The truth behind 9/11? - Part II

[color=red]This is a continued discussion.

Part 1


Really, REALLY big 9/11 news. The 9/11 conspiracy movement gains new ground with intellectuals:

Didn’t we already know all of these arguments? ex. “No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don’t get hot enough for buildings to collapse”

Yes, and they’re still just as important and unaddressed as they first were. The main point of the article was the formation of the group of scholars.

Do check out their website:

Revelations from the oral reports recorded by news and fire crews on 9/11 that were only released during 2005. The reason it took so long for them to come out? The city of New York refused to release them and only did so when forced to, legally.

I recently watched 9/11 documentry called “Loose Change” (at least I tink that’s what it was called…)
I thought it was an alright production. It raised some interesting point, mostly what we’ve already discussed here. I was really impressed with their coverage of the pentagon and the lack of evidence of an airplane hitting it, the size of the hole, etc.
I didn’t really think to much of the parts about the planes actually hitting the towers. For those who have seen this film, they make a point about how just before the plane hits, a small flash is visible right where the plane is about to strike. To me, this flash looked more like the fuselage hitting the tower, the reason it looked like it was in fron of the plane was because of cloud of debris that blasted outward as the plane hit.
In a nutshell, the pentagon story was better done that the two towers part, but it’s definitly made me want to research this a little more, and now I’m watching some of Alex Jones’ stuff. So far I like what I see, he really get’s into the politics of the whole situation, not just the mechanics of how and why the towers fell.

I think we can all agree that America is just trying to look good and the effect of that was the death of many people. IM prettyy sure the gov knew it was the stupidity that brought it down not the planes! NEW INFO******** If u get the dvd called in plane site they prove that before the impact to the tower there was a breif explosion( The planes didnt even have contact with the building ) *** lol might be new info cuz i didnt read all of the topic anyways. ***** NEW FACT*****
George Bush was good friends with osamas brother . Reasearch it becuase it deffinetly has to do with the towers

The buildings exploded WHEN the planes flew into the building. :content: :neutral: BTW, don’t believe everything you read…not trying to be mean, mind you. :cool:

Agreed, I’ve seen footage and the planes did hit the towers. What definitely is in dispute is whether the planes caused the towers to fall, or if the towers were brought down by other means, like explosives.
But it’s true, the Bush family are business partners with the Bin Laden family, they are both huge stakeholders in the middle-eastern oil industry.

RIGHT! Business partners, not the greatest friends in the world. :neutral: :woah: … ricans.htm

I don’t want to be an alarmist here but if there is another 9/11 you must realise who is doing it to you and why.

Josh: I’ve heard of ‘Loose Change’ but havent seen it and am a little dissapointed in where you say they chose to focus. Did they give the building 7 controversy a lot of time? I know I’m repeating myself here but it seems that newcomers here arent familiar with it.

If I made a 9/11 documentary I’d definately open with building 7 because it really is the key to this whole mess. Without footage the Pentagon stuff is difficult to analyse (although interestingly the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are currently petitioning Congress and the Senate to release more information regarding the pentagon, such as video footage of the impact. ) and as for all that stuff about flashes before the planes impact… well if that was the best evidence for conspiracy it’d be a waste of time.

LDgirl: Building 7 was not hit by a plane so its collapse was not caused by the impact of a plane or the resulting jet fuel fires. Something else made it collapse. The best bet appears to be a controlled demolition.

Then you work back to the main towers and look at the way they collapsed and figure it out from there.

Actually they did cover building 7, quite well by the way :yes:
One of the best things they said that really stuck with me was something like “If building 7 really did collapse because of a fire, it would be the third building in history…the first two would be the twin towers…”, then they proceeded to list about 10 or so buildings which had survived long, high temperature fires without falling down.
They also talked about the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of kerosene, etc.
The video does a great job of showing how the buildings couldn’t and shouldn’t have fallen simply because of a fire, but they didn’t seem to focus on the structural damage that the impact of the planes could have caused, which is what I was looking foward to.

