English Forum Switzerland

English Forum Switzerland (https://www.englishforum.ch/forum.php)
-   International affairs/politics (https://www.englishforum.ch/international-affairs-politics/)
-   -   9/11 - nearly 5 years on (https://www.englishforum.ch/international-affairs-politics/1049-9-11-nearly-5-years.html)

Lob 18.08.2006 11:10

9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
The reason I start this thread is that, coming up to five years post-9/11, I watched Loose Change - 2nd Edition last night.

I found it, whilst one-sided of course (like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11), to be compelling viewing and of great interest. The Google-hosted Video is 1 hour 22 minutes long. You may wish to find it on P2P networks as it will be better quality.

Warning: it is of course about that fateful day in 2001 and whatever you think and believe happened that day, one truth cannot be denied: just short of 3000 people died.

The question this video asks are - WHY - and more importantly - WAS BIN LADEN RESPONSIBLE? It offers subplots of conspiracy, deception and lies allegedly orchestrated by the Bush administration.

Previously, I believe that perhaps he was but also had doubts as to how much was known and how much led back to CIA training in Afghanistan and so-on. I freely admit that this and Moore's movie are one-sided and well-edited but the conspiracists are perhaps winning me over; certainly I'd need a large pinch of salt after watching Loose Change to not somewhat agree with them.

NOTE: whilst you're free to reply to this thread, you should keep it on-topic. What I am saying here is I want your interpretation of what you watched, what you already knew and what you believe. You might also want to read a little from Wikipedia before replying too.

As this could be quite a touchy subject, I have to point out that racial slurs, personal attacks and other antisocial posts will be deleted or edited. Bans might follow if necessary.

If you don't want to post nor read this, please feel free to not open this thread.

Lob 18.08.2006 11:25

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
I'll start:
whilst I believe that the two movies do carry some interesting material, I have to ask myself certain questions....

Against the conspiracy:
  • this would have to be the best-kept secret EVER; too many people would have to know something and be involved - is that possible?
  • the loss of life. If this was from the Bush administration, that is taking Friendly Fire to a new level
  • I saw the second plane hit live on CNN. That will stay with me for ever
For the conspiracy:
  • the collapse of WTC1 and 2 with reports and visible explosions make no sense to me given the facts and my underlying knowledge of what I would "expect"
  • WTC7. Again, how and why? It seems a valid question
  • Pentagon: you have to say what hit it.
  • Cellphone calls - some accounts of course hearsay but those accounts do hint at scripted conversations
  • Flight 93 - did it go down, did it land?
  • Why not release the CCTV footage from the hotel and gas station near the Pentagon?
I have also discounted the mixtures of eye witness reports - with the associated trauma, speed of events and other factors, the reports of small passenger planes, windowless planes and so-on do not add clarity for me.

More to come; I'm editing and reading Wiki!

Gav 18.08.2006 12:12

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
I'll start:
whilst I believe that the two movies do carry some interesting material, I have to ask myself certain questions....

Against the conspiracy:
  • this would have to be the best-kept secret EVER; too many people would have to know something and be involved - is that possible?
  • the loss of life. If this was from the Bush administration, that is taking Friendly Fire to a new level
  • I saw the second plane hit live on CNN. That will stay with me for ever
For the conspiracy:
  • the collapse of WTC1 and 2 with reports and visible explosions make no sense to me given the facts and my underlying knowledge of what I would "expect"
  • WTC7. Again, how and why? It seems a valid question
  • Pentagon: you have to say what hit it.
  • Cellphone calls - some accounts of course hearsay but those accounts do hint at scripted conversations
  • Flight 93 - did it go down, did it land?
  • Why not release the CCTV footage from the hotel and gas station near the Pentagon?
I have also discounted the mixtures of eye witness reports - with the associated trauma, speed of events and other factors, the reports of small passenger planes, windowless planes and so-on do not add clarity for me.

More to come; I'm editing and reading Wiki!

Wow - we all seem to have watched this around the same time .. I watched it on Monday. Very interesting stuff, some of it is clearly stretching things to fit a viewpoint and apparently there are factual errors but it raises lots of questions.

I agree - the Pentagon incident has a LOT of unanswered questions and things that don't seem to fit. Also, even at the time, the "Flight 93" 'crash' struck me as very weird.

