Rescue Me episode explores 9.11 being an Inside Job by piratenews

Chris,

I don't even call this theory. I actually think it doesn't go far enough. Everything he says was put into print by pnac themselves. Like Sanger, I think this admited conspiracy is imho a cover for another one. And it gets much worse. Long before you start worshipping owls.

But I'm glad actors are still able to put their views into the script. This is how Anya got her rants in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 8:27 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think this admited conspiracy is imho a cover for another one.

Can you elabourate?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:16 AM

I've also always been disconcerted by the way the towers fell. The support structure shouldn't have collapsed that way after the planes hit, that's what all the science and engineering says.

I'm willing to concede that it might have just been a fluke, stranger things have happened. But I'll also say that my first thought, when I was in class and realized this wasn't something the AV or the graphic design clubs came up with, was that the twin towers was an inside job.

If it was an inside job, I wouldn't have any idea who did it, whether it was government or corporations or both.

I do know that Bush was already kind of preparing the military to go into Iraq, and that's about when he latched onto going to Afghanistan as a jumping point to sell to the public. For Afghanistan, Americans were given genuine reason to want to go, and Bush was able to build on those same reasons to present his case for going into Iraq.

Anything more sinister from that from the government there's no evidence for, and if there WERE any evidence, it's probably long gone now.

I'd also like to say, before anyone just accuses me of liberal bias against Bush and the War in Iraq... While I disagree with a lot Bush has done, I don't think he was intentionally evil. I think he honestly believes what he was doing was best for the country, that the ends would justify the means and that history would vindicate him. He's said as much. So if there's any conspiracy, I'm not really looking towards President Bush Jr. He's not a very... subtle person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've also always been disconcerted by the way the towers fell. The support structure shouldn't have collapsed that way after the planes hit, that's what all the science and engineering says.

.

Here we go again....

I shouldn't be surprised that so many have such little understanding of basic physics. NONE of the science and engineers are saying that the towers shouldn't have fallen that way.

1 - Based on the design of the WTC, which was with out the core support of most other skyscrapers, THEY COULDN'T HAVE FALLEN ANY OTHER WAY!! . That's what made the WTC towers so unique, is that so much of the support came from the OUTSIDE frame of the building, which left so much floor space available to rent. Think of it as throwing a dart at a scren door. The dart will go through the screen, but ther rest of the door will remain faily in tact. That's what the engineers figured would hapen, if a plane ever did strike the WTC. ( They never counted for the planes to be fully loaded and fueld 777s, travelling at 500+ mph. ) If a smaller plane struck the WTC, and didn't explode on impact, the weight wouldn't have been a problem. But never mind the prep work for a demolition which needs to be done, major supports removed, welds cut into load bearing beams, 100's of charges set, even dozens if it was just the top floors... no way could any of that take place during working ours, with offices full of people, and NO ONE notice any of that . Simply not possible.

2 - Why did the 1st tower hit ( the North tower ) not fall first ? Easy, because the 2nd tower hit, ( the South tower ) was struck many floors lower than the 1st one. What that meant is that more weight was above the stressed area. Sorry Rosie, but jet fuel does burn hot enough, as does all the material in an office building, to weaken open, un-insulated steel. Heat plus weight = failure.

There's no mystery here folks. Just do the math. It's undeniably simple.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:38 AM

Well, ration it through. The purpose of newamericancentury.org was not to say:
Muahahahahah! We're evil!

It was to say:
Muahahahahah! We're evil! <----

The point of the arrow is a simple catch to frame yourself. It's telling you "Here we are, *republicans* we hate *Clinton* and *democrats* and *liberals* and we'll commit this crime, of invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria." Because they actually thought they'd get to those wars, because they thought they'd f^&k up a little less than they did. But if you dig more deeply you find, these guys have all types of ties to Clinton, they're filling the ranks of the Obama admin, and I give, they have ties to Bush Sr. as well, he's definitely part of the scheme. <--- me admitting to being wrong a couple years back.

Okay, 9-11.

1. Not just American. This is a globalist movement. America is the biggest economic engine. So, tax the sh*t out of America, that gets you the most money. Sacrifice Americans as a new armed forces to fight the war to end all wars. This doesn't end up in American domination, America is the chump here. If we collapse, and they can shift over to running the same operation from China, they will, good chance they already are, but it depends on the definition of "they."

2. "They" is a terrible trigger world that sends conspiracist down the wrong path. We're not talking about a small group of thinkers that hijacked both parties in the American political scene, or a collection of corrupt politicians and corporation heads, they're just part of a greater network of an international globalist movement that's too big to be called a conspiracy.

3. Sure, all those guys at PNAC may have signed off on 9-11, at least some of them did. Large swaths of the govt. had to sign off on the cover-up. They had to, the govt. would collapse if this spilled. Not if it spills in 2050, but if it spilled in 2001, you betchya. So, cover up guys might just be trying to save the US govt., they're not necessarily in on a plot, and sure, other globalists who aren't in with Bush/Clintons, and some of the Bush/Clintons, may not have been in on it. Other foreign globalists may have been. But this is part of an international political movement that really believes that they are bringing peace to the world through superior firepower.

