joecool

I can hear most of you guys now.... yeah right!... and you will all believe what you want.... I was there and myslef and 2 other cars saw what you would see on those pentagon tapes. I was on 395 south going to work in the middle lane, and nobody in sight in front of me, and 2 cars behind me in the slow lane a white 4 door compact and something else directly behind me and the way 395 is right past the pentagon is it makes a turn to the left and dips down, and this time in the morining the traffic going north was literally a parking lot so there is hundreds of eye witness to seeing the COMMERCIAL air lines fly over the highway seeming close enough to jump up and touch bu only heading south can you see the impact. I had been listening to the radio coverage of the Twin Towers all morning, and when I saw the plane fly over I could not take my eyes off of it, I it was watching a moive, a bad one. it did skip off the parking lot at the last min, and the sound of that above all I can never forget, the horrific sound of clanking echo sound. and boom, i swear to this day you can feel the heat.... i looked back and had drifter into the break down lane, 2 over to the left and hit the gas.... hard. I dont know how fast i was going but all i remebr is say holy shit.... holy shit.... holy shit.... it seem like a hundred times. When i finally 'came to' for lack of a better phrase i took the next exit and stopped at this little laudry mat place, it was the first place i came to off the exit that had a phone. My hands shock so bad and I asked ot use a phone and i can still remeber my voice cracking. This little old lady said yes and pointed it out, I dailed the only number im sure i capuld remeber at the time... and you dont know alone until you get a busy signal from 9-1-1. I hung up and dialed again... the operator picked up and all I could say is i just saw a plane hit the pentagon, all she said was 'i know' and hung up, not panicy but rushed, im sure there were a thousand more people with more important information then I had. So I walked out and drive to work, i dont rember get there just being there, I was working at target in woodbridge, VA and i walked through the door and of course everyone was at the electronic center eyes glued on the 20+ screens. A woman I work with looks up and imediatly asked me whats wrong, evedintly i'm white as a ghost.... "I saw it... I saw it" I tell the story 2 times to diffrent groups of people and even got the looks i'm sure some of you have now. My proof came later, as I told my story FOX was on the sceen talking to some idiot who was staying at a hotel across for the pentagon ans said he saw a 2 person little airplane hit the pentagon I was quick to point out he was incorrect, I told everybody i remeber the windows on the side all the windows, i could not see inside but i know what was there, my boss sent me home. and till this day, my hands shake, and I get chills.... I dont even know why, It was grusum, i guess i smart enough to fill the blanks of to put myslef in there shoes even if for a min. even writing this i will blame my grammer and spelling errors on that... but again you believe what you, be weary of storys of people that wernt there.... Believe me I wish I was one of them.

Willravel

That's a great story, but let me thhrow some statistics at you. There are a little over 50,000 members currently signed up with TFP. TFP is about 50,000 out of about 6,450,628,805 people on the planet, and about 900,000,000 internet users. Now, to be generous, let's say there were 900 direct eye whitnesses not just on 395, but anywhere to see the Pentagon tragety. I think most people can see where I'm going with this. Do you know what the odds are that one of our nice TFPers was present at the Pentagon crash? I'll give you a hint. It's over 1/1,000,000,000. It's more likely that you are fibbing to try and support something you believe in than someone who was actually there. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

If you could perhaps be more specific about what you saw, I could determine from the photo evidence available how likely it is that you were there.

Note: Before I forget, this is the second person of TFP to claim that he or she was present at the Pentagon crash. I apologize for having to 'out' these people, but it is necessary for people to take responsibility for their presenting fiction as fact to support their views. If you believe your view tro be justified, you wouldn't have to lie. Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel that it's necessary to lie to support something you firmly believe in. In fact, maybe it's time to rethink your position. Then again, maybe not.

I hope this thread has been helpful and interesting to everyone.

biznatch

willravel hit the nail on the head. I'm starting to get annoyed at these people making false claims. Why? Why are you so willing to defend something that's not true by lying..you don't have to give us your "hand-shaking" emotion stuff.
You're saying that there's enough cars on the highway to make it look like a parking lot, however you only remember two cars behind you? You try to make this seem like a vivid experience to make it real, but I call bullshit.
A lot of typos, and incomprehensible sentences. I recommend you stay off this board if all you want to do is talk b/s.

balderdash111

Will, your "stats" are incredibly misleading. I don't know if joecool is telling the truth or not, but let's try not to call the kettle black when it comes to using false or misleading information to support a point.

