proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

firstly you couldn't have watched the whole video because of the time of your post.

Various conspiracy theorists have been touting this crap for the last 5 years...we've ALL seen it before, AND discussed it, as a quick search would have shown you.

Click here

I'm afraid I'll have to point out the South Park theory...the 9/11 Conspiracy is a government conspiracy because 1/4 of the country is retarded and need something other than the fact it was a bunch of "pissed off Muslims" to believe.

Good point...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pfloyd 0]

ummm... Have you heard of Dale Gribble! King of the hill. I bet you think the moon landing was staged as well.

My drinking team has a skydiving problem

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

In the bombing of the basement of the WTC, many people had to be treated for respiratory problems, because they towers acted as chimneys and draged all the smoke to the upper floors. In the same way, air could be vented from below dowards the fires, making them burn hotter.

It's possible, but it's more likely that the "chimneys" were simply allowing the warmer, partially combusted smoke to rise. Probably wouldn't take much to give you a lung full of crap. If the fire did burn long enough then the "chimneys" would warm up themselves actually increasing the draw of fresh air into the lower combustion chamber (just like a woodstove), you'd have more complete combustion and you wouldn't have as much thick black smoke. But honestly, even with complete combustion I have no idea how hot a jet-a fire would burn. I suppose I could look that up. Maybe after lunch.

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

Just for argument's sake because I haven't watched the film, but I'm guessing that the cigarette you're referring to was probably measured in an open environment with some force drawing air through it.

The source I found said that lower temperature was without draw on the cigarette I believe and the higher temperature with draw.

Not saying you should believe everything you read though. Which a lot of people do and that's why these conspiracy theories hold up so well with some people. A lot of people will believe anything if people try to prove conspiracies with made up facts. People believe those facts to be real and therefore believe the crazy theories.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[skinnyflyer 0]

here is a link to a pilot tv series;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464951265935594207&q=lone+gunmen

the lone gunmen, an x-files spinoff. this pilot episode is about a plan where the us gov. hijack passenger jet airliners to fly into the world trade towers to frame terrorists in order to increase the military budget.

NO I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!

Guess when it aired, march 2001.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

somebody asked how they could have access to the wtc.

the person in charge of securtiy for the world trade center was MARVIN BUSH, the president's brother.

he was in new york city that week.

also the bomb sniffing dogs were removed days before 9/11.

numerous eye witnesses reported multiple bizare powerdowns and evacuations in the weeks before 9/11.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

the person in charge of securtiy for the world trade center was MARVIN BUSH, the president's brother.

Source?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Not saying you should believe everything you read though. Which a lot of people do and that's why these conspiracy theories hold up so well with some people. A lot of people will believe anything if people try to prove conspiracies with made up facts. People believe those facts to be real and therefore believe the crazy theories.

I agree. People need to be open minded when dealing with information that's being provided to them. Why, if people don't thoroughly analyze the the claims and cross reference with them with evidence they run the risk of reacting in an emotional knee jerk fashion which could get them into all sorts of undesirable situations, you know.....like a land war in Asia

[skinnyflyer 0]

here is an article with references.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=marvin+bush&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on#events

this is not a disputed fact.

it is the same company responsible for security at one of the airports where one of the hijacked planes took of from.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[Douva 0]

People believe conspiracy theories because they don't want to believe life is as fragile and random as it is. They want to believe that western societies have evolved beyond the uncertainty that has plagued all life on this planet since the beginning of time. They think that our modern, enlightened, tech savvy, first world countries should be impervious to things like presidential assassinations and terrorist attacks. They think we would be impervious to those things if it weren't for conspiracies by corrupt governments.

On September 10, 2001, many citizens of the free world were in denial of the fragility and uncertainty of life. The people spouting this 9/11 conspiracy theory rhetoric are the ones who refuse to let go of that erroneous belief.

Every time there is a terrorist attack or a hurricane or anything like that, you hear the same baseless cries of outrage: "This only happened because someone at the top let it happen." The truth is, shit happens, and a lot of people simply refuse to accept that. Sometimes in life, a little rain must fall. Anyone who thinks he or she is going to get through life without ever getting wet is a fool. Anyone who doesn't keep an umbrella nearby is a bigger fool.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

the person in charge of securtiy for the world trade center was MARVIN BUSH, the president's brother.

Source?

Who knew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush

[billvon 2,990]

>it would only require a few dozen people to be "in on it" and
>thousands more help unknowingly to cover it up.

No one is that trustworthy. Google "Prisoner's Dilemma."

>the bbc has reported at least 6 of the 19 hijackers have come
>forward as being alive and well???

Riiight.

>it is physically impossibe for steel highrises' to suddenly explode on
>their own.

Agreed. In this case, it did not explode - it collapsed.

>nothing survived except for one of the hijackers passports
>which was recovered at ground zero still in excellent condition.

Yep. Odd things often survive. In a crash of an Avianca 707 near my house, everyone was killed - but several wine bottles were found intact.

>what are the chances of hijacking four planes without the pilots
>alerting anyone??

They did. At 8:24 the following was received by controllers:

"We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport."

At 8:34:

"We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

>what are the chances of hitting those world trade centers exactly in
>the middle while banking at 500 miles per hour.

Give it a try in a flight simulator. It's not hard to hit a building. They had several hours of training in the best flight simulators money can buy.

>-puffs of smoke often dozens of floors below the demolition.

Air pressure. Air doesn't just "go away" when you collapse a building.

>-freefall speeds; both towards fell in 8-10 seconds which is physically
>impossible without explosives removing any resistance.

They would have collapsed in 9.2 seconds with no resistance. The south tower was _almost_ completely collapsed in 10 seconds (you can't see the final collapse in any video due to the debris cloud.) The north tower was almost completely collapsed in 11.4 seconds.

So there WAS some resistance.

>-experts agree temperatures not hot enough to melt steel.

?? Each aircraft carried about 24,000 gallons of fuel; that fuel can easily reach 2800 degrees when burning in an enclosed space (melting point of steel.) Of course only a little of the steel melted; most of the steel was heated to 1600 degrees, which is the point that it becomes plastic.

>-multiple eye witness accounts of multiple explotions
>(including video footage of ruble in the basement before any
>collapse-a fifty ton press demolished in the basement before any
>collapse)

Right after the impact, massive debris went falling down several elevator shafts; those floors were almost completely destroyed by the kinetic energy of the impacts.

>-no steel skyscraper has ever or since collapsed due to fire despite
>much hotter and longer burning fires.

Did those buildings have most of their structure destroyed by a massive aircraft hitting it at 500mph?

>-all ruble(evidence) was quickly removed so no one could examine it.

You must not have followed the rescue operations.

>-virtually all concrete was pulvarized to dust.

Yep. With that much energy involved, there's not much left of anything.

[Douva 0]

Quote

somebody asked how they could have access to the wtc.

the person in charge of securtiy for the world trade center was MARVIN BUSH, the president's brother.

he was in new york city that week.

also the bomb sniffing dogs were removed days before 9/11.

numerous eye witnesses reported multiple bizare powerdowns and evacuations in the weeks before 9/11.

This is the kind of half-truths on which conspiracy theories thrive. According to the Wikipedia article posted by idrankwhat, in 2001 Marvin Bush wasn't even a share holder in the company that provided security for the World Trade Center. But in the mind of a conspiracy theorist, the fact that he was once a director for that company is as good as a home movie of a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

By simply playing six degrees of separation, you can tie pretty much anyone to any incident. It's really not hard. Just keep singing to yourself, "It's a small world after all."

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[skinnyflyer 0]

the bottom line is that you have two theories;
one is the official story that planes+fire brought down the towers, the other is it was controlled demolition.

forget about the implications for a while(which is what keeps most people from even considering controlled demolition) and just see which theory better fits the data.

the official story;
-admits it is unable to explain wtc7
-has to invent a new phenomenon-self collapsing buildings- or some kind of pancake theory which doesn't make any sense and can't expain how the towers collapsed.
-doesn't match eye witnesses
-can't explain observed events; molten steel dripping from a tower, molten steel under base of trade center and building 7, ruble smoldering for MONTHS, freefall speed of collapse, squibs or puffs of smoke many stories below demo wave, symmetry of collapse, buildings fall into their own footprint,explosions in the basement, etc.

and then theres controlled demolition which perfectly explains all the above and everything that happened.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

here is an article with references.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=marvin+bush&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on#events

this is not a disputed fact.

Your link says nothing about Marvin Bush was "in charge of securtiy for the world trade center".

[Douva 0]

the bottom line is that you have two theories;
one is the official story that planes+fire brought down the towers, the other is it was controlled demolition.

forget about the implications for a while (which is what makes most conspiracy nuts latch onto the idea of controlled demolition) and just see which theory better fits the data.

The conspiracy theory:

-Requires us to believe that many people are capable of keeping a very big secret.
-Requires us to discount the evidence of the highjackings, such as passenger phone calls, little black boxes, reports from airport personnel, etc.
-Requires us to believe that the media is covering up the truth about the highjackers still being alive.
-Requires us to believe that countless experts and officials could be duped into giving false testimony.
-Requires us to believe that our government is secretly much more competent than they've ever let on.

and then theres the official story which is corroborated by everyone except a handful of "flat earthers."

