9/11 Inside Job? [Archive] - Page 2 - Beastie Boys Message Board

Schmeltz

06-18-2007, 02:05 PM

I am sorry but I cannot give these folks running our country through the muck any sort of credence at all.

Actually you do; if you buy into these 9/11 conspiracy theories you are crediting these manifestly incompetent and oblivious people with pulling off the greatest and most extraordinary caper in human history. To me that's powerfully inconsistent and you'd be better served abandoning such irrealistic notions and taking a more down-to-earth perspective of what has actually happened under this toxic administration and how best to react to it productively in the future.

Take a look at the piece I linked to again; the track record of willful ignorance, slavish ideological devotion, irrealistic thinking, and direct blunderous bumbling is manifestly evident in every misstep taken by the Bushies since they took power. These things are all known and out in the open, their causes are real and their effects are discernible. These are the things to focus on, in my opinion.

kaiser soze

06-18-2007, 02:11 PM

People still need to ask....

Who has truly profited from 9/11?

SugarInTheRaw

06-18-2007, 02:23 PM

People still need to ask....

Who has truly profited from 9/11?

Larry Silverstein did, right? I'm sure he must have had a pretty big insurance policy taken out on the buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

In the clip above, he discusses his decision to "pull" WTC Building 7 which wasn't at all affected by the planes that brought down the two towers.

Schmeltz

06-18-2007, 02:28 PM

People still need to ask....

Who has truly profited from 9/11?

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. You know, the guys who pulled this off.

D_Raay

06-19-2007, 03:47 AM

Actually you do; if you buy into these 9/11 conspiracy theories you are crediting these manifestly incompetent and oblivious people with pulling off the greatest and most extraordinary caper in human history. To me that's powerfully inconsistent and you'd be better served abandoning such irrealistic notions and taking a more down-to-earth perspective of what has actually happened under this toxic administration and how best to react to it productively in the future.

Take a look at the piece I linked to again; the track record of willful ignorance, slavish ideological devotion, irrealistic thinking, and direct blunderous bumbling is manifestly evident in every misstep taken by the Bushies since they took power. These things are all known and out in the open, their causes are real and their effects are discernible. These are the things to focus on, in my opinion.

I understand your position all to well. The thing is that I am of the belief that if it were possible to bring about a "new Pearl Harbor", then these would be the exact set of power hungry screwballs that would try to do it.

There is rarely ever a rational, coherent debate on this topic that cuts to the heart of the matter, that being WOULD these guys do this. If that were settled and agreed upon only then could we work backwards and find common ground. You may be right - hell you probably are- but there isn't any adequate inclination for either case in point. Other than it being unrealistic or beyond even the scope of these men.

Once again I am sorry but I can't settle for anything other than expecting the worst, I certainly wish that didn't have to be the case.

Just a random example of what I am getting at here, we all know there are plenty more.

A preliminary House Oversight Committee* report on possible violations of the Presidential Records Act by the White House and White House officials. The report shows a coordinated, widespread pattern of using RNC e-mail servers to conduct government business, with hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions of those e-mails having been destroyed–all illegally.

Initially, it was not known how many White House officials were involved, but the new report reveals that in addition to Karl Rove, Andy Card, Ken Mehlman, Alberto Gonzales and as many as 88 other White House officials are involved, with many e-mail accounts being completely wiped out.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105243.pdf*

Carlos

06-19-2007, 09:44 AM

GMA;1478938']Oh, a professor of THEOLOGY eh? I'm dying to hear his opinion!

..great I look forward to your intelligent response to each of his points :D..

...seriously I am waiting for a proper break down of why his points are sooo far fetched. Or rather why you seem to be so determined to believe this corrupt regime's account of that day - even though it contradicts itself, and blatently leaves out vital information?

Or is your arrogance too great that you can't bear to watch something with no apparent value.... it's only 40 mins of your life, try it.. you might like loosing some of it

ericlee

06-20-2007, 05:18 AM

People still need to ask....

Who has truly profited from 9/11?

Well, surely not middle easterners being that in Kuwait, the last time I was there, a litre of gas was 60 fils. Roughly a buck a gallon. Hmmmm, what are we charging now? 3 bucks in most states?

Can someone explain to me why flight 93 is still in an operable status? Can someone still tell me why there's no evidence of the wreckage found of the "crash"?

What about the Pentagon? No skidmarks? No evidence of a plane wreckage there either. No skidmarks on the lawn since the plane was flying so low.

And the planes that hit the towers, some kind of flash going off previous to the impact? Numerous reports of explosions? Christ.

This is a long thread but, I'm sorry. I do believe it's for sure an inside job.

Carlos

06-20-2007, 07:21 AM

totally, as Michael Moore just the other day said - they have 100's of camera's filming at the pentagon - they could just release 1 of them showing the plane hitting it... instead they release 5 stop action frames that show fuck all...

Or as has just been revealed: "an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm

the evidence is overwhelming and growing by the week, as well as the people willing to go public with their concerns - a la Michael Moore, before now he said it would be un-patriotic to talk about such things.. i guess he's realised that it is truly patriotic to talk about such concerns.

Ron Paul and Kucinich blatently the only 2 candidates willing to engage in real topics and issues, rather than grandstanding to the media and middle america; are addressing it.

I just truly cannot understand why there are people on this board who present themselves as intelligent and politically minded, but just dissmiss the whole subject out of hand.

Unless you question the Bush/Cheney 911 comission conclusions, then you are just lapping up the most outragous conspiracy theory I have ever seen. There has been no evidence what-so-ever presented, and all the actual evidence points to a cover up, and pre-knowledge of the event at the very least. Not to mention the circumstantial evidence, and the anomalies that build up to create an even more horrific picture of events.

here's just a couple of the anomalies:

fact 1: There is no way that those planes could have been u able to reach the twin towers..
To cover this up we have had 3 different stories which contrdict each other, the first 2 from NORAD and the FAA both show that intercept jets could have made it to their targets before the planes hit the towers. The third created by the 911 comission just changed the story so that the time of alert was made AFTER the planes hit the towers - this is such a blatent lie and deviation from the first 2 (even though they contrdict each other too) that it cannot be taken with any amount of certainty.

Not to mention Minetta's sworn testimony on video where he states that Cheney was warned about the plane heading towards the pentagon at 50 miles out, then 30, and at 10 the guy informing them of the planes progress asked: "...does the order still stand?", cheney barks back: "have you heard otherwise..." 5 mins later over a 100 people are dead. Now the only thing that order could be, was STAND DOWN.
However Minetta's testimony was not included because it contradicted when Cheney was suppost to be at the bunker (according to the 911 commission) - even though a previous document by cheney stated he was there (lol.. they are something else - just make it up, no one will care - oh yeah shit, their right... too many people will just eat the shit their given)

fact 2: the so called hijackers were not Muslim extremists They enjoyed lapdancing, macdonalds, expensive drinks, and most other western vice's. This flies in the face of the only motive we have for these people supposedly doing what they did. Not to mention that all the of flight manifest's released have not inculded 1 name of any of the hijackers, or even anyone with a Muslim name.
Atta supposedly left flying manuals, his will and (I can hardly bring myself to write it, as it is comedy) HIS PASSPORT!!!! HOW THE FUCK DID HE GET ON THE PLANE .... almost as good as as passport being found in the rubble of the twin towers - it's the magic passport that survives a towering infreno (the same infreno that made steel girders the size of a a mini weaken like butter)...
...Not to mention the hijackers that are still alive :rolleyes:

these 2 facts alone prove it was an inside job....

sorry but it really is so fucking obvious that it was an inside job. It is beyond me why anyone with a brain can't see it... not saying that those that don't see it, don't have one.. just that how it feels sometimes.

b i o n i c

06-20-2007, 12:54 PM

from my travel experiences, i think you only present passports when you ARRIVE in your destination country. that's where it gets stamped

YoungRemy

06-20-2007, 01:10 PM

Carlos

06-20-2007, 01:21 PM

from my travel experiences, i think you only present passports when you ARRIVE in your destination country. that's where it gets stamped

..what they don't check it in US when you board, even if your foreign?

In uk and every country i've been to in the world - from mexico to cyprus they check before you board, and after...
fair enough then that on it's own doesn't maybe mean as much - but when you couple it with his will, and flight manuals - then that is too fishy.

It amazes me you can see a tiny flaw like that, but are not even bothered that there are no Muslim names on the flight manifests... but then within days we have 19 names??
Or that cheney could have stopped the plane hitting pentagon and willfully ignored it.

:confused:

YoungRemy

06-20-2007, 01:27 PM

or that you dont know what you are talking about... you should stop reading everything from the internet and move on...

SugarInTheRaw

06-20-2007, 01:34 PM

passport being found in the rubble of the twin towers - it's the magic passport that survives a towering infreno (the same infreno that made steel girders the size of a a mini weaken like butter)...
...Not to mention the hijackers that are still alive :rolleyes:

Really? What is the deal with the hijacker's passport found in front of the Twin Towers. That is shady, I think.

Just some quick references to the passport story -

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
http://www.rense.com/general68/pass.htm

the fact that Carlos thinks he is posting facts is laughable... I gave up on this thread a long time ago, but then these morons keep bumping it with the same cliche topics as the last moron who read Alex Jones website...
people, stop reading Alex Jones as a legitimate source

Fair enough, but I must know - What did you think of Terrorstorm? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Carlos

06-20-2007, 01:37 PM

yes, you dont need a passport to fly within the country once you are in the country... and the fact that they were enjoying lapdances doesnt prove a damn thing... it doesnt PROVE that werent extremists...it proves that they arent true muslims in the holy sense of the word....Ninety Nine percent of muslims do not believe in jihad, these twisted fucks give the whole bunch a bad name and flaunt their cash around, enjoying the vices of America while believing in their cause

it proves that they did not have the motive, go figure why people would blow themselves up for nothing.. maybe they had too much acid and thought it would be laugh :D

Also maybe you could show me the evidence that these people were on the flights, apart from 'what you've heard' - have you seen any viable evidence.

the fact that Carlos thinks he is posting facts is laughable... I gave up on this thread a long time ago, but then these morons keep bumping it with the same cliche topics as the last moron who read Alex Jones website...

please tell me which of those 2 facts are untrue?

.....or maybe you should just not post in threads to do with this unless your actually gonna engage in the issues raised,

I love the way nobody will even go near why cheney allowed the pentagon to be hit :cool:

ps. your the fucking moron if you think that me posting information here that lot of people aren't aware of is in some way bad - nazi bastard.

Carlos

06-20-2007, 01:44 PM

or that you dont know what you are talking about... you should stop reading everything from the internet and move on...

so I presume me SEEING on video minetta's testimony to the 911 comission that Cheney was warned is just my imagination? It must have been cos it wasn't included int he final report :o

i read/listen/watch all avenues of reserach - including ones that oppose my current thoughts on the subject - i.e screw loose change and screw 911 mysteries, even though I must say it was a waste of my life...... and am not limited by close minded pre-conceptions or labels. I suggest you do the same.

Carlos

06-20-2007, 01:46 PM

Fair enough, but I must know - What did you think of Terrorstorm? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

..contains vital information, but Alex jones is way too much for most people, his raw texan style can grate somewhat. Although i respect him for his efforts.

YoungRemy

06-20-2007, 02:05 PM

it proves that they did not have the motive, go figure why people would blow themselves up for nothing.. maybe they had too much acid and thought it would be laugh :D

Also maybe you could show me the evidence that these people were on the flights, apart from 'what you've heard' - have you seen any viable evidence.

please tell me which of those 2 facts are untrue?

.....or maybe you should just not post in threads to do with this unless your actually gonna engage in the issues raised,

I love the way nobody will even go near why cheney allowed the pentagon to be hit :cool:

ps. your the fucking moron if you think that me posting information here that lot of people aren't aware of is in some way bad - nazi bastard.

Carlos, while your passion and enthusiasm is appreciated in a debate like this, your argument is far from enlightening- you arent posting anything that people arent aware of- you're regurgitating the same garbage that has already been thrown around in not only this thread, but other discussions long forgotten about and LONG DISPROVEN...

It is not my job to prove to you how you are wrong... Nobody is answering your theories because it would be a waste of time and an exercise in futility...

not to mention that someone just did prove one of your theories wrong and your answer is a defeated
fair enough then that on it's own doesn't maybe mean as much

well I thought it was a fact?! make up your mind!

and again, the FACT that muslim men were enjoying Americas vices DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING... It further contributes to the theory that jihad is a twisted interpretation of the Koran, not some sort of moral inconsistency that you say it is...

SugarInTheRaw

06-20-2007, 02:09 PM

..contains vital information, but Alex jones is way too much for most people, his raw texan style can grate somewhat. Although i respect him for his efforts.

Thanks, Carlos. That was actually meant for Young Remy though.

YoungRemy, may I have your thoughts on Jones' Terrorstorm? Thank you :).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

YoungRemy

06-20-2007, 02:29 PM

Thanks, Carlos. That was actually meant for Young Remy though.

YoungRemy, may I have your thoughts on Jones' Terrorstorm? Thank you :).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

my statement about Alex Jones was all-inclusive of anything that he "wrote or directed"

so to answer your question, I havent seen it nor do I want to spend the next two hours watching it so I can answer your questions or share my thoughts.

I know enough about Jones from when he was a pimple faced public television icon in Austin, a glorified Waynes World broadcasting from a basement, where he would begin his career as a conspiracy theorist and "ex Paleo-conservative"

I respect Alex Jones and his work, I have seen him grow as a media celebrity, and I loved his rant in Waking Life. But I take little of his information as important to the debate of 9/11

and for the record, I do not subscribe to the "You're either with us or with the terrorists" ethos.

I do not support George Bush, his administration, or the war in Iraq.

I do support intelligent thinking and common sense, and this statement is for Carlos, the airplanes that flew into the World Trade Center flew so low over Manhattan that morning, that the witnesses who SAW them hit the buildings identified them by the airline insignias that decorated the jets...

common sense, people, common sense

SugarInTheRaw

06-20-2007, 02:53 PM

my statement about Alex Jones was all-inclusive of anything that he "wrote or directed"

so to answer your question, I havent seen it nor do I want to spend the next two hours watching it so I can answer your questions or share my thoughts.

I know enough about Jones from when he was a pimple faced public television icon in Austin, a glorified Waynes World broadcasting from a basement, where he would begin his career as a conspiracy theorist and "ex Paleo-conservative"

I respect Alex Jones and his work, I have seen him grow as a media celebrity, and I loved his rant in Waking Life. But I take little of his information as important to the debate of 9/11...

...common sense, people, common sense

Peace, Young Remy. You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person (y).

I really must insist you watch the Terrorstorm (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)video before you simply write off the information that the video sheds light on. I understand you are probably very busy, but I really would appreciate your feedback on it. Seriously, it may help many of us here put things into a clearer perspective! Thank you.

YoungRemy

06-20-2007, 03:03 PM

Peace, Young Remy. You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person (y).

I really must insist you watch the Terrorstorm (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&total=828&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)video before you simply write off the information that the video sheds light on. I understand you are probably very busy, but I really would appreciate your feedback on it. Seriously, it may help many of us here put things into a clearer perspective! Thank you.

thank you Sugar...
I will take the time to watch this when I have a chance..

Carlos, just so you know, as you are typing your manifesto, I will not respond to anything else you bring to the table... intelligent thought and debate requires more than what you are giving us here... its the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall...

so hurry up and spit it out and continue to think that you are making a difference in this debate, i'll be at my office

Carlos

06-20-2007, 03:40 PM

Carlos, just so you know, as you are typing your manifesto, I will not respond to anything else you bring to the table... intelligent thought and debate requires more than what you are giving us here... its the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall...

well cool, i'm not trying to convice anyone that has so blatently written off avenues of free thought.. there are quite a few people on this board - so don't feel the need to jump into a thread if it's gonna bore you.

It is not my job to prove to you how you are wrong... Nobody is answering your theories because it would be a waste of time and an exercise in futility...

no... but you should be prepared to explain/ and defend why you so fervently believe such a ridiculous conspiracy theory as the 911 commission report?

.....I thought it was a fact?! make up your mind!

and again, the FACT that muslim men were enjoying Americas vices DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING... It further contributes to the theory that jihad is a twisted interpretation of the Koran, not some sort of moral inconsistency that you say it is...

er... my fact was that the hijackers were not Muslim extremists, as the 911 comission painted them to be - why the comission needed to lie again? It is in no way proof, but goes a long long way to show they had no motive for killng themselves - and people generally need a pretty good one. Even a moderate muslim won't drink. Non-muslim do not carry out jihad.

I then went onto make a wrong assertion regarding his passport, but that dosen't even negate the rather fishyness of what they supposedly left behind.
That's got nothing to with facts, that is my own assertions, plz don't spin things...

the airplanes that flew into the World Trade Center flew so low over Manhattan that morning, that the witnesses who SAW them hit the buildings identified them by the airline insignias that decorated the jets...

common sense, people, common sense

er.. when did i say it wasn't planes hitting the towers? please don't paste me as some no plane theorist!

Remy, as Sugar very elequently put, you do seem like an inteligent person, and in the same spirit of exploration I would truly urge you and everyone else on this board to watch the below video, as it lays out the most persuasive arguments for rejecting the oficial account of 911.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413&q=911+myth&total=149&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

kaiser soze

06-20-2007, 08:43 PM

Don't forget to get your 9/11 commemorative coin made from gold and silver recovered at the WTC site!

http://www.wtcproof.com/?cid=285029&gclid=CKyh8cOR7IwCFRsigAodzQPPzQ

(n)

FBI documents state Bin Laden may have chartered flight after 9/11

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070620200413.fd64rwmy&show_article=1

Pxpwop

06-21-2007, 09:01 AM

New to this Board.. But saw this topic, wanted to chime in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hi303peYU

Check this out. Makes you think.

Laver1969

06-21-2007, 11:01 AM

I just got a phone call from a Doctor and he said it definitely wasn't "an inside job".

He's working on putting that statement up on youtube to make it official...ya know, so I'll have something to link to.

YoungRemy

06-21-2007, 11:08 AM

ericg

06-21-2007, 05:44 PM

People still need to ask....

Who has truly profited from 9/11?

People still need to ask?

Halliburton, General Electric, oil companies, and countless in front of and behind the scenes ie FR/ world bank, private and government contractors, politicians, wall street players, drug lords, individuals.. everyone in the corrupt chain reaction. It's an economic war - barely disguised with religion as business as usual etc.. like most wars. Read the "economic slaves" blog.

Who has it benefitted?
No one. If evil aliens wanted to invest in ending this planet in a slow degenerative confusion they'd be hard pressed to do any better than Bush's 3rd Reich.

Kucinich has promised to re-open investigations re aspects of 9-11...

SugarInTheRaw

06-21-2007, 05:54 PM

Kucinich has promised to re-open investigations re aspects of 9-11...

Good, and I'm sure so will Ron Paul if he has not already.

Carlos

06-22-2007, 10:53 AM

Good, and I'm sure so will Ron Paul if he has not already.

he has indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMTyga2NvCc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F911blogger%2Ecom%2F

SugarInTheRaw

06-22-2007, 11:20 AM

he has indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMTyga2NvCc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F911blogger%2Ecom%2F

Nice. Go, Ron Paul!

ericg

06-22-2007, 02:22 PM

False positive.

kaiser soze

06-25-2007, 12:11 PM

Two images that could use some explaining

1: WTC3 - highly damaged....did not collapse (http://www.hostgrok.com/media/wtc3.jpg)

This building did not have the government offices like WTC7

2: Steel beam sliced as it would from controlled demolition (thermite, shaped charges). (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg)

The Area appears to be quite fresh so the men are more likely to be rescue workers rather than salvage. Comparing the height of the column to the two individuals in the foreground and the rather messy pit it is extruding from suggests this cut was not post collapse at this time

YoungRemy

06-25-2007, 01:24 PM

2: Steel beam sliced as it would from controlled demolition (thermite, shaped charges). (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg)

The Area appears to be quite fresh so the men are more likely to be rescue workers rather than salvage. Comparing the height of the column to the two individuals in the foreground and the rather messy pit it is extruding from suggests this cut was not post collapse at this time

this doesnt even make any sense... how does comparing the height of anything you see in the photo "suggest" anything?

what do you even mean by "rescue workers" vs. "salvage"?

let me clear this up for you: a giant building, 110 stories high, with a burning airplane full of jet fuel embedded into its core.... fell on top of itself...

so to sum it up:

1. jet plane into giant building going 600 miles per hour
2. big explosion
3. giant building collapses onto itself

case closed

kaiser soze

06-25-2007, 01:29 PM

Sorry, but 9/11 is not Sesame Street.

this doesnt even make any sense... how does comparing the height of anything you see in the photo "suggest" anything?

Quite easily, the men look like firefighters with flashlights and breathing protection. The steel columns behind them are just as wide as the men, so we can safely assume these columns are rather large and are protruding from a pit.

How can salvage cut a beam stuck in the middle of a rather large heap of debris? I highly doubt they would use a crane at this point....so why is the beam sliced rather than broken or bent?

YoungRemy

06-25-2007, 01:40 PM

Sorry, but 9/11 is not Sesame Street.

Quite easily, the men look like firefighters with flashlights and breathing protection. The steel columns behind them are just as wide as the men, so we can safely assume these columns are rather large and are protruding from a pit.

How can salvage cut a beam stuck in the middle of a rather large heap of debris? I highly doubt they would use a crane at this point....so why is the beam sliced rather than broken or bent?

you cant "safely assume" anything, as you are not an expert in demolition, rescue, welding or steelcutting, or photography for that matter!

honestly, you are going to look at a photo, which you have no knowledge of when it was taken, where in the giant pile of rubble it was taken, or any clue of how the rescue operation took place, and you are going to formulate theories based on a "safe assumption?"

kaiser soze

06-25-2007, 01:58 PM

SugarInTheRaw

06-25-2007, 02:18 PM

YoungRemy

06-25-2007, 02:22 PM

Better than just saying 1, 2, 3

There is evidence that can go both ways....yes planes crashed into the buildings, but can you safely assume it was the just the planes that caused the collapse? you saw planes crash into the building so you assume they caused the crash, I see a sliced beam (and there have been picture of others) and make a broader assumption that demolition could have contributed.

How about WTC3, see the damage? But yet it still is standing, please explain

again, making a safe assumption versus scientific fact is the core flaw in your argument...

this was published last week and shows how a jetplane going 600 miles per hour can bring down a building on top of itself...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_re_us/attacks_simulation_1;_ylt=AltGy.EavUsdG.nyY.ojjwYE 1vAI

Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key

By STEVE HERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 20, 2:48 AM ET
INDIANAPOLIS - A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

"One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

"In the unfortunate development that we shall have to design structures to survive such events, the methods we have developed and will be developing will be of great use to designers," Sozen said.

The animation, intended in part to help engineers design safer buildings, begins with a map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows a plane slicing through several stories of the World Trade Center's north tower and follows the disintegrating plane through the interior and out the opposite side.

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

The simulation also found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

A 2005 report following a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal engineering agency, recommended that cities raise fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings from fire. That analysis did not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers, but instead focused on the damage to the fireproofing.

Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said he was aware of the Purdue study and called it and his own agency's study "among probably the most prominent analyses that have been conducted in the United States."