I almost went down this road when you accused me of lying (or perhaps it was only strongly suggested, to be fair), and decided it wasn't worth it.

Maybe later tonight when I have the time I will go through and explain. Suffice to say that when you are looking at far too large a range of people, and discounting several factors that call your analysis into question.

You aren't a statistician (and neither am I), so you need to be careful when using "stats". Of course, you aren't an architect, engineer, accident investigator, photoanalyst or any of the other specialties you so gleefully opine on, either, so why should statistics get in your way?



SNARF!

Ok, CSI, what exactly do you have in mind? Detecting the skid marks from his car in the satellite photos, or checking hist story against your preconceived ideas about what happened.

I can see it now: he says a plane hit the pentagon. It is clear from the photos that a plane did not hit the pentagon. Therefore, he is lying.

Do you see the flaw?

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

tecoyah

It is time for this thread to go back to the topic it was designed for.....please dont make me close it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

balderdash111

No, please do close it. I, as a tool of the media, fear the raising of new ideas about the Truth of September 11.

</sarcasm>

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

samcol

Please don't close this thread, just because it got a little off track doesn't mean it needs to go away.

Willravel

I was suggesting that it is more likely that joecool is lying than it is that he was there, on that highway, on that day, at that moment, and he happens to post about it. Do you think my suggestion is so unreasonable? Reason, after all, is what most of this thread is about. I think that it's reasonable to ask questions. You think a few of my questions are not reasonable, and that's fine. No, I am not a statician. I'm not a lot of things that would help in this thread. I do my best, though.
Initially, in the realm of programming languages, snarf meant to grab a large document or file and use it without the author's permission. Since the development of UNIX, the UNIX community -- since there is not the same sense of proprietary ownership as there is in the commercial computer industry because it is based on an open source idea -- uses the term to mean the acquisition of a file or set of files across a network. It is a command line resource grabber, transferring files through the HTTP, gopher, finger and FTP protocols without user interaction. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/snarf.html)
I can't stand CSI. The invesrtigations are usually overcomplicated and unreasonable.

There are obvious conclusions to draw from the photos take at the crash site and the highway that I can compare to his story. If, for example, he said he saw the heads of the streetlamps fall to the ground, he might be telling the truth. If he said that the plane was only 30 feet from the ground as it passed over the highway, he would be lying. I see no flaw in either of those hypothetical conclusions.

I'm sorry. I felt that joecool's post took away from the topic of discussion and it needed to be addressed in order for people not to be distractd by it.
Comon. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy, but Tec wasn't taking sides. Besides, a tool of the media wouldn't take this story on head on like you do, they'd distract from it with a story about how well the war against the insurgency is going!

zen_tom

Buildings collapse - have done for centuries. Knowing this, mightn't planners in large cities require tall buildings to collapse neatly in the event of structural failure? Imagine the mess if a large tower fell over sideways in a crowded city. I think it would be prudent to ensure that any tall building collapsed neatly built into its design. It makes sense.

Some buildings, due to their own structural requirements may need 'assistance' to collapse neatly, such as explosives etc - again, if this means that a single building collapse remains contained, that seems sensible to me.

The idea that every tower is wired for demolition is probably not something a building's manufacturer/owner wants to broadcast to the general populace, it's unlikely to convince people to pay their rent on time.

Now, I'm not sure what the issues are here, but I keep hearing about how the way the towers collapsed so uniformly appears to be suspect. It seems reasonable to me that in such extraordinary circumstances, people responsible for those buildings may need to make the decision to demolish the buildings neatly, rather than risk them toppling over and causing further devestation.

Does that sound reasonable?

On its own, I really don't think that issue alone is enough to warrant a governmental conspiracy.

