terrorist attack or rights stripping agenda

I know some of you are going to just blast me on this, but bear with me a few moments. Do you think our government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. I do, to the core of my soul, and until the government provides full disclosure, I always will.

Statements-

1. The collapse of all those buildings looked exactly like demolition by trained experts, particularly WTC7. Why was this not treated like a crime scene? What were they hiding in the rubble? Steel structures cut by charges, that's what.:scrutiny:

2. Why no footage of the plane actually hitting the pentagon? Because a plane did not hit the pentagon, if it did, they would be happy to share those facts, and we'd be happy to see all the video evidence that was seized moments after the event, never to resurface. And there would have been evidence of the plane wings smashing into the side of the pentagon, not just a hole in it. Where was all the rubble?:scrutiny:

3. Why so much suppression of "real" facts?:cuss:

I know this implies our government was involved, and I fully believe they orchestrated the entire thing via the CIA. Reagan needed a drug war, Bush senior made sure we had drugs coming into the country ala the CIA so we had one. Made a lot of money to supply weapons to the middle east to keep the chaos level up.:(

I believe this is the same "circle of friends" if you will that have created this terror climate in America to systematically take our rights from us. People are sheep nowadays and want the government to take care of them. Me, I want a revolution.:D

Now blast away with all your, no one could do something that evil speeches. Bush could never do that speeches and see how fast this thread gets locked. Then go visit question911.com and see how many more questions have been left unanswered.

My feeling is that the elite are following a very specific agenda to insure the constant erosion of our constitutional rights. And fear is the best mechanism to get people to give up liberties for the sake of personal comfort. I am no liberal Michael Moore type by any means, but to say our government was not involved in a big way would take full disclosure by this same government.

Let's face it, that will never happen.

jeepmor

PS - I can't wait to read your comments....if it doesn't get instantly closed as off topic or non-firearms related. But don't you think that's part of the agenda also, further down the line, once we give up a few more rights. I mean really, another Clinton in office and we may all be burying our guns in the woods just so we can keep them.

No. 9/11 couldnt have been a conspiracy.. too many people would have had to be involved. What happened is what happened.

However, I do believe the gov't is using the threat of terrorism to erode rights. Most people dont care because the gov't is telling everyone "It's for your own good"

Buildings do not fall like that unless there are charges set. I know this would have to involve a large amount of folks and believe it was predominantly the CIA, known for their secretive ways and very loyal followers.

Sorry, just can't buy into the simple explanations. Something along the lines of a Hitler quote. ...The bigger the lie, the more they believe it....

jeepmor

I think you guys have been watching that student-made 9/11 conspiracy film on Google.


As far as a conspiracy goes...I doubt it. However, it isn't impossible. We'll learn the truth someday. I think that most of the points for conspiracy are wrong. You don't have to make an issue out of the Pentagon lack of footage or how the buildings fell or how wreckages were for there to be a conspiracy.


All it takes is enablers. Doesn't take hundreds of guys doing secret clean up duties and fake recordings and all sort of other hogwash like planting explosives.

yawn

It cannot be a US Government conspiracy. There is no way so many people in our government could be so evil. Or keep such a secret. No way.

Buildings do not fall like that unless there are charges set. I know this would have to involve a large amount of folks and believe it was predominantly the CIA, known for their secretive ways and very loyal followers.

Sorry, just can't buy into the simple explanations. Something along the lines of a Hitler quote. ...The bigger the lie, the more they believe it....

I know my knowledge in structual engineering is rather thin, but I would think that a "traditional" building that rests on an interior framework would fall differently compared to a building where the outside walls are the supports and the inside is basically a hollow cylinder.

Also, if a plane just crashed into a building, wouldn't there be a risk to the charges going off prematurely? Unless, of course, "they" managed to sneak in with the firefighters and police officers going upstairs or "they" planted them post-crash?

Tin foil is known for a curious electro-magnetic phenomenon: Logical, rational brain waves are reflected back into the brain and bounce around. Like a xerox of a xerox, they get damaged until an intelligent thought: "The sun rises in the East" turns into: "The CIA managed to plant enough explosives at the exact place where two jet aircraft hit the WTC."

OK, where exactly is the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon?

And that "do no evil" concept is exactly what they are banking on. Why, how could they, and it works. How long did the world believe the Jews were not being killed when they were in the case of WWII. And the world believed it could not be true, such atrocity. Yes, quite unspeakable and horrifying. To believe that man is not capable of such things is just naive. To think that they will not band together for that goal, again naive.

Like I said, if the site data was free for the public to examine through pictures of the failed structures, we'd know wouldn't we. As a structure of that size, the beams in the ground had to be massive to support the weight and flexure stresses at the base, where the stresses are the highest. Those first few stories of steel should have survived a plane attack from the umpteenth floor. Why was it so hastily destroyed. Because it contained a lot of evidence that would have answered a lot of questions would be my guess.

Regardless of any conspiracy theory I may entertain or fantasize about, the event set off an agenda that is eroding our rights as Americans. This is a truth none of us can deny.

Jeepmor the government has definitely used the 9/11 attacks to take away our freedom but our government is way to incompetent to pull off 9/11 without everyone finding out ahead of time.



But they did let it happen they had enough info ahead of time to stop and they dropped the ball or let it happen.

Why was it so hastily destroyed. Because it contained a lot of evidence that would have answered a lot of questions would be my guess. So the same logic would apply to that Larry guy telling the NYFD to "pull" WTC7? I mean, what kind of "evidence" would have been in that building to require such a "hasty" destruction?

Or could it be, a much more likely possibility, that the building was damaged so much from the towers falling that the NYFD really had no choice but to bring it down before it fell on its own?

In the KY ballroom building disaster, there was a catwalk that fell when many people swayed to music. Building collapsted.

The flaw explained like this: If a rope can hold two climbers, it is ok. But now have one climber hold other's ankles instead of rope. Load at top is same but the lower climbers grip now becomes "weak link".

The exoskelton of buildings was new in 1971. If 4-5 or more floors fall onto a floor with bolts that are strong enough for 2 or 3 floors, it becomes like the climbers. The load on foundation is the same. but the floor bolts will fail.

A floor will be enginneered for ~300% of load or more for safety, but 500% to 1000% would would have been way overbuilt. When the 60,000 pounds of jet fuel weakened steel, many floors fell onto the highest floor not weakened. Cascade effect took over. Wood framed heavy timber building are way, way safer in a fire than steel. Ask any fireman; a steel building is a widow-maker.

A concrete block for a house foundation is 2.5 as stong as needed when new. These will shift, crack and fail. Poured concrete is 10x times needed strength. These are better, but have ten floors fall onto it , weakened by heat and this will fail too.

Some believe we did not go to moon with a computer that had the power of today's Wal-Mart watch. If true we did not nuke Japan with a vacuum tube computer designed atom bomb.

1. The collapse of all those buildings looked exactly like demolition by trained experts, particularly WTC7. Why was this not treated like a crime scene? What were they hiding in the rubble? Steel structures cut by charges, that's what.
Now, I'm no expert but I have seen buildings demo'd. They don't start at the top, so there goes part one of your theory.

Imploded buildings crumble from the bottom up. Not the top down.

I am really getting sick of having to explain this over and over to people who believe everything they see on the internet. :banghead:

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70487&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

I am ordering this DVD because I have seen a program on Discovery(if I remember right) that explained exactly what brought the buildings down. I believe it's the one above but I haven't received it yet. I will post if it is indeed the one. But once again here's the skinny on the collapse accoring to the designers.

The floor trusses were the "weak link" that caused the collapse. Their design was not up to par for what happened on 9/11. When the plane struck and exploded the fireproofing material on the trusses was blown off. The stuff was sprayed on and was not able to stand up to the force of the blast. Ihe flames didn't effect the fireproofing but the force of the impact and explosion removed it from the trusses.

The jet fuel then started everything on fire. So not only did you have jet fuel burning but you had all the office furniture, carpeting, and TONS of paper in file cabinets. THe heat cause the trusses not to fail but to soften and the weight of the concrete caused them to flex and sag. EVentually the sagging caused the trusses to pull from the perimeter beams they were conected to. Once enough trusses had fallen from place the entire floor pancaked the floor below it, which could not handle the impact/weight of all the floors above it and a chain reaction ensued.

Jeepmor:

Where, exactly, is the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon?

Erebus, but, but conspiracies are soooo much fun. A lot more fun than my mom making me take out the trash and having to get beat up in gym class.

Look up Occam's Razor............

Greg

Dream on.

Trust me, our government is WAY, WAY too incompetent to pull off some sort of conspiracy even half that size. :rolleyes:

They basically allowed the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings thru sheer pig-headed stubborness of refusing to listen to evidence coming in. We were lucky that at least the WTC towers were built to such a good standard by private contractors that it self-destructed straight down instead of swaying and falling to the side, possibly taking many more buildings with it.

crazed_ss is correct in that it couldn't have been or at least not like to be a conspiracy.

However, gross incompetence doesn't require a conspiracy or a plan to be properly implemented. All it requires is a bunch of lazy govt dumbasses not doing their jobs.

Check out what http://www.peterlance.com has had to say on the subject of Able Danger resulting from his own investigations.:fire:

I also agree with the sentiment that terrorism is nothing more than an excuse to errode rights and ratchet up govt. power.

Okay, to those who profess a belief the WTC was brought down by carefully planted demo charges, because the towers collapsed straight downward "like a planned implosion," I pose a simple question:

IF the US government were responsible, WHY would the demolition have been set up like a planned implosion/demolition operation? Why NOT simply set the charges to topple one or both towers to the side? Would that not have been even more horrific and dramatic?

Seems to me that the towers collapsed due to weakening of structural materials due to the extreme heat of the jet fuel inferno, and gravity seems to pull straight down!

I await the conspiracy theorists' explanations . . .

Didn't the plane that hit the pentagon cross a busy highway before it hit the building?

There's so much evidence to refute these theories that you might as well believe that NYC itself is a hoax.

yawn

You're showing way to much interest in this current discussion. Proper response would be more like "snore." :neener: :D

*snore*

Didn't the plane that hit the pentagon cross a busy highway before it hit the building?

There's so much evidence to refute these theories that you might as well believe that NYC itself is a hoax.

Oh, come on, now!

Of course NYC is fake! Next you'll expect me to believe those movie things are fake, too...

You know, even if the ATF didn't place C-4 in the buildings...even if CIA operatives didn't put Atta and his crew up to it...even if intelligence/cooperation wasn't provided to Bin Laden by someone in the US embassy in Saudi Arabia...

It was still just a matter of time before something like this happened. After decades of meddling with the internal affairs of middle eastern/arab/islamic nations, arming & funding the enemies of those nations, helping their enemies in the region acquire nuclear weapons, maintaining a foreign policy that gives unlimited support to their enemy, etc...what is the only possible outcome except for a campaign of terrorism against the United States?

You may be able to morally defend our foreign policy, but you can't escape it's inevitable result: a third world full of crazed, suicidal muslims who want to destroy us.

It's like poking a dog with a stick over and over again and then being surprised when it turns around and bites you!

Anyway, now that an event has happened where the government can say 'look what these maniacs have started!', there's an excuse to roll out any number of freedom curtailing laws that the 'proles will mindlessly submit to.

We're looking down the barrel of the demise of this nation I'm afraid.

Let me see if I have this straight.... GW got ahold of 19 Arab dudes, set the whole thing up about the hijacking, then went and found a couple CIA Black ops dudes to plant some explosive charges. Now, these explosive dudes, must also be trained explosive engineers to be able to plant explosives at just the right places and to make the necessary cuts in the structure to cause a collapse, from the top, mind you.

Ok, now, since the Prez goes nowhere alone, the secret service must have been in on this from the start, as well as Karl Rove, oh yes, he must be the evil mastermind. Actually, I think I saw Boris and Natasha in Washington, chasing a Moose and Squirrel, so THEY must have been in on it too. Ted Kennedy drove the getaway car!

Now, let's review... A Massive organization needed to support this, tons of money changing hands and yet, no one is out singing like a canary. They can't keep Monica Lewinsky a secret, but something the size of this conspiracy and Mum's the word.

It is amazing, the left with their clear, logical thinking, think that on one hand, GW is dumb as a stump, but on the other, he is some Machiavellian mastermind on par with The League of Super Villians.

Some people need to have thier tin foil hats pushed down over their ears.

And don't forget that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a jet. The Pentagon was hit by a missile because George W. Bush wanted the military crippled before he launched his attack against Hussein. The jet was hijacked by the CIA and flown to a remote airfield in Area 69 (or wherever the aliens are sitting around collecting welfare). All the people on board have been killed and their organs harvested by Halliburton.

And Elvis is still alive!!!


C

I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading another whacked out conspiracy thread on 9/11. I want it back, now!

Somehow the same government, that can't find it's ass in a small bathroom, using both hands, with the lights on and a road map, somehow can contain and control massive consipracies for years, hide thousands of bodies and control all broadcast outlets.

I also think the "Lewinsky Rule" applies. If they couldn't keep the Presidential "hummer in chief" quiet, they sure as heck can't run a game of this magnitude.

Plus it had to stretch across multiple presidencies too. The first attacks on the WTC were under Clinton. If it really was a consipracy you know Senator Leahy and Schumer along with Nancy Pelosi would be holding press conferences to tell the media there were no secrets and they knew all about them.

1. The collapse of all those buildings looked exactly like demolition by trained experts,

Please, please, PLEASE read the official engineering documents regarding how the WTC was built. It was a tube of steel girders with floors inside it, basically, with lesser cross-supports, NOT a reinforced-concrete-pillars building. When one floor fell, it hit the next, and the next, with ever-increasing mass, causing a cascade collapse of pancaking floors straight downward through that "tube", which then collapsed inward behind them as there was nothing to hold it apart.

That's why they fell, and why they fell straight down.

And 7 WTC had a LARGE tank of diesel up in the tower itself for the emergency management center. If that caught, the intense heat would have severely undermined the building's structure, and yes, the building WAS on fire internally for hours from debris impacts. 7 WTC was not an overengineered marvel. It was a bland, lowest-bidder postmodern office box so unremarkable that people who walked past it for years couldn't recall its features. Buildings of that sort are built to be cheap and to have as much office space as possible, not to hold together when hit by burning, high-speed debris.

I would focus more on the "We must FEAR!" idiocy following, not the engineering events. Not unless you have at least a masters' in materials failure analysis and architecture are you qualified to postulate "theories."

Wow...just....wow... (http://wilstar.com/midi/twilzone.wav)

The federal government and 9/11:

"Failed to prevent" - almost certainly

"Had a hand in" - wouldn't put it past some officials, but I really doubt it

"Orchestrated" - not a chance. They can't even RESPOND to a disaster, let alone create one and keep a secret about it.

As brought up by previous posters, there is absolutely no doubt that the gov't has used the 9/11 events to instill fear, infringe rights, and generally trample on the common citizens.

That guy Cheney shot knew the truth but he was shot to intimidate him to silence. Similarly, the chef at the White House was found planting charges in the quiche but Laura Bush's investigation led to his firing.

Rumsfeld is a robot controlled by Neaderthals from an alternate time line describe by Rober Sawyer in his novels as otherwise his actions could not normally be that bizarre or stupid.

Wait, there's a UFO outside. Do they need a search warrant to start a probe? George Bush doesn't think so. He thinks that the government has a right to probe you at will.

9/11 is the confluence of an inept beaurocrcacy and a small group of less inept terrorists.

Generations of inept pols unthinkingly meddle in the affairs of others, unaware of (or uncaring of) what trouble they are causing.

When those "others" are overseas, they get fed up and become willing soldiers/sympathizers for zealots and madmen, and haters of "the average American".

They come after the "hated average American", who is protected by the same inept departments. Since they're inept, they can't defend themselves, much less others in they're charge. Unfortunately, innocents die too, and in large numbers.

The only thing the beaurocrats are less inept at is exploiting every "crisis" to pass more legislation that cements their control over people who have nothing to do with the "crisis". As a result, the crisis continues until 1 side or the other simply gets tired of the game.

Everything else is just details... the part that repeats over and over, the "history" part, is this. It's not uniquely American either.

You can't engineer stupidity and hubris... unfortunately, we're not exactly voting it out of office either.

If you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, you must also believe our government is competent enough to execute such a plan in complete secrecy.

Buildings do not fall like that unless there are charges set.

Since it is your theory that the WTC buildings collapsed via charges set to generate an unnatural controlled collapse, why would they, the ones in your conspiracy, want the buildings to fall in such an absolute controlled manner?

You say pancaking cannot happen without charges being set? You are wrong. Pancaking happens in multistory buildings without demolition teams...
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2005/08/dying_to_compet_1.html
http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w1_116.htm
http://www.iiit.net/techreports/2006_10.pdf
http://www.restoringearth.co.uk/education/science/geography/geohazards/earthquake/building_failure/pw3.shtm

1. The collapse of all those buildings looked exactly like demolition by trained experts,

Oh sure, because why? Because untrained experts would not know how to do it? How many buildings have you seen taken down by trained experts to know the difference between those, the buildings taken down by untrained experts, and buildings coming down for other environmental or mechanical means?

Elvis, who sees all, isn't sure you are in a position to determine if the collapse was by trained experts or not.

Maybe you are not familiar with the California earthquake that caused several apartment buildings to pancake collapse? Not being terribly tall, only the lower 1 or 2 floors were pancaked under upper floors that were somewhat intact.

You say it can't happen and yet pancake collapse is one of 6 major forms of building collapse rescuers learn about so that they may conduct their SAR work safely and efficiently. If such things only happen by demolition work and demolition work is on vacant buildings, why bother with teaching how to recue from pancaked buildings?

If tower collapses was done by controlled charges after being struck by airplanes, how did those rigging the explosives know where to rig them and be able to rig them in a manner that would not be ruined by the plane impacts and fire? How did they rig the explosions to start the demolition in such a manner that nobody identified them as munitions explosions and there was no outward sign of the explosions? If the folks could do all of that and if pancake collapses are so unnatural, then your bad guys would have known this and would have controlled the collapse in a manner akin to a more natural collapse.

I have trouble believing most of the conspiracy theory folks that hold that events such as the WTC collapses weren't the result of bad guy conspiracy, but good guy conspiracy where folks, such as the government, exercise so much control they can pull stunts like this, kill thousands, and then use the events the further other agendas. The reason I don't believe said folks is because if things were so screwed up as they claim, the government so evil and posing so much danger, they would be idiots to remain in the US. Equally, they would be idiots to speak out against such an all powerful evil force. And yet they remain. Why? Maybe because they don't actually believe their own theories?

No Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Didn't the plane that hit the pentagon cross a busy highway before it hit the building?

Yes, it did, it crossed I-395 which is the spur that runs from the 495/95 junction into the city. The Pentagon is just a couple hundred yards away from the highway.

How do I know this? I WAS THERE. On 395, on 9-11 heading into class in Arlington, VA. The plane passed right over the traffic at a very, very low altitude.

Of course, I am little more that a CIA shill, so Jeep can rest his head on his huge pillow of conspiracies at night.

All of the conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 show a distince lack of critical thinking skills in their proponents.

For those that think that the government could concieve a conspiracy to airliners, plant enough explosive to bring down several buildings, and plant them in a fashion that the planes that crashed into the buildings didn't set them off or disable them, cover the whole thing up, in broad day light, and make a missle strike the pentagon, in broad daylight, in a very populated area where people were already watching the skies, well, I don't think any of us will talk you out of your delusions.

But do you really believe our Government is capable of this? I am not asking if they are evil enough, only capable enough.

Do you really think that they have the ability to plan things that critically, and cover things up that well?

BTW, I personally know someone who saw the plane that struck the Pentagon. It flew right over his head.

I.G.B.

Cool! We have a Haliburton/Carlyle co-conspirator right here on our own forum! Do you know how they get all of the Jews out of New Orleans while Rove was steering the hurricane and the CIA planted the dynamite and blew the levees?


:D

Originally Posted by: Shootingstudent
There's so much evidence to refute these theories that you might as well believe that NYC itself is a hoax.

It is, isn't it?

I heard it was in America. But my friends who say they were from New York City told me that its impossible to live freely there.


Seriously though, I feel that anything is possible. I do feel that it PROBABLY not a hoax.

1. I possess a mechanical engr degree
2. I did failure analysis for 5 years


To think my governement, particularly this adminstration, is not organized or secretive enough to pull this off is still not a big reach for me. I believe just as strongly that they are organized enough as many of you believe strongly to the contrary. I elude to all our stealth airplane technology as an example of how well secrets can be kept when needed by the very government so many of you think leaks like a sieve.

Answer me this - If you were the president and your secret service agent whispers in your ear that one of America's largest icons of economic power and freedom has been hit by a large plane. Would you just sit there and continue reading stories to elementary students? Or would you act...immediately! What is it he was waiting for?

This thread has illustrated to me that no matter what your point of view or theory on what happened, you all feel very strongly and some of you think that your conclusions are the only plausible answers.

I believe our government can keep a secret if only by stealth technology examples in the aircraft industry. And where is the official government data pertaining to this event. If it is out there, please share, because I can't find much that is truly unbiased and scientific. Definitely a lack of it in here. The pancake theory is nice, but the supporting columns at the bottom of the building are so stout that they would have been still present. Anyone have any images of them? I don't, but have not looked intently.

The Bush family has a history of clandestine dealings dating back a few generations. To say that GW didn't know a thing is very believeable, the guy is obviously a puppet for Cheney and company. But you have to admit, this administration sure cranked up the fear mongering once this event occurred.


jeepmor

Ooh, ooh, don't forget that the Pentagon got hit by a cruise missle, because the highly trained analysts of cruise missile engine acoustic signatures working at the freaking gas station down the highway said that they heard a missile, not an airliner. :rolleyes:

In other news, how is the fact that the president didn't leap out of his seat and start shrieking orders to everyone and everyone else indicative of any kind of evil or stupidity? He was in a classroom full of little kids, is he supposed to leap out of his seat and dash from the room, bowling over first graders and teacher's aides on the way out?

And speaking of immediately giving orders -- to who? To do what? You want the president to hurry up and wait? Quick, quick, back to the Oval office, so I can be delivered a speech and read situation reports from all the people who actually do things! Despite the title of "Commander in Chief", I guarantee that the guardsfolks and engineers and stuff who were going in minutes/hours after that disaster weren't sitting on their hands going "Naw, man, we can't go until the Cee-Eye-Cee authorizes it. Gotta wait for the big man to tell us to go."

~GnSx

I did not imply he should panic, but a quick dismissal would have been prudent instead of...where was I children, oh yeah. The cat in the hat is really not fat......

One of the first attacks to US soil since WWII and he continues to read stories to elementary students. Again, what was he waiting for, confirmation, the other planes, or is he just plain that stupid.

I'm sorry, but I would have excused myself and done my job as president to protect my country, y'know, the one that the oath was taken for. The job that made me responsible for the safety of ~270 million Americans.

jeepmor

I looked at the website to see their facts. I don't think videos are really the end-all in arguments, nor are the words of eye-witnesses. You, however, speak about postulating based on physics. That is certainly what the people on that web site claimed they were doing. However, I think some explanation is needed here...

Let me tell you a story.

For those of you that didn't know, sometime in the '90s, I believe, Lee Harvey Oswald was tried posthumously for the murder of JFK and the police officer he shot while attempting to escape Dallas. You can get a video of the trial. We watched it in high school history class once. I remember one part, where the defense lawyer was arguing the "grassy knoll" theory. His argument was simple; simple physics, that is. Watching the Zaprudar (misspelled, I know) film, you clearly see JFK jerk BACKWARDS in his seat when shot. The defense lawyer said this is simple physics at work. If you hit something, it moves in the direction you hit it.
The prosecution then called a medical person of some type onto the stand. They asked this expert what would happen to a person shot in the head. His answer was essentially that the spinal muscles are the strongest muscles in the body, and a shot to the head, even from behind or the side, could cause them to contract and jerk the body backwards, into the shot. (Keep in mind now, this is not even looking at the physics of a small bullet which passes through an object imparting enough energy to move a mass like a body backwards and upwards in a car seat.)

I remembered after that, to be wary of "simple physics". As an engineer, you should be as well. I myself am an engineer, and I myself have done a failure analysis using floor plans from the tower. A few simple things need to be remembered.
Mainly, the twin towers were NOT traditional structures, as someone here has already mentioned. Due to the high winds and forces they were subject to, the towers were built with a new construction design of steel. They were actually built to flex in the wind. I have read that the tower regularly flexed 20 to 30 feet at the top floor with respect to the ground.
Now, the towers were also built using a standard rule of thumb for engineers. They were built to support MUCH more weight than anyone ever thought they would hold. The towers truly were remarkable, simply because they did not come down right away. All in all, they were built to about a 400% marigin of safety. Problem was, nobody thought about a fire hot enough to weaken the steel. The towers held, as they should have, until the fire weakened the steel AT A SINGLE POINT, enough for a failure. Once a single point in a tower is weakened and falls, momentum does the rest. The weight of one floor alone is not enough to crush the next one, but when it is falling it exerts a force greater than its weight on the next floor, due to momentum.
Keep in mind that whatever videos people have of the towers "blowing up at the ground level" do not necessarily mean anything. If the building failed at floor connections, it might not necessarily show up on video. When you are seeing the videos, you are seeing the REACTIONS, not the causes. Think about a man who is punched in the face and falls to his knees. Someone looking at his legs could say "His knees buckled and he fell on purpose because I saw it, and that means he didn't really get hit!"