The problem is, you can’t just say “this building in France survived a fire, so every other building should be able to as well.” Doesn’t that sound fallacious to anyone else? Sure, several buildings have burned at similar temperatures elsewhere, and have remained standing (their inner frames at least), but that doesn’t mean other buildings won’t have different outcomes. What if Building 7 was made differently (with more stress on each support), and couldn’t withstand as much heat-buckling as other towers elsewhere in the world?

Besides, that’s all irrelevant. I think WTC7 was demolished.

Buildings 1 and 2 didn’t collapse from fire. Didn’t anyone else notice the 80 ton chunk of metal slamming into the top half of both towers? Surely that caused significant structural damage to the steel supports. Besides, remember that video I posted a link to several pages ago? The one that shows the top portion of the south tower tilting to the side and not coming down straight at all? Unless all the explosives were planted on the same floors that were hit by the plane, that just wouldn’t happen. It clearly fell because the supports had been knocked out, and the top portion of the building was just too heavy.

Eh, it’s all been said before. The problem is that conspiracy theorists cannot ever be proven wrong. It’s a safe position to take, because it’s always possible to claim that official reports are wrong or full of lies. There’s no evidence we could ever find to prove that terrorists destroyed the towers (despite their confessions already).

I would’ve liked to have seen this in the video, but I wasn’t surprised when it wasn’t covered. WTC7 looked like it was imploded, but I don’t think the twin towers fell the same way. Buildings which are employed collapse almost all at the same time because of how the explosions are executed. The twin towers seemed to fall from the top down. If I had to guess, I’d say the sections of the towers above where the planes hit fell because of the structural damage from the impact, and the explosion, and the fires. Once that massive section of building started to fall, it brought the rest of the tower down with it. This may be why the second tower hit was the first to fall. It was hit lower down, therefore there was more weight above the structural damage.

Anywho, it’s a good video to see, regardless of whether or not you think it was terrorism or a conspiracy :yes:

Ok, so join me once again as we go for a walk through logic-ville. If you disagree with any of the following points then please say so:

  1. If building 7 was demolished/imploded, then that means it had to have been rigged for it before 9/11.

  2. Who could have access to the buildings for long enough to do this formidable task? The terrorists? There is no mention of this in even the official report and it does not seem to be a viable hypothesis.

  3. Meanwhile the government continues not to mention the obvious: that the 6-second collapse of Building 7 was caused by demolition. This is cause for at least suspicion.

  4. In addition, despite the fact that fire had never brought down a steel tower before, there is plenty of evidence that there was pre-knowledge of the collapse of building 7 on the day of 9/11 on the US side of things. Mayor Guliani and firefighter commanders made statements and orders on the day of 9/11 that show they knew the tower would come down.

  5. Add to this the odd confession of Silverstein…

And the evidence is clearly in favour of someone on the US side of things being behind the rigging of Building 7 and the subsequent activation of the explosives on the day of 9/11.

I mean Atheist, I like the Scholars approach on this. They say the government’s story is a “conspiracy theory” too, it is just talking about a different conspiracy. The question is which of the conspiracy theories do you feel the evidence best supports. I am very hesitant to argue for the London 7/7 attacks being some kind of MI5 conspiracy because there is much, much less evidence in favour of it (altho this makes sense in a twisted way because if it was a black op the British are much more experienced and expert at it). 9/11, however, has tons of evidence for it, INCLUDING a confession (the type of evidence you’d consider valid if I remember correctly?).

Incidentally, some of the best info out there on the collapses, including the main two towers, can be found here in this paper on 9/11 by Stephen Jones, the phycisist at the head of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth )

First of all you’ve got to remember the collapse of the two big towers was caused by fire, not the impacts. That’s the official line. So the official commission limited their computer simulation of the event to what occured from the onset of collapse onwards. Now check this out: they found that the simulation did not support what actually happened on the day. So what did they do?