Willravel

That is a very intelligent and reasonable theory. Have you ever been in a really tall building? I know I've been in the Empire State building, the St. Louis Arch, and the Eiffel Tower. Would you go anywhere near a building if you knew it were wired with explosives, even if they were there for your own good? If your theory is correct, that means that many people died and their families and friends don't know what really happened. That's the core of what the 9/11 discussions are about. These 3000 lives that were lost are of pinnacle importance, as they are the basis of several wars and policies. If the buildings were demolished, that means that it is likely that they were going to fall in a way that was less safe than a controlled demolition. If that saved livs, great. But if that costes lives, it is wrong. The reason secrets are dangerous is that sometimes those who keep the secret miss something those outside of the secret can see. What if the charges had gone off prematurely? What if they had gone off accedentally long before 9/11? Did those working in the building know that they were working near thermite (the most likely type of charge to be used on a steel reinforced building, such as the WTC)? Oddly enough, look up 'thermite' on Google. The third page is a 9/11 conspiracy page. It's a link to whatreallyhappened.com.

zen_tom

I don't know about intelligent, but reasonable I can agree with. I can see why someone would want to keep it quiet for equally reasonable (if debatable) reasons too.

I think the way the events of 9/11 were used as leverage for otherwise unpalatable foreign, and home security policies is questionable, but I think it's a step too far to suggest they were orchestrated by the US government.

Yes, by all means investigate evidence that differs from the accepted story, but anyone doing so should wait until you they have full and uncontrovertible evidence before linking it to notions of conspiracy and cover-up - Doing so prematurely skews further investigation and (equally importantly) makes it harder for others to view it from an unbiased standpoint.

Taking the (hypothetical) decision to take down a building still containing people because it may risk more lives if allowed to fall in an uncontrolled manner has got to be one of the most difficult decisions anyone is likely to make. It must be done with as much cool-headed composure as is (or isn't) humanly possible - should people in that position have to live through that, and then have to justify their choice to the families of those they chose to kill?

tecoyah

Thank you both for setting this thread back on track.....I honestly appreciate it

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Willravel

I hope you're right! 'Hope for the best, prepare for the worst' has always been my philosophy.
Well, in my mind just one of the presented facts is enough to take a closer look. The fact that the investigation that did happen was so crappy is reason enough to investigate further. Let's put it this way: the collapses were obviously suspect. If your theory is correct, then why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 commission? Only a few pages from that report were classified, and they had to do with the financing of 9/11, not the collapses or crashes. Also, the extreem tardiness of the NORAD interceptors in response to the hijackings (something that should have taken 5 minutes, but took over 2-4 hours) was never addressed.
The military has to justify civilian casualties (at least they should). I see this as basically the same thing. Say, "I'm sorry we had to do this, but it was necessary", not "Conspiracy theories are for crazy people, let's go to war."

If I had to sacrafice one person to save 1000, I wouldn't lie about sacraficing the one person. I would apologize.
My pleasure.

zen_tom

willravel, you are right, there should be more openess - especially about important events like these - if anything, keeping things hidden or attempting to hold back information is a policy that will often backfire, since people are usually able to see through lies etc.

Now, I've just watched the video linked, these are the points it raises.
1) Pentagon hole too small for 757 and the suggestion that may have been a missile.

I agree that the hole looks smaller than I might expect, but then, I'm not sure what to expect. The impacts on the WTC saw the plane entering the building in its entirity, not leaving any parts around either.

2) WTC controlled collapse/detonation

I think it's perfectly reasonable to prime skyscrapers for detonation, so as to avoid dangerous toppling scenarios. No conspiracy there.

3) WTC plane not a commercial liner

This is something I'm not convinced about - some eye-witnesses (out of hundreds, if not thousands) say it was a non-commercial flight - many others may disagree - there's just no real evidence either way - including the footage available. Further, and I'm not sure how to corroborate this, I remember friends of mine mentioning that they had seen the flights on their flight-paths via internet air-traffic-control information sites - these sites may have the information showing the flightpaths on that day - but it shows that either the air-traffic people were fooled too, or that they are in on it as well, or that they were commercial flights, hijacked by terrorists.

4) WTC plane with attached pod

I don't know about the pod - not much I can say about it.