As you say, the differing eyewitness reports are pretty much standard whenever there's a violent event. People remember things differently than others, get the wrong impression at the time, get influenced by stuff they heard later etc. So I wouldn't put too much credence on the reports that there was a small passenger jet involved, cargo plane instead of passenger plane etc. either. The multiple reports of explosions in the WTC are interesting. Of course, they could have been secondary explosions as there may well have been lots of material in the building which was explosive in the case of a raging fire.

Additional things that stuck out were the presence of a large white plane around Washington at the time of the Pentagon attack (seen and caught on camera) .. what was that about, why hasn't it been accounted for? Why were there so few fighter jets available (only FOUR fighters protecting the NE of the USA)? Not mentioned in the film was the way that the White House resisted all attempts for a full enquiry, then restricted it's scope and refused to hand over evidence demanded by it.

My own impression: The attacks on the towers were 'real' but certain figures in the intelligence community had foreknowledge and allowed them to go ahead.

The Pentagon was a staged attack, designed to heighten the overall sense of fear and the notion that "America was being attacked" rather than just a one-off, albeit spectacular, act of terrorism.

The passengers of Flight 93 recovered control of the plane from the hijackers but it was shot down because it was always 'meant' to be shot down - they weren't going to crash something into the White House but they could claim that the plane was destined for it, had it not come down (allegedly having crashed because of a struggle between passengers and hijackers).

I never thought I'd question the official line on what happened, but with all the strange stuff and goings on that have been uncovered in the time since the attacks plus the way in which the Bush administration has exploited them to push their own agenda, I'm willing to believe that it was more than just a totally unexpected act of terrorism excuted with a 100% element of surprise.


Gav

mark 18.08.2006 13:11

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
I said I wasn't going to join this one, but here goes :D

I pretty much agree with Lob's comments. Maybe they wanted to fill up 82 minutes of footage which is why they included all those conflicting eyewitness reports. I think it would have been better served if they focused more on some questions which are REALLY tough to answer. For example:
  • The engines of a 757 are made of titanium alloy, why were they never found embedded in the pentagon, or even the holes that they would have punched in the walls.
  • Why did number 7 world trade center collapse, even though it wasn't near the other towers? Anyone who watches it going down could see that it was a controlled explosion. The problem here is, if it were a controlled explosion, then it could not have been set up in just a couple of hours.
There's plenty more, but for me these are the biggest two biggest points which the debunkers should have the hardest time answering. If these two points stick, surely the others should then be considered with a little more merit rather than being discarded?

Of course it seems impossible that such secrets could be hidden from the public. Until of course you sit back and think about the sheet scale of the lies that have been told to the public since 9/11. What about the clearly falsified intelligence on Iraq (and the whole Plame/Libby/Cheney thing), the illegal and systematic wiretaps on American citizens on their own soil, the interception of all financial transfers worldwide via the collection of SWIFT messages (including Swiss transactions). Then let's not forget the failure to explain the suspected kidnapping and "rendition" of suspects in foreign lands.

The point is that this administration has been caught out for all sorts of stuff, what about the stuff we don't know about?

Points I found a bit much in the film:
  • The explanation of where all the passengers disappeared to
  • The fact that cell phone communication from a plane is impossible (I believe that it is)
  • The molten metal found at the base of the twin towers (you can see the collapse came from the top, not the bottom as was the case with number 7)

I also believed that the explosions coming from the lower floors of the towers as they collapsed could have been a pressure wave from the pancaking effect happening on the floors above.

But you have to admit - for one tower to fall was unexpected - a "fluke", for the second tower to fall is also just too interesting to be ignored. And for a third, unrelated tower (number 7) to fall so perfectly with no apparent damage just takes the cake!

Lob 18.08.2006 13:23

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
The explosions shown as WTC1 and 2 went down - would you expect a more widespread expression of pressure within the building? To the layperson (me), it really looked like the explosions were seemingly in key areas. This leaves me with shadows of doubt.....but the reported explosions heard by NYFB personnel could be related to the stress and strain of the aftermath of the impact. Nothing conclusive then....

Fahrenheit 9/11 also touches on one of the few aircraft allowed to remain airborne - that containing IIRC Saudis allegedly related to Usama bin Laden. Timing stinks - but then again, it's hearsay - is there proof of this happening.

Economic reasons irk me somewhat; the dollar today is weak, the US carriers are struggling (and after the recent UK arrests and action, possibly more). The cost to invade Iraq and the fact that the US forces are embroiled in the situation within the country has ensured that billions upon billions of dollars have been spend on this problem.

The US upper house has blocked some attempts by GWB to effectively remove and curtail the first and second and perhaps fourth amendments; Guantanamo bay has been said to be unconstitutional and I believe the majority of the US population has had enough of him.

So if it was a conspiracy, what was the medium- and long-term aim? You have to ask yourself that.....

Humanist 18.08.2006 13:25

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
There is a clear and present threat to this world from two camps. The neocons and the Islamists. Both are not good for this world.

Gav 18.08.2006 13:41

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
So if it was a conspiracy, what was the medium- and long-term aim? You have to ask yourself that.....

GW and his merry band of necons would have been out of power at the last US Presidential election, for starters. They were making a mess of domestic affairs and the economy and GWB was one of the most unpopular presidents ever.

Plus the events of Sept. 11th have enabled the neocons to pursue their expansionist agenda. They've taken control of Afghanistan and Iraq and most probably will try to at least take down the governments of Syria and Iran and replace them with more sympathetic regiemes.

(Did you see all that stuff at the start about the neocon-thinktank 'Project for the New American Century' - they pointed out that the only way to get public support for the neocon goals was for a 'New Pearl Harbor' to happen. Well, with the events of 9-11 they got it.)


And I fully expect the 'War on Terror' to be a strong election issue used by the next Republican candidate for President. Most likely one of Bush's brothers.


Gav

Gav 18.08.2006 13:58

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mark
  • The fact that cell phone communication from a plane is impossible (I believe that it is)

I think it's definitely possible with GSM technology, and it was one of the things that looked like a 'stretch' in the film.

The reason cellphones are banned on aeroplanes is more down to the fact that causes the networks a lot of problems because reception is too good. Once you are a few kms up, your phone becomes visible to a load of different basestations at once (clear line of sight to them), as opposed to maybe one or two when you're on the ground.

This gives you an excellent chance of making a call but can cause problems with the routing software that the mobile networks use to figure out which cell you're 'in' and whether or not you are moving from one cell to another. To the network it looks like you are in multiple cells at once and moving rapidly into other multiple cells. If planeloads of people were whizzing around up there, registered on your network, there would be plenty of problems.

And before someone says that the plane is a faraday cage acting to block reception, haven't you ever seen people switch on and use their phones in the plane on the ground after it has parked on the stand? They work perfectly. Once when my plane was delayed on the ground in Zuerich the pilot gave permission to use phones and everyone was calling with no problems.

Of course, the US uses a different standard for mobile phones but I'd be very surprised if it didn't work in a very similar way.


Gav

Lou 18.08.2006 14:05

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
I've never seen Loose Change so can't comment on that but I do beleive that there is so much about Sept. 11th that we are not being told about or are being lied to about. I find it easy to beleive that the Bush administration were somehow involved or had prior knowledge of the attacks. The way that the attacks are being used to keep the population of the USA and most of the world in a state of constant fear makes me highly suspicious. After all a population in a state of fear is much easier to control. The way they have also been used to invade Iraq under false pretences is also suspicious.

I actually started doubting the official line on the day itself. I found it odd that only hours after the events took place the authorities had already enough evidence to to name the alleged hijackers, have the video footage from the airport and also have the inventory of so called evidence from the lead hijackers car. If no knowledge of the events was had beforehand how could they find all this so quickly from a standing start??


"All warfare is based on deception."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War

evilshell 18.08.2006 14:11

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Note my new icon, appropriate for this topic. Be sure to wear your tin foil hat when considering these movies and this topic as a whole!

I think we also have to ask a lot of questions about Bush, My Pet Goat, and why he didn't leave the school (or at least the classroom!) when he was told of the first plane hitting the WTC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • this would have to be the best-kept secret EVER; too many people would have to know something and be involved - is that possible?
  • the loss of life. If this was from the Bush administration, that is taking Friendly Fire to a new level

That's the thing which keeps me from totally buying into the theories floating about (including those in my head). Then I think about things such as the Kennedy assassination...and I'm not so sure. How do you get people to keep these secrets without killing them all?

Brutal, cruel, inhuman - but could it be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • the collapse of WTC1 and 2 with reports and visible explosions make no sense to me given the facts and my underlying knowledge of what I would "expect"

Even at the time, I thought it was suspicious. In 1993, there was an attempt to blow up the WTC, using a bomb in the basement. It killed several people, but because it was not close enough to a support pillar, it didn't bring the building down. I am still not convinced that a single support pillar being taken out would bring the building down immediately, anyway. I suppose that's neither here nor there, but it is part of what influenced my opinion of the collapse.

It takes quite a bit, as shown in the movie, to bring down a building, particularly one of the construction of the WTC buildings - including 7.

Far too much evidence points to secondary bombs, or charges being planted. It is almost as if the planes crashing into it were a diversion so people wouldn't notice the bombs/charges being set off. Or "they" (whomever "they" are) believed that the impact of the planes would set off the charges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • WTC7. Again, how and why? It seems a valid question

I think that it was supposed to go down when the towers did, but for some reason the charges didn't go. That's why it went later in the day. And don't forget all of the secret and secure offices (CIA, FBI, etc.) that were in this building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • Pentagon: you have to say what hit it.

Sure as hell wasn't the plane they said hit it! My guess is it was a missle of some sort. What's your thought?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • Flight 93 - did it go down, did it land?

At the time of this event, I was living in Cleveland, Ohio and working very close to the airport. We were watching the planes coming in, after the order to ground all air traffic had been issued - our office was directly next to the flight path, so we had an excellent view of the flights coming in and we stood and watched them landing one after another.

I remember hearing something at the time on the radio about a bomb plane at the airport, we talked about it in the office, but I honestly don't remember the specifics.

It would have been extremely easy to land extra planes there and hide them. The airport is connected to a NASA research center, and there are quite a few large, empty hangars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lob Rockster
  • Why not release the CCTV footage from the hotel and gas station near the Pentagon?

The only reason I can figure is because there is something on this film that the government doesn't want us to see.

Did the government pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public?

It boosted Bush's ratings through the roof, and anyone who questioned the actions of the government after then was called "unpatriotic" and "unamerican". I know, I was called that many times - particularly when I questioned why Afghanistan was being bombed in an effort to "look for" Osama bin Laden - when it wasn't even proven that the attack was his doing. The good oil family, the Bush family, had some vested interests with the pipeline that was to go through Afghanistan.

Bush as eroded much of the constitution and has tried to take away even more. There is a mainstream movement now to try and curb these actions, but I fear it is too little too late.

And then there's the Bush empire - first Daddy Bush, then Addict Bush (er, Georgie Boy), and now they're trying to groom Brother Jeb to be the next Bush in the White House. :eek:

evilshell 18.08.2006 14:21

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gav
GW and his merry band of necons would have been out of power at the last US Presidential election, for starters. They were making a mess of domestic affairs and the economy and GWB was one of the most unpopular presidents ever.

That brings us to another conspiracy theory. Diebold, election stealing, etc.

The owner of Diebold was "committed to giving Bush votes" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

mark 18.08.2006 14:42

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by evilshell
Note my new icon, appropriate for this topic. Be sure to wear your tin foil hat when considering these movies and this topic as a whole!

Might I just say that your new avatar is splendid and appropriate. Your previous one was a little disturbing ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilshell
Sure as hell wasn't the plane they said hit it! My guess is it was a missle of some sort. What's your thought?

I don't think it was a missle. It's not likely that anyone would have seen a missle, they are a lot faster and smaller than a plane. There was also someone from airtraffic control that said they were tracking it and it looked like a military plane - probably not likely for a missile. Then there was that turbine-like thing they found in the wreckage - the one that matches up to a type of fighter jet. Some people in the pentagon said they smelled explosives - it could be that the plane had explosives as it's payload - so there was a mixture of jetfuel and explosives. Explosives as payload may also explain why so little wreckage existed?

At the time of this event, I was living in Cleveland, Ohio and working very close to the airport. We were watching the planes coming in, after the order to ground all air traffic had been issued - our office was directly next to the flight path, so we had an excellent view of the flights coming in and we stood and watched them landing one after another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilshell
I remember hearing something at the time on the radio about a bomb plane at the airport, we talked about it in the office, but I honestly don't remember the specifics.

It would have been extremely easy to land extra planes there and hide them. The airport is connected to a NASA research center, and there are quite a few large, empty hangars.

Cool - someone connected at least in some way to that part of the film. That was where I started to switch off - they were saying stuff about being passengers moved around and planes landing and taking off - but I couldn't see where they got that information from - it was as if someone's fantasy was being told. Unless I missed the source somewhere.

I must say I'm glad that we haven't been overun with "patriots" telling us off in this thread (yet). So kudos to you for being American and not going crazy with all that flag-waving stuff. Just yesterday I was trying to explain to a user why their behaviour on this forum was not up to scratch. I was then accused of "disliking Americans" - I mean WTF??? Maybe they just needed a telling off? It's a bit like Ali G's "is it because I is black?" Will being an American become the new political correctness (he/she just treated me that way because I am an American).

So let's try and keep an atmosphere of open minds and tin foil hats - wherever we come from :)

Lob 18.08.2006 14:43

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Shell, great post - I see you're skilled in reading upside-down book titles ;)

Flight 93 - as you say, could've hit the Pentagon (from evidence, unlikely) and also could've landed at Cleveland (which is an ugly city on the horizon as you drive north through Ohio - but I should not digress).

Certainly the impact you'd expect from a 757 isn't there. Missile? Perhaps. The carpark 5-frames don't tell much. Having said that, a missile taking out 5 lampposts? :confused: Or rigged to go? :eek:

Guest 18.08.2006 14:45

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
If you're interested in finding some rebuttals to these questions, Popular Mechanics has an article in answer to some of these questions:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Sen. John McCain prefaces some of these articles. Why a magazine like PM is answering these instead of the Fed Gov, I haven't a clue. Perhaps the editorial and board of PM magazine is closely knit with the M.O.D. (D for disinformation).

mark 18.08.2006 14:45

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gav
The reason cellphones are banned on aeroplanes is more down to the fact that causes the networks a lot of problems because reception is too good. Once you are a few kms up, your phone becomes visible to a load of different basestations at once (clear line of sight to them), as opposed to maybe one or two when you're on the ground.

Yep - I knew about the same issue, which is why I got puzzled when that part came up in the film. As we all know the mobile system in the US, is... well... different. The guy in his plane should really have taken a handset from every network to do his testing - I think he only took one. US GSM is 1900Mhz, as opposed to 900/1800 for rest of world. That 100Mhz shouldn't have made a huge difference.

It's just a shame that some parts of that film were poorly researched and sketchy, it allows the critics to discredit some otherwise excellent points.

mark 18.08.2006 14:49

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phos
If you're interested in finding some rebuttals to these questions, Popular Mechanics has an article in answer to some of these questions:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Sen. John McCain prefaces some of these articles. Why a magazine like PM is answering these instead of the Fed Gov, I haven't a clue. Perhaps the editorial and board of PM magazine is closely knit with the M.O.D. (D for disinformation).

I also ended up on their site looking for rebuttals. What really did it for me was that the SUM TOTAL of their rebuttal for the "where is the wreckage" question for the Pentagon was to point out the single piece of wreckage (also the one shown in the film) and to say something like "there you go...". Probably the weakest rebuttal I could think of. After that I figured that it wasn't a serious attempt at a rebuttal and kept looking.

I would seriously like to hear some serious rebuttals to the more serious points (no point in rebutting the stuff which was a bit questionable to begin with).

I gave the film to Stu, was hoping he'd join in with some rebuttals/research.

pilates 18.08.2006 14:50

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
WARNING: Sensitive readers...do not scroll down...
9/11 was a tragedy of Pearl Harbor proportions. The St. Petersburg Times in Florida called it "A New Day of Infamy" on Sept. 12. I remember the headline clearly. It's a hard topic to discuss because:
1. So many people died
2. So many more were affected by the deaths of friends, family, coworkers, neighbors...
3. The Patriot Act...it is considered UNpatriotic to talk about terrorism, especially conspiracy theories regarding 9/11
4. I love my country and am terribly disheartened by the sum of the facts...which do not add up.

However, I cannot "sweep" this "under the rug" because I know what I saw. I watched Sept 11 happen on television that morning, I had just gotten off a plane approximately 8 hours before. I yelled at the newsman that this was not a "horrible accident---a plane has crashed into the WTC"--as he stated. I yelled at the TV, "WHAT? ARE YOU STUPID! THIS IS A TERRORIST ATTACK, THAT PLANE WAS FLOWN INTO THE BUILDING!"
And then, 18 minutes later, a second plane...the newsman now saw it my way. I was glued to the TV for hours.

So, to stay on topic...
I don't think there's much difficulty in putting the facts together the way this film has done. I don't think anyone can swear by them and only a few very powerful people can actually fill in the holes.
I watched Michael Moore's film too. He has some interesting questions as well. But overall, the American Public is not interested in getting the questions answered truthfully. We stand to lose too much: security, integrity, comfort... We only lose a few freedoms instead...like the freedom to walk through the airport without being fondled at security.

Some things I do know. Conspiracies happen.
People can be persuaded to do anything. Everyone has a price. For some, it is power/promotions through the ranks, for others the persuasion is monetary--they can be bought. Still others, the persuasion is truly more DISsuasion: i.e. threats of losing one's career, one's home, or one's life, etc.
As for how far-ranging this conspiracy (if it exists) reaches...most of the USA media, even the global media is owned by one giant corporation. Most corporations have only one or two head-"Honchos" to get to. Then the orders just "trickle-down". That makes it easy to give only one view to the public.
The same goes for governments. There really are only a few key players; buy them off (or threaten them), and your conspiracy is "pulled-off". The cronies are guys just doing their jobs, so as not to destroy their own careers and lives. It's huge, but really boils down to one thing that fueled the whole conspiracy in the first place: GREED.

And I have to say, George Bush is not one of the conspirators, he's just been bought and paid for. He's not bright enough to know how far reaching this thing goes. He couldn't be trusted to testify to the 9-11 Commission ALONE. No, Bush is just a pawn. The real conspirators are those who stood to REALLY gain from it, not just monetarily, but politically. Corporations like Haliburton, who are now reconstructing Iraq.

And we, the Public. Well, we are hardly even considered pawns in this game of chess. We are dispensible. They killed about 3000 of us, and without so much as a second thought. There will be other consumers to fill the emptiness, and it won't take long. The exportation of American culture, music, fashion, and food is still a booming business. And we don't even wait for them to come to here; we just package our culture and export it. Maybe that is what fuels Islamic fundamentalism.


I hope that was "on-topic" ...my truly discouraged political self is showing here. I know THEY can track me down like a hunted animal...but I hope they won't. btw, have you read the Downing Street Memo? Anyone care to watch WAG THE DOG tonight????:mad:

Uncle Max 18.08.2006 15:08

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mark
I said I wasn't going to join this one, but here goes :D

Ha Ha, that's the trouble. This Forum's too good! :D

litespeed 18.08.2006 15:37

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Simply, nothing tells the truth more than truth itself. Honesty is pure and transparent. Therefore if it happened like it did, then these discrepancies could be easily accounted for, and no reason not to release videos and tapes that have no distasteful images.

Anyone seen those Disco channel docs on demolition? That Loiseaux family really know their stuff. But they spend weeks, even months planning how to cleanly bring down constructions not even half as high as WTC1 and 2. This usually involves complex and delicate weakening of the structural steel components, not to mention placement and timing of shape charges. And from sheer chaos, two towers collapse with almost surgical precision? Amazing.

The second tower that got hit (first to go down) gets hit on the corner. I cannot see how the steel structure on the opposing corner could have been as weak as the corner where it was hit. This structure, if collapsing at all, should have logically collapsed to one side (A bit like putting weight on top of an empty coke can, and pushing on one side).

And George Bush's reaction is the icing on the cake. With a stereotype POTUS one would have expected a reaction like " WTF!!!!!! Get me to Air Force 1 asap!!! . Instead he reacted like "hmmm...thats not suppose to happen for at least another 10 min".

It all reminds me of one of the few X-files episodes I watched, with Cancer man and a couple his buddies finalising their conspiracies, including who was to win the next superbowl.:rolleyes:

Gav 18.08.2006 16:29

Re: 9/11 - nearly 5 years on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by litespeed
Anyone seen those Disco channel docs on demolition? That Loiseaux family really know their stuff. But they spend weeks, even months planning how to cleanly bring down constructions not even half as high as WTC1 and 2. This usually involves complex and delicate weakening of the structural steel components, not to mention placement and timing of shape charges. And from sheer chaos, two towers collapse with almost surgical precision? Amazing.

Yep - but on the other hand, given the sheer amount of effort it takes to properly demolish a large building how could the towers have been rigged without someone noticing? It would take more than just a couple of 'security drills' where the buildings were evactuated for an hour or two. There would have to be sustained work going on over a protracted period of time.

Another thing - although some amazing claims were made, how can we be sure of the veractity of them? For example, It was claimed that bomb sniffer dogs had been withdrawn from the building a couple of weeks prior to the events. Is that at all verifiable?


Gav


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:03.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0