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

September 11th: The History of 9/11

Re: Interesting

oilwar said:
Jerry_B, can you suggest anything else whatsoever that Silverstein could have meant when he said, "maybe the best thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

No, because I don't want to speculate about what he may have meant. The problem is, conspiracists speculate that he meant that the building should be demolished. That does not make it a 'fact' - as you have claimed - that he ordered that the building be demolished.

If you're relying on speculation to back up your arguements, the basis of your theory is not gong to be all that soild ;)
 
Re: Interesting

oilwar said:
There's nothing that could have taken out the central core except explosives.

You have proof for that statement?

And what about building 7? It had a different structure and it wasn't hit by a plane but it self-demolished and imploded as well. This is not just unprecedented it's physically impossible.

Again, you really should do yourself - and us - a favour and go and read the other 9/11 threads - this has been covered there.
 
Fact

the fact is he could not have meant anything else.

Fact: He later claimed that he meant get the firefighters out. But I personally checked with the fire dept and FEMA and there was nobody at all in that building at the time and Silverstein was with the coordinators the whole time so he knew that. Fact.

There's nothing that could have taken out the central core except explosives. Fact. Yes there is ample proof of that statement. Watch the video please.

And there is certainly nothing anywhere here explaining scientifically how Building 7 collapsed in the same way as completely different steel buildings with completely different damage creating a triple-precedent on one day each of which is unique in history? In fact there was nothing in the 9/11 farce-report either. Unless you'd care to supply a link?

It seems to me that those people here who dare not face the possibility that some powerful people are capable of doing bad things have no option but to attempt to divert attention by saying this has all been covered before - which is clearly not true.
 
rynner said:
...

But assuming the much-maligned trusses did give way, causing the floors to pancake onto each other, how did that bring down the central cores of both buildings?

I'm just looking for a technical explanation that explains all the facts, whether conspiracy linked or not.
Yep. That's the question that continues to bug me, too. What happened to the central steel core(s)? :confused:
 
Re: Fact

oilwar said:
the fact is he could not have meant anything else.

Fact: He later claimed that he meant get the firefighters out. But I personally checked with the fire dept and FEMA and there was nobody at all in that building at the time and Silverstein was with the coordinators the whole time so he knew that. Fact.

How do you actually know that 'he could not have meant anything else'? You're speculating about what he meant - which is effectively putting words in his mouth. That does not make it a fact by any stretch of the imagination. Instead it just sounds like an attempt to dress up something as being something it is not. And that is a very shaky method of trying to establish fact.

There's nothing that could have taken out the central core except explosives. Fact. Yes there is ample proof of that statement. Watch the video please.

No, no proof - just speculation.

And there is certainly nothing anywhere here explaining scientifically how Building 7 collapsed in the same way as completely different steel buildings with completely different damage creating a triple-precedent on one day each of which is unique in history? In fact there was nothing in the 9/11 farce-report either. Unless you'd care to supply a link?

It seems to me that those people here who dare not face the possibility that some powerful people are capable of doing bad things have no option but to attempt to divert attention by saying this has all been covered before - which is clearly not true.

It's not a diversion in any sense whatsoever - and please don't try to imply that anyone who picks you up on your faults is merely some sort of robot who can't face any sort of 'possibility'. It's merely a request that you read the other threads. You clearly have not done so thus far, and so are repeating old arguments that have already been discussed and dissected here. If you don't want people to pick you out for your faults then please actually take some time to make sure you're not just repeating what has already been gone over here in these forums. Just do that one simple favour.
 
Missing the Point

No speculation or theories required. There were only ever two possibilities:

1) He meant withdraw the men that he knew were not there and were not his to withdraw anyway - which is clearly not true

2) He meant pull the building, as in demolish it, which of course is what he actually said anyway. These were his exact words:

"maybe the best thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


Once Silverstein realised he'd made a statement that appeared to implicate him, he attempted to counter it by claiming that he meant withdraw the fire crew rather than pull the building (which is what demolition engineers say). Unfortunately we know that:

1) There were no fire personnel in the building to withdraw

2) Silverstein knew this because he was with the Fire Department controllers. His own statement proves he was with them because he claimed to have ordered them to withdraw the men who were not there in the first place

3) This would not have been his decision anyway so why would he say it? Was this guy suddenly in charge of the New York Fire Department?


Sadly these people barely need to bother to cover their tracks because most people believe everything they say without question and anybody who does question is accused of everything from being unpatriotic to being a terrorist supporter to being anti-Semitic.
 
Re: Fact

oilwar said:
It seems to me that those people here who dare not face the possibility that some powerful people are capable of doing bad things have no option but to attempt to divert attention by saying this has all been covered before - which is clearly not true.

i think the problem is those people on here who dare not face the possibilty that some powerful people are only capable of doing bad things. and occassional attempts to paint those on here who have expressed incredulity at a wide range of officialdom as being servile dupes.
 
Re: Missing the Point

oilwar said:
Sadly these people barely need to bother to cover their tracks because most people believe everything they say without question and anybody who does question is accused of everything from being unpatriotic to being a terrorist supporter to being anti-Semitic.

why did you bring up the fact that silverstein is a zionist? after all it's an oilwar, right?
 
Oil & Israel

It's not just the oil magnates who did well out of 9/11.

Zionists like Silverstein did too. Apart from having billions more dollars to give to Israel (on top of the billions already given every year by Bush's regime) the demolitions of 9/11 enabled attacks to neutralise Zionism's biggest opponents:

The Mujahideen based in Afghanistan and Saddam's government.

Soon no doubt the last real opponents of Israel - Iran - will also suffer invasion. They're already being accused of attempting to make WMD - which is the exact same lie told to justify the invasion of Iraq! How soon we forget the lies we swallow.

Of course the global arms industry also makes a lot of money and the defense and intelligence communities and even law enforcement agencies have all gained a lot of power and money from the comically named 'war on terror' - which has killed and terrorised thousands and turned millions of moderate Muslims into extremists and raised the terrorist threat immeasurably - although it is still negligible compared to, for example, car accidents.

In fact the only people who lose are the Muslims who are demonised and cast as suspects. We forget that far more people drown in their bath each year than die as a result of terrorism. Time to bomb the evildoing water companies or freedom-hating bathtub manufacturers perhaps?

Let's get reality in perspective and stare straight through the propaganda. There dwells the truth, alive and well.
 
The Mujahideen based in Afghanistan and Saddam's government.

:wtf:

Exactly what was the Taliban doing to thwart the evil plans of international Jewry?

As far as I recall they spent most of their time oppressing their own people and turning Afghanistan into a medieval theocratic failed state.
 
Re: Missing the Point

oilwar said:
No speculation or theories required. There were only ever two possibilities

No - because you're still speculating. And not only were those personnel not his to withdraw, but he also wasn't authorised to order demolition of the building. Notice also that he says that 'they made that decision[...]'.

Either way, it's perhaps not 100% clear what exactly was meant. So it's still very unwise to say that it's a 'fact' that he ordered that the building be demolished. You still seem willing to use speculation as being fact, which is on dodgy ground in terms of a coherent argument.
 
Taliban

Ah, but you've missed the point Quake42. I'm not talking about the Taleban.

The Taleban in Afghanistan is alive and well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5029190.stm

That's because the invasion of Afghanistan was not really to remove the Taleban. It was to:

1) Sieze control of the land over which the Centgas Caspian Sea oil pipeline would be built - construction is now in progress thanks to the war thanks to 9/11

2) Suppress the training camps where suicide bombers are taught to attack Israeli interests and where Muslims from all over the world are indoctrinated and trained to hate and attack Israel. These were not under Taleban control.

Attacking Afghanistan to rid the country of terrorists was like invading Britain, where we are told terrorists are also hiding.

And incidentally many of those terrorist training camps were founded by the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But in those days Islamist terrorists were called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance".

You see how easily we are manipulated by simple words like government, regime, terrorist, freedom...
 
Re: Oil & Israel

oilwar said:
Soon no doubt the last real opponents of Israel - Iran - will also suffer invasion. They're already being accused of attempting to make WMD - which is the exact same lie told to justify the invasion of Iraq! How soon we forget the lies we swallow.

So were will this argument go when Iran ISN`T Invaded?
 
Iran Will Be Invaded

Iran will be invaded.

Remember when Bush was saying there were no plans to invade Iraq? Remember when we were all fed horror stories about how fast Saddam could launch nuclear weapons?

It's all rather deja-vu now that the exact same lies are being told about Iran:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 346524.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 332522.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5358486.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 362208.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 343274.stm
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
rynner said:
...

But assuming the much-maligned trusses did give way, causing the floors to pancake onto each other, how did that bring down the central cores of both buildings?

I'm just looking for a technical explanation that explains all the facts, whether conspiracy linked or not.
Yep. That's the question that continues to bug me, too. What happened to the central steel core(s)? :confused:

Well they ended up as scrap. Caused a glut on the scrap metal market. remember reading articles on that.
 
ramonmercado said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...

Yep. That's the question that continues to bug me, too. What happened to the central steel core(s)? :confused:

Well they ended up as scrap. Caused a glut on the scrap metal market. remember reading articles on that.
During the collapse, I meant. Not after. :roll:
 
oilwar, i think the people that have done particularly well out of 9/11 and the ensuing climate would be the people that make conspiracy videos. influential neo-con hawk michael moore has hardly suffered. also you could argue that osama bin laden has done well out of it but apparently this is only noticed by the doe-eyed servants of bush and blair. its a flawed argument to see who benefits most from something and then decide they carried it out. by this logic stalin was the aggressor in the second world war and hitler the helpless victim. the events rarely respect the grand plan.

also with regard to the real reasons for war in afghanistan: do you disbelieve dick clark when he says that rumsfeld (a neo-con and thus all neo-cons in the conspiratorial mindset) had no interest in attacking afghanistan and wanted to go straight to iraq?
 
Free Videos

These videos are all in the public domain, available over the internet free of charge.

The people who made them did so using their own time and money, often at great cost to themselves.

Why did they do it?

Many will find it hard to understand but they actually care that thousands of people have been murdered and are still being murdered.

They care enough to switch off the nonsense-blurting TV for a while and take some of their precious spare time and their hard-earned money and try to get the truth to people.

Because as a rare commodity these days the truth has never been more important.

And I believe that Rumsfeld wanted to go straight to Iraq. They would have invaded Afghanistan anyway.

Rumsfeld is a Zionist Jew. So is Paul Wolfowitz. But this is not just about Zionism. It's also about oil.

Bush made his money in oil. So did Cheney. So did most of the Bush team. Exxon named an oil tanker after Condolezza Rice because she'd done so much for them and their industry.

The Bush reelection campaign was the most expensive in world history by a long way. It was almost entirely funded by oil money and donations from Zionists and their organisations.
 
Re: Free Videos

oilwar said:
And I believe that Rumsfeld wanted to go straight to Iraq. They would have invaded Afghanistan anyway.

you're going to have clear this up because it doesn't make sense. who exactly would have ordered the troops to afghanistan? "zionists" like rumsfeld who tried to talk the likes of colin powell into not attacking iraq? this seems to be utter speculation.

oilwar said:
Rumsfeld is a Zionist Jew.

er, no he's not.
 
Re: To Blame?

rynner said:
Mob1138 said:
I've read pretty much every 9/11 thread on this board over the last five years, they feature the usual range of well-considered arguments to complete idiocy.
Great! An expert on the 911 threads!

I'm no expert on 9/11 or the threads here, if you search on the forum for 9/11 you get about 14 pages of threads to choose from. In among there you'll find some good threads which are more than vague conspiracy theories.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ramonmercado said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...

Yep. That's the question that continues to bug me, too. What happened to the central steel core(s)? :confused:

Well they ended up as scrap. Caused a glut on the scrap metal market. remember reading articles on that.
During the collapse, I meant. Not after. :roll:

This is what i think may have happened. A building will only keep its structural integrity if most of its structure is in place. In this case this means the inner core, the outer surface and the trusses linking the two. Take any one away and the others will quickly fail.
 
Re: Interesting

oilwar said:
How do you rig the buildings with explosives without anybody noticing?

I wish everybody would watch the whole video because all of this is covered in detail:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 1483512003

There's no independent sources though, its all hearsay.

oilwar said:
First of all you could rig explosives very easily when large portions of the buildings - indeed whole floors - were completely empty.

You would have to had rigged each floor, not large portions.

oilwar said:
But in fact people did notice suspicious activity including: [

Heavy mechanical noises on supposedy empty floors where lifts don't even stop

Which could well have been workmen working on a floor for a new tenant.

oilwar said:
Fine dust all over the building in the week before the disaster - the kind of dust you would get from drilling or demolition

Or even workmen just doing their jobs. And by 'all over the building' do you mean both towers or just a few floors?

oilwar said:
The removal of explosive sniffer dogs a few days before 9/11

Again, provide a source for this that doesn't come from a conspiracy video.

oilwar said:
Power outages in the days before - these disabled security cameras and alarms as well as doors so that anybody could just walk in

Again, sources.

oilwar said:
Unusual work that caught people's attention including men reeling huge spools of wire or cord. These men turned out to be employed by a company owned by Bush's close relatives. The same company carried out major 'security systems' work not just at the twin towers but also at the airport where the hijacked aircraft took off from.

So, in any office block you'll often see workmen with huge reels of wire or cord, it doesn't mean they're rigging the building to be blown up. Also because Bush had a relative's company involved with work on the WTC it doesn't mean they were all part of an almighty conspiracy.


oilwar said:
Major blast damage to cars in the basement on 9/11 before the collapse

Again, sources.

oilwar said:
The list goes on. These things were reported to the 9/11 commission but ignored in their pathetic report. Please watch the film.

The film is pulling together a whole load of vague anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing.


oilwar said:
Nobody has explained these things. Not on these boards and certainly not in the nonsensical 9/11 report.

Have you read the other threads? No, thats right, it's all a conspiracy to stop you telling us the TRUTH.
 
Re: Free Videos

oilwar said:
Rumsfeld is a Zionist Jew.

So your not just pushing the "it was the jeeeeeeewwwwwws" argument?
 
Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq and then Afghanistan (and then Iran which sits in the middle of the two.)

Powell wanted to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq (and then Iran which sits in the middle of the two.)

They only differed on the order they should be attacked in.

The exoskeleton and the core of the twin towers was each more than capable of supporting itself. There is no explanation for the core collapsing whatsoever - except explosives - which is handy because the melted steel and straight angled cuts are typical of shaped-charge detonations and thermite.

I don't care if somebody's a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim or if he worships alien spacemen. If somebody sanctions the murder of innocent people and if the media does nothing but repeat the lies told by government officials then I will speak up.
 
oilwar said:
I don't care if somebody's a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim or if he worships alien spacemen. If somebody sanctions the murder of innocent people and if the media does nothing but repeat the lies told by government officials then I will speak up.

Right, but you sem to feel that the Zionists have an agenda that is distinct from that of the government, or do you feel that the whole government is being run by Zionists.

BTW can we just clear up the Zionist/Jew thing. A jew is a follower of the Jewish faith or a person who is part of the wider ethnic Jewish group. A Zionist is a person who may or may not be a jew (secular or religious) but who supports an agenda to create and maintain a Jewish homeland. Can you be more specific as to which supposed cabal you are firing your bile at as when you use the terms interchangably you leave youself open to being perceived as an anti-semite rather than just someone with a view on the 'Jewish homeland' and it's pursuit?
 
oilwar said:
Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq and then Afghanistan (and then Iran which sits in the middle of the two.)

Powell wanted to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq (and then Iran which sits in the middle of the two.)

They only differed on the order they should be attacked in.

your entire theory is based on the supposition that the world trade centre was destroyed by neo-cons to allow them to attack other countries. if they wanted to fabricate something then why did they pin the blame on bin laden if wolfowitz, rumsfeld et al wanted to attack iraq first? why didn't they decide before 9/11 which one they would attack first? why would rumsfeld say there were no good targets in afghanistan if he was that desperate to attack it that he'd assist in the greatest conspiracy ever undertaken? you simply haven't answered that.

I don't care if somebody's a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim or if he worships alien spacemen. If somebody sanctions the murder of innocent people and if the media does nothing but repeat the lies told by government officials then I will speak up.

no, you care so little that you can't even be bothered to find out what religion they are before adding the myth of their faith to your search for that "rare commodity these days - the truth". the fact that it resonates with the various anti-semitic conspiracy theories of history, ones that have helped lead to one of the worst genocides of human history, should be of no concern to you either.
 
Oilwar can you tell me who is going to invade Iran and where are they going to get the resources to do so. There is no way the US will be in a position to invade in the next year or two because of the situation in Iraq. By that time Bush, Rumsfeld and co will be out of power. In fact it looks like Bush will be lame duck president by november when the republicans lose control of capitol hill so he won't be able to do anything for the last couple of years in office. So who is going to do the invading and how the hell do you think it can succeed considering the mess that is Iraq.
 
Zionist Policy

Actually no, American Middle Eastern policy and the whole so-called war on terror are utterly indistinct from the Zionist agenda.

American foreign policy put simply has been to arm and fund Israel and either attack, isolate or impose sanctions (usually all three) upon Israels opponents.

I don't imagine that the Zionists in the government who've time and time again shown their Zionist tendancies think much about Zionism when they help formulate domestic policy - with the obvious exception of national security and public information (propaganda.) But wherever relevant, wherever policy relates to Israel or her enemies, every decision, every policy, is Zionist through and through. Young American boys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think they're making a difference to the folks back home? Or are they just killing Israel's opponents and guarding oil installations? Remember what was siezed on day one of the Iraq invasion? That's right, the oilfields. Because that and removing the threat to Israel was all that mattered. The security situation doesn't matter, so long as the oil is flowing and Israel is secure.

There's plenty of Zionists who are not Jewish either by faith or race. Mr Bush is one of those. I have nothing against Jews. I don't even have anything against Zionists although politics based on religion is a bit scary. I object to murder and deception whoever is the perpetrator. There are plenty of Jews and indeed Zionist Jews even in Israel who don't feel the need to kill people. In fact they are in the majority. The trouble is that the Zionist movement has people like Rupert Murdoch, the American President and half his cabinet, as well as extremely wealthy and influential individuals like Silverstein and numerous powerful companies, organisations and lobby groups.

To make matters worse, hardcore Zionists have hijacked the Jewish Rights movement so that anybody who dares say anything about Israel or Zionism is branded anti-Semitic and persecuted.

Let's pretend for a moment that 9/11 wasn't helped or allowed by the Zionist movement. They are they only people who benefitted from it, are they not? Muslims have been demonised and persecuted. Americans have been stripped of their civil liberties. Only Zionists and American oil corporations win in the war on terror. (You could argue that the defence and intelligence communities and the arms industries also benefit but that just makes the matter even more suspicious.)

They pinned the blame on Osama bin Laden - who may or may not have been involved - in order to attack Afghanistan. They also planned to attack Iraq and indeed Bush sought to fabricate evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. Ultimately both countries - and Iran - would be invaded and they knew that so which one to attack first was a fringe argument in no way detrimental to the ultimate goal of attacking both.

I don't know when or who or how Iran will be attacked but Israel wants them taken out just as Israel wanted rid of Saddam and the training camps in Afghanistan. Recent history has taught us that Israel gets what Israel wants and maybe another 9/11 will be required to enable that, who knows? And let us not forget the significance of oil to Bush and the rest of his oilgovernment.

We could speculate all day. Perhaps there will be a skirmish on Iran's borders with Afghanistan or Iraq. Perhaps Israel will stage its own 9/11, maybe a WMD attack somewhere sparsely populated so that she can nuke Iran. That would save the US overstretching itself militarily.

We can only wait and see but I think it's a safe bet that Iran is going to be attacked and neutralised as a threat to Israel one way or another. And in the process the United States gains access to the fourth largest producer of oil - which also happens to be one of the cheapest places to extract it (a lot like Iraq actually.)

And yet again enough people will buy the WMD lies that the US & Britain can say the public is behind them (unless Israel goes it alone with her not inconsiderable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons.)
 
oilwar wrote:
Fine dust all over the building in the week before the disaster - the kind of dust you would get from drilling or demolition

So they were able to rig two/three of the biggest buildings in the world in one week? If you go to websites that know about demolition you will find that it takes months to prepare a much smaller building.

Also if it was demolition then why did the buildings start to collapse from the points where they were hit by planes?

Oh, and I almost forgot: collapsed buildings don't fire out their steel components imbedding them deeply in nearby buildings. That's blast damage and requires very powerful explosives

So the buildings didn't exactly fall into their own footprint. I think thats heresy among conspiricy theorists :p
 
So what you're saying (if I may paraphrase) is that no-one has gained anything from the reaction to 9/11 except the Zionists, yet in the next breath mention the US wishing to gain control of Iraqi oil (and Iranian), surely a gain for the US?

Are you sure you are not allowing your own anti-zionist views to colour your perception of an old fashioned mineral grab as a result of fortuitous terrorism?
 
Back
Top