The truth behind 9/11?

Lucid Lounge
41

My b/f downloaded some homemade video showing conspiracy.

Even though the events were truly tragic and I sympathize with all those families that felt losses regardless of how it happened. Some things just don’t jive with everything the government is saying.

One of my favorites is the plane crashing into the Pentagon. First of all, where the heck were the F16’s. That’s restricted air space. I don’t even think you could fly a kite within a mile of the place. Anyhow this video, and when I get home tonight I’ll try and get it’s title, showed footage from a parking lot across from the Pentagon. You never saw any part of a plane.

42

The Towers were constructed to withstand a 747.

9/11 was just another Reichstag fire. It’s happened before. Sacrifice 3000 lives to initiate a War that is impossible to stop once it starts (War On Terror). This is why we used it to justify Iraq despite Iraq had/has NO ties to Al Quada (or WMD’s for that matter, another lie just pushed to scare people). 9/11 gave the US Government something tangible to scare the people with, we ALL remember where we were that day.

This is beginning of the coming Dark Age. And don’t worry, of course you can’t see it coming, nobody ever does.

43

I’d LOVE to see that myself, I have done extensive research into the Pentagon and have definitive proof no plane ever hit it.

44

Thanks for that Lebowski1.

I’m not trying to argue any overall point here, but I fail to see how anyone can call the fires on the WTC 1 and 2 buildings ‘relatively small’. I mean the video evidence clearly shows a large plane exploding into each building, since when would that ever be considered a ‘relatively small fire?’ I’d hate to see a really large fire.

And also I find it hard to see how the WTC 1 and 2 (obviously WTC 7 seems much more suspect) were floored by explosives, because that would require placing them at the exact place where the fires were, i.e. where the planes would hit, and hoping that they weren’t set off by the fires before the alloted time. It seems a bit much to have been able to place them exactly where the planes hit, and not have them go off prematurely due to the plane crashes/fires. Maybe i’m being too sceptical.

45

Ask yourself why Building 7 was targeting for demolition by the government–if this is all a conspiracy. Just the main two buildings would be sufficient to validate a war against the terrorists, so why blow up another building (which most people never even heard about unless they research the event beyond what was being said on TV) when all it would do is generate suspicion?

I’m no expert on imploding buildings, but from viewing footage of the towers collapsing, I don’t see any evidence of explosive charges. There were no visible explosions anywhere near the bottom of the towers before they began collapsing, and they didn’t fall from the bottom, they fell from the top. Let me explain that a little better. If a building is imploded, it falls “in tact”, so all the floors appear to “sink” into the ground. The WTC didn’t do this. It began collapsing from the top, destroying each floor from top to bottom, while the base of the building was still perfectly fixed to the ground.

The planes hit near the top of the towers, but not at the top. They took out such a significant portion of the supports on the levels that they hit, that the entire top 15% of the building became too heavy to be held up by the lower levels. Thus, a huge chunk of the building became unattached from the tower’s internal supports, and fell down through the rest of the building, demolishing each floor as it went. The video that I’ve seen demonstrates this clear-as-day, to my eyes. But as I said, I’m no expert on this topic, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the government did fly those planes into the buildings themselves. But I think the plane was enough to topple them.

46

I can ruin every skeptic in this thread.

Now keep in mind, WTC7 fell because of FIRE. Fire that somehow defied physics of every building in the last 200 years and burned perfectly evenly to cause the entire building fall AT ONCE. This is the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY. I repeat, you can read this in every report of 9/11.

lars.socalprerunners.com/silverstein.wmv

The above video is from a documentary of the WTC with Siverstein (Leaseholder of the WTC’s) ADMITTING they destroyed WTC7 by “pulling” it. To “pull” a building means to rig the entire building to be demolished cleanly.

Somehow, despite the Goverment’s story, Silverstein insists we destroyed it. But the problem? It takes WEEKS to rig a building for a clean demolition. Yet, on 9/11, we did it in 8 short hours in the midst of the worst attack on America.

Already two OFFICIAL stories aren’t even lining up! How could Silverstein know about this and now the US Government, or vice versa?

Why do this? 1) Distraction (they knew people wouldn’t question it and anybody who did, would be considered a “conspiracy theorist”) and 2) destruction of evidence.

Same with the Pentagon, mere distractions and ways to get rid of incriminating evidence.

The planes could not topple the WTC’s, ever ever ever. The WTC’s were build like a Screen Door. If you poke a hole in the screen, does the entire screen fail? No, it’s supported equilaterally across the entire structure to prevent that exact situation. The planes punched minor holes and the fire burned but fire does not melt steel.

Do ANY of you remember the recent tower in Madrid that burned for days and never fell (made from STEEL)? Do you also realize it was built with 1/3 of the construction stability? So why would the WTC’s (towers and WTC7) fall after a few short hours of burning?

Hmmmm.

The charges are very clear to see. In fact, I can pull multiple videos from CNN and Fox News talking about secondary explosions all throughout the day. At the time, this was “normal” because everyone figured it was part of the “attack.” But it was only LATER that the US Government denied the existance of them. But don’t take my word for it, perhaps these guys will be more credible…

lars.socalprerunners.com/firehouse.mpeg

If any story is illegitimate, it’s the story of 19 hijackers that performed such a beautiful and precise act of sneaking under the nose of the most powerful Nation on Earth and attacking in the most sloppy, transparent way possible. If they actually DID attack America, I feel even worse that my Government is that stupid to let something so obvious occur just beacuse they simply “didn’t feel it would really happen.”

