Quote from Boris Lozac :

That is disturbing... (bloody work, can't watch any video from here!)

It sure is. It's also disturbing to note that he(Secretary Mineta) is giving his statement to the Commissioners investigating 9/11.

Quote from SamH :

You "believers" would never let facts cloud your conspiracies and it's quite clear that that will always be the case. There's only so much I can bear to deal with irrational people, so I will just leave you with your paranoias and hope for your sake they don't eat you alive.

Sam, you think we live and breathe this? Lmao, I hadn't thought about this in a long time untill I saw something in this thread I had to comment on, now I'm chin deep in it.

But don't think I'm sitting here shitting it and constantly online investigating conspiracies. This is something which doesn't fit together. I'm just pointing out things that do not add up. They don't. There's too many crazy things that happened on 9/11 and only on 9/11, that make it impossible to believe what the officials say.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:29.

Did I mention shoot down anything? They should have first, at least, gone to investigate. Then, if they found out it was terrorists, try to direct him away from populated areas and try start negotiations. Obviously they want to capture them and save the passengers.

And they did know where it was heading, listen to Secretary Minetas statement. Dick Cheney knew where the plane was heading.

Quote from durbster :

...Similarly, the US Government don't employ a team of people at each government site that sit and watch a radar 24 hours a day, just in case, one day, there's some sort of air attack on the white house during peace time.

They don't, you're right. They have a team that watches the whole of the United States air space 24hrs a day. http://www.norad.mil/ Anyway, they obviously knew the plane was coming, according to Secretary Minetas statement on C-SPAN http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7005882592257086628

Just want to add something for those who think that this is a massive operation that couldn't have been done by the US government. Have a read of this pdf, you can read it all if you like but the good stuff starts on page 7 of the document, or page 10 of the pdf. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf Please note the date on the first page.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:32.

Quote from SamH :

What a load of complete tripe. I'm not being selective about the images I refer to. You only need to refer to ONE photo of the entire building burning to expose the "few small fires" lie. I've done it repeatedly, with many photos. The liars only refer to one photo, from the side of the building that appears on the face of it to fit with their story, but it only fits with their story if you don't look at ALL the photos that you CAN see of WTC7.

With many photos yeah? Where are they? I only see smokey images from you, not one with fire. I have seen fires in WTC7 but not, and nowhere near, the fires you suggest.

Quote :

Bull SHIT. If you knew even a fraction about what you pretend you do, you'd know that the Pentagon, the Washington Memorial, The Capitol, the Whitehouse and the Lincoln Memorial are all within spitting distance of the flight path into Reagan a/p, formerly Washington National a/p. It's practically in the middle of Washington DC. I've flown in and out of there loads, and you can see ALL the landmarks from the plane as you come in and leave. You're so close to them you feel like you could touch them.

Wtf, mad to just jump in. Is it not obvious that a normal passenger jet on it's normal flight path can go through this airspace. The hijacked jet was not on it's flight path and air traffic controllers knew it was off course, with a turned off transponder, so why not intercept? I obviously knew there was an airport in Washington, please give me some credit and not try to f'king belittle me at every chance you get. There's also an air force base within spitting distance of the Pentagon too, so why no scrambled jets from there? I doubt the place was empty...

Quote :

Is it YOUR idea to claim that it's difficult to get into that airspace, or are you just repeating some other bullshit story you've heard tell?

Stop stating bullshit as if it were fact.

They are f'king facts. An aircraft which is off course and known to be for some time will not fly freely in Washington airspace, fact or fiction???? An air craft with no responding transponder will not fly freely in Washington air space, fact or fiction??? Now please stop with your bullshit man, obviously trying real, real hard to do your thing there. Jumping on me like I have no clue what I'm on about, I obviously do so give some credit. I never attack you like you do me, so a bit of respect would be appreciated.

Had to come back to point this out...

Quote from SamH :

It has been repeated many times in this thread...

I like the way you left out the image you first showed us because it doesn't fit with your story.... The first and last images in this post are similar to it but at such an angle you can't actually tell what floors the fires are on. Now in this image you can clearly see through the smoke and could almost tell exactly what floors the fires are on. So, who's the one trying to lead people here? Why not use that other image? Because you know it's questionable what floors the fires were on.

Another question, if you don't mind. Why, if, as you suggest, every floor is a blaze, do we only see fire damage on a few floors at the side of the building and no flames in any picture?

Quote from durbster :

Which part of it was complex?

Getting into Washington airspace is no easy task. Transponders on or not, they'd be picked up on radar at NORAD and intercepted. So that must have been a complex task by itself. If of course it was the terrorists and not a "friendly" aircraft.