They changed the parameters of the sim so that the collapse would match what happened and then they refused to make public the changes they made!!!

So they went from an actual simulation, which didnt support the freefall speed, vertical, perfectly ordered collapse of the day and basically manufactured a special effects production!!!

It’s all there in the Jones paper, check it out. He also uses physics and mathematics to disprove the official “pancake” theory.

Josh: I have no broadband so no Loose Change for me just yet. Slightly off-topic but I’ve read somewhere about it having a hip hop theme… is this correct?

Info on attempt to get more 9/11 information released for public and academic scrutiny: … idence.htm

A slightly off topic reply;

Yep, all the background music is hip hop.

Big developments afoot and I feel a duty to report them here.

Firstly Alex Jones has actually been allowed onto such mainstream tv channels as MTV and CNN thanks to the efforts of one brave Hollywood celebrity. Charlie Sheen gave an interview on the Alex Jones radio show during which he displayed superb knowledge of all the key issues. He drove the wedge of his argument into the Building 7 controversy, saying “if there is a problem with building 7 then there’s a problem with the whole damn thing. And guess what: there are signifigant problems with building 7”

The mainstream media pretty much ignored the story as far as they could but of course when a celebrity buys biscuits it can make the “news”, so the story did surface on the “Entertainment” (!) section of CNN’s news programme. The Host AJ Hammer actually allowed a very fair examination of the controversy, and Alex Jones put his view across as directly as he always does when allowed some national tv time. Seth Macfarlane (creator of Family Guy) also had an interview later in the show and when asked about Sheen gave support. Sharon Stone has also expressed support for what he is doing in a separate interview.

But it would seem it is not just the celebrity’s who are agreeing with Charlie: CNN ran a poll asking viewers whether they agreed with him in thinking that the administration is covering up crucial facts about 9/11. A staggering 82% of voters agreed with him at the close of the poll. Statisticians do point out that these polls are not scientific but even so, numbers of that sort in a poll of that sort are extraordinary.

Other media outlets were not so even-handed and many published “hit pieces” which generally made a big thing out of the fact that Sheen used coke during his party years. None of them addressed the issues he raised. Sheen gave a second interview with Alex Jones during which he asked critics to challenge him “on the facts”.

So the movement has gained huge momentum with this, and if Sheen and Jones are to be believed we could very well see many more celebs go public. Ed Asner (director) already has. Here’s an archive of info on the Sheen story including the interviews:

But this is not all that is going on, and is probably not even the biggest 9/11 truth story right now. Venezuela is currently playing host to two other prominent 9/11 truth campaigners: Jimmy Walters and William Rodriguez. For those who don’t know them, some details:

Jimmy Walters is a billionaire who has spent vast amounts of his own cash in trying to get the truth about 9/11 to the people. He’s spent 7 million on producing and distributing DVD’s alone, and also paid a lot of money to get a full page ad in a national publication on the subject.

William Rodriguez was the last person pulled from the rubble of the North Tower on 9/11. He was in charge of stairwell safety and heroically returnedto the towers many times to assist firecrews in getting people out alive. He also believes there were bombs in the buildings and has attempted to file a suit against the government for lying about the cause of the collapses.

Anyway, these two guys have found some real friends in Venezuela and perhaps the most amazing this is that they are government officials. That’s right: the actual government of Venezuela is sceptical of the official 9/11 story. After the pair were pressured by US agents to release details of who they gave DVDs to on a beach (and after Walters received a death threat via email) they have been given full military protection. Of course, the US government is working very hard to oust Venezuela’s Chavez. Pat Roberts (Christian preacher) has openly said on tv that the administration should assasinate him. Perhaps now we can see why they would want to.

