[luelling]

Do me a favour and have a look into Bin Laden's denial of involvement, how the tape in which he 'admits involvement' was found, and reflect on the actual neccesity of needing him at all if indeed it was a inside job of some kind.

Are you saying that if it was an inside job that they wouldn't have needed him? That appears to be the suggestion of your later quote. I can guarantee you IF there was a cover up and I doubt there was, he would be key in being a necessity. You have to pin the blame on someone. And what better to point the finger at then oil rich nations upon which we depend?

I ride my bike almost everywhere including the grocery store…but I have to drive to races. Regardless of the “theory” I ride my bike partially to feel less like a whore for the gas companies (and it saves me money)

 

[Changleen]

You have to pin the blame on someone.

That's what I mean - That's all you need him for. He doesn't have to be involved in the planning at all. In fact what could he really do from the supposed cave he supposedly living in anyway?

You do know he used to be a CIA asset right?

 

[luelling]

That's what I mean - That's all you need him for. He doesn't have to be involved in the planning at all. In fact what could he really do from the supposed cave he supposedly living in anyway?

You do know he used to be a CIA asset right?

I acknowledge that our government supplied the Muja Hadien (sp?) with money to buy arms and coincidently helped build their force. It seems like our government does a good job of building up forces that eventually turn against us. I'm sure that we have more arms and money over there (along with military "supervisors") than most of us can imagine. Our government does semi-illegal **** (according to international law). I guess its only illegal if your not the super power.

 

[Changleen]

I acknowledge that our government supplied the Muja Hadien (sp?) with money to buy arms and coincidently helped build their force.

Money and materiel and training and intelligence. Through several conduits.

 

[BikeGeek]

I mean seriously, have you ever seen a plane crash? Did you see the Pictures from the pentagon? Where the heck is all the plane wreckage?

Have you ever seen a plane crash into a building reinforced to withstand attack? Me either, before that day.

Believe what you want, but there is no doubt in my mind what physically happened that day, based on what my co-workers and I heard and saw. The red line is the approximate flight-path.

 

[Changleen]

Have you ever seen a plane crash into a building reinforced to withstand attack? Me either, before that day.

Believe what you want, but there is no doubt in my mind what physically happened that day, based on what my co-workers and I heard and saw. The red line is the approximate flight-path.

So why won't the the Pentagon release any of the multiple camera views that would have captured the event? Everyone saw the other two main impacts and the results of 4th. Why was the Pentagon so special? What about WTC7? Why did the government lie so baltently about it?

Edit: I'm not neccassarily say a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon, jusy asking the government to be more open abot bearing in mind the other questons have energed.

 

[BikeGeek]

I'm not neccassarily say a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon

And that's all I'm trying to say.

Good questions about the footage, there are cameras everywhere around here.

 

[narlus]

and the security cameras of nearby stores had their tapes taken shortly after the event, by i think Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones if i am not mistaken.

ok, i might be off on that last bit.

 

[BikeGeek]

and the security cameras of nearby stores had their tapes taken shortly after the event, by i think Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones if i am not mistaken.

ok, i might be off on that last bit.

I think you are mistaken. If it had been them they would have used their little flashy thing to erase your memory.

 

[rooftest]

Apparantly there were explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1+2 before the planes even hit according to some eyewitnesses.

Sub basements = parking garages of 1 and 2.

As for the explosions - completely false - I know over 30 people who were working in the WTC - some were at their desks when the plane hit. I know still more people who were in the area (World Financial Center across the street, on the sorrounding streets, etc.) at the time - nothing seemed wrong until the plane hit.

 

[chicodude]

The one thing that still boggles me is how come the hole where the plane hit the pentagon was smaller than the size of the plane.


So many unanswered questions is all I am saying.

 

[rooftest]

The one thing that still boggles me is how come the hole where the plane hit the pentagon was smaller than the size of the plane.

There's not too much mass in the wings, so they didn't penetrate into the building.

 

[chicodude]

There's not too much mass in the wings, so they didn't penetrate into the building.

So where, exactly, did they go? Vaporize? magically? Where was the tail section? And why was the damage to the WTC massive, and the damage to the Pentagon relatively minor? The way the media/gov't talked about the intense jet fuel fires in the WTC, you would've thought a large chunk of the Pentagon would be virtually gone.

Planes flew into the WTC, but I'm 75% sure a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Unless by plane I mean this:

 

[rooftest]

So where, exactly, did they go? Vaporize? magically? Where was the tail section? And why was the damage to the WTC massive, and the damage to the Pentagon relatively minor? The way the media/gov't talked about the intense jet fuel fires in the WTC, you would've thought a large chunk of the Pentagon would be virtually gone.

