• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

September 11th: The History of 9/11

Now this may be pure speculation, but the WTC was built in the laste 60's/early 70's, at a time when the construction industry in NY was run by the mob. Now these construction companies were notorious for cutting corners, shoddy work and deliberate use of substandard materials. Combined with bribes/threats to various city officials.

So isn't it possible that the buildings may have been vulnerable than their published design suggests? It doesn't matter how well designed anything is if it's put together by a bunch of bodgers. Might this possibly be a contributory factor?
Click to expand...

I quite agree Mr Wibble,
Especially with reference to WTC7 which was not as baddely damaged as the other two but still fell due to fire.
 
Not long after 9/11 I remember seeing a documentary on the television which attempted to explain how the buildings went down so "quickly" and "unexpectedly".
The main content was much as the "official line" but I do recall that they talked to someone who was on the building job when it was built in the late 1960's. quite an old man now, maybe with an agenda I don't know.

However, he was saying about how prefabricated bits of the building arrived with locating lugs missing, bolt holes missing and wall ties missing, and because of the time constraints they had to use these parts which were obviously sub standard. Whether any of this was influential in the final outcome I guess no one will know.
But maybe it illustrates that although these buildings were designed to be invincible, the execution may have led to less than the design.

When I was watching the buildings collapse on the television I kept wondering how they could have gone so neatly in to their own footprints - both of them, and not fallen over at least partly, but at the time the whole thing was so horrific, for me it was just a casual observation.
 
jeff544 said:
When I was watching the buildings collapse on the television I kept wondering how they could have gone so neatly in to their own footprints - both of them, and not fallen over at least partly, but at the time the whole thing was so horrific, for me it was just a casual observation.
Click to expand...

If you read the PDF from the link Timble supplied a page or so back, you'll read that the towers didn't actually fall into their own footprint.
 
If you read the PDF from the link Timble supplied a page or so back, you'll read that the towers didn't actually fall into their own footprint.
Click to expand...

Classic ignorring 70% of Jeffs post and picking up on the little bit at the bottom.

However, he was saying about how prefabricated bits of the building arrived with locating lugs missing, bolt holes missing and wall ties missing, and because of the time constraints they had to use these parts which were obviously sub standard. Whether any of this was influential in the final outcome I guess no one will know.
But maybe it illustrates that although these buildings were designed to be invincible, the execution may have led to less than the design.
Click to expand...

I think the bit Jeff was hoping would be discussed is this bit.

In other words the Buildings were inferrior to their design specifications, this would negate the fact that the buildinggs were supposed to handle a plane going in them.
When in fact they were poorly built.

This fact makes much more sense when you consider the pancake effect.
It is quite possible that the weak floor tie assemblys is actaully part of the reason the building collapsed as it did.

you can also add to this the lack of redundancy in the sprinkler system as this also failed to work in any way shape or form.

when you weigh up the poor building performance on the day , it does speak volumes for the build quality.

and remember it was three of em that collapsed all built by the same people.

on a different not did anyone see that crap on the TV over two days based off the 911 commision data ?
 
techybloke666 said:
Classic ignorring 70% of Jeffs post and picking up on the little bit at the bottom.
Click to expand...

No, I was just replying to a specific point another poster has made.
 
techybloke666 said:
on a different not did anyone see that crap on the TV over two days based off the 911 commision data ?
Click to expand...

I think the caveat at the beginning and end that stated 'Much of this has been invented for dramatic effect' spoke volumes. :)
 
I think the caveat at the beginning and end that stated 'Much of this has been invented for dramatic effect' spoke volumes.
Click to expand...

didnt it just !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
I found a recording of the voice over dude from Loose Change having good old belly laughs about 9/11.

If he was faced with 5 maniacs on a plane armed with stanley knives, even if they were "Muslims" he would laugh in their face. He whoops with delight when he hears of the pilots fighting for their lives.

Sickening : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFNBpjZCI4&eurl=

edit: listening a bit more he is accusing a man of not taking a flight as he knew it was going to be hijacked and yet he let his 9 year old son get on the plane. Now if it was me who had lost his son and this wacko accusing me of basically letting my kid be murdered, I would want to have a stern conversation with him, I would like to see him laugh in my face as I came at him with my stanley knife and im not even a Muslim.
 
I will go on record as saying that I have no idea of what actually happened on 9-11, and that I likely will not know the truth until the day I die. Something unusual happened, but I suspect that most of the conspiracy theorists have it wrong. When I say 'unusual,' I mean that I believe neither the 'official story' nor the conspiracy theories.

It will be much stranger than I (probably any of us) can currently concieve of. I just hope our kids are smarter than we and can uwind this massive deception. I sure as hell can't and I doubt that any living person, aside from those directly involved, can.

I have no doubt, however, that something fishy was going on.
 
Did anyone see that channel 4 documentary on 9/11 hoaxers? I didn't actually see the whole thing, but one of the people featured on there (not a hoaxer) was saying that the remains of the bombers were found and have been buried in a secret plce by the american government.

Does it strike anyone as weird that although the SB's remains were found, most of the other people's remains were ground to dust?

Maybe it's just me.......
 
Abendstern said:
Does it strike anyone as weird that although the SB's remains were found, most of the other people's remains were ground to dust?

Maybe it's just me.......
Click to expand...

They seem to have found enough remains to identify the hijackers, in the same way they did WRT identifying the remains of other people killed that day. The rubble was sifted twice for the purposes of finding any human remains.
 
The largest Swiss paper and some Swiss academics are getting on side in the 9.11 debate it seems.

ZURICH -- 2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and

"Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version.

Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions.

"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in VIEW:

"Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".

Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:

"For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World trade center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."

Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich.

Dr. Daniele Ganser

Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".

"There are 3 theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 (Operation Northwoods) that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."

As far as Ganser and Stahel go: "We only ask questions."

Swiss version: http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057

English Translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... ws%2Fausla\ nd%2F9-11%2Fartikel45057&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-\ 8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
Click to expand...
 
Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:
Click to expand...

Oh God, not this again.

Once again I ask: if the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? And where are all the passengers?
 
Quake:

I admire your persistence, but no amount of logic, no amount of reasoned debate, is ever going to shake the hard core conspiracy nuts. They have decided on the conclusion they desire - it MUST be a malevolent, massive US govt conspiracy - and they will reject any fact, discussion or explanation which does not dovetail with this conclusion.

Shadow
 
Those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job are wingnuts — rank amateur investigators and their sycophantic followers. They can’t tell a rumor from a piece of evidence, or a piece of evidence from conclusive proof.

Those who believe that 9/11 was not an inside job are sheeple — brainwashed dupes who have a psychological block against accepting unpleasant facts.

As a 9/11 conspiracy agnostic, I suppose I can live with both of those characterizations. (Oh wait, I forgot — agnostics are gutless weasels who are afraid to take a stand.)

Both sides in this hostile exchange follow their own stream of evidence. Both sides say the evidence presented by their opponents is incomplete, misconstrued, or just downright false. Primary representatives of each point of view are characterized as sleazy opportunists with suspect connections. In other words, it’s pretty much like all other political debates that happen during polarized times, but a bit weirder.

The weirdness mostly comes from the pro-conspiracy side.

Early theorists focused largely on the connections that always seem to exist between powerful armed gangs with a will to power — whether they’re state-based militarists and intelligence operatives or stateless terrorists. Shadowy possible connections between the CIA and Al Qaeda via Pakistan’s Secret Service, the Saudi connections (including the business connections between the Bush’s and bin Landen’s): all sorts of tantalizing factoids and rumors could be spotted along the guns-and-money trail.

But over the last few years, “inside job” theory has focused mostly on presumed “smoking gun” physical evidence. This has resulted in a hyper-byzantine narrative that might look something like this: Government agents replaced passenger planes with remote-controlled flying something-or-others and also planted explosives in three WTC buildings. They somehow made the explosives go off at a particular time (or maybe the exact time didn’t matter), but they made certain to fell not just the two buildings hit by the remote-controlled planes but one extra building, WTC #7. Bringing down this billion dollar building was an irresistibly convenient way of getting rid of some possibly damaging records.

Meanwhile, on the same day, a little while later, the Pentagon fired a missile at itself, making sure to hit the least valued section of their five-sided building, not the one where Donald Rumsfeld was hanging out. They were prepared to claim that the missile was actually a hijacked passenger plane. The people who were supposed to have been flying on these hijacked planes were maybe all packed onto the one plane that was shot down in Pennsylvania (contrary to the report that it was brought down by a struggle between the hijackers and the hijacked) even though everybody wouldn’t have fit on the plane… or who the hell knows what happened to them. The many calls from the hijacked planes, particularly the one that went down in Pennsylvania, were faked with technology.

Meanwhile, NORAD was given a “stand down” order not to scramble jets to defend against these planes, or else some conspirators made sure that they didn’t scramble the jets fast enough. And all who might have been involved in, or would have known about such a thing, were reliable conspiracy members or were intimidated or bribed into keeping it all secret. Hundreds of people at various levels of the government, the sorts of people who are generally inclined towards patriotism, conspired to destroy or damage the symbols of American financial and military power. Oh, and all those who investigated the debris in the Pentagon and those who witnessed the airplane overhead were either easily tricked or sworn to secrecy. And that’s just the short version.

The long version of this narrative would include not just the intentional subversion of operations against Al Qaeda; but the conscious, knowing subversion of investigations into what happened on 9/11 not just by the Bush administration but from all levels of Congress, various police-type agencies, and all who testified before investigative committees. It would also take in the false testimonies of structural engineers and other experts in physical evidence, indeed entire academic conferences were conducted simply to deceive (hmm, come to think of it, that description might apply to a few “Critical Theory” conferences I’ve attended). This conspiracy involved thousands of Americans from all walks of life.

And then there are a few theorists who think that no planes hit the WTC at all and that it was all done with holography. Most members of the “Truth movement” agree that those people are wingnuts!

As someone who is willing to entertain the idea that I live inside of some sort of Platonic matrix created by a cruel master-species whose general intentions occasionally leaked into the brain of Philip K. Dick, I can hang out with this narrative. But on my agnosto-meter in which everything is possible but most things are improbable, I give it about a .0001% chance of being mostly accurate.

I would give other “inside job” narratives a higher rating. I might even be willing to go up to 15% odds that some world domination-oriented US militarists within the ranks of the powerful decided that the success of rumored upcoming major terror attacks on the US would help them achieve their national and global political goals and that they did some things to increase the likelihood that the attacks would succeed. Hey, sometimes you feel like a wingnut, sometimes you don’t.

The book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts, published by Popular Mechanics, deals entirely with issues around physical evidence. They claim to refute the theories about explosives planted in buildings, missiles in the Pentagon and the claims that Flight 93 was shot down in Pennsylvania, among other popular conspiranoid points. They also publish testimony from people who claim that they were misunderstood or misquoted by theorists — falsely made to sound like they were supporting the theories. Naturally, those who believe in the conspiracy theories dismiss everything in the book and everyone quoted in the book as dupes and conspirators.

On the whole, the book is pretty impressive, although it’s thin and it’s not footnoted (most pro-conspiracy tracts are full of footnotes, but if you follow the footnotes you might find less than you bargained for.) The editors, David Dunbar and Brian Reagan, claim to have “consulted with more than 300 experts and sources in such fields as air traffic control, aviation, civil engineering, fire fighting, and metallurgy.” Many of them are listed in the back of the book. Of course, quite a few of them do work for the government, which provides all the reason required for those on the conspiracy side of the tracks to dismiss the entire book as an adjunct to the whole nefarious government operation.

A few days ago, my audio podcast, The RU Sirius Show, sponsored a live debate on the subject of “inside job” conspiracy theory. One of my goals in putting together this panel was to include a hardcore anti-conspiracy theory skeptic. I started out by contacting the editors of the Popular Mechanics book, but they made it clear they were not interested in debating the other side. This is sort of understandable. Another person who I contacted, who has written specific skeptical comments about these theories told me she wouldn’t participate in any debates because she received thousands of pieces of hate mail and several death threats for her column in a left wing newspaper doubting these theories. She didn’t want to deal with that sort of fanaticism.

We wound up unable to come up with a hardcore, detail-oriented conspiracy theory skeptic who was available and willing to appear. So I thought I could incorporate some of the Debunking editors’ skeptical views into this piece for 10 Zen Monkeys. Debunking editor Brad Reagan expressed a willingness to answer my email questions, but only if the book publicist reviewed the questions and agreed that it was OK. He explained that they had been “sandbagged by some conspiracy theorists since the book came out.” I got the queasy feeling that I would only get a response if I asked nothing but softball questions, which I didn’t want to do.

I sent off my questions and the response that I got was a compromise: very brief responses to only a few of my questions, apparently intended not as interview material but to help me with my own research.

The publicist explained that Reagan was already over-scheduled, and had magazine deadlines to contend with as well. As a former magazine editor, I can understand this. Still, I must report that my over all experience with conspiracy skeptics has fortified my general impression that neither side in this exchange wants any serious discourse with anyone who doubts their views, even slightly.

Reagan did answer my most important question. The one paragraph that really leaped out at me when reading Debunking blows a pretty big hole in the theories based on the planned demolition of the World Trade Center that seem to dominate most of the conspiracy theories. It reads, “The collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings are among the most extensively studied structural failures in American history. In the five years since 9/11, they have been the subject of lengthy investigations and engineering school symposiums, together involving hundreds of experts from academia and private industry, as well as the government.”

I asked Reagan if he could substantiate these claims or provide us with some links that could help us to do so. He sent along the following message, including links: “The American Society of Civil Engineers website has a research library. Search under ‘World Trade Center’ and you will find numerous papers studying the collapse of the buildings. This link describes the range of experts participating in the NIST investigation. On another site, The Bazant paper is especially instructive. He is one of the world’s leading civil engineers.”

I’ll suggest that those who are in search of The Truth” in this matter would do well to read Debunking with an open mind, and to also follow the leads Mr. Reagan has provided. I would also suggest that those who dismiss all possibilities of government collusion would not be harmed if they admitted to themselves that relegating some of the well-documented fuckups and fiascoes of the American security establishment to incompetence does sometimes seem to stretch the boundaries of credulity.

For example, one of the weaker parts of Debunking is the section where they explain that America was not prepared to defend itself against an attack by hijacked airliners because we’d never dealt with that situation before. But even such mainstream, quasi-Republicanist fare as the recent ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 showed how, for months, the authorities were getting all kinds of warnings and chatter about “airplanes” and “hijackings” and “a major terrorist attack against the US,” and that they were watching suspects who were attending flight schools. And beyond that, this very same TV special echoed the little discussed fact that the revelations about Al Qaeda’s plans to use planes to attack the US go back to 1996 with news about “Project Bojinka” and, of course, that the World Trade Center had been targeted before, ad infinitum. Can we really chalk all that up to the glacial pace of government bureaucracy? Definitely maybe, but it does give one pause (or it should).

We live, obviously, in paranoid times. People are quick to conclude that the discursive other — the person with the opposite point of view — is “the enemy.” And enemies need to be defended against, not learned from. (Actually, one should learn from one’s enemies, but I’ll leave the Sun Tzu for another occasion.) Thus we see less and less real discourse, not just in terms of the facts and repercussions of 9/11 but across the political board. Maybe we should just split into memetic tribes and have it out in a shooting war. But color me an eternal optimist. I’d like to think that there is still space in public discourse for agnosticism; for uncertainty; and for considering the ideas of the other.
Click to expand...


Source


Interesting and quite balanced....
 
Quake42 said:
Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:
Click to expand...

Oh God, not this again.

Once again I ask: if the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? And where are all the passengers?
Click to expand...

didnt you ever read the book Millennium by john varley, or see the film, it either starred kurt russell or kris kristofferson. time travellers are coming back from the future and kidnapping plane crash victims before they crash.
 
The Families

On September 11 this year my thoughts were with the families who are still calling for a full independent inquiry to include how building 7 self-demolished and how aviation fuel melted steel into glowing molten cascades in the twin towers.

There should also be a proper inquiry into the Pentagon collision - even though the building damage obeyed the laws of physics and the principles of engineering (unlike the twin towers and building 7 which self-demolished.)

Two large, heavy, dense engines can't just disappear, they would have made twin holes either side of the single small hole supposedly made by the fusilage if they had hit the Pentagon. Therefore they obviously didn't hit the Pentagon therefore something else must have. (Quite apart from the fact that an elite pilot could not have hit the building so accurately without striking the ground first, let alone one who was failing in flight school.)

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 1483512003

You need to watch the video above and explode the myths for yourself because for some reason this footage never made it onto your TV...
 
Re: The Families

oilwar said:
You need to watch the video above and explode the myths for yourself because for some reason this footage never made it onto your TV...
Click to expand...

Oilwar I don't wish to be rude, but please read the threads already posted, all of the points you make in your post have been addressed (both the pros and the antis) in some detail. If you have something new to bring to the table (for or against) we'll be keen to discuss it, but the endless re-iteration of the same points doesn't really bring the argument on.
 
Don't Worry

The video is brand new and covers some new points as well as some old points from different angles. This is the best case for demolition I've ever seen. Everybody needs to watch this video:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 1483512003

So don't worry, I don't take any offense because this is new as I've said. In fact it's new and explosive (no pun intended.)

I'd love to read everybody's thoughts on this video - especially in relation to the demolition.
 
but surely it could be added to the threads about the wtc attack conspiracy?
 
The Whole Picture

The trouble is that this is bigger than just the Pentagon lies or the twin towers lies or the WTC building 7 lies. This is about all of them and more.

Excellent new material in this video includes a detailed scientific analysis of the explosion-damage to the foundations and even video footage of blown up cars and demolition rubble in the basement before the collapses!
 
Re: Don't Worry

oilwar said:
So don't worry, I don't take any offense because this is new as I've said. In fact it's new and explosive (no pun intended.)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm only a few minutes into it and already it's looking dodgy - a bloke who isn't a demolitions expert who's gleaned his information from the internet is not going to be the best and most reliable source on the subject... ;)
 
Re: The Whole Picture

oilwar said:
The trouble is that this is bigger than just the Pentagon lies or the twin towers lies or the WTC building 7 lies. This is about all of them and more.

Excellent new material in this video includes a detailed scientific analysis of the explosion-damage to the foundations and even video footage of blown up cars and demolition rubble in the basement before the collapses!
Click to expand...

Do you make these things Oilwar? ;)
 
Experts

Fortunately the maker of the video includes the testimonies of numerous experts in demolition, engineering, etc., as well as the testimonies of eyewitnesses who described explosions before the collapse. They are not film-makers and he is not an expert. You have to bring the two together - obviously!

There was white smoke at the *base* of the building *before* the collapse. What was that? I suspect Aluminium Oxide from a thermate reaction.

That's not a typo, I do mean thermate with an A. Thermate is thermite with added sulphur. Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel making the usual thermite reaction faster and more effective.

Nobody has been able to explain away the sulphur compounds found to be coating the severed steel in the WTC rubble.

Thermate seems to be the only plausible explanation. Scroll to about 50% through the video for that part. (But I advise you to watch the whole thing.)

Then around 55% through there are good clear shots of diagonally-sliced steels with the once-molten metal still set around the cuts. The only thing that can do that is a shaped-charge of the type used to make the diagonal cuts in steels that usually bring down buildings in other controlled demolitions.

Both the then Mayor of New York and the Zionist insurance-beneficiary leaseholder of the WTC are on record admitting they knew in advance that the towers were going to come down. The leaseholder even says he gave the go-ahead himself.
 
Both the then Mayor of New York and the Zionist insurance-beneficiary leaseholder of the WTC are on record admitting they knew in advance that the towers were going to come down. The leaseholder even says he gave the go-ahead himself.
Click to expand...

Please provide a reliable source for this latest bit of CT fanatsy. Nice "Zionist" dig in there as well... :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top