreds if not thousands of pounds of explosives, wiring connecting it all, precision placement, detonators. So how did all that work get done?
2. Where are the explosions and smoke? Videos and links above show the collapse of building 7. Yes, the way it falls certainly resembles the way many controlled demolition buildings fall. But watch any videos of controlled demoltions and you'll see 2 things: a) multiple grid-like flash points. b) individual smoke columns from each flash point before the collapse.
Both typical characteristics of a controlled demolition are absent from building 7.
Here's a few videos of controlled demolitions and you'll see points a and b that I'm referring to. Some of them you do have to watch *very* closely to see, but a and b are always there:
I completely agree with your statement (a) I think if nothing else it makes the whole conspiracy seem impossible, I will however disagree that I am not sure that your video examples are good evidence for (b) only because the video angles and quality are a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
One thing did come to my mind from watching the videos there is conspiracy going on here and it is that I don't think the buildings were built correctly, If there is any cover up going on it is that had the buildings be built better none of them would have collapsed.
899
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:12
that your video examples are good evidence for (b) only because the video angles and quality are a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Thats why I included multiple videos. The point isn't how they collapse. The point is in every video,no matter what angle its taken from, there are visible signs of a controlled demoltion. Those signs are not visible in the video taken on 9/11 of building 7 collapse (though there are multiple fakes out there where people used editing programs, they are easily identifiable as fake even to an untrained eye. But if somebody wants to post them as proof, please feel free. I have no doubt they won't hold up to scrutiny here).
Again, I'm not necessarily posing a theory on why building 7 collapsed, rather pointing out that the 'controlled demolition theory' is not viable.
900
boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:31
I guess when I look at the videos i see mostly apples clearly framed video, while the building 7 video is only of the top floors with a sound track over the top. I can not compare that video to the rest and make any kind of judgment besides they look similar.
901
nerveclinic
ID: 4711362616 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 17:31
Khahan in the vids you are showing no one was disguising the fact it was a controlled demolition, therefore the explosives are put in places visible from the outside. If you were taking down the building and wanted it to appear like an accident, you would plant the explosives in such a way that they would not be seen. They knew there would be cameras on the building.
I just keep going back to the experts, they know more then me and you, 1,500 signed a statement that it was a controlled demolition. They said over and over there is no other explanation, and they know a lot more then I do.
Sarge "However with satisfactory presentations that WC wasnt deliberate," I don't think your link was even attempting to prove that, it simply was trying to disprove one arguement about controlled demolition on the Twin Towers in terms of the evidence of visible thermite.
Sarge 2 "Remove the foundation upon which some of it stands, and the whole thing collapses." incorrect logic. If there is overwhelming evidence that B7 was taken down by a controlled demolition, then it makes it probable that there is a lot more to the story.
Khahan "1. How was it rigged with nobody knowing? " Childs play for a master.
902
boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 16:00
I am curious why no one addressing the idea here that real crime could be the buildings were built incorrectly.
903
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 16:40
from 901: Khahan in the vids you are showing no one was disguising the fact it was a controlled demolition, therefore the explosives are put in places visible from the outside.
Come on NC. This is just so much self justification. Charges in a demolition, are placed in order to destroy the structure, not create pretty pictures for the press. Sorry guy, but you are REALLY reaching with that one.
904
Frick
ID: 14082314 Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 17:41
Explosive flashes are easy to muffle. The obviously blacked out all of the windows while they were running the miles of cable that non of the employees saw.
I mentioned the building structure earlier, but it was ignored by NC, because it was signed off by 1,500 engineers, nevermind that the majority of them were not civil engineers. The building had questionable structural problems related to building around a power sub-station plus being rebuilt larger after the first WTC attack. Add to that buildings that it was connected to collapsing almost, but not quite on top of it and I don't see any issues arising from that.
905
nerveclinic
ID: 4711362616 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 18:09
Sarge: This is just so much self justification. Charges in a demolition, are placed in order to destroy the structure, not create pretty pictures for the press. Sorry guy, but you are REALLY reaching with that one.
What? How can I even debate you if you don't understand what I am saying. You basically repeated my argument. In a normal demolition, they are only destroying the building, therefore they place the explosives for that purpose and they are seen. That is exactly my point. So how am I reaching, you simply repeated my point 33
Frick: The obviously blacked out all of the windows while they were running the miles of cable that non of the employees saw. Why would they black out the windows? the explosives get planted on beams inside the internal structure of the building, there are no windows there, there are no employees to see it, employees stay in the normal areas of the building they don't crawl a round in the interior where there are plenty of beams hidden from site, what is so difficult to understand? Frick have you ever gone into a building, lifted up the drop ceiling, pulled yourself up inside, and started crawling around in the non occupied areas of the building, where the AC vents are, where electrical is, oh and by the way try doing that in a building where the Secret service is housed? What is so Fricking hard to understand?
Frick I mentioned the building structure earlier, but it was ignored by NC The main secret service offices in New York were housed in this building. If I were a betting man I would assume the secret service were so stupid they picked a building about to fall apart at the seams and badly built as their headquarters? In addition, these three skyscrapers, are the only ones in the history of the world that collapsed like a controlled demolition, when they apparently weren't collapsed as controlled demolitions.
906
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 18:19
Well NC, you are right...one of us is not understanding the other. (and the one? it aint me)
907
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, May 21, 2012, 17:40
I plan on going to this implosion. That building kind of looks like Building 7. I wonder if the top section will collpase first like on Building 7. It looks like the viewing area will be directly down wind from the implosion. I won't be going there. I may have to watch it from Sonic. And all three buildings on 9/11 displayed all of the attributes of controlled demolitions, despite what others are posting here.
