Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sky-guy

9/11 - Thirteen Years Later

Recommended Posts

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by democide

Share this post


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. 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

 

I've voted almost a Republican straight ticket ballot my entire life. Maybe a few independents, but never a democrat, so some might even call me a "far" right winger. Even defended Bush's administration at the time when no MWDs were found.

 

US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine I would venture to say is a staunch Republican, but I don't know that for a fact, I could be wrong.

 

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry said 9/11 was a 30 year conspiracy.

 

And I don't think this "truth" movement is a partisan movement. They pretty much think all of govt is corrupt. Is it not?

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration. However, to make that work, one of three things has to be true.

- They were hyper-competent and began working with the others on September 11th, and were feigning ignorance the rest of the time.

This would break the whole "Bush administration was incompetent" theory that was running at least in the 2005-2008 days, and would be giving the Bush administration a lot of credit. Or...

- They were aware of it but didn't/couldn't do anything to stop it and agreed to cover it up

OR

- They weren't aware of it at all

would tend to exonerate Cheney and Bush, especially that last one, the "why weren't they interrogated separately".

This is more complicated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which if that's a conspiracy would go far deeper back than the Bush (II) administration and put the blame on the Clinton administration for covering it up. Going forward, if there was a conspiracy, then the Obama administration is continuing to cover it up, or is incompetent and can't do a thing about it, which would put the blame on them as well.

At this point, one could claim that all of the Presidents are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system.

I don't know man, that Oprah shape shifting/lizard eye video is pretty convincing.

http://youtu.be/9BPWyS8Qctg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.

Just like the Minnesota I-35 bridge, only a few gussets were actually compromised, but the rest of the bridge failed because of its design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are not talking about large steal beams. We are talking about lightweight truss construction. Truss members are dependent on one another. If one element fails it can compromise the other parts and lead to failure of the entire span. Truss is built for light loads and only as strong as it's connectors. Once one floor gives way the floor under it is likely to fail with the additional weight.  

 

Do you know if all three buildings had the lightweight trusses?

 

If that applies to building 7, that still makes me wonder about the 100 foot free-fall speed, which NIST even says happened. I just can't see how that could happened if each floor is collapsing onto one another.

 

And then all the eyewitness testimony of explosions that weren't planes, what were those? There's video/audio evidence of it on youtube all over the place. There's even testimony of an explosion in the basement of one of the twin towers. I don't mean to detract from the truss question, I'm looking forward to that answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lockmat, have you checked out this site?  This guy does a pretty decent job debunking what the conspiracy folks have been saying - or at least were saying at the time.  It's a bit outdated so I'm sure the conspiracy folks have changed their tune, but he's got some good images showing the extent of the damage to south side of WTC 7

 

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

NIST addresses the free-fall question here about 1/3rd of the way down.  Unless you are a structural engineer or have a better understanding of the physics of this than these folks, I don't see why you would question their response

 

I did a quick youtube search regarding these phantom explosions that weren't planes, and all I see are nutcases trying to claim there were no planes, or trying to pass off a window blowing out as an explosion.  So if anything this tells me there are a lot of folks even more delusional about this whole thing than I thought

 

This whole thing makes me wonder - has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist changing his mind?  Unfortunately it seems to be a one-way street

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lockmat, have you checked out this site?  This guy does a pretty decent job debunking what the conspiracy folks have been saying - or at least were saying at the time.  It's a bit outdated so I'm sure the conspiracy folks have changed their tune, but he's got some good images showing the extent of the damage to south side of WTC 7

 

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

NIST addresses the free-fall question here about 1/3rd of the way down.  Unless you are a structural engineer or have a better understanding of the physics of this than these folks, I don't see why you would question their response

 

I did a quick youtube search regarding these phantom explosions that weren't planes, and all I see are nutcases trying to claim there were no planes, or trying to pass off a window blowing out as an explosion.  So if anything this tells me there are a lot of folks even more delusional about this whole thing than I thought

 

This whole thing makes me wonder - has there ever been a case of a conspiracy theorist changing his mind?  Unfortunately it seems to be a one-way street

 

Thanks Okie, actually, I have seen some of the videos from that website and I watched the freefalling one yesterday. If it's the same one I watched, it only address the twin towers, not building 7. But I'll double check.

 

I briefly read the NIST info the other day and will do so in more depth when I have more time. But if I remember right, the A&E group had some counter arguments to them.

 

Here is some explosion testimony that isn't from a nutcase. He was pronounced dead a few days before the NIST report on #7. Not saying they're related, but it is a coincidence. The beginning of the video is an interview he did the day of the event after he escaped #7, then it goes into an interview he did years later.

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly different topic, did anyone see 6 military helicopters fly over the Katy freeway, heading east towards downtown at around 1:50 pm?  They looked like Apache helicopters to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly different topic, did anyone see 6 military helicopters fly over the Katy freeway, heading east towards downtown at around 1:50 pm?  They looked like Apache helicopters to me.

 

Nope, but I remember a year or so ago seeing a military helicopter flying directly over 45N, heading north. It was weird and cool at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if all three buildings had the lightweight trusses?

 

If that applies to building 7, that still makes me wonder about the 100 foot free-fall speed, which NIST even says happened. I just can't see how that could happened if each floor is collapsing onto one another.

 

And then all the eyewitness testimony of explosions that weren't planes, what were those? There's video/audio evidence of it on youtube all over the place. There's even testimony of an explosion in the basement of one of the twin towers. I don't mean to detract from the truss question, I'm looking forward to that answer.

 

Lockmat, I honestly don't know if building 7 had truss construction and really don't have a good explanation why it collapsed. The Towers collapse are understandable, building 7 other then just plain shoddy construction should not have happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockmat, I honestly don't know if building 7 had truss construction and really don't have a good explanation why it collapsed. The Towers collapse are understandable, building 7 other then just plain shoddy construction should not have happened. 

 

I'll try to look into it and will report back.

 

7 was built in the late 80's I believe, that would be really disappointing if a building of such importance had shoddy construction. Who knows, guess it's possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the conspiracy theories were from people that really, really, hated the Bush administration...

 

Bush is a warmongering, unconstitutional murderer, but so is Obama.  Just today he announced that a drone strike killed an American and another hostage by accident.  It was an honest mistake and he was unaware of the strike.  How convenient for this proven liar and the rest of the liars in government to say they knew nothing, they remember nothing, they never thought it could happen, blah blah blah.  And it doesn't matter to the dumb American people sadly, because they believe that 9/11 changed everything.  It's all in the name of homeland security.  

 

Like I keep saying, they keep getting away with it even when caught murdering Americans.  This country is so screwed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally did not expect a response from Cherry Demolition after I asked them about WTC 7, but did!

 

They certainly didn't give the p.c. or a conclusive response. 

 

There are many differing thoughts and questions that surround the events of that day. Unfortunately, while it might look like it may have been, there is no way of knowing for sure without the investigation reports what exactly happened in building 7's collapse. However, our hearts and prayers continue to go out to all of us who lost loved ones in the events of that day and in the aftermath of the war that followed. God bless America and God bless our troops.

 

 

 

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess since I was watching thos CIA videos about 9/11, youtube thought I wanted to watch CIA videos, so this one popped up when I logged in the other day and I watched it. 

 

It's about a lady, who I don't even know if she is a 9/11 whistleblower or a whistleblower at all, but apparently she has a book out that details her time as a spy in the CIA.

 

So this guy, who I've seen in passing on youtube before is interviewing her. The topic is not 9/11 or whether it was an inside job. But she was talking about why she quit the agency and I was not expecting this at all, but what she said definitely makes you wonder even more (read below). And just note, the interviewer doesn't go into, "so you think it was an inside job" etc. No, he doesn't go that route.

 

I'm not saying this is proof it was an inside job. But it just gives more fuel to the fire to make you wonder.

 

Anyway, here is the quote. If you want to watch her say it, start watching at the 30 minute mark.

 

 

Every day I was reading in the Washington Post and hearing the members of the administration say that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was linked with Al Quida and then I would go into work at the CIA where I was working with people who this was their area of expertise, and to a person they said we have no evidence of WMDs, there’s no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was kind of the straw that broke the camels back for me in terms of disillusionment with the agency.

And I wasn’t there for a particular conversation but it was recorded to me by a colleague who worked in the counterproliferation division that a manager gathered his group together of about 20-30 CIA people and said, “Look let’s face it, the president wants to go to war and our job is to give him a reason to do so.” This was kind of shocking to me because thats not the job of the CIA or certainly not the job of theCIA as I saw it. That’s not what I signed up for. I wanted to serve my country. And I became aware that I was not serving my country, I was serving this organization. And the organization was not serving the country. It was serving the wishes at that time of the administration.

 

 

Edited by lockmat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it's obvious to most people that oil was the motivating factor behind the War on Terror, but these 9/11 pseudo-conspiracies are not only reaching, they're insulting to the victims and families of the victims. Yeah, I get it, you want to know the truth, but at some point, it becomes a matter of people only accepting what they want to hear. Do the families of those who were killed really need to be reminded of what might've or might not have happened? This kinda crap isn't letting them move on...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are actually many family members questioning the official story. You can see a few of them in the Press for Truth documentary. 

 

On to my main point...

 

The only way we know box cutters were used on Flight 93 was because Barbara Olsen, former CNN commentator who was on that flight called her husband Ted Olsen, Solicitor General of the U.S., from a cell phone and told him that. The govt changed their story on her so many times. They even changed it and said she didn't call from her cell, she did it from the seat-back phone. Then 911 truthers found out that the plane didn't have seat-back phones. And then they changed it to say she didn't even talk to her husband. So either the govt is lying, or Ted is lying.

 

Also, there's another cell phone story that's way too complicated to type out, but essentially they tried saying cell phone calls weren't actually used, but a woman who was called by her husband from that flight said it was her husband's cell phone because she saw it on the caller id. There's more to that story, but that's the gist. The govt changed their story to accommodate that, too.

 

The reason they changed their stories in the first place was because it was impossible for cell phones to work at the altitude they said they were made at.

 

Here's a snippet of David Griffin explaining it much better and thoroughly than I did. If you want good 9/11 truth movement info, he seems to be the best resource.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it's obvious to most people that oil was the motivating factor behind the War on Terror, but these 9/11 pseudo-conspiracies are not only reaching, they're insulting to the victims and families of the victims. Yeah, I get it, you want to know the truth, but at some point, it becomes a matter of people only accepting what they want to hear. Do the families of those who were killed really need to be reminded of what might've or might not have happened? This kinda crap isn't letting them move on...

Big where's the source on oil? If we had taken control of any middle eastern oil, Houston would have boomed since 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 500 NYFD firemen were open endedly asked to give their account of what happened on 9/11. 

 

118 of them reported hearing explosives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

 

Osama Bin Laden was not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks.

 

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 500 NYFD firemen were open endedly asked to give their account of what happened on 9/11. 

 

118 of them reported hearing explosives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

That doesn't "prove" anything. Nothing the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before and certainly not to the firefighters (not around, when, say Pearl Harbor happened) and it would make sense that some of them thought they heard explosives. I believe that there is some stuff the government's not telling us, but not anything particularly juicy (side note: about 5,000,000 pages of documents related to the Kennedy assassination are available, many electronically, and yet there's STILL all sorts of talk about it) that will change everything that we thought we knew about 9/11. If there was a conspiracy, any talking head that claims there's an inconsistency (like people shown in the links above), they'd be locked up, like Manning or (in theory) Snowden, and neither of them had anything about 9/11. Furthermore, during the 9/11 cleanup, if there was controlled explosives in WTC7, they would've probably found evidence, not to mention any reports of workers in WTC7 noticing crews doing some "rewiring", or something like that.

For every question raised about 9/11, there's more questions raised back, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't "prove" anything. Nothing the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before and certainly not to the firefighters (not around, when, say Pearl Harbor happened) and it would make sense that some of them thought they heard explosives. I believe that there is some stuff the government's not telling us, but not anything particularly juicy (side note: about 5,000,000 pages of documents related to the Kennedy assassination are available, many electronically, and yet there's STILL all sorts of talk about it) that will change everything that we thought we knew about 9/11. If there was a conspiracy, any talking head that claims there's an inconsistency (like people shown in the links above), they'd be locked up, like Manning or (in theory) Snowden, and neither of them had anything about 9/11. Furthermore, during the 9/11 cleanup, if there was controlled explosives in WTC7, they would've probably found evidence, not to mention any reports of workers in WTC7 noticing crews doing some "rewiring", or something like that.

For every question raised about 9/11, there's more questions raised back, really.

 

What you're suggesting are assumptions. I'm simply providing facts. I'm not saying the firemen's testimonies are absolute truth explosives were used to bring down the buildings. It's just supporting evidence from credible sources. There are non-rescue personnel who also heard explosions, too.

 

And there actually is evidence explosives were used. When I get time I'll provide it.

 

Here is just a sample of explosions heard.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're suggesting are assumptions. I'm simply providing facts.

Are you kidding me? Admittedly, the whole "well, they must have been mistaken" is kind of an assumption, but a 9/11 doubter shouldn't be lecturing others on assumptions, since 9/11 theories rely on a lot of guesswork. Also, "explosions" and "explosives" are not the same thing, but I'm going to assume you're not stupid and actually already know that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? Admittedly, the whole "well, they must have been mistaken" is kind of an assumption, but a 9/11 doubter shouldn't be lecturing others on assumptions, since 9/11 theories rely on a lot of guesswork. Also, "explosions" and "explosives" are not the same thing, but I'm going to assume you're not stupid and actually already know that.

Forgive me if my statement came across cold, that was not my intention. I was simply stating the situation.

To elaborate, suggesting talking heads would be locked up for speaking out or eyewitnesses seeing people wire up a building is not factual.

The majority of what I have been reporting are simply facts. I've speculated with caution when people have asked "why" and for the most part I believe those were my only non-factual statements. Reports of firemen hearing explosions is fact. Videos of sounds of explosions and the FBI not naming 9/11 as one of his crimes are too.

These are simply evidences to connect the dots. And it's only a fraction of the available facts.

Also, it is possible to set off explosives wirelessly. And there is evidence of thermite. Evidence that there was something that made the fire hotter than an office fire or jet fuel could have made it.

I'm simply trying to share factual evidence for all to see. There are way too many to share in a few posts and they get somewhat complicated too. David Ray Griffin is probably the best source on YouTube, but most people don't have the time or want to take the time to investigate it in depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that I have had my question of motivation unsatisfactorily answered  :P

 

I think the real crux of the discussion is around the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.

 

I'm going to skip around a little, but before I really jump in, I do think that some of the gifs I've seen on imgur and other places for this meme are brilliant.

 

Wood generally burns at a certain temperature, aluminum doesn't melt anywhere near that temperature, however, toss an aluminum can into a wood fire, and watch it become brittle and weak, crumbling with a gentle tap from a twig (trust me, I was a boy scout and did extensive investigation into this phenomenon. Of course, at the time I didn't know what the temp of the fire was, or the temp that aluminum melted at.

 

I also learned during summer camp that there are 3 things necessary for fire. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. If you only have two of these, you don't have fire. One peculiar thing about fire is, if you add oxygen the fuel will be consumed quicker, and the fire will be hotter. Think of the ren fair, when you go to the blacksmith, there's some poor soul working something called the 'bellows' what he's doing is injecting oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature.

 

I finally learned, when I spent time learning how to work on cars, and eventually doing some shade tree make cars go faster stuff, that there's this thing called stoichiometry, for all types of fuel. what it is is, the optimum ratio of oxygen and fuel to burn completely. for gasoline, this ratio is 14.7:1, 14.7 parts air to 1 part gasoline. Now, the interesting thing is, you can adjust this ratio and change the way that things perform, the speed with which all of the fuel burns, the temperature at which it burns, etc. So the amount of air and fuel mixed together is very important to keeping things from going bad, real bad. 

 

Now, I know wikipedia states that jet fuel burns at a specific temperature, but I'm here to tell you, jet fuel burns at a specific temperature in a specific environment, that environment being the confines of a jet engine where the amount of oxygen, jet fuel and heat are regulated constantly by sensors that are monitoring, injectors that are metering fuel, and actuators that are adjusting the amount of air let into the engine, etc.

 

Take that jet fuel out of that environment and you can do whatever you want with it. If anyone is in the Houston area and wants to conduct an experiment, I'm down, you'll need to provide the jet fuel and a flir camera (to record the temps) and a safe place to play conduct the experiment. Basically, we'll take some stuff that would be in an office, particle board furniture, drywall, plastic, carpet and other stuff. soak it all in jet fuel and let it burn. then we'll do the same thing only blowing air into the fire. record the results with the flir camera from both. if we're lucky, we can even cook some burgers and brats. 

 

I'm here to tell you though, the results will be thus:

 

1. burning crap with no oxygen injected will burn, but it won't be as hot as wikipedia says that jet fuel will be when it burns

2. once we start blowing on it, it will burn fast and hot, if we can get enough air into it, it will burn hotter than wikipedia says that jet fuel will burn at.

3. the burgers will taste like crap, and probably give us cancer if we cook them over our experiment fire

 

I'm so confident in this, I'm willing to pay for the burgers myself if all 3 of these results aren't spot on.

 

I'm actually surprised that Myth Busters hasn't done an episode on this yet (or maybe I just haven't seen it).

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that I have had my question of motivation unsatisfactorily answered  :P

 

I think the real crux of the discussion is around the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.

 

I'm going to skip around a little, but before I really jump in, I do think that some of the gifs I've seen on imgur and other places for this meme are brilliant.

 

Wood generally burns at a certain temperature, aluminum doesn't melt anywhere near that temperature, however, toss an aluminum can into a wood fire, and watch it become brittle and weak, crumbling with a gentle tap from a twig (trust me, I was a boy scout and did extensive investigation into this phenomenon. Of course, at the time I didn't know what the temp of the fire was, or the temp that aluminum melted at.

 

I also learned during summer camp that there are 3 things necessary for fire. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. If you only have two of these, you don't have fire. One peculiar thing about fire is, if you add oxygen the fuel will be consumed quicker, and the fire will be hotter. Think of the ren fair, when you go to the blacksmith, there's some poor soul working something called the 'bellows' what he's doing is injecting oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature.

 

I finally learned, when I spent time learning how to work on cars, and eventually doing some shade tree make cars go faster stuff, that there's this thing called stoichiometry, for all types of fuel. what it is is, the optimum ratio of oxygen and fuel to burn completely. for gasoline, this ratio is 14.7:1, 14.7 parts air to 1 part gasoline. Now, the interesting thing is, you can adjust this ratio and change the way that things perform, the speed with which all of the fuel burns, the temperature at which it burns, etc. So the amount of air and fuel mixed together is very important to keeping things from going bad, real bad. 

 

Now, I know wikipedia states that jet fuel burns at a specific temperature, but I'm here to tell you, jet fuel burns at a specific temperature in a specific environment, that environment being the confines of a jet engine where the amount of oxygen, jet fuel and heat are regulated constantly by sensors that are monitoring, injectors that are metering fuel, and actuators that are adjusting the amount of air let into the engine, etc.

 

Take that jet fuel out of that environment and you can do whatever you want with it. If anyone is in the Houston area and wants to conduct an experiment, I'm down, you'll need to provide the jet fuel and a flir camera (to record the temps) and a safe place to play conduct the experiment. Basically, we'll take some stuff that would be in an office, particle board furniture, drywall, plastic, carpet and other stuff. soak it all in jet fuel and let it burn. then we'll do the same thing only blowing air into the fire. record the results with the flir camera from both. if we're lucky, we can even cook some burgers and brats. 

 

I'm here to tell you though, the results will be thus:

 

1. burning crap with no oxygen injected will burn, but it won't be as hot as wikipedia says that jet fuel will be when it burns

2. once we start blowing on it, it will burn fast and hot, if we can get enough air into it, it will burn hotter than wikipedia says that jet fuel will burn at.

3. the burgers will taste like crap, and probably give us cancer if we cook them over our experiment fire

 

I'm so confident in this, I'm willing to pay for the burgers myself if all 3 of these results aren't spot on.

 

I'm actually surprised that Myth Busters hasn't done an episode on this yet (or maybe I just haven't seen it).

 

My logical compass must be off on this because it seems like your conclusion supports the case that jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to burn the steel of the building. Especially since the office area would have mostly been starved of oxygen. Maybe I need more 'splaining.

 

Onto some other evidence.

 

The terrorist who was said to fly into the pentagon has had some very interesting information reported about him. There is ample evidence he was, at best, an average pilot. Most accounts say he was not. Yet, the maneuver he supposedly did to turn into and eventually hit the pentagon was something only an excellent pilot could have pulled off, admitted by pilots, experts and military personnel. It just doesn't seem plausible that he was capable of pulling this maneuver since he was, bluntly, a bad pilot.

 

For a timeline of evidence of his skills and what those had to say about the maneuver he had to pull off to hit the pentagon, read the account provided at the link below. The forum post that gives the description was to show that the "screw loose change" arguments (in red text) against the documentary "loose change" did not truly "debunk" the documentary as it had proposed.

 

Be prepared to have your socks knocked off:

 

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, I had to delete the map because I found it to be outdated, although from what I understand so far it was still a loop that was made, just not that exact route. The other comment I deleted was associated with it. The comment left is still legitimate and verifiable.

 

 

Dulles Air Traffic Controllers thought it was a military plane.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far all I've seen from you are "he-said she-said" from all of this supposed "professional accounts"

Im beginning to see get that you will back up any loosely based piece of "evidence" in order to prove your supremely minority opinion.

Believ what you want man, but you can't get mad when I say this is the stupidest fvking thread on this forum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My logical compass must be off on this because it seems like your conclusion supports the case that jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to burn the steel of the building. Especially since the office area would have mostly been starved of oxygen. Maybe I need more 'splaining.

 

exactly the opposite, there would be ample oxygen hitting the flames. look at pictures of the towers, the smoke was nearly horizontal, which would indicate a lot of wind blowing, which would indicate a lot of oxygen was being cycled into those buildings through the gaping holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly the opposite, there would be ample oxygen hitting the flames. look at pictures of the towers, the smoke was nearly horizontal, which would indicate a lot of wind blowing, which would indicate a lot of oxygen was being cycled into those buildings through the gaping holes.

Yeah. If you were INSIDE the towers when the fires began, you might have died from lack of oxygen before being burned alive, but since everyone above perished and their bodies burned in the ensuing catastrophe, that's just a hypothesis. However, other fires have shown that to be the case (dying before burning).

For the fire itself, though, it did suck air out of the atmosphere to continue burning. The whole "oxygen/fuel/heat" triangle is the same reason a candle burns on a wick continually but stop once you put the lid back on (or put glass over it), or why it's best to leave the door closed when something in the toaster oven catches fire. Or why house fires will continue to burn until it gets put out by the fire department (or until the house reaches the foundation, that's when "fuel" disappears). This is another reason why the fires at 9/11 were more than any other tall building fire, there's a huge gaping hole for oxygen to be sucked into and make the fire even bigger. I know that doesn't answer a whole lot of questions for WTC7, but that at least is the physics behind the Twin Towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that doesn't answer a whole lot of questions for WTC7, but that at least is the physics behind the Twin Towers.

 

WTC 7 is the biggest smoking gun and to believe the false narrative that ordinary office fires resulted in a total, virtual free fall collapse (like we saw with the Houston Club building) of a steel frame building is the biggest joke of them all.

 

I'll repeat it again, the 1993 WTC attacks were planned and carried out with the help of the FBI!!!  The defense of the patsy terrorists were denied the evidence of the FBI's involvement!!!  And the FBI scum had the nerve to express remorse not because they killed 6 people, but because it was very few people!!!!  And they expressed the same sentiment after 9/11!!!  FBI officials were saying we need another 9/11!!!  Look at the video below to see what I mean. 

 

 

This is the mindset of some in the FBI and in other agencies, they understand that without a 9/11 or "Pearl Harbor" style attack were many people get killed, the things that they want will never get accomplished.  Because of this false flag, things like the unconstitutional Patriot Act got passed to fight terrorism.  Now it's used against the citizenry which was the intent all along!  They spy on everyone, they go beyond collecting metadata, they know everything about everyone, they can blackmail people if they wish, but I'm suppose to believe that it's all for our security. Ha ha ha!

 

We are less safe, we are less free, we're bankrupt, war is breaking out everywhere (as the military-industrial complex wanted) and terrorists are killing people all over.  Speaking of being bankrupt, the Federal Reserve won't even raise interest rates, and they won't even hint as to when they will.  Could it be that they never will and instead will impose negative interest rates?  Anyways, expect more deadlier attacks like a dirty bomb going off, I mean there's already drills practicing that scenario.  And when it happens, I predict another stand-down because like in 1993, you can't force intel agents to do the right thing and save lives!  Ha ha ha, this is just too damn funny! 

 

We already have terrorists in the country (yup, we know who they are but won't do anything to stop them), we have nukes going missing, and the northern & southern borders are wide open.  The war on terrorism is like the war on poverty (government policies reward poverty with the welfare state and punish productivity with taxes), or the war on drugs (government bring drugs into the country from places like Afghanistan, they profit from it, and lock people up for a long time just for using them).  It's a war where both sides are managed by the feds, and is a weapon used against us; enough already!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. If you were INSIDE the towers when the fires began, you might have died from lack of oxygen before being burned alive, but since everyone above perished and their bodies burned in the ensuing catastrophe, that's just a hypothesis. However, other fires have shown that to be the case (dying before burning).

For the fire itself, though, it did suck air out of the atmosphere to continue burning. The whole "oxygen/fuel/heat" triangle is the same reason a candle burns on a wick continually but stop once you put the lid back on (or put glass over it), or why it's best to leave the door closed when something in the toaster oven catches fire. Or why house fires will continue to burn until it gets put out by the fire department (or until the house reaches the foundation, that's when "fuel" disappears). This is another reason why the fires at 9/11 were more than any other tall building fire, there's a huge gaping hole for oxygen to be sucked into and make the fire even bigger. I know that doesn't answer a whole lot of questions for WTC7, but that at least is the physics behind the Twin Towers.

 

I don't know exactly what floor they were on, but some people who were trapped were alive up to the point of collapse. Below is probably the most infamous example because it's a man talking to an operator as the tower begins to collapse. Discretion advised, can be disturbing

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI basically assisting people to commit crimes only to arrest them has been going on for a long time. Here is a great example

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/the-convert

 

Then there is Operation Northwoods, which after hearing about it for the first several times, I didn't really research it, and I could not get through my mental wall that it could be true. Well, it was.

 

David Ray Griffin talks about most Americans having what he calls, "National Faith." A faith that our government could not commit treason or do things like this against us. Maybe we do in small things or in local instances like police. But elected officials at the federal level or agencies like the FBI/CIA, people cannot fathom it. They have too much faith in their govt. He even says people have more national faith than they do in their religious faith, which I'm sure in many instances is true.

 

Here is a ABC News article about Operation Northwoods:

 

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former CIA person in charge of finding bin Laden said the Clinton administration had 8-10 chances to capture or kill him. My question is, why didn't they? Once again, I'm not saying this is proof positive 9/11 was inside job, I haven't heard Mr. Scheuer say that so he probably doesn't believe it, but it still makes me wonder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pointing out, Fox News is run by a man with an agenda, who also authorized the secret illegal tapings of phones in Britain...

 

I won't deny that. But Michael Scheuer does not work for Fox and I've seen him say it multiple times in different interviews and speaking events. This just happened to be the shortest video with him making that statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former CIA person in charge of finding bin Laden said the Clinton administration had 8-10 chances to capture or kill him. My question is, why didn't they? Once again, I'm not saying this is proof positive 9/11 was inside job, I haven't heard Mr. Scheuer say that so he probably doesn't believe it, but it still makes me wonder.

Personal anti-Clinton bias here, but I do believe that Clinton did blow his chance to prevent 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal anti-Clinton bias here, but I do believe that Clinton did blow his chance to prevent 9/11.

 

Yep, I would say not doing anything about it ten times would qualify as blowing it. I would love to hear his answers why. I can't imagine any of them being legitimate though.

 

And I hope people realize this is not a partisan issue.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...