9/11 - Thirteen Years Later

[lockmat]

Welcome back to the game But you didn't answer my illuminaiti question haha

 

I don't know if that's a fare comparison.

 

It wasn't scientifically impossible for a ship to sink or a plane to disappear. But it is for a regular office fire, even with jet fuel, to get hot enough to weaken iron, per their argument.

 

Maybe there are semantics in there that I have not researched enough yet, like weaken vs. melt. I don't know...need to find that out.

 

So yeah said I wasn't going to comment again.....hell no im not going to let this slid.

 

Lets play a game of fill in the blank!

 

According to Boat Engineers and Designers, a steel boat, like the Titanic, has never sunk from running aground on an iceberg in the exact sailing pattern, except this one.

 

They note that there have been haul breaches wider and longer, but none have sank, and many (if not all?) are still in use today.

 

But of course it did sink, it happened! It took one iceberg to perch the haul of the largest ship in the world to take it down, everything went wrong on that day. These things can happen. It just takes the right things going the right way at the right moment to create tragedy. Weird things happen in history. They just do.

 

 

This is fun though. Lets try another one.

 

 

According to Aviation Experts, Aerospace Engineers and Airplane Designers, an airplane, like that of MH370, have never vanished in that particular body of water before, except that aircraft.

 

They note that there have been many planes at all hours of the day, all seasons, and all weather conditions, but none have disappeared, many aircrafts (if not all?) are still flying that same route today.

 

Again just because it didn't happen before doesn't mean it can't happen or couldn't happen. With that logic we couldn't advance as a society. Go to the Moon, forget it. Sail to America, forget it. Discover the Higgs Boson....no way in hell.

 

You gotta do better than the ole: Well it never happened before so it couldn't have happened in that particular place at that particular time under those specific set of circumstances. I mean all skyscrapers are built the exact same way, in the exact same environment, in the exact same time, with the exact same set of materials and know how. I mean that is just a given, right? Sure lets compare apples and oranges!

 

[IronTiger]

According to the Architects & Engineers group, a steel skyscraper, like all three WTC towers, have never collapsed because of fire, except these three.

 

They note that there have been fires that have been wider spread and lasted longer, but no collapses, and many (if not all?) are still in use today.

I can see your points, but a plane did not hit WTC 7 and it came down just like the Houston Club building came down last year, like a perfect demolition job, in free-fall! WTC 7 was a steel framed structure building, it had no trusses, there was no jet fuel, damage to the building was minimal and the fires were typical office fires.

The presence of fire doesn't necessarily dictate building problems, it's the heat in that fire. A house fire could gut the interior of a house but it can be restored by sanding down burned floors and doing a few comparatively minor renovations. A smaller, but HOTTER fire could do the same damage. The HEAT given off by the fires at the main WTC buildings were probably the bigger factor in the WTC 7 collapse. And secondly, there's no such as a "perfect demolition job". In controlled demolitions, a "perfect" job is to completely demolish the building they're supposed to get and don't hit anything else or let anyone get hurt. I spent the last couple of minutes while typing this to look at a few building demolitions. The Houston Club kinda had this neat twisting effect going down, the Plaza Hotel had one side start to crumble while the elevator/stairs shaft went the other way, Kyle Field had the big concrete thing crash into the ground while the sides went, the Prudential went down with the biggest chunk kind of started falling, the Macy's Building kind of crumpled INSIDE on itself, they're all very different. ALL of them have the BOOM BOOM BOOM and the subsequent smoke of the TNT coming out that was carefully laid after the building was gutted.

I'm not even a demolitions expert and came up with all that.

Hell, even the Pentagon had a drill prior to September 11 to "practice" the response to a plane crashing into it!

Drills happen all the time. In 2004, they did a hurricane scenario in Louisiana called Hurricane Pam, a slow-moving Category 3 hurricane that caused storm surge on levees. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit, so it only makes sense Hurricane Katrina was masterminded by the Bush administration to cause panic and discord, right? Right?

And by the way, like I mentioned before in another thread, the 1993 WTC attack was done with the knowledge and direction of the FBI!!! That is a fact!!!

The 1993 transcripts do offer an intriguing look into dealing with informants, but that information has been public for the last 20 years. The best I can find related to that when dealing with reputable (read: real) sources is that the FBI probably bungled an early chance to stop the bombing at an early point. I don't know how the whole "the bombing was done with the knowledge and direction of the FBI" thing came from, but it was probably from the same place about Barack Obama promoting gun control to create a New World Order.

"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[lockmat]

Another interesting way to counter your point is that having three steel towers come down because of normal office fire in one day is like three Titanics sinking in one day and and three commercial airplanes disappearing in one day.

 

Welcome back to the game But you didn't answer my illuminaiti question haha

 

I don't know if that's a fare comparison.

 

It wasn't scientifically impossible for a ship to sink or a plane to disappear. But it is for a regular office fire, even with jet fuel, to get hot enough to weaken iron, per their argument.

 

Maybe there are semantics in there that I have not researched enough yet, like weaken vs. melt. I don't know...need to find that out.

 

[lockmat]

I'm not a fire expert, but it seems the only way a smaller fire can do the same amount of damage as a bigger one is if the smaller fire was burning something that causes greater heat, which would support the conspiracy arguments that thermite or nanothermite was used to bring down the buildings, which could also explain the molten metal that was found, which I doubt a normal office fire could create. Those fires possibly could have created molten aluminum from the plane, but not molten steel, as was found fused together with concrete (video below)

 

And yes, demolished buildings do fall in different ways, but it would seem implausible for an asymmetrically damaged building to fall symmetrically as WTC did. And an unplanned collapse would not produce 100 feet of literal free fall as WTC 7 did.

 

The presence of fire doesn't necessarily dictate building problems, it's the heat in that fire. A house fire could gut the interior of a house but it can be restored by sanding down burned floors and doing a few comparatively minor renovations. A smaller, but HOTTER fire could do the same damage. The HEAT given off by the fires at the main WTC buildings were probably the bigger factor in the WTC 7 collapse. And secondly, there's no such as a "perfect demolition job". In controlled demolitions, a "perfect" job is to completely demolish the building they're supposed to get and don't hit anything else or let anyone get hurt. I spent the last couple of minutes while typing this to look at a few building demolitions. The Houston Club kinda had this neat twisting effect going down, the Plaza Hotel had one side start to crumble while the elevator/stairs shaft went the other way, Kyle Field had the big concrete thing crash into the ground while the sides went, the Prudential went down with the biggest chunk kind of started falling, the Macy's Building kind of crumpled INSIDE on itself, they're all very different. ALL of them have the BOOM BOOM BOOM and the subsequent smoke of the TNT coming out that was carefully laid after the building was gutted.

 

 

[OkieEric]

For people who have not researched the evidence of 9/11, consider the group democide has referenced, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group that has over 2,000 experts (architects, engineers, demolition experts, physicists etc) that have signed a petition for a new independent investigation to be done.

 

 

 

I just had to look at this group of 2,000 experts - basically, these are people with a degree in any engineering field, an architect, or even students.  If you look through the list a significant portion are from outside the U.S...and all they have done is sign an online petition.

 

This 9/11 conspiracy crap is a lot like the anti-vaccine movement.  Search and you will receive from the "University of Google"

 

Edit:  I can google, too

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

 

WTC 7 collapse was strange, sure, but what exactly would have been the point of a controlled demolition hours after the others?  And with no casualties?

[lockmat]

It should be noted architecture and science don't know borders.

 

I see mostly architects and engineers, I saw one student as I browsed the entire list.

 

List:

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

 

Switching gears a little bit, I'm just kind of surprised that Americans hate to even consider that the government might be lying to us considering we all probably believe the following from one extent or another:

 

1. We don't trust our politicians

2. We don't trust the media 

 

Yet when a big event happens and there is contradictory evidence, we totally trust our politicians and the media. Not only do we trust the government, we don't even want to consider another possibility other than the story they spoon feed us.

 

I just had to look at this group of 2,000 experts - basically, these are people with a degree in any engineering field, an architect, or even students.  If you look through the list a significant portion are from outside the U.S...and all they have done is sign an online petition.

 

This 9/11 conspiracy crap is a lot like the anti-vaccine movement.  Search and you will receive from the "University of Google"

 

Edit:  I can google, too

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

 

WTC 7 collapse was strange, sure, but what exactly would have been the point of a controlled demolition hours after the others?  And with no casualties?

 

[lockmat]

 

 

WTC 7 collapse was strange, sure, but what exactly would have been the point of a controlled demolition hours after the others?  And with no casualties?

 

As previously stated, the A&E Truth group does not ask who or why. They just believe there is enough evidence to warrant a real investigation.

 

The 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention WTC 7. And it also took pulling teeth to get an investigation to happen in the first place.

 

Not only that, one of the members of the commission quit and said, "we were setup to fail." He said that because they gave them a fraction of the evidence and only a few people could initially see it and then they even had to sensor what the rest of the committee members could see.

 

Then, Bush and Cheney would not allow themselves to be questioned individually, they required to do it together. What police department would ever allow that?

 

But to address your question of "why" the reasons I have heard is that there were multiple govt agencies in 7 including the IRS, Secret Service, CIA and the SEC. Also, the building owner had just taken out an insurance policy just before 9/11 and I believe got a big fat paycheck out of the destruction of 7. I'm not saying that is what I believe, just what I've heard.

 

For those who don't know the facts or the theories too well, just humor yourself and watch a few documentaries like Loose Change or Press for Truth and even the one from the Architects & Engineers.

 

Press for Truth (a story of four women who lost their husbands in the tower collapses and their search for the truth)

 

Loose Change

 

[Fringe]

According to the Architects & Engineers group, a steel skyscraper, like all three WTC towers, have never collapsed because of fire, except these three.

 

They note that there have been fires that have been wider spread and lasted longer, but no collapses, and many (if not all?) are still in use today.

 

How many were taken down by planes? 

[lockmat]

How many were taken down by planes? 

 

I'm not even sure how relevant that is. These buildings were designed to sustain the impact of a 707, granted a 757 is bigger, yet they still sustained the impact. Per NIST, was it not for the fire, these never would have fallen, which is implied by the report. Although they say the planes damaged support columns, it was not that fact that brought them down. It was the fire.

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

 

 

Then you still have to take into account WTC 7, which was damaged, but the collapse was still blamed on the fires.

[IronTiger]

Besides the whole "WTC 7 was done with controlled explosives" stuff, the conspiracy theory itself makes no sense. First off, thinking that the government was involved would be giving them too much credit, especially the Bush administration, which was widely believed to be incompetent and had been in office only less than 9 months at the time, and trying to build a plan like that would be impossible, or the plot had been brewing for years and Bush & co. were just patsies.

Then what would be the payoff? A temporary surge of patriotism and approval ratings? After all, the gas price was already pretty low at the time. The economy also took a nosedive, too...all those seem like NEGATIVE things, and if the government had this all planned out, then, well, that would be remarkably ill-thought out, wouldn't it?

Finally, if there really was a conspiracy theory, why are you still here? The Snowden leaks revealed that the government was spying on its own citizens. The government would've known who was trying to spread word of the truth, and have most of you "liquidated" through some sort of black ops team.

[lockmat]

Besides the whole "WTC 7 was done with controlled explosives" stuff, the conspiracy theory itself makes no sense. First off, thinking that the government was involved would be giving them too much credit, especially the Bush administration, which was widely believed to be incompetent and had been in office only less than 9 months at the time, and trying to build a plan like that would be impossible, or the plot had been brewing for years and Bush & co. were just patsies.

Then what would be the payoff? A temporary surge of patriotism and approval ratings? After all, the gas price was already pretty low at the time. The economy also took a nosedive, too...all those seem like NEGATIVE things, and if the government had this all planned out, then, well, that would be remarkably ill-thought out, wouldn't it?

Finally, if there really was a conspiracy theory, why are you still here? The Snowden leaks revealed that the government was spying on its own citizens. The government would've known who was trying to spread word of the truth, and have most of you "liquidated" through some sort of black ops team.

 

All good questions. 

 

I had a hard time coming to grips with this stuff a few weeks ago. I've watched some of these conspiracy videos off and on for a few years now, and I don't know what it was that set me off this time, I guess it was the A&E group videos.

 

To answer your question about why, I'm not even sure that's the most important question right now as their seems to be lots of evidence to show that the official story just isn't true anyway. But if we want to go down that road, there are some explanations out there. For instance, there's a CIA whistleblower named Susan Lindauer, who was an asset to Iraq and Libya at the United Nations who was a covert backchannel between those groups and the US. She claims her supervisor told her, to tell Iraq, to tell them what they knew about the plan to fly planes into the world trade center towers or else they would go to war with them (paraphrased). She says Iraq at the time was very willing to help expose terrorists because they thought they were a threat to their country as well. On top of that, there was supposed to be some economic/peace something rather agreement that would have benefited both Iraq and the US. Basically, there was incentive for them to help us. Back to Susan's story, she reported back to her supervisor that they'd be willing to help with that info but they didn't have any. Apparently, that didn't matter to her supervisor, he still demanded info. 

 

So basically, if you listen to her story, she says the US was looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq and that they had prior detailed knowledge that this was going to happen. Doesn't that seem to explain the whole reason we went to war with them? I was a Iraqi war apologist at the time, even when we didn't find any MWDs. And nobody could really ever connect the two (9/11 to war with Iraq), especially since Bin Laden was in Afghanastan.

 

Also, if you watch the first few minutes of that Loose Change documentary, they show what seems to be an incentive by the dept of defense for them to want a new "pearl harbor" (which I guess is another conspiracy theory that we knew that was coming, too, which I'm not saying I do or don't disagree with).

 

There's numerous evidence that they had detailed knowledge that this was going to happen. Govt officials, agencies, even the mayor of San Francisco was apparently told to stay out of New York on 9/11.

 

I don't believe the govt themselves planned it. Maybe they knew the terrorists planned it and they just conveniently let it happen.

 

Then, another possible answer to "why?" Look at all the civil liberties that have been taken away from us all in the name of 9/11 and national security. The govt is doing unconstitutional things to us b/c of the Patriot Act etc. This is the kind of stuff that started the American Revolutionary war (trials without jury etc, taxes w/o representation wasn't the only thing).

 

Also, tons of money was at stake here too. Did you know millions of dollars every year for defense spending cannot be reconciled? I already mentioned the WTC complex owner and his insurance scam.

 

As to Snowden, he revealed secret information. We're talking about public knowledge. And it's funny you bring him up. What he exposed is crazy, and we all just blew it off. One, because none of us were surprised our govt was spying on us. Two, look at what they're hiding from us and we still blindly want to believe their 9/11 story despite the inconsistencies and unexplained evidence. There's hardly an uproar about it.

 

And Snowden tried to reveal this info through official channels but was ignored, just like Susan Lindauer. Obama supposedly passed legislation to help whistleblowers, yet these whistleblowers are arresting or wanting to arrest some of them after they tried the proper channels and then finally had to reveal it publicly.

 

Why am I alive? I'm just a little guy that is exposing this to tens, maybe hundreds of people. There are whistleblowers, bigger people than me that are still alive, too. Why? I don't know. But there have been some mysterious deaths. Watch some videos on Barry Jennings who was in WTC 7 and was stuck in there for a while because of explosives going off, finally to be rescued by a firefighter and then having to step over dead bodies in the lobby of a tower that wasn't hit by a plane. Days before the NIST report on WTC 7 he was dead? Maybe a coincidence, who knows.

 

This info is just the tip of the iceberg. Why is the inexcusable, awful video of the plane the pentagon the only video we have? That's all they have? Yeah right. What's to hide?

 

Why did Bush just sit in his seat talking to some elementary kids after hearing that the SECOND plane hit? Cheney later described that in an important event, they don't ask or say sir, they just grab you. They didn't for bush. They said they didn't want to scare the kids. Our country was under attack, and we didn't know who or why (supposedly) and he's concerned about not scaring some kids? Wouldn't there be concern he was a target too and jeopordizing his and everyone's lives just by being there in that school? Then later he says he saw the first plane hit live when the video for that didn't even come out until the next day.

 

Lastly as to why? What controls this world? Greed and hunger for power. That will make people do things they never dreamed of sometimes. I don't know why we think our govt officials are immune to those character traits.

 

[trymahjong]

Just this Thread-

 

Thirteen years later I know that when big disasters happen ---cell phone service is the first to go.

 

My kid was living in Columbia Graduate Student housing working at Lamont Doherty (future son-in-law was working at Solomon Smith Barney) when I got a call to watch the TV that the first building had fallen-- She would take a bus to work over GWB each day- All phone lines were $@#!. I just stayed by TV and kept trying to get through to her-- Finally my kid at OU got through and she was okay but stunned- She said she could smell it from her room on 112th-- I visited her  2 weeks later-- the entire island of Manhattan was covered in bouquets of rememberances at each Police and Fire station, everywhere you walked you saw them--pictures, flowers, teddy bears candles-- there are small stations everywhere--People would just stop in front of them and just stay a few moments then walk on.

 

There still was tiny bits of ash (?) that seemed to float when the wind got up.

 

That observation about cell phones-- it seemed true when I tried to contact my parents when they lived in OKC during the Federal Building Bombing--It was true while we were sitting out Katrina and folks tried to contact us and was true when I tried to contact another of my kids who was running in Boston Marathon two years ago and the bombing happened.  I wonder if technology will ever be able to overcome that.

[IronTiger]

Besides the fact that whatever evidence the government has (or other observations, like videos of REAL controlled demolition projects) is disregarded for a few people who may or may not be telling the truth is something that can't be reconciled...we could do this all day and you'd still have someone claiming the government knew, but really, some of the other "evidence" assumes modern technology in a bygone era.

This info is just the tip of the iceberg. Why is the inexcusable, awful video of the plane the pentagon the only video we have? That's all they have? Yeah right. What's to hide?

Remember, the world of pre-9/11 didn't have cameras everywhere like today, and they certainly weren't high resolution. DVD players were just starting to come out on the mainstream, and IF you had Internet access, you probably had dial-up, where at a 56k modem it would still take about 15-20 minutes to download a 1MB file (I remember that). Even longer if you had a 28.8. Google was an underdog player in search engines. Amazon sold only books and music. Video cameras were a lot more expensive (seriously, have you looked at old electronics ads and then accounted for inflation? I'm looking at an August 2001 MacAddict magazine, and there's a SCSI 2GB hard drive for $70...and that's in 2001 dollars).

That's probably why the "controlled explosives" theory was so prevalent, actually--at the time, nobody really recorded demolitions like they do today and there was no YouTube to quickly look up how demolitions work.

[OkieEric]

WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report because the goal of the commission was investing the events that led up to the disaster and outlining recommendations for the future.  It was not a detailed study into the actual collapse of the buildings, so there was no point.  The report is out there if you want to look at it (I'm sure you have)

 

Maybe the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail", maybe not.  Here's a book by the co-chairs of the commission:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307276635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429711781&sr=8-1&keywords=without+precedent

 

From the beginning, the 9/11 Commission found itself facing obstacles — the Bush administration blocked its existence for months, the first co-chairs resigned right away, the budget was limited, and a polarized Washington was suspicious of its every request. Yet despite these long odds, the Commission produced a bestselling report unanimously hailed for its objectivity, along with a set of recommendations that led to the most significant reform of America’s national security agencies in decades. This is a riveting insider’s account of Washington at its worst — and its best.

 

The conspiracy theorists would have you think he blocked the commission because they would uncover one of the biggest conspiracies in history - give me a break.  The reasons I've read are that he was concerned because it could reveal sources of information and methods of intelligence....or maybe he was just afraid that it would discover inadequacies in the FBI & CIA that would reflect negatively on his administration.  

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-opposes-9-11-query-panel/

 

"I don't believe the govt themselves planned it. Maybe they knew the terrorists planned it and they just conveniently let it happen"  - you can't have it both ways.  If the government had information and let it happen (which may feed into the objection of the 9/11 Commission, sure) then the controlled demolitions and other crap theories don't make any sense as the terrorists would not have done anything more than fly the planes into the buildings.  As ludicrous as it is to think that the government could have pulled off this elaborate combination of planes/controlled demolition, it's even more ridiculous to think terrorists would have been capable of such. 

 

Susan Lindauer has a questionable background, to say the least.  From wikipedia:  "Lindauer was incarcerated in 2005 and released the next year after two judges ruled her mentally unfit to stand trial."  There are other unfavorable items in her wikipedia that I'm just not going to bother looking into.   I suppose you will say she really was involved and is now a whistle-blower.  Logically, if the government were capable of murdering 3,000 of its own citizens do you really think they would allow a loose end like her?  It defies logic

 

Unfortunately, nobody on this board will be able to convince you otherwise, so this "debate" is destined to fail.  This is exactly like trying to convince an anti-vaxer

[lockmat]

To be fair, it's not just hearsay (in the case of Susan), someone "claiming" they know someone else knew. There is evidence, available publicly, that shows very strong evidence that they did.

 

Yes, it was a different technological age, but it's not like it was the 1950's. Only one camera for the Pentagon, one? Also, the theorists claim there should have been video evidence from a hotel and gas station across the street, but they have not been released. I say claim because I don't remember the details and if they were actually confiscated by the govt.

 

But that's not even the smoking gun. All the scientific evidence is.

 

I just find it strange that people, including in this forum, love science and objectivity so much, but don't want to look at it from both sides objectively.

 

Like, nobody wants to even question it despite the WTC rubble being evidence for thousands of murders that it was being hauled off for recycling in about a week after the attack. Or that national protocols for investigating a collapsed building and a crime scene were totally ignored.

 

Yet nobody cares, "I'm sure the govt had a reason." We put way too much trust in our govt for some odd reason. I used too, but I am less and less.

 

Besides the fact that whatever evidence the government has (or other observations, like videos of REAL controlled demolition projects) is disregarded for a few people who may or may not be telling the truth is something that can't be reconciled...we could do this all day and you'd still have someone claiming the government knew, but really, some of the other "evidence" assumes modern technology in a bygone era.


Remember, the world of pre-9/11 didn't have cameras everywhere like today, and they certainly weren't high resolution. DVD players were just starting to come out on the mainstream, and IF you had Internet access, you probably had dial-up, where at a 56k modem it would still take about 15-20 minutes to download a 1MB file (I remember that). Even longer if you had a 28.8. Google was an underdog player in search engines. Amazon sold only books and music. Video cameras were a lot more expensive (seriously, have you looked at old electronics ads and then accounted for inflation? I'm looking at an August 2001 MacAddict magazine, and there's a SCSI 2GB hard drive for $70...and that's in 2001 dollars).

That's probably why the "controlled explosives" theory was so prevalent, actually--at the time, nobody really recorded demolitions like they do today and there was no YouTube to quickly look up how demolitions work.

 

[Luminare]

Exactly. I think most in government threw up road blocks because of petty politics and it was the biggest dig into government operations in decades. I also think many believed that it was going to turn into another McCarthy type ordeal, but instead the 9/11 commission did a very competent job and was very unbiased in it's dealings.

 

You are also correct in that the 9/11 commission was not design to investigate the buildings themselves. That was left to other parties who were specializing in the building failures, etc... The 9/11 commission was tasked in figuring out how on earth such an event could take place, what went wrong in the years leading up to the disaster, and what could be improved on in the future. That was it.

 

Finally, IronTiger brought up a good point. In an era where we have Edward Snowden running around. You can not possibly tell me that he wouldn't have revealed such a incredible crime to the public by now and that he would have had some kind of info on said events (I mean look at how much info he has revealed already! It's ridiculous the stuff this guy knows!). Something this big would have been the first to be revealed. That honestly should be the nail in the coffin.

[lockmat]

WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report because the goal of the commission was investing the events that led up to the disaster and outlining recommendations for the future.  It was not a detailed study into the actual collapse of the buildings, so there was no point.  The report is out there if you want to look at it (I'm sure you have) Good Point.

 

Maybe the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail", maybe not.  Here's a book by the co-chairs of the commission:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307276635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429711781&sr=8-1&keywords=without+precedent

 

From the beginning, the 9/11 Commission found itself facing obstacles — the Bush administration blocked its existence for months, the first co-chairs resigned right away, the budget was limited, and a polarized Washington was suspicious of its every request. Yet despite these long odds, the Commission produced a bestselling report unanimously hailed for its objectivity, along with a set of recommendations that led to the most significant reform of America’s national security agencies in decades. This is a riveting insider’s account of Washington at its worst — and its best.

 

It looks like what you quoted is a marketing statement. Their job is to try to sell me the book. "Best selling" doesn't say much for me. There are lots of best selling books out there, but it doesn't make them necessarily true. Yhe Bible is the best selling book in the world yet many on this forum don't put a single stock in it. The underlined part is a subjective statement. And the reform it produced was an assault on our civil liberties, a la the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden. I restate: How could the commission do it's job when they were only given a fraction of the evidence? That's like asking HPD to investigate a murder and withholding evidence from them.

 

The conspiracy theorists would have you think he blocked the commission because they would uncover one of the biggest conspiracies in history - give me a break.  The reasons I've read are that he was concerned because it could reveal sources of information and methods of intelligence....or maybe he was just afraid that it would discover inadequacies in the FBI & CIA that would reflect negatively on his administration.  

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-opposes-9-11-query-panel/

 

"I don't believe the govt themselves planned it. Maybe they knew the terrorists planned it and they just conveniently let it happen"  - you can't have it both ways.  If the government had information and let it happen (which may feed into the objection of the 9/11 Commission, sure) then the controlled demolitions and other crap theories don't make any sense as the terrorists would not have done anything more than fly the planes into the buildings.  As ludicrous as it is to think that the government could have pulled off this elaborate combination of planes/controlled demolition, it's even more ridiculous to think terrorists would have been capable of such.  I don't claim to know the who or why, it's just speculation at best.. But if I was to continue with this hypothesis, I would say that maybe the govt did have a part in actually loading the explosives. We are really getting sidetracked from the scientific evidence.

 

Susan Lindauer has a questionable background, to say the least.  From wikipedia:  "Lindauer was incarcerated in 2005 and released the next year after two judges ruled her mentally unfit to stand trial."  There are other unfavorable items in her wikipedia that I'm just not going to bother looking into.   I suppose you will say she really was involved and is now a whistle-blower.  Logically, if the government were capable of murdering 3,000 of its own citizens do you really think they would allow a loose end like her?  It defies logic

If the govt was in on it, of course they would say she was crazy. Just because they said it doesn't mean it is true. Listen to her testimony, she explains all that. Of course the govt would want to delegitimize her, she's saying it was an inside job. She was incarcerated and they never told her what she was guilty of. They wouldn't give her a trial by jury either. I doubt wikipedia stated that part. Wikipedia is going to give the "official story."

 

Unfortunately, nobody on this board will be able to convince you otherwise, so this "debate" is destined to fail.  This is exactly like trying to convince an anti-vaxer

Listen, I used to be you. I learned about the conspiracies and laughed, then researched a little and fell into it some, then returned to the "official story." But after looking at it again, I am more convinced. I can become unconvinced if the facts and evidence take me that way. I don't believe in conspiracy after conspiracy. The problem is, it takes more time than people want to take to invest in looking at what these hypothesis' say and even what both sides have to say. That's what's really killing this debate. I still need to do more research to see if these claims are substantiated, there's little doubt for me now, but maybe I'll prove myself wrong. I'm just trying to keep an open mind. I don't want to say, "there's no way our govt could have done this" without looking at the evidence. If police acted like that, there would still be tons of priests running around molesting little boys because people would think, "a priest? I don't believe it."

 

[Fringe]

I agree. This was to big of an event to cover-up. No way our government could have been involved without something slipping out and no way individuals could been involved without something coming out by now. I agree, two planes causing that much destruction does not seem possible. While watching events unfold that fateful morning the LAST thing I thought of was the buildings collapsing. I'm sure it was the last thing on the police and firefighters minds responding also. But it did happen and hopefully we shall learn from it. 

 

I grew up with the Kennedy assassination. In my early years I could not believe Oswald acted alone. How could one man kill the president of the United States? Yet over 50 years later there is no evidence to support a conspiracy. Oswald was just a nut job who got lucky. 

 

But I digress. I don't want to start in on more conspiracy theories. Even though their kind of fun they just aren't realistic. 

[Luminare]

 

 

When 'keeping an open mind' turns into obsession....thats where I draw the line. This is clearly an obsession! I can't follow something that has turned into an obsession or ones lot in life.

 

EDIT: I'm just going to add one more thing to this. Sometimes in life there are just not going to be an answer to the questions you are asking. The wrong approach is feeling like the person, thing, entity, or the world owes you an answer (more specifically an answer that 'satisfies' you). That's not how life works and that's not how anything works. I've had two very specific incidents in my life where I felt like I was owed an answer for why it happened. One was where I felt I was owed an answer from a higher power. Another was from a specific person. You become obsessed trying to uncover some vast complex network of reasons or threads or stories to figure out what that person or something is hiding and it consumes you! I really does! In the end though, sometimes life doesn't give you all the answers and maybe one will be given someday, but usually its more simple than one would think. No one owes you a satisfied answer of what happened to your eyes lockmat or anybody else. Once you get away from that focus you learn to move on and understand that sometimes life just takes very strange and irrational turns.

[lockmat]

When 'keeping an open mind' turns into obsession....thats where I draw the line. This is clearly an obsession! I can't follow something that has turned into an obsession or ones lot in life.

 

Let's say it is an obsession. And let's say there is a possibility that it is true. Isn't it worth figuring out and exposing, not just for ourselves but our posterity? If there is evidence that shows our government committed treason, isn't that worth obsessing over, even just a little?

 

Why did our forefathers revolt over just some taxes? It's just a few bucks here and there, right?. Give your life up for it? That's exactly what they did. Not just for their sake. It wasn't just the money, it was principle. If you read about it, they were always considering their posterity, not just themselves, that's why they were willing to give up their own lives.

 

If we let it continue, what will America be like in even 20 or 30 years, maybe less? Maybe we think right now, I have nothing to hide, they can spy on me all they want. Well, maybe one day they'll spy on you and arrest you for something you don't think is the slightest bit important and a violation of your constitutional rights. Shoot, maybe they'll arrest for for simply speaking out against the government. Snowden revealed violations of constitutional rights and they want to arrest him. They divert our attention from this fact by focusing on what they say "compromises our safety." Yeah right. American citizens already assumed they could spy on us, you know terrorists did too.

 

People obsess over far less important things like the Texans, Rockets, Star Wars, Facebook, Walkability, Urbanity, Highrises, Trains etc. I don't see the harm in questioning whether our highest officials had a hand in killing thousands of our own neighbors. People are not considered lunatics for obsessing over sports or photography, no, they're just "passionate." Just food for thought.

[lockmat]

 

 

EDIT: I'm just going to add one more thing to this. Sometimes in life there are just not going to be an answer to the questions you are asking. The wrong approach is feeling like the person, thing, entity, or the world owes you an answer (more specifically an answer that 'satisfies' you). That's not how life works and that's not how anything works. I've had two very specific incidents in my life where I felt like I was owed an answer for why it happened. One was where I felt I was owed an answer from a higher power. Another was from a specific person. You become obsessed trying to uncover some vast complex network of reasons or threads or stories to figure out what that person or something is hiding and it consumes you! I really does! In the end though, sometimes life doesn't give you all the answers and maybe one will be given someday, but usually its more simple than one would think. No one owes you a satisfied answer of what happened to your eyes lockmat or anybody else. Once you get away from that focus you learn to move on and understand that sometimes life just takes very strange and irrational turns.

 

Luminare, I agree in a way. I honestly don't believe this will ever get enough traction to get to the point that something significant will come of it, maybe I'm wrong. The govt and the main stream media are just too big and too against it. But is resigning to that fact satisfactory? If so, we'd still be under the crown, paying taxes without representation, blacks would still be enslaved and not have civil liberties etc.

 

I have obsessed over this for the past two weeks, but I'll probably move on to one extent or another soon enough. But I still think it's worth discussion for now. I think the stakes warrant it.

[samagon]

I'm far from an expert in any of the subjects that have anything to do with the events of that day.

 

I watched it unfold on TV at my office. That's about it.

 

There's 2 sides to this:

 

1. not a conspiracy, terrorists who did terrible things

 

2. conspiracy. someone, or some group that was motivated in some way?

 

let's suspend for a second any argument about whether or not it was a conspiracy and assume that it was. 

 

Who set the explosives? Who flew the planes? How could they have possibly orchestrated that and kept everyone quiet? It would take thousands, to orchestrate a coup of that size being accomplished, what was the reward? 

 

Just the explosives bit.

 

There are very few people who are skilled enough to do demolitions of buildings of that size, I guess at the end of the day they don't care about whether it's messy or not, just bring it down, but still, it would take a lot of knowledge and skill to bring 1 building that big down, let alone 3 buildings in the same day, 2 within a short time of each other, and a third later that day. So who designed the demolition? Who did they have set the demolitions? When did they set the demolitions? Where did the demolitions come from?

 

No, the cover up it would take to hide a conspiracy of this magnitude is beyond comprehension. Assume though that you could cover the tracks of your conspiracy, the question then is, why? What's the motivation? Are the results worth the risk? 

 

These things, regardless of the evidence either way, provide far more discredit to the possibility of a conspiracy.

 

What I think is that there are people out there who refuse to believe that it is possible that anyone (or any group) could be filled with such hatred so as to follow through on this kind of atrocity, and so they are willing to come up with any semi plausible story that fits with what they think men are capable of doing.

 

The whole titanic thing though, makes you wonder, if that had happened in 2012 rather than 1912, would there be conspiracy theories about that event as well? Considering there were conspiracy theories about the titanic sinking being some huge insurance scam (among other things), I say yes.

 

What was a conspiracy though, the 13 colonies declaring independence from England, since our country was founded on a conspiracy, why shouldn't we assume that every major event that happens might also be one?

[lockmat]

To counter that question of why aren't there any whistle blowers, there actually are. It's just that anytime one of them comes out, they're deligitimized and called whackos. And who knows, maybe they are. But some of them do come from very important positions and agencies like the FBI and CIA.

 

Also, to consider the example of, "the coverup would be incomprehensible"....well, maybe it's not. Everything Snowden exposed would probably be still be secret if he didn't make it public through the media, yet I'm sure there were thousands of people that knew exactly what was happening, yet he was the only one willing to risk his life by having to fly to China, then Russia, attempt at South America, and never see his friends and family again. I guess most everyone else would rather just play it safe and not risk those things. Maybe that's why there's not more. And maybe people have been given millions of dollars to keep quiet. I don't think that's implausible to consider.

 

Here are 12 of the whistle blowers. If you use chrome, you might have to click on the video links as they're not showing up automatically.

https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm

 

Also, I find that the word "conspiracy" has been given a bad connotation. All it means according to Google is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." It seems if a conspiracy is possible on a small scale, it could also be on a large scale. The government has been given a free pass on being charged with conspiracies. I'm not saying every govt action is one, either, so don't get me wrong.

 

I'm far from an expert in any of the subjects that have anything to do with the events of that day.

 

I watched it unfold on TV at my office. That's about it.

 

There's 2 sides to this:

 

1. not a conspiracy, terrorists who did terrible things

 

2. conspiracy. someone, or some group that was motivated in some way?

 

let's suspend for a second any argument about whether or not it was a conspiracy and assume that it was. 

 

Who set the explosives? Who flew the planes? How could they have possibly orchestrated that and kept everyone quiet? It would take thousands, to orchestrate a coup of that size being accomplished, what was the reward? 

 

Just the explosives bit.

 

There are very few people who are skilled enough to do demolitions of buildings of that size, I guess at the end of the day they don't care about whether it's messy or not, just bring it down, but still, it would take a lot of knowledge and skill to bring 1 building that big down, let alone 3 buildings in the same day, 2 within a short time of each other, and a third later that day. So who designed the demolition? Who did they have set the demolitions? When did they set the demolitions? Where did the demolitions come from?

 

No, the cover up it would take to hide a conspiracy of this magnitude is beyond comprehension. Assume though that you could cover the tracks of your conspiracy, the question then is, why? What's the motivation? Are the results worth the risk? 

 

These things, regardless of the evidence either way, provide far more discredit to the possibility of a conspiracy.

 

What I think is that there are people out there who refuse to believe that it is possible that anyone (or any group) could be filled with such hatred so as to follow through on this kind of atrocity, and so they are willing to come up with any semi plausible story that fits with what they think men are capable of doing.

 

The whole titanic thing though, makes you wonder, if that had happened in 2012 rather than 1912, would there be conspiracy theories about that event as well? Considering there were conspiracy theories about the titanic sinking being some huge insurance scam (among other things), I say yes.

 

What was a conspiracy though, the 13 colonies declaring independence from England, since our country was founded on a conspiracy, why shouldn't we assume that every major event that happens might also be one?

 

[democide]

The presence of fire doesn't necessarily dictate building problems, it's the heat in that fire. A house fire could gut the interior of a house but it can be restored by sanding down burned floors and doing a few comparatively minor renovations. A smaller, but HOTTER fire could do the same damage. The HEAT given off by the fires at the main WTC buildings were probably the bigger factor in the WTC 7 collapse. And secondly, there's no such as a "perfect demolition job". In controlled demolitions, a "perfect" job is to completely demolish the building they're supposed to get and don't hit anything else or let anyone get hurt. I spent the last couple of minutes while typing this to look at a few building demolitions. The Houston Club kinda had this neat twisting effect going down, the Plaza Hotel had one side start to crumble while the elevator/stairs shaft went the other way, Kyle Field had the big concrete thing crash into the ground while the sides went, the Prudential went down with the biggest chunk kind of started falling, the Macy's Building kind of crumpled INSIDE on itself, they're all very different. ALL of them have the BOOM BOOM BOOM and the subsequent smoke of the TNT coming out that was carefully laid after the building was gutted.

I'm not even a demolitions expert and came up with all that.

 

WTC 7 came down in free-fall unto itself.  No way office fires alone would do that.  It was a pretty damn good demolition job, and you can even see explosions work their way up the face of the building before it fell.  Yup, it was blown up!

 

Drills happen all the time. In 2004, they did a hurricane scenario in Louisiana called Hurricane Pam, a slow-moving Category 3 hurricane that caused storm surge on levees. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit, so it only makes sense Hurricane Katrina was masterminded by the Bush administration to cause panic and discord, right? Right?

 

 

The Hurricane Katrina aftermath was a disaster like the whole 9/11 event was, and a stand-down happened on both events.  So you know what, forget the drills!!!

 

 

 

The 1993 transcripts do offer an intriguing look into dealing with informants, but that information has been public for the last 20 years. The best I can find related to that when dealing with reputable (read: real) sources is that the FBI probably bungled an early chance to stop the bombing at an early point. I don't know how the whole "the bombing was done with the knowledge and direction of the FBI" thing came from, but it was probably from the same place about Barack Obama promoting gun control to create a New World Order.

 

Like I mentioned before, the original plan was to supply the patsy terrorists with fake explosives.  But at the last minute, they decided to provide them with the real thing.  That was not a mistake, nor incompetence by the FBI, that was a deliberate decision they made!  They knew that the terrorists wanted to blow up the WTC and kill Americans, and the FBI saw this as the perfect opportunity to let it happen to further political agendas.  The FBI informant even protested the decision and told the FBI not to blame him if the attack was carried out!  So yes, the FBI was involved from the start, and even told the terrorists where to park at the WTC!!!   Fact is the 93 WTC attack was a lie, and so was 9/11!

 

Now who needs terrorists when you have criminals like the FBI on your side?

[democide]

I agree. This was to big of an event to cover-up. No way our government could have been involved without something slipping out and no way individuals could been involved without something coming out by now. I agree, two planes causing that much destruction does not seem possible. While watching events unfold that fateful morning the LAST thing I thought of was the buildings collapsing. I'm sure it was the last thing on the police and firefighters minds responding also. But it did happen and hopefully we shall learn from it. 

 

I grew up with the Kennedy assassination. In my early years I could not believe Oswald acted alone. How could one man kill the president of the United States? Yet over 50 years later there is no evidence to support a conspiracy. Oswald was just a nut job who got lucky. 

 

But I digress. I don't want to start in on more conspiracy theories. Even though their kind of fun they just aren't realistic. 

 

I agree in that 9/11 would be difficult to cover-up by our government if they did it, even though we do have whistleblowers in all areas of our government pointing out a cover-up.  So my thought is this, if this was planned out, would it be impossible for anyone to believe that the job was instead given to an ally to do?  Saudi Arabia perhaps?  How about Israel?  I mean both Saudi and Israeli citizens were detained before, during and after 9/11, and with good reason too.  But the higher-ups stopped that ball from rolling, like they needed to.  And conveniently, a passport of one of the 9/11 hijackers was found INTACT to solve the case in record time, like they did for the 93 WTC attack.  Ha ha ha! 

 

Anyways, my point is that you don't let your people do it, but let someone else do it.  That way, you can say with some assurance that you didn't do it, and you cover-up leads that point to your allies that did.  Simple enough to do, and who in Israel or Saudi Arabia would blow the whistle on their own country, only to have it be blown away by the US in response!?  No one would, so you keep your mouth shut.

[samagon]

but the question still stands:

 

Why. Why was it done?

[Montrose1100]

but the question still stands:

Why. Why was it done?

I asked this a while back, no answer.

But to bring up your Titanic statement, there are conspiracies about it. From Mummies to Aliens, and insurance.

[lockmat]

but the question still stands:

Why. Why was it done?

Personally, as previously stated, i would think the reason so many things happen in this world, money and power.

I don't remember the details, but within the first ten minutes of the Loose Change documentary it talks about what the possible motive could have been with primary sources to back it up. It's not conclusive, but it makes you wonder. Also, look how much more power the govt. has over us since and because of 9/11. It's not conclusive 9/11 was their way of getting it but it's a real result.

And as for money, it wouldn't surprise me if govt officials benefited from the subsequent wars. I admit, it's speculation on my part, but I'm just trying to provide possible motives. I wouldn't doubt if the heavy theorists have information or ideas.

And you know, I think it's possible the higher ups have info that would make us wet our pants. Maybe they legitimately have reason to think they need more power over us, at least from their perspective. Anyone who has been in a position of power with subordinates knows sometimes the subordinates have no clue what is going on and you withhold information from them "for their own good". This could be the case

They could be making real life decisions we only theorize about. Like, do you kill a few to save the many, things like that. Who knows.

[KinkaidAlum]

The planes that hit the World Trade Center twins were 767s, not 757s. 767s are much larger. They are "wide-bodies." Both flights were loaded with enough jet fuel to get them across the continental, from Boston to California and there would have been very little fuel burn by the time they hit NYC.

 

How many steel skyscrapers have been hit by 767s? How many have been hit by 767s with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel still in the tanks?

[lockmat]

The planes that hit the World Trade Center twins were 767s, not 757s. 767s are much larger. They are "wide-bodies." Both flights were loaded with enough jet fuel to get them across the continental, from Boston to California and there would have been very little fuel burn by the time they hit NYC.

 

How many steel skyscrapers have been hit by 767s? How many have been hit by 767s with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel still in the tanks?

 

Zero have. But the buildings didn't fall over when they hit them either. The NIST report said it was fire that brought them down anyway. I've also heard that the jet fuel would have burned up in the initial blast.

 

But when they say they're supposed to withstand the hit of a 707, to be fair, I don't know what that exactly means. Does it mean they won't topple over upon impact? Does it mean the fire created by a 707 won't weaken the steel and bring it down? I'm not just saying this because it support the argument I hold more strongly to, but the former seems to be the intent.