Bush Defector to Speak on 9/11

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Alright, you have a point there, but i’m just saying that we as a people cannot let the government just go unchecked, the war games on 9/11 is a pretty big coincidence man and when you look at the things that led up to 9/11 like able danger, the administration knew something was going to happen. Look at what has happened after 9/11, the executive branch and government has run a muck on the bill of rights and all in the name of security and patriotism. Overthrew 2 regimes, all in their neocon agenda to overthrow any regime that is against their ideology. Which would not have happened if 9/11 did not occur

what i am suggesting is that we do something about this, it seems as if the “war on terror” is the perfect scapegoat for just about anything including violating our civil liberties and invading countries. There are alot of things that need to answered, i dont believe that the US government committed the attacks, but i do think there may be a possibility that they had foreknowledge of the attacks, hey we need to hold our government responsible if anything like this happened.

We cannot also forget the fact that it is our own foreign policy which has created these attacks, our support and funding to israel despite the terrorist actions israel has committed against palestenians, it is not that the terrorists hate us because we are free, but because the attacks that we have supported and committed on the muslim world.

22

sactown: PLease don’t take this a slam, but… damn. I don’t know where to begin with you. I think you touched on just about every liberal hippie talking point that there is.

Make no mistake, I’m a liberal, too. But there is a serious difference between swallowing the liberal kool-aid, and having your eyes open as a common-sense liberal. Fuck-ups like Michael Moore have poisoned the minds of so many progressive-thinking people like you that it makes me sick.

If you love truth and justice like I do, then maybe someday you can let go of this. Bush/his administration did not have any part of 9/11… that’s retarded. Retarded.

What he did was fuck up afterwards. I would have cut off somebody’s balls for this shit.

23

instead of just bashing me, refute some of the things that i have brought up,i honestly dont know what to believe, but it looks like you have already made up your mind.

24

[quote]sactown1 wrote:
instead of just bashing me, refute some of the things that i have brought up,i honestly dont know what to believe, but it looks like you have already made up your mind.[/quote]

Already? It’s been almost 5 years. You haven’t “brought up” anything substantial or new. This stuff has been covered a thousand times on every forum on the internet.

25

[quote]doogie wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
instead of just bashing me, refute some of the things that i have brought up,i honestly dont know what to believe, but it looks like you have already made up your mind.

Already? It’s been almost 5 years. You haven’t “brought up” anything substantial or new. This stuff has been covered a thousand times on every forum on the internet.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter. The conspiracy nuts ignore the facts.

It is not worth wasting your time.

26

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:

  1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.[/quote]

Had jets, that large and loaded with that much fuel, ever hit buildings with that design at that speed before or since? We need to compare apples.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.[/quote] Define small. Also, how much damage was done by the fire? How much damage was done by falling debris?

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.[/quote]

Again, see the above. Also, falling objecs don’t normally pause on their way to the ground. Ain’t gravity nifty!

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).[/quote] Did they have as much damage from falling debris? Were these “raging” fires as intense and cover as much area as WTC-7. Did these buildinds have identical construction and design?

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, “.maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it,” slang for demolish it.[/quote]

OH yes, because the owner would naturally tell the FD that he was gonna blow it up. Maybe he meant, “get people the hell out of it and let it burn”.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had “only a low probability of occurrence.” [/quote]

I think they may have mentioned the structural damage done to the building too. That could be a “minor” factor.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.[/quote]

FFS, you don’t have to “melt” steel!!! Figure it out people. You only have to weaken it to the point of failure. Take the goddamn melting points and stick them up your ass.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken “the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself”. In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

  1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).[/quote]

It’s that nifty gravity again.

[quote]
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint. [/quote]

Pretty amazing but, the floors did pancake from the top. Also, IIRC the outer “skin” of the towers was quite a structural support component in itself. Perhaps I’m remembering incorrectly though.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (“.workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said”).[/quote]

Wow, give me a break. So if there were HUGE exposives set up, why can’t anybody point them out? All they can do is point at pics of ESCAPING AIR and say, “Oh look! It’s an explosion” Also, why would anyone demo a building with the intent of turning all concrete to powder? It would be totally unncessary and create HUGE multiple shockwaves from all the explosions.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.[/quote]

And why would it not? Time to think about physics for a second. Go drop a jar of mayo in the middle of the street and see if it just forms a nice tidy pile. When the tons of debris fell it create a huge amount of air rushing toward the ground (like the mayo). Once the air hits the ground, it has to go somewhere (sideways). Think about it…

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.[/quote]

It would make NO sense whatsoever for the middle columns to stay standing. This was not stripping meat off a chicken bone. Core columns don’t just “stand” when the rest of a building falls.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.[/quote]

I don’t know jack about the rubble piles. I’d have to look into that more.

[quote]
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of “softening”; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete. [/quote]

No signs of softening? That’s not what point 11 says.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions” along floors (blast sequences).[/quote]

No, they show air escaping from the pressure created by floors falling above them. Besides, if you demo a building, you det the bottom level and walk the explosions up, not down.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.[/quote]

Eyewitnesses also saw about 4 different types of aircraft hit the Pentagon. So some of the eyewitnesses had to wrong now didn’t they? Eyewitnesses at car wrecks can even be so off base they report open areas where there are barns and vice-versa.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).[/quote]

I would assume when a huge amount of rubble hits the earth, it creates readable waves. If the wackos were correct about such a huge amount of demo being in the building, there would not be conjecture. People would have overwhelming evidence in audio, video and still photos.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in “hot spots” that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). (“Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?” by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )[/quote]

So you’re trying to say that during normal building demolition, the explosives generate massive hot spots in the rubble and make it untouchable for long periods of time. That would sure slow down the removal of demo debris. I bet the demo companies hope their secret to get extra weeks of labor charges does not get noticed now.

27

It seems very unlikely that such a controlled detonation would occur over an hour after the first plane hit the building. On the face of it (I haven’t read anything arguing for the conspiracy and I don’t plan to) the claim isn’t parsimonious, as new unexplained events are introduced. A lot of the claims, such as the fire claim, and the claim about the debris, aren’t very specific and seem like arguments for ignorance to me.

It also seems far-fetched to think the government detonated the Pentagon. The Pentagon crash itself killed over 130 people, so this begs the question: what would be the point of a plan where a hijacked plane hitting a skyscraper is augmented by explosives? What if the plane didn’t make it to the destination, such as Flight 97? Do they cancel the bombing? What about Flight 97, for that matter? Did they cancel the Capitol bombing?

Video of the skyscrapers falling doesn’t even look like a ground based detonation. You can see the tops of the buildings fall first and crush the lower parts of the building under the force. Where the bombs detonated at the 95th floor of so? If so, did the hijackers have to know where on the building to hit.

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.

[/quote]

ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal?

29

LOL 4est just went on an owning spree. Don’t be such a pig, man… leave some for everybody else, too.

30

Several points a team at MIT made to rebut claims of controlled demolition.

  1. Jet fuel was not the only thing on fire, but spread quickly throughout the impact zone to catch internal materials on fire.

  2. The steel did not literally need to melt for the building to collapase; widely varying temperatures in different parts of a beam should warp the steel in different places and cause it to buckle under its own weight. The steel is weight bearing, after all.

Some research of my own: wikipedia and howstuffworks.com. Not the greatest sources, but if you know to rebut any of these, let me know.

  1. The World Trade Center had a different design than many other skyscrapers; it is supported mainly at the center, not on the periphery, where the impact zone was. The stairwells were lined with gypsum, not reinforced concrete. It’s quite possible for different parts of the building to start falling independently from one another, the sheer force would destabilize the surrounding area.

  2. Remember that a truck bomb at the base of the WTC years before killed people but was not a threat to destabilize the building even with a relatively large amount of explosive in a core, base area of the building. This begs the question: how much explosive would you need, and where? Controlled demolition uses lots of explosive in strategic locations throughout the building. It is difficult to believe that so many explosives could have been planted in so many places clansdestinely; and in the case I pointed out earlier, removed clansdestinely if the mission was aborted or something went wrong.

  3. The south tower was hit later, but collapsed more quickly. The plane hitting it hit lower and faster, which doesn’t matter in controlled demoltion but is highly explanatory in the impact and fire explanation. The north tower was hit first by a slower, lighter plane, and only collapsed after the south tower fell; it is difficult to believe controlled demolition timing (which would have to go completely undetected by the scores of cops and firefighter running through the building) was timed in a syncopated manner.

  4. The skyscraper was designed to withstand a 707 impact, but a 767 has 6 times more mass and much more fuel than a 707.

  5. There would obviously be no opportunity for a test column blast which is standard procedure in controlled demolition.

  6. Vaguely worded puzzlements do not constitute theory in themseleves, and often they just don’t follow. Why should controlled demolition create less debris? Why should controlled demolition make the building fall in segments?

31

The simularities to controlled demoltion are because it employs a different trigger, but the same mechanism as controlled demolition: gravity. Controlled demoltion shouldn’t pulverize a gigantic building anything to dust any more than a plane impact should, as in each case only a certain amount of the structural volume is directly effected by explosive. The building landed on its own footprint? That’s interesting, but that’s hardly an exclusive hallmark of controlled demolition. Building number 7 fell in less than 10 seconds? Well, I should hope so, it’s good to know gravity still works at the same speed. Building number 7 wasn’t directly hit? You just pointed out the intense localized seismic activity. The WTC runs over subway lines.

32

See 4est? Zara wanted some too.

33

It looks like it’s come to the point where even if the “Conspiracy Nuts” were irrefutably proven wrong, they would never accept it, for whatever reason. This can also be said about “Patriots” as well. I reckon even if the conspiracy nuts were proven to be irrefutably right, patriots wouldn’t accept it.

I think this is a very bad state of affairs for both groups… Being so consumed in pride that one will actually turn away from the truth to save face is childish at best.

Concurrently, I think a lot of people aren’t necessarily proud of their beliefs as they are opposed to the acceptance of something so contrasting to their understanding of the world. For if they accept it, they must acknowledge their ignorance and naivity, which is obviously a difficult thing for most to do.

Some probably dont want to even consider the possibility of some things, because they wouldn’t want to live in a world where such atrocities could happen.

Irrespective to the legitimacy of the 9/11 conspiracies, I believe that many people will never accept them because they could not stand to live in a world/country where such things happen.

Many of the people who believe the conspiracies are people who will not believe that their government could allow 9/11 to occur, whether by mistake or by chance.

…Also there are a lot of nutters out there who need the thrill of believing a conspiracy to impassion them and invigorate their lives.

While it may be hard to discern the difference between the many different types of conspiracy theorists and their respectability I think it is unwise to dismiss the lot as said nutters.

Firstly, it is to be accepted that skepticism and questioning will arise during times of conflict, has happened as long as mankind has existed due to our inquisitive, curious nature, and feverish desire to pursue the truth.

Secondly, while it is clear that the sum total of their beliefs are heavily flawed, there are often truths to be found within them which shed light on unanswered questions.

34

…ehhh

35

How easy is to ignore when Larry Silverstein ordered WTC7 “pulled” which is demolition slang. He claims that he order ed the “pull” after being advised by the fire department…so after 6 hours WTC7 comes down…the problem with that “story” is that it takes WEEKS of planning and placing of the charges to pull down a building of that size. The other interesting fact is that Silverstein had the Towers insurance policy increased just a couple of months before the “terror” attacks.

36

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
How easy is to ignore when Larry Silverstein ordered WTC7 “pulled” which is demolition slang. He claims that he order ed the “pull” after being advised by the fire department…so after 6 hours WTC7 comes down…the problem with that “story” is that it takes WEEKS of planning and placing of the charges to pull down a building of that size. The other interesting fact is that Silverstein had the Towers insurance policy increased just a couple of months before the “terror” attacks.[/quote]

This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read.

He orders his firefighters pulled out of a dangerous situation and now it is demolition slang for blowing up the building?

It is also slang for pulling your dick out of a women before you blow your load.

Perhaps the building was full of prostitutes and he didn’t want the firefighters to knock them up.

37

Because if I were part of the overarching government conspiracy, I might want a little taste to wet my beak before I implement the most top secret thing ever.

38

[quote]zarathus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.

ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal? [/quote]

First of all you are a bit confused (yea just a bit).

I do not share the same “ideology” as David Duke or David Koresh. That you could somehow determine that I do from my many posts on this site is a pretty nutty claim in and of itself!

The remaining two:

Ann Coulter has some very good points, she just says them in an inflammatory manner in order to attract attention…which sells books etc.

Pat Robertson is a good Christian man who has given his personal time and millions of dollars to help third world countries and many starving people. If you end up helping 1/1000th the people that he has you would be doing something very good. He also says some inflammatory things at times.

There, glad we had this little chat.

:slight_smile:

39

Look no less an expert than Charlie Sheen thinks there was a government conspiracy…

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_alex_jones_showbiz_tonight_video.htm

Attention tin foil hat dudes unite around Charlie!

LOL

40

i dont want to believe that a government would kill it’s own people. i just want proof either way.

objectivly looking at both arguments there are many factual flaws with the official story. everything from no markings on the pentagon building that would lead one to think that whatever hit it had wings (like photos of a clean round hole), to personal accounts of firefighters that the lobby of the towers were blown out. did a fireball travel down the elevator shaft? maybe. i dont know.

the flaws i see with the alternative story are mostly that there are alot of conclusions drawn from what COULD be coincidences.

when things dont add up, and things are knowingly withheld, (like footage of the pentagon) why wouldent you be suspicious?

why does being able to see both sides of a story make me a nut job?