posted August 31, 2007 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

Seems to me, that in any conspiracy theory, it's likelihood is directly related to how many people would have to be involved to carry it off, and thus how many people would be required to keep their mouths shut.

---

It's a good point. I have no idea how many people would have to be involved. I know that the Manhattan Project involved something like 10,000 people, and they kept that under wraps pretty well.

Something to note, however, is that history seems generally to reveal these things to us. We know today that the bomb that destroyed the Maine in Havana Harbor was set off from inside the boat, generating the public outcry to get us into war with Spain. That the Lusitania was sent into a war zone bearing munitions and US citizens for the express purpose of being torpedoed by the German U-boats, to create an outrage and get us into WWI. We know that Roosevelt had advance warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but let it happen to create the public outrage he needed to get us into WWII. We know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag attack to get us into war in Vietnam. We know that other false flag operations have been planned but not put into effect, such as Operation Northwoods, which Kennedy stopped.

We know that our government does stage false flag attacks to manipulate public opinion. Really, if 9/11 was a legitimate terrorist attack, it would be an exception. Those who do not learn from history...

quote:

---

And for every conspiracy theory re: 9/11, there is one to debunk it

---

Not that I've seen. No official report that I've read even mentions the molten steel, for instance, let alone offering any explanation for it. For my part, I haven't been one-sided in looking at this issue, either, so unless you've done far more research than I have, I don't think you can say this with certainty.

quote:

---

Just seems straight up illogical to me, to not even consider that perhaps there was NO conspiracy.

---

Yes, that would be crazy. I believed the official story for years. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement did, from what I've seen.

quote:

---

Perhaps it was just a bunch of angry fanatic islamists...what's so difficult to believe about that?

---

It's difficult to believe that they could bypass the security and air-defense of this country to such an incredible degree - to hijack 4 planes and hit 75% of their targets with them, with no NORAD intervention, with the FBI being instructed to stay away from them in the months beforehand (according to, among others FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill, who left the FBI to work at the WTC, and was killed on 9/11, his first day on the job). If it were really that easy to do, that all you needed was a laptop, some cellphones, and a cave in a 3rd world nation, I think it would happen more often.

And please don't tell me that US security is better these days. Sure, we passed the Orwellian-titled Patriot Act, but our borders are still wide open.

From a historical standpoint, I would say the same thing to people who think our government couldn't have done this. Some elements of the government, not to mention the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, stood far, far more to gain from this than the the Arabs that we promptly bombed the sh*t out of.

quote:

---

I mean, hell perhaps there was a conspiracy of some kind...but I find it highly unlikely considering how many people would have to have been involved...

---

We're still being told that a lone gunman killed Kennedy. Here's what he had to say on the topic:

quote:

---

For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its dissenters are silenced, not praised; no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no democracy would ever hope to wish to match.

---

I don't think it's wise to just write off all the unanswered questions because "people suck at keeping secrets."

posted August 31, 2007 06:58 PM            

Really cool to see this on the "Popular" list on the front page of Google video.

posted August 31, 2007 10:22 PM            

Notice the beams cut diagonally, in accordance with building demolition techniques. Also note the cooled crust of metal around the edges of the cut.

posted September 01, 2007 03:28 AM              

P.S. I'll see you at the docks, but it'll have to be on the astral level- it saves on air travel!

posted September 01, 2007 07:12 AM            

Thermite and Sulfer

If anyone cares to look through those two sites with an open mind [rather than a mind already made up one way and intent on dismissing the valid arguments, questions and logic presented at the above 2 links which address much, if not all, of what has been presented here (including Steven Jones)as conspiracy truth] I'd really like to hear your opinions. Thanks.

*edited to add*

posted September 01, 2007 06:23 PM            

The second one could be true; I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough on physics to argue that it's not. To be honest, I'm an art-major .

So I can't present a terribly strong case by relying purely on physics, unless I borrow significantly from individuals who, as your links make a case, may not be trustworthy (and again, I'm not prepared to say either way at this point. That Dr. Jones didn't have his paper peer-reviewed in a physics journal is certainly suspicious, but I'm not yet sure its damning. I find some of the character-assassinations in themselves a little suspicious as a method of argument.)

Among 'conspiracy theorists,' there are three views that I've seen; those who think the shadow government or whoever Made It Happen On Purpose, those who think they Let It Happen On Purpose, and those who think they are just trying to cover up their massive ineptitude. I don't really know where I stand on those, and I'm still researching the subject in what spare time I get.

I do know that Dr. Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 commission, refused to step down as director when family members of the 9/11 victims, who had been forced to fight for over a year to get a 9/11 commission in the first place, alleged that he was in a position of conflict of interest (due to having participated in White House briefings on Al Quaeda in '00 and '01, with Rice, Clark, and Berger, who later testified to the commission themselves). And that Senator Max Cleland, who was on the commission, resigned, condemning it as a whitewash.