Fuck that. The US Government is NOT stupid. They are the smartest people on the planet and smart enough to make all the idiots in this country convinced they simply “screwed up” on 9/11.

The best thing you can do with a conspiracy theory is simply pass it off as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Enjoy the food for thought.

47

Then why did they make so many mistakes to give you such a clear picture of conspiracy and betrayal? Why would they place the charges so that they would be visible when they went off? Why didn’t they spend a little time getting their story straight about what happened to WTC7? Why didn’t they gather up some pieces of broken planes and scatter them around the Pentagon so people wouldn’t keep mentioning that there was no evidence of a plane? It seems absolutely stupid that they’d make these mistakes when they KNEW the whole world would be carefully examining every event with a magnifying glass, looking for conspiracy.

Why did they even use planes at all? Why didn’t they just plant a massive bomb at the base of the towers, and say that a terrorist put it there? If you’re going to plan and carry out such a momentous act of betrayal on the country you’re supposed to be protecting, then why not put a little more thought into making it look convincing? All this “evidence” that you’ve been presenting seems like a bunch of very stupid mistakes for the so-called “smartest people on the planet” to make–wouldn’t you agree?

They had all the time in the world to prepare for this. They could have carefully constructed a convincing plane-wreck to place on the pentagon lawn. They could have hidden the charges in the WTC better, or used a more fool-proof method of destroying the building that wouldn’t leave any evidence linking to them.

Either they’re not smart, or they didn’t plan any of this. Your call.

48

Also, you keep comparing the WTC to the Madrid incident, but this isn’t a good comparrison. The tower in Madrid was on fire, but it wasn’t hit with a plane, so it’s supports weren’t damaged at all. The WTC buildings sustained a lot of damage from the impact of the aircraft, and the supports holding up the top 10 or 15 percent of the building were damaged heavily. They just couldn’t hold it up any longer. It wasn’t the fire that destroyed the building, it was a dozen or so stories at the top falling down directly onto it, which is a tremendous amount of force.

49

It doesn’t matter if it was hit by a plane or not, are you not reading the official story?

The collapse was caused by the fires, not the impact of the plane.

The floors could only buckle as you stated, if the fire was actually burning away. But all you have to do is look at the pictures to see the Fire’s were mild. Notice the BLACK smoke right before the towers fell. Black smoke = fires that are starved for oxygen = lower temps = no possible way to melt steel.

Also, you should research the construction of the towers. I go back to my Screen Door example…the struts were laid in such a way that any removal of one strut would distrubute weight across the entire structure so it WOULD NOT COLLAPSE.

Also, PLEASE keep in mind that Tower 2 fell FIRST, which burned LESS time, had LESS fire (it was the Tower with the Fireball shoot out) AND hit the tower an an angle, NOT directly, thus it had even MORE supports than its companion Tower. So how did it fall first? Furthermore, since it was hit an an Angle, how did it fall so perfectly flat and equal, why did it not topple to the left or right as your explanation entails it should have?

Once again, if Fires can melt steel, it takes much higher temps than that, thats why they use Steel in buildings to begin with. So why didn’t Madrid fall?

It’s a perfectly plausiable example if you know your facts and research it past CNN.

50

Sure, the removal of one strut wouldn’t make a difference, but I have to assume that those planes took out a LOT more than that. If you poke a hole in a screen door, nothing will happen. But if you swipe at it with a sword, it’s going to tear apart.

Anyway, I already said I’m not familiar with the construction of the building, or the specific details of why they shouldn’t have fallen… but that wasn’t my point. The government should be familiar with all these points, and they should have done a better job of making it look like a terrorist attack. Are they so arrogant that they don’t trust the rest of the world to find faults in their plan? There are demolition experts out there, construction experts, fire fighters, plane mechanics, physicists, and so on… who are all going to be taking a good, close look at this stuff.

If the government ignored the fact that a plane wouldn’t knock down the WTC, and then went ahead and tried to make it look like this is exactly what happened, then they are complete and utter morons. And here you are saying that the US government are the smartest people in the world. Heh, riiiight.

I honestly don’t have an opinion either way about how the towers fell. It looks legit to me, and I see a lot of desperate fault-finding in most of the conspiracy reports that I’ve read, but I wouldn’t be at all hesitant to believe that it was all planned by the government. You raise a lot of good points, Ego (as does Lebowsk1), but honestly, how could the most powerful people in the world make so many mistakes if they’d set all this up?

51

“Hey, I’ve got an idea,” said the President. “Let’s blow a tiny little hole in the Pentagon—on the side that’s under renovations, of course, so we don’t hurt anyone—and then tell everyone that a plane flew into it piloted by terrorists! Oh, it’ll be so easy to get away with, because everyone trusts the government, right? Heck, we don’t even need to make it look convincing. Don’t worry that the hole is far too small for the fuselage of a jumbo jet, and who cares about leaving some wreckage behind? All we need to do is blow a small hole in the side of the building, make sure one of the cameras in the parking lot is facing it—so we have something to show the world—and then confiscate all the other video evidence from the surrounding buildings. Gentlemen… I’m a genius.”

Do you really think that’s what happened?

The government would be more careful than that, I think.

52

I don’t know Atheist, I think you are giving the US governement too much credit here! :tongