Dubya knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 281||12/19/2012|
No, the headline reads "Bush White House didn't listen..."
Cheney and the rest knew. I doubt Dubya knew were his shoes were on any given day.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/01/2012|
Why aren't the 9/11 survivors/families making a huge stink about this? Have they all taken their payouts and moved on?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/01/2012|
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/01/2012|
Yes, they knew and also knew they could profit enormously from an attack, and did. It was a convenient mode of profit for the military industrial complex to blatantly pillage the USA. They did, we pay...trillions in debt. Typical Republican't behavior, money first, humans last.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/01/2012|
this has been around for a while
it justified invading a country which had no link to the attacks
Bush and Cheney should be charged with crimes against humanity
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/01/2012|
People forget so many of the details of how the country (and even Bush) was deceived into war.
Wasn't there something about biblical messages/imagery used in the briefings about Iraq that were given to Dubya by the Pentagon? Things that played on him being a Jesus freak.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/01/2012|
I hate Bush more than probably anyone on here, but, really, what could he do? Yes, he might have known an attack was coming, but how would that have protected anyone or saved any lives? If they knew the specifics, I want to believe they wouldn't have let those men on the planes, but, short of that, what, really, could he have done?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/01/2012|
[quote]I hate Bush more than probably anyone on here, but, really, what could he do?
OK, fine. But what about in the aftermath?
How about go after Bin Laden rather than tell the country he not only didn't give a shit about Bin Laden and didn't think about the man he claimed was responsible for the deaths of almost 4000 people in this country, but his admin only brought up the name to get their war in Iraq.
How about we start there?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/01/2012|
He could have had heightened security at airports BEFORE it happened r8. They could have started a massive publicity campaign telling people to be aware, like London has done for the past few decades.
After the WTC bombings there should have been much more attention paid to terrorist threats in the USA.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/01/2012|
We blame Susan Rice.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/01/2012|
Give what a rest, R 12? Stop pointing out the gross and self-serving reactions of the idiots in Congress who want to give Republican administrations a free pass on 4000 deaths on our own soil while hanging the current one for Benghazi?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/01/2012|
[quote]I hate Bush more than probably anyone on here, but, really, what could he do?
Inform the public of the threat level. I'm sure if the people in the second tower had been warned beforehand of "possible attacks" they wouldn't have stayed put!
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/01/2012|
Gee, "new information" and everything!
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/01/2012|
Don't you just love shitheads like R12?
They think all of the problems caused by that turd being president for eight years (6 of the 8 with a GOP Congress) suddenly stops the moment he left. No damage felt to this day in his stupid head.
They spent eight years defending him, blamed him for nothing, and screaming how we were traitors... and they still defend him by not only never blaming him for the current disaster, but pretending the problems never happened under him. They waited until that scumbag was out of office, unleashed their frustrations onto Obama and tell us to "give it a rest" as though we're supposed to pretend the effects of the Bush years never happened.
Do I have that right, R12?
Why exactly should we give something causing the deaths of thousands on this soil which was then used by our government to kill 200x that number, incl. American soldiers "a rest"?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/01/2012|
Republican's smelled money, it's all that matters to them, they are wired that way. They intentionally let it happen. It was MUCH bigger than they expected, and they reaped MUCH money. Sick shits.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/01/2012|
He knew, you could tell by the look on his face, while at the school in Sarasota. Pretty disgusting.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/01/2012|
It's true, no President runs this country and for get the legislature, they are simply there to do the bidding of the Industrial Military Complex.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/01/2012|
What r3 said
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/01/2012|
he could have evacuated the towers. he could have shot down the planes. he could have done everything. ask yourself why he didn't? and whether or not he could have played a more pivotal role in this event, by working with his friends, the Bin Ladens, to bring all of these horrible events to fruition.
he's the most evil man around. people just don't want to believe. all of the facts are there for everyone to see.
conspiracy nuts? or people with actual common-sense?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/01/2012|
He should, his dad planned it.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/01/2012|
Bush is a high level criminal of the worst order. In most countries, he would spend the remainder of his life in hiding because they would be clamoring for his death at most, or imprisonment at least.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/01/2012|
Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rive and Rumsfeld should all be sitting in prison right now...instead they are sitting pretty and our President has his hands tied. How do we get rid of this shadow government?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/01/2012|
it amazed me that people see Dubya as some dumb yokel or cowboy. don't they know his father was the head of the CIA. Dubya was in the thick of everything. he knew everything.
people who don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy need to wake up.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/01/2012|
I still don't know why WTC7 was not investigated more. We don't even have an official story about how it happened. The original explanation was recanted and now NIST says it was due to a new phenomenon or something equally weird/evasive. We're just supposed to forget about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/01/2012|
dubya was a pilot. flying planes is not for intellectual dolts. people are naive to a fault where this guy is concerned. I know, in time, that more will be revealed. but typical Americans really don't want to know the truth. they prefer to think he was too dumb to take action.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/01/2012|
[quote]yes this is not new information. clinton didn't listen either
That is patently false. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden several times. His attempts were famously derided as "Wag The Dog", trying to deflect attention from the impeachment.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/01/2012|
that's right, clinton did listen and warned his successor about the problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/01/2012|
He was informed of the specifics, including the day and number of planes, and but refused to believe the source. With such detailed advance knowledge there are many things he could have done to prevent the tragedy. When informed that the 1st plane had crashed, Bush froze in fear, and then looked at his watch. Why do you think it was so important for him to verify the time in the middle of "unexpected" tragedy?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/01/2012|
btw, there was an intel report submitted to rice in august that mentioned the possibility of planes being rammed into buildings. remember when Rumsfeld said, "we couldn't imagine planes into buildings?"
this was beyond negligence. people just can't face it.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/01/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/01/2012|
[quote]I still don't know why WTC7 was not investigated more. We don't even have an official story about how it happened. The original explanation was recanted and now NIST says it was due to a new phenomenon or something equally weird/evasive. We're just supposed to forget about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/01/2012|
That Silverstein quote caught on film is very interesting, because even the 'official explanation' for it is damning. He now says he meant 'pull the firefighters out' not 'pull the building down'.
But unless he knew ahead of time the building was coming down, why would he pull out firefighters? Why wouldn't he want them in there, doing their job, putting out fires?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/01/2012|
R22: Clinton didn't listen? He tried to go after Al Qaeda but CONGRESS blocked him. And if you recall, the Republicans were in control of congress at the time.
So try to peddle that lie somewhere else.
And as to Bush knowing, it makes perfect sense. They needed a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and the attacks delivered that beautifully.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/01/2012|
R22, The faulty construction of the levees in New Orleans is a perfect comparison. Talk to those experts "in the trenches" who knew the grave danger, due to payola and long-term government corruption in the construction industries. If Dubya and his advisers wouldn't listen to and act on extremely detailed advance warnings, why would those with more political clout than brains in LA be expected to do so?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/01/2012|
When Goerge Bush was elected he had never been to Europe.
Christopher Hitchens on the subject: "He is lucky to be governor of Texas," Hitchens said. "He is unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things."
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/01/2012|
Same is true of Pearl Harbor and the Boston Massacre.
Letting the enemy strike first was the key in all three situations, due to public sentiment. In each case the enemy had been rattling its saber for some time. The Cole bombing served the real notice they were out for blood, and c capable of getting it.
Would the PATRIOT Act have passed without 9/11? Anyone want it repealed now? I sure dont.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/01/2012|
Raw intelligence and competence are part of a much larger equation.
We live in a jungle, not on a chessboard.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/01/2012|
Who ELECTED these bums!?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/01/2012|
I want the Patriot Act repealed, myself.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/01/2012|
He did listen to the warnings, dumbass. All his life Bush has gotten away with shit by getting people to take him for a bumbling fool, which he is not.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/01/2012|
Fuck you, R12.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/01/2012|
R35 & R36, count me as another one who is damn sure the three buildings that collapsed that day had been rigged beforehand with demolition explosives. I was initially willing to believe it possible for the two towers to implode as they did. But after seeing the footage of WTC7 collapsing in what is obviously a controlled demolition, I have no doubts about there being a lot more to what took place that day than is contained in the "official" government approved report on the events.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/01/2012|
R44, So if Dubya "listened to the warnings," and therefore knew the specific date, why didn't he take any action?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/01/2012|
r46 I had a similar epiphany moment. I can totally understand why people don't want to face up to what they actually witnessed. The implications are terrifying.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/01/2012|
Oh course he knew. It was an inside job.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/01/2012|
R33 Rice also stated they had no idea that a terrorist group would crash planes into buildings. You would think a National Security Advisor would have been aware of the terrorist intention to crash a plane into the Eiffel Tower in 1995. This was not anything "new."
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/01/2012|
Not only would Bush and Condi Rice not listen to Richard Clarke's warnings of impending attacks, they demoted him and wouldn't take meetings with him. Unless They could tie it to Iraq, Bush wasn't interested.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/01/2012|
WTC7; no immediate NORAD response from the closest air base; the Pentagon's damage not fitting the size of the plane; etc., etc.
ONE thing is all ye need to know: Dubya sat for 7 minutes, when he allegedly did not know the full nature, extent, or intentions of the "attacks."
He sat, mum, expressionless, because he KNEW neither he nor the school he sat in was in any danger.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/01/2012|
R53, He "sat, mum, expressionless," after immediately checking his watch for the time, because he was emotionally frozen, paralyzed and in shock. He knew it was now too late to do anything to prevent the coming tragedy. He had been warned of ALL of the specifics well in advance, including the fact that 4 planes WOULD crash into buildings in NYC. His senior advisers also knew what was going to happen, in great detail, and chose to ignore the source of the information.
DL, why do you think it was so important for Bush to check his watch for the exact time, and why didn't any journalists ever question him about this fact?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/01/2012|
Norad could have taken down those planes. make no mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/01/2012|
there are so many problems with the official story...
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/01/2012|
The Pentagon was the first thing that made me question what was really going on. there was something very odd about that situation and the fact that Barbara Olson was supposedly on that plane (someone later on said they saw her in France) along with school children. I never even saw any of those parents on any talk shows.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/01/2012|
After 9/11, there were no extra securities at our ports. You can see that our only real terrorist threat is from American right wingers, like Tim McVeigh.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/01/2012|
It's very important this comes out. This is another nail in the coffin for any aspirations Condoleeza Rice may have for a future in Politics. Once Rummy and Cheney are dead, the NeoCon cabal will have no high profile marquee name.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/01/2012|
I watched many of Clarke's interviews and read his books. The main culprit for him was Condi. She stonewalled him every step of the way. Remember too, how she did Colin Powell in.
I hold Bush responsible because he was the President, but I don't hold Bush as culpable as Condi, Cheney and Rummy and the gang, Wolfowitz & Co.
They told Bush what they wanted him to know and they presented information to him that was packaged as they wanted it to be. Remember, this happened less than a year after her took office.
He was probably still strutting around and playing at being a good Boss & delegating. I think by then end of his second term he finally knew what the score was.
There's a reason why he refused to pardon Scooter Libby and he stopped listening to Cheney. But it was too late. People were dead. No wonder he spends his reitrement visitng veterans hospitals.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/01/2012|
Bill Clinton and Al Gore knew it. Bill Clinton offered to stay and work as a free consultant or to stay after bu$h took office and give him any and all information about bin ladin. bu$h basically told him thanks, but NO FUCKING THANK YOU
And of course the taxpayers had to bail out the airlines and pay billions and billions of dollars in settlements to avoid all of this coming out court cases against the airlines. I'm sorry that the president allowed everyone to be murdered that day, but the this was the president's fault (along with that ignorant fucking cunt condi rice - "How were we supposed to know 9/11 would happen"?) Gee, fucking stupid condi, maybe the 70 or so god damn reports you were personally given that told you it would happen and would probably happen with planes) and the taxpayers shouldn't have had to bail out the airlines or the president. president bush should have been executed for treason, phenomenal ignorance and plain stupid laziness. He's just like his traitor grandfather who colluded with the Nazis.
I not going to even bring up Iraq War or the fact that bu$h, cheney, rice, and John bolton were constantly complaining about Iraq and planning to invade since a week after the 2000 election - despite the fact that Iraq NEVER DID A DAMN THING TO AMERICA.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/01/2012|
As I recall, there was never any dispute that the Bush junta knew this kind of thing was going to happen. The question was whether or not they were part of the planning. This would seem like a ridiculous question if it weren't for the fact that the only people in the world who benefitted from 9/11 were members of the Bush administration. On 9/11, theBin Ladens really came through for their family friends, the Bushes.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/01/2012|
That this information isn't new and as a nation we're basically giving these war criminals a free pass really says something about the toxic complacency (or delusion) of the American public. Dick Cheney continued to receive money from Halliburton as VP (even though he lied about severing all financial ties with the company) and coincidentally they were the only company allowed to bid on work in Iraq. How the fuck were they able to get away with all this without a serious investigation? The entire Bush cabinet should have been impeached.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/01/2012|
Dick Cheney continues to take in a big part of the billions of dollars our government gives (as in "gives") Halliburton each month. Every time a soldier in Afghanistan eats a meal, we taxpayers give Halliburton more tham $100 for a meal that costs them $3-$4 to produce. As far as government corruption goes, Bush et al redefined the concept. Saddam Hussein could have learned a lot from Cheney. (No one could have learned anything from Little Bush.)
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/01/2012|
[quote]Bush and Cheney should be charged with crimes against humanity
Bush cancelled a trip to Europe because they were going to arrest him. Cheney had to cancel a speech in Canada.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/02/2012|
[quote]People were dead. No wonder he spends his reitrement visitng veterans hospitals.
You reminded me of when Bush came to speak at my high school in 2006. Just down the road not even a half mile away there is a VA Hospital that had been under threat of forced closure for a few years. After he had finished speaking at the high school he left to speak about Medicare Part D at the wealthiest assisted living community in the area. The direction his motorcade traveled was in the opposite direction of the VA (even though traveling through the campus would have been a more direct route). My grandmother who was a VA nurse for 30 years said it was absolutely disgraceful that he couldn't even so much as make arrangements to wave at the veterans from his limo window as his motorcade passed by. It would have been the crowning moment of some of their lives.
I hope the guilt eats him up inside.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/02/2012|
When Cheney left office, he and wife moved into a new McMansion built for them next door to CIA headquarters.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/02/2012|
I will always, always wonder if 9/11 would have happened if Gore had (rightfully) been President. Nobody will ever know for sure, but you can better believe a Gore administration would have taken those many warnings coming across his desk in the summer of 2001 seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/02/2012|
The May date fits the information on the owner/operator of the World Trade buildings reinsured his building for a hell of lot more than they had been.
I have always believed the Bush admin knew to the attacks and said nothing in order to have an event take place that would solidify the public behind his re-election and become a two term president.
I also believe that is the reason the rethugs wanted that lump, Bush, as their candidate in 2000. The rethugs didn't know the exact date, or the exact location, but they knew it would be an air attack on NYC.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/02/2012|
R70, You are wrong. They did know the exact date, location, and even the time. Why do you think he looked at his watch and froze?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/02/2012|
you're so right, R71. and we're all painted as crackpots for noticing it all and putting two and two together.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/02/2012|
Americans' response to the actions of their gov't are similar to the German response while their gov't committed atrocities during the Holocaust. It just goes to show you that the masses are a bunch of lemmings. They do so little thinking for themselves, their tiny little minds can't process the level of corruption and immoral behaviour being committed. Criminals like the Bush administration count on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||12/02/2012|
Bush & Bin Laden were both mere pawns for the military industrial complex fat cats to use. I doubt Bush even knew that 9/11 was going to happen. Perhaps his father was aware. I just dont understand why the general public does not find it criminal that the biggest attack on our nation was committed by a family friend of the Bushs.This country can get all outraged over a cum stained dress and a blowjob but information like this is swept under the rug. Unbelievable. Salem Bin Laden, OBL's brother,was an investor in W. Bush's Arbusto Oil Company.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||12/02/2012|
So that an unelected president ran our country into the ground. Gore won Florida but Jeb declared his brother as winner obviously. If only the votes in Florida were counted by non-partisan election officials, we wouldnt have had 2 wars, a worldwide economic depression, and perhaps the Twin Towers would still be standing & our longest peacetime expansion since WWII would still be continuing.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||12/02/2012|
I think when Bush first took office he trusted his team, Cheney, Condi, Rummy, even Colin Powell, implicitly. (In spite of the fact that Scowcroft & people close to hs father, including his father were cautioning him about the people he was hooking up with.)
If he did read briefings every morning about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, he read them with the commentary of these people. They shaded the truth, marginalized threats, and may have even been dismissive.
I can even hear Condi primly telling the President, "Yes, Mr. President, we're looking into this and our intelligence community is developing information. We'll get back to you as soon as we know something more specific. Right now it's just a lot of chatter we've heard before."
|by Anonymous||reply 76||12/02/2012|
This has been known since 9/11 happened. What's new is that a mainstream outlet is acknowledging it for what it is, rather than let facts trickle past them unaddressed.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||12/02/2012|
I believe the NeoCons' insisted on carrying out their own agenda, focusing on Iraq, attempting to conflate Bin Laden with Sadam in Bush's eyes. They made the CIA look incompetent, insisting on getting "real intel" from the Defense Department's intel and the NSA intel to further obscure the threat.
Bush was so unformed as far as Middle Eastern politics is concerned, he had no problem buying their insistent claims of a connection between Bin Laden & Sadam.
We laugh when we read 40% of Americans still believe Saddam was, in some way responsible for 9/11, and honestly, I'd bet Bush believed it too. It was the Neo Cons, Cheney and the rest who really knew the truth.
Hate me for saying this if you like, but the two people I fault more than the others are Colin Powell, and George Tenet.They both knew better, and remained silent, when they ought to have gone public and possibly resigned or forced Cheney to fire them.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||12/02/2012|
Can anyone verify a point for me? The article said daily briefings BEFORE 8/6 were reviewed. Why did they stop? Why don after that day? I'm aware that CRUCIAL specifics of an outside attack being planned for 9/11 were given after that particular day.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||12/02/2012|
This isn't news.
Remember this quote; " I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
|by Anonymous||reply 80||12/02/2012|
R63, I say at the very least they allowed it to happen. Probably funded it too.
As for all the planned demolition stuff? Nothing would surprise me.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||12/02/2012|
R69, the path to 9/11 began with stealing the election. They had to be in power to let it happen and take advantage of it. The dispute over the election was the first little shock they gave the American people, to prepare them for what was to come.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||12/02/2012|
R72, So why didn't the media at the time question WHY our president looked at his watch, to verify the time? Was there a press block on any of these crucial points? Did anyone label the info "top secret" or the equivalent, to prevent embarrassment to the administration for complete negligence in ignoring extremely detailed warnings? Clearly they didn't plan it; but they could very easily have prevented it. They just didn't believe all of the sources of information, in part because of being fundie.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||12/02/2012|
Bush knew? Well, since no US ambassadors were killed in that attack, it wasn't that big a deal.
That's what FOX News tells me...
|by Anonymous||reply 84||12/02/2012|
Maybe someone with connections should contact the author, Kurt Eichenwald, and suggest he read this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||12/02/2012|
We know Condi said Dubya only wanted to go to war with Iraq...so Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush only wanted to hear about Iraq and WMD in Iraq. They were blind to anything else.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||12/03/2012|
Every bit of it happened so that Halliburton and Blackwater could rob the tax payers of a trillion dollars. We have been robbed and no one will do a damn thing about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||12/03/2012|
Who knew what, when and what they did about it are the central questions of 9/11.