908
sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Mon, May 21, 2012, 17:54
I believe the design of the WTC, had them essentially with exoskeletons correct? SO of course they would appear as a controlled demolition. The strongest part of their "frame", was on the outer perimeter of the building(s).
909
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, May 21, 2012, 18:01
He's talking about Building 7, which was framed as a standard building.
Nevertheless, it isn't clear if you are going to the implosion or not B7--are you?
910
Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Mon, May 21, 2012, 18:06
I thought B7 and the Texas Rangers simultaneously imploded right after game six of the World Series.
911
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, May 21, 2012, 18:31
We did, but we've since recovered. Yes, I plan on going, even at 6:30 in the morning.
912
nerveclinic
ID: 4711362616 Mon, May 28, 2012, 09:30
Sarge let's try this again, I feel like I've explained this a dozen times.
The discussion has turned away from the WTC buildings themselves and shifted to Building 7 as the most obvious proof there was a controlled demolition.
No building had ever been hit by a 747 with a full fuel tank before so it's harder to discuss precedence, but building 7 wasn't hit by anything except spill over fire from the two towers.
If it can be shown that there was no way that B7 should have collapsed, like a controlled demolition, without any force as dramatic as a plane hitting it, then it calls into question all the governmental line on what happened.
Therefore the movement is focusing on B7.
913
Khahan
ID: 54138190 Mon, May 28, 2012, 09:52
but building 7 wasn't hit by anything except spill over fire from the two towers.
This is the point people who want to parrot a controlled demolition theory ignore. The buildings were connected. There are underground parking garages, walkways etc that share common walls (not partitions but load bearing walls).
None of the collapse of WTC happened in a vacuum.
914
Boldwin
ID: 43492714 Mon, May 28, 2012, 18:07
Those buildings are hard to burn down. That is fire resistant sheetrock over concrete and asbestos wrapped steel. It's not balsa that is gonna catch fire from a whiff. That building could have resisted hours of sporadic office fires, especially if the sprinklers had done their job. Which for some reason they didn't for lack of water supply.
915
Khahan
ID: 54138190 Mon, May 28, 2012, 19:45
Sorry, I just don't have time to hand-hold people thru common sense who refuse to see it.
916
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 08:09
I believe the design of the WTC, had them essentially with exoskeletons correct? SO of course they would appear as a controlled demolition. The strongest part of their "frame", was on the outer perimeter of the building(s).
See #855 for pictures of massive steel inner core structure.
917
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 08:25
the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else. - KURT EICHENWALD, NYT Op-Ed
Just watched Mr Eichenwald and Ari Fleischer on AC 360. I'd rather like to read the book, but Mr Eichenwald straight out SAID, he is not at all saying that Pres Bush knew of the attack and chose to do nothing. He is saying that intel was sufficient to have warranted a higher state of alert, than was present domestically, and that insiders of the GWB WH, have said the for several months, GWB didnt appear to much care about terrorism and its inherent threat.
I know, and in his speaking on AC 360, his words, were to deny that he is a "truther", or is supporting any such positions. And NOWHERE in what you posted, does it say that Bush KNEW of the actual attack and then failed to act to prevent it.
No B...he did NOT "know everything else'. Mt Eichenwald said, and says in his piece, that there were sufficient puzzle pieces present, to belief something was up, and to have elevated an alert or readiness status. Something which was not done. He specifically stated on AC 360, that he is NOT saying the administration knew what was going to happen, nor where, nor when. Only that they SHOULD have know something was going to happen.
You aren't the slightest bit interested in the coincidence that every one of these terrorist events 'just happens' to have a mirror counter-terrorism exercise going on at the same time are you? It's all just a big coincidence.
every one? 9/11 was a singular terrorist event, with multiple components. And you allegation in post 924, has nothing to do with Mr Eichenwald's piece, which is what you are theoretically defending. Diversion, is not going to work here.
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Sep 23, 2012, 20:53
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 11, 2012 Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks NOTICE
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2012. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, September 11, 2012.
link ................... They couldn't just put a lock on the cockpit door and move on.
My Army Lt Col boss was TDY to DC that day with meetings in the Pentagon. Another Army Lt Col who had just PCSed from my unit to the Pentagon died that day.
I was the chief of the operations center for all DoD communications in the Pacific, and got a call from my Systems Control Officer, a Navy Senior Chief, while I was sleeping. He told me that CNN was reporting that a plane hit one World Trade Center building and there were reports of hits on the 2nd and the Pentagon. I calmed him and told him to call our commander once confirmed, and to try to contact our parent control centers. By the time I got in to work, we had already taken over many of the reponisiblities of our parent control centers in DC as they reconstituted.
Over the next few days, I worked on ensuring that our theater's bombing effort had adequate command and control resources, and started identifying vulnerabilities that may need security forces applied.
Since my boss was no longer available, I assumed his duties and directed deployment of our contingency troops in support of deployed combat capability. I asked our Marine Captain, Matt, to put one of our unit's emblems on a fighter jet's mounted bomb and take a picture for me. That picture made Matt our unit's poster child.
A few months later, I had a USAF Captain who worked for me who was deployed to Iraq. Frank was like a son to me, we were both from Cleveland OH. He sent me a picture of him sitting on Saddam Hussein's throne.
Our best effort wasn't good enough. Terrorism is easy to do, hard to stop. Sorry if that scares you. Grow a pair.
I dont think many of us dont recall where we were, much like the Kennedy assassination.
I lived in Seattle so I was on CNN watching before work and saw the second building collapse live. I called out from work, as many did, and sat home watching television all day.