Other facts offered by conspiracists have similar explanations. The building wavered, then fell straight down. But physics says it should have toppled! No, physics says it will topple IF the force pushing it to the side is greater than that pulling it back. Remember my mention that these towers were made to flex?

If you consider the jet fuel weakening the steel, the buildings could have stayed standing if they were built to a safety marigin of roughly 700%+, if I recall correctly.

As for other evidence, I don't know. But I have not heard a single physics argument about the towers falling that holds any water once the structure of the towers is considered. If I cannot find a reasonable physical explanation (or even a hypothesis) that fits the facts, I am not going to bother examining videos and other evidence to try to make a conspiracy fit together.

And sir, please consider looking at the arguments people are making. You have completely disregarded several people who have mentioned good physical arguments against what you are hypothesizing, but you have responded only to those who have "name-called". If you want others to consider your conclusions, perhaps you might take the time to respond to theirs. Just a small suggestion.

-The Ferret-

...a quick dismissal would have been prudent instead of...where
was I children, oh yeah. The cat in the hat is really not fat......Hey, don't knock it. It's a good book. :D

If you want to argue and never come to a consensus with anyone...

Argue politics or religion.

I am not retracting my position on government involvement, but it is an admittedly huge undertaking by an arguably very incompetent bunch. You have influenced my theories. Me, I'm just some crackpot with a theory and a degree heavily laden in physics, nothing more.

good day gents and try not to get to worked up about this, it's just a topic of conversation. One obviously a bit touchy for some, but the fact remains, we have lost quite a few rights because of this occurrence. And it is fairly obvious that there was an agenda set in motion shortly after it occurred.

I know my statements imply the very worst of human nature, but that tendency has showed up in history before, so I'm not buying the "no one could do something that evil" line either.

good day, sorry if I offended anyone too much or got your heartrate up, but I want my rights back just as much as you do. And don't think me too liberal either, I am a gunowner too and don't want my 2nd Amendment rights tampered with any more than you do.

jeepmor

You cannot change what happened to the buildings. You can't do anything about what the government did with the buildings, evidence, etal ad nauseum. Let it go and concentrate on what they are using the destruction of those buildings for. Incidents that are used as freedom robbing excuses happen so many times that I'm not even bothering to extinguish the latest Reichstag fire.

What you can do is preseve liberty. Maybe you can identify our internal bad guys maybe not. Work at what you can do. Any assault on our liberties is key to who and what to fight. There's the fire that needs put out.

I am highly impressed with the CCW movement. It's done an incredible job and will make a generations come to see CCW as a right rather than a priviledge. I would NOT have believed that could happen. I am extreme in my views on liberty but there are those that chip away at something and win. It wasn't fast and it wasn't easy but they did it. And in that example you make the fight for liberty a constant thing handed down from parent to child. Not a bad way to leave the world.

The official government story - aside from some gaping holes, contradictions and outright untruths - reads like another one of their criminal fairytales.

The crime scene was cleaned up; most of the physical evidence carried off and destroyed. Key witnesses and indictable parties were not subpoenaed to testify under oath and criminal penalties. The "independent commission" was a sham.

Considering the magnitude of the actual crimes of September 11th, these were and remain crimes after the fact.

I find it amazing that a good number of people seem to believe that such a crime involving people in their own government need involve too many people than would be necessary to pull it off and cover up.

Well there are a great number of very respectable and professional people who have stuck their necks out and publicly stated that the official story is a sham, many of them conservatives. Like Ray McGovern, a former Reagan CIA analyst to name just one.

But notice how co-operative the "leftwing-we-hate-Bush-liberal-media" has been. In a like manner, so-called "conservative" radio and "unbiased" FOX news have conveniently avoided allowing these people to say some things that need to be heard in the popular public domain.

You do not need that many people involved in such a project, and when you control both "sides" of popular media, and key people in key places, it is not that difficult to keep enough information out of the majority of the public eye.

As just one particular case in point; who were the individual persons who stonewalled the FBI agents that were literally fighting to get their information out that such a thing were about to take place? Who were these people, what were there actual positions and names??

Did the Bush administration say; "this is and will remain a secret"? No; they simply avoided the disclosure with a controlled "independent commission" - and a complicit popular media that have obligingly failed to hammer such questions.

See? It does not take that much.

ErebusImploded buildings crumble from the bottom up. Not the top down
Interesting observation; Building 7's demolition exhibited just that.

As far as the towers go, having a loadbearing core, and a stabilizing outer structure, the core could have been demolished from the bottom up.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

DravurNow, let's review... A Massive organization needed to support this, tons of money changing hands and yet, no one is out singing like a canary. They can't keep Monica Lewinsky a secret, but something the size of this conspiracy and Mum's the word.

Right. But they have never overcome the Mob. Likewise they haven't even made a dent in the drug cartels, the major arms sugglers - or the tangled web of terrorism.

And not many are singing out for good reason. Whether they are bystanders, actual criminals, or elected representatives or other officials, agents etc that turn on their bosses - they have a history of winding up dead. One way or another.

I could type out a long list of names here that would just be skimming the surface.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

itgoesboomBut do you really believe our Government is capable of this? I am not asking if they are evil enough, only capable enough
Why not? They sent men to moon several decades ago, and have sent teams of men and women into space with regularity since.

Want an expanded list of extremely risky high tech operations?

---------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Imploded buildings crumble from the bottom up. Not the top down

Interesting observation; Building 7's demolition exhibited just that. That only makes sense considering the NYFD "pulled" building #7!

The FerretIf you consider the jet fuel weakening the steel, the buildings could have stayed standing if they were built to a safety marigin of roughly 700%+, if I recall correctly
I have a picture taken from footage of a lady dressed in light slacks and a light colored top standing in one of the gaping openings made in one of the towers. She is standing there looking down like someone waiting for a bus - not someone with a 700+ deg fire burning behind her. And she had come from somewhere inside that hole in the building. Her hair wasn't even smoking, and not a visible mark on her.

Sometimes physics may be argueable, but it is sometimes best to believe ones own eyes.

In the case of JFK; watch the driver. He did not do any shooting of course - he just kept him where he was supposed to be, for long enough.

He spends most of time - after the throat shot when blood must have been all over Kennedy's hands and front, shots still ringing out - turned around staring at Kennedy. Until the back of his head came off and his brains went all over the back of the limo and beyond. Then he hunches over the wheel and puts his foot down. The second agent in the car similarly did nothing he should have done.

He has never been held accountable for this of course. Neither the person responsible for pulling agents off the limo detail in Dallas. I have a film showing the agents being pulled, one of them throwing his hands up in the air shaking his head.

Seeing is believing.
-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

MichiganderThat only makes sense considering the NYFD "pulled" building #7!
NYFD are not in the business of controlled demos, were busy elsewhere, and not in a position to "pull" anything. All NYFD would have done would have tried to ensure everyone was clear of the building.

----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Answer me this - If you were the president and your secret service agent whispers in your ear that one of America's largest icons of economic power and freedom has been hit by a large plane. Would you just sit there and continue reading stories to elementary students? Or would you act...immediately! What is it he was waiting for?

All that tells me is that as Commander in Chief, he choked in a moment of crisis and would be unsuitable for command.

Nothing about conspiracies. I don't think that a top-heavy bureaucratic mess such as we have, that totally screwed up the Katrina response, would be CAPABLE of executing any sort of plan, even if they wanted to.

BTW, Carlyle Group is NOT the illuminati. They own Dunkin' Donuts, which employs people who can never get a basic coffee order right, :cuss: thus causing lost productivity among millions of workers who need their morning cup. The fabled economy-guiding Illuminati wouldn't allow that. :D

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I'll toss my hat in the ring anyway. I don't believe our gov't conspired to commit 9/11. Too many people would have had to be involved and someone would have raised the alarm that we had been infiltrated by traitors at high levels of government.