4. These guys like democracy, and some of them believe in it, but real manipulative bastards love it because it's easy to cheat, and when you do, it's easy to convince the people that they chose this govt. People rise up to overthrow a tyrant, but not a democratically elected leader, him, they just vote out of office. Of course, they vote him out to elect someone who will put the same advisors right back in. But this is just a piece of the puzzle.

5. Banks. The war is about controlling world finance. Back in the 1970s, they thought they could hold the world hostage by controlling the oil. Now they know that's not so, so this isn't about oil. Sure, there are people after the oil, but mostly oil companies, who help fund these political campaigns, drug companies too. But the real deal here is banks. All of this military is on borrowed money, they're making America their prison bitch. We're going to owe so much money that when they say jump, we say how high. That's why, if you work, you pay federal taxes. It isn't going anywhere else.

6. The federal income tax doesn't support social security or medicare, it doesn't build schools and roads and hospitals, it goes to the federal reserve to pay interest on the debt. Then, more money is loaned from the federal reserve to pay the budget. The discretionary budget, the one which has military as a small slice, and another one called payroll, which is really military, and something called homeland security, which is really military, etc. And then, those other slices, soc. sec. and medicare, those are paid for by direct taxes, which I disagree with, but that's your FICA, which goes for welfare to the rich and name your price medical coverage, and some fat cats are getting rich off of that.

7. The income dollars to the military also go to contract fat, where contractors recontract on the cheap, so they can keep a share, this is to buy people off. But the creation of the debt makes America ultimately under the thumb of the creditor, which is the federal reserve system, which is run by and for international financial interests who aim to become our new one world govt. America has to do what they say, because they hold control over our currency, and we've been in debt to them ever since WWII. We had to have WWII, because they wanted it to happen after WWI, and it didn't. So, crash the economy, start over.

8. Crashing the economy is easy. The fed did the same thing in the '20s, flood the marketplace with credit, and then snap those strings right at the moment when you can't sustain another push of credit. Fed interest policy is not a clever balancing act to help america, it's a simple lever to screw us: Lower interest rates, loan it out. Jack up the rate, collect the interest. Try to make sure no one ever pays down principle.

9. So, now here we are and half of your labor is going to make these globalist super fatcats even richer. What do they do with that money? Loan it to other nations so they can make them cry uncle too. Later, come in, and f^&k up their country, take their natural resources, destroy the environment, sew political chaos, and create debt dependency (see AIDS drugs financial conspiracies for a really dark take on this.) Any way you slice it, the goal is the same: Prevent any state from being independent and self sufficient, because such a state isn't going to sign on to the plan.

10. The plan: One world govt, ruled by an unelected international elite, who represent a governing council of "supranational entities" as Shachtman called them, or less accurately, "multinational unions." I say 'less accurately' because in these there are no nations. Member states of groups like the EU, AU, ASEAN, MEFTA, CAFTA, and NAFTA will ultimately have no more power than the 'antonymous provinces' of communist China, which is to say, none at all, other than the illusion of control. This govt. will then set the rules for everyone, everywhere, and all it needs to do so is the tactic support of a compound majority, (60% of 60% of 60% of 60% of ...) which can mean 3% or less of the people. With enough weapons systems, eventually they won't even need that.

So, what's wrong with this picture? A lot of people say "oh, well that's nice, it'll bring peace." Nonsense, it will bring the Alliance. Endless civil war, because people resent and rebel against domination. Sovereign states see this coming and try to become completely self sufficient, boost up their defenses, etc. Hence Iran, Russia, Russia will play this game only if it gets a seat at the table, and gets its empire back. Iran wants either the middle east, or to just screw up the plan. Israel doesn't like that, neither does Saudi Arabia. They both think that mideast seat is reserved for them.

This whole thing was thought up by a group of intellectuals who make a brain trust, divided among countless organizations. Sure, the members of the movement might quibble with each other, but only on the tactical and rarely the strategic decisions, but never on the mission. More importantly, they never listen to anyone else. The problem with dictatorship is really a lack of ideas. Without dissent and discussion, humans can make a collosal error and then compound it by making a huge network of cooperation follow that error. Small example, the US in Iraq: Lots of military heads and folks just not consulted, follow orders or we pull you out and replace you with someone who will.

IMHO, this is the alliance, and alliance of globalist concerns. China, the US and the EU, both under the thumb of american and european banking interests, and a handful of mideast power players.

So, yeah, the guy's on the right track here, he needs to follow that track a little further, imho, to see that these guys, the own both parties, and they ain't doing it for america, but for themselves. we're the guy that they stick on the front lines, economically mostly, to pay for the war machine, but they don't want us to end up controlling that war machine. "Use America as the military engine of globalization" that's former communist party trotskyite "world revolution" leader Max Shachtman, not sounding like our enemy, sounding like we're a tool in their toolkit to make a new world order. And if they do? You and I don't get a seat at the table, PNAC and Co. gets that seat at the table, and calls itself NAFTA, and "advises" every American president on what to do, for a long time, because like Britain, America has too much pride, so we need to continue to believe in our own independence, even if it's only on paper.

K. That said, this thing is a big mess, a bigger mess, and it's much more real and more of a political process by people with the extremely wrong idea that a small group of people can know what's best for everyone else, who are willing to say, this here is a problem, so lets sacrifice this ethnic group. Let's have a nice arms race here, and build up our weapons to oppress our own people, in the name of defense, etc. etc.

Gotta know what the game is if you're going to win. People who think they just defeated it last November are fools. I like Obama, personally, but globalism, war, national debt-tax slave state, we just voted it back into office. These guys run on the Quiggley plan: run against your own unpopularity. "So every 8 years they can throw the rascals out, with no real effect on policy."

PN, has a lot of pieces definitely, but I think he's coming to a chess match with a set of checkers. Guys in the woods worshipping a giant owl? That's just the old boys, keeping the new boys in line. They ain't the ones in power. I'm not sure anyone's in power. It a political movement, like communism or imperialism, it's globalism. My major concern? The amount of damage these guys are going to do pursuing their goal, even if they lose. Them winning, don't even want to think about that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:44 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've also always been disconcerted by the way the towers fell. The support structure shouldn't have collapsed that way after the planes hit, that's what all the science and engineering says.

I hear this claim from a lot of people with little or no science background and from a few with enough education to know better, but it remains as untrue as ever. There is nothing in science or engineering that contradicts the "official" version of what happened on 911 in any way. If you don't understand the physics involved, why assume that the truth is some crazy conspiracy. If you really care about the "truth", a good place to start would be the excellent work done by Popular Mechanics magazine debunking many of the most common 911 myths. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:48 AM

America loves a winner!

Popular Mechanics is in on the conspiracy, Kirk, or had you not heard ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:55 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 9:56 AM

I never said anything about bombs, AURaptor. I don't know what happened, just that it doesn't seem right to me, and from what I've read, the planes didn't take out enough of the support for there to be a collapse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:02 AM

Um. I have a science background, Kirkules, I've even taken physics classes for scientists and engineers. I'll read your article, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I never said anything about bombs, AURaptor. I don't know what happened, just that it doesn't seem right to me, and from what I've read, the planes didn't take out enough of the support for there to be a collapse.

When you question " how they fell ", to me, that leaves only one other possibility. You don't have to SAY it, that somethig other than the plane crashes brought down the towers, but it comes across as being implied. Especially with all the conspiracy b.s. that's been posted on the internet. If your comments mean something else, then please, do explain.

I am, curious, though, as to what your thinking ( and reading ) is on how the towers fell doesn't seem right to you. And in all your reading, did you ever find an answer to the question as to why the South Tower,struck 2nd, was the first one to fall ?

Might be something to think about, 'tis all I'm sayin'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:11 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
, did you ever find an answer to the question as to why the South Tower,struck 2nd, was the first one to fall ?

I know the answer to this one, it's simple physics, you don't have to be a engineer to get this one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Firstly, Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst empire, and that alone oughta tell you something.

And the "researcher" on that article was Benjamin...

Wait for it...

Chertoff.

You know, cousin of the guy who had the Patriot Act pre-written, in hand and ready on 9-11.

That *ALONE* should be enough to scrap their credibility regarding said article.

Just sayin,

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:18 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Firstly, Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst empire, and that alone oughta tell you something.

And the "researcher" on that article was Benjamin...

Wait for it...

Chertoff.

You know, cousin of the guy who had the Patriot Act pre-written, in hand and ready on 9-11.

That *ALONE* should be enough to scrap their credibility regarding said article.

Just sayin,

-F

So you don't have any problem with the science and engineering of the Popular Mechanics article, just the author. Typical of a conspiracy theorist to attack the author, not the content.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:25 AM

I've never really thought bombs, I understand pancaking and how the lower floors couldn't support the upper floors when they started collapsing. That was never the problem I had.

Okay, so what I read, was that there were something like five major structural supports in both of the twin towers. Bear in mind that what I read was several years ago and that I know little to nothing about buildings and architecture. I gleaned what I could. There were a certain number that had to be taken out for there to be a collapse (and I think the number was three, and I think I remember what I read said the planes both took out two).

The fires weakening the metal goes some ways to explaining this, I'll admit. I think I'll want to research that explanation a little more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:27 AM

BYTEMITE,

Check out the article. It's a long string of strawmen. It's pretty bogus, it's defending an absurd story. Just one of 100 pieces of evidence: The fact is that there were temp. measurements taken by guys at the scene that read higher than a jetfuel combustion by around 1000 degrees or more. That's just against the laws of thermodynamics unless there's a secondary device. Sure, that device could be on the plane, in the building, put there by anyone.

IMHO, the reason the official story dies is that its backers just back the first thing that came out of he president's mouth until the end. The competing theories are ever changing based on evidence. Sure, some of these theories are whacko. But a lot have many grains of truth. For a conclusion, I go with motive, means and opportunity. All I need is a crack in the official story, and this one is in ruins.

ALSO: ALL THEORIES HERE ARE CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

Bin Laden conspired with Saudi terrorists in Dubai to Hijack airplanes in Boston and fly them into buildings toward some unstated aim? That's a conspiracy theory. Read it through to. It involves random passports surviving a fire that melts steel, and flying pieces leveling buildings, and tons of other nonsense. I contains a list of hijackers, one of whom was dead before the thing even started, and 7 of whom are known to be still alive. It's just as bad a theory as area 51, and probably worse than the owl worshippers.

Not saying it couldn't be a group of muslim terrorists who hate capitalism, or like it too much (I'll credit Bill Maher with this one, if they hated freedom, they would've knocked down the statue of liberty) But sure, such a theory is perfectly viable: Try Dubai, whose complex called "The World Trade Center" has picked up many of the former clients of the twin towers. But that's just a suspect with a motive. If someone wants to construct that theory, it'll be easy to link them to Al Qaeda, etc. Here's the problem with it: No one has made a decent case, no one has even tried, because, IMHO, such a theory, even if true, does not support the globalist agenda.

I rest my case. You guys can research it, I've researched this a ton. I'd go with a whozit on the popular mechanics, looks like a little bit of MSM whoring, with a lot of strawmen, attacking some arguments put up by some conspiracy theorists, a lot of which are bogus, and some of their defenses are bogus. I don't need at this late stage in the game an alternation Building 7 story, because:

1. Every "official" govt. investigation, even 5 years in supported the absurd initial Bush claim that some random piece of wreckage flew through a window and started a fire that collapsed the building. Which would radically defy the laws of physics.

2. There's a ton of evidence, but you don't need when you have a guy on tape confessing to the crime, you need evidence on the other side.

Harsh reality? They can't allow the real building 7 story to exist because it grants the possibility of bombs in the other buildings.

Why on earth they never came up with "Al Qaeda put those bombs there"? I don't know, but they didn't. Now I see no means or opportunity.

Now, to be honest, I'm only doing this for the people want to who listen. I've seen all the evidence from both sides, and made my conclusion. Go dig, and reach yours. All I can say about the official story is this piece of garbage isn't worth the time of day. I'd give the conspiracy "Saddam Hussein had WMDs right up until we invaded Iraq and was using them on his own people and then sold them to Syria when we announced our attack" <-- conspiracy theory by Bush that I think is wrong, but still, I'd give this theory a far higher level of plausibility that I would give the official 9-11 story, which I'm ranking at a zero percent chance.

[edit]BM

the pancake fails to explain why a wire mess wouldn't be left behind, as in other non-demo skyscraper collapses. The structure of the building even under intense steel melting temps would have caused this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 1:07 PM

Well, like I said, I don't know much about building construction. And, I'm sure I haven't studied this particular case as much as you have. I'd be inclined to believe you say that pancaking probably tends to leave a wiremesh, generally.

Maybe it depends on whether the falling mass is heavy enough to tear down the wire mesh as it collapses? The Twin towers had quite a few more levels than did the Oklahoma City buildings.

The fire didn't get hot enough to actually melt the metal. Some warping I can believe, I suppose. And a very important question is whether the fire actually reached the structural supports, because the ambient temperature on account of the fire would not be nearly as hot as the fire itself. Fire would have had to reach it for it to be effected sufficiently. So I want to know, did it? It's easy to assume it did, but I'd really like the concrete evidence (no pun intended), because this is a very serious question.

From the little I know, the scientific evidence seems inconclusive for both sides. I really want to know more about this, and I'd really like to see a more in-depth investigation, but it's probably too late now.

Thing is... There's possible motivation. That's not enough evidence enough for a conviction or even any sort of accusation. But it's enough to make ME wonder, and to keep me wondering. I just don't want to get duped by people who have so much power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 1:18 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
, did you ever find an answer to the question as to why the South Tower,struck 2nd, was the first one to fall ?

I know the answer to this one, it's simple physics, you don't have to be a engineer to get this one.

Glad you know, but my question wasn't directed toward you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 1:26 PM

Wasn't it something about the angle the airplane hit? It penetrated deeper?

I've never really thought much about it. Is there an alternative explanation?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 1:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I've never really speculated, Kirk.

We don't know, we prolly never will know - but historically the official stories of these kind of events are bullshit 100% of the time, and the official story doesn't hold water, not a drop.

I do know the intensity of fire it woulda required to weaken those supports wasn't present cause I happen to have a copy of the telemetry tape where the firefighters on that floor are like "Nah, we got this, it's almost out anyway..."

And secondly, I did serve, way back when, and although we came to cases on payroll issues before I completed the training, I *do* have some experience with EOD/Demo and NBC stuff, ok ?

I know damn well what a cutter charge does, and how to use em, hell, how to MAKE em, in a pinch - and more importantly, were to put em.

Oh yes, and what they sound like, that sharp snap, almost a crispy electrical sound, it's tough to describe.

And I can tell you with a 98% certainty, that someone DID set cutter charges off in those buildings just before they came down - which might I add *still* does not explain them coming down cause there were not ENOUGH of them, and they're not in the optimum places, so if there were enough, the buildings would have fallen northward instead of into their own footprint.

Images from the aftermath prettymuch confirm this if one looks em over, as well.

We don't KNOW shit, we suspect a lot, but that ain't the same.

Still, what we *do* know is enough to warrant serious investigation, of which there has been none, and when a public mainstream magazine comes out with a piece taking the official line, written by a coterie of folks with direct connections to the very administration suspected of some level of involvement it's a red flag all by itself.

And were I in charge of the investigation, those buildings would be the last place I stopped, and that for confirmation only.

I'd be starting with who made those stock trades, and who sent Odigo messages warning them, and continuing on to how them guys in the truck knew where and when to point the camera, and why their truck tested positive for explosives residue.

And THAT points the finger in a direction that tells me this will never be properly investigated, period.

Fuck what, find out WHO and WHY.
And the buildings are not the place to start lookin for those things.

The real rumdinger is of course, the admission that building seven was pulled.
Again, the telemetry tapes, cause the emergency personnel were warned to clear the area, mind you.

And the columbo one-more-thing question to it.

Who wired the charges (which takes a helluva lot longer than you'd think), and when ?
Answer me THAT one.

I don't provide answers, I simply formulate the best questions to ask given what we do actually know.

Taking the Popular Mechanics piece at face value would be like giving credence to the testimony of some three time loser caught with an eight ball of coke when he says it fell into his pocket by accident.

Doesn't really matter whether they're trying to cover their ass over incompetence, ignorance or complicity, or even some combination of the three, what matters is that the folks involved have such a glaringly obvious personal axe to grind that it leaves them no credibility on the subject.

And that's the SAME reason I don't buy into Rivero, Jones, or PN's assertations neither.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:31 PM

Bytemite,

There are a lot of sites out there, 911truth.org etc. you have to dig around and find all the theories and sort of test them out, see how much of it rings true. There's a lot of nonsense, and some solid issues, probably on a balance favoring nonsense, but the remaining 10% is very worrisome. It makes you think.

Yes, there was a plane angle, one of the planes only hit the corner of the building, I think it was the second one, which fell first. There's some issue as to why that would fall straight, or first. As I tend to discount the idea that the planes could cause the buildings to collapse at all without some secondary explosive, I tend to favor a controlled demolition. I started searching from the building 7 angle. I came to the conclusion that was a demolition long before the others. Eventually I had to say, yes, there would have been more remaining from a disorderly collapse, and the unwillingness of the administration to alter its story on new evidence sort of destroyed their credibility, long before they would destroy it in other areas.

It's a learning experience overall in terms of physics, etc. Worth doing.

As for whodunnit? I dunno. I have motive means and opportunity. I say some globalists. I can't narrow it down. Could be Saudis, Dubai, Israel, even europeans or americans, but whoever, partnered with at least, I used to say one, now I say a handful, of inside guys. Once executed, it became a matter of national survival for the govt. to cover up.

Another motive means opportunity angle is look at the govt. They have everything to lose if this is true, and everything to gain by lying. I tend to shy away from the straight Iraq theory towards the Patriot Act etc, legislation already written, that would never pass without an event. As for a greater war, sure, we have Richard Perle saying on sept. 1 of 2000 "the american people will never get behind this[global war on terror] absent an event on the scale of Pearl Harbor." Us was already at war with Iraq. I don't think that's specifically the issue, and there was little constructive effort made to tie it to Iraq, just to get us into a war, and pass some extreme executive powers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:45 PM

America loves a winner!

DT, I'm sorry, but you've sounded all level headed and reasonable up 'til now, but to see you succumb to the paranoia is just sad. Under no circumstances, what so ever, is it even remotely possible that any of those buildings were " brought down " . It simply did not happen. The reason is simple. There's just no way to hide a demolition operation required to take down buildings that big with out anyone -

Noticing the work being done: We're talking CONSIDERABLE prep work here, the removal of walls to get to load bearing beams, the cutting of those beams, w/ high heat welding tools, and then the placing of charges , which have to be shaped in order for things to fall at all, not to mention the MILES of wires that would be required to assure the charges all go off with a micro second precision,etc... You're expecting us to buy into the fact that NO ONE in the building ( WTC # 7 ) would notice any of that work going on , say something to anyone, or remember any of that ? Which brings me to this...

Keeping the secret There's no way to hide , the above mentioned physical work required on a building from folks who work there every day, and the folks coming in and out of those businesses. But even if you could, some how , block off sections of the building , floor after floor, on areas that are rigged to blow, there'd STILL be a lot of folks who knew. How'd they keep anyone from telling ? 8 YRS, and not one person has come forth, and pointed the finger at anyone. Nary a piece of evidence which remotely suggest such a thing, other than the incredulity that some feel, that say " there simply isn't any other explanation, so it MUST have been brought down! "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 2:53 PM

FREM,

interesting stuff. I basically agree with everything while not being a sockpuppet :)

As to when, I think that I'm pretty sure that the buildings were closed for renovation the weekend before. That would be a good when, minimize the chance of random discovery, but then, they could have been sitting for a long time.
My guess, given the 1993 attempt, which I'd also put down for inside job, I'd say that if there was and failure of the buildings to come down, they could have set something massive in the basement. Sending the second tower down first might have been an objective study in damage control from the demolition. There was a lot of secondary damage. Since I'd put Silverstein way up on the list for the triggerman, given building seven, the next question would be who gave him the order. I assume it was a ring of some kind, definitely this is not a one man job, but you don't set up your trigger man as your top guy in command.

