9/11 becoming the new JFK assassination [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Secretariat

11-12-2005, 04:33 PM

Like JFK, we may never know everything. Oswald's comments about being a patsy were silenced by Jack Ruby, and while we have been told it was simply a crazed lone gunman in Dallas that day, there is anecdotal information that does at least create suspicions that there may have been more. That one we'll never know.

911...well, some of the things the Utah Physics Professor points up in the article I've read before. As he states:

"Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says."

Now, people are not going to want to beleive that because we want to put it behind us and get the culprits. If in fact there were accomplices, and the 911 incident went beyond the people who flew in the planes, then we haven't idenitifed all responsible. In fact some of the list of Saudis posted by the FBI after the incident was wrong and has been acknowledged by the govt. that some of the people coudl not have been in the planes. The falling of WTC 7 is extremely suspicious as no plane ever hit it.

I would like to see a scientific symposium by men such as this Physics professor and other scientists who investigate the 911 incident and publish a non-partisan report. No politicians allowed of any party on the panel though.

Think that woudl ever happen? Not.

Secretariat

11-12-2005, 04:50 PM

Particularly illuminating in the article was that one could drop something from the top of WTC 7 and "without resistance" it reaches the ground in six seconds, but in the fall of WTC 7 it fell almost exactly in 6 seconds. In other words, "with supposed resistance" between floors it fell in about the same time as the free falling object. As he says from a physics point of view physically impossible without a demolition. And there was no "jet fuel" in WTC 7 to melt the steel.

PaceAdvantage

11-12-2005, 05:51 PM

I'm surprised by some who fully accept the official explanation. It's very odd in 46zilzal's case, since he is constantly calling into question offical explanations in other areas of life.

Oh well....live and learn I suppose.

And 46, the intelligent design replies are getting dull. How about adding some substance to the discussion. How about debating the points raised by the professor in the article. Do you feel his points are completely invalid?

PaceAdvantage

11-12-2005, 06:06 PM

BTW, is Brigham Young a fringe school? No, it's ranked #71 in the nation, according to USNews & World Report....not too shabby.

So, I'm going to read this physics professor's paper and decide for myself. If you're interested, I suggest you do the same....

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

GameTheory

11-12-2005, 07:47 PM

The obvious question is if you're going to blow up the buildings with bombs that have already been planted, why the hell go to all the trouble of hijacking planes hundreds of miles away and steering them into the buildings? They had to figure their chances with the planes were 50/50 at best, but they already had bombs in the buildings?

This is typical conspiracy theory nonsense -- they always try to come up with "scientific" evidence as if they can really model all the variables of a PLANE CRASHING INTO A BUILDING. Chaos anyone? If they could really determine exactly would could or couldn't happen in such a scenario, then they would have been able to give us an hour-by-hour description of exactly what Katrina was going to do and the damage it was going to cause (in detail) before it happened.

The only thing this shows is that there are some dumb professors out there.

46zilzal

11-12-2005, 07:49 PM

The only thing this shows is that there are some dumb professors out there.
could not have stated it better

Steve 'StatMan'

11-12-2005, 08:53 PM

Add me too. With big planes and nearly full fuel tanks, who needs to preplant bombs then wait all weekend hoping noone notices, and then have their men take the risk to hijack airplanes and crash them into the bulidings with their 'preplanted bombs' inside. NFW. Just garbage that hopefully won't cause any confusion. Maybe the tin-foil hat, flat-earth, and no-moon-landing crowds will buy into it, but I sure as heck can't.

With wacked out stuff like this, is he trying to become the Mormon version of Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts?

Steve 'StatMan'

11-12-2005, 09:35 PM

Quoting Prof. Jones from the article:
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

Yeah, sure. Muslims hijacking and crashing the two airplanes into them wouldn't have anything to do with the buildings falling down. What, these guys would run a suicide mission for something other than their own warped religious mission? Damn fool.

GameTheory

11-12-2005, 09:54 PM

Now since the planes blew up and we don't have video of the inside of the cabins, it seems to me the best avenue for conspiracy theorists to pursue is that the planes were not hijacked by Muslims at all...

PaceAdvantage

11-12-2005, 10:06 PM

I would agree with you all if it weren't for the simple fact that all THREE buildings came down in similar fashion (one of them wasn't even HIT by a plane, NOR did it appear to be structurally damaged in any marked way by falling debris).

I think there is more to this than you guys are willing to believe. I'm not saying this professor is 100% dead-on, but what I am saying is that the QUESTIONS he raises are LEGITIMATE.

How many of those who responded to this thread that this guy is nothing more than a crackpot or attention seeker actually took the time to read the professor's paper (not the article from the first note, but his actual paper)?

I realize 9/11 is still a very painful memory for all of us, but to ignore blatently obvious questions in the name of packing it all into a very neat and clean box is just wrong.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-12-2005, 10:45 PM

No offense, but I'm not going to bother. True, no other steel building has fallen this way because of fire. But no large steel skyscraper has ever been hit in this manner by a full-sized, fully-fueled airplane. Times two (planes and buildings), plus the third building which I thought went because it was compromised by the debris and shocks of the other two massive falling buildings falling nearby.

Lots of regular, dangerous stuff in those buildings which on their own could explode. We had a building explosion & fire in Chicago within the last 2 years. Initial concern was possible terrorist attack. The real reason was quite legitimate, though stupid. As I recall, a commerical jewler had a tank of some chemical that was used to their routine processes. Someone made a mistake, either in leaving the handle/nosle near an open flame, or doing something that, anyway, caused the tank to explode, wiping out several offices and causing a fire. I don't recall if that was the same fire that caused several people to perish by being trapped in the fire-escapes due to bad evacuation procedures and locked stairway doors.