I do, however, think they are capitalizing on the tragedy to further an agenda of wearing away at civil liberties and next will be basic human rights. With a bit of historical precedent, I may even go so far as to think they knew about the 9/11 plot ahead of time and allowed it to set things moving in the direction they wish them to go. Think of the lack of popular support vs. gov't desire to get involved in WWII. While I do think we needed to get in on that one, U.S. intel knew of the attack on Pearl beforehand, but let it happen to guarantee public outcry and desire for payback. Sound familiar? Only this time, it won't be just Japanese citizens in prison camps.

Did the government cause/committ 9-11? No.

Like Sarah Brady or Hillary Clinton, they just capitalized on the event to push their own policies down the throats of Americans everywhere.

We are governed by opportunists... :(

they are capitalizing on the tragedy to further an agenda of wearing away at civil liberties and next will be basic human rights. With a bit of historical precedent, I may even go so far as to think they knew about the 9/11 plot ahead of time and allowed it to set things moving in the direction they wish them to go.

+1

And that's really the important part anyway.

Whether and to the extent that gov't operatives participated is:
a) something we'll probably never know
b) irrelevant insofar as we're left with the same result - an out of control gov't with all the excuse it needs to spiral further out of control.

It seems far more important to focus on the task of reeling in the government than the basically useless theorizing about their level of complicity in the tragedy that has befallen our nation.

I mean, what are you trying to prove...that the gov is evil, corrupt, starving for power and willing to take it by any means necessary?

I thought we all knew that already.

"Answer me this - If you were the president and your secret service agent whispers in your ear that one of America's largest icons of economic power and freedom has been hit by a large plane. Would you just sit there and continue reading stories to elementary students? Or would you act...immediately! What is it he was waiting for?"

I don't know what went through the President's mind at that point, neither does anyone else. I certainly don't think he was analyzing the symbolic importance of those two buildings as symbols of the US capitalist economy. That was something the TV pundits pulled out of their rear later in the week.

Maybe some day he'll write about it. I'm sure some part of it was not wanting to frighten the children or their teachers any more than necessary.

I also like to think that he might have taken a few moments to do what so many of us did when we first heard the news on 9/11 and just said a quiet prayer for the souls in danger and for our country. The first reports said that up to 20,000 people might be working in those two buildings.

Maybe that makes me some kind of "right wing religous fundie zealot" to a lot of folks but that was honestly my first reaction. I think it might have been one of his too.

The fact that we had the information on who the likely hijackers were so quickly tells me that somebody was giving orders pretty damn quick behind the scenes.

That only makes sense considering the NYFD "pulled" building #7!

NYFD are not in the business of controlled demos, were busy elsewhere, and not in a position to "pull" anything. All NYFD would have done would have tried to ensure everyone was clear of the building. Well I have seen video of people running around telling others to get away because building #7 was coming down. And it did within minutes of the "evacuation." So, if not the NYFD, then who?

Dear Mr. Moore-

Welcome to THR. Sorry that your goofy movie flopped.

~ Blue Jays ~

MichiganderWell I have seen video of people running around telling others to get away because building #7 was coming down. And it did within minutes of the "evacuation." So, if not the NYFD, then who?
Good question; and one of many that the "independent 9/11 Commission" should have addressed and answered in full.

It would be the NYFD's business to get all it's people out of and away from the building. But the NYFD is definately not in the biz of controlled demolitions. To bring a building down like that one requires specialized expertise, detailed knowledge of the building's structure etc, much planning, and lengthy - particular - preparation and placement of explosives etc.

Not something that could have been done in one week - let alone a few hours.

Indeed, who did demolish #7? Whoever did so had remarkable foresight; knowing weeks ahead of time that it would have to come down. Perhaps they dined with those enterprizing chaps who had all those put options on American Airlines and United Airlines in the days runnings up to the events.

Funny those guys were not on the subject agenda of the "independent commission" - or more appropriately aggressive Congressional hearings with subpoena powers and provision for subsequent criminal indictments.

But see, with friends where it counts you can get away with murder - even on a grand scale.

-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Indeed, who did demolish #7? Whoever did so had remarkable foresight; knowing weeks ahead of time that it would have to come down. Perhaps they dined with those enterprizing chaps who had all those put options on American Airlines and United Airlines in the days runnings up to the events.

Well, I've heard about these "put options" too, but being an ingnorant commoner, I really do not know what that is all about. How am I supposed to know if the put options were truly extraordinary or not? I've heard it said that they were, but I have seen no evidence that they were unusual. Are there comparisons to other put options over time? How many "spikes" are there and how often over a year's time, or 5 years?

Besides, I certainly find it extremely difficult to believe that our government and/or the 9/11 Commission would not pursue such evidence if it were truly such a strange happening! It would be a "smoking gun" of sorts, wouldn't it?

editted to add: Even if these put options were abnormal, we all know there had to be a conspiracy by the terrorists, so it very well could have been someone with links to Al Queda who placed them. Why do you tie it together with WTC7 being demolished? Makes no sense.

All that tells me is that as Commander in Chief, he choked in a moment of crisis and would be unsuitable for command.




Presidents only hop in fighter planes to shoot down the enemy in Will Smith movies and Tom Clancy books.....

The CIA, or the gov't, is not some huge monolithic entity full of "loyal followers". CIA employees are people with families that kids that go to the same schools everybody else does. They don't have horns, bat wings, or pitchforks. I know this. I have seen them.

You really think a huge secret like this could remain so well-sealed? What about the recent and ongoing "domestic spying" scandal? Why couldn't that be kept secret? Why not the Iran-Contra deal? Why not other shady gov't operations? I'll tell you why:

Because two people can only keep a secret if one of them is dead.

I don't buy all of the "Oh, the wings would have made a hole in the building" junk. The Pentagon is a military facility designed to withstand attack. Two skinny little aluminum things made to be as light as possible very well may not dent it. I dunno. I am neither an aerospace nor a civil engineer. Nor do I know the details of the Pentagon's construction. I simply can't say "Oh that would have done this or that".

Well I have seen video of people running around telling others to get away because building #7 was coming down. And it did within minutes of the "evacuation." So, if not the NYFD, then who?

Gravity.

Does nobody realize what I big deal a controlled demolition is? These things are not done on perfectly "healthy" buildings. That is to say, you can't hire some demo company to just set explosives and take down a building on a moments notice. The building must be pre-"weakened" so that it will fall. Most of the load-bearing structures are removed and the building is left barely standing before the explosives are actually employed. Are people implying that nobody would have noticed work crews removing most of the load-bearing structure of the two towers and building #7?

Oh, absolutely. And the moon landings were faked in a Hollywood studio. All of this is, of course, orchestrated by the Bildebergers. Or was it the Martians? This puts me in mind of a one-line science-fiction story.


"Elvis to Mars, Kennedy's dead; I'm coming home."

To restate what others have said, I believe our administration is taking shameless advantage of the 9/11 attacks to further their agenda and continually erode our rights. No, I do not believe they planned the attacks.

Sarge's right, but there have been a few exceptions, "Deep Throat" comes to mind. But that's the only exception I can think of.

Regarding the US Government being involved in 9/11, no way. Were mistakes made that permited it to happen, you bet. I'm firmly convinced that if anybody actually had put the pieces together, the Feds would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it. Everybody wants to be a hero, and stopping what became known as 9/11 woul gite nicely.

What the government did was use the oppertunity to institute more "Protection". The support anything that gives them more power is something they will support,

You guys do realize that it would take all of one person (an aviation engineer) to pull off this "conspiracy?"

Occams Razor, remember?

You guys do realize that it would take all of one person (an aviation engineer) to pull off this "conspiracy?"

Occams Razor, remember?

What do you mean? Explain in more detail, please.

Yup, one person, to fly four planes, manipulate the stock market, warn the Jews to not go to work, fire a missile into the Pentagon, stock WTC towers and #7 with just enough dynamite to drop them straight down, etc. etc. etc.

Could only be one of two people:

Carl Rove (he knows how to stear hurricanes into Black communities!)
or
Jack Bauer.

As for the conspiracy theories... bah.

But I do have a question: Has a good explanation come forth regarding how incompetent pilots were able to actually navigate and hit their targets (especially the Pentagon)? Maybe it's been explained, but I missed it.

But I do have a question: Has a good explanation come forth regarding how incompetent pilots were able to actually navigate and hit their targets (especially the Pentagon)? Maybe it's been explained, but I missed it.

I never heard of them being called incompetent pilots. They may have only gotton basic flight training, but I thought it had been established that they could fly an airplane to some degree.

Anyway, if a decent flight simulator models fairly accurately the conditions of the real world, I haven't found it too hard to hit buildings like those hit on 9/11 in a simulator world with simulated large jets.

Yup, one person, to fly four planes, manipulate the stock market, warn the Jews to not go to work, fire a missile into the Pentagon, stock WTC towers and #7 with just enough dynamite to drop them straight down, etc. etc. etc.

Could only be one of two people:

Carl Rove (he knows how to stear hurricanes into Black communities!)
or
Jack Bauer.

You forgot one:

Chuck Norris.

But then, Chuck Norris could knock down the WTC with a hard look.

~GnSx

Well I have seen video of people running around telling others to get away because building #7 was coming down. And it did within minutes of the "evacuation." So, if not the NYFD, then who?

Gravity, yes. NYFD, I'm sure, knew what the signs of a building about to come down were, and just got everyone OUT. Probably heard ominous groans, creaks and snaps from support structures on lower floors, or saw dust and debris start to come down an elevator shaft, or heard the loud pops of overstressed concrete columns cracking. There's lots of warning signs to get the hell out of a building. Buildings come down as a result of fire damage, and they need to know when to evacuate.

That just means they were well-trained.

BTW, according to the REAL official reports and photo log I'd seen, one of the mechanical penthouses at the top of the building can be seen sinking into it in a collapse over a full minute before the whole thing started to collapse, indicating that structural failure was underway. I think the firefighters would have heard that and evacuated immediately?

Oh, yes, and as for what a building collapsing symmetrically from structural failure looks like, look up the Sampoong Department Store disaster that happened in Korea, 1995. It fell the SAME WAY...just with over 500 people killed in it.

Looks like Popular mechanics is in on the conspiricy too;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

tommytrauma,

Please, everyone knows that Mainstream media is unreliable and corrupt.


All facts that are relevant must come from dragonmasterz2066's geocities page on airsoft gaming, or another truly independent news source, if you want the folks who doubt the WTC official story to take them seriously.

It just makes no sense to trust government reports, well-reputed scientists and engineers, or mainstream media in this day and age of total access to the net. It's much, much more likely that a flash video about the pentagon from some kids or an article about demolitions by illuminatiwatcher2006 (code name used to protect him from the Mossad agents who want to silence him) will all be truthful than anything CNN or so-called "Engineers" will say about the WTC collapse.

:neener:

MichiganderBesides, I certainly find it extremely difficult to believe that our government and/or the 9/11 Commission would not pursue such evidence if it were truly such a strange happening! It would be a "smoking gun" of sorts, wouldn't it?
Yes it would. The Security and Exchange Commission has 24 hour automated monitoring and flagging of such things. They did indeed "investigate", as did agencies in Europa.

But if you read the "independent 9/11 Commission Report" sham, it has less than half a page concerning the money trail of the entire event; that basically says nothing. Pick up a copy and read it for yourself ;)

I recently came across this little gem, straight from one of the white washing mouths:
Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, gave a lecture at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas last Friday, March 31st. I was there covering the event for my local TV talk show, "The Simple Truth". A synopsis of my observations follows.

The question and answer session after the speech was anything but spontaneous. The students had been pre-selected and were prepped in a conference room before the presentation. I saw them coming out of the room, and asked one of them if they were going to be the students asking the questions. She said "yes". The Q & A was a fake.

The press conference before the speech was turned out to be a great opportunity, because literally half of the questions were hostile, and I was able to ask Mr. Kean a question about why the 9/11 Commission, on page 172 of their report, stated that the question of who bankrolled the September 11th attacks was "of little practical significance." He replied that the job cost so little money and that it was too hard to trace. So I got from Mr. Kean an admission that following the money trail in a crime that took the lives of 3000 people was "of little practical significance" because it only cost about $166 per murder and was too much of a bother to pursue. This was an astonishing red flag screaming "cover-up".
From: http://jonesreport.com/articles/030406_kean_commission.html
editted to add: Even if these put options were abnormal, we all know there had to be a conspiracy by the terrorists, so it very well could have been someone with links to Al Queda who placed them. Why do you tie it together with WTC7 being demolished? Makes no sense
Because whoever wired up WTC7 must have had as much advanced notice of the coming events as those who planned and flew the planes. What does that tell you?

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Sergeant SabreThe CIA, or the gov't, is not some huge monolithic entity full of "loyal followers".....
Very true; people like Ray McGovern have a conscience not yet subdued by their loyalty to the Intelligence Community. Problem is, CNN, Fox, NBC etc are not about to do an indepth report, invesitgation and start demanding answers over what they have repeatedly said.

Likewise those very honorable FBI agents who were stonewalled, threatened with arrest and more (more?) if they did not lay off the Al Kidya suspects and shut up.
I don't buy all of the "Oh, the wings would have made a hole in the building" junk. The Pentagon is a military facility designed to withstand attack. Two skinny little aluminum things made to be as light as possible very well may not dent it.
I agree; there should have been aluminum shards and pieces all over the lawn in front of the impact site. Problem was - no debris. At least what was there to begin with was the subject of an extremely hasty cleanup. Regular military guys and others running around sweeping it all up, and away it went. Odd way of preserving a crime scene.

Not to mention some visible marks on the concrete building front from the outboard landing gear - and those hefty jet engines (even though they are cased in alot of aluminum, they do contain some substantial pieces of much tougher metals).
Does nobody realize what I big deal a controlled demolition is? ... [etc]
Right. And there was plenty of "work" being done inside the Towers in the run up to the events. But I didn't see the Sham Commission call and question key people involved in all this "work" or others in the building who observed them etc - or some of the more observant survivors - like William Rodriquez.

WTC7 was basically full of gov agencies. So who can say what "work" was conducted in their by anyone in the months before the events?

How loadbearing structure is prepared might not mean actual removal. It depends on the type of explosives - or what other resources are used. The loadbearing structures of both Towers, and 7, were steel. Thermite will burn through and undermine good steel in very short order. There are no doubt many other compounds, explosives and sytems that can be used to destroy a loadbearing steel structure in a timed and systematic manner regardless of what is "commonly used".

In the case of the Towers, it was only the loadbearing core at key points at various levels that needed to be destroyed at the time of the collapse. When these points failed, whole inner core and top section falling 50, 100 or more feet - everything else would buckle and break under the falling weight and momentum. The outer stabililizing skin peeled like a banana under the top pieces that came down.

Many people - including NYFD personnel, and people like Rodriguez, heard or saw explosions inside the building at lower levels right before the collapse of each tower. Did the Sham Commission call them in to speak? certainly not; I mean, you can't have people with a story contrary to the official story soiling the picture now can you ;)

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

dpesecEverybody wants to be a hero, and stopping what became known as 9/11 woul gite nicely
Yep; everyone wants to be a hero - except for those ongoingly un-named folk who literally stonewalled and threatened not a small number of FBI agents who realized and had the evidence that something was going to happen.

All except those un-named people. Another little group of nameless faceless people who .. uh ... missed their limos on the way to be questioned by the Sham Commission and have not been heard of since.

And of course the Bush Administration did not have to say "The identity of these people will remain a secret, a matter of national security." All they had to do was simply "not name them". And their "we-hate-Bush-liberal-left-media" did the rest by obligingly not pressing the issue ;)

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Z InfidelBut I do have a question: Has a good explanation come forth regarding how incompetent pilots were able to actually navigate and hit their targets (especially the Pentagon)? Maybe it's been explained, but I missed it.
No.

Just as an example, Hani Luke Skywalker Hanjour's flying was so bad that he was denied renting a single engined prop after his try-out with the Arizona outfit. Even though he already had a "pilot's license" at that time.

One school instructor was quoted as saying that he had taken several hours to answer a 20 minute navigation problem - and still gave the wrong answer.

There was a pile of stuff on the web about these guys - many of them regular news reports where the named flight school people were interviewed and quoted.

None called to speak before the Sham Comission of course.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http;//ssunitedstates.org

ManedwolfNYFD, I'm sure, knew what the signs of a building about to come down were, and just got everyone OUT. Probably heard ominous groans, creaks and snaps from support structures on lower floors, or saw dust and debris start to come down an elevator shaft, or heard the loud pops of overstressed concrete columns cracking. There's lots of warning signs to get the hell out of a building. Buildings come down as a result of fire damage, and they need to know when to evacuate.
There would have been no signs in 7 of an impending collapse; it was a superficial fire on a couple of floors. A trivial fire by comparison to any major fire in such a building.

Did you see the Madrid fire awhile back? Sure, the building in Madrid had a somewhat different structure - but the fllors relied to a great deal on an integrated steel structure. It burned white hot for days. After it was all over, there were a few buckled and collapsed upper floors, and some of the upper level steelwork was warped. Did even a single large section come apart and topple? Nope.

Anyone that thinks for a minute that WTC7 came down from a fire needs to review the footage right before and during the collapse, then watch footage of the adrid fire (to name just one). It was not due to any heat generated by any fire, was an almost perfectly symetrical collapse - a controlled demolition.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

GunnySkox,

Barbara Streisand could do it with any one of her "hits".

tommytraumaLooks like Popular mechanics is in on the conspiricy too
You mean the "debunking" trash written by Pop Mechanics editorial stooge Benjamin Chertoff - Michael Chertoff's young cousin? ;)

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Five in a row. :rolleyes:

When the voices in your head say: "Keep typing, someone, somehow, someday will listen...maybe if I enter five posts in a row, maybe then they will learn The Truth."

Haliburton, Chaney, The Jews, Carlyle Group, thermite, must keep typing...

Ooops.

Six in a row.

Not typing fast enough....

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
And as already stated; I have a film showing a lady dressed in light clothing standing right in one of the gaping hole "infernos" - where one of the planes entered the tower - like she is waiting for a bus. Her clothes are not scorched - her hair is not even smoking - after walking through the area inside, and standing there casually looking down the building.

This was on news footage, amongst that shown of others hanging out of windows on higher floors etc. There were no white or even pale flames visible at any time. It was an oxygen starved fire in both towers.

See, while Forman Williams will say what Michael Chertoff's cousin - Benjamin Chertoff - wants to hear, and write, and PM publish, he will not juxtapose this directly against eye witness and photographic evidence such as this lady caught on film standing there unscathed.

Sherman,

Six in a row, addressing six specifics.

Refute them. Tell us Benjamin isn't Chertoff's cousin. Or the now deceased lady didn't burn because she was wearing a tin foil suit ;)

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Regular military guys and others running around sweeping it all up, and away it went. Odd way of preserving a crime scene.
I'm going to have to address this. As a "regular military guy" for better than 20 years we dont know squat about preserving what to you evidently is a crime scene. To us, that would be considered an attack on our base that should be cleaned up. Return the base to "normal" as soon as possible. A lack of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Now, loosen your tinfoil hat and you'll be fine:neener:

I think this entire last page belongs more on a site with little pictures of UFOs and little green men, not on a gun forum. :scrutiny:

You mean the "debunking" trash written by Pop Mechanics editorial stooge Benjamin Chertoff - Michael Chertoff's young cousin?

It was written by Jim Meigs. That's OK though, He's part of the conspiracy too. I shared a table with him and his family at the 9/11 conspiracy groups Christmas dinner last year. He's a good guy. His wife is heading up the bake sale to help pay off the Haliburton hurricaine machine.


Just a tightly held little conspiracy involving thousands of people at all levels of the goverment and, evidently, distant members of their family trees as well.

Just a tightly held little conspiracy involving thousands of people at all levels of the goverment and, evidently, distant members of their family trees as well.

I have to hand it to LAK. If any producers of the Show "24" are reading this thread, he's going to have a new job. I'm sure they'll be happy to let him think it's real as long as they get to use the storylines for their show.

ChucksredvetteAs a "regular military guy" for better than 20 years we dont know squat about preserving what to you evidently is a crime scene. To us, that would be considered an attack on our base that should be cleaned up. Return the base to "normal" as soon as possible
Having been a regular military guy myself, albeit in a police speciality, I can tell you that it is routine to treat any such incident on a military base or facility as a crime scene. Whether it is a burglary, a dead body, or an exploding car in a parking lot.

The Pentagon, a Navy ship, or a SAC missile base wouldn't be any different in this regard. But generally speaking, the more important the resource and loss of life, the more significant the crime scene, and the tighter the investigation.

Except in this case of course ;)

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

tommytrauma,

Benjamin Chertoff refers to himself as the senior researcher at Pop Mechanics. Meigs's name may be on the article page, but I seriously doubt it was his idea to write it, that he researched it, or that had he wrote differently it would have gone into print.

But we know; just like it is a mere coincidence that John Kerry is cousin to George W Bush (and his elder Skull & Bones brother) - it is a mere coincidence that the two Chertoffs share family ties and political interests in this subject ;)

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

It is noteworthy that you really need a thick tinfoil hat to buy the government story. You need an even thicker one - one extending over the eyes and ears - to buy it in the face of prima facie evidence to the contrary.

I've pointed out several above. I am still waiting for a good explanation how a fire that weakened an enormous steel structure to failing point didn't even generate enough peripheral heat to curl a lady's hair.

I've been around some substantial fires in the past. The last one was a burning car on the side of the freeway. This would not have been a well-oxygenated fire; it exhibited gray to black smoke as the entire inside was burning. At the center it could have been equivilent or close to the upper temperatures reached of those inside fires burning in the towers. But just driving past it within twenty yards or so the radiated heat was substantial. Has the fires inside the towers reached even 1,500F, that lady could not have survived anywhere on that floor, or any exposed passage above or below. And even if the temperature had dropped by half as they diminshed, the latent heat inside with all that steel would have been substantially more than inside a bread oven.

As it was her hair appeared normal, and her clothes looked untouched. And her behavior was casual and not in the least agitated. She just stood there gazing down the face of the building.

shootingstudent evidently thinks that the subject matter has some relationship to a TV show called "24".

Actually, it has more in common with a show that was aired nationally before 9/11 (March 1999) called "The Lone Gunman". It portrayed a story in which a hijacked airliner was being used to fly into one of the World Trade Center towers.

But of course we were assured by, uh, certain government officials, that "no one ever imagined such a thing". ;)

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

But just driving past it within twenty yards or so the radiated heat was substantial. Has the fires inside the towers reached even 1,500F, that lady could not have survived anywhere on that floor, or any exposed passage above or below.

Surely with your vast experience of "substantial fires", you realize that heat shielding occurs such that, if a building is on fire, not every single spot in the building is the same temperature as every other spot. Knowing that, is it so hard to imagine that parts of the building (even on the same floor) might be burning at 1500 degrees while other parts were not???

But of course we were assured by, uh, certain government officials, that "no one ever imagined such a thing".

But wait: how could the zionist controlled media have let such a critical movie out if it were going to let you spoil their plan!?

It is noteworthy that you really need a thick tinfoil hat to buy the government story. You need an even thicker one - one extending over the eyes and ears - to buy it in the face of prima facie evidence to the contrary

There is no prima facie evidence to the contrary. There is only your speculation based on having stood next to some burning cars, along with your idea that Kerry and Bush being 16th cousins is "more than a coincidence."

Sorry, but "LAK thinks this is fishy" is not evidence of anything other than your willingness to discard anything written by someone in a position to know the facts, and to replace it with the wildest suppositions.

Here's a summary of your argument here as I read it:
" Since I have seen a fire before, I know all about how the WTC could not have fallen due to fire based on some photos of the WTC. Since everyone who believes the official story is somehow related to Bush, my own vast experience of burning cars proves that the WTC was demolished by government agents acting on orders from on high."

It is ridiculous. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you can't honestly be surprised or indignant when people at you for expressing those beliefs.

shootingstudentSurely with your vast experience of "substantial fires", you realize that heat shielding occurs such that, if a building is on fire, not every single spot in the building is the same temperature as every other spot. Knowing that, is it so hard to imagine that parts of the building (even on the same floor) might be burning at 1500 degrees while other parts were not???
No, not that hard to imagine. And we can apply some reason and logic.

If you read what has been common knowledge from the getgo, the open plan structure of the floors did not present any sustantial shielding structures in a major fire. Yes, there were partitioned offices and furnishings etc, but nothing that would have remained after the impacted planes, explosion and fire.

If the hottest spots were 1,700 F, sufficient and prolonged enough to undermine to the point of complete and apparently symetrical failure of the enormous core section of the structure - the temperature in the general area of the entire core for a considerable distance would be .... very high. And people walking around the area without any apparent discomfort is not consistant with that.

But as only a limted number of steel sections were pulled and analysed, we do not know exactly how hot it became, where, and for how long. Or where and what were the points of failure. A bit like removing a finger bone from a body, removing and burying the rest, and conducting a "conclusive" forensics and autopsy.
But wait: how could the zionist controlled media have let such a critical movie out if it were going to let you spoil their plan!?
Me? Spoil anyones' plans? I doubt it. But the fact is, it preceded and almost mirrored the events on 9/11.