Planes flew into the WTC, but I'm 75% sure a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Unless by plane I mean this:

So the British did it? Look at the WTC videos again - the plane impacts did surprisingly little damage to the buildings. It was the resulting fire that made the building collapse.

Also, remember that the pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world - the plane destroyed nearly 1/5 of it.

Check this out-

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

[Changleen]

So the British did it? Look at the WTC videos again - the plane impacts did surprisingly little damage to the buildings. It was the resulting fire that made the building collapse.

Hmm, I don't see that huge fire.

Also, remember that the pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world - the plane destroyed nearly 1/5 of it.

?? Not really:

That's a very small 1/5.

 

[DaveW]

Hmm, I don't see that huge fire.

No not in that pic.
But I recall watching tv coverage and with my 10 years experience in fire/search and rescue/structural collapse rescue techniques, seeing what looked to my eye to be major fires in both the towers.

 

[Changleen]

Sub basements = parking garages of 1 and 2.

As for the explosions - completely false - I know over 30 people who were working in the WTC - some were at their desks when the plane hit. I know still more people who were in the area (World Financial Center across the street, on the sorrounding streets, etc.) at the time - nothing seemed wrong until the plane hit.

Former NY Aux. Fire and Policeman Uncovers Transit Authority Tapes Showing 'Heavy Smoke Condition' Below WTC On 9/11

More evidence now surfaces indicating explosions rocked the WTC and a pre-planned controlled demolition.

9 Oct 2005
By Greg Szymanski

More 9/11 evidence has surfaced indicating explosions rocked the North Tower prior to the jetliner striking the top floors, again showing the official government story is nothing more than a pack of lies.

Transit Authority conversations between motormen and dispatchers reveal a “heavy smoke situation” on transit line’s 1 and 9 adjacent to and in the sublevel basement area near the North Tower just minutes before the jetliner strike.

The obscure tapes, unknown until recently discovered in official transit authority transcripts and released in the Transit Authority News, adds further credibility to the numerous eye-witness claiming to have heard explosions rock the North Tower prior to the jetliner strike.

The conversations between subway worker’s came to light after avid 9/11 researcher and former auxiliary fireman perused through transit authority records after listening to the same conversations he taped himself on the morning of 9/11.

“I m an emergency communications buff and have kept many tapes of what what was going on the morning of 9/11,” said Isaac this week in a conversation from his home in Brooklyn. “I have on tape the motormen talking to the dispatchers about a heavy smoke condition between building 5 and 6 right next to the North Tower.

“This occurred a minute before the plane hit the tower on the 1 and 9 lines that were running below the mezzanine levels between sub level one and two.”

Isaac, who has compiled an enormous amount of research contradicting the official story, said his tapes were verified by the official transit authority transcripts he recently uncovered.

“This adds more credibility to William Rodriguez’s statements that her heard explosions in the basement,” said Isaac about the WTC head maintenance man who has tried for years to get people to listen to his eye-witness accounts, corroborated by at least 20 other people in the North Tower who also heard the same massive explosions.

(snip)

It’s a massive cover-up. We all know it,” added Isaac.

There's a lot of basement testimony if you care to look.

 

[BigMike]

Changleen, where is that news article from?




And the Pentagon is pretty big, but that did not destroy even CLOSE to 1/5 of it! Remember that the bulk of the Pentagon is underground, and the "plane" didn't mess up much underground stuff. Plus, it didn't even take out one side of the above ground stuff. I was there days afterward and watched the construction, it was maybe half of the side it hit, which makes it 1/10th of the above ground stuff, which probably makes it around 1/20th of the building or less. DEFINANTLY not 1/5

 

[Changleen]

Changleen, where is that news article from?

It's from one of those collections of articles about 9/11 - The first one I found by googling. I think it was from 9/11 truth.org?

There's plenty of it, here's another:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

 

[chicodude]

So the British did it?

Tomahawk cruise missile...just an example. Sea (surface or sub) launched cruise missile going a little faster than a jetliner...

 

[3D.]

Some interesting lines from an article:

by Dave Heller:
Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

No building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way.




Raises some serious logical questions... doesn't it? Or is that just using your tin foil thinking cap?

 

[3D.]

Also, what do you guys think about these squibs going off on building #7, in what appears to be a well timed sequence... just a coincidence?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video archive/squibview.7.qt

 

[BigMike]

Also, what do you guys think about these squibs going off on building #7, in what appears to be a well timed sequence... just a coincidence?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video archive/squibview.7.qt

Photoshop?

I'm glad to see i'm not alone here in thinking that something else was going on that day.....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Also, what do you guys think about these squibs going off on building #7, in what appears to be a well timed sequence... just a coincidence?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video archive/squibview.7.qt

You mean the concrete buckling under the weight of a falling building?

You guys need a life.