Fortunately for those who were indeed responsible for lack of action, whether through sheer incompetence or willful ignorance, the world's attention turned to the ridiculous theories of controlled demolition, missiles, remote-controlled planes, etc. etc. Those crazies focused on their masturbatory fantasies while those who really deserved investigation hid in plain site.
There are many in the 9/11 skeptics community who believe that the real PSYOPS was getting weak-minded people to believe that the more outlandish conspiracy theories have merit. It took the heat off those who might have, by dint of inaction, allowed 9/11 to happen.
That would be the greatest conspiracy of 9/11 and it would only take a few guys in a basement with an internet connection to pull it off.
Once that seed was planted - that there was a massive event involving hundreds of people and co-conspirators - it grew into a full-fledged movement.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||12/03/2012|
There is nothing at all ridiculous about the theory of controlled demolition. It only takes common sense. A thinking brain will bring a person to the obvious truth. When it first happened we were all in shock and didn't question our government but looking back...we can see what has been revealed.
I can easily believe The Bush Administration and The Military Industrial Complex planned the whole thing. They never cared about collateral damage.
Just as the Repugs still can't believe Romney lost...they could not believe, they would not be able to get control of Iraqi oil. They were very well aware that Cheney and Bush would make sure every spare dime would be taken out of our treasury and given to Hallibuton and it's sub contractors.
I guess you also believe in the magic bullet, r88?
|by Anonymous||reply 89||12/03/2012|
R89, What evidence do you have that it was "an inside job?" Are you going to tell me that the FL instructors were lying when they reported their concerns of foreign pilots desiring flight training and not caring how to land the planes?
R88, Bush and his top advisers knew all the specific details of 911, day, number of planes, nationality of pilots, motivation, time of attack, etc not quite a month in advance, and stupidly chose to ignore the source. Why do you think Eichenwalds' (and others) access to the daily briefings stopped at 8/6/11? What crucial info was revealed after that point? For how long do you think the "press block" will exist? Who really wants to find out the whole true story?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||12/03/2012|
I always thought it was interesting that Dubya surrounded himself with elementary school children in a state his brother ruled. Then Cheney's "undisclosed location vacation." Oh and the explosions in the basement.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||12/03/2012|
Yes, they knew. It was reported to the FBI and The White House obviously felt REAL GOOD about it but still, I believe they decided to double their pleasure by controlled demolition...I also think they had to take building 7 down, for whatever reason. There is film of building 7 after the Towers crashed..."two small fires." Two small fires do not make a building suddenly collapse.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||12/03/2012|
The 'controlled demolition' people are tinhat loons. Do you know how many explosives would be required to bring down a building as big as 7 WTC? And nobody saw them laying the explosives out, which would have been extremely obvious? 7 WTC collapsed because of the heat and fire from the Twin Towers.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||12/03/2012|
R93, Should we separate this thread into those that believe the Bush admin could easily have prevented the tragedy, based on info he was given, especially post 8/6/11, but didn't cause it, and those (loons IMHO) who believe otherwise?
|by Anonymous||reply 94||12/03/2012|
The tinhats are too heavily invested in their theories. They have done exactly what was expected of them. They took the heat off any meaningful investigation.
It is completely perverse that the people who think they were uncovering the truth were just helping to bury it.
Good read at link.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||12/04/2012|
R95, Very logical point. Is there a polite DL way to request that the tinhats and conspiracy theorists refrain from hijacking this thread, so that the rest of us can seriously discuss the evidence that the Bush Adm could easily have prevented the 9/ll tragedy?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||12/04/2012|
so, why didn't they prevent it, when the CIA was begging them to take it seriously? think about it.
follow the money. who benefited from the attack, ultimately? who had the most to gain?
Bush and co. Haliburton. the new world order.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||12/04/2012|
R88 -- please explain in detail what caused building 7 to come down.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||12/04/2012|
steel structures don't collapse from fire alone, as WTC 7 did. it doesn't happen. except on 9/11.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||12/04/2012|
[quote]Do you know how many explosives would be required to bring down a building as big as 7 WTC? And nobody saw them laying the explosives out, which would have been extremely obvious?
What a weird non-explanation. What makes you think it would be 'extremely obvious'? Given a few people and a little time, it doesn't take long to wire up a bldg to tear it down.
Have you heard about the witnesses to powerdowns in the twin towers? How about the hundred (thousands?) of people who witnessed explosions, including firefighters on the scene? The biggest smoking gun is the video of WTC7 coming down.
To deny these facts for fear of being called a 'tinhat loon' insults the memories of the thousands of victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||12/04/2012|
R95, Do you or does anyone else know the name of the most aggressive, non tin-hat, logical reporter thoroughly investigating what the Bush adm knew in advance?
|by Anonymous||reply 101||12/04/2012|
I have heard that some people said there were workers in the building and that they really didn't know what they were doing.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||12/04/2012|
I did see a film about 9/11 and how the government explaination really didn't add up. Now, I can not remember the name of the film.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||12/04/2012|
The film is Loose Change.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||12/04/2012|
"Loose Change puts the 9/11 attacks within a context of a false flag operation and goes on to question the plausibility of the Pentagon attack, World Trade Center collapse and United 93 phone calls and crash. The film's main claims have been refuted by journalists,independent and 9/11 Truth researchers,and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community."
Now can we go back to the original discussion and focus on such points as why the daily briefings after 8/6/11 were never released, and who is the top investigative researcher to contact if one has access to pertinent info.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||12/04/2012|
For the people who think the idea of a controlled demolition is as 'tin hat' as holographic planes and all the other distracting disinfo: How did the buildings come down the way they did if not with explosives?
The official explanation is demonstrably false, e.g. what happened to the cores? And there's no official explanation for WTC7.
The public denial/silence is just as bad as Bush's ignoring evidence beforehand.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||12/04/2012|
It will all come out in 50 years when people are all too old or dead to care.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||12/04/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 108||12/04/2012|
That's not what I remember about Loose Change.
I have no idea why people refuse to admit that governments do horrible things, to their own people. We have example after example in good history books. Enlighten yourselves. Just because YOU wouldn't murder 6 million Jews, doesn't mean someone else...
|by Anonymous||reply 109||12/04/2012|
Loose Change has certainly not been debunked.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||12/04/2012|
some things have been debunked, and some haven't. wtc 7 is always a problem. that's why it was OMITTED from the official report on 9/11. because they could not explain it. it took them seven years to come up with an explanation for what was fundamentally impossible.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||12/04/2012|
R107, Why in 50 years? Must we wait until the principal culprits are dead?
Again, does anyone know the name of the very best investigative reporter who wants the latest details?
|by Anonymous||reply 112||12/04/2012|
"He had been warned of ALL of the specifics well in advance,..."
Bush wasn't stupefied, r54, and he hadn't been "warned."
He was AWARE that the BUSHCO PLAN was in operation.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||12/04/2012|
r101/112, what are you asking? To have your memory refreshed, or for someone to proffer a possibility?
Sy Hersh is a brilliant journalist, e.g.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||12/04/2012|
[quote]wtc 7 is always a problem. that's why it was OMITTED from the official report on 9/11.
And why nobody else yelling 'Tinhat!' ever comes up with a plausible explanation. Only name calling.
It's fucking scary how serious this is.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||12/04/2012|
There is no way on earth WTC 7 could have come down as it did, in the precise manner of a controlled demolition unless it was a controlled demolition.
That is all there is to it.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||12/04/2012|
Dubya more than knew about the 9/11 stuff--he and the other rich assholes that run this country planned it! I'm sure China was somehow involved too.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||12/04/2012|
There's even some evidence that Prescott Bush knew about Pearl Harbor by December 2nd, and this pattern sort of became the "family business.' (Don't even get me started on Prescott's father, Samuel P. Bush, and the Munitions business while working for Bernard Baruch, see: WWI) It All Fits!
|by Anonymous||reply 118||12/04/2012|
listen to these NYC firemen. do you think they're lying?
|by Anonymous||reply 119||12/04/2012|
R114, The reason I'm asking is because I know of very specific inside info (NOT tinhat) that I would only tell to a respected journalist whom I trusted, preferably during a lie detector test. Likely those following the revelations on 911 live on the East Coast, and I do not. I need to remain anonymous at this point, and thus do not know how to contact the right individual conducting a very serious investigation. Apparently there are those reading DL who have personal emails.
Is Sy Hersh the most logical choice?
|by Anonymous||reply 120||12/04/2012|
Some rational and informed discussion at link.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||12/04/2012|
Nice screed r122, and yet, you can't explain how WTC 7 came down if not with explosives.
That's what it comes down to: explanations. Not name-calling.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||12/04/2012|
R122, Back to logic. Why weren't the daily briefings after 8/6/11 released?
|by Anonymous||reply 124||12/04/2012|
No, R126, you have been played or you are playing us.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||12/05/2012|
Here's the full article, r124.
Only one daily briefing was released - the one from August 6th. No other briefings were released. The author argues that reading the brief on its own only is not enough to show the incompetence leading up to 9/11:
"unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it."
This goes to the core of my argument. While wingnuts like r123 run around screaming that there are no other explanations and this happened and that happened and explosives and men in black and New World Order and...and...and...
Well, while they are jacking off to hundreds of YouTube videos, the really important issues and documents went unchallenged.
But, again, looking at who prepared the briefings, what they said, how they were actioned, etc...well, that's not nearly as much fun for the conspiracy set who are basically brain-washed at this point.
They have all the makings of a cult: they are now indoctrinated into a set of beliefs which they cannot question.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||12/05/2012|
Structure Magazine article
|by Anonymous||reply 129||12/05/2012|
Above you wrote:
[quote]There is no way on earth WTC 7 could have come down as it did, in the precise manner of a controlled demolition unless it was a controlled demolition.
[quote]That is all there is to it.
So there are articles from experts in the field who say, that, yes, indeed, there are indeed far more plausible ways.
You cannot even explain how the penthouse collapse preceded the building's collapse in a manner which is completely inconsistent with controlled demolition. Buildings implode; you do not collapse a penthouse to create a point of failure.
But, there you go, insisting that there are no other explanations.