I agree on the info underground and its overlord wannabes, they all have an agenda, alex jones etc. The best place to look I found is sites run by people who were themselves, or have family members, who were in the building. I know the guys who made loose change, they live right here, used to be neighbors of mine, went to a party at their house. Those boys were looking at a chance for quick fame, and I'm dubious of them and their film. some of the stuff is likely, some of it is absurd.

Oh, and while digging through family members, I wouldn't take their word at it. See who they are, and what they've done about it. The most seriously motivated people do things like testify before congress, hold press conferences. There was this one guy who did his own report directly after the 9-11 commission did theirs, and did it on c-span, who is never going to give time to a random attention whore. He seemed pretty credible.

For a massive onslaught of misinformation, checkout the pentagon attack. This imho was staged, but with all cameras removed by the govt, the govt's pentagon story is not difficult to contrive, it's impossible. There's another missile theory which has holes. It seems like a smaller plane, with a cruise missile or a bomb on board, maybe remote control.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say whoever did it and why, all planes were on autopilot. The japanese found out that 9/10 people would back out of a suicide mission, and that could be reduced to 8/10 even if they were drugged. But if your hijackers are busy in the back, and the plane is on autopilot, no one is going to be there to change the course. It may have been rigged so they couldn't.

None of which helps a great deal, except to say that in standard investigation, the guy who is lying his ass off isn't looking real good.

But, questions are better than answers, and by all means, everyone should research it for themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 3:12 PM

Rap,

I only take offense at one word there: Succumb.

I did not buy anyone's line, I did my own damn research, and a lot of it.

You should do the same. I think the conclusion I came to is in the ballpark of the truth and am confident that anyone who turns of Rush, and anything that is telling them what to think, then starts THINKING FOR THEMSELVES, will come to some conclusion other than the official story.

Don't buy this muslim conspiracy theory BS, because it's total hogwash. Muslim terrorists? Sure, very possibly. But they don't have the motive means and opportunity.

I'm confident that:

1. Yes, with the buildings closed for two days you could do this work.

2. Many, many people have come forward. I've had a lot of conversations on this topic with a lot of people in our govt., including someone in the administration. Not to mention countless people from the buildings.

3. If you didn't eat the spoon fed bullsh*t and say mmm tasty, and actually researched this for yourself, you would come to the a similar conclusion.

You always seem to stick to the neocon line like glue. Think, for one in your life, for yourself. You ain't gonna convince anyone else, you're coming from the "Earth is flat" position. No one will ever buy it. I'm not telling people what to think, just what a ton of digging revealed. I'm telling people, think for yourselves. Go out there, and use your brains. Otherwise you're what Pirate News says: Sheep. Was it sheeple? sheople?

Don't start with an idea fixee and dig for stuff to support it, start, as Frem says, with the idea that we know nothing. Then dig your line to the truth. Even if that truth leads somewhere you don't want it to go.

I didn't want it to go where my investigation led. Let me tell you how much I didn't want it to go there. I'm a conservative, I supported this president, and the USA, and I'm a new yorker, and god damn the last thing I wanted to hear after we were attacked and friends of mine lost family members in those buildings, and on those planes, the very last thing I ever wanted to here was that this attack was planned in New York, right here at home, baby. And believe me, I was very resistant to that idea when I found my investigation leading there. But I can tell you, after all the digging that I've done, my top suspects are Saudis, or arabs, or the Bush admin, they're right here in NY. IMHO

I.M.H.O.

Okay? Capice? Yah. You successfully ticked me off. Good work. 'Cause it's real fucking hard to do. Now, go out there and think, read, do your homework, and stop being a mouthpiece for these idiots. And have some self respect. Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush aren't even good enough to shine your shoes. IMHO.

K. I'm done now. If I didn't think you had a brain, I'd just ignore you. I'm just saying, I think you got a brain, and you gorram ain't using it right now. Go, use brain, run program.

And let me know if the GOP of Georgia is involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 3:53 PM

America loves a winner!

DT,,

Which buildings were closed ? Surely you don't mean BOTH WTC 1 and 2 buildings, right ? Never heard of such a thing. Seriously.

This doesn't have a god damn thing to do w/ " neo con" bullshit. i don't even know what "neocon" crap you mean, the term is tossed around so damn much.I'm a conservative, yes, but I do my own thinking, thank you very much.

I pissed YOU off ? How the hell ? I was merely asking the question. Trust me, had I intended to irk or piss you off, I'd have had a FAR different tone.

Sorry, but I view those who SUCCUMB to 9/11 conspiracies as I do Young Earth Creationist or think that man lived with Dinosaurs. Those folks might not mean any harm ( though some clearly do ) , they're just ignorant.

I've seen / heard many attempts to explain away the evidence, or couch it as being something that it simply isn't, but as of yet, nothing has swayed my view. Not saying some new evidence wouldn't let me change my mind, but so far.... it's all been hogwash.

And trust me, I know for hogwash.. I've been dealing w/ Young Earth Creationist for many years. I've done research and know how to question what I " THOUGHT " i knew, and run it through the B.S detector. I rarely watch any news on t.v., even FOX, so spare me the whole " being fed a spoonful " line. It does not apply.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2009 5:05 PM

Rap,

Sorry for snapping. You did tick me off, with this whole "oh, anyone who doesn't accept the official story is a sucker for some wackjobs" BS. That's pretty f^&king insulting.

I don't fall for lines. I do research. IMHO, the official 9-11 story is the biggest line being sold. Apart from creationism. And maybe a couple others. It's still hogwash. I suspect it's a political ploy to discredit public schools: Feed the christians a really dumb idea that will make private school sound like a disaster. Just like underfunding the voucher program.

My judge of people's independence of thought is twofold:

1. Anyone who agrees with a line coming from the top down, be it right or left, is probably just a parrot. People of independent minds tend to come up with a random assortment of viewpoints: chaotic, but logically connected by some threads.

2. People who think independently tend to eschew those who tell them what to think, it Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, there's a slew of them out there.

I watch Jon Stewart because he's funny. I agree with him sometimes. When he goes all partisan democrat, he's unlikely to get my agreement, when he just is showing skepicism for the system, I am more likely to agree with him. But when he stops being funny, I stop watching.

I did a lot of digging on 9-11, enough to totally bury the official story for me. As Frem says, it doesn't even remotely hold water. As understand it, the building was undergoing a "cable upgrade" the weekend prior to the attacks, this was reported by a ton of people. This gives any perp at least from 5pm friday, to 9am monday, that's more than enough time.

But I'm not going to go into a blow by blow debate on 9-11. I did a ton of research, talked to a lot of people, and came to my own conclusions. I don't know everything, but I know enough to take me to the next step, discard the bs I got from my govt., which if they had had any brains at all, they would've pulled at some point for a more plausible theory. Then I started doing some analysis of who and why.

Again, Frem is right: How they came down is less important than who was behind it. Like everything else, I must've posted this on 100 topics on the board, and 9-11 is no different: Motive, means, opportunity. That's what it always comes down to.

If you found nothing to shake the official story, then you ain't looking very hard. The story comes down faster than those towers.

I think you're afraid to look, because you might not like what you found. I know I didn't care for it. But I got a shortlist now of primary suspects. Three New Yorkers. What their agenda is, that's separate from the govt's cover up agenda.

Any govt. is going to cover up any inside job. You dig, and you'll find this govt. in hyper cover up mode ever since 9-11. That screams inside job. Why? Because an inside job comes out, it'll take down the govt. Less chance with each passing year, but even now, it'd probably do a lot of damage. On 9-12-01? If the govt. comes out and says "Our bad" oh, man, screw the agenda or anything you have lined up, the whole govt's coming down.

So, inside job is not a story, it's almost a given, but it's just a piece of circumstantial evidence. Next you have to say who and why.

I'm done on this topic, i'm not going to argue with a wall. I'm saying, I did my research, other people I've met who've done theirs, they came to some different final conclusions than I did, but none of them came out supporting the official story, and all of them came out with at least one inside guy.

If you come out with a theory that says it's Al Qaeda and Bin Laden behind it? Yeah, that's possible. I'll buy it if there's a decent solid theory and evidence behind it. I mean, there's a guy who hates(hated?) America, and said so very publicly. He's also a terrorist. Yeah, sure, he's a prime suspect. Imho, he's a suspect with tons of motive, and no means or opportunity.

But don't arrive there because it's what you want to find. Let go of what you want to find. That's the only way you're going to get anywhere near the truth.

Oh, here's something else. The targets, they're not accidental, and they're not symbolic. The targets are direct.

My calls, personally? The target is the CIA. All four buildings had CIA offices which were destroyed in the attack. Doesn't mean the CIA isn't a suspect at the same time. Entirely possible. But they wouldn't be my top suspect.

My suspect list is not a coherent organization, it's people who have connections to one another, but who are each independently implicated heavily. This means that other people, closely connected to those three, and other people with circumstantial evidence connecting them to the crime, are all potential suspects, and you cross the patterns and look for things that make sense.

I can't say I'm there yet as to the main question, why? I would say, first guess, the patriot act, and then the greater war. But that's much more of a guess than the who. And I don't think I'm guessing about the what and the how. I'm pretty sure. I'm done arguing about that.

It took me being on the side you're on for a very long time before I had to give it up piece by piece. I was slow. I only bother to look because I watched it happen, and I was skeptical about the how. It took me a long time to give up on the the rest of it. The govt. I say really blew it, from a criminal point of view. They didn't follow logic, and provide decent alternative explanations. They provided the absurd. The completely subverted process all the way. It was a cover up that made Nixon look like a f^&king amateur. Hell, Nixon was a f^&king amateur. Next to these guys.

Whoever they are. And here's the difference, and maybe it's the NY difference: I actually care. The bastards are gonna get it, whoever they are. And sure, for a while, I was willing to buy that it was who I was told. But even the govt. has bailed on that part of the story now. Cheney said it was Iraq, I don't think even Bush bought that, but that's nonsense. Again, lots of motive, nothing else. Then Afghanistan. Oh, what a load of... It's just so convenient that everyone they were already planning to attack was a suspect? Naw, it's a crime, and one perped by someone with motive means and opportunity, and with a damn good reason for the target selection.

So, Rap, open your eyes. and, when I say I'm done, I mean I'm done. Here's a simple rundown.

Official Story = Earth is flat. I used to believe this story

Conspiracy Theory = Heck, they're all conspiracy theories, even the official one. I just do it like it was a crime scene and come up with pieces that make sense. I ain't got it solved yet, but I know enough to know some of the whos, and some possible whys, but I'm not sure of that yet.

Luring me back to the flat earth version = not gonna happen. I skimmed that PM piece. pretty phony. Yeah, I think they've been summoned for cover up duty. Even I have more than enough scientific background to fly planes through this story.

Not going to argue on this one. Just don't shoot the messenger, all of that. I'm off to other threads and other things in life. I've satisfied this question, for now, and I'm only looking for the why. I'm not a vindictive person. I'm guessing that my prime suspects are working for or with someone else, to whom they are all connected in a logical fashion, and that the war and the patriot act were some of what they got out, but even those, as an end, seems senseless, unless they wanted those for some other further purpose. And I'm not sure where this one is landing. It might land solidly in the democratic party, a lot of lefties might be surprised to hear that, and they can post denials, it's a strong possibility I'm look at, and I'm looking at some others. I am thinking about who benefits, and I mean in the long term. I think those stock option are a good place to find a rat, they're not going to lead you to the agenda. But every piece of the puzzle is useful.

So, go, search, read, open your mind. And, here's something I'm gonna promise you, if you let go of the precious lies that we all got dealt: You're not gonna like what you find. I guarantee you this. Be prepared to not like it, and be prepared to accept that very uncomfortable feeling. I don't care if you work for the DoD or CNN. Everyone is capable of seeing the truth, all they have to do is let go of what they believe, and look.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2009 4:23 AM

America loves a winner!

Dream

Here's the Readers Digest version of what I gleaned from your very lengthy post.

I use to think like you - No, you really didn't. I've never even read the 9/11 Commission report, and know very little about the " OFFICIAL " line. So, when you say I'm buying into the Gov'ts line, I gotta say.... not so fast.

You're too scared to know the truth Oh, I use to get that one ALL the time from fundies. "... because knowing the truth would mean you can't deny God anymore, and you'd have to answer to him, and that scares you " .

Don't trust the Gov't. Well DUH! I watched W ignore the border problem and casually dismiss all those who voted for him. When told, in a meeting with talk show host in the Oval Office, what was one of the major issues Americans were talking about, the topic of illegal immigration came up. W's response? " Oh, really? " As if it was the 1st time he'd ever even heard of such a thing.

And the issue isn't GOP or DNC, it's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. Bloated, corrupt and ineffective, to the core.

But I digrees. Despite your impassioned words I've not seen anything in your reply that gives me pause to say.. " ah HA! ", or "Hmm...now that DOES sound fishy." A lot of innuendo, accusation and circumstantial evidence. No offense meant, but Occam's Razor seems the best explanation for what happened on 9/11. A bunch of evil men took down a target they'd tried to get before, and this time, they made sure they weren't going to miss.

- Selah

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2009 5:17 AM

1. No, I wasn't a member of the limbaugh club. I used to believe this story, about al qaeda. Nice fantasy, nowhere near reality.

2. I think you're just not trying. Personally, I don't care. It's not my mission to convert you or anyone else. Stay ignorant. Not gonna bother me.

3. Glad to see this. Show it every once in a while. IMHO, people who listen to pundits on either side are constantly being reprogrammed. You break away from their line of thinking, but you still listen, and read, and they pull you back in. They are as bad as MSM in that way. I prefer to get my information randomly, and if I sense a bias, I extract it, ignore it, but also, I go read something else, and get the counterpoint.

As for the rest, I don't believe in evil. I believe in simple forces at work, the inside job theory is a lot simpler than the official story. You don't need to convince anyone to commit suicide, you don't need to smuggle people into the country, teach them how to fly, or anything, you just buy off the right guys. I suspect Clinton's WTC attacks were also an inside job.

Muslim terrorists have blown a lot of things up, not saying they weren't involved in this one. But I'm not buying the flat earth story: It won't hold water.

Again, not arguing the point. just not letting myself be encapsulated readers digest style.

From this perspective, mine is a logical position based on evidence, the govt. line is the wild unworkable conspiracy theory. The majority opinion is something other than the official story, about 20% believe the official story, 36% believe it's an inside job. I think that it's probably a hybrid. I'm strongly leaning towards the stuff I put out, but I can only conclude americans being involved. I tend to side with the inside job crowd, but I'm not going to buy that everyone knew. I'm thinking a couple of guys knew. I think other people signed on afterwords for cover-up, because of the consequences.

Aa lot of insiders bought the inside story for the same reason that people buy the pundit cr*p or the MSM, ie, they're fed half of the story. That's how communism works, not to mention theocracies. But you don't need to force that behavior on folk, they'll do it for themselves. Just like your fundie sheep, the people just want answers, they're uncomfortable with unanswered questions and conflicting information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2009 5:40 AM