5) Mysterious flashes at point or just prior to point of impact

I don't understand the big deal made about these - I'd pass it off as static charge - Same as you can get when you step out of your car after a long journey. No big deal.

biznatch

Wow, it feels good to come back to a serious thread.
zen_tom, your mentioning of the pre-rigged building theory being jutsified by the saving of human lives seems totally acceptable.
Anyway, it seems kind of hard to know if it really was rigged in the first place or not.
If it was though, I don't know what to think... So many questions unanswered, it's frustrating.
Intuitively, I don't think the gov't is behind the whole thing. However I do consider it as a possibilty, even if it is unlikely.
I do think, on the other hand, that some people of the govt', or related to it, have a hand in it.
And I do know that some people from the gov't know things that they won't tell us... but no big surprise there. The day we have truthful gov't a and an accurate and non-biased media is far from now.

Willravel

Well there's more to that particular theory. Right off the bat I have to admit that I am not any kind of trained expert in airplane crashes, but there are some things that make sense. Did you see the four frame video released by the Pentagon, the only video of the actual crash? It was quite disturbing for several reasons. Reason one is that the American DOD released to the world media a five frame video of the crash at the Pentagon. These were broadcast first on the internet, and then made their way to television. The problem with this is that those frames do not show a plane that fits the dimentions of a boeing 757-200, the plane said to hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I found some photos that might help to show the difference in size.



The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' . Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail traveled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'.
So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11
Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6. (sorry to ramble on)
Well, it will be a consipracy until they fess up to it.
All we have is these peoples words. It is only with other evidence that these reports become noteworthy.
Check out the 'In Plane Site' video about 9/11. It has a lot of video of the pod. Of course, no one know what it means, so we can file that in misc. 9/11 stuff.
Possibly. Like the pods, I feel these are neither here nor there until I can see or think of a reasonable explaination.

Ustwo

I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting all of the pictures, so I recomend the full story here .

Also for fun, imagine what happens light aluminum aircraft wings that hit reinforced concrete, would they do a lot of damage or would they snap like twigs?

Another interesting flight 77 myth busting site...
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pent...nsions_est.htm

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Cynthetiq

thanks ustwo... I did have a site that was created by some mechanical engineers that explained the forces at work for both the WTC and the Pentagon. I just wish I could find it again.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Johnny Pyro

Maybe it was missiles?

__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell

89transam

DLing videop now , am anxious to watch . I have a question though .Do you guys honestly beleive that it would be possible to cover up wireing up ALL buildings with explosives for saftey? I think its a convienent explination but there is no way you could keep something like that a secret.

__________________
I'd rather be rich than stupid.

Cynthetiq

some industry news:

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Grasshopper Green

Thanks for that cynthetiq. I'll try to catch it.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

Willravel

I finally found the interview with Dr. Michael Dietrick from the 911 Citizens Inquiry in Toronto. Dr. Dietrick is a professional Piolet that I met once in passing who has spoken, despite threats, about the various inconsistancies surrounding the aeronautic aspects of 9/11. I stronlgy suggest that you listen to this entire radio episode, from 'Guns and Butter'. I'm looking for a written transcript.
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpeg...31-Wed1400.mp3

Special thanks to KPFA for holding onto this speech, interview.

Martian

Let me see if I can head this one off at the pass.

First off, Dr. Dietrick is a psychoanalyst and a pilot. However, let's look at a few things he doesn't have :

Dr. Dietrick, at his own admission, does not have ATC rating. This means he cannot under current FAA regulations fly any commercially rated craft. He's flown planes, but he has never flown a 757.

I can drive a car, but I sure as hell can't drive a semi. I have no idea how one would react to any sort of control input. I don't know what it's like to drive one.

I've flown a plane before. I am not qualified to comment on how these planes fly.

Dr. Dietrick is not an air traffic controller. He does not have a full knowledge as to the way an air traffic control centre operates.

Dr. Dietrick is not a military officer. He does not have any inner knowledge in regards to how the military works.

Dr. Dietrick is not an aviation expert. He is a pilot.

His comments on NORAD SOP are true, but misleading. The ADS was not nearly so co-ordinated as he implies. When a plane disappears off radar, the air traffic controllor who is monitoring that plane is required to first ascertain that there is no mechanical malfunction. He is then required to attempt to establish contact. He then reports to his superior, who then reports to his superior, following the chain of command until the incident reaches an individual with the authority to contact NORAD and report a suspected hi-jacking. At this time the officials at NORAD, while following their own chain of command, must contact the airbase nearest to the last known location of the suspected hijacked aircraft, who (again, following that chain) will scramble fighters. Most of this notification occurred by voice. In other words, somebody has to physically pick up a telephone and make that actual phone call to manually relay the pertinent information. This is not an instant notification.