Anyway, in any commercial tower, there are all kinds of things that can explode when crushed or ignited, etc. Might be all kinds of stuff throughout the building.

I'd watched a PBS show, I think it was Frontline, that showed a very plausible explaination as to why the floor stuctures failed, and why they pancaked on top of each other, once 2-3 floors had failed.

I'm mad at myself enough for not getting enough things done at home and/or racing prep as it is. I'm going to skip the details. If anyone finds a bunch of serious details that make sense and quotes them, perhaps, if I find time, I'll look it over. But offhand, I don't see enough fruit at the top of this tree to make me want to stop and climb up the tree and get it.

Oh, yes, on hijackers. Are there any other connections or reasons why passengers on 4 separate airplanes at the same time would be flown/hijacked at the same time. If reports from pilots of hijackings were made via radio, these people would need to match any descriptions given, and there would need to be a common link between all 4 airplanes/passenger lists/crews.

Heck, maybe bombs were also loaded on the plane and went off on impact. A thousand-ish gallons of ignited jet-fuel can make a lot of things go 'boom'.

Heck, remember the tragic bus fire that happened when some seniors had to evacuate Houston due to Hurricane Rita? Just took some sparks from underneath the bus to cause a fire, and the senior's oxygen tanks exploded on them.

GameTheory

11-12-2005, 10:50 PM

I would agree with you all if it weren't for the simple fact that all THREE buildings came down in similar fashion (one of them wasn't even HIT by a plane, NOR did it appear to be structurally damaged in any marked way by falling debris).If that was the "official" story, don't you think the conspiracy people would then be propsoing some other version of what happened? It is never about what is the most reasonable explanation of what happened, but just a desire to contradict whatever is reported -- to come up with some... well, conspiracy.

It seems there are so many conspiracies behind practically everything that happens. Surely some of them have been exposed by now and the conspiratorial version of what happened has come to be accepted by the mainstream as the truth. I'm sure you can all list off the top of your head those people involved in such plots that came forward once the plot was exposed and told the truth.

Let's make a list of those conspiracies and "reformed" conspirators now:

WHAT? There are none? Every conspiracy ever perpetrated was a smashing success? None were exposed?

Conspiracies DON'T EXIST! People are bad at keeping secrets -- they always come out eventually. Conspiracy theories are a psychological phenonmen created by people trying to create structure from chaos, to make themselves look important, etc etc.

PaceAdvantage

11-12-2005, 11:00 PM

It's not really a conspiracy theory. It's a need to a fill a void left by the official explanation as to why and how all three buildings fell to earth in such a neat, orderly, and TIMELY manner (talk about creating STRUCTURE from CHAOS)!!!

If you guys aren't going to bother to even read the professor's work, then I guess this thread is worthless....never mind....

Steve 'StatMan'

11-12-2005, 11:27 PM

Not a lot of PP'S on burning skyscrapers to make predictions as to when they should fall. But given the size of those fires and the damage, and the planes hitting their initial targets within 20 minutes of each other, even as an non-scientist, I'd expect them to fall within a similar time period. Heck, if they were to going to fall at all, I'd be shocked if they didn't fall within a few hours of each other. Shake the ground with that much force and falling rubble, I'm surprised that only 1 other nearby building fell. Earthquakes can cause a lot of buildings to fall, this 'epicenter' just happened to much more limited area than an earthquake. Didn't another building get damaged but didn't fall? (Was it later torn down, or destroyed). When it happened, I only saw the news after the first building had collapsed. When I got to a TV, knowing that the first one had already collapsed, I figured it was only a matter of time before the second would also collapse, they'd both gone through so much similar major damage and a huge overall inferno.

Sorry Mike! I'm not shooting at you!

GameTheory

11-12-2005, 11:50 PM

Yeah, that's what I thought -- the bottom simply fell out. Two huge towers right next to it collapse in a giant crator, of course it fell down.

I did look at the supposed "squib" videos -- lame.

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2005, 12:26 AM

You guys are treating this like a UFO thing....I was looking more at his science. The videos probably don't prove anything one way or another. Hell, I couldn't even see the videos because I was getting the "bandwidth overload" message.....

In any event, I just think this stuff is interesting....I've always had a few doubts in my head since 9/11, and I occasionally go searching for the latest "theories" and was surprised to come across a paper written by a "legitimate" scientist.

But, you're all probably right. A couple of guys who never flew commercial airliners before (this is what we were told...only sim flights) took three big jets at top speed and slammed them into WTC 1 and 2 (not as easy as it sounds at first pass under that kind of stress), PLUS took another one and slammed it into the Pentagon (a MUCH, MUCH tougher feat to pull off, considering how low the Pentagon is to the ground, and considering again, that these pilots supposedly had little to no real world flight experience in a big ol' commercial airliner).

Then, with controlled demolition precision, each tower fell to earth shortly after being hit (despite claims that the towers were built to WITHSTAND a direct hit from a jumbo jet....or at least not collapse within an hour or two). Then, WTC7 (an interesting building if you ever get a chance to research its history and occupants), with controlled demolition precision, fell to earth a few hours later, despite not being hit by an airliner.

Then, within hours, we see on TV the names and faces of all the terrorists involved (but if you look at the passenger manifests, there are no such names listed). All very strange.

I guess it was just the equivalent of the terrorist lotto, and the terrorists happened to hit the powerball mega millions on 9/11....