The animation is the latest project by the Purdue team to assess the structural damage from the Sept. 11 attacks. The team also studied the impact of the crash into the Pentagon.

read more here
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

view the scientifically based video here
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov

Carlos

06-26-2007, 05:28 AM

remy that computer simulation is highly flawed:

as with any computer model it realies HEAVILY on the data that goes into it. The Purdue university used FEMA's inacurrate assumptions as to what happened to the core columns.

"Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings. Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:
(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.
(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.
(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-building-designers.html) did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227) Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?
(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?
(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?
(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.html)?
(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D94044 82) (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?
As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.
2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.
3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."
In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.
Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies (http://truthorlies.org/911trutharticle015.html):
"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf)) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”As Crockett L. Grabbe (http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Grabbe), PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/jones.html) have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9467

Carlos

06-26-2007, 06:29 AM

remy the problem is here that no matter how good the evidence, you will always turn round and say it isn't proof. Which if you were the defence lawyer for the government then I'd understand. That is the job of lawyers - to go to any length to defend their client.

The prosecution can only produce enough evidence to outweigh the defence - that is how law works. You invariably can disprove ANY argument based on ultimate empirical evidence. Even though it is meaningless to try to do so, as logical positivism has been shown to fall on it's own sword of assumption.

However there is enough evidence to bury your administration if if was shown in an open court of law.

I like the way you just ignore vital bits of information: i.e you have not even once tried to explain (or even commented on) why cheney allowed flight 73 to hit the pentagon, or why the planes weren't intercepted before they hit the twin towers: which has been proved that they could have, and SHOULD HAVE stopped them from hitting the twin towers... that is enough evidence in itself to make people go down.

Then you got how the twin towers fell, the dozens and dozens of witnesses that saw and heard explosions (including numerous firefighters, policemen, and journalists who reported them live that day), how WTC7 came down even though it wasn't hit by a plane,
How molten metal was found underneathc WTC1,2&7 - literally impossible if we accept the official explanation - jet fuel cannot in any circumstance reach enough temperatures to melt steel/iron. And it was orange/yellow/white in colour and so could not have been aluminium from the planes or WTC external panels. Something which a NIST official just blatently lies about on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0

How a 16foot square hole in the pentagon was made by a jumbo jet, how the plane was not shot down with the pentagon's/washinton's missle defence system.. not to mention that the plane executed a high speed turn and dive that most veteran pilots would find tricky (supposedly by someone that found it hard to fly a sesna)... or that the pentagon are holding dozens of videos of whatever did hit the pentagon that could put all the speculation to rest.

...That Bush sat reading my pet goat for nearly 20 mins after being warned of the second plane hitting, and it was clear that America was under it's greatest attack ever - his visit to the school was highly publiscised, and so logically he would be at high risk of attack. We've all seen the presidents secuirty in action in the past, if there is even a hint of the president being at risk they would have whisked him away no Q's asked.

That we were told the passengers made numerous mobile phone calls, when it would have been literally impossible for them to - mobiles did not work on planes then back in 2001.

Yes none of these on there own are ultimate proof, put them all together and you got something that stinks so bad i can smell it across the pond!!

The main issue is though - the 911 commission either hasn't been able to explain any of these - or they simply ommitted the fact that they existed. This surely is pretty damning. And NEEDS TO BE REOPENED.

Laver1969

06-26-2007, 07:20 AM

A carbon nanotube is essentially a sheet of carbon atoms--arranged in hexagons--that curls up into a tube completely disproving the conspiracy argument. It comes in two basic varieties: a single-walled nanotube, which is a single coil of carbon hexagons; and a multiwalled version, wherein a single tube is encased in a wider tube, which itself is inside other tubes. There is no way it could be an inside job with nanotubes playing such an important role.

The tubes' properties are significant because of two factors: their size, which allows them to function as one-dimensional objects, and the intrinsic nature of carbon.

The nanotube theory completely validates the fact that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Come on, folks...it's all about the nanotubes.

Carlos

06-26-2007, 07:37 AM

Laver1969

06-26-2007, 01:51 PM

shit... yeah... I forgot nanotubes told cheney not to shoot down flight73 :D

laver maybe you'd like to provide some links to support your ramblings? or are you just taking the piss - if so... fuck off..... nearly 4,000 people being killed isn't fucking funny.

Ooops...sorry I forgot the links. Here you go! :) (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1482573&postcount=293)

And here's another link for your review. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1447432&postcount=43)

SugarInTheRaw

06-26-2007, 02:07 PM

Why do we seem to avoid the WTC7 issue around here? It's an even more objective approach to the whole 9/11 investigation.

Building 7 was a block away from the towers that collapsed from planes flying into them. WTC7 was taken down in a controlled demolition executed so well it's truly amazing that it didn't take weeks to prepare for it.

Anyone :confused:?

Carlos

06-26-2007, 04:13 PM

Ooops...sorry I forgot the links. Here you go! :) (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1482573&postcount=293)

And here's another link for your review. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1447432&postcount=43)

:eek: shit, i'll get my coat...

.....glad you find it so amusing (!)

Carlos

06-28-2007, 06:12 AM

Particle analysis of WTC dust shows temps exceeded what is physically possible from jet fuel.

http://911blogger.com/node/9658#new

TimDoolan

06-28-2007, 08:31 AM

The X-Files was fiction.
Fuck you. :p It was all real

D_Raay

07-02-2007, 03:49 AM

Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?
Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities?
Furthermore, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens.

The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination of high public only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.

The interests behind the Bush administration, such as CFR, the Bilderburg group, and the Trilateral commission, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.

We are given the "illusion" of choice and open dialogue here in this country. It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it.

SugarInTheRaw

07-19-2007, 10:40 AM

McCain destroys everyone in this clip about 9/11, Al Q, taxes, and then some! Everyone needs to just hush after watching this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3269080492376709459&q=mccain+wearechange&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3269080492376709459&q=mccain+wearechange&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Their choice in background music stinks too!

Carlos

07-19-2007, 10:52 AM

I know who I think is talking a little more sense than Mccain:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1184599788

Carlos

07-19-2007, 11:02 AM

even Cheney's cheif of staff admits WTC7 was blown up (http://911blogger.com/node/10053)

YoungRemy

07-19-2007, 11:48 AM

even Cheney's cheif of staff admits WTC7 was blown up (http://911blogger.com/node/10053)

he didnt admit shit... the link, which eventually leads to prison planet, says ,
A senior Bush administration official's first reaction to seeing the twin towers collapse on 9/11 was that the buildings had been deliberately imploded with explosive charges

so he agrees with what some of you "think", that doesnt mean he admitted or verified any data...

you people and your websites are truly a piece of work...it all goes back to two or three websites...

look, I know the two sides of this argument will never agree, but dont become the sheep you accuse me of becoming by blatantly believeing everything you read on a blog page

Carlos

07-19-2007, 04:36 PM

lol.. "you people"..

ok I must be dumb, cos even though building 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition... it just isn't ok :p

but don't trust me trust some experts (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

or maybe control demo company director's expert opinion: (37min20sec in) (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133&q=911+bbc&total=1024&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

- although the whole documentary is very well done too - it's a very thorough debunking of the BBC's hit piece on 911 conspiracies. BBC really not having a good couple weeks :D

yeahwho the last link was kinda tongue in cheek - I always thought the steriotype of americans having no irony wasn't true.. don't shatter my world view ;)

YoungRemy

07-19-2007, 05:34 PM

this is what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like... nothing like either of the twin towers or wtc 7... its not from a conspiracy blog or anything else.. its a random video of a building being destroyed in a controlled demolition... theres no spin to it, just watch the footage and tell me how it compares to the wtc on 9/11/01

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d4_1184746808

3:00 mark

Carlos

07-19-2007, 05:43 PM

cool i'll comment...

LOL.... er...

sorry speechless with your logic.

no 2 control demolitions 'look' identicle, but the all exhibit the same characteristics..

Now maybe you'd care to comment on the second link with the control demolition expert - in other words someone who knows!!

YoungRemy

07-19-2007, 05:58 PM

Now maybe you'd care to comment on the second link with the control demolition expert - in other words someone who knows!!

I would love to! Dutch expert Danny Jowenko, telling why it is impossible how WTC 1 & 2 were brought down by demolition, and how the weight of the buildings brought down the twin towers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

and we go round and round... I give you a link, you give me a link...

I show you a random demolition, you show me a random blog post..

I google Danny Jowenko , and in five seconds I show you how an expert's testimony, taken out of context, completely shatters YOUR ENTIRE THEORY..

you cant have it both ways...if WTC 7 was imploded, according to "someone who knows", then the twin towers were not imploded, according to the SAME EXPERT

Laver1969

07-19-2007, 09:31 PM

Nice job, youngremy!

Not that you need my help but it should be pointed out that there are various mechanisms and methods that have been designed to complete nano-indentation hardness tests.

One method of force application is using a coil and magnet assembly on a loading column to drive the indenter downward. This method uses a capacitance displacement gauge. Such gages detect displacements of 0.2 to 0.3 NM (nanometer) at the time of force application. The loading column is suspended by springs, which damps external motion and allows the load to be released slightly to recover the elastic portion of deformation before measuring the indentation depth.

I'm working on link for some of you linksters.

Carlos

07-20-2007, 07:26 AM

I google Danny Jowenko , and in five seconds I show you how an expert's testimony, taken out of context, completely shatters YOUR ENTIRE THEORY..

you cant have it both ways...if WTC 7 was imploded, according to "someone who knows", then the twin towers were not imploded, according to the SAME EXPERT

first off, it's not my theory, and unlike yourself, and so many others I have not made up my mind as to exactly why WTC1+2 came down, I am open minded to the cause. I take this account of danny very seriously, and does cast a great deal of doubt on whether WTC1 + 2 were brought down using CD. However, no one has ever claimed WTC1+2 were 'imploded' - quite the opposite, that they were exploded.. and so logically they would not look like a normal CD. But more importantly that molten metal was found underneath all 3 towers that came down, a signature that high temperature cutting charges were used, as well as being physically impossible from just a fire/building collapse scenario. Science is science, and when one thing cannot be the cause of something physically, you must then look for other explanations to account for that physical property.

But at least we are getting somewhere - and you admit that WTC7 was brought down using control demolition and therefore logically someone was aware that there would be an attack on 911 - you cannot wire a burning building in 6 hours - it's physically impossible.

Before you say, hang on you don't accept Danny's oppinion for WTC1+2, but happy to for WTC7... there is no evidence that contradicts his expert opnion on a classic CD for WTC7, however there is evidence that contradicts the official line of fire + weight = building collapse for WTC1+2: molten metal in basements, and new analysis of dust particles from ground zero show super heating of the dust particles from temps again higher than is physically possible from a stadard hydro carbon fire. Not to mention eye witness accoutns that felt explosions BEFORE the planes even struck the towers (William Rodriguez). Or that this would be the only case in history of such an event - when we have had plenty fires far more powerful than thos on 911 in high rise steel framed building, but they did not collapse symetrically into their basements.

So to conculde, we can be sure that WTC7 was brought down using CD, and so there was person(s) fully aware of the attacks, which = insisde job.
We cannot be sure what brought down the WTC1+2 towers, but we can be sure that NIST did not fully account for their collapse, as they only went up to initiation of collapse. As well as being shown to be wrong in a numerous other ways.

I feel like some people on the board can't seem to grasp the position of the majority of 911 truthers (how i hate the label), it is not that we can be sure beyond any resonable doubt that every theory/inconsistency is the gospel truth - but that these inconsistencies need to be looked at and questioned. What we are all agreed on is that we have not had the full truth, or even the half truth. That there is enough evidence to show that the Bush administration not only turned a blind eye, but that security services aided these individuals. That WTC7 was brought down using CD, and so at the very least there are elements in your secret agencies that knew the day, and time of reckoning. This included warnings to high level officials not to fly that day.

ALL WE WANT IS ANOTHER FULLY INDEPENDANT ENQUIRY, and for people to get off their but and look at all the inconsistencies that are so fucking obvious in the official conspiracy theory.
Why do those that froth at the mouth at the mere hint of a 'conspiracy theory' that accuses government of corruption, just lap up a highly imcompetent conspiracy theory put out by this criminal government. Really is way beyind me..

Not to mention that there is clear evidence that a number of wars that America has entered has been preceeded by a false flag event - so why would that change now, especially with this dispickable regime you have currently. Please educate yourself on government/secret agencies tactics throughout history - they are there to maintain control, and NOT for your benefit....

......google operation gladio (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=430206682910394510&q=operation+gladio), the gulf of tonkin, or operation northwoods, or Litvenenko's reports on Russian false flag terror. 911 was the same as the reichtag fire, as it has been used to take away your freedoms and increase the power and control of your dear leader.

unless we wake up to the continuous tactics of aggression/fear mongering by our governments we will never be free.

Nygel

07-20-2007, 11:39 AM

loose change

YoungRemy

07-20-2007, 11:47 AM

However, no one has ever claimed WTC1+2 were 'imploded' - quite the opposite, that they were exploded.. and so logically they would not look like a normal CD.

yeah, thats logical....

im·plo·sion

The inward collapse of a building that is being demolished in a controlled fashion by the weakening and breaking of structural members by explosives.

but it was you who said

LOL.... er...
sorry speechless with your logic.
no 2 control demolitions 'look' identicle, but the all exhibit the same characteristics..

Science is science, and when one thing cannot be the cause of something physically, you must then look for other explanations to account for that physical property.

like a jet plane going 600 miles an hour full of jet fuel? check

But at least we are getting somewhere - and you admit that WTC7 was brought down using control demolition and therefore logically someone was aware that there would be an attack on 911

I didnt admit anything (neither did Cheneys chief of staff above)... I said that if you are using the testimony of a guy watching a video of wtc7 as absolute proof, the you must use his other testimony of the twin towers as proof that the planes brought the buildings down....

tell me, had you ever seen that video before? did you watch the whole video. he says it is impossible that explosives brought the buildings down...he said IMPOSSIBLE..

So to conculde, we can be sure that WTC7 was brought down using CD, and so there was person(s) fully aware of the attacks, which = insisde job.

false- we cannot conclude anything from watching a video, viewing a photograph, or reading a blog post

Nygel

07-20-2007, 12:12 PM

jet fuel is kerosene or however u spell it, kerosene wont take down a steel structure, and you can see 'explosives' or something going off as its going down...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
look at 20 seconds in the middle of the building, thats the most obvious in that view, but whats that thing of dust shooting out of the building (if u look hard their are more )

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m1w6s7p3gr0
MORE!

YoungRemy

07-20-2007, 01:00 PM

If U LOOK HARD THEIR IS MORE LOL!

Whatitis

07-20-2007, 03:01 PM

Carlos

07-20-2007, 04:08 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

from your link:

"It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked (http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm), (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue)"

Whatitis you obvious don't do much studying - cos NIST has revised it's pancake theory. So it could not be air compressed by pancaking floors. Debunking debunked.

and remy, i suggest you go read my post again, as my argument clearly shows that I did watch the video, and found it highly imformative, and do take on board... that is why I admit that i do not know how the twin towers came down.
By I also clearly argue how his expert testimony can be doubted due to other contradictory evidence, whilst there is no evidence that contradicts the CD theory for WTC7.

please watch the link regarding operation gladio - it clearly shows how for decades european intelligence agenceis (or rather shadow agencies within them) and CIA orchestrated killing of civilians in the name of freedom/political goals. It is a known tactic throughout recent history - plz educate yourself, and stop looking ignorant.

Whatitis

07-20-2007, 06:10 PM

Carlos, berating people for their views is just an extention of your character. It doesn't bode well my friend. We obviously have different views and have different levels of pasion for it. I've done my studying. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on pancaking. To me the link I provided gives way more evidence and is more logical than any 911 myth's account. I've seen most of your links and diatribe on the subject and do not find any truth in them, just theories.

Carlos

07-20-2007, 09:44 PM

er.... you put up a link that refers to pancake theory collapse - the orriginal theory NIST(the official scientific body that was comissioned by the governemnt) put forward. However they had to revise this and withdraw it, so even the official scientific bought body can't maintain it was a pancake collapse....

and before you go about my character, the amount of pathetic jibes i've had on this board is staggering... but i wasn't bearating you, I was merely pointing out that you obviously are not well studied on the 911 subject, otherwise you would realise that a pancake collapse would look nothing like what we saw on 911, and there is nobody execpt popular mecanics still holding onto this falacy.

YoungRemy

07-20-2007, 11:33 PM

based on my educated research my hypothesis is that an initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

so, you see, I have done my research, I am well studied, and my copy and paste skills are far superior than yours...

Nygel

07-20-2007, 11:36 PM

you know what is bad about this argument, noone will change their mind.

SugarInTheRaw

07-21-2007, 12:05 AM

For everyone participating in this discussion:

Did the plane crashes cause the two towers to collapse? "Yes" or "No" answer please. If "Yes", what is the deal with WTC 7, which wasn't hit by planes or debris, and why was the building pulled later that afternoon?

YoungRemy

07-21-2007, 12:38 AM

For everyone participating in this discussion:

Did the plane crashes cause the two towers to collapse? "Yes" or "No" answer please.

yes, and the wtc7 building was hit by burning debris during the collapse...

they didnt pull wtc7, they pulled wtc6, and for years people have been arguing over the semantics, going over and over, regurgitating the same quote by Silverstein, the same tired arguments from Alex & Steven Jones, the same myths OVER & OVER again with no merit, only websites, photos, videos, and blogs of out of context quotes, ideas, and poorly researched theories...

Ive read the nist report...its pretty clear what happened.. I'm tired of watching youtube clips with ominous music and bad voiceover narration...

ive made my decision from REAL research, not some hackneyed response to a video of a picture of a building, or some guy whose cousin is a demolition expert in Serbia...

and before I go any further, this will never be decided on a message board... no one will ever have the one answer that leads to a conclusion...

but its no big surprise that people from all over the world come to the political section of the beastie boys message board and think that they are smarter than everyone else, and that their views on government are somewhat superior, that they know more about the ways of the world, and the evil government of America...

its all too predictable, quite laughable, and futile..

I'll try my best to end it here... good luck getting the rest of the world to wake up to what your enlightened mind has already discovered

Nygel

07-21-2007, 12:46 AM

Carlos

07-21-2007, 07:10 AM

well according to NIST the planes had little or nothing to do with the twin towers collapse - apart from the fuel which caused heating and weakening of te steel core collumns.

and as you have read the NIST report you will know that it does not look at WTC7, only the twin towers. We have been waiting for their report into WTC7 for over 3 yrs now.

MAybe you should write to NIST with your research remy, looks like they need a hand.

however from my own research and knowledge of physics, one corner of a building failing, would not cause total symetrical failure in 7 seconds into it's own footprint... only the simultaneous failure of all supporting beams could do this - and control demolition is the only way that could happen...

also maybe you'd like to consider how massive chunks was propelled a few hundred feet from the twin towers into building 7?

I came to this board because I am a life long beastie lover.. been to see em every time they stepped on UK soil. But I also feel that government sponsored terror and the errosion of our freedom is the most pressing of political issues we face, and that a lot of other 'problems' discussed here follow on from that.

As I said it is a documented and well known method of control used by governments.

Laver1969

07-22-2007, 08:33 PM

Here's an official eyewitness report and video...they call it a rocket right about 1:10! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA)

So there's your proof, youngremy!

Whatitis

07-25-2007, 05:35 PM

that doesnt add up at all for 7, that burning rubble completely took down a large steel building. I could look it up but it'll go unclicked. a small plane hit a building in tampa in 02 i believe (unlce worked down street from it) and that building didnt go down... so burning rubbles took down a large building while a small plane left only a hole in one? that doesnt add up at all. Im having fun watchin these vids that claim to 'debunk' the conspiracy theories, thus far they are horrible dubunking theories that involve that the Pentagon camera lens is fisheyed, or watever, well... that means it shrinks the sides? why isnt that cop car going by shrunk at all? dumb journalist trying to look patriotic.

The small plane hitting the building in Florida has no merit in this case at all. Waaay different. Very light plane, small engine, less fuel, oh, and one stupid dead kid. Building 7 took a pretty hard hit when the north tower came down and was burning heavily for quite a few hours. Anyways, here's another point of view - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

Nygel

07-28-2007, 12:04 AM

The small plane hitting the building in Florida has no merit in this case at all. Waaay different. Very light plane, small engine, less fuel, oh, and one stupid dead kid. Building 7 took a pretty hard hit when the north tower came down and was burning heavily for quite a few hours. Anyways, here's another point of view - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

alright, but wat abotu all those other buildings around it? why werent they effected in such ways? im not as familiar to the twin tower area of the arguement as much as the pentagon one. cuz it has way more holes in its story.

YoungRemy

07-28-2007, 12:38 AM

alright, but wat abotu all those other buildings around it? why werent they effected in such ways? im not as familiar to the twin tower area of the arguement as much as the pentagon one. cuz it has way more holes in its story.

well you had me convinced. with your powerful argument, I was about ready to concede my viewpoint... well done, Nygel.

Nygel

07-29-2007, 12:23 AM

either your an ass or a retard, either way if i pursuaded you, jesus is crying

Carlos

07-30-2007, 11:35 AM

4000 Jews didn't show up for work on 9/11. COINCIDENCE??? You decide!

I believe that is a very dangerous myth. One of the wrotten apples that get chucked into the pile. The Israeli connection if there is one, is not an important one.

However Mossad agents were caught celebrating the destruction of the twin towers, as well as being in perfect position to have photographed both plane crashes. They were later released and allowed to return to Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QD_aJaFvGw
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-dancing-Israelis.html

This could be simply a matter of language, and words - they could well mean document it in terms of simply photographing what they saw. However the fact that they are secret service agents, and that they were dancing for joy , as well as being in a perfect position to 'document' it.. it is more likely that they did have prior knowledge, and were on a mission, than not.

Carlos

08-08-2007, 08:21 AM

a highly moving interview with one of NY's finest. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53815767687186956&q=john+schroeder&total=135&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

before anyone (lol...remy) starts crying that this is not definite proof - I agree, however it also cannot be dismissed out of hand, and his testimony of what he witnessed inside the building, and his conclusions that it could not be down to the plane/fire needs to be classed as an expert eye witness oppinion - this guy should know what fires can and can't do basically.

YoungRemy

08-08-2007, 06:32 PM

MARTY THE FRUIT VENDOR DIDNT SHOW UP FOR WORK ON 9/11!!!!!

thanks for baiting me personally for a response Carlos... and thank you for putting the burden on me to come up with an answer to another blog post you found while scouring 9/11 truth.com

here is my statement- I feel horrible for the firefighters on 9/11 who have not received the medical and financial help they deserve...

Carlos

08-09-2007, 06:18 AM

lol.. yeah i reckon it was the fruit man too :p

seriously though, i was only making abundently clear that i wasn't putting this up as absolute proof of anything - but it is another highly enlightening tale of events that day, that adds to the other numerous physical events witnessed and recorded that day that show the governments wild conspiracy theory to be unfounded in reality.

fire trucks don't get blown off people by a buildings falling down - remember if something cannot account for reality, then you must look for something that can, just the same as he describes the building comming apart from within - impossible this was caused by the jet crash/fire numerous stories above (fire rises, not decends). Or even explosions BEFORE any plane struck... who are we to believe, a janitor that saved over a dozen lives (including the fire man from the interview above), or the 911 comission led by an arch neo-con, the architect of the pre-emptive strike strategy drawn up in early days of Bush's adminstration - in other words a criminal.

I know who i'd trust. ;)