At this point, the aircraft who fails to transmit transponder codes or is otherwise suspected of being hijacked must be found. That's not as easy as it sounds. As Dr. Dietrick points out, there are thousands of aircraft in the air over the United States of America at any given time. Without that transponder code, somebody has to actually scan the radar screens and attempt to locate that one dot that might be the aircraft in question. The old adage about the needle and the haystack springs to mind.

It's also worth noting that at the time there was no coverage of the airspace over North America by NORAD. Picture NORAD like a donut, with the radar coverage pointing outward and the entire continent of North America in the 'hole'. The system was designed to protect us from outside threats - the idea of covering interior airspace was deemed unnecessary. I haven't confirmed this, but it was my understanding that this flaw has since been rectified.

Moving on...

I haven't heard about this "stand down order". I will look into it and give my thoughts at a later time. Again, it doesn't sound substantiated to me.

Who "reliably informed" the so-called truth seekers that President Bush was notified almost immediately that the hijackings had occurred? This is unsubstantiated and very unlikely; unless someone in direct contact with President Bush had some precognition of the hijackings, there's simply no way anyone could know in "near-real time."

This documentgives a more accurate description of the process involved from the NORAD side of the fighter scramble, as well as the actual timelines on the different fighter responses and makes it apparent why the planes weren't stopped. The response just isn't that quick.

His discussion of IFR rules are factually correct, but again misleading. See above for reasons.

I'm skeptical about his assertion that all control was taken from both civilian and military personnel for two reasons. The first being that it's simply impractical. As Dr. Dietrick himself observed, anyone who deviates from their flight plan by fifty feet vertically is asked to state intentions. If Mr. Rumsfeld was required to sign off on every altimeter malfunction he simply wouldn't hav time to do anything else. Further, if this is truly the case, why hasn't anyone come forward? Such an order would need to be known by thousands of civilian and military air traffic controllers. Why haven't some of these people come forward?

I'm not even going to comment on the war games...

I find it suspicious that the only substantiation of this so-called CNN tape that has seemingly vanished. I will, however, admit that I don't have all the facts on this. I have not done all the research. However, a google search turns up no substantiation immediately, but just a conspiracy theory sites.

Dr. Dietrick seems to have a lot of peronal contacts, but doesn't seem to be able to procure any names or documents to prove any of it.

I will not comment on his assertions in regards to Cheyenne Mountain - I have no facts as to the inner workings of NORAD. What he's suggesting doesn't seem very likely, however.

There are both photographs and video footage of an aide speaking with the president on the morning of September 11. However, this does not mean that there is any connection between the aide speaking with President Bush and with the attacks.

His claim that there was a mobile command centre in the basement of that grade school that was capable of watching the attacks in real time seems ludicrous to me. I will acknowledge that it's a possibility, but it seems unlikely to me.

I will not comment on the issue of Flight 93 because he refuses to make any definitive statements. However, he again makes a claim that his personal contacts can provide proof, but that he cannot identify them or provide any documented proof.

I do not represent myself as any sort of an expert or even knowledgeable on the subject. I don't know very much about what went on that day. Yet I can raise so many doubts about what this man says? Something just doesn't jive here.

I like that he addresses all of his documents by stating that they're available on the DoD website if you know how to find them, yet he does not provide any sort of methodology on how. This is what might be called hedging your bets; if anyone confronts him by saying they looked for said documents and were unable to find them, he can respond by suggesting the individuals did not know where or how to look.

Once more, Dr. Dietrick is not ATC rated. He has no clue how to fly a commercial aircraft any more than you or I do. Flying a 757 or 767 is nothing like flying a small single or dual engine commuter aircraft. He makes this admission himself. He is not qualified to make the claims he's making.

Once more, I don't understand a lot of what happened that day and I do not have all the facts. I didn't even do any research into this - my comments have all been made in real time as I listened. Personally, if I'm able to debunk or question every single assertion Dr. Dietrick makes with my very limited knowledge on the subject, I'm going to have a real hard time accepting that he is an expert or really, anything more than a scare-mongerer.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

fastom

Ummm, OK. You sound like somebody that always touches the glowing orange stove element to decide if it's hot.

Martian

fastom - I'm not sure what you mean by that.

My overarching point was that this man isn't really any more qualified to comment on the things he's commenting on than I am. And that with a very small amount of research and knowledge (all of what I said being information I knew off hand from having double-checked previous such thoeries) it turns out that nothing he says makes sense anyway.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's a bad idea to assume that somebody who claims to be or is said to be an expert automatically knows more than you or I, or that anything they say is true by default. I've always been the type to gather my own facts and draw my own conclusions. It doesn't seem wise to me to accept what somebody else is saying at face value, especially when what they're saying is based on a hypothesis that seems far-fetched (ie, that the US Government would orchestrate or deliberately allow an attack on it's own citizens).

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

shadowfiend

Hasn't this thread been made before? I remember this thread from long ago, and there was a clip that showed about this. There were a lot of eyewitnesses that swore they saw a 'military jet' rather than an airliner. However their statements are still rather doubtful and there are no proofs to certify their validity. Much credence could not be given to a few person's statements, but they do raise some ideas. Nonetheless, it is very clear that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon.

__________________
Have you ever looked into a mirror and just said... damn... I'm one sexy f**ker!!! Yeah... me neither.

fastom

Regardless or whether an airliner hit the Pentagon or somebody lobbed a grenade at it from a passing car... your government IS lying you.

By the way a plane crashed into a building in the middle east yesterday, it was on the news... building is still standing too. Weird, aren't they supposed to crumble?

Cynthetiq

I'm sorry I cannot locate any information about a plane crashing into a building on any news sources can you please elaborate?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

MexicanOnABike

in iran. like 120 dead. a milatary plane if i'm correct. i'll link if i find it.
it was on fark yesterday.

uncrtn

must say that the more you look the real answers come out stay sheltered or get out and get saturated

fastom

If the JFK deal is still considered a mystery 42 years later don't expect the government to fess up to this anytime soon.

Didn't somebody say "You can't fool all the people all the time"? You only need to fool half, the other half may know the truth but when they argue it's a draw.

Willravel

The nice thing is that we have a trump card: building 7. The fact that FEMA coulnd't figure it out is pretty much indisputable. If that's under question, then the twin towers are under question. If the nyc attacks are udner question, then all the attacks are under question. You could also ask where the evidence was that linked Saudis to the attacks, espically considering they keep turning up alive. When people actually listen to me, most of them accept that there are a lot of unansered questions about 9/11, and that' my goal. The more people that ask questions, the more they'll want answers and the more pressure will be put on those who know the answers. I'm going to sleep now.

SERPENT7

NO ONE in charge of anything would make a decision that he KNEW would result in the immediate death of multiple members of his own subordinates. Anyone who doubts this has clearly never served in any of the services. (Most of the people killed in the actual collapse were emergency services personel.)
Also, buildings do not come loaded with self-destruction charges, nor a big red button labeled 'do not push'.
Besides, having actually read the 9-11 report, i doubt very much that there was a conspiracy on the scene. Things sounded pretty disorganized, not deliberate in any way. (They moved thier command center twice and didn't tell anyone, no one realized there weren't any trucks in the city with ladders tall enough to reach beyond floor 20, their radios couldn't function due to structural interference...etc.)

Tachion

I don't know if anyone has found this but there has been an independant and fairly exhaustive look into these theories.

Check out:

9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Willravel

Yeah, we went over that article a lot in another 9/11 related thread: Building 7 Thread.

Martian

wllravel,

I read your rebuttal to PM's assertions in the other thread.

It seems your issue with their take on it (which I think we can label as the official explanation) is that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't look progressive. The problem with that is that assuming that the building is designed the way they say it is a progressive collapse wouldn't be the gradual process you seem to expect. It would appear spontaneous, since the one side coming down would place a high level of strain on the other two columns (due to the crossmembers on the fifth and seventh floors) and pull them down as it went. The whole thing would appear spontaneous. What makes it progressive isn't the duration or appearance of the actual collapse, but the pattern of stresses on the load bearing members.