And here is one of your fellow theorists who recently recanted and for very good reason.
Perhaps you can take a look at his reasoning and the facts behind it.
But I doubt you will because you are too invested in your theories - like a cult member.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||12/05/2012|
[quote]They have all the makings of a cult: they are now indoctrinated into a set of beliefs which they cannot question.
Hogwash! 9/11 Truthers are the ones who want to ask hundreds of questions and have a wide open, no-holds-barred discussion. Truthers want to continue to investigate and explore the subject better than has been done up to now.
It is the defenders of the official story who always take the attitude of, "Move along, folks, nothing to see here! Everything has been conclusively concluded, so shut up because good patriots don't ask questions."
The side that wants to clamp down on the discussion is the side with something to hide.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||12/05/2012|
R128, Please trust me in that I know specific information that are in documents post 8/6/11, some of which are still technically classified. Again is Sy the top investigator, and do you have a contact number? Everyone would be completely shocked at what I have to reveal. Still I must stay anonymous, until I am given a lie detector test.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||12/05/2012|
R122 is pontificating but in fact none of it has been debunked:
1) the buildings had a power down shortly before 9/11 in which workers messed with the cables and electrical lines in the building. These were in dropped ceilings so the workers couldn't see what had been done.
2)The biggest controlled demolition company in the US, that does 90% of the non-military demolitions, has just 15 employees. Imploding a building is done because it is CHEAPER and less labor intensive than having people sit in cranes swinging a ball. This idea that hordes of workers would have to be involved in such an operation is dishonest and ludicrous.
3) A principal of that firm said in a 1995 article that he could drop every bridge in America in a matter of days and nobody would ever know.
4) That firm was given responsibility for removing debris from the WTC even thought that was not their area of expertise.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||12/05/2012|
R126, your theories about WTC7 are at odds with Silverstein's "pull it" comment and the opinions of countless others. there are plenty of articles for and against.
what about the peer-reviewed article detailing the use of nanothermite explosives in the twin towers?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||12/05/2012|
[quote]Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly.
r125 have you even read the article? This quote is taken from it. The author is saying that the towers collapsed just like they would have it professional detonators blew them up.
There, and in many other places, the report inadvertently ends up supporting what it is ostensibly trying to discredit. What a weird way to try to refute the official story.
The big question: Why do other steel skyscrapers (e.g. the CCTV fire in China) burn for hours/days and miraculously the steel stays intact? Why are our buildings the only ones on the planet that collapse from fire?
|by Anonymous||reply 136||12/05/2012|
Clinton did listen and was prevented by Congress from making a drone strike on OBL. Further, in Rochard Clark's book while he was Nat'l Security Advisor early in the Bush admin he repeatedly warned, as did outgoing Clinton. And he was warned by the CIA famously that Al Qaeda operatives were in the US learning how to fly planes.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||12/05/2012|
Above I meant to say "What a weird way to try to refute CRITICS of the official story."
|by Anonymous||reply 138||12/05/2012|
"Hogwash! 9/11 Truthers are the ones who want to ask hundreds of questions and have a wide open, no-holds-barred discussion. Truthers want to continue to investigate and explore the subject better than has been done up to now."
Hogwash right back atcha, baby. No one is stopping Truthers from asking any questions they want. The problem is they keep getting answers they don't like, so they ignore them, and they spin ever more fantastic theories they can't support with anything resembling evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||12/05/2012|
The article was self-contradictory. They say on the one hand that videos prove that the collapse started on the impact floors (they must have videos I haven't seen), and then later that the squibs you see in the collapse were caused by the core collapse, which you can't see. So, can you see the collapse or can't you? No structural engineer has ever said the core led the collapse, since the cores were not as heavily damaged, and they were made of concrete not steel, so less subject to fire. I can imagine a better rebuttal than that, which is that the collapse of the South Tower cut the supports of the north tower since they were all connected under street level, but then you still have the uncollapsed north tower core and skin which I think was standing up to Floor 14, which doesn't fit any of the official stories or the article's theory.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||12/05/2012|
I was referring to the Implosion World article about "Protec" in that post.
I find it rather odd that Protec was operating seismographs at construction sites throughout Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11 if they weren't expecting any implosions, but that is what the article claims.
They first claim involves strange straw man, that the building was wired after the planes hit. Obviously if if were wired it would have been beforehand and the workers wouldn't have seen because all the floors had dropped ceilings where the pipes, cables, and wires were.
The second claim is that the building fell outward and that clearly did not happen, nor do they explain why pancaking would stop abruptly at the 15th floor if it was such an irresistible phenomenon.
The third was a claim that the core failed first, causing the little puffs of smoke ahead of the external collapse, which makes no sense. I would think a smarter explanation would be that air forced downwards from above explosions moved in advance of the building collapse, forced down perhaps through an elevator shaft, but nobody has offered such an explanation.
The fourth claim debunks the multiple explosions eyewitnesses heard, but if the initial explosion was say at Floor 15, the other explosions would not have transferred any force to the ground, so that would have been moot.
Point 5 is a failed debunking. Other than insulting witnesses who said they found thermite or Professor Jones who said he found thermite, they have no response.
Point 6 They say they can "verify" the chain of possession of the steel debris until it was shipped and that "dozens" of people looked at it, which nonetheless does not take away the fact that a proper scientific study of it was never done.
Point 7 claims there was no seismic indicator of WTC7 collapse, and I believe this is not the case. They also claim that a building owner could not dictate a building's demolition and that's nonsensical on its face. No, emergency workers wouldn't detonate the building, but no demolition of a building would ever be done without the owner's permission unless for urgent safety reasons.
Point 8 claims that steel office buildings fail all the time due to fire, which would be better documented than asserted. It also contradicts their earlier point that it was the concrete core where the failure happened, not the external steel.
Point 9 is just a reiteration of how respectable the debris removers were.
In short, the article has very little meat, contradicts itself, and makes a variety of assertions incompatible with the official versions we've been given.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||12/05/2012|
[quote]The problem is they keep getting answers they don't like, so they ignore them, and they spin ever more fantastic theories they can't support with anything resembling evidence.
The evidence we have is videos of towers being blown to smithereens, and collapsing in a matter of seconds. Two were hit by planes, one wasn't. Other evidence we have is that other burning steel skyscrapers with greater fires do not collapse. Ever. And many have burned for longer. Still other evidence is the witnesses to explosions. I believe them, they were there; I was not.
I have no theories. I'm not spinning evidence. All I know is the official story is demonstrably false. The explanations provided at the links above are not evidence at all. They are written with one purpose: to get people to stop asking questions. But they don't answer any. That's not evidence at all.
We at least deserve an explanation that makes sense. The current one does not.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||12/05/2012|
"We at least deserve an explanation that makes sense. The current one does not."
And you base this conclusion on exactly nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||12/05/2012|
[quote]And you base this conclusion on exactly nothing.
Do you know the NIST explanation for WTC7? They recanted the original one as they admitted that their data showed collapse at freefall speed, which can only occur through demolition. They replaced it with the explanation that the collapse was caused by a 'new phenomenon' or something equally mealymouthed. A new phemenonon does not explain how 47 stories of steel-reinforced concrete can be reduced to piles of rubble. If it's true, every building in manhattan might collapse due to the new phenomenon.
This is the explanation that does not make sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||12/05/2012|
You can't even describe their explanation accurately by your own admission ("...or something equally mealymouthed"), so how can you possibly criticize it?
|by Anonymous||reply 145||12/05/2012|
seven years to come up with an explanation for a collapsed building. based on computer modelling with fudged mathematical values.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||12/05/2012|
R145, if you think the "new phenomenon" NIST identified to explain why an event that bore all the external characteristics of a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition, perhaps you would care to explain it to us in layman's terms.
The idea that one badly damaged corner of a four-sided building and three undamaged corners would all fail spontaneously at precisely the same second is absurd on the face of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||12/05/2012|
What is inaccurate about "new phenomenon" r145?
That is what NIST said was behind WTC7's collapse, when confronted by their own data that indicated freefall speed. Freefall speed is possible only with zero resistance. A building whose mass magically loses all resistance when it collapses is the 'new phenomenon' that is the basis of their non-explanation.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||12/05/2012|
I don't know what the "new phenomenon" is...but neither do you. You choose to dismiss it from a place of ignorance. When you actually understand the argument then maybe your dismissal of it might count for something.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||12/05/2012|
You are just repeating Truther nonsense. The building did not collapse at freefall speed. You have no actual knowledge of the NIST report.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||12/05/2012|
The pyroclastic flow of the debris fields created by the Towers and WTC 7 is incontrovertible evidence of extremely high heat. The heat carried solid debris across the open water and deposited it in New Jersey. That is volcanic-level heat. Neither jet fuel nor an office fire could generate such high-temperature heat. So something else had to have been there, something like a series of VERY powerful explosives.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||12/05/2012|
More Truther nonsense...with no scientific backing or evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||12/05/2012|
R149, you don't know what the new phenomenon is but you accept it?
And you dare to call others brain-washed?
|by Anonymous||reply 153||12/05/2012|
There is no argument, which is the point r149. You cannot argue with the 'new phenomenon' because there's no there there. There's nothing to dismiss.
While we don't know what it is, we know what it's not. It's not an explanation for how a steel & concrete skyscraper can come down in the manner of a controlled demolition, without using explosives.
As r147 requested, if you know how this is possible, perhaps you can enlighten us.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||12/05/2012|
There are too many unanswered questions.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||12/05/2012|
When did I ever say I had any answers? You are playing the typical Truther game of whack-a-mole.
You make up bullshit out of thin air then demand people disprove your fantasy.
Meanwhile you refuse to acknowledge that the crap you make up about the "official story" is incredibly inaccurate.
Read what the actual "official story" is first. It's linked at r150. Then tell me what the "official story" gets wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||12/05/2012|
We need answers.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||12/05/2012|
Ok, so back to May of 2001 and you had the Pentagon itching to into Iraq.
That my friends is the definition of treason. Why George W. Bush isn't rotting in a cell right now is the height of ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||12/05/2012|
The general public would accept the hard cold truth that Bush and his friends were indeed involved or let 9/11 happen ... and would do nothing with that info in a 'oh well, water under the bridge' kind of perverse thinking that doesn't make them have to take any action in their lazy state of mind.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||12/05/2012|
Not me R159, I wanted to and still want to see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled, Conoleeza Rice et all strung up or their crimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||12/05/2012|
r156 that is NIST's PR sheet that was edited after people rightly pointed out that NIST's own figures illustrated freefall speed in the WTC7's collapse. 'Freefall' is conspicuously absent from it, and yet it's the crux of the criticism. NIST early on said they didn't know what caused WTC7's collapse. We waited for many years for their explanation.
The one they provided doesn't make sense physics-wise. Leaving aside issues about the melting point of steel, steel-reinforced concrete buildings do not collapse like a house of cards if one of the beams gives.
You still can't answer why other steel buildings burn for hours/days without collapse, and yet for some reason in Manhattan they just cave in and crumble in record time.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||12/05/2012|
"Freefall" is not absent from that webpage. Did you even read it?
The mark of a Truther. Demands answers, rejects the ones he doesn't like.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||12/05/2012|
I stand corrected. I searched for "freefall" but they use "free fall".
Their explanation still admits periods of freefall speed. Buildings do not fall at that speed unless their supports are removed. We're still talking about a 47 story skyscraper turning to rubble in a matter of 5.4 SECONDS. Parsing out which portions were freefall speed and which weren't as a way to discredit people is beside the point. The point is: 47 stories became rubble in seconds. We know that can happen in a controlled demolition. Can it happen without demolition?
You seem awfully interested in labelling anyone with legit questions as a "Truther". At what point in your intellectual development did 'truth' become a suspect concept? And to 'demand answers, reject the ones he doesn't like' is hardly an insult: It's what thinking rational people do.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||12/05/2012|
No, what rational-thinking people is do is expose flaws in the answers. What Truthers do is reject answers they don't like because they don't like them.
You ask rhetorically "Can it (becoming rubble) happen without demolition?" The report answers that it can. You reject that answer, not because you find a flaw in the math, but just "cause."
And there is nothing wrong with the word "truth," just as there is nothing wrong with the word "birth." But due to the marvelous flexibility of our language adding -er to these words indicates a different meaning. In both cases, they refer to people who cling to illogical fantasies against all reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||12/05/2012|
Still, no answers!
|by Anonymous||reply 165||12/05/2012|
you're dense, R164. how about bushie flying the bin ladens out of the country, when almost every other flight was grounded.
how much evidence can one person ignore?
|by Anonymous||reply 166||12/05/2012|
R164, there is plenty of scientifically-valid proof that calls the official story into question. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is one of the most intelligent sites on the Web devoted to the subject and virtually all of its contributors are college-educated professionals in their relevant fields.
There are also so many far-fetched coincidences in the official story that anyone with a grain of common sense would begin to doubt it once they start familiarizing themselves with the subject.
The idea that Hanni Hanjour, a flight-school dropout, could stunt fly a full-sized passenger plane at 300 mph only five feet off the ground for thousands of feet without crashing it; and that instead he lined it up perfectly with the accounting department of the Pentagon (where Sec. Rumsfeld had admitted $2.3 TRILLION was missing just the day before) is downright comical.
|by Anonymous||reply 167||12/05/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 168||12/05/2012|
how can you justify this, R164? Read it and learn.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||12/05/2012|
All of this Truther bullshit has only one purpose: to deflect people from examining the culpability of the Bush administration for ignoring the manifest warnings coming from the intelligence community about the impending attack by Al Qaeda. Bush and co. had been warned categorically for months by the CIA but thought that they "knew better".
This thread itself is a perfect illustration of this disinformation campaign.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||12/05/2012|
that culpability is exactly what truthers are exploring.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||12/05/2012|
9/11 was made to happen by the Bush administration and their military intelligence cronies in the USA, the UK and Israel.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||12/05/2012|
You link to World Net Daily for your source? And even at that, all it talks about is the fact that Saudis were allowed to leave the country, a fact which everyone knows and no one disputes, and this PROVES that WTC7 must have been brought down by explosives?
HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!?!
|by Anonymous||reply 173||12/05/2012|
hey,loon, the vanity fair interview with Richard Clarke is well documented. the article I posted included links to authority sites. the saudis who were allowed to leave actually put money in the 9/11 highjackers pockets!
but there's nothing odd about them being able to leave the USA, right?
it doesn't indicate any kind of shenanigans whatsoever, correct?
|by Anonymous||reply 174||12/05/2012|
"There is a reason why no serious expert in these fields has ever agreed with the conspiracy theorists...."
r122, what about "wants to live" do you not get?
|by Anonymous||reply 175||12/05/2012|
r173 when NIST was asked if explosives were used, they said: no, no explosives were found. When asked if NIST tested for explosives, they said: No, no we did not test for explosives.
Does that prove to you that no explosives were used to bring a 47 story steel and concrete building down in 5 seconds?
Is that a satisfactory answer to you? Since you aren't a whack-a-mole truther.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||12/05/2012|
Right. Which means the building were taken down with explosives because there is a straight line between those two things.
Who said there were no shenanigans? Whack-a-mole. Pick a part of the official story and disprove it. With facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||12/05/2012|
Link me to NIST saying the things you say it said.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||12/05/2012|
R170, OP, I just started a new thread focusing only on the ORIGINAL point
|by Anonymous||reply 179||12/05/2012|
NIST did NOT test for explosives...
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||12/05/2012|
So what they actually said was that there was no indication from the physical evidence that explosives were used and testing for the presence of explosive compounds would have been inconclusive.
So you want them to test for explosive compounds, even though there is no physical evidence, in order to prove that these tests would have been inconclusive.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||12/05/2012|
Side-by-side comparisons of the collpase of WTC 7 and a known controlled demolition are physical evidence that explosives were used.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||12/05/2012|
Two things that look alike on video MUST ALWAYS have been accomplished in the same way. Is that really your argument?
|by Anonymous||reply 183||12/05/2012|
R181, others have found thermites in WTC debris. NIST didn't test because they were told not to test.
|by Anonymous||reply 184||12/05/2012|
remember the molten pools of liquid metal that the post-9/11 rescue workers were warned to avoid? only thermite could cause molten pools of metal.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||12/05/2012|
No, R183, the argument is the videos show sufficient evidence suggestive of a controlled demolition, that one must at the very least explore the possibility of a controlled demolition rather than dismissing it out-of-hand with the preposterous declaration that no such evidence exists.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||12/05/2012|
Who are these others who have found thermite? Source?
|by Anonymous||reply 187||12/05/2012|
[quote]where Sec. Rumsfeld had admitted $2.3 TRILLION was missing just the day before...
|by Anonymous||reply 188||12/05/2012|
there you go. this is peer-reviewed.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||12/05/2012|
[quote]and testing for the presence of explosive compounds would have been inconclusive.
This statement is proof of your casuistry.
Testing for the presence of compounds and finding them, or testing for them and NOT finding them, would be more conclusive than not testing.
For whatever reason, you're more interested in trying to smear 'whack-a-mole truthers' than finding plausible evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||12/05/2012|
Thanks r189. But you know that r187 will just scream "Jones! KNEW IT! He's a TRUTHER!"
That's how these denialists monkeys operate.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||12/05/2012|
r173, it's the aggregate, not (necessarily) the discrete.
Try to pay attention.
(Although I stand by my prior post about Dubya and his schoolhouse inaction.)
I'm also considering that Jeb became a FL resident and then governor IN ORDER THAT the state could be stolen to INSURE that Bush and hence "9/11" would occur (and short of that, have the Supreme Court, AKA Sandra O'Connor, be the thieves).
Florida: Jeb Bush, Governor. "Terrorist" flight training. "Terrorists" aboard the casino boat belonging to Jack Abramoff. "Terrorists" behaving in non-devout-Muslim ways.
Google: SunCruz, Adam Kidan, Boulis (murder of), Mariana Island/Guam gambling, George W. Bush...Nothing to see here. folks. No connections.
No conspiracies to loot trillions.
BTW: If the argument boils down to "the U.S. govt wouldn't conspire to kill its own citizens," now who's naive, Kay? Whattaya think illegal WARS are?
|by Anonymous||reply 192||12/05/2012|
Amazing how the tinhats always derail serious discussions of what happened.
The true conspirators won.
And you are entirely complicit in their victory.
Well done, boys, well done.
Interesting to note that all of the screaming ninnies here have not pointed to one reputable website, study or easily debunked source.
They just throw things out and do not link to any credible sources.
They lack the capacity to think critically and to consider the source of the information they receive.
It is all these "someone in 1995 said" and such nonsense.
Or, best yet, you have to believe what you see with your own eyes!
But then you show them another angle, a plausible explanation...and they just blather on.
1) There is no irrefutable proof of a controlled demolition, missile or any of the other theories put forth by the Truthers.
2) There is no unifying theory for the disparate aspects of their claims.
3) They come back to the most important questions but only after they wade through minute analyses of basement dwellers - it all comes down to who knew what and when.
The rest of their theories are fodder for their masturbatory fantasies.
It is more fun to watch videos of buildings crumbling to the ground than it is to pour over transcripts of sworn testimony to delve further.
It's just weak-mindedness.
The real answers are there but they have nothing to do with this garbage.
|by Anonymous||reply 193||12/05/2012|
what a snoozefest, R193. are they paying you an hourly rate to post or something?
|by Anonymous||reply 194||12/05/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 195||12/05/2012|
[quote]The real answers are there but they have nothing to do with this garbage.
So you can explain how these 3 steel skyscrapers collapsed in a matter of seconds after burning for no more than a few hours? And it was done without explosives? For the first time on the planet -- on an island where nobody takes risks with real estate, ie nobody would build a building so 'collapsible' -- you think fire brought down 3 steel skyscrapers?