One last chance....how about the actual science and physics the professor talks about in his paper....any credence at all given to that?

Secretariat

11-13-2005, 12:43 AM

PA,

For once we're in agreement which is probably pretty frightening to both of us. What's wrong with asking questions on the science of the event, and as the professor asks, having a panel of scientists to investigate. WTC 7 has always perplexed me. It's collapse as fast as free fall without being hit just doesn't jive.

As I said before, too much resistance, people don't want to look at those kinds of questions anymore. They are convinced they know the truth about it all and have heard enough.

dav4463

11-13-2005, 12:54 AM

So who is behind the bombs if there are any?

Steve 'StatMan'

11-13-2005, 12:56 AM

Here's a link to Nova regarding their report in April 30, 2002 on why the towers fell. Some graphic, links and interviews. Not sure what of the scientists they interviewd and their theories ended up in the 'Official' version, but it made sense to me at the time. Basically, the tower wasn't knocked over, it survived that as designed. But the fire was much greater than anticipated. (Personal note - in the pre 9/11 days, planning for a plane coming into the town, fuel mostly spent, would have made sense. But who'd have thought a plane fully loaded with fuel on a shortened flight deliberately used as a weapon of destruction.) The foam protection (for fires) may have been jarred off by the high-speed of the plane (unlike an accident where a plane would be decelearating prior to a landing), exposing the metal, and uneven heating of the girders and supports likely caused them to bend and weaken. Once a couple floors started to fall, that started the pancaking downward.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2005, 01:02 AM

So who is behind the bombs if there are any?

I believe this question goes way beyond the scope of this professor's paper and theories. He's mainly dealing with the science behind the events....

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2005, 01:03 AM

Here's a link to Nova regarding their report in April 30, 2002 on why the towers fell. Some graphic, links and interviews.

I saw the special when it first aired. It was all very plausible and nicely presented. It is certainly right up there at the top of the list of most likely explanations. But that doesn't preclude me from exploring other alternative views.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-13-2005, 01:12 AM

One things for sure. The tragic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are going to be The Titanic, The Hindengburg, The Pearl Harbor, The Hiroshima & Nagaski, etc. of our time. They will facinate us, frustrate us, shock and depress us, forever.

GameTheory

11-13-2005, 02:17 AM

The science won't mean much to me because I'm not a physicist. I'm sure he could make it all very convincing but I'd have no clue whether what he is saying actually makes sense scientifically. But as a general rule, when "theorists" start saying, "This or that isn't possible -- not supported by the data" they are just blowing hot air. They aren't talking about a laboratory experiment under controlled conditions. The fact is this guy doesn't know the exact conditions of the scenario he is attempting to model. So it is all interesting conjecture, and rather meaningless...

MichaelNunamaker

11-13-2005, 04:18 AM

so.cal.fan

11-13-2005, 10:08 AM

Again, I pray this nutty guy doesn't get any publicity.
You're right Steve.......he could become the Mormon Pat Robertson! :eek:
I'd hate to see him get a lot of publicity like that crazy Ward Churchill got.
:ThmbDown:

kenwoodallpromos

11-13-2005, 11:35 AM

J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, said that the large amounts of jet fuel that spilled from both airliners - loaded with enough fuel to fly across the country - probably ignited fires that softened steel supports and caused them to fail.
He does not believe there were other charges set.

Tom

11-13-2005, 11:37 AM

It would be far to much to believe that they could place explosives in the exact floors the two planes would hit. It is a stretch that both could even hit the towers being flown by amatures, but to hit them both in pre-determined areas? Hey, 100-1 shots come in every so often. But we also have video evidence that the first tower fell just as described - remember the unique construction of the two towers that allwed them to fall as they did. The other building buned many hous longer than the first two did.

I would see investigations aimed at find and killing Bin Laden and Zarqawi than this.

Thinkg like this are why I never ever hire a college grad over someone with experience. :D

kenwoodallpromos

11-13-2005, 11:42 AM

From Wikipedia-
"Wade and the Kennedy Assassination
In 1947, Wade joined the Dallas County District Attorney's Office. He won election to the top job only four years later, a position he would hold for thirty-six years straight, from 1951 until his voluntary retirement in 1987. In the early afternoon hours of November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in downtown Dallas, just blocks from Wade's headquarters in the Dallas County Courthouse. Wade recounted that Cliff Carter, a member of newly sworn-in President Lyndon B. Johnson's staff, telephoned him three times that night. According to Wade, Johnson wanted any evidence of a potential conspiracy suppressed, lest the stability of the nation or its foreign relations be put in jeopardy. Wade asserted that Johnson essentially ordered him to "charge Oswald with plain murder." In point of fact, that was actually the only available option, because in 1963 there was no federal law concerning assassination of the president: technically, the JFK assassination was a conventional murder case over which only Dallas County held jurisdiction."
Feds had no right to get involved.

lsbets

11-13-2005, 11:47 AM

Here is the biggest flaw with almost any conspiracy theory. People are incapable of keeping their mouths shut. Whether its the mafia or politicians, people like to brag and at certain times will brag about almost anything. Or, people will talk to save their own butts and fry their friends. If more than one person knows, it is virtually impossible to keep anything secret forever.

so.cal.fan

11-13-2005, 12:02 PM

I remember watching a TV show....I think it was on PBS.....they discussed how the towers collapsed. The man who built them was one of the guests and they all concluded that the planes did indeed cause the collapse.
It's an OJ type(aliens from the planet Clarion left the bloody Bruno Mali shoe prints) conspiracy theory.
The only press this deserves is in the SUN tabloid, along with a story on the Three Headed Baby Alien found in the Arizona Desert story.

Tom

11-13-2005, 12:15 PM

I alwys thought Oswald was part of a conspiracy, but after seeing scientific and forensic evidence as well as actual physical verification, I think he acted alone now. The magic bullet theory was proven to be valid, Oswald's timeline walking away was verified, etc. etc.

I think human nature is such that we just cannot accept that something happened and we didn't ccathc it. There has to be some hidden thing going on.

The only conspiracy theory I have about 9-11 is that the islamic world has been set to destroy the Christian wold since the 7th century and it continues today.
They have jihads, we have crusades. Neither will end until on or the other group ends. We will never live in peace - ever.

so.cal.fan

11-13-2005, 02:25 PM

"We will never live in peace - ever".

I sure hope your wrong, Tom :(

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2005, 02:49 PM

Wow, I never thought this professor would get such a hostile reaction from some on this board.

It's amazing to me that some in this thread accept at face value our government's official explanation as to why and how, yet on different matters (such as IRAQ, the WAR, and WMD's), the government is a LIAR. Funny stuff 46zilzal, eh?

In any event, I will say that I don't buy this professor's argument 100%, not even close. I thought it was interesting, which is why I threw it out here for discussion. The man raises some valid questions, at least in my mind. Some here have pointed to some equally valid answers, which I appreciate.

The case still isn't closed for me, as it has never been closed, and probably never will be closed. But then again, like I said, I'm a sucker for a good conspiracy theory.....

46zilzal

11-13-2005, 03:52 PM

[QUOTE=so.cal.fan]"We will never live in peace - ever".

if thousands of years of history are any guide, he is 100% correct

kenwoodallpromos

11-13-2005, 04:24 PM

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2005, 05:36 PM

If the coordination was so great, why was the portion of the Pentagon hit being remodeled and relatively empty?
If the terorists werre smart, they could have waited a few days and flown the plane into the crowd at the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. They picked the towers because it was an easy target.

Ken, good question on the Pentagon...the conspiracy theorists have had a field day with that one....I won't even bother going into the details....run a search on Google and you'll find plenty of "answers"....

I've always maintained the "terrorists" get far too much credit for being "smart." Others here will tell you these guys are cunning, clever, and able to wait you out forever for the perfect time. I don't buy it....

If they were smart, they would have flown the planes into the nuke plant a few miles up the Hudson River....I believe one plane passed right over the plant on the way to the WTC....of course, I believe nuke plants are also built to withstand a hit by an airplane (as was the WTC, supposedly)....

Although, if the theory that the WTC was laced with demolition charges was actually true, it would have been a lot easier to plant those charges in a publicly accessed building such as the WTC, then say, a restricted access nuke plant, which makes the nuke plant a less desirable target.....oops....did I just say that? Never mind....

Secretariat

11-13-2005, 06:30 PM

Hi PA,

You wrote "If you guys aren't going to bother to even read the professor's work"

OK, I read his paper.

A much better analysis (which actually answers some of the good professor's objections) is at

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Mike Nunamaker

Interesting and a good link, BUT, there is nothing about WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane, there was no jet fuel burning the steel in that building YET if one drops a ball from the building with NO resistance it is a 6 second drop. When the WTC 7 collapsed it approximated a fall with NO resistance. This in a building with no burning jet fuel. Some state the debris from the other building caused the fall of WTC 7, BUT the fall of the two main WTC fell alomst directly down as in a controlled demolition. WTC 7 was not hit BY significant debris from the falling buildings. Certainly not enough weight to to crush a steel frame that had no jet fuel burning the beams. The professor's points are well taken and deserve scientific investigation.

WTC 7's collapse has never been sufficiently explained.

I am amazed, like PA, that a scientific inquiry, rather than a political one, which is what we had, would meet with this kind of resistance.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-13-2005, 06:46 PM

Well, if the ball is freely dropped, it will fall in a straight path to the earth. So why wouldn't thousands of tons of steel and concrete fall straight to earth as well. Seems straight forward to me. Remember, the building absorbed the shock of the impact. It most likely was the decaying internal support of the floors that cause them to fall, and once it became too much, would fall straight downward, taking everything underneath with it. So, sure, it fell like a controlled demolition - they both relied on gravity.

If anything might have been inside the towers to help them destory them, it'd likely be some GPS device to help the hijackers set the coordinates so they would be more likely to hit their target.

GameTheory

11-13-2005, 07:24 PM

These building cannot be "tipped" over. If they are going to fall, it is going to be straight down and fast. We are used to seeing "controlled" implosions of OLD buildings where masonary is holding everything together, not lightweight framed steel buildings.

Tom

11-13-2005, 07:41 PM

"We will never live in peace - ever".

I sure hope your wrong, Tom :(

History is on my side on this one.....and NOBODY will ever like the Jews, it appears....they jut get kicked around by everyone. Maybe diversity is not such a good thing. At the least, it brings pendemic flu with it!:rolleyes:

Tom

11-13-2005, 07:43 PM

If anything might have been inside the towers to help them destory them, it'd likely be some GPS device to help the hijackers set the coordinates so they would be more likely to hit their target.

I never considered that...good point...very good point. May well have had a suicide "air controller" inside??

Would make for an interesting movie, or plot for 24 for sure.

GameTheory

11-13-2005, 09:05 PM

I never considered that...good point...very good point. May well have had a suicide "air controller" inside??

Would make for an interesting movie, or plot for 24 for sure.The GPS coordinates of a stationary building are known -- no need to for a "homing device" inside the building to find it.

Tom

11-13-2005, 09:32 PM

I was thinking something of a beacon - lock onto a signal and be guided into the building. Or maybe I am watching too much Star Trek!

GameTheory

11-13-2005, 09:49 PM

Yeah, but you don't need a beacon or a lighthouse if you know where you are going. Much more likely to have a GPS device on the plane itself so you know where you are (since you are the one moving) in relation to the stationary target.

PaceAdvantage

11-14-2005, 01:18 AM

BTW, why is it such a far fetched idea that the very same terrorist network that flew those planes into those buildings also placed explosives in the twin towers? We're talking about the same group, who 8 years earlier placed a truck PACKED with explosives in the basement of the WTC with the intent of bringing the building down.

Who's to say they didn't go back to the drawing board and made sure they got it right the second time around? Only this time, they added some missile-planes to the agenda, hitting both high and low. On this angle alone, I would think further investigation would be warranted. The BYU professor's theories certainly don't prevent the scenario where al-Queda terrorists could have used explosives inside the building as well as airplane-missiles.

I don't understand why everyone was so quick to dismiss this angle, both immediately after 9/11 and today. No serious forensic examination of the wreckage ever took place, from the information I have been able to find. Why is that?

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, One hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fishkills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.

How is it that none of the flight recorders from any of the aircraft that crashed into the three buildings were recovered? Why is it that nobody from the NYFD was allowed to testify before the 9/11 commission (from what I can gather).

PaceAdvantage

11-14-2005, 01:24 AM

Some interesting stuff gleaned from the web....like I said, I'm a sucker for a conspiracy theory:

9/11 Comparison Fires

October 2004
Venezuela (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/venezuela_fire.html)
Fire duration:
17 hours
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/venezuela_fire_small.jpg

February 2005
Spain (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html)
Fire duration:
20+ hours
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire_small.jpg

Both of the above buildings were of inferior build quality to the WTC, yet they burned hotter & far longer than the twin towers & WTC 7 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html) AND REMAINED STANDING.

WTCs 1 & 2
WTC 2 fire duration:
56 minutes
WTC 1 fire duration:
85 minutes
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_fires_long2_small2.jpg

WTC 7
No aircraft impact
Fire duration:
6 hours
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_3pm_small2.jpg

The "truss theory (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html)" relies on the assumption that 800ºC+ infernos started a catastrophic chain of events which led to the collapse of the twin towers. There were fires in both buildings following the aircraft impacts, but no infernos - "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperatures above 250ºC (http://rense.com/general59/ul.htm)."
Engineers say heavy insulation protected the steel frames of the buildings [...]. They say that automatic sprinklers and firefighters probably could have extinguished the fires had they been fed by typical office contents desks, carpets and paper.

The fires were indeed fed by typical office contents (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807), so the buildings should have remained standing.

They didn't.

Why?

source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm)
Massive Blaze Destroys Madrid High-Rise
[b]LA TIMES | February 14, 2005 (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs14.3feb14,1,775252,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true)
Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage.

Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday.

The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.
Video of the Madrid fire from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40823000/nb/40823471_nb_16x9.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40823000/nb/40823471_nb_16x9.ram)

Interstate Bank Building Fire Los Angeles, California (May 4, 1988)

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg

On Wednesday, May 4 and continuing in to May 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to and extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the city's history. The fire destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62 story First Interstate Bank building in downtwon L.A., claimed one life, injured approximately 35 occupants and 14 fire personnel, and resulted in a property loss of over $50 million...

More: http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html)
1975 WTC fire burned six floors for three hours
http://www.total911.info/2005/04/1975-wtc-fire-burned-six-floors-for.html (http://www.total911.info/2005/04/1975-wtc-fire-burned-six-floors-for.html)

http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/wtc_hires_wtc7_clip.jpg

In the picture above you can see the pile of rubble from the WTC 7 collapse located between the two standing buildings in the overhead photo. The building with the large hole in the center of it was Building 6. It was located between the twin Towers and Building 7 and suffered an enourmous amount of damage from falling debris and fires, but it did not collapse.

The official reason for the collapse of Building 7 was blamed on fire and falling debris that supposedly damaged a diesel fuel tank that was stored in the building causing the fuel in the tank to leak and ignite.

If this theory was true, wouldn't it be a lot easier and less expensive for a building demolition team to simply pour some diesel fuel on a few of the floors and then drop a match on it instead of spending days or weeks planning and wiring the building with explosives?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
MPEG video of the above collapse (1.2MB)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/7squibview_t.jpg

Detonation squibs?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/7squibview.wmv (http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/7squibview.wmv)

http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/window-t.jpg
How did the person who shot this video know that WTC 7 was going to collapse?
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.window.wmv (http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.window.wmv)

Pace Cap'n

11-14-2005, 06:34 AM

PA, interesting montage.

I recall reports at the time that the buildings had been emptied of all tennants for several days just prior to 9-11 in order that the buildings could be retro-fitted with "computer wiring".

Tried briefly to google this up, no luck.

Does anyone else have any recollection of this?

PaceAdvantage

11-14-2005, 10:05 AM

Pace Cap'n,

Yup, that's out there too:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
However, I have never seen this officially corroborated, so take it with a huge grain of salt....

Tom

11-14-2005, 09:56 PM

So this might also be Bush's fault after all? :faint:

46zilzal

11-14-2005, 10:02 PM

Tom, forgotten how much I like your home track Finger Lakes..predictable

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2005, 12:25 AM

So this might also be Bush's fault after all? :faint:

Well, of course some of the more "out there" sites pin this on Bush, or a secret branch of the US Gov't, or the Israelis, or Santa Claus....etc.