Quote from wsinda :

Dude, I honestly hope that you wrote this in a euphoric state. Or that you were joking. Because if you always think like that, your mind is bordering on the paranoid, and you should look for help.

I'm leaving this discussion. I hate to think that this is driving you over the edge.

lol I was just mentioning some groups I've heard about over the years showing that organisations, or whatever, can be kept secret without the knowledge of the "masses". Anyway, moving on...

Quote from Jertje :

First off: $3-4 million is really nothing for buildings of that size - certainly not profit - and printing money whenever you 'want some'? Surely you must be joking now. Printing new money doesn't put more money into the system, it just decreases the value instead; you can't "make" new money out of nowhere like that.

Well, I actually got my figures wrong, as Boris showed. It's actually in the billions. You think the US Federal Reserve isn't just printing money? They are flooding the US economy with money, that's why the Dollar is loosing power. Don't believe me? Watch "America: freedom to fascism" by Aaron Russo, it's on the web. The Federal Reserve isn't even owned by the US government, the government have to get loans from them. It's also the Fed. who are buying/saving all the companies from bankruptcy. Not the government....

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

No, you wouldn't see the building slowly lean or anything. The fact that you say that is proof that you simply don't understand how load-bearing structures cope with abnormal stress. What happens as parts start to fail, is others take the added load. They don't get compressed, or flex when that happens - usually - and as a result, the structure doesn't show signs of what is going on. A great example would be, again, an airplane.

You say all this, "you wouldn't see the building slowly lean" but where's your evidence for that? How can you say that about something you can't actually prove? If you can, fair enough I'm willing to see it, but don't, as SamH did, use the towers as evidence because there's too much speculation about how they fell to use them as evidence.

Quote :

Metal fatigue is a term given to the wear and tear that metal undergoes during routine aircraft operation. Vibrations from lift and everything else that an aircraft encounters translate into microscopic cracks in the metal (picture bending a paper clip back and forth repeatedly). Gradually, what is happening to, say, the wing of the airplane is that, at a molecular level, the support structure is breaking down. Eventually, you get to the point where the pilot tries to do something that he's done many times prior, and the wing snaps off, and the plane crashes. Why don't they ground the plane and replace the wing before this happens? Because it takes an extensive amount of testing to see what the wear level is. You can't simply look at the wing and notice it is sagging. The same goes for these buildings. Does that help?

I understand your explanation there about the planes wings, but can you show me an example of a wing just, unexpectidly, falling off a plane? I'll look for it myself too. It doesn't seem like a good example, to me anyway, with my "conspiratorial" brain..... There you are talking about prolonged metal fatigue, the towers only burned for under an hour, lets say it took 20-25mins(wild guess) to heat the steel to where it actually starts to sag/fail and trusses(supposidley) begin to snap the "small bolts". It seems to me to be a very small time frame, when compared to other steel frame buildings which burned for hours and only some small sections of the upper floors actually failed and fell OFF the building.

Quote from SamH :

...and you'd stop chasing this cloud of aluminium foil called ae911truth.

Can't believe you, with all your education and qualifications in this field would actually dismiss some truely qualified individuals... it's amazing....

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:21.

Quote from Juls :

- how much explosive is required to pull down such a building? Professional demolition engineers say 150 tons per tower, tens thousands holes, tens kilometers wires per tower. How did they install this in the towers without anyone noticing?

150 tons per tower? 10,000 hol ... heard of cutter charges? Wires? Ever heard of radio controlled/wireless? Did you know that "Ace El ... e 9 months prior to 9/11?

Quote :

- how many people are required to do the task? From the same people, hundreds...why none of them was ever noticed? Why none of them ever broke the secret?

Well secrets are easily kept from the masses, we've gone through that. There wouldn't actually have to be that many people involved. A few workers, over the 9 months Ace Elevators were there, could easily have time to rig the building. A few to control the events of that day, 10-20. Not that many at all.

Quote :

- why did they demolish the WTC 1 and 2 from top to bottom, and the WTC 7 from bottom to top?

Eh, isn't it obvious? The planes hit the tops of the towers, they'd hardly do a "normal" demolition on the towers.

Quote :

- why did they decide to make the top of the tower fall differently in WTC1 and 2? How did they precisely know how to place the explosives to make the top tilt toward the most damaged part in such a natural way? What an incredible scenario! It required to know long time before precisely how the plane would hit the tower, and place more explosives on that side to make the top floors collapse in that direction. Just for the sake of realism? If they had demolished the towers, don't you think they would have chosen a less risky approach, with both towers being demolished vertically....instead of making one tower tilt to add more "variety"?

I believe whoever was in control that day was obviously watching the events as it unfolded, so it didn't actual have to be known in advance where the planes would hit, just watch where the hit and start from there.

Quote :

- what was the goal? Two planes in the WTC+Pentagon was already a strong enough terrorist attack to justify Afghanistan war. Destroying entirely the WTC caused some large unnecessary financial problems and a worldwide economic slowdown. Stupid to harm their economic power if they planned to finance a war.

Well see, if you actually did some research you would know that the towers were due for a huge revamp because they were full of asbestos which hasd to be removed. Using them as part of a terrorist attack was financially cheaper, plus Larry Silverstein was in for a big payout if it was a terrorist attack, since that's what his insurance covered him for. And just if you didn't know, he tried to claim each tower was a seperate terrorist attack and wanted to claim $7mil, I think he ended up getting 3 or 4mil. Not really stupid to, in your eyes, harm their economic power because they have the Fedral Reserve who prints money whenever the US government want some, so money isn't an issue with these lads.

Quote :

Conspiracy is absurd. Because of what it implies. I think about the famous "Protocol of Elders of Zion", a propaganda document forged more than one century ago, describing a worldwide conspiracy led by jews to dominate the world. Same problem....it was absurb because of everything it implied...million people involved, total secret, world scale intervention without any witness, harmful for jews...etc.

And this protocol is still broadly used as a valid source of information precisely in countries where guys like Thierry Meyssan are hired to spread their theories. In these countries, things are easier because of illiteracy, strong influence of religion, autoritarism needing an external enemy to focus people rage, scarce access to information. These theories do not look absurd in such environment.

But in western countries, they do. Almost forgot...this protocol announced 100 years ago that jews would cause tragedies killing thousands citizens in order to start wars. Same good old record playing again...

So tell me this, do you know any secrets about the Committee of 300? The Order of the Garter? The Knights of Malta? The Club of Rome? How about the Bilderberg Group? Or the Trilateral Commission, or even the Council of Foreign Relations? Tell me, do you know these groups and what they are up to? They have alot of influential powers and nobody seems to even know they exist. It's easy to keep secrets from the public, no matter how many people we think are involved, there will always be major things being controlled that we do not know who is behind it. Don't be foolish enough to think that your local, even national or international, news is there to tell you everything which is going on in the world. They are there to tell you what the "powers that be"(ie the aforementioned groups) want you to know. Why do you think all businesses are being bought out by the big guns? They're all merging into massive corporations so they'll end up controlling everything. That's their "big idea" anyway... A moto they're very fond of - "Ordo Ab Chao" = "Order out of Chaos"

Quote from tristancliffe :

...stuff...

I seriously cannot believe that you, with all that education and knowledge, look at those collapses and think, "Yeah, that's supposed to go like that", I just can't believe it....

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

...more stuff...

Ok...

The fire was never hot enough and was beginning to burnt out, ask any NIST official, or just read their documents about the tests done on the pieces of metal, which they selected for testing themselves.

"Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses." - Would we not see, if this was infact the case, signs of this on the exterior of the building? Would we not see the tower leaning to the side in which this support structure "gradually" failed on? There was nothing gradual in these collapses, the only thing which we can all be certain on was the gradual spreading of fire throughout the damaged floors. Anything else that happened gradually would have been visible from the exterior. Like, trusses failing and the exterior walls buckling out/in, core gradually failing would lead to the tower leaning to the weakest point.

I don't know lads, you 2 are, or atleast claim to be , more educated than me but yet you can't see what I see in the collapses. I don't think I've been led astray, I don't think I'm an easily led person. Nor do I think that there's a conspiracy in everything, like some people have suggested. The only people who I have actually talked to face to face about this and who don't agree with me, is my family, well not all but the majority of them disagree. Everyone else I show this to, friends, friends of friends, all see what I see, even though up until that point they believed terrorists did it all.


@Mazz - That's a cool image I have it a while now, it's 9300x9300 pixels, so it shows the whole WTC complex in great detail. Anyway, just want to clear up the name thing. U4IK ST8 = Euphoric State

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:15.

Ok, so show me where you get this information from? Because I'm sure that not only I, but many other people looking into this would like to see it.

If you look at the second tower to fall, there is no way that it gradually failed. The section falling halved in sized in the first few seconds, explain that to me please.

Watch it for yourself - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=364&hires=1

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Ohhhh my god. I PROMISE that I will completely destroy your response after my physics test...

...that is all

That's funny because not one part of the official story, or any investigation btw, can destroy the statements made by the people I linked to, none. So, I'm very interested in hearing your response.

You go on like you know it all when actually, the investigations you base your theory on have been proven to be incomplete, so your arguements can't actually prove anything else, other than what the investigations have already shown. There'll be no new info from your next post, I can guarantee it.

@th84 - I never promised anything...

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:28.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Physics test in less than 3 hours so I'm just gonna comment on this.

The trusses did NOT have to fail simultaneously for the building to collapse as it did. The trusses failed one at a time over the course of the burning process. When enough of them had failed, there were not enough trusses left to keep the outer skeleton from bowing outward/inward, and that's when the whole thing went kerplop. So yeah - wrong about that one.

That is rediculous. I seriously cannot believe you truely believe what you are saying there, honestly...

Show me proof of this outward/inward bowing because all I've seen on this is an attempt to show it through a computer program, which can easily be manipulted to get the results you want. A computer generated animation which FAILED to show ANY core columns in it's animation/test. And it's impossible, yes impossible, that one truss at a time failed when it can clearly be seen that there was simultanious failure of the entire floor space, over multiple floors, so there's another blatant lie. I don't know where you are getting this information from but it is clearly flawed.

Nice, you study physics and you can clearly understand that a 110 storey building can be crushed/pulverised by a ~20% portion of itself? Amazing.... Read what the second structural engineer has to say in my previous post. And he is alot more qualified to speak on this than you OR I, OR your tutor for that matter.

Ok, I know you all knew I wouldn't totally leave this thread, but anyway. I'm also not going to get dragged into tit for tat shit saying you lads stupid, or you are all idiots.

Moving on....
----

All investigations into the collapses were not thorough and precise in their efforts to find exactly what happen all WTC buildings. That's a fact...

There are too many unexplainable incidents on 9/11 for anyone to just take the official word for what happened, if you find a thorough investigation, which explains exactly what happened to each floor, please show me, I'd like to read it.

Next, people here have stated things about physics and saying I have no clue. Fair enough, do you think these people have no clue too?

• President of the New Mexico In ... f Mining & Technology
  
• Demolitions Expert
  
• Structural Engineer
  
• Another Structural Engineer
  
  
• And another Structural Engineer
  
• Fire Protection Engineer
  
• Another Fire Protection Engineer
  
• FEMA Study Team Member and Structural Expert
  
• FEMAs Structural Engineer
  

So, I'd also like to say that I based my ideas on the comments from EXPERTS who have done more tests than the "official investigations" have so how any of you can dismiss what I say I find it hard to understand. And SamH, but he's not the only one, kept saying that he doesn't have to prove anything because he's the one with the proof and I've to prove him wrong(something about double negatives or something), but actually I think you do need to prove it because.... if the investigations you are basing your story on are not indept and have not look at every possiblity then how can you, without a doubt, say I'm the one who need to prove anything. NIST haven't even looked for explosive residue and you said there are hundreds, which is obviously a blatant lie.

And next, these trusses, man... I can't understand your logic on this. Lets look at the 2nd tower to go, every single "truss", at every single point over the few floors at the impact zone had to fail within a split second of each other for it to collapse like it did. Also, if you watch it, the crushing piece(the top ~15 floors) reduces itself by HALF within the first few seconds. That is IMPOSSIBLE in a heat enduced, gravitational collapse. (First of all, the fires were not spread out that much on that many floors and second, the fires were not hot enough across that many floors to make them fail simultainiuosly)There's a statement, somebody prove me wrong, please.

Hmmm... ok. I just popped back quickly to see any responses and well, the responses are clear. I'm not taking this insulting attitude any more, I'll believe what I know is right, not what I think is right.

You believe what you lads want. No need to be insulting.

Anyway, I'm out.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Ok, you still don't KNOW how these building were built apparently. You can't base your knowledge of the building design on one or two pictures you see. I fail to believe that Wikipedia, the History Channel, the Discover Channel, etc... all completely got the wrong design blueprints to these buildings. People on that site are simply saying that it LOOKS like the I-Beams were the main support - but they don't KNOW. They're basing their assumptions on a few admittedly poor, blurry pictures.

A case in point would be your supposed "evidence" in that other post of yours that you linked to. THOSE BEAMS ARE THE TRUSSES! You are not supporting your argument there!
....

I'll respond to the rest later, have shit to do, but this is what I will say about that.

The blueprints for the buildings are CLASSIFIED so how these channels, organisations got hold of them I don't know. Blurry? LMAO. At least they aren't computer generated ones which you showed me. And anothe point where you CLEARLY have no clue how the towers were built. The trusses were NOT installed indiviually, the came as part of a floor structure, with 3 trusses attached to what looks like sheet metal. So saying "THOSE BEAMS ARE TRUSSES" is a truely uneducated, silly arguement.

I'll be back later to respond to the rest, I haven't actually read it all.

Scientific? Not really as the people in question haven't actually taken the test so how can you scientifically judge their ethics?

So, lets say I forget controlled demo and say bin Laden was alowed to go ahead with 9/11. Why isn't he wanted for the attacks? Explain that, if you could. I also very much doubt Bush is actually behind the attacks or had any involvement in the planning of the attacks, I haven't once mentioned that in any of my responses. I think Bush is, like every other government official not only in the US, a puppet of the masters. But once again that is totally off topic and I don't think it's the place to get into that. This is also off topic, so I'll keep it short.

First off, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Quote from tristancliffe :

You've shown some pictures, but why can't they buckle? which bit of the structure makes them stronger than anything ever made (i.e. resistant to failure)? A picture of the structure is not evidence of its failure mode.

Obviously not, but a picture can show what the structre was actually like. The whole official story rests on these trusses weakening, bending, pulling the walls and evetually shearing the "small bolts", which supposidley starts a chain reaction and a dynamic failure causes a total collapse. So, these I beam would be able to withstand considerably higher temps due to their thickness and design, compared to the trusses. I also never mentioned that they could not buckle, it is quite evident from the fire test I linked to that I beams will buckle from office fires, but as also stated in that video, the steel will not catastrophically fail due to office fires. Also, the man in the video is a FEMA official who stats he never, before 9/11, in his 20 years, has seen or heard of a steel framed high rise building collapse because of fire. The towers held their ground after the impacts and I would put my neck on the line and say they would have been able to stand there like that for days, weeks without failing any further if there was no fire involved. I also must mention that the steel in that test is unprotected, we have no evidence that the I beams in the towers were totally unprotected like these were.

Quote :

Unable to watch this at work properly, but it looked like a test of a single beam, not a beam in a building that's been hit by a plane? Maybe I'll watch it at home later.

I'd have to watch again but I'm sure there was a few rooms in this office so I doubt there was only one beam being tested. Ok, so some of the steel frame was damaged where the plane struck but how can you explain, after seeing the I beams connecting the core to the outer wall and it being such and intense grid of steel I beams, core columns and exterior columns, believe that it just feel into itself without any resistance at all. It seems physically impossible to me, as I have stated many times. I just can't picture it in my head, I can picture the entire building without any material but steel and it seems unbreakable, specially by itself, a lighter portion of itself for that matter, the top section.

Quote :

A building will only fall over if it's encouraged to do so, either because the CoG position within the structure, or the application of a side load. There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source. As the plane didn't knock it over (an obvious side force), what would? Surely downwards is the only force direction (taken as a whole - obviously internal forces are distributed all over the place, but that's beyone your understanding).

Sorry? "There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source." Do you think that steel loosing its strength would be a force to cause it to tip over? The first tower to collapse tipped over, so why didn't it keep going over? Like the image in that link. It seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. Once something, specially that big, begins to move in a certain direction, there's not much that can stop it. Downward force? Huh? Everything, everywhere is constantly under a downward force, gravity and atmospheric pressure, one thing I rember from my science classes. Anyway, the building were designed to withstand this downward force, other wise they wouldn't be standing.

Quote :

Again, not watch, but how do they know what an explosion sounds like? How do they know it wasn't the noise of 'normal' structural failure and the release of energy by other means?

Ok, the first is a firefighter, the second is a former Air Force dude, can't remember his title, and the third is a worker from the towers. And anyway, who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about? The air force lad obviously knows because of how he explains it, the firefighter chap seems to know what he's on about to. The worker is actually questionable but how do you explain explosions in the basement of the towers? Because if it was a structure failing he would be alive to tell the tale.

Quote :

Could they be from other sources? Failure of trusses (can release a HUGE amount of energy - you wouldn't believe how much energy is stored in apparently dull things), normal gas cylinders... Can you provide any evidence of explosives being used?

I just proved that these trusses couldn't have failed without the I beams failing first, which would need alot higher temperature to make them significantly sag and cause anything to fail. I'm not doubting steel that fails due to pressure has a high amount of energy. But steel which is subject to alot of heat will sag, sag some more, sag more, weaken and either melt on just totally deform from the sagging. Metal under intense heat will not go pop! and released a high amount of pressure.(ie catastrophic failure, as mentioned in the fire test)

Quote :

Not watched, again, but at what temperature does steel I section bend with cracking or buckling? Then why hasn't it been disproved? Why is there ANY discussion if it's so obvious? Where is the proof that standard failure (natural failure, if you will) can't and didn't happen?

I'm not sure, you'll have to ask a pro, or the chap in the video becasue that what he says. One of them says something like, I can't believe this bent without ANY buckling what so ever and the other one says something like, it would take 1000's of degrees to bend a beam this big like this without cracking or buckling. I haven't actually looked it up but I'm sure it's not hard information to find.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:24.

Quote from Juls :

This Pearl Harbor theory works the same way 9/11 conspiracy does, and serves the same purpose. In both case USA face an attack, and conspirationists manage some way to switch the roles, ignore the attacker motivations, and focus on the victim to demonstrate how guilty it was.

In both cases, US gvt supposedly planned or let an attack against US citizen happen in order to play the victim and later launch a devastating attack against people who did not diserve it.
This way Japan and Al Quaeda crimes are half forgiven or simply denied, and USA plain guilty in spite of thousands victims. How convenient!

Same for the Lusitania...search for it. There is a very deep conspiracy theory stating UK and USA did everything possible to have the Lusitania shot by German U-boats in order to enter the war. Ireland too of course, you naughty.

For me the simple fact that every time USA is attacked the same conspiracy theory appears to switch roles, shared and believed among the same persons with the same political goals is very meaningful

I can't believe that someone, once again, skips past my important posts, to reply to something which is way off topic, I understand it was brought in and I myself commented but it should be more important for you to respond to the evidence which disproves your theory.

Ok, at first I was going to ignore your comment and ask for you to comment on the evidence I presented but I decided to give my views on some of the things you've said here.

I don't know where you're getting your info from, or you're just expressing your own opinion but Japan and Al Qaeda cannot be compared. And in no way am I suggesting forgiveness in any way for the Japanese. Al Qaeda is a different story, I'm also not forgiving them but, if they were not involved in the attacks how can they be forgiven for something they haven't commited? Also, look up what Al Qaeda actually means and look up some interviews of writers who claim Al Qaeda doesn't even exist. There's a former British soldier who was in Afghanistan, who wrote a book called "Al Qaeda" I believe, who claims it doesn't even exist.

Anyway, less of the off topic subjects and back to 9/11. Have you looked at the evidence? Please do, if you haven't already, take the time to look at it because it disproves claims made by you and also others here.

I never claimed anything other than they knew the Pearl Harbour attack was coming. But they never mentioned that to the people, or the soldiers who were attacked. So, it was an attempt, on their part, the government, to mislead the public to start another war. That's where the comparison is for me. And of course the Tonkin thing is related. Also like Pearl Harbour, it was an attempt to get the US into a war. Another false flag terrorist attack. So it too is related to 9/11. Obviuosly not in your eyes because you think the US government wouldn't kill their own citizens, I can assure you they care not for the average jo, or should I say "useless eater".

Ok, I have read the responses but as I guessed, not one person has commented on the evidence I have shown so I'll go through it again...

1) Evidence of I beams used for the floors which actually held up the floor sections and trusses. http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php Have a look through these images, particularly the 2nd and 3rd image. This evidence proves that the trusses could not have failed in the fashion we are told. It also shows that the exterior walls were not as seperate from the core as we believed at first. Also, look at the attatchments in my previous post. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595 This therefore disproves the theory that the trusses caused the initial floors to fail which then, supposidley, crushed the rest of the building. It would also be a much more intense grid of metal beams, so to say it crumbled like it did is ludicrous.

2) Evidence that proves steel frame buildings, even with unprotected steel beams, will not fail catastrophically. Therefore disproveing any theory which says office fires cause the steel frame buildings, towers and WTC7, to collapse. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=28&hires=1

3) Evidence that proves buildings that collapse follow the path of least resistance, not crush themselves to pieces. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=29&hires=1

4) Evidence, in the form of eye witnesses, of explosions.

• http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=82&hires=1
  

• http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=85&hires=1
  

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY
  

They are just some eyewitness reports, I'm sure you can find more.

5) Evidence, audio on video, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (This is from one of Obsolums previous posts) I'm also sure there are more videos with the sounds of explosions.

6) Evidence of high temperatures, to high for any of the fires present in the towers, high enough to bend huge I beams and core columns without cracking or buckling. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=119&hires=1 Some more evidence of massive temps, enough to fuse concrete and metal(iron+some alluminium). http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=123&hires=1

Now, with that evidence, I think there is a good enough case to say that the towers, and WTC7, did not fall on their own. Enough to disprove the official theory anyway.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:33.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLbfkxjYYc

Look at that collapse and tell me you don't see explosive evidence. Also notice debrit falling from the tower a few seconds before it goes. There's no debrit falling at the beginning of the video. As it collapses you see large ejections of dust, alot of power behind them.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

Yes...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/

...and I think the US government used the event as an excuse to wage war on certain countries for no real reason, and they are capable of exploiting terrible accidents or attacks for their own personal gain, but they can't deliberately target their own country or deliberately demolish several buildings in the middle of New York without being caught.

Ha funny insident, anyway...

I don't think he is a stupid person and I think he would be more in control than Bush, but this is only speculation so don't quote me on that.

I think they have attacked their own and gotten away with it. It would be impossible, on any other day, for any aircraft, whether it had transponders on or off, to get into Washington airspace undetected and be free to line up with the Pentagon from a fair distance away(see the final maneuver from th ... recorder data on youtube), without getting shot down or some how intercepted. Impossible.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I'll be honest, I have no idea about WTC 7 really. I never really looked into it (so I don't know how it was built, where it was hit, IF it was hit, etc... so anything having to do with that building, you've got me.

Fair enough, lets move on...

Quote :

I should probably clarify that what I meant was that 25% of the exterior columns AT THE AREA OF IMPACT were compromised. So in other words the upper 20 floors only had 75% of the support they would normally have gotten from the outer skeleton.

Ah, I get you now. Even still, the weight would have just transfered to the other columns, it would have stayed standing only for some certain events that we can't agree on.

Quote :

You are correct sir. However, even after some of the initial fire burned out, MUCH of the building at that level remained engulfed in flames.

Much of the building at that level? I can't see, nor have I seen, any footage to support that, sorry.

Quote :

Actually, it's a very good comparison. A building also has to be very small and light for a variety of reasons: Cost (one large bolt is not much more expensive than one small bolt, but a million large bolts ARE a lot more expensive) is just one reason. And yes, skyscrapers ALSO have to be light, just like an airplane, so weight has a lot to do with it. Besides, why use a big bolt when a small bolt will more than adequately satisfy the design requirements.

Because it's possible that a 707 might fly into it, with a possible 20,000+ gallons of fuel on board, which might weaken those small bolts. I agree that skyscrapers would have to be a lot lighter at the top than at the bottom, even more reason the top section shouldn't have crushed the whole building.

Quote :

And what does it matter WHY they used small bolts?! The point is they DID, and that's why it collapsed. Don't try and tell me that this whole conspiracy started 40 years ago in the design phase of the building...

Now there's a good stretch of the imagination...

Quote :

Again, with regards to WTC 7, I don't know much about it, so I won't make any judgements.

Ok, so learn. Go have a flick through that powerpoint, or bookmark it, because it's factual. No bs in there.

Quote :

Anyway, back to the trusses. First off, the reason I know so much about the WTC is because, a) my dad knows someone who was one of the cheif architects of the project, so he knows quite a bit about them, and b) i've watched quite a few history channel videos which detail the construction of the buildings.

Anyway, I realize Wikipedia is a terrible source, but the photo illustrates the design pretty well:

Trusses 1

Trusses 2

Wow.... I have to say those are some spectacular reference images. Truss one is a computer generated image and I don't deny the existance or contruction of the towers without the use of these trusses. Truss 2 is a very nice selective image because a) I can't see underneath the floor and b) becuase I can't see very much of the rest of the structure.

Quote :

The fact is that there were many I-beams involved in the construction, but the trusses provided the main support. I could just as easily claim that the concrete was what supported the floors and then point you to a picture where they are pouring the concrete floors and say "SEE! CONCRETE! THAT'S THE SUPPORT!"

That's a rediculous arguement, sorry, but it is. These trusses come in large, pre-fabricated, sections. Which are then lowered onto these I beams. Even in the second image you link to, you can see where the I beam would be bolted in, right under where the truss is resting. The trusses DID NOT provide the main support for the build. Now I know why you were so cocky at the beginning, you know someone who knows someone who was chief architect, nice. Well ask him for the plans of the towers and see what he says, I'll tell you what he'll say. They're classified. Now that's rediculous if you ask me, why classify that info when it's important for people to see it?

Quote :

And even so, let's pretend that the trusses are supported by I-beams alone, and that the trusses ONLY SERVED to hold the outer skeleton in place. When the trusses failed, the outer skeleton would have failed ANYWAY, and then the I-Beams would have failed and the structure would have collapsed regardless. The trusses failing are not the POINT of failure, the outer walls buckling are what started the collapse.

Another rediculous claim. It would be impossible for the trusses to fail before the I beams because the trusses are supported by those I beams. Each section of floor+trusses had around 3 to 4 trusses already attached, I watched the construction video just can't remember how many trusses, and these floor sections would sit in top of the I beams, with 1 I beam between each truss. That's the way I see it anyway. And lets say the fire was hot enough to heat/warp the beams, they still wouldn't catastrophically fail as shown in that fire test video in the powerpoint I linked to.


@ ATC - I 100% agree, that the current government are totally incompetent. Well not everyone. Do you think Dick Cheney is an incompetent person? I think not. Now John McCain is a different kettle of fish and if he gets in the US are doomed. Well either way they're doomed according to Bush. He says "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." Feb 13th 2008 So it's not looking good for American citizens. He sound pretty sure of himself. He's not the only one claiming this either.

EDIT: Also, you say how could they keep a secret so long, well the Vietnam war was started from an event which actually never took place, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but only rescently this has been declassified. Many, many people died in that war for nothing. I'm not sure why they wanted to do this because I haven't researched but it seems governments have the capability, no matter how incompetent, to withold information from the masses about certain subjects.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:41.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Yea, you would wonder why is that... He is the main suspect for 9/11 after all, and reason for invading Afghanistan, so why they wouldn't write that on the FBI site is beyond me, is that only a poor site maintainance or something else...

It is possible but I think there's a chap who actually rang them, I recall hearing someone talking about that, and they told him he(bin Laden) wasn't a suspect.

Quote :

But at the same time, i can't deny that there are terrorists, various US embassies across the world haven't bombed themselves probably, there ARE some people with fighting power in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise there wouldn't be so many casualties every day for 7 years, so..
The interesting point from Zeitgeist, is, that, the US never meant to win these wars, only to prolong them.. so i don't know, what do you people think about these wars, is world a safer place now?

That is most definately true and I think this is one of the main reasons terrorist were used as the scapegoats, because there are real terrorists. Bin Ladens are friends of the Bush family so I think they made a deal somewhere along the lines. But that is massive speculation on my part and I'll admit that now. But the two families have crossed paths numerous times in the past.

"Is the world safer?" Not at all, the people are terrified and they are being manipulated by the media every day. I think before the towers even collapsed they had it pinned on bin Laden and when they did collapse the just kept playing it over and over and over again, all the while repotig that bin Laden did it. So people are easily led. Although it's obvious they don't think so.

Exactly, it's unmistakable. Even the fact that the FBI haven't got 9/11 as one of the crimes he's wanted for, should be a red herring. He's on their Top Ten Most Wanted list ffs.

Quote from wsinda :

I took the trouble to read it. It's basically the same stuff that you were posting here: references and repeats of "evidence" from the conspiracists. No original research.

Ok, there's evidence to show that the trusses were not the only thing holding up the floor, which in turn disproves the official story that says the trusses pulled the walls in and the small bolts failed which made the floor collapse, which brought the whole building with it. There's evidence that steel frame building do not collapse from fire. Both delt with in my previous post. There's evidence, in the form of eyewitness reports, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY There's video evidence of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (Thanks to Obsolum for that.)


My responses in bold...

Quote :

And it's a load of rubbish. A couple of points (first pick):

• The author also tries to prove government conspiracies behind the JFK asassination and the McVeigh bombing. This only weakens his case: it shows he is biased towards believing in conspiracies. (He probably thinks it makes his case stronger, because it shows governments are crooks.)
  
• I don't want to get into it but he was talking about eyewitnesses to JFK's body, nurses who examined him, so there was no speculation about the wounds, anyway lets not go down that road.
  
• First he states that the temperature was too low to weaken the metal structure, next he claims there was liquid metal. Self-contradictory.
  
• Yes, it's impossible for a fire with jet fuel, even though the jet fuel would have burned out before it even effected the steel, to melt steel because it doesn't burn hot enough and there was molten metal found there, so it was correct to say that. I don't see the problem.
  
• He asks "How is it that the 19 supposed hijackers [...] were identified almost immediately, when the other side of the official story is we were taken by complete surprise?" He doesn't see the obvious answer.
  
• Yes, how? They said nobody knew anything but that day they had bil Laden as the leader? Then soon after they had all their names? Tell us the obvious answer?
  
• He mentions that "policemen and firemen clearing people away saying the building [WTC7] was going to come down." Could that be because it had been burning heavily for while, so it was bound to collapse?
  
• Have a look at my previous post, the last link I gave, go to page 47 and have a flick through. You might like it.
  

In short, the usual bending of the facts towards the desired conclusion.

I can't understand how you see bending of facts in there, I just can't. Anyway, have a look at some unbent evidence there and see what you think.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:57.