If you can not see the significance of the family ties between Bush and Kerry or the two Chertoffs in a nation of nearly 300 million people, at the highest level of national politics, and the intersection with the events of the magnitude on 9/11 you either have what to me is a simplistic view of people and political power - or you have a personal interest in the current status quo.

The rest of your post is not even worth dissecting.

Interesting point on the possible effect of shielding - the heckling I'd grade at slightly less than a "2".

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK, I must say you have some compelling questions.

However, as you pointed out, if the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then someone would have had to plan weeks, if not months in advance to place the charges where required. You mentioned that WTC7 had a bunch of alphabet agencies inside and perhaps it is plausible that it could have been done without much notice. But certainly the towers 1 and 2 would have required a much more extensive demolition plan and someone would have had to notice something, wouldn't they?

However, as you pointed out, if the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then someone would have had to plan weeks, if not months in advance to place the charges where required. You mentioned that WTC7 had a bunch of alphabet agencies inside and perhaps it is plausible that it could have been done without much notice. But certainly the towers 1 and 2 would have required a much more extensive demolition plan and someone would have had to notice something, wouldn't they?

AGAIN...people, PLEASE google and read about the collapse of the Sampoong Department Store in Korea in 1995. Happened the SAME way, due to structural failure, fell straight down symmetrically...but happened to be full of people.

THERE WAS NO FREAKING DEMOLITION! Geez! This is a gun board, not a moonbat tinfoil-hat-wearing kool-aid-drinking people-with-way-too-much-time-on-their-hands conspiracy NUTCASE board!

Please, go to a UFO site if you want to talk about vast government conspiracies and little green men!

AGAIN...people, PLEASE google and read about the collapse of the Sampoong Department Store in Korea in 1995. Happened the SAME way, due to structural failure, fell straight down symmetrically...but happened to be full of people.

You're right...

The Sampoong department store was built in July 7, 1990
...
[P]roblems such as gas leakage had frequently appeared from the time the building was built.
...
More problems started to appear when the water tank was built on the top of the fifth floor, without being considered about its weight. In April 1995, cracks appeared in the ceiling of the fifth floor
...
The problem became more serious on June 29, 1995, when the cracks became bigger and water started to leak out from the ceiling of the fifth floor in the morning.
...
When the building started to make a cracking sound at about 5:50, the staffs started to become aware of the seriousness of the problem so they rang the emergency bell and started to evacuate the customers.
...
The most direct cause of this accident appears to be the heavy water tank built on the top of the fifth floor, without being considered about its weight. However, also the concrete mixed with saltwater weakened the adhesion and the change of the basement design made the building unstable.
Very similar indeed.

Interesting point on the possible effect of shielding - the heckling I'd grade at slightly less than a "2".


Okay, how do you make a judgment as to shielding in a building where the floor has just been ripped apart (ie, debris spread, building materials knocked around) by an airplane, without having inspected the site?

Can photos of the outside of a building give you an accurate basis for drawing scientific conclusions about the behavior of heat inside?

That's what I thought.

If you can not see the significance of the family ties between Bush and Kerry or the two Chertoffs in a nation of nearly 300 million people, at the highest level of national politics, and the intersection with the events of the magnitude on 9/11 you either have what to me is a simplistic view of people and political power - or you have a personal interest in the current status quo.

They are 16th cousins. Do you have any idea how far removed that is? The allegation that because they're related, there must be a global conspiracy to destroy the towers and rob LAK of his precious retirement is just plain silly.

The view isn't "simplistic", it's just not fantastical and it insists on evidence to support any accusations. Your only evidence so far is "LAK doesn't believe the official evidence is real." That doesn't mean all those official reports are false, nor does it mean that your eye-balling the fireshielding in the WTC from pictures and presupposition that 16th cousins must be in cahoots with each other are true.

The towers went down. Fight the results of that. The patriot act. Whatever. You do nothing and look foolish when you try shift blame from the authorized perpetrators.

I'd say the ridding outselves of the 'patriot' act, much of privacy invading banking laws, graft, corruption and control of local elections are far more important. I look at the amazing job the CCW movement has done and see it to be possible to take back what has been lost.

When the building started to make a cracking sound at about 5:50, the staffs started to become aware of the seriousness of the problem so they rang the emergency bell and started to evacuate the customers.

Well obviously the staff planted the explosive charges, since they began the evacuation before the building came down the same way the NYFD did before WTC 7 came down. Maybe the department store "staff" were actually doing a practice-run for what thier REAL mission was: To destroy the WTC!!!

Give this junk a rest, people.

On second thought, maybe I should write a book with all kinds of "eye-witness evidence" and compelling conjectures that appears to "prove" that the above paragraph is the truth. I bet people would buy it and argue about it on the internet, promoting more sales of my book. It's easy money preying on the simple-minded...

Manedwolf,

The Sampoong store collapse involved a section within the north wing. It was not the entire building. Neither was the construction of the building anything like the WTC towers and 7. Pancaking floors are not unusual - but the complete destruction of the weightbearing core of the two steel towers was.

The collapses were almost identical and symetrical - even though the impact of one of the planes impacted at a sharp angle, exiting one side with most of the fuel burning in a huge fireball outside the building.

Incidently; if you really do not like this thread - why take part? The original poster posed the question, and a key element to the answer of that question are the who, what, why, when and how.

If you think the examination of this subject is so whacky, why not get a copy of the Northwoods document - and see just how whacky some of the highest level government officials in modern U.S. history can be.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Michigander,

Another good question, but there was work going on inside the towers, IIRC some of the floors were closed off for work or renovation.

But if someone carried explosives into the towers over a period of time, I doubt that they had it printed on the containers. It should be kept in mind that thousands of people worked, visited or provided contracted services in each tower. The sort of business equivilent of two small towns.

That's alot of traffic. Who paid attention to how many boxes of printed forms, manuals, books, leaflets, xerox paper, drinking water, cleaning supplies entered the building? Did someone get paid to stand at the service entrances 24/7 and calculate what the total consumption of one firm or another "should use in a three month period"? Every business in each tower?

The bomb that went off in the Brighton Grand hotel where the British Conservative Party Conference was held in 1984 was supposedly about 1,000 pounds. Did anyone notice it going in? Evidently not.

In the case of 9/11, concerning one aspect we have the testimony of a good number of Federal agents that came across some direct participants, knew what they were doing, and tried everything to get action - including circumventing their bosses. What happened? They were told to lay off and forget about it among other things.

-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Sergeant Sabre,

You're probably in the military; perhaps you ought to track down a copy of the Northwoods document and read it too.

Are you familiar with the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", the pretext used by the U.S. Government under LBJ to keep a war going in Vietnam? FAKED. The U.S. Gov under and directly involving LBJ engineered a fake incident to deceive the American public into supporting a continued presence and war in SE Asia.

Now let me guess; all the people involved in that deception were there by "coincidence". I mean a "coincidence theory" is afterall a far less bitter pill to swallow.

You think just because some of those suits in Washington arrived there from a "respectable" political organization they would not think twice about sacrificing American or other lives for their ends?

Give me a break.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

You think just because some of those suits in Washington arrived there from a "respectable" political organization they would not think twice about sacrificing American or other lives for their ends?

That's not the point. Just because Politicians are bad people doesn't make them guilty of participating in the 9-11 attacks.

The fact that the US had a plan to instigate war with Cuba does not give you any evidence whatsoever about 2001. The reason you're turning to Vietnam era documents and to threadbare implication ("BUT THEY'RE SIXTEENTH COUSINS!!!") is that you don't have any direct evidence to prove your point. Absence of evidence doesn't mean automatic falsehood, but it does mean it's moot to believe the claims you're advancing. Especially given the mountain of evidence in the other direction. That you choose not to believe anything which doesn't comport to your conspiracy theory doesn't change that.


Give me a break.
You do need a break, indeed. A long, relaxing break in a happy place.

That's not the point. Just because Politicians are bad people doesn't make them guilty of participating in the 9-11 attacks.
It certainly is the point. Liars lie, murderers murder. These people and their political and social lineages have a history of deception, stealing and murder in one form or another, in order to run their agenda and maintain their status quo.

"Politicians" is a somewhat limiting term here - we need to know not only who participated, but who blocked the investigation that could have prevented it. The fact is, the official story reads like a fairytale, the "Independent Commission" and the "9/11 Report" a sham. Without a full and thorough investigation and full public disclosure, this one is not going to go away.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org