Obviously, I don't have access to the blueprints for WTC 7 but the design suggested, while unconventional, isn't unfeasible. With four main columns supporting the building, the cross members on the fifth and seventh floors would serve the purpose of equalizing the load, so that no one column is carrying an inordinate amount of the building's weight. By placing the cross members low in the buildings structure, the equalization takes place near the bottom of the main columns, where the load is highest. In the event of a collapse, it would be nearly impossible for only half or even a quarter of the building to come down without taking the rest with it; if one of those columns went, it'd pull the rest of the building down with it.

The building did collapse into it's footprint. This is what any superstructure will do without some outside force. It's a safety measure, to keep undue damage and harm occuring to the surrounding people and property due to one collapse.

I have yet to be convinced that there was anything untoward being perpetrated by the US government on that day. I am a natural skeptic, but it goes both ways. If you're going to cry foul, especially if you're going to suggest something that seems contrary to common sense, you'll need irrefutable evidence before I'll buy it. Suggesting that the United States government would intentionally allow or even perpetrate an attack on it's own people is, to me, contrary to common sense.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

samcol

The burden of proof is on the United States government not the conspiracy theorists. Remember the 9/11 investigations goal was to find what went wrong and not who was to blame. It's their job to prove to us who did it and they haven't yet. We went to 2 wars and destroyed many civil rights without enough evidence against al qaida to even beat them in court.

Things like the 4 military drills depicting the same event on 9/11, insider CIA put options on airline companies, a mayor being called by the whitehouse and being told not to fly to New York, NORAD and the FAA disregarding all standing operating procedure, Bush's brother Marvin running security on the WTC complex during 9/11, and the declassified official government plan to carry out terror attacks on it's civilian population and blame it on it's enemies are just a few red flags that you should seriously question. Why doesn't the 9/11 commission or pop mech. answer some of those key questions instead of focusing on the things that can't really be proven one way or the other.

Just because YOU wouldn't do this to the civilian population doesn't mean they wouldn't. You have to look at the evidence. If you were on the jury during a murder trial just saying I don't think the person would do it really means nothing.

Martian

First off, that's ludicrous. The United States government has provided ample proof that the attacks were perpetrated by means of commercial airliners and that the collapse of the builings in the World Trade Centre was a result of these airliners. I have none of the evidence used to prove that the Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack handy, but I do seem to recall that they did initially claim responsibility for it.

Care to back up any of those allegations? I've seen no proof of any of it, a fair amount of evidence contrary to some and a few others are things I hadn't heard before today.

This has nothing to do with what I would or wouldn't do. It's more to do with what seems reasonable. The United States government is (ideally) an embodiment of it's people. I realize that the real world isn't nearly so clear-cut as that, but it seems a bit far-fetched that a democratic government founded by a nation who apparently holds peace and freedom as core values would perpetrate an attack on it's own people for any reason, let alone some of the spurious motives that have been put forward. I'm of the belief that if one wants to make such a claim, one must have unassailable evidence of the veracity of that claim if one expects to be taken seriously. I've seen no such evidence; the fact that there's even debate tells me that it likely doesn't exist.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

I'm looking for more footage of the WTC 7 collapse, but it is scarce. As I have stated before, no steel reinforced buildings besides the WTC have ever collapsed because of fire. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Why did it fall at all, let alone all columns giving way at once?
The blueprints weere classified after 9/11. Even with the unorthodox design structure, making it seemingly more likely to collapse, why did it fall from a few small fires?
Well the WTC towers were each hit from one side, ripping through the outer supports. Why didn't they fall into the side that they were struck? Why did the top floor collapse first? I know heat rises, but it can't be hotter above than it is in the middle (the source of the heat), and the middle had much more stress (namely the top 1/3 of the building) to deal with.
It's not a matter of attacking the American people per se. In fact I'm not convinced that the intent was entirely murderous. Earlier someone p[ut fourth the theory that the building was wired to go down to minimize the footprint in case of an attack not unlike 9/11. That seems, while terribly dangerous, to be reasonable froma certian perspective. Of course if you follow the PNAC, you'd probably think otherwise.