More 9/11 mysteries.

[swandown 0]

[Mephisto 15]

This has all the makings for a "Secret Thread."

[edjr 7,097]

Another thread I made, without the 1st post in the thread. FFT ROX

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo

[Mrsteak21 0]

I saw that video the other day, really interesting-if it is all true.

[De Novo 0]

I'd like to see a 9/11 commission response to "conspiracy" theories. I don't think it's too much to ask. There are so many holes in the official story, and just too many circumstances/facts that make me go

 

How does that tower accelerate downward at just under free fall acceleration? This video makes me raise an eyebrow. The 3rd tower which was barely touched... collapses.

[Guest Black Label Society]

I'd like to see a 9/11 commission response to "conspiracy" theories. I don't think it's too much to ask. There are so many holes in the official story, and just too many circumstances/facts that make me go

 

How does that tower accelerate downward at just under free fall acceleration? This video makes me raise an eyebrow. The 3rd tower which was barely touched... collapses.

 

It's all ball bearings these days.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

It's all ball bearings these days.

 

Yeah, these guys need a refresher course.

[pimptastic69 0]

It's all ball bearings these days.

 

Some still want 3-in-1 and some gauze pads.

 

At least 60% are sane, however.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

The third tower in Manhattan is where they had the remote control flying the planes around.

 

[joneo 562]

I find it highly suspicious that Scott Forbes took the day off on 9-11. Maybe he wanted to make a name for himself and planted bombs. Maybe he controls Al Quida and was the mastermind behind this. Maybe he has the power to recruit thousands of people to lie for him. What an organizer he must be. He must be the second coming of Jim Jones. Drink the Kool Aid you conspiracy theorists, drink the Kool aid.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

I find it highly suspicious that Scott Forbes took the day off on 9-11. Maybe he wanted to make a name for himself and planted bombs. Maybe he controls Al Quida and was the mastermind behind this. Maybe he has the power to recruit thousands of people to lie for him. What an organizer he must be. He must be the second coming of Jim Jones. Drink the Kool Aid you conspiracy theorists, drink the Kool aid.

Poor Kool-Aid. Everyone always mentions them and mass suicide even though Flavor Aid was the culprit.

[redtodd 7]

What I think is funny is that people think the Bush Administration is one of the worst administrations of all time, yet they are smart enough to plan and execute 9/11.

 

[edjr 7,097]

I'd like to see a 9/11 commission response to "conspiracy" theories. I don't think it's too much to ask. There are so many holes in the official story, and just too many circumstances/facts that make me go

 

[hoytdwow 202]

I've got 2 words for this, and those words are: Kaiser Soze

 

 

[edjr 7,097]

I've got 2 words for this, and those words are: Kaiser Soze

 

Rented that movie for the 1st time like 2 months ago. it was awesome. That f@g is a great actor.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

What I think is funny is that people think the Bush Administration is one of the worst administrations of all time, yet they are smart enough to plan and execute 9/11.

 

Two completely different things. And if they did do it, then obviously they are the worst.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I'd like to see a 9/11 commission response to "conspiracy" theories. I don't think it's too much to ask. There are so many holes in the official story, and just too many circumstances/facts that make me go

 

How does that tower accelerate downward at just under free fall acceleration? This video makes me raise an eyebrow. The 3rd tower which was barely touched... collapses.

You realize...that as the tower collapses..more floors are piling on top...more floors = more mass, the more mass falling, the less resistant the lower floors are going to be to collapsing as more mass is falling on top of them.

 

Barely touched? So, which other poster are you...as these are nearly the exact same words of MrSteak, GridironAssassin....words which were shot down when they posted them.

 

The 3rd tower (building 7) had major damage, a large chunk from its base missing after the collapse, not to mention the damage from part of the twin towers that fell on its roof.

[De Novo 0]

You realize...that as the tower collapses..more floors are piling on top...more floors = more mass, the more mass falling, the less resistant the lower floors are going to be to collapsing as more mass is falling on top of them.