However, nothing I have reproduced here jeopardizes the standing belief that al-Queda was behind these attacks.

toetoe

11-15-2005, 12:52 AM

Let me get this straight. This scientist went to a Jonathan Edwards-type seminar, heard some lady reveal a dream, saw the audience applaud, and decided to dedicate his career to proving skulduggery? I guess he thinks he remains "scientific" when he says, "We can't say who or what it was, as that would be irresponsible." The citing of witnesses who heard several booms is lame, also. Eyewitnesses and earwitnesses are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. They can believe with all their heart, but they just can't be depended upon in a court of law. Not with a decent cross-examiner. I know from experience that much detail (fireproofing, etc.) goes unfinished in high-rise construction. I don't recall who said it, the author or the physicist, but saying that therefore the Muslims were not accountable for bringing down the buildings will endear him forever to the likes of Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. I can see it now --- not to be outdone by the Spielberg-Lucas team, MikeStone Pictures come out with Mohammed "Attaboy Jones" And The Towers Of Evil.

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2005, 01:18 AM

There's a lot more out there than just some eyewitnesses saying they heard booms (those booms could have been materials exploding in the towers that had caught fire...natural gas lines...etc....could have been anything exploding).

The eyewitnesses are interesting, but certainly not central to the alternatives presented thus far.

hcap

11-15-2005, 06:15 AM

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/37168.htm

"The BYU physics professor who believes the WTC collapsed from a controlled demolition isn’t alone in the academic community, as a group of more than 60 colleagues from two universities also agreed with Professor Steven E. Jones’ conclusions.

Jones told the Arctic Beacon Saturday in a telephone conversation from Provo, Utah, he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.

After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed."

hcap

11-15-2005, 05:44 PM

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

"The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how? "

Turntime

11-15-2005, 07:39 PM

I may as well throw my 2 cents in. First, the failure did not occur at the top floor but many floors down. When the whole weight of the floors above the failure came crashing down, it sent an enormous shock wave that traveled very rapidly through the structure resulting in the sudden failure of each floor below. Comparing 9-11 to some burning skyscraper in Madrid seems ridiculous. The obvious difference is that the Towers were hit by an 80 ton projectile traveling at 350 mph with a full tank of jet fuel. The collapse of Towers 1 & 2 do not seem to break any elementary laws of physics.

As for WTC7? Hmmm, not sure, but possibly the shock waves from the first 2 collapsed Towers may have had something to do with it. Let's be realistic. WTC7 housed the Office of Emergency Management and I'm sure security was extremely tight. That someone could have professionally wired the building to collapse with no one noticing seems beyond the bounds of reason. It was an inside job you say? Then they would have had to conspire with Muslim extremists, highly preposterous.

As with all events of this type there will always be questions that we cannot answer perfectly. Lacking an explanation does not mean there was any kind of conspiricy.

toetoe

11-15-2005, 07:43 PM

highnote

11-20-2005, 09:44 AM

Build 7 wasn't it by a plane.

Anyone know what the official explanation is for its collapse?

highnote

11-20-2005, 10:14 AM

As with all events of this type there will always be questions that we cannot answer perfectly. Lacking an explanation does not mean there was any kind of conspiricy.

I agree with this Turntime. Although, I would add, that because of a lack of explanation we do need to study it. There are some questions that I don't know the answers to.

Why weren't photographs allowed?

Why was the debris hauled away and then all the steel shipped to China as scrap?

Surely some of those steel beams would have held some clues. If there were bombs planted, then the steel beams might have contained evidence of that.

I can see how the Twin Towers could collapse. The only thing I don't understand is how the angular momentum of the collapsing tower was stopped. If you look at the video, the top of the tower is starting to tip to the right as it falls. And then it just stops and falls straight down. Try it yourself with building blocks. When you knock it over, it keeps falling over. It doesn't tilt at 45 degrees and then just stay there.

Building 7 is still the interesting one. It just implodes. The middle falls first and then it collapses on itself.

It would not surprise me if individuals working with the hijackers were able to get into those buildings and plant bombs and then detonate them by remote control. I work all over Manhattan and you'd be surprised how lax the security has become -- especially once the building security people get to know you. It's human nature to trust others. So there will always be unscrupulous people who will take advantage of a situation for evil purposes.

I just worked at a very high profile company on Wall Street last week and didn't even have to register or get a badge and we were working with the CEO. Plus we brought in a bunch of equipment in road cases. The cases were never even opened and examined by security. I didn't complain because it sure makes our job easier. But it is a little worriesome.

twindouble

11-20-2005, 10:29 AM

How about this? The floors of impact burn through, succumb to the weight of the floors above, and the whole sandwich hurtles down through the lower stack. In other words, it's not a floor-by-floor pancake breakfast.
I trust that experts know what to look for in video footage, but can we identify what we're seeing? If a mass hurtles earthward and hits a solid floor, stopping for a moment while dust and assorted crap continue down, out and around, can we notice it? I think the real eye-opener is the shoody construction folks can get away with when they're pushing through their real estate boondoggles. Was the building ever in tip-top shape? Was it ever retrofitted, strengthened, or redone in any other major way?

I have it through my sources that just last week, 20 democratic senators tried to book rooms online at the towers to discuss their efforts to win congress back. When they couldn't get through, they figured Carl Rove and Bush blocked them with a virus, they intend to call for a closed Senate meeting this week. :bang:

hcap

12-21-2005, 05:03 AM

http://www.counterpunch.com/

9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

"But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.)

?????

hcap

01-30-2006, 06:33 AM

This provides much more detail.
Long article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846

An excerpt

"Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman’s words: “You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.”[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: “[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.”

rastajenk

01-30-2006, 02:05 PM

That looks like a nice, balanced website. If they say it, it must be true. :faint:

hcap

05-17-2006, 06:16 AM

????
Another balanced website.

http://www.madcowprod.com/05172006.html

“He asked if I’d seen pictures of the terrorists, and if I had, wanted to know if I recognized any. I said yes, I recognized Mohamed Atta. I’m the day driver for Yellow Cab in Venice, and he was in my cab a bunch of times in August,” cabbie Simpson explained. “The night driver had him even more than I did.”

Simpson picked up Atta at the convenience store owner’s apartment on several occasions. He told the FBI he had been asked to drive to Orlando by a relative of the Middle Eastern man who owned the convenience store.

“Their (the terrorists) best friend used to live upstairs on the second floor,” stated Simpson, pointing to the Burgundy Square Apartments in downtown Venice. I saw Atta and Al-Shehhi there.”

“They were always hanging out together at the store. Most of the time, I’d be called by their friend, or they would call saying pick them up there at the market.”

toetoe

05-17-2006, 10:46 AM

hcap,

The story is poorly written, which makes it more tedious than any post I've read here. That said, it still makes good points. All of a sudden, a Jack Abramoff reference is dropped in, and I still don't see the connection. Focus, gentlemen. At the end, a case is made that the "remote control" theory and the "already wired for explosives" theories are hogwash, just engineered distractions.

Can you make a choice and tell me what YOU think happened? All the axes being ground on all sides make for a lot of sparks, but not enough light. :)

ljb

05-17-2006, 11:15 AM

I think Rove was behind it, he will do anything for votes. :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage

05-18-2006, 03:27 AM

I think Rove was behind it, he will do anything for votes. :rolleyes:

Wow. Even I didn't think you could stoop so low. Maybe I can get you a rim-shot effect next time....

I guess you're glad hurricane season is upon us. That time of year should provide you with plenty of comedy material to work with....

Tom

05-18-2006, 11:10 AM

PA, didn't you know - Karl Rove was on the grassy knoll! He was "Badge Man!" Of course, we all thought that was Chenney, but, as it turns out, Chenney was "Umbrella Man." :bang:

betchatoo

05-18-2006, 11:32 AM

PA, didn't you know - Karl Rove was on the grassy knoll! He was "Badge Man!" Of course, we all thought that was Chenney, but, as it turns out, Chenney was "Umbrella Man." :bang:

Which one was "the smoking man?"

Tom

05-18-2006, 11:40 AM

Which one was "the smoking man?" Rumsfeld.

ljb

05-18-2006, 04:04 PM

Wow. Even I didn't think you could stoop so low. Maybe I can get you a rim-shot effect next time....

I guess you're glad hurricane season is upon us. That time of year should provide you with plenty of comedy material to work with....
Damn, with your quick denial it looks even more suspicious. :lol:
Can anybody confirm Rove's whereabouts on 9/11 ?

Tom

05-18-2006, 04:14 PM

Damn, with your quick denial it looks even more suspicious. :lol:
Can anybody confirm Rove's whereabouts on 9/11 ?

Sounds more like something from a Kennedy - put one in the driver's seat and shit happens fast.

hcap

06-20-2006, 06:22 AM

JustRalph

06-20-2006, 07:56 AM

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job
author: Jacob Hamblin

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.

?????????

yeah, we are supposed to believe one of the founders of the group trying to prove that Bush was responsible for 9-11. Bullshit. He is also a college professor. That knocks him off my credibility list anyway.........

highnote

06-20-2006, 08:50 PM

I'm not sure I buy his explanation, but it's an interesting theory. I didn't even know that one building collapsed until I read this website.

It wouldn't surprise me if a terrorist was able to get into the building and plant explosives. They could do a little a time until they've got the building wired.

I wonder if he's still teaching. This article is fairly old now.

Pace Cap'n

06-20-2006, 11:05 PM

As I've mentioned before (perhaps in this thread) contemperaneous news accounts spoke of the building(s) being closed to all tennants over a long weekend for the supposed purpose of installing new computer cabling.

I can find no reference to this at this time, but I know I did not imagine it.

Does anyone recall this, or have any better ideas how to search for it?

PaceAdvantage

06-20-2006, 11:07 PM

That's a pretty serious finding if true.

Hey Suff, why haven't any of those fine mainstream news programs or papers jumped on this story? A BYU professor claims evidence of Thermate use in Ground Zero material and this isn't worthy of further exploration?

Wow.

Tom

06-20-2006, 11:24 PM

So somebody snuck in and sprinkled pixie dust on preciesley the floors two jets hit days later?
Wow. I'm impressed.
For a guy who can't make complete sentences (according to libs) Bush outdid himself on this one.

hcap

06-21-2006, 05:35 AM

From the website.And who was in charge of WTC security? Why, Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush, on the board of Securatech.This is partially true. Marvin was indirectly connected to Securatech. But how much day to day influence did he have over security. But it is an interesting coincidence. Just like O'neil who tried to warn every one about Osama while in the bush admininstration-I believe FBIi-was forced out and offered and took the position of chief of security at the WTC-and was killed on 911.

Go figure? PS, Marvin is more incompemento than big bro.

