9/11 : Ten Years?!

[Bold Seagull]

Interesting video there. I am suspicious of the official explanation, I have to say. And the idea that anyone who states anything that differs from Govt version of events is just 'attention seeking' is very convenient. Sadly, we may never know the truth. Either way, we need to remember the thousands who died that day.

There is a distinct difference between seeking the truth through examining the available evidence and asking the questions, to those making up theories and conclusions based on very little at all.

 

[dingodan]

The need for truth only requires the asking of questions; why and how did that building fall down? I fail to see how conclusions and theories help in anyway to answer those questions, and if anything give governments a convenient conspiracy theory screen to hide behind. I agree though, time is irrelevant in this case.

Im not sure I understand what you mean here. But put it this way, I cannot tell you why or how building 7 collapsed (for example). What I can say is that officially, it fell because of fire. Now there are alot of buildings that have burned down to the steel structure (madrid 2005) but not collapsed. Together with (as per my previous post) the kinds of tenants that were housed in building 7 my own conclusion is that the building was brought down on purpose and could not have fallen in the manner it did for the reasons given officially. Infact the owner of the World Trade Centre complex (Larry Silverstein) stated that they decided to "pull it". The problem with this is that if you want to pull a building, in a controlled demolition, you are going to need to plan and then rig the building which would take a couple of weeks.

Madrid skyscraper fire 2005:

Larry Silverstein - We decided to "pull it". (he claims he meant "pull" the firefighters out, personally thats not what it sounds like to me)

 

[Lord Bamber]

I am genuinely open minded on this one, and have watched many a documentary from various view points. However, the only evidence at this point to the contrary of LHO not acting alone is the hand shot cine film, the separate sound recordings, and conjecture regarding as you have said, his reactions to each shot. I've also seen reconstructions and testimony from medical experts that adequately explain how the shots from the depository would have created the same reactions.

So do I believe LHO acted alone? Based on the available evidence to me, yes. Am I still open minded about it yes, I am not steadfast in believing one thing over another.

I'm only posting this link to show how easy it is to present things as conspiracy supporting fact, when in reality there are explainable reasons. The hunched up jacket is a case in point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy

Interesting read that one, thanks.

Seem we are like minded in terms of watching many a documentary from various points on this subject. It good to converse this case with someone knowledgeable and not someone who candids an opinion without back up.

Personally, I have arrived at a view, very similar to that the House of Representatives Select Committee On Assassins came to in 1979, and this for me is based on having reviewed evidence now for nearly 29 years , there was most probably 2 gunman in Dealy Plaza that day maybe more. I dont hold though that LHO acted alone, I think there is too much doubt and too much evidence against it.

As a challenge to my own argument though, it is interesting to note though there have now been 3 credible reviews of the Dictabelt recordings, all of which arrive at different outcomes.

It hasnt swayed me though.

 

[Giraffe]

The only thing that I believe beyond doubt is that the fourth plane that "crashed" in Pensylvania was shot down. And i've always been surprised that they didn't admit it at the time.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Im not sure I understand what you mean here. But put it this way, I cannot tell you why or how building 7 collapsed (for example). What I can say is that officially, it fell because of fire. Now there are alot of buildings that have burned down to the steel structure (madrid 2005) but not collapsed. Together with (as per my previous post) the kinds of tenants that were housed in building 7 my own conclusion is that the building was brought down on purpose and could not have fallen in the manner it did for the reasons given officially. Infact the owner of the World Trade Centre complex (Larry Silverstein) stated that they decided to "pull it". The problem with this is that if you want to pull a building, in a controlled demolition, you are going to need to plan and then rig the building which would take a couple of weeks.

There are also buildings for example, where a single small gas explosion on one floor has led to complete or partial collapse, termed progressive collapse. This is covered in our own Building Regulations under Part A3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

 

[dingodan]

There are also buildings for example, where a single small gas explosion on one floor has led to complete or partial collapse, termed progressive collapse. This is covered in our own Building Regulations under Part A3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

I don't doubt it. Although there are features of the collapse of building 7 which raise questions.

-the symetrical collapse of the building.

-Larry Silverstein said that they decided to pull it.

-people in the area were warned in advance to move away because the building was going to be "coming down".

-the BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed, 20 minutes before it did.

This all suggests to me that this was not a sudden and unexpected collapse. And remember the official account does not look to gas explosions or anything similar as the cause. They say it was fire that weakened the structure. I find that very difficult to believe, particularly looking at the state of the buidling just prior to it coming down.

I would not suggest that these points are evidence of a controlled demolition, just that they provide sufficient doubt in the official explanation and this then invites us to ask whether the evidence points to any other possibilities. For me it does.

 

[kevtherev]

The very thought that it was all staged is to laughable to even consider. I belive Diana was murdered. I belive the Kennedy assasination was an inside job. I belive area 51 does indeed store an alien craft. But I refuse to belive that anyone, anywhere would come up with a plan to murder thousands of there own people. The yanks dont usaully need much of a reason to start a war anyway, so they are hardly likely to start one by doing that. The towers collapsed the way they did by the sheer weight of the floors above the fire falling downwards on already weakend structure. Its as simple as that, how do people expect a tower to fall when the top half buckles and collaspes,,,sideways??

 

[kevtherev]

And they didnt just collaspe because of the fire....Two planes flying straight into the towers would have somewhat weakend the structure I think.

 

[dingodan]

The very thought that it was all staged is to laughable to even consider. I belive Diana was murdered. I belive the Kennedy assasination was an inside job. I belive area 51 does indeed store an alien craft. But I refuse to belive that anyone, anywhere would come up with a plan to murder thousands of there own people. The yanks dont usaully need much of a reason to start a war anyway, so they are hardly likely to start one by doing that. The towers collapsed the way they did by the sheer weight of the floors above the fire falling downwards on already weakend structure. Its as simple as that, how do people expect a tower to fall when the top half buckles and collaspes,,,sideways??

Hey buddy I am with you on that. Very difficult to accept.

Unfortunately the workings of the military/intelligence community can be quite dark, and often the ends (if rewarding enough) justify the means.

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(From Wiki) James Bamford wrote on Northwoods:

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

 

[dingodan]

And they didnt just collaspe because of the fire....Two planes flying straight into the towers would have somewhat weakend the structure I think.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

 

[kevtherev]

Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

Sorry, not sure what building 7 is. Just thought we were talking about the North and South wtc towers.....All the controlled explosions ive ever seen come from the bottom and the building collaspes or controlled explosions on points up the building...Everyone has seen them buildings fall a thousand times and they both clearly go from the top down. The sheer weight of each floor falling onto the next would be millions of tons of weight, no structure in the world could cope with that amount of downward force.

 

[dingodan]

Sorry, not sure what building 7 is. Just thought we were talking about the North and South wtc towers.....All the controlled explosions ive ever seen come from the bottom and the building collaspes or controlled explosions on points up the building...Everyone has seen them buildings fall a thousand times and they both clearly go from the top down. The sheer weight of each floor falling onto the next would be millions of tons of weight, no structure in the world could cope with that amount of downward force.

 

[drew]

Im not sure I understand what you mean here. But put it this way, I cannot tell you why or how building 7 collapsed (for example). What I can say is that officially, it fell because of fire. Now there are alot of buildings that have burned down to the steel structure (madrid 2005) but not collapsed. Together with (as per my previous post) the kinds of tenants that were housed in building 7 my own conclusion is that the building was brought down on purpose and could not have fallen in the manner it did for the reasons given officially. Infact the owner of the World Trade Centre complex (Larry Silverstein) stated that they decided to "pull it". The problem with this is that if you want to pull a building, in a controlled demolition, you are going to need to plan and then rig the building which would take a couple of weeks.

Madrid skyscraper fire 2005:

Larry Silverstein - We decided to "pull it". (he claims he meant "pull" the firefighters out, personally thats not what it sounds like to me)

Does he actually say 'Pull it' or just pull, as in pull back.

 

[dingodan]

Does he actually say 'Pull it' or just pull, as in pull back.

Listen to it its only 24 seconds lol.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure whether they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

 

[kevtherev]

Yep, that does look conrolled...but two things puzzle me about this.

1. Why do it at 5.20pm some 7/8 hours after the other two, I mean what would be the point?. The building would have almost certainly been empty, so why not blow it up at 10 am when you could have killed thousands more.
2.Maybe it was bought down because it was damaged beyond repair as would surely have been the case. Im sure a bomb would have done the job, might as well if it had to be destroyed anyway.

 

[Kick Ass Minton]

This thread makes interesting reading whichever way you look at it - especially when im sat at my desk on the 33rd floor of my building (hint - they sponsor us!) looking down at the WTC memorial undergoing some finishing touches...

 

[dingodan]

Yep, that does look conrolled...but two things puzzle me about this.

1. Why do it at 5.20pm some 7/8 hours after the other two, I mean what would be the point?. The building would have almost certainly been empty, so why not blow it up at 10 am when you could have killed thousands more.
2.Maybe it was bought down because it was damaged beyond repair as would surely have been the case. Im sure a bomb would have done the job, might as well if it had to be destroyed anyway.

I agree with your second point, why not just say, "hey it was unsafe, so we brought it down"? The problem arises when you consider what is required for a controlled demolition, namely planning and time. Deciding to bring a building down in a controlled demolition, and doing it the same day, is not really plausible. This then suggests planning before the day, and thats the problem.

Why do it a 5:20? who knows. But bare in mind that the following were tenants of WTC7:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
U.S. Secret Service
Securities & Exchange Commission
New York City Office of Emergency Management

This is pure speculation on my part, but one possibility, if you accept that this was indeed a military operation, would be to use the New York City Office of Emergency Management which I believe was on the top floor, to manage and coordinate the operation. This would be a great vantage point to watch everything (in NY at least) go down, and once it is over, destroy the evidence by bringing down the building from which the operation was executed. But that is purely speculation on my part.

Bare in mind that not alot of people are even aware that this building collapsed and one of the reasons for this is likely the fact that it came down much later in the day. Because it is far less explainable than the other two collapses, it would be better for it to come down with less attention, as it did.

 

[beorhthelm]

Many people in this thread have mentioned the difficulty in rigging a building with explosives without being noticed, and I agree the controlled demolition theory would require access to the towers before hand.
[...]
There was a "power down" in the weekend prior to the attacks, and the refitting of "internet cables" throughout the towers.

As described by Scott Forbes, senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, in this short 3 minute video:

i dont think you or the truthers quite graps the level of "access" required. its one thing to run some ethernet through ducting and underfloor/ceiling voids. its quite another to go drilling holes into concrete, cutting it away to expose steelwork, drilling steelwork directly, without making alot of mess and taking alot of time. you love youtube, go find and watch a program on demolition, they take weeks to rig an empty building 1/4 the size.

the database adminstrator is right that the notice period is unusually short, however its not uncommon to cut power. or rather, to tell people they are to cut power. typically you have an out window, far long than the time necessary. working on core power/networking infrastructure you might well tell everyone everything is going down but not actually do so or admins might take servers offline as a precaution against corruption (better to control the outage). if the systems arent needed over a weekend, this would certanly be my choice.

Again it is very difficult to say what happened with certainty. On balance, all things considered, I believe that the only plausable explanation is that this was a military style operation...

Stop there. up to this point, you are using your rational brain. after that point you are making a whole wealth of assumptions.

Its the most plausable explaination imo, and not because it makes perfect sense, but more because the official story is so highly implausable for a multitude of reasons.

really? really? do you actually realise what you say here? because theory x is flawed theory y is better on that basis alone. fundemental logical fallacy. you are basicly saying that you *want* there to be a conspiracy. for all the faults of the offical version, the conspiracies arent even consistant with themselves, with mulitple conflicting ideas thrown together. yet you believe that, not because its because its better explaination (how could it be), but simply because its not the official version.

 

[brightonrock]

I don't doubt it. Although there are features of the collapse of building 7 which raise questions.

-the symetrical collapse of the building.

-Larry Silverstein said that they decided to pull it.

-people in the area were warned in advance to move away because the building was going to be "coming down".

-the BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed, 20 minutes before it did.

I notice conspiracy theorists, or truthers, or whatever they want to be called now, always come back to building 7. Because they know really that the two twin towers could not have been controlled demolition. They know really that the wreckage found in Pennsylvania was a crash site, and the 'debris' which was reported to be spread over miles was in fact just paper and insulation. All the metalwork and bodies were in the same field. But the central foundation for a theory that there is more than meets they eye, is distrust. That trusting the government or 'official' account is naive. There must be something more at hand. So rather than believe in a COINCIDENCE, it must be a conspiracy.

Real life isn't an episode of 24 or Prison Break. Here are my answers to these points you raised:

-symmetrical collapse - it, like WTC1 & 2, falls from the top down, not the bottom up. The fact it falls into itself is very, very basic. The damage done when WTC1 or 2 (forgive me I don't know which) hit WTC7 destroyed one side of the building, and started fires which burned for hours and hours after the two main towers had fallen. Steel does not need to melt into liquid to lose its structural integrity and it's load-bearing capabilities. The damage done had the same effect as the plane+jet fuel in the main towers - structural damage, followed by weakening of supports, causing the top floor to collapse onto the one below, onto the one below that, and so on.

-I think Silverstein did mean pull the people out. They'd seen two buildings damaged and burning and built in the same way fall already. What was the point of more loss of life. His exact quote can be interpreted one of two ways, pull people out, or 'pull the cord' and destroy the building. I believe the former.

-They were warned it was coming down - in the same way as the WTC1&2. I think I would have moved myself way out of the way of any burning, damaged buildings that day. This is not an unusual quote for the day.

-The BBC report winds me up the most. In the utter, utter chaos of the day, the misinformation, the news networks scrambling for answers, for clear details, there were mistakes made. Of course there were. But conspiracy theorists cling to this news report as if the BBC were somehow 'in on' the whole thing. If someone's opinion is that the BBC knew about a conspiracy, and that 7 was going to be destroyed by controlled demolition, and reported it early, good luck to them. I think the more plausible explanation is they made a mistake.

Please understand - this is not an attack on you personally. But I find the conspiracy theories and theorists completely hypocritical in that the argument is 'open your eyes' and 'ask the question', which is very admirable, but they refuse to open their own eyes to the more plausible, unfortunate truth. Some zealous nutters caught the US napping. Shit security + people who can fly planes = disaster. Not conspiracy. Just negligence, carelessness, complacency.

 

[Paskman]

really? really? do you actually realise what you say here? because theory x is flawed theory y is better on that basis alone. fundemental logical fallacy. you are basicly saying that you *want* there to be a conspiracy. for all the faults of the offical version, the conspiracies arent even consistant with themselves, with mulitple conflicting ideas thrown together. yet you believe that, not because its because its better explaination (how could it be), but simply because its not the official version.

Simply this!!!