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[skinnyflyer 0]

''Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of future President George W. Bush, is a director at Stratesec from 1993 to June 2000,''

''A security company called Stratesec acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security at the World Trade Center''

''It has a “completion contract” to provide some of the center’s security “up to the day the buildings fell down,” according to Barry McDaniel, its CEO from January 2002. Another of Stratesec’s biggest security contracts, between 1995 and 1998, is with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport.''

not sure what article you read?

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 2,990]

>-no steel skyscraper has ever or since collapsed due to fire despite
>much hotter and longer burning fires.

BTW side note - steel skyscrapers used to collapse often due to fires. They learned to insulate the steel so that fires could not weaken the structure as quickly. This fixed the problem (unless, of course, a 757 comes along and scrapes the insulation off the steel.)

[skinnyflyer 0]

billvon
your argument lacks any logic

riight is not response-here is a link for the alive hijackers;

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1800#a091601stillalive

and if the ''puffs'' of smoke are just compressed air then they would be just that and not exploding concrete. you simply can't have each and every concrete floor smashing themselves into a fine dust and also have freefalling speeds, it doesn't make sense.

even a half second delay from each floor would result in 40+second collapse.

do you really believe that one of the hijackers passports fell out of his pocket, somehow out of the plane, survived the 500milehour impact and fire and then floated down in perfect condition for the government to find.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

billvon - your argument lacks any logic

that's not something you read every day on engineering subjects.......

this should be fun

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ExAFO 0]

Ok, even if this Tinfoil Hat Brigade story is true, what are you going to do? The people are dead. What could possibly be done to ameliorate the situation?

Or is this a futile attempt to gain recognition in the Flat Earth Society, or the Society to expose the Illuminati?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Hillary's so tough, she doesn't even need a rig.

Hillary's ass is so big, that she could have just bounced it off the roof and collapsed the entire building.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>it would only require a few dozen people to be "in on it" and
>thousands more help unknowingly to cover it up.

No one is that trustworthy. Google "Prisoner's Dilemma."

>the bbc has reported at least 6 of the 19 hijackers have come
>forward as being alive and well???

Riiight.

>it is physically impossibe for steel highrises' to suddenly explode on
>their own.

Agreed. In this case, it did not explode - it collapsed.

>nothing survived except for one of the hijackers passports
>which was recovered at ground zero still in excellent condition.

Yep. Odd things often survive. In a crash of an Avianca 707 near my house, everyone was killed - but several wine bottles were found intact.

>what are the chances of hijacking four planes without the pilots
>alerting anyone??

They did. At 8:24 the following was received by controllers:

"We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport."

At 8:34:

"We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

>what are the chances of hitting those world trade centers exactly in
>the middle while banking at 500 miles per hour.

Give it a try in a flight simulator. It's not hard to hit a building. They had several hours of training in the best flight simulators money can buy.

>-puffs of smoke often dozens of floors below the demolition.

Air pressure. Air doesn't just "go away" when you collapse a building.

>-freefall speeds; both towards fell in 8-10 seconds which is physically
>impossible without explosives removing any resistance.

They would have collapsed in 9.2 seconds with no resistance. The south tower was _almost_ completely collapsed in 10 seconds (you can't see the final collapse in any video due to the debris cloud.) The north tower was almost completely collapsed in 11.4 seconds.

So there WAS some resistance.

>-experts agree temperatures not hot enough to melt steel.

?? Each aircraft carried about 24,000 gallons of fuel; that fuel can easily reach 2800 degrees when burning in an enclosed space (melting point of steel.) Of course only a little of the steel melted; most of the steel was heated to 1600 degrees, which is the point that it becomes plastic.

>-multiple eye witness accounts of multiple explotions
>(including video footage of ruble in the basement before any
>collapse-a fifty ton press demolished in the basement before any
>collapse)

Right after the impact, massive debris went falling down several elevator shafts; those floors were almost completely destroyed by the kinetic energy of the impacts.

>-no steel skyscraper has ever or since collapsed due to fire despite
>much hotter and longer burning fires.

Did those buildings have most of their structure destroyed by a massive aircraft hitting it at 500mph?

>-all ruble(evidence) was quickly removed so no one could examine it.

You must not have followed the rescue operations.

>-virtually all concrete was pulvarized to dust.

Yep. With that much energy involved, there's not much left of anything.

oooohhhh! ooohhh! a semantics argument! Will you two get to the meaning of "is" next?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

oooohhhh! ooohhh! a semantics argument! Will you two get to the meaning of "is" next?

Only if we can discuss the meaning of "has"

[skinnyflyer 0]

''BTW side note - steel skyscrapers used to collapse often due to fires...''

references??

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs