911 is a joke

[Maestro]

it was a success in that;

1 they were able to declare war on iraq based on bullshit, the primary reason congress allowed us to go to war-

In October, 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).[39] On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell presented further evidence in his Iraqi WMD program presentation to the UN Security Council that UAVs were ready to be launched against the U.S. At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the US military and intelligence community as to whether CIA conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate.[87] In fact, Iraq's UAV fleet was never deployed and consisted of a handful of outdated 24.5-foot (7.5 m) wingspan drones with no room for more than a camera and video recorder, and no offensive capability.[88][89] Despite this controversy, the Senate voted to approve the Joint Resolution on 11 October 2002 providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion

all based on the WMD and the 9/11 scare, which IS bullshit imo

2. it was a success in that they proved they could still control the population as a whole to do whatever they want, and do it easily considering there was no draft and people flocked to go kill iraqis

3. they set up bases, that will not be going anywhere, anytime soon, they have more control of the middle east now then ever.

4. btw none of this is really in order but, they(btw they are whoever u wanna imagine i suppose but they could just be the people with the most to gain or whomever) made mad money $$$$$$$ up the ass.

5. they destroyed our economy, look at the friggin economy, anyone with money could control almost any corporation they want, the amount of debt average americans are in is ridiculous, people are going to work their entire lives just to stay alive and its only getting worse. these are all forms of control

and what about the oil crisis, lets talk about the assload of coal we have and how easy it is to turn coal into energy. and what about all the PROOF of the banks and their roles in warfare throughout the last hundred years if not thousand, how they funded both sides of the world wars, korea and vietnam etc

a success probably in more ways then i even know, rantings at 2 31 am lolo

[doc]

A success in what way?

[Maestro]

for one thing, how the buildings fell is whatever, it still doesnt change the fact that something other then what we have been programmed to believe actually happened. look at all the facts and tell me it all adds up and ill just accept your oppinion, but you guys who accept whatever conclusions u think YOU came to are really ones youve been programmed to believe

just look at the facts of 9/11 and tell me something isnt screwy. the pentagon strike. the planes themselves, the angles at which they hit etc whatever im not gonna argue all these so called mute points lolo, there are plenty of people whove done alot of research wich can either be believed or disbelieved

the only thing that we know is true is that our government did lie to us and has been lieing for a long time

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ&feature=rec-fresh"]YouTube - How to create an Angry American[/ame]

this is just one of many videos and whatnot people have made its a youtube video but whatever i just found it

either way. the government lies all the time, there was way more to gain in going to war then there was to loose from the towers going down and a part of the pentagon under construction getting hit

anyway 9/11 was a success in my oppinion

[master splinter]

who gives a shit anyway? what the F do you think you could do about it?

[zachsan]

Late to the thread.

9/11 was not "a joke". Believe what you will about how it all happened, but remember, a couple thousand people died.

Arguments like IC's point about getting the explosives into the buildings are the most convincing against conspiracy theories like this. We could spend all day talking about details like how the buildings collapsed and how they were supported, but it's easier to apply some common sense. Besides the point about explosives, where are all the hundreds or thousands of people who must have been involved in carrying out this plan? Not one of them has had an attack of conscience after eight years and come forward? Or if they have, guys in black helicopters have shut them up with 100% efficiency? Where's the historical precedent for that? You're heading down a logical road that can only end with the government employing mind control, or something like that.

To me, it's a simple question of burden of proof. Let's say all the buildings collapsed in completely unexpected ways. Fine. Maybe explosives were somehow smuggled in, but it was by Islamic terrorists. Or the Russians, or the ****ing French, for some reason. Shit, maybe the buildings disintegrated because of an alien ray gun. The positive evidence for all of these ideas is exactly the same (none).

So we stick to the established facts. Planes flew into buildings. Said buildings subsequently burned a while and then fell down. Common sense would suggest a causal relationship.

[Iron Cross]

SO you have no idea how anyone couldve gotten in thousands of pounds of explosive and then set them up in a precise and controlled manner. Then protected the explosives from fire damage that would occur from a plane running into them, exploding and burning for over an hour. Also, no idea how all these explosive couldve been wire together without anyone noticing and then detonated without anyone noticing. Is that what I'm understanding you said?

Ok basically you have no idea how anyone couldve done it you just absolutely KNOW without questions that they did. Makes perfect sense to me.

I saw a show on tv once about a controlled demolition in vegas I believe. The explosive experts were all over that building for weeks. They had to drill holes into the support beams and place their explosives and then wire them all together. The amount of work it required was mind boggling. This was also just a rather normal sized building not on of the tallest in the world.

[onesp1ng]

i don't know. people have said security was off and people were in the building prior to the collapses. apparently this has been corroborated. how can i be sure. you can look into it and draw conclusions just as me. but, let's say you saw that, in fact, there are records with huge inconsistances involved, could tha change your mind and cause you to question it further?

all i know is that, from my understanding, neither fema nor nist ever tested for the possibility of explosives. we have 6/7 years, 20, 600, 000 us dollars...10,000 or more pages, with another investigation underway...and no one has yet to perform serious tests that have shown results attempting to prove or disprove the theory of demolition other than, well, the so-called "conspirators."

[Iron Cross]

OK how about what I said. How did they get all those needed explosive into the buildings in the first place?

[onesp1ng]

But are they really experts in the specifically relevant fields?

there are civil engineers, fire protection, structural, mechanical, and so on and so forth (plus architects and experts who’ve been responsible for huge building demolitions), who are no less professional or qualified than the people working for FEMA and NIST. they are competent, licensed individuals that have years and years of on-hand training and experience (all relevant). interested parties can easily find and view their credentials in various on-line lists and petitions.

You see there's a big difference.. the general public will hear 'architect' or 'engineer' and assume they know what they are talking about and their association lends authority and credence to any report. However in reality they may have no actual specifically relevant experience..

no, it seems the general public will maintain conclusions based on associations without any scientific bases. they will use refuted hypothesis as the foundation of their arguments because that’s what they were told and are otherwise unable to explain what transpired.

1. More than a few of these so called experts may have ulterior motives - such as a load of free publicity for their otherwise unknown architecture/engineering/whatever business.. (or just personal ego boost)
2. They may have a political agenda.. happy to jump on any anti-bush bandwagon.
3. They could just be nuts.. you can be sure no matter how expert they may be in any field, there will always be a certain percentage with 'issues'.

comes the time honored tradition of character assassination! ironically, we could also use the same argument regarding individuals who were put in charge of the two leading government investigations into 9/11, namely FEMA and NIST.

the simplest explanation is that planes flew into buildings, caused massive damage and fire resulting in collapse.

in my opinion, the simplest explanation is that two planes flew into two buildings and there were total collapses by controlled demolitions of three buildings. seems some have concluded based on certain correlations when most evidence points elsewhere and/or is anecdotal at best.

as for who planted the explosive devises, i don’t know. some say there’s documentation that the buildings had people in them and security was down for a period before 9/11. i don’t know specifics, but you can bet i wasn't blaming the paramedics! ...lol....

in response, i would ask the following:

according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy input equals energy output, for energy doesn’t just magically manifest itself. by what law does an airplane impact, office fires, and the disproportional force of gravity create enough energy to (symmetrically) level and pulverize two 110 story high-rises into dust, plus an addition building that wasn’t even hit (ie. wtc 7 in 6.5 seconds), when they were hit asymmetrically and all burned unevenly? in addition, if we know positively that no steel frame building has ever fully collapsed “into it’s own footprint” before throughout history (into dust), what leads us to believe 9/11 was any different? it seems like something so improbable it'd be like having to throw a quarter to the ground to make it land upright three times in a row.

maybe when WKK says he can disperse clouds from now on, i should just take his word at it, because, after all, they will all eventually move off into the distance sooner or later....

[Iron Cross]

No one addressed my questions yet about how they even managed to get explosives in the building un noticed over a several week or month period and wire them all to blow in the correct way to bring down the building.

[Firbolg]

professionals in the fields of engineering, architecture, and demolition that disagree with your assessments

But are they really experts in the specifically relevant fields? I don't know if they are or not but just wondering.. for example 'engineer' is a very broad field.. are they civil engineers or rocket engineers? Have they built 100 floor buildings or bridges? Have those architects ever designed a 100 floor building (using the same construction materials/techniques) that have actually been built? Have those demolition experts ever demolished a 100 floor building of that type in the middle of a city?

You see there's a big difference.. the general public will hear 'architect' or 'engineer' and assume they know what they are talking about and their association lends authority and credence to any report. However in reality they may have no actual specifically relevant experience..

There are also other things to consider..

1. More than a few of these so called experts may have ulterior motives - such as a load of free publicity for their otherwise unknown architecture/engineering/whatever business.. (or just personal ego boost)

2. They may have a political agenda.. happy to jump on any anti-bush bandwagon.

3. They could just be nuts.. you can be sure no matter how expert they may be in any field, there will always be a certain percentage with 'issues'.

I think occam's razor may apply here too.. all these wild, complicated schemes to try and prove some kind of govt. coverup just don't make sense.. the simplest explanation is that planes flew into buildings, caused massive damage and fire resulting in collapse.

Besides which everyone knows israel did it.

[onesp1ng]

Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

The vast majority of these accounts remained suppressed by the city until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005, and announced the release of the records on August 8, 2005.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.


Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.


Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.


Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.


Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.


Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.


Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...


Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.


Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.


Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.


James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.


Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
...
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.


Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.


Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.


Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.

is it really fair to call it a "conspiracy theory" when it's done the best to explain what took place? i can show you footage of buildings that have the same characteristics when falling as the towers did, as well as tower 7, but can anyone return the favor?

there are professionals in the fields of engineering, architecture, and demolition that disagree with your assessments. buildings don't just disappear - there should be concrete everywhere - and they don't fall at the speed of gravity through tons and tons of material in one semmetrical motion, three times, on the same day and into their own footprint against the path of least resistance. moreover, most of the building is seen to disintegrate in mid-air before even touching the ground.

beginning to think we've been wrong all along...and that maybe WKK really can disperse clouds after all!

[Firbolg]

it can also be tested and recreated

Lots of things can be recreated/tested to look like something that happened but that doesn't prove that it actually is what happened.. as they say - there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[doc]

Maybe the "concrete and everything else essentially disintegrated into dust" because of the 1. height involved, and 2, weight of floors and materials?

We're talking about tons and tons of material falling from 110 stories. Not your typical or usual building. And because of the distance, plenty of time for gravity to accelerate the mass and increase it's velocity, as it came down.

I have a hard time with conspiracy theories on this one. We all know the mob and others killed the Kennedy's, that Oswald was a patsy, that the FBI wanted MLK dead, and that BTL is really a man in disguise. But helll, I watched the damn buildings fall. And I've seen quite a few buildings blown up in Vegas.

The WTC wasn't blown up.

[onesp1ng]

The NIST report on tower 7 is apparently due soon so relying on an article from last year debunking an earlier report, to prove or disprove anything now is a little premature.

i was using it to support my claim about the twin towers as well, since it was this report that acknowledged the improbability of the “pancake theory,” though the argument still stands. buildings do not “pancake” due to gravity at the speed of gravity through the greatest area of resistance. and they do not disappear. this phenomenon can only be recreated one way that we know of.

other than the one currently being conducted by nist., from my understanding, no one has done an investigation on building 7 yet (which is amazing in it's own right). i’ve read they plan to release the report sometime soon, but we'll have to see.

They (NIST) are using 'extremely complex' (their words) computer modelling (ie. mathematics) to prove/disprove various theories.. probably better than just testing bits of metal in a lab since I imagine its damn near impossible to impose the exact physical conditions which existed at the site. In fact a combination of lab testing and computer modelling (and other methods) is likely to be used, not one or the other.

i think the point being made was that they haven't seen the "mathematics," because there are none.

Well.. if the building support columns were on the outside then falling straight down would presumably be the path of least resistance..

i’ve already shown in pictures, as is documented, that there were 47 core steal beams. huge cranes sat atop them during the construction of the towers. it wasn't howel inside, but the concrete and everything else essentially disintigrated into dust.

you can not explain it yet do not question it. you are thinking individuals who, with all the inconsistencies involved, are taking things at face-value and not questioning the anomalies -- that is very curious to me.

if you can not explain the situation, the huge inconsistances involved, why continue to support these unfounded hypothesis that have already been refuted? why not just say you don't know?

i can not say that what i feel is true - actually happened - but i can say that it is the best working theory at this time. it can also be tested and recreated.