Tom

06-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Hmmmm...first Hcap insultingly posts:
"Proven? I think if we count the spelling mistakes in this one sentence, 3, it dosen't even come close to the mistakes in logic."

Then today he posts:
"Just like O'neil who tried to warn every one about Osama while in the bush admininstration-I believe FBIi-was forced out and offered and took the position of chief of security at the......"

Are we to assume you refer to some sort of "inner" circle at the FBI? The lower case "i" threw me off- I thought about the inner track at Aqueduct at first, but then, after logically thinking it through, I realized you would not know about the inner track, since that is horse racing related, and what would YOU know about horse racing, judging by the distinct lack of posts - on a horse racing board - about horse racing!
I thought maybe it was a spelling error, but since you have already demonstrated such dilligence in policing this board for typing errors,
surely your penchant for accuracy would have forced you to proofread your own post and see this questionable term. So I have to assume you have inside information about the "inner" workings of the FBI. MY concern is that revealing it here could be a security breech of some magnitude.
What I want to know is this: Are you purposing leaking information for some sinister purpose? This would make MEi very unhappy ( the "inner" me!).

hcap

06-21-2006, 05:30 PM

Wrong thread monkey brain.

If I were you I would forget harping on spelling-not your strong suit. You found nothing comparable to your continuous babble of misspelled words in all your posts (all 15,000 +), to my post on the OTHER THREAD. Gee I typed 2 I's !!.

My point in the other thread was simply that there may be a connection, between your lack of logic, and inability to spell. Cognitive indigestion with a strong component of hateful paranoid dyslexia. But hey I'm not a shrink. Just thinking maybe you should check out your hostile attitudes with a professional. Yes you logically thought correctly. I was not talkin' bout the AQU inner track. It's your psyche pal.
Your inner life is bonkers.

PS, My horse racing posting is pretty much limited to software. In fact a while ago before you became so hostile, I PMed you about an excel program I set up to open all 1400+fields in TSN or BRIS. Runs automatically and looks up the results as well. Data files in one directory, results in another. Will do 1-2 month of files unattended. Stacks all records one beneath the other in a table. Allows anyone familiar with excel to pull out any factor, and create compound factors. Results, odds, scratches, exactas an tri payoffs get put on the same line. And since you know excel, and are much better with horses than people, :lol: :lol: it's yours for the asking.

PSS, I am happy to see no blatant spelling errors in your above post.

bla·tant (blāt'nt)
adj.

1. Unpleasantly loud and noisy:

PSS, As you say after logically thinkin'So I have to assume you have inside information about the "inner" workings of the FBI. MY concern is that revealing it here could be a security breech of some magnitude. Soo anywey bee veery carefule,the fBIi miite be scrutenising your rant abuot bloWin upi inNoscent Maslems. Jest like we dida to dose nastty Nazezis guyz, and also them thar slant eyeded Jepaneses.

And dat's der inner truthe

Tom

06-21-2006, 08:35 PM

No, correct thread.
Hostle, I am?
Not, I think.
You, it might be.
Gone, I must be.

boxcar

06-22-2006, 12:47 PM

What's going on here should be obvious to all but unthinking dunderheads, Bush-haters or conspiracy theory junkies. Just as some people and governments today shamelessly deny the historicity of the holocaust, likewise I predict a segment of this generation will deny the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It would take a tiny step for the the Blame-America-For-All-The-World's-Woes nutcases to move from the position that the U.S. is the blame for the attacks because we aroused the ire of the Muslim World in so many ways to the one that says the U.S. was the actual evil-doer who committed those atrocious acts, and in the process conspired to paint the poor, downtrodden, persecuted Muslims in an unlfattering light.

Boxcar

dccprez

06-22-2006, 01:32 PM

This is an interesting thread - and actually kinda fun to follow (although I just found it myself but who's really counting...)

That said, keep up the good work of the last few pages by NOT referencing or making comparisons to the "Kennedy Conspiracy". I'm not an expert in anything but for a long time I took a great interest in the tragic events in Dallas. I've likely done more reading and half-assed "research" on Kenedy/Oswald/Ruby/Warren Commission than on anything else. I'm no genius but I ain't so dumb either and I am completely, fully, unquestioningly convinced that Oswald acted alone. The facts are out there and the research has been done by people MUCH smarter than yours truly. If nothing else, all of the conspiracy theories promoted by "Experts" have been wholly disproven - many of the "theories" have in fact been proven to be flat out fabrications. But they sell a lot of books so who cares if their true or not.

Based on having done a whole bunch of review and research into the Kennedy shooting I'm pretty sure I'm in the camp of "I Don't Buy Into 9/11 Conspiracy Theories". It's just too easy to fill in the gaps with "theory" - there's no way to "prove" anything so anything goes.

But perhaps the single most important arguement against "conspiracies" is something that was mentioned back on page 2 or 3; People can't and WON'T keep their mouths shut. Period. There's and old saying something to the effect of (and I'll butcher this so work with me here...) "a conspiracy involving three people has two people too many". (It may actually be two and one but you get the drift). Bottom line is that someone WOULD talk - even in a group of only 3 people somone would "confide" in a best friend or girlfriend/wife/husband. And that grows exponentially. Now consider just how many people would have had to have been involved in a 9/11 conspiracy - it would be a very large figure. How could you keep all of them silent?? Who would police them to make sure they kept quiet (which would add even more people/mouths to the ever expanding group).

I'm not saying that we have ALL of the facts or that there isn't one or more issues that have been "hushed" after the fact but I don't see any possible way for their to be any "major" conspiracy (explosives!).

Class. Dismissed.