"If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

"“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.” "

He wasn't the only one to express doubts, by far:
http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_truth/patriotsquestion911.html

And then you hear about the Pakistani ISI, which has connections to the CIA, wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta in the weeks prior to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission writes this and the rest of the issue of who funded the attacks off as "of little significance."

quote:

---

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance... Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding." (p. 172)

---

So is that the motto of the commission? "Don't follow the money?"

And then you see the Bush administration using 9/11 (whether they had any prior knowledge of it or not) to pass the unconstitutional Patriot Act and to get us into war in Iraq. And when you look at the long history of false flag terrorist operations in this country, and at who is profiting (massively...) from the results of 9/11, it's fairly easy to come to a conclusion that the administration at least would have good reason to ignore the threat of these attacks. FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill said that his investigations into Al-Quaeda were being thwarted from on high... and I've already mentioned what happened to him. And then there's Rice and Cheney and the others declaring that no one could possibly have foreseen such an attack... then evidence comes to light that, not only had the Pentagon foreseen the attacks, they had been running strikingly similar drills on the day itself!

So yeah, it's not too hard to have questions. But thanks for the links - the second one I hadn't seen, and will take me some time to look through thoroughly. Could be that some of what I was thinking true is not; really, in a subject this convoluted, that's probably inevitable.

posted September 02, 2007 05:58 AM              

Another thing I would like to know, about the whole 9/11 case:

If William Rodriquez and others all heard the explosions, why the big effort of the media to edit the parts out when they talk about it? Why was the commission never called forward? It could have been extremists who planted the explosions, so why all the suspicious behavior on the government's part, and those who act as pawns for it?

posted September 04, 2007 03:06 PM            

For your information, one of the first things which happened was for those beams which were still standing after the WTC fell...was to cut them off with torches. Of course there was evidence they were cut off because they were cut off.

Anyone can take pictures without reference to WHEN they were taken and give an entirely false picture of the sequence of events.

Anyone could have taken a picture of building 7...from the front..which looked pretty normal and then theorize the building could only have been brought down with explosives. But, building 7 was very heavily damaged on the OTHER side...the side your little conspiracy group decided to NOT show because it did nothing to enhance their brain dead theory.

The WTC was not designed to withstand the impact of a civilian airliner flying at 400-500 mph and the resultant fire. The WTC was a departure from usual high rise design and you could have read all about that if you had bothered to read what I posted on previous threads.

Not to confuse you with facts Johnny...or anyone else for that matter.

But these are facts the conspiracy theory nuts ignore when they talk about the MELTING point of steel in an effort to show it couldn't have happened the way scientific studies have shown it most definitely did happen.

The steel support beams DID NOT HAVE TO MELT FOR THE BUILDING TO COME CRASHING DOWN.

At about 1000*F, steel loses 50% of it's structural strength. This fire was in excess of 1500*F which means the load bearing strength of the steel support beams was in the range of 15-25% of their original load carrying capacity.

posted September 04, 2007 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

For your information, one of the first things which happened was for those beams which were still standing after the WTC fell...was to cut them off with torches.

---

Source?

quote:

---

But, building 7 was very heavily damaged on the OTHER side...the side your little conspiracy group decided to NOT show because it did nothing to enhance their brain dead theory.

---

Odd that the building fell straight down, in that case, in such a symmetrical fashion. Nevertheless, I don't recall seeing any pictures of this 'heavy damage.' Have any?

quote:

---

The WTC was not designed to withstand the impact of a civilian airliner flying at 400-500 mph and the resultant fire.

---

This is pretty much refuted by the statements of the engineers of the building, who described the impact of the largest civilian airliner of the time, the Boeing 707, which the towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of, as being comparable to "a pencil through mosquito netting."

quote:

---

The steel support beams DID NOT HAVE TO MELT FOR THE BUILDING TO COME CRASHING DOWN.

---

I'd say we better start evacuating skyscrapers then, if a fire is all it takes to bring the whole, heavily redundant structure down.

quote:

---

This fire was in excess of 1500*F which means the load bearing strength of the steel support beams was in the range of 15-25% of their original load carrying capacity.

---

1,500? Underwriters Laboratory, who certified the steel used in the WTC to 2000 degrees for 6 hours, estimated that the fire probably didn't reach more than a mere 500 degrees, conditions in the towers being what they were.

quote:

---

I would say it's a miracle the building stood up as long as it did.

---

Others wouldn't.

posted September 06, 2007 01:41 PM            

The jet fuel wasn't puddled. It was sprayed all over the floor, walls, furniture, plane and down the elevator shafts....when fuel tanks ruptured and that jet fuel was traveling at about 450 mph. God, give it a rest already.

Nice try for the moron but no cigar.

posted September 06, 2007 06:58 PM            

It's interesting how quick you are to focus on that, to the exclusion of more irrefutable points. It's a trend I see often.

From the first of your links I open that isn't about the Pentagon hypothesis, Jwhop:

quote:

---

While on vacation in Cairo last August, Connecticut banker Richard Dennison says a shopkeeper in the bazaar told him in detail about planes that would be flown like bombs into the World Trade Center by Arabs in September or October. Furthermore, according to the shopkeeper, the coming attack was a prime topic of conversation at his mosque.

...

"I still have a certain amount of guilt about not reporting the incident to the authorities immediately when I returned. I guess I didn’t really know what to make of it, and I have said over and over, if I knew, the CIA must also have known. I am convinced some agents did.

---

I have to say... I agree with him.

quote:

---

A 112-page document drawn up by Ramzi Binalshibh, of Al Qaeda, and released by Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera, admits that the organisation was involved in the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th and warns of a wave of new terrorist activities.

---

Ooh! Al-Quaeda admits it! Well, what are we arguing over, then!

Reminds me of the 2004 election, when, 4 days before the votes were cast, bin Laden releases a video denouncing Bush and warning Americans not to vote for him. How utterly transparent! Apparently, even CIA analysts determined he was trying to up Bush's chances of winning. No, really!
http://digg.com/politics/CIA_Osama_Bin_Laden_Helped_Bush_Win_in_2004

I wouldn't have believed America was this stupid, but I guess I would have been wrong.

The only question we really need to ask is this: who is benefiting?

Thanks for the photos of WT7, Jwhop. The damage to the lower corner of the building there is interesting. I wouldn't have thought that a building damaged in such an asymmetrical fashion would collapse so symmetrically. But, as I've stated, I'm not a physicist.

On a slightly unrelated note, this is also interesting.

quote:

---

The BBC World News also aired a live coverage of the World Trade Center buildings as they were falling down. Their coverage was accurate right until Building Seven was about to come down. The reporter on the scene, Jane Standley, incorrectly reported that Building Seven had collapsed even though this building was still standing right behind her. About five minutes before the actual collapse of Building 7, the video feed of Ms. Standley is cut off.

---

Funny.

And how about Giuliani saying that he was warned that "the WTC was going to collapse?" First steel skyscraper in history to collapse, firefighters aren't warned... but Giuliani gets a warning. Who warned him, and how did they know, and why weren't the firefighters warned?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLNtvOKdjsE

quote:

---

The fact that the building housed the offices of government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, along with the City of New York's emergency command bunker, has also fueled conspiracy theories.

---

-from Wikipedia

For the sake of the argument, let's forget the controlled demolition debate, though. Here are some other suspicious details for you to call me a moron over.

During the 9/11 Commission's public hearings, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta offered the following testimony:

'There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"'

Well, that's curious.

Then there's Bush stating that he saw the first plane hit the WTC before even entering the classroom to read to those children. He even describes the scene and gives supporting details. Impossible without prior knowledge, and he states it on two separate occasions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&mode=related&search=

It's been on the White House website. Bush has never retracted it.

And, remember, according to the President, he saw the first plane hit the tower and heard about the second one a short time later... and he still didn't leave the classroom. Didn't he realize that, by staying where he was, he was endangering himself, his staff, and children attending school that day? Why didn't the Secret Service at least do its duty and get him out of there? This kind of (literally) unbelievable incompetence - if it is incompetence - seems to pervade every aspect of 9/11.

And here's a few curious facts about your favorite topic, Jwhop, the Pentagon:

* The portion of the Pentagon targeted was mostly unoccupied due to a renovation program.
* The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to hit that portion of the building rather than the part housing high-level officials.
* The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to pilot a Cessna, according to his flight instructors, let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver that may have exceeded the skills of even the best test pilot.

I could go on and on with this, as could anyone who cares to put in a little time to research this with an open mind. Physics aside, there are too many unanswered questions for us to accept the official story and all its consequences without reservation.

Why did the administration delay an investigation into 9/11 for more than a year, and then, after finally allowing it, try to appoint the cover-up artist Henry Kissinger to direct it? Why did they then limit the commission's access to evidence? Why did Bush and Cheney only agree to testify if they were together, not under oath, no transcripts or recordings allowed, no press or victim's family members allowed, etc?

posted September 06, 2007 07:17 PM              

quote:

---

This is not for you Johnny...or others who refuse to be confused by facts....

---

well, i refuse to be confused by facts....

i s'pose then it's for those who submit to being confused.

and for those who refuse to be confused...

posted September 06, 2007 10:28 PM            

EDIT: Did I post this already? Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

posted September 07, 2007 10:14 AM            

Oh, and I really didn't expect you to click on the links I posted. Didn't want to confuse you with factual scientific information which blows holes in your conspiracy theory. Whatever would you have to do then? Life would be dull without your favorite conspiracy to chase.

posted September 07, 2007 05:46 PM            

quote:

---

The pictures I put up ARE NOT pictures of the Pentagon. They're building 7 of the WTC complex.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for the photos of WT7, Jwhop. The damage to the lower corner of the building there is interesting. I wouldn't have thought that a building damaged in such an asymmetrical fashion would collapse so symmetrically. But, as I've stated, I'm not a physicist.

---

You really don't read anything I post, do you?

quote:

---

Oh, and I really didn't expect you to click on the links I posted. Didn't want to confuse you with factual scientific information which blows holes in your conspiracy theory. Whatever would you have to do then? Life would be dull without your favorite conspiracy to chase.

---

When all else fails, repeat.