 

[bigdrop05]

As far as the planes doing what they actually did i believe they DID crash them into thier targets.. An explosive charge blasting the Pentagon is far fetched,but who knows?
It would NOT suprise me at all if the US government LET 9/11 happen...I DO believe the whole 9/11 event could easily just be collateral damage on the "spark" of passing laws for the dismal future our our country..
Think of it now people.Without a 9/11 ,all the sudden you going to try & pass a Patriot ACT..NO i don't think that would fly ?
And notice why they call it the Patriot ACT in the first place..Sounds comforting doesn't it !
I guess 95% of the population is naieve enought to think that goverments actually care about the people..More like TOTAL CONTROL the people...
Why the trying of gun bans...It's about CONTROL plain & simple...
But i do believe in global warming & not believe in gay marriage.People need to keep that as a closet sport.dam diesel dykes & man on man marriage.Come on....... that's so gay!

 

[BigMike]

Big Drop, I really hope you are kidding. I'm not gonna quote you because when the end of your post gets deleted, I don't want to be the one that quoted it!

 

[valve bouncer]

Big Drop, I really hope you are kidding. I'm not gonna quote you because when the end of your post gets deleted, I don't want to be the one that quoted it!

Bah...he can do much better (or worse if you like) than that. That was pretty tame for him.

 

[DaveW]

So hard to find a decent troll on RM these days.

 

[3D.]

Photoshop?

I'm glad to see i'm not alone here in thinking that something else was going on that day.....

That was just actually a clip from the Naudet brothers' documentary called "911". It's all geniune film from that day, just like most of the local news channels produced.

Here is the full colapse of WTC 7 in which that close up was taken from:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

The documentary was made infamous for one comment made by Larry Silverstein on the subject of 9/11. Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

If you want to hear and see Silverstein say it himself, go to this link http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm
and click on th 2nd "CLICK HERE" link.

Remember this is the owner of the WTC complex stating this on film. Listen to him and then try and oppose what he just said. Post your counter defense on his statement. I’m curious to hear how a person could spin his words into something there not!

How would we explain the many days it takes to strategically wire a building for demolition, if they truly did "pull it". That puts us pre-911, doesn't it?

I like to keep an open mind on the possibilities, which is why I don't doubt any type of government corruption... it's been around for thousands of years.

 

[BigMike]

That was just actually a clip from the Naudet brothers' documentary called "911". It's all geniune film from that day, just like most of the local news channels produced.

I know, I was kidding

And that audio clip is kind of hard to make sense of. Maybe its just because I've had a really long day and my girlfriend is asleep next to me so I can't have my laptop up too loud, but it didn't make much sense to me......

 

[3D.]

I know, I was kidding

And that audio clip is kind of hard to make sense of. Maybe its just because I've had a really long day and my girlfriend is asleep next to me so I can't have my laptop up too loud, but it didn't make much sense to me......

I think your talking about the clip of Silverstein talking about letting them "pull it". It should be a video clip. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm

2nd "CLICK HERE" link

Play it when you can really hear it. It makes me think there's a little more to the story than what the public has been told.

 

[Changleen]

Did you know Silverstein later retracted that comment and said it was taken out of context? I seem to remember it was some really lame excuse.

 

[MikeD]

The one thing that still boggles me is how come the hole where the plane hit the pentagon was smaller than the size of the plane.


So many unanswered questions is all I am saying.

It's not. The dimensions of the plane so often quoted aren't the dimensions of the fuselage.

But I'll just do the Internet argument-by-link:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

[Changleen]

It's not. The dimensions of the plane so often quoted aren't the dimensions of the fuselage.

But I'll just do the Internet argument-by-link:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Whilst I think 9/11 is shady as all hell, and the government is for certain lying their tits off about it, it does seem easier just to have flown the hijacked plane into the Pentagon rather than disposing of it in another way.

However, where are the holes made by the engines? If the fusilage could penetrate the Pentagon wall, I have great difficulty believing that the engines (which are by far and away the strongest and heaviest parts of any jet liner) did not, and since they did not, where the hell are they? A couple of tons of nickel-based super alloy does not vapourise on impact.

 

[MikeD]

Whilst I think 9/11 is shady as all hell, and the government is for certain lying their tits off about it, it does seem easier just to have flown the hijacked plane into the Pentagon rather than disposing of it in another way.

However, where are the holes made by the engines? If the fusilage could penetrate the Pentagon wall, I have great difficulty believing that the engines (which are by far and away the strongest and heaviest parts of any jet liner) did not, and since they did not, where the hell are they? A couple of tons of nickel-based super alloy does not vapourise on impact.

Dunno. I'm no expert. But I could see the wings snapping off and hitting the ground...and there is one other big hole, which I always assumed was one engine, and that the other hit the ground and broke up simultaneously. However, I've also read that the other hole was from the nose gear.

MD