 

Barely touched? So, which other poster are you...as these are nearly the exact same words of MrSteak, GridironAssassin....words which were shot down when they posted them.

 

The 3rd tower (building 7) had major damage, a large chunk from its base missing after the collapse, not to mention the damage from part of the twin towers that fell on its roof.

I understand physics. The floors above should theoretically first fall onto the floors below. There's resistance. Resistance for 100+ points of contact isn't negligible. I'm not going to get into it b/c I'm not saying "it was an inside job." I'd just like real answers.

 

Put your tinfoil hat away. I have no aliai here. I don't even remember reading those names and I've lurked here a while.

 

The 3rd tower didn't collapse from the bottom, so the base missing is irrelevant. Collapse began at the top of the building. As I recall, close to 100% of windows were intact. How was it so damaged with no damage to the glass? And if the falling debris from the other 2 towers collapsed it, how can it took so long after they collapsed for it to fall?

 

Look, I just want more answers. There are too many unanswered questions, and given this administration's history, I don't trust them much. Like a girlfriend who lies to you. Question everything.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I understand physics. The floors above should theoretically first fall onto the floors below. There's resistance. Resistance for 100+ points of contact isn't negligible. I'm not going to get into it b/c I'm not saying "it was an inside job." I'd just like real answers.

 

Put your tinfoil hat away. I have no aliai here. I don't even remember reading those names and I've lurked here a while.

 

The 3rd tower didn't collapse from the bottom, so the base missing is irrelevant. Collapse began at the top of the building. As I recall, close to 100% of windows were intact. How was it so damaged with no damage to the glass? And if the falling debris from the other 2 towers collapsed it, how can it took so long after they collapsed for it to fall?

 

Look, I just want more answers. There are too many unanswered questions, and given this administration's history, I don't trust them much. Like a girlfriend who lies to you. Question everything.

 

You really need to do a search for pictures of WTC 7 if you think the windows were close to 100% intact.

 

How come it took so long? Because things just do not fall right away. Damage sustained + fires burning = building falling down.

[paradoxical 1]

as redtodd eluded to, conspiracy theorists generally are the same people who insult Bush for being stupid and his administration for focking everything up. To me, if you believe that he and the administration pulled this massive conspiracy off he would have to be very smart as well as run a tight ship when it comes to keeping the hundreds of mouths shut to keep it secret. I don't think he's smart enough nor the administration efficient enough.

 

Second, why would the towers be demolished so that they came crashing straight down if it was a controlled demo like many people say? Why wouldn't they make the towers tip over, causing more deaths and destruction to get more support for their cause? Also, logically if they were demolishing the towers why would the demolish the tower hit by the plane later first?

 

Lastly for people who believe objects other than planes hit the pentagon or even the towers, first, why? why not use a plane full of people that you already have control of?? I guess i'm saying what is the advantage of NOT using the plane and where the hell is it and the people who were inside?

 

[De Novo 0]

You really need to do a search for pictures of WTC 7 if you think the windows were close to 100% intact.

 

How come it took so long? Because things just do not fall right away. Damage sustained + fires burning = building falling down.

 

Have a look-see at this video. Looks pretty intact to me.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...7_collapse2.mpg

 

why would the towers be demolished so that they came crashing straight down if it was a controlled demo like many people say? Why wouldn't they make the towers tip over, causing more deaths and destruction to get more support for their cause?

 

Honestly, those are just silly questions to ask, but I'll respond anyway.

 

3,000 vs. 9,000.... it's 4 figures... people don't care. All that matters is you see the planes hit the buildings and they come crashing down, and more than a thousand die. Also, if they tipped over it would have ruined so many other buildings, crippling our economy far more than practical.

[paradoxical 1]

3,000 vs. 9,000.... it's 4 figures... people don't care.

 

i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that, people would care about 6,000 lives. Also, you forgot to answer the questions in my last paragraph...

[De Novo 0]

Also, you forgot to answer the questions in my last paragraph...

 

I didn't forget to answer. The question was directed at people who don't think planes hit the Pentagon and WTC, so I didn't respond. I have seen video upon video of a plane hitting the WTC, and I trust that enough people saw a plane hit the Pentagon (and why the fock use a missile when a plane does the job) that a plane actually did.

 

I'm not a nutjob conspiracy theorist... I just think there are far too many holes and far too many situations like "while theoretically possible, fire has never crushed buildings into fine powder"

 

Tell me why the antenna with negligible weight atop it falls first

 

If the ever-increasing weight explains the near free-fall descent and pulverization of reinforced concrete, why aren't these bottom floors obliterated?

 

If the flames were so devastating, what the fock is this guy doing alive?

 

Where are the Arab hijackers on this manifesto?

 

What about this one?

 

What the fock is this?

 

Can't explain this

 

Not saying everything listed here is 100% correct but if only a couple of them are (I think it's pretty certain they are), that's enough for me to raise an eyebrow

 

A 10 or 15 minute search yielded that, and there a million more things to scratch your head at.

 

i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that, people would care about 6,000 lives. Also, you forgot to answer the questions in my last paragraph...

 

12 million people died in the holocaust. Do people internalized that it's 400,000 PERCENT worse than this attack? Hell no.

 

Suicide bomber kills 23. Suicide bomber kills 49... you don't read the latter and feel like it's twice as bad. It's worse, but not nearly twice as bad.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Have a look-see at this video. Looks pretty intact to me.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...7_collapse2.mpg

Honestly, those are just silly questions to ask, but I'll respond anyway.

 

3,000 vs. 9,000.... it's 4 figures... people don't care. All that matters is you see the planes hit the buildings and they come crashing down, and more than a thousand die. Also, if they tipped over it would have ruined so many other buildings, crippling our economy far more than practical.

 

A. Looks intact because it is one side of the building....the opposite side from which the towers fell by the looks of it as well as you can see the smoke behind the building.

 

B. The buildings did tip slightly and there was major damage to quite a few of the surrounding buildings.

 

I didn't forget to answer. The question was directed at people who don't think planes hit the Pentagon and WTC, so I didn't respond. I have seen video upon video of a plane hitting the WTC, and I trust that enough people saw a plane hit the Pentagon (and why the fock use a missile when a plane does the job) that a plane actually did.

 

I'm not a nutjob conspiracy theorist... I just think there are far too many holes and far too many situations like "while theoretically possible, fire has never crushed buildings into fine powder"

 

Tell me why the antenna with negligible weight atop it falls first

 

If the ever-increasing weight explains the near free-fall descent and pulverization of reinforced concrete, why aren't these bottom floors obliterated?

 

If the flames were so devastating, what the fock is this guy doing alive?

 

Where are the Arab hijackers on this manifesto?

 

What about this one?

 

What the fock is this?

 

Can't explain this

 

Not saying everything listed here is 100% correct but if only a couple of them are (I think it's pretty certain they are), that's enough for me to raise an eyebrow

 

A 10 or 15 minute search yielded that, and there a million more things to scratch your head at.

12 million people died in the holocaust. Do people internalized that it's 400,000 PERCENT worse than this attack? Hell no.

 

Suicide bomber kills 23. Suicide bomber kills 49... you don't read the latter and feel like it's twice as bad. It's worse, but not nearly twice as bad.

 

 

Fire did not crush the building into dust...100+ floors falling like that did.

 

The links from CNN are not manifestos...they are a list of the crew and passengers...and most likely purposefully did not list any of the suspected terrorists there as they appear to have been listing the innocent victims of the thing.

 

And you used 911 research quite a bit...considering they are a conspiracy site...what do you expect from the information you got there?

[De Novo 0]

considering they are a conspiracy site

 

That's semantics... they are merely questioning the pathetic excuse for an official explanation as to why the buildings fell. If I put together a report with that many holes in it at my job, I'd be fired in a second. Were it not for the fact that they failed to mention that a 3rd building collapsed, I'd say it's just incompetence. Seems intentional though.

[Sho Nuff 720]

That's semantics... they are merely questioning the pathetic excuse for an official explanation as to why the buildings fell. If I put together a report with that many holes in it at my job, I'd be fired in a second. Were it not for the fact that they failed to mention that a 3rd building collapsed, I'd say it's just incompetence. Seems intentional though.

 

Thats semantics? That is the truth. Using a conspiracy site who just brings up questions but offers no real facts to prove their point is what I would question. And if you search for the other threads here on this topic, most from that site have even been addressed.

[porkbutt 897]

holy sh!t! a rock > denovo. people really do believe this crap.

[De Novo 0]

Using a conspiracy site who just brings up questions but offers no real facts to prove their point is what I would question.

Using a government-sanctioned report who raises more questions but offers few convincing facts to prove their point is also something I question.

 

So you're saying there's a 0% chance that explosives were used in the WTC attacks? i.e., you would give me 1 billion to 1 odds.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Using a government-sanctioned report who raises more questions but offers few convincing facts to prove their point is also something I question.

 

So you're saying there's a 0% chance that explosives were used in the WTC attacks? i.e., you would give me 1 billion to 1 odds.

 

Link to me quoting a government-sanctioned report? Oh wait...I have not...funny...the conspiracy nuts in these threads always use that same excuse...even when nobody has brought up the official report...even for the things in the report that the conspiracy side cannot refute whatsoever.

 

Saying no chance? Nope...did I say that?

 

Im saying very little chance and zero actual evidence of such.

[cday 0]

jesus christ.

 

do you really think the government would be able to keep something like this a secret? with all the stuff that gets leaked out on a near daily basis to the press?

 

that, and THAT ALONE, convinces me there was no conspiracy.

 

also, the f'ing mountain of evidence doesn't hurt, either.

 

go to the , do not pass go, do not collect $200

[De Novo 0]

Link to me quoting a government-sanctioned report? Oh wait...I have not...funny...the conspiracy nuts in these threads always use that same excuse...even when nobody has brought up the official report...even for the things in the report that the conspiracy side cannot refute whatsoever.

 

Saying no chance? Nope...did I say that?

 

Im saying very little chance and zero actual evidence of such.

 

Why do you want a link? Your position (that it was planes and planes only) is backed by the official gov't report, so I just referenced that. I'm calling the official report into question, unless you consider yourself the foremost authority on the topic (and not the gov't), in which case I guess I will have to find a link.

 

You didn't say no chance. But to call people questioning a story with holes in it 'conspiracy nuts' should imply you think there's no chance they're right, thus the 0% chance. I'm not calling you a 'sheep', am I? I expect the same courtesy.

 

The govt's investigation was faulty and incomplete. All I want to see is a more thorough investigation. The fact that you wouldn't like to see one confounds me.

 

There's just as much circumstancial evidence that explosives were used in the WTC attacks as there is that a plane hit the Pentagon. I'll agree that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you won't consider for one second that explosives were used in the WTC attacks. There's plane parts at the Pentagon; there's explosives residue at the WTC. There's as much video evidence that the blurry thing hitting the Pentagon is a plane; and there's as much video evidence that explosives were used in the WTC. You're guessing it's a plane in the Pentagon video; I'm guessing it's explosives in the WTC videos. No difference, really. You're just taking your government's word for it, just as you did when they said Saddam had WMDs and had the capability to launch a large-scale attack on the US. You still agree with that? No, so why don't you keep an open mind until you see the evidence for yourself?

 

do you really think the government would be able to keep something like this a secret?

 

Yes, because only those involved would have any proof whatsoever... and anyone who knew about it and didn't stop it would spend the rest of their life in jail (if they're lucky).

[parrot 790]

there's explosives residue at the WTC. There's as much video evidence that the blurry thing hitting the Pentagon is a plane; and there's as much video evidence that explosives were used in the WTC.

I would like to see a credible link regarding explosive residue found at the world trade center. Also there is no video evidence that explosives were used at the WTC.

[cday 0]

wow. unreal.

 

the government can't keep secret prisons and CIA agents secret, but you think they are capable of masterminding something of this scale -- something so morally reprehensible that everyone involved (and for something of this scale, you're talking a TON of people) would go along with killing thousands of US civilians and not say a peep about it.

 

and that people who opposed this (and face it, law of averages says there would be plenty of people appalled and potential leakers) -- the government would kill or imprison all these people to shut them up?

 

are you *serious*? christ, listen to yourself.

[JMaximus12 0]

Using a government-sanctioned report who raises more questions but offers few convincing facts to prove their point is also something I question.

 

So you're saying there's a 0% chance that explosives were used in the WTC attacks? i.e., you would give me 1 billion to 1 odds.

 

i'll give you those odds...hell, TRIPLE em!!! 3 Billion to 1. that's how utterly absurd you sound...

 

how bout THESE odds: 3:2 that you are a complete ass hat. will you take those odds?

[De Novo 0]

how bout THESE odds: 3:2 that you are a complete ass hat. will you take those odds?

 

I've avoided personal attacks this entire thread. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I'll take your bet. I'll give you my address so you can mail me a check.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Why do you want a link? Your position (that it was planes and planes only) is backed by the official gov't report, so I just referenced that. I'm calling the official report into question, unless you consider yourself the foremost authority on the topic (and not the gov't), in which case I guess I will have to find a link.

 

I want a link because you are asserting that I am using only the official report as my basis for disagreement with what you have been saying. But I have done nothing of the sort. My position that it was planes and planes only is backed by many studies about that day...with actual facts and evidence supporting it...rather than just questions.

 

You didn't say no chance. But to call people questioning a story with holes in it 'conspiracy nuts' should imply you think there's no chance they're right, thus the 0% chance. I'm not calling you a 'sheep', am I? I expect the same courtesy.

 

Im questioning the use of conspiracy sites that do not use facts to debate a topic but speculation and half truths.

 

And where do I call you a sheep? I havenot...though I have used that for others arguing the same points with no evidence that you have been doing.

 

The govt's investigation was faulty and incomplete. All I want to see is a more thorough investigation. The fact that you wouldn't like to see one confounds me.

 

Fact that I would not like to see one? Again, putting words in my mouth that I never once stated. That is not a fact, that is your inaccurate version of what disagreeing with much of what you have said so far really means.

 

 

There's just as much circumstancial evidence that explosives were used in the WTC attacks as there is that a plane hit the Pentagon. I'll agree that a plane hit the Pentagon, but you won't consider for one second that explosives were used in the WTC attacks. There's plane parts at the Pentagon; there's explosives residue at the WTC. There's as much video evidence that the blurry thing hitting the Pentagon is a plane; and there's as much video evidence that explosives were used in the WTC. You're guessing it's a plane in the Pentagon video; I'm guessing it's explosives in the WTC videos. No difference, really. You're just taking your government's word for it, just as you did when they said Saddam had WMDs and had the capability to launch a large-scale attack on the US. You still agree with that? No, so why don't you keep an open mind until you see the evidence for yourself?

Yes, because only those involved would have any proof whatsoever... and anyone who knew about it and didn't stop it would spend the rest of their life in jail (if they're lucky).

 

No...there is no evidence that there were explosives at the WTC.

 

I do not consider it because there is no evidence of such. It is also a bit out there.

 

If they wanted to bring down the buildings with explosives...why the elaborate terrorist hijackings of planes and flying them into it? Why not blame explosives on terrorists? No need for the rest of the thing where so many things could have gone wrong and more people would have to be involved...meaning more people to keep quiet. It simply is not a plausible explanation.

 

And no...there is no video evidence that explosives were used in the WTC.

 

There is explosives residue at the WTC? Care to link to any credible source for that?

 

Im not guessing a plane hit the pentagon...Im believing the hundreds of eye witnesses who saw the thing.

 

Just as I did when they said Saddam had WMDs and had the ability? Funny, you extrapolate another falsehood because of my disagreement with the conspiracy? You really need to seek help...take MrSteak1 with you.

 

Whether I believed Saddam had WMDs (which by the way a majority of the people on this planet probably did) is irrelevant to the lack of anything substantial supporting any of the conspiracy claims.

 

wow. unreal.

 

the government can't keep secret prisons and CIA agents secret, but you think they are capable of masterminding something of this scale -- something so morally reprehensible that everyone involved (and for something of this scale, you're talking a TON of people) would go along with killing thousands of US civilians and not say a peep about it.

 

and that people who opposed this (and face it, law of averages says there would be plenty of people appalled and potential leakers) -- the government would kill or imprison all these people to shut them up?

 

are you *serious*? christ, listen to yourself.

 

 

And as I said.

 

Why the elaborate plan of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings if they were just going to use explosives? why not use explosives to blame it on terrorists....using the planes only complicates the plan, adds more things that could go wrong and screw it up, and adds to the number of people you have to keep quiet afterwards. It simply goes beyond all common sense to believe such things.

[VikesFan 1]

You realize...that as the tower collapses..more floors are piling on top...more floors = more mass, the more mass falling, the less resistant the lower floors are going to be to collapsing as more mass is falling on top of them.

 

Barely touched? So, which other poster are you...as these are nearly the exact same words of MrSteak, GridironAssassin....words which were shot down when they posted them.

 

The 3rd tower (building 7) had major damage, a large chunk from its base missing after the collapse, not to mention the damage from part of the twin towers that fell on its roof.

 

If only it were that simple. Even with the floors pancaking, there's no way it comes down at freefall speeds.

 

 

There were also two buildings between the 3rd tower and WTC1 and 2. They were taller, shielded WTC7 from collapse, and took more damage, yet they remained standing.

[parrot 790]

If only it were that simple. Even with the floors pancaking, there's no way it comes down at freefall speeds.

Which makes sense, seeing as how it didn't come down at freefall speeds.

 

Stop repeating lies.

[Guest tiki_gods]

What does fastfish think of all this?

[VikesFan 1]

1. Im questioning the use of conspiracy sites that do not use facts to debate a topic but speculation and half truths.

 

2. No...there is no evidence that there were explosives at the WTC.

 

3. If they wanted to bring down the buildings with explosives...why the elaborate terrorist hijackings of planes and flying them into it? Why not blame explosives on terrorists? No need for the rest of the thing where so many things could have gone wrong and more people would have to be involved...meaning more people to keep quiet. It simply is not a plausible explanation.

 

1. Of course there's going to be speculation. Key evidence is classified. Obviously the government isn't going to come forward and say how it happened. They have nothing to do but speculate, based on what evidence they have to work with.

 

2. I'll submit this link for your review. It was written by Steven Jones, an engineering prof at BYU. Please watch the first video, which is footage of the cleanup process, where six weeks later works uncover yet another piece of molten iron. That alone contradicts the report, as the only thing that can do that is a thermite reaction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do that, neither would anything in a typical office. If the floors pancaked, you shouldn't find large pieces of molten iron anywhere. That right there is enough evidence explosives were used. Unfortunately, this isn't the same paper originally hosted at BYU. That paper went into a bit more detail on the material found, which included some analysis of the material once it cooled. It was mostly iron, with sulfur mixed in (sulfur is an ingrediant to thermate, btw, and it is not found in steel)

 

3. The terrorists wouldn't need the planes if they had the thermite. Plus, they could detonate without the need for an evacuation, thereby killing a lot more. The explosives serve two purposes. 1) psychological. 2) cover up the evidence. On a separate note, keeping quiet is easier than you think. It probably took less than two dozen people to pull this off. Might I also add that secrets are kept in this government all the time. Black ops are just that. Leaks are often very intentional. And just because some are not doesn't mean that no one can keep a secret in the government.