Walters is going to get many other prominent 9/11 skeptics to come to Venezuela and the goal for them is to set up a truly independent enquiry into the events of 9/11. The team will have an international flavour and include ex-german minister and best selling author on 9/11 Von Buelow, physics professor Stephen E Jones, philosopher and theologian David Ray Griffin, ex UK member of parliament Michael Meacher and others. More details here: … gation.htm

Also Dr Robert M Bowman, who was the head of the “Star Wars” defense project, has also repeated his claims about 9/11, this time adding that Cheney is his main suspect. See his comments here: … uspect.htm

And finally, on a personal note I wholeheartedly recommend the book “9/11: the New Pearl Harbour” by David Ray Griffin. I read it in two sittings and learnt many new facts about the controversy. I don’t see how any free-thinking individual could read that book and not conclude the US administration actively made 9/11 happen.

Top evidences for US administration complicity include:

  • the demolition of building 7
    Despite not being hit by a plane, this 42 storey building collapsed completely, evenly and at freefall speed. This, amongst many other things, was not explained by the official commission (or should that be ommission?). Larry Silverstein and Mayor Guliani have both made statements that strongly suggest foreknowledge of this unprecedented collapse yet they have not been asked to explain themselves. Not by the media, not by the commision

  • the stand down
    One thing this books makes clear is that standard proceedures were overriden on the morning of 9/11. You need to look at the timeline of that day to fully appreciate how much time was wasted. Even after both planes had hit the towers and another was known to be heading towards Washington, no fighter jets were scrambled. In the past few years there have been hundreds of occasions when jets have been scrambled after planes had drifted only slightly off their predetermined courses, and yet there were no intercepts ordered to at least investigate what was going on until after the pentagon was struck. The only explanation for this is that a standown order was given (there is also evidence of this order in dialogue with Cheney on the day)

  • the wired money
    Pre-9/11 millions of dollars were wired to the account of Mohammed Atta. They came from the head of the ISI (pakistans FBI, set up and maintained by the US). This very same man was present with US administration officials on the morning of 9/11.

  • the hole in the pentagon
    There is a complete refusal to release footage of the plane that supposedly impacted the pentagon. There are numerous lines of evidence that suggest the plane (or even missile) that struck the pentagon was military in nature (including testimony of an entire room of air traffic controllers).

  • pre and post-9/11 “investigation”
    On numerous occasions investigators were obstructed and prevented from carrying out their work by their superios pre-9/11, which would have foiled the attacks. The commission post-9/11 was late, underfunded and hindered at every turn by the administration.

  • the removal of evidence from the scene
    Engineers were furious when the steel of the WTC was first guarded with machine guns and then shipped as quickly as possible off to china before it could be examined. The cause of collapse would be clear from the steel, so what motivation would there be to prevent a full investigation into that steel? Tampering with forensic evidence at a crime scene is a serious offense in itself.

I think I’ve seen some other poles with the same kind of figures (on one of Alex Jones’ own documentries). It had something to do with foreknowledge of the vent…in any case, 90% of the poeple serveyed believe the government had foreknowledge and did nothing (which is a realistic figure, and a realistic turn of events in my opinion).
I’ll have to go back and watch it again sometime. Anyway, it’s nice that Alex Jones makes these mainstream appearances :yes:

EDIT - I forget to mention my main point. It’s poles like this that show us a huge amount of people are just not buying the mainstream story (I’m not sure what to believe anymore :bored: )

But Josh, if a stand down order was given to allow the planes to hit their targets, does that count as “doing nothing” or actively assisting?

How about the removal of the steel? That’s surely an purposeful action as opposed to passive inaction.

… and of course if the buildings were demolished (why would they feel it neccesary to get rid of the steel before investigations if they werent?) then that CERTAINLY counts as direct action aimed at making the events of 9/11 happen.

I’m just hoping Team Venezuela come through with what they are tryingt to do, although that would of course force the hand of the Neocon Cabal… so we’ll have to see how they react and whether they attempt the same strategy again.