Where's the "real answer" for how this happened? Because i really really really want to believe there is one.
|by Anonymous||reply 196||12/05/2012|
[quote]So you can explain how these 3 steel skyscrapers collapsed in a matter of seconds after burning for no more than a few hours?
And not even for two hours in the case of the Twin Towers. The first one hit fell after burning for only a little over 90 minutes. The second one hit was the first to come down after burning for a mere fifty minutes or so.
Those things were made of thousands of tons of steel and concrete and they came down as if they had been made of Popsicle sticks and Elmer's glue. The undamaged masses of both buildings offered virtually no resistance to the force collapsing them. Though struck at differing heights and angles, the asymmetrically-damaged Towers failed in similar fashion. Each displayed symmetrically descending rings of exploding concrete dust demarcating the collapse in progress.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||12/05/2012|
[quote]Where's the "real answer" for how this happened? Because i really really really want to believe there is one.
No, you don't. Otherwise you would have researched it.
You just can't be bothered.
[quote]Those things were made of thousands of tons of steel and concrete and they came down as if they had been made of Popsicle sticks and Elmer's glue.
Ah, an engineer, I see.
More silly statements without a link to an article which can be easily refuted.
Post your link, and allow us to rip it apart.
Let the debunking begin.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||12/06/2012|
Funny how the burden of proof always shifts from the people who don't believe the official story are now required to have one unified hypothesis, not disagreeing amongst themselves, proved by published scientists.
Plenty of published scientists believe 9/11 was an inside job and a varying amount of the public between 16 and 35 percent also believe it. But they must all be publicity seeking egotists! Do you realize how dumb you sound?
|by Anonymous||reply 199||12/06/2012|
[quote]No, you don't. Otherwise you would have researched it. You just can't be bothered.
THAT's your response? That's pretty laughable, if you're a paid disinformationist. None of your responses answer any questions, they just point fingers and snicker.
Most of us have done tons of research. The more research you do, the more the implausibility of the official narrative becomes clear. All the other distractions (holographic planes, blah blah blah) are just conjecture that get lumped in with any skepticism, as a way to deflect from the real questions. Which you have proven you can not answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||12/06/2012|
Yeah R185, you keep thinking that
|by Anonymous||reply 201||12/06/2012|
why did this conflagration not damage the steel structure at all?
Do the chinese use magic communist steel that can withstand fires? Maybe they will have to rebuild all of manhattan?
|by Anonymous||reply 202||12/06/2012|
I don't understand you R193. We knew those things that you are upset about. We have known those things for years.
The real point is, we have a shadow government that makes war against it's own people and it has everything to do with military corporations.
|by Anonymous||reply 203||12/06/2012|
Around the mid 90s, engineering education devolved from intense schooling in the necessary math and science that students would later apply in design and analysis to something called "Systems." These "systems" are often the little robots seen fighting in competitions between universities and in The Big Bang Theory. Students now have time to build robots because so many of the scientific and mathematical tasks are no longer theirs to design and implement, but are performed by prepackaged software installed on their laptops. With a push of a button and off the shelf parts, they can receive "answers" and construct items that previously took an engineer time to model, grind through, and evaluate -- sometimes through several iterations -- before the situation was understood, optimized and solved.
When I went back to school for some refresher courses in mechanical engineering, it was maybe five or six years after 9/11, and it initially shocked me how an innocent remark by a materials science professor on the WTC collapse set off jeers of derision from all the young students. Apparently, their laptops told them it had to be thermite (or death rays, or missiles) so any long conservative mathematical analysis performed -- even by a professor -- couldn't count. Especially one done by (sniff) hand.
Engineering education has also been dumbed down to a disturbing degree, one happily unquestioned by all the foreigners and immigrants who have overrun the profession.
|by Anonymous||reply 204||12/06/2012|
r181, the steel was hauled off to Fresh Kills Landfill before any real and thorough analysis.
From there, the steel was sent to China for re-cycling.
Bill Manning, "$elling Out the Investigation," Fire Engineering, January 2002: "For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."
"Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris," www.china.org, January 24, 2002:
"A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||12/06/2012|
[quote]Plenty of published scientists believe 9/11 was an inside job and a varying amount of the public between 16 and 35 percent also believe it. But they must all be publicity seeking egotists! Do you realize how dumb you sound?
You keep throwing around these facts and figures but you never link to any source so that the source can be challenged or discredited.
Why is that? How dumb does that sound?
So let's start with that figure of 16% - 35% of the public who believe that 9/11 was an "inside job".
Go ahead. Give us the source, the pollsters and the date of the polls.
You cannot back up your statement.
But, please, go ahead and try.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||12/06/2012|
I'm having trouble getting my mail! Help me.
|by Anonymous||reply 207||12/06/2012|
[quote]Apparently, their laptops told them it had to be thermite (or death rays, or missiles) so any long conservative mathematical analysis performed -- even by a professor -- couldn't count. Especially one done by (sniff) hand.
So you're saying it's commonly agreed upon by college students that thermite brought down the towers?
What is the 'conservative mathematical analysis' you refer to?
I don't get your point.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||12/07/2012|
And r199 goes strangely silent....
|by Anonymous||reply 209||12/07/2012|
This site has many thoughtful questions from professionals (pilots, architects, engineers) who have more expertise than i on why the official story can't be true.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||12/07/2012|
R207, Why did you add that comment to this thread? Are you trying to insult another poster?
|by Anonymous||reply 211||12/07/2012|
[quote]So let's start with that figure of 16% - 35% of the public who believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". Go ahead. Give us the source, the pollsters and the date of the polls.
I didn't post that but you can read the following quote at the URL provided:
"According to a July poll, this year , conducted by Scripps News Service, 1/3 of Americans, 1/3, think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. ...
Paul Thompson: Another study, I would also point out, came out recently, another poll is, I think, only 16% of the people when polled pretty much agreed with the U/S government view of what happened on 9/11, for instance the attacks basically couldn't be stopped, and so forth. So, you have almost 85% of the people have some level of doubt about that story. ... "
So, r206, there you have a Scripps poll, to start with, that said 1/3 of the american public think the govt did it or allowed it.
That's a pretty wide swath of doubt.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||12/07/2012|
r206, Here's a rundown of polls on the topic.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||12/07/2012|
[quote]According to a July poll, this year , conducted by Scripps News Service, 1/3 of Americans, 1/3, think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. ...
So you're saying that a 2006 poll indicates current public opinion.
You cannot be that thick.
The most recent mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, a 2011 "poll", from a marketing firm, not a reputable pollster, showed that "that 14% of Britons and 15% of Americans questioned believe the United States government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks."
Not even a scientifically valid study and nowhere near your figures.
[quote]Paul Thompson: Another study, I would also point out, came out recently, another poll is, I think, only 16% of the people when polled pretty much agreed with the U/S government view of what happened on 9/11, for instance the attacks basically couldn't be stopped, and so forth. So, you have almost 85% of the people have some level of doubt about that story. ... "
Wake the fuck up.
|by Anonymous||reply 214||12/07/2012|
Only thing i believe is the bldgs came down with explosives. The rest is conjecture. I have no way of knowing who did what because nobody in the media will dig any deeper.
All i know is what I saw: Buildings that come down in that manner must be a controlled demolition.
You wanted links to polls. You got them. It was easy to predict you would immediately try to discredit them with finger-pointing, because they don't tell you want you want. It's what you do -- and yet you accuse 'truthers' of this precise behavior.
You can name-call and snicker all you want, but you still can't answer the crucial question: how do steel skyscrapers come down in a matter of SECONDS without explosives?
Towers of 100 stories each cannot pancake down into rubble in seconds. For that to happen, the supports all have to give out at precisely the same time. How can this be done without explosions?
|by Anonymous||reply 215||12/07/2012|
I knew that the official 9-11 story was a lie the day that the incident happened.
One very important point that no one ever seems to bring up is:
NONE of the so-called hijackers knew how to fly a commercial airliner.
How can anybody 'hijack' a 757 or 767 and fly it into a building when they don't know how to fly the plane?
Some of the 'hijackers' had flown small single-engine Cessna-type airplanes, but that is nothing like flying a commercial airliner -- none of these guys could fly a 767 or 757.
|by Anonymous||reply 216||12/07/2012|
[quote]Towers of 100 stories each cannot pancake down into rubble in seconds. For that to happen, the supports all have to give out at precisely the same time. How can this be done without explosions?
Do you want to know, or do you want to carry on with willful ignorance?
|by Anonymous||reply 217||12/07/2012|
Do i want to know what? Instead of responding with rhetorical questions, answer how steel & concrete can be reduced to rubble in seconds, without explosives. You won't answer.
Willfull ignorance is denying what you witnessed with your own eyes, because you fear being ostracized.
That is willful ignorance of the worst kind.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||12/07/2012|
The 9-11 Truthers here make the UFO people seem normal in comparison! BTW George Noory of Coast To Coast hears almost anything about this topic he even seems to have a smirk in his voice.
I want to ask the 9-11 Truthers something...who is the whistleblower in all this? Who has said they were part of the plot? So far no one has come forward as far as I know.In addition, when has Al Qaeda implicated that they were in cahoots with the Us government in this?
R216 They were trained on a flight simulator for a bigger airplane.One of the ones arrested was only taking off NOT landing.
No one will do a serious report because it's part of the same school of thought that includes Obama birtherism,Kubrick staged the moon landing and
|by Anonymous||reply 219||12/07/2012|
Watch the videos of what actually happened. See how the roof of the building stays parallel to the ground the whole way down? And it takes a matter of seconds for 47 stories to become rubble.
The only way for this to be physically possible is if all the supports give way at precisely the same time,
Associating this fact with birthers, moon landing, UFOs, whatever, is just deliberate disinformation.
|by Anonymous||reply 220||12/07/2012|
r219, your questions about "Who knew?" are seriously naive.
Have you never heard of ANY conspiracies and/or govt actions leading to American deaths not revealed until decades later?
The FORTY-YEAR Tuskegee Experiment of syphilis "testing" on African-Americans, anyone?
The CIA, military, and U.S. government can make threats that are apparently beyond your ken---not to mention the "need to know" compartmentalization (Cf., "Attack Simulations, September 11, 2001") the govt is fond of.
As for collapsible steel beams: NOT ONE EXAMPLE ever proffered by any journal, investigator, or hack has ever found a SIMILAR event ("Close but no cigar" applies to every one). Steel beams do NOT MELT or COLLAPSE from burning jet fuel, for one thing, let alone disintegrate into DUST. And if they DID, they would bend and lean, not pancake.
"Authorities" can be bought, inveigled, and appealed to as "patriots" to carry the Party line (Cf., Kallstrom, James, and TWA 800).
|by Anonymous||reply 221||12/07/2012|
The truth should be obvious to anyone who spends any time at all studying the event.
|by Anonymous||reply 222||12/07/2012|
[quote]Watch the videos of what actually happened. See how the roof of the building stays parallel to the ground the whole way down? And it takes a matter of seconds for 47 stories to become rubble.
Watch the videos or understand the science?
|by Anonymous||reply 223||12/07/2012|
No, that's not what happened. They are grasping at straws.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||12/07/2012|
Wasn't it a funny coincidence that the one outspoken opponent of the Iraq War in the US Senate just happened to be killed in a small plane crash just days before his almost certain re-election in 2002?
Neo-con Norm Coleman slid into the Senate seat vacated by the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone. And with that, the Iraq War proceeded apace with no embarrassing guff from any loud-mouthed, liberal Senators.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||12/08/2012|
r233 have you read that article? It makes no sense at all. It's actually chilling how nonsensical it is. THe whole tone of it is "this might explain" or "this suggests". Like this:
[quote]These elements, though serving the purpose of shifting loads from one set of columns to another, also essentially "tied" the columns to each other.
The 'tied' columns pulled each other down? This sounds like tinkertoys: where if few stick buckle it can pull the whole thing down, as though there's nothing but empty space between them. This was a building made of steel reinforced concrete. Buildings in manhattan are simply not that prone to collapse.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||12/08/2012|
[R219], you are hyper-retarded.
A simulator is not, and will never be, a substitute for the experience of flying an actual commercial passenger plane.
If a person could learn to fly a 757 using *only* a simulator, none of the airlines would have their pilot trainees flying an actual airplane.
You are stupid, and all of your 'explanations' are stupid. You should work for FOX News [or MSNBC].
|by Anonymous||reply 227||12/10/2012|
R226, people dont understand that the WTC was NOT a typical office building design. There were no supporting columns internally. The weight of the floors was carried by the external and internal walls held in place by the floor trusses.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||12/10/2012|
r228 I keep hearing that but it's incorrect. Where did you hear that? The floors were held up mostly by a solid concrete core. This core is missing from the Frontline animation on the collapse, which is bizarre. The 'pancake' theory makes it look like each floor was this floating square tied at the corners, so if the corners give, the whole thing crashes on the one below. Completely false. And if that had happened it would take longer than 15 seconds for 105 stories to collapse.
I had an architecture prof in 1982 say that if there were a nuclear war, all that would remain would be roaches, and the twin towers. I remember him explaining how a jumbo jet could crash into one and it wouldn't fall.
And we watched that come true. The firemen were saying the fires were getting under control and they kept sending people up. Then it all blew up and collapsed.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||12/11/2012|
meant to say 'solid, steel and concrete core' not 'solid concrete'.
in any case, the center supports is what carried most of the load and held up the towers. NOT the exterior walls.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||12/11/2012|
And people still don't believe this was an inside job. Shit heads.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||12/11/2012|
It's hard for people to believe that their own government would betray them but it is happening today in Michigan...funded by the Koch Brothers.
|by Anonymous||reply 232||12/11/2012|
I don't see enough evidence to say 'inside job' but I do see enough holes in the official story to warrant a new investigation.
It's mindboggling that the Bush admin spent only $600K on the commission report.
|by Anonymous||reply 233||12/11/2012|
wow, colorado public TV dared air the Architects/Engineers for Truth piece.
Good for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||12/12/2012|
That of course will kill the threat R234, because the truth suppressors have no answer to it.
That said, it doesn't name names and that's my problem with the Truther movement. Stop beating around the Bush. Tell who had to be involved to pull this off.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||12/13/2012|
R235, who was involved was pretty clear from that article. The CIA was warning of Al Quaeda and the neo cons were discounting it. Cheney as a follow neo con was right there with them. It is possible that Bush, dimwit that he is, did not even see the real CIA reports, he got the neocon-filtered reports.
I personally think all those neo-cons involved with this situation should be tried for war crimes and that included Cheney.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||12/13/2012|
I meant which military officers (or retired military officers) actually did the deed. It's important to know.
|by Anonymous||reply 237||12/13/2012|
Obviously the neocons didn't have the technical expertise.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||12/13/2012|
I watched the whole AE911 truth documentary; it's worth watching. scary as hell though.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||12/14/2012|
I'd like to watch it.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||12/14/2012|
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush should be in prison.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||12/14/2012|
Rich and political = No Prison
|by Anonymous||reply 242||12/14/2012|
[quote]I'd like to watch it.
link at r234.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||12/14/2012|
here's the link to the actual video
|by Anonymous||reply 244||12/14/2012|
R227 Go work for that whack job Alex Jones or better yet Coast To Coast. UFO/Roswell stories make more sense than your claptrap in comparison. What do you know about flight simulators and flight? The closest you got to actual flying was blowing John Travolta was he was piloting an aircraft! The problem with you conspiracy freaks is that you very little proof to back up your insanity. Write a fucking book on this topic or get a sane person to report on this not some unemployed closet queens who live in mommy's basement and listen to Coast to Coast because they can't get laid.
|by Anonymous||reply 245||12/18/2012|
R245, the military has been remote control flying jet liners since 1984. It's a technology they well understand.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||12/18/2012|
R246 stop reading comic books you silly fool! You also leave out the most popular theory outside of America. That the Mossad/Jews did it? Go to Europe and ask them why/how it was done and it was supposedly done by The Mossad to get us involved in Iraq. Once again like your unsubstantiated whacko theories they carry no weight.Stick to watching Luke and Laura General Hospital reruns circa the Ice Princess era and stop making comments on things you know nothing about.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||12/18/2012|
The only whacko is the person who does not realize that Americans have been had. The military corporations won, big time. Follow the money.
|by Anonymous||reply 248||12/18/2012|
The Mossad didn't do it, they just knew and enjoyed it from a rooftop because as Bibi said 9/11 was "good for Israel."
|by Anonymous||reply 249||12/18/2012|
R248,move out of mum's basement and stop being a conspiracy theorist. I hate Bush, Dick,Colin and the rest of them but they couldn't pass off taking out a taco stand. Richard Clark laughed when asked when asked about such a conspiracy. Why? I worked for the federal government,they are so incompetent it's not even funny. Working for Walmart has damaged what little brain you have.
R 249 I don't believe they were involved either. However in many countries around the world, it's said that the Jews(American Jews not the Mossad) knew about the World Trade Bombing.That's why they supposedly didn't go to work that day. Do you like that part of the conspiracy because that's what most people are saying outside of the US and not just in the Middle East but in Europe as well. On top of that the Mossad supposedly orchestrated the entire thing to gain the US population's sympathy for 9-11. Is it shocking? No because it's no more insane than the crap accusing the US government pulling something like this off.
|by Anonymous||reply 250||12/18/2012|
You'd be an idiot R250. Bush has gotten away with shit all his life. He got away with destroying his driving record, something no other president has even had the balls to do. He got away with overstating his company's profit 400% and insider trading on his knowledge of that fraud. He got away with going AWOL in the military. He got away with blatant eminent domain fraud in seizing land for his private profit in Texas. He got away with selling access to the White House when his father was president.
We've never had a president better at getting away with shit than George W. Bush, because dimwits like you don't understand what you're dealing with.
|by Anonymous||reply 251||12/18/2012|
R251 I despise Bush with a passion. However because I'm not insane like yourself I'm not accusing him of putting planes into the WHite House. It's crazy loons such as yourself who lose people when you spout 9-11 Truther crap and not only have scant evidence BUT no evidence. Bush is a scumbag but he's an idiot as well. Having worked for the Feds your theory is impossible to have been pulled off without someone whistleblowing. Then again you work at Targe' so what does one expect?
You haven't added Israel or anything vaguely anti-Semitic so that tells me that you're only 90 % nuts!
|by Anonymous||reply 252||12/18/2012|
As for them blaming Israel, it's because Dov Zakheim, Rumsfeld's CFO - not normally a position for special ops people - was formerly CEO of a company that builds Flight Termination controllers and leased a bunch of 767's to the Pentagon.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||12/18/2012|
Anyone willing to devote two hours to watching a video would do well to look at this presentation by architect Richard Gage.
He doesn't monkey around with conspiracy theories. He simply uses scientific method to offer irrefutable proof that the three buildings that collapsed at the WTC had to have been brought down with the use of explosives.
You have to know WHAT happened before you can determine WHO did it. This video makes it clear that the official explanation is physically impossible.
|by Anonymous||reply 254||12/18/2012|
Another illuminating video on the subject is 9/11 Press for Truth.
Again, this video does not offer any conspiracy theories as to who did it. It doesn't even try to explain what happened on 9/11. It concentrates on the quest by the victims' families to launch an investigation into 9/11.
There can be no mistaking the fact that neither the Bush administration, nor the Congress, nor the Mainstream Media desired any investigation whatsoever into 9/11. The one they were forced to conduct under pressure was sorely lacking in funds and in its commitment to uncovering the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||12/18/2012|
Bush is no idiot R252. Look at the way he intimidated Congress with anthrax and other means. You just have no concept of the man. He was a fucking genius in comparison to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||12/18/2012|
GWB served in an office he wasn't elected to for eight years and managed even to get his opponents to be afraid of anyone who would question that. And still you call him stupid. No, he did not have the technical expertise to pull off 9/11, but he certainly had the gonads and the brains to pull the wool over most people's eyes most of the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||12/18/2012|
He also invented "signing statements" whereby he could re-legislate any law passed by Congress. On his first day in office he said he wouldn't abide by the Presidential Records Act, and he got away with it.
Yeah, some dummy.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||12/18/2012|
R256 He was no genius, he is a rube, a hayseed such as yourself! It's not that he's so smart it's more like the mass of you are quite stupid! Still no whistleblower or someone in on the inside job? Didn't think so.
R253 What does that have to do with 9-11? If you had a case it would be that Atta and Company were hired by Al Qaeda who were working with the US governement. what refutes even that theory is that Al Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11.
R254 One architect? There must be thousands of them that claim demolition had been going on.Right? Because that's the truth. You sound like a climate change denier who's found scientists that are skeptical of global warming.Nice try but no cigar.
R257 Because you have no names connected to the conspiracy you keep on mentioning Bush the dope. Who was the federal employee or person involved in the conspiracy that apprised you to his involvement? Where is the paper trail? The e-mails? Not one errant cell or phone call that was recorded? I didn't think so. You need solid proof to state or make or claim NOT BS people. You probably would make a great Obama birther as well!
The 9-11 truthers have no idea how fucking insane the Islamic fundamentalists are. You're blaming an incompetent boob and his minions meanwhile they are laughing at you. They pulled off 9-11 and the events in London and Spain and you're talking about some insane conspiracies.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||12/18/2012|
No, dumbass. The argument is the planes on 9/11 were military tankers, not regular commercial aircraft, and that they were flown by remote flight control technology off a laptop on the ground, so nobody on board was flying the planes. And it so happened that one Rumsfeld employee, Mr. Zakheim, was formerly head of a company that leased 767s to the Pentagon for tankers; and that made software to control multiple flights in the air at once from the ground. Occam's Razor. Simplest explanation, fewest conspirators. The "official" story requires the active participation and cooperation of thousands. A conspiracy theory requires only a small number of people to be fully in the know. Not even a hundred.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||12/18/2012|
there have been many whistleblowers who have been silenced, threatened and more. google Sybil Edmonds sometime...
|by Anonymous||reply 261||12/18/2012|
sybil edmonds was gagged by the 9/11 commission, because she had proof (through her work with the CIA) that Osama Bin Laden was employed by the CIA right up until 9/11.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||12/18/2012|
R260 no freakazoid. Wrong on how many people you need. To pull off what happened with multiple airplanes on 9-11 doesn't take a few people. You definitely have never worked for the Federal government,piloted a plane or connected one whistleblower or particpant to the so-called conspiracy. As far as know Al Qaeda and Company did it and took credit. Maybe you should start looking there instead of believing bad comic book plots!
R261 Thanks for that. However what does she have to do with 9-11? Was she liasion between the US government and Al Qaeda? Who was her superior? If she has nothing to do with 9-11 then it's all for naught.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||12/18/2012|
R263, you don't think it's relevant that Bin Laden worked for the CIA until the attack? you say there are no whistleblowers, I give you a doozy of a whistleblower who was GAGGED by the 9/11 commission, and you say it's pointless.
ignorance is bliss.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||12/18/2012|
R264 Yes ignorance is bliss on your demented side. Sibel Edmonds to her great credit admitted this fact:And to answer a question like “Was it an inside job?” would be, first of all, preposterous for me to make that call.So it flies in the face that she can absolutely know what went on. So she doesn't have definite knowledge. She's Turkish not Arabic and doesn't even speak Arabic how could she have known what have been said directly on Bin Laden and Company's end.Unfortunately for you Al Qaeda didn't blame the US government at all,they gladly took responsibility. As for the US/Al Qaeda pact, Hitler and Stalin signed a pact that held until Hitler invaded Russia!
Also her dismissal from the government is curious as well. Do you know what you have to do to get fired from a Federal agency like that? You have to fuck the wife of every colleague THEN say they raped you! She seems not to be that reliable. Add to the fact that she admits the link is in her words preposterous,she's not reliable as a source.Her main deal had to do with Turkish nationals not Al Qaeda it seems.
Nice try come up with a better whistleblower next time. She mentions no actors in a conspiracy or even someone low level either.
I have to watch that nut,Alex Jones' interview with her on Obama's Despotic regime! Yeah Obama is so despotic....not!
|by Anonymous||reply 265||12/18/2012|
r259, you can sneer all you want, but you are the fool.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||12/18/2012|
Ooh, an ad hominem attack when people disprove what you've just said, that there were no whistleblowers. Of course there have been others.
R263 you obviously have never worked for the U.S. military special forces, have you? It is there mission to pull off missions with very few people.
|by Anonymous||reply 267||12/18/2012|
I just listened to her on Alex Jones, Sibel that is. She said Obama is worse than Dubya was. She's fucking insane! No one is worse than Bush was at anything. Obama is a million times better than that rube. She mentions George Soros like Glenn Beck does. She sounds like a Freeper.....
|by Anonymous||reply 268||12/18/2012|
I never thought of conspiracy theories being used to mask a real conspiracy but this thread has convinced me that whoever was behind 9/11 is more and more confident, with every wingnut post, that they will never, ever be discovered.
It's genius when you think about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 269||12/18/2012|
I watched the kill THe Messenger doc on Sibel Edmunds, she's no 9/11 whistleblower! The film doesn't delve into some grand conspiracy for 9/11. She translated documents AFTER 9/11. I did some further research there was a general claim about planes going into several different US cities including NYC.She's fluent in Farsi and Turkish how the fuck does she know the real deal with Pakistan(they speak Urdu)or the Al Qaeda high command(they speak Arabic)? she wasn't privy to that information. There was some corruption with a so-called spy and a Turkish American group that had fuck all to do with 9/11. In the end it seems like a steaming pile of bullshit.
Find some people who was involved directly in the so-called conspiracy. Find witnesses who saw explosives being put into the World Trade Center.Find Al Qaeda members who claimed that 9/11 was a joint effort between the US and themselves. Until that time you look like a bunch of nuts.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||12/19/2012|
When I watched the 9/11: Press For The Truth...it made me so sad to know how the Bush Administration lied and lied and lied. It was astounding that none of our news outlets bothered to call them on their really obvious lies.
I think what bothered me most was that everytime we identified were Bin Laaden was, we let him get away, ON PURPOSE! Obama was allowed to get him by our military...they always knew where he was...they protected him.
Another thing that bothered me is that George W. Bush was often drunk even at news conferences. I never watched his news conferences because I hated his guts but while watching the film I could see it. How could anyone MISS it? I'm surprised he didn't stumble over at times. Why did people re-elect a man who was so obviously out of it and so FUCKING STUPID!?
|by Anonymous||reply 271||12/19/2012|
let's read what she has to say...
|by Anonymous||reply 272||12/19/2012|
more 9/11 whistleblowers...
|by Anonymous||reply 273||12/19/2012|
I wonder when the birthers and the freepers will pop out next? If you bought the 9/11 conspiracy crap you must buy that Obama is worse than Bush is? And that he isn't even eligible to be President. I don't even want to know what you whack jobs think of Newtown.
|by Anonymous||reply 274||12/19/2012|
R273 More insanity. Where are the people who worked with the conspiracy? Who witnessed the explosives being planted. In a city like NYC multiple people would have know of this fact right? All these people are small fry. Give me someone who was in on the supposed conspiracy even a lower level person. Good luck with that because you won't be able to find them.
R271 Bush was an idiot. Pure and simple. A former drunk but he quit drinking by the time he got to the White House. He mangled the language and embarrassed the country.He was too incompetent to put together so the possibility that he put together some grand scheme is a joke by itself.
They wanted Obama to kill Osama? Why would that be? Wasn't Bush the head of the snake. Wouldn't it be in his best interest to kill Osama to shut him up? Al Qaeda took credit for 9/11 and didn't implicate the US government(along with Israel and the Mossad) either unlike Iran and most of the people in the Middle East.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||12/19/2012|
Actually, a Palestinian group was the first to claim credit for 9/11. How soon we forget R275.
Your view of George W. Bush does not mix with a president who operated with more freedom from oversight and impunity for lawbreaking than any political figure of any kind in U.S. history. You can bitch all you want to, but the fact was he got away with shit that nobody else has in the history of the nation.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||12/19/2012|
R275, why couldn't highly-trained Black Ops teams disguised as elevator repair persons add nanothermite to the buildings? why would a large group of people need to be involved. black ops involve people on a need to know basis.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||12/19/2012|
Bush is and was dumb like the proverbial fox, r275.
As for where are the witnesses, explosives-planters, etc.: If the govt took you into a room and siad, "This is what you are going to do for the nation, and it might mean some sacrifices, but that is what occurs in war. THIS IS A WAR, and you are to do your patriotic duty. You are also going to be sworn to silence, the breaking of which oath will mean ten years in a federal prison"---you might be incli9ned to keep your mouth shut forever.
|by Anonymous||reply 279||12/19/2012|
If you buy that Kennedy and the Governor of Texas were both shot with a single bullet you will believe that 100 story buildings pancake in a matter of seconds. Some people are blind as bats.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||12/19/2012|
I wonder what Oily Taint might think of this stuff. She would probably blame Obama for all of this. And the fact that he is a secret Muslim working with Osama and Al Qaeda. You all know that Obama is related to Dick Cheney don't you? Dick was prepping the way for Obama because of secret Islamic ties, right? WRONG! That Sibel character lost me when she said Bush was better than Obama? What fucking world is that dingbat living in, Youranus? No matter you can believe Orly Taitz and her lies,Freeper propaganda and 9/11 comic book fiction perpetrated by those still living in their mum's basemant!
|by Anonymous||reply 281||12/19/2012|