Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't understand why people are still wrapped up in the building collapses. I mean, in the Kennedy assassination, there's more than enough stuff to play around with (like why Jack Ruby shot LHO), bu

Thousands of people being killed at once was a tragedy, no doubt.  And yes, it was a very, very freaky thing to live through at the time.   However, a lot more than four airplanes got hijacked that

Oh shit guys! This guy knows the truth!!! How have we been so naïve?!

Thousands of people being killed at once was a tragedy, no doubt.  And yes, it was a very, very freaky thing to live through at the time.

 

However, a lot more than four airplanes got hijacked that day.  The goal was not to just simply take down some buildings - it was to weaken us by creating havoc and an atmosphere of fear.  That's why they are called "terrorists," and I would submit that they pretty much succeeded with that more subtle goal.  Those guys weren't from either Afghanistan or Iraq, and their weapon wasn't box cutters (Bic pens at the neck, or an ad hoc garrote would do just as well) - it was surprise and fear.

 

I miss the idea of respectful dissent.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On this day, I'm in the Chase tower downtown and I'm thinking about all the hype that I hear in the media about how there could be possible attacks on the anniversary of 9/11.  

 

I also remember where I was when it happened, I was working in the Southwestern Bell building at 3303 Weslayan and I was supporting telephone line techs in Connecticut.  They could see across the water, the buildings being hit.  That day was crazy, everyone in Houston was hearing about a possible bomb here, an abandoned truck on the highway on 610 that could have explosives in it, etc.  The worried public is so easily frightened.   :unsure:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it unfold on the monitors of the Shell trading floor at 2 Houston Center and then we were told downtown was being evacuated in case other attacks were imminent.  I recall they immediately stated shutting down air traffic, but there were some flights/planes that couldn't be contacted for whatever reason so they were scrambling jets to investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being in the 11th grade and the whole classroom looking at me and within hours the racism began.

 

Yeah, the Syrians living next door to me put a big American flag on the back of their suv the next day.  The Palestinians down the street put away the Palestinian flag that had been flying in front of their house after news reports started coming in of Palestinians celebrating in the streets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Syrians living next door to me put a big American flag on the back of their suv the next day. The Palestinians down the street put away the Palestinian flag that had been flying in front of their house after news reports started coming in of Palestinians celebrating in the streets.

The rest of that school year was bad I probably heard bin laden was my uncle 1000 times. And the airports were miserable for about a year or two also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it unfold on the monitors of the Shell trading floor at 2 Houston Center and then we were told downtown was being evacuated in case other attacks were imminent. 

 

I had a similar experience except I was at the Enron building. Confusion at first as the news spread, then it started to sink in that downtown could be at risk. When they sent everyone home, it was surreal seeing thousands of people stream out of the buildings and into the streets and parking garages only a couple of hours after the workday had gotten started. We had a friend visiting from overseas who was staying with us, and when I got home he was just getting out of the shower and hadn't heard the news yet. We turned on the TV and were stunned to see the towers collapse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I was in NYC recently and it was completely silent at Ground Zero, apart from the noise of the fountains. Probably the most quiet place in the whole city. It was surreal. Anyways, it was another Tuesday at Strack Intermediate... The teachers didn't tell us much. I was saddened by the loss of life, shocked we had been attacked, but I was also obsessed with the WTC buildings themselves. I had 4 different posters of them on my wall. The WTC infatuation came after my Titanic infatuation (strange huh).

 

Edit: I even had that weird UFO/rainbow sunflower/giraffe poster of them that could be found at Hobby Lobby.

 

Edit II: Does anyone else find it weird to see large children and find out they were born after 9/11? 

Edited by Montrose1100
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in NYC recently and it was completely silent at Ground Zero, apart from the noise of the fountains. Probably the most quiet place in the whole city. It was surreal. Anyways, it was another Tuesday at Strack Intermediate... The teachers didn't tell us much. I was saddened by the loss of life, shocked we had been attacked, but I was also obsessed with the WTC buildings themselves. I had 4 different posters of them on my wall. The WTC infatuation came after my Titanic infatuation (strange huh).

 

Edit: I even had that weird UFO/rainbow sunflower/giraffe poster of them that could be found at Hobby Lobby.

 

Edit II: Does anyone else find it weird to see large children and find out they were born after 9/11? 

 

It's interesting that each generation seems to have a "where were you when..." event that we all remember.  For my generation it seems to have been the Challenger disaster.  For my parents it was the Kennedy assasination.  For my grandparents it was Pearl Harbor.  9/11 does double-duty with me, though I was much older when it happened.

 

That weird feeling you have reminds me of the Mindset List ( http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/ ) put out by a couple of professors at Beloit College.  In just a few years, I'm sure the list will include an entry that the incoming freshman don't remember the world before 9/11.  As it is, the current list has this as it's first entry...

 

 

1. During their initial weeks of kindergarten, they were upset by endlessly repeated images of planes blasting into the World Trade Center.

 

On a lighter note, I found this as I read down the list...

 

 

22. Students have always been able to dance at Baylor.

 

Way back when I attended Baylor, there was a persistant rumor that if dancing were allowed on campus, half of the buildings would have to be torn down due to clauses put in by donors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being very early in class because I had to complete a project due at noon, and I waited until the last day to do it.  So I was just too busy working on it, and I remember other students that arrived later mentioning that a plane crashed into a building in New York.  I thought it was an accident but felt it was of no consequence because the building would not collapse.  At that point, I didn't even know it was one of the twin towers.  Anyways, I'm just so busy working like crazy (and needless to say, I aced the project, how can I forget, I felt really good about it) that I didn't see any of the news coverage, until I got home in the evening.  I didn't think about it then, like I'm sure many of you still don't, but that was a collapse due to something blowing those buildings into pieces, 3 buildings from two planes.

 

Anyways, there are eye witnesses who were there that day that say a bomb blew up at or below the lobby, and THEN THE FIRST PLANE HIT.  You add onto that, a recording made on 9/11 of a business meeting in the north tower backing up that fact, where you can hear a bomb go off, and then like 5 seconds later, you hear a louder sound belonging to the first plane hitting the tower!  Wake up folks, this was a staged event by shadow figures in our government.  This was a false flag, I mean there were drills going on at the same time this was happening!  The evidence is overwhelming, it's a huge pile larger than the WTC debris.  I only wish I could have figured it out back them but I was too concern with school at the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

P-lease. 

Time to get your tin foil cap on. 

 

I remember being very early in class because I had to complete a project due at noon, and I waited until the last day to do it.  So I was just too busy working on it, and I remember other students that arrived later mentioning that a plane crashed into a building in New York.  I thought it was an accident but felt it was of no consequence because the building would not collapse.  At that point, I didn't even know it was one of the twin towers.  Anyways, I'm just so busy working like crazy (and needless to say, I aced the project, how can I forget, I felt really good about it) that I didn't see any of the news coverage, until I got home in the evening.  I didn't think about it then, like I'm sure many of you still don't, but that was a collapse due to something blowing those buildings into pieces, 3 buildings from two planes.

 

Anyways, there are eye witnesses who were there that day that say a bomb blew up at or below the lobby, and THEN THE FIRST PLANE HIT.  You add onto that, a recording made on 9/11 of a business meeting in the north tower backing up that fact, where you can hear a bomb go off, and then like 5 seconds later, you hear a louder sound belonging to the first plane hitting the tower!  Wake up folks, this was a staged event by shadow figures in our government.  This was a false flag, I mean there were drills going on at the same time this was happening!  The evidence is overwhelming, it's a huge pile larger than the WTC debris.  I only wish I could have figured it out back them but I was too concern with school at the time.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

P-lease. 

Time to get your tin foil cap on. 

 

Believe it sucka, a bomb exploded first in the north tower before the first plane hit, an audio recording and eyewitnesses support that fact.  Many other secondary explosions were also heard the whole time before the buildings were blown up. 

 

 

More on 9/11 the inside job, according to NIST office fires were the primary cause of the total and symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, onto its own footprint in freefall! :lol:  If you believe that, let me tell you another one.  Larry Silverstein admitted to giving the order to "pull it" and down it came!

 

Like I mentioned before, this government will continue to do things like this because even when exposed, they still get away with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it sucka, a bomb exploded first in the north tower before the first plane hit, an audio recording and eyewitnesses support that fact. Many other secondary explosions were also heard the whole time before the buildings were blown up.

http://youtu.be/k6qwijRSdfo

More on 9/11 the inside job, according to NIST office fires were the primary cause of the total and symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, onto its own footprint in freefall! :lol: If you believe that, let me tell you another one. Larry Silverstein admitted to giving the order to "pull it" and down it came!

Like I mentioned before, this government will continue to do things like this because even when exposed, they still get away with it.

Oh shit guys! This guy knows the truth!!! How have we been so naïve?!
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

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.

 

Yall may think we are crazy, but there is ample evidence to suggest the official story is not true. There are scientific reasons the official story is not even possible. There are tons of anomalies that happened on that day, there are inconsistencies and holes in their story.

 

I have a question, how many people actually trust our government officials? How many times have we seen them act corruptly? Most people do not trust our officials and know they often act corruptly. It's just tough to come to grips that they may have had knowledge of this and could have prevented it, but didn't.

 

Consider another fact: In all the history of steel skyscrapers, only three have EVER collapsed because of fire, and they are the WTC towers that fell on 9/11. Fire is the official reason the govt said they fell. There have been steel towers that have been more wide spread and lasted longer and have not only survived, but they're still in use today.

 

Most people do not even know that the 47-story WTC 7 across the street fell at 5:20 later that day. It had some damage caused by the debris of 1 & 2, but still, the official story is that it came down because of ONE compromised beam and office fires. It was damaged asymmetrically yet fell perfectly symmetrically and for at least 100 feet it fell at free fall speed (backed by the official report). How is that possible if it was a normal collapse? Answer, it's not.

 

Also, jet fuel and normal office fire do not get hot enough to bend or melt steel. It is scientifically impossible. Also, there was molten steel found at the site, including a concrete/steel fused "meteor" looking thing, both which are not possible at heat levels created by jet fuel and office fire. There a pictures and eye witness accounts you can see on youtube.

 

The terrorist claimed to have crashed the plane into the pentagon was deemed incompetent by the flight school he tried flying at with a Cessna in Florida, yet he performed a maneuver to turn around and crash into the pentagon, one that experienced pilots of 757s and fighter jets said they could  not even pull off.

 

These primary sources of information are publicly available. It's not hearsay. 

 

Start off with the science. Watch this documentary by Architects & Engineers. They don't even claim to know or ask the "who" and the "why." They just think there is enough evidence to warrant a new independent investigation. Then move onto some of the other documentaries that make you say, "hmmm".

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm going to say is that there currently 105,847 practicing architects in the US right now (according to the AIA). There are around 820,000 licensed engineers in the US (according to NCEES). This equals out to 925847 professionals (thats almost a million!). 2000 sure seems like a big number, but lets put that number in perspective (which is what groups like this try to stay away from). If you lump that 2000 in as part of the 925847 and lets do some basic proportions then that 2000....only makes up around 4.6% of the entire field! Ok, so lets say they have even a little more than 2000. That would only get them close to 5% of the professional field.

 

If your group or any other group wants to get another investigation then you are going to have to convince more than a mere 5%! The day you get a majority to agree with any of this (so a good majority around 55-65%) THEN you can call for an investigation.

 

This is like those dumb whitehouse.gov online petitions! They mean absolutely nothing.

 

I'm not attacking you personally lockmat. I only attack this insane ideology, but that's what this has become for some...a religion!

 

This is the last time I respond to any of this 9/11 stuff on this forum ever because its a bit of a waste of time. But sincerely lockmat that is what you would have to do to get an "investigation". Just being real with you.

 

As someone who works in the field of architecture and one who did a little research into 9/11 myself I have to respectfully disagree with "evidence" presented by groups such as this.

 

It goes to show that you can not please everyone and that their will always be skeptics. What I am insulted by though is this sort of arrogance that because this group has 2000 professionals it means that they speak for the entire professional industry (this isn't you saying this, but people use these people as their license to say there are a good amount of people in the field who doubt what happened and was investigated). These 2000 professionals don't speak for me and many that I know. I would warn you to not make the mistake many make in rush to such a conclusion that a mere 5% speak for everyone.

 

With that I'm done with this topic forever more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is a small percentage of experts. They are apparently touring the world, presenting their information to architects, many of whom didn't know WTC 7 fell that day, just like most Americans. Just because someone is an architect or engineer doesn't mean they know WTC 7 went down and that it went down by office fires (scientifically impossible) and symmetrically while being damage asymmetrically. But I'm not sure they say they "represent" other architects and engineers either.

 

I also agree that there is a small chance an investigation is done because most people don't know anything, and those that have heard there's an idea the government could have been complicit, they don't even look at the facts and just write those people off as "crazies."

 

I'm not saying I know 100% that the govt was complicit, but there is some evidence that is hard to deny, leaving me with little doubt that they were.

 

A few other things to think about:

 

1. Some of the alleged hijackers were found alive after 9/11, per the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

 

2. The pentagon (and Washington), one of the most protected buildings on the planet I'm sure, was hit by a plane FORTY minutes after the SECOND WTC was hit.

 

3. Norman Mineta, Transportation Secretary at the time, testified to congress that he was with Dick Cheney while the plane that hit the Pentagon was approaching and heard Cheney tell someone basically not to shoot down the plane, multiple times. Video below

 

These are just a few more examples

 

 

I'm more than willing to be "debunked" as I look for that information as well. It just doesn't add up so far.

 

Unrelated/related question, is that the illuminati symbol as your avatar? With your viewpoint described in this thread, I would assume if it is, that you're just poking fun at them?

 

 

All I'm going to say is that there currently 105,847 practicing architects in the US right now (according to the AIA). There are around 820,000 licensed engineers in the US (according to NCEES). This equals out to 925847 professionals (thats almost a million!). 2000 sure seems like a big number, but lets put that number in perspective (which is what groups like this try to stay away from). If you lump that 2000 in as part of the 925847 and lets do some basic proportions then that 2000....only makes up around 4.6% of the entire field! Ok, so lets say they have even a little more than 2000. That would only get them close to 5% of the professional field.

 

If your group or any other group wants to get another investigation then you are going to have to convince more than a mere 5%! The day you get a majority to agree with any of this (so a good majority around 55-65%) THEN you can call for an investigation.

 

This is like those dumb whitehouse.gov online petitions! They mean absolutely nothing.

 

I'm not attacking you personally lockmat. I only attack this insane ideology, but that's what this has become for some...a religion!

 

This is the last time I respond to any of this 9/11 stuff on this forum ever because its a bit of a waste of time. But sincerely lockmat that is what you would have to do to get an "investigation". Just being real with you.

 

As someone who works in the field of architecture and one who did a little research into 9/11 myself I have to respectfully disagree with "evidence" presented by groups such as this.

 

It goes to show that you can not please everyone and that their will always be skeptics. What I am insulted by though is this sort of arrogance that because this group has 2000 professionals it means that they speak for the entire professional industry (this isn't you saying this, but people use these people as their license to say there are a good amount of people in the field who doubt what happened and was investigated). These 2000 professionals don't speak for me and many that I know. I would warn you to not make the mistake many make in rush to such a conclusion that a mere 5% speak for everyone.

 

With that I'm done with this topic forever more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there was no conspiracy. Shoddy building construction, yes, but even with cutting corners and not always following building codes the buildings were never meant to withstand planes running into them. No building is.

 

I agree fire can not melt or bend  steel but it can distort it and when your talking about "truss construction" it doesn't take much. Personally I don't believe truss construction should be allowed in ANY building but also realize they could not have built such a tall building without using light weight trusses because of the sheer weight. A lot of firefighter lives have been lost by truss construction. 

 

If the World Trade Center had been built like the Empire State Building it would have probably sustained minimal damage. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people are still wrapped up in the building collapses. I mean, in the Kennedy assassination, there's more than enough stuff to play around with (like why Jack Ruby shot LHO), but 9/11? Nah. The thing is, fire-related collapses have happened before, just on a much smaller scale. While trying to debunk one of Slick's fears about "oh no, bridges 50+ years old are imminent to collapse" or something, I pulled up the Wikipedia list of bridge failures, and a small portion of them involve a fire that weakened the bridge, leading to its collapse, like the MacArthur Maze collapse in 2007, a 2004 incident with 8000 gallons of home heating oil, which is far less combustible than gasoline. In 2001, you had instant damage with burning gasoline, which ignited everything else inside the towers (paper, lots of paper) and gave the fire fuel (Interstate highways, comparatively, are not known for being flammable—drop a match onto concrete vs. a piece of paper and tell me what happens).

The extreme heat ended up melting the superstructure and it just got worse. Remember the fire at the Axis, and how they had to demolish the parking garage later? The parking garage had gotten weakened by the fire, making it unsuitable for heavy use that it would've been. Now imagine if the garage was filled with flammable objects inside and if the fire department wasn't able to reach it in time (it burned for hours).

Most of the "evidence" of September 11th just redirects to other blogs and a strange need to elevate Cheney from shifty ambiguously-corrupt politician into some sort criminal mastermind supervillain.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there was no conspiracy. Shoddy building construction, yes, but even with cutting corners and not always following building codes the buildings were never meant to withstand planes running into them. No building is.

 

I agree fire can not melt or bend  steel but it can distort it and when your talking about "truss construction" it doesn't take much. Personally I don't believe truss construction should be allowed in ANY building but also realize they could not have built such a tall building without using light weight trusses because of the sheer weight. A lot of firefighter lives have been lost by truss construction. 

 

If the World Trade Center had been built like the Empire State Building it would have probably sustained minimal damage. 

 

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.  

 

Sorry but it was a false flag.  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!!!  And you're telling me that the scum in that agency and the others like the CIA didn't know about these patsy terrorists!?  They not only knew, they provided visas to the hijackers so they could come in, 15 from Saudi Arabia.  Not the first time that has happened, prior to that we gave visas to many terrorists to come to America to train to fight the Soviets in the 80s.  And remember the August 6th memo?  Hell, even the Pentagon had a drill prior to September 11 to "practice" the response to a plane crashing into it!   And does anyone remember the truck stopped near the Washington bridge filled with explosives?  Does anyone find it wrong that Bush and Cheney didn't testify individually under oath with the 9/11 Commission?  What a joke.

 

I can go on and on, and I sure hate hearing about 9/11, it's total bullshit.  Until these criminals in government get punished, don't expect to have any security.

Edited by democide
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 don't understand why people are still wrapped up in the building collapses. I mean, in the Kennedy assassination, there's more than enough stuff to play around with (like why Jack Ruby shot LHO), but 9/11? Nah. The thing is, fire-related collapses have happened before, just on a much smaller scale. While trying to debunk one of Slick's fears about "oh no, bridges 50+ years old are imminent to collapse" or something, I pulled up the Wikipedia list of bridge failures, and a small portion of them involve a fire that weakened the bridge, leading to its collapse, like the MacArthur Maze collapse in 2007, a 2004 incident with 8000 gallons of home heating oil, which is far less combustible than gasoline. In 2001, you had instant damage with burning gasoline, which ignited everything else inside the towers (paper, lots of paper) and gave the fire fuel (Interstate highways, comparatively, are not known for being flammable—drop a match onto concrete vs. a piece of paper and tell me what happens).

The extreme heat ended up melting the superstructure and it just got worse. Remember the fire at the Axis, and how they had to demolish the parking garage later? The parking garage had gotten weakened by the fire, making it unsuitable for heavy use that it would've been. Now imagine if the garage was filled with flammable objects inside and if the fire department wasn't able to reach it in time (it burned for hours).

Most of the "evidence" of September 11th just redirects to other blogs and a strange need to elevate Cheney from shifty ambiguously-corrupt politician into some sort criminal mastermind supervillain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Edited by lockmat
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by OkieEric
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

Edited by lockmat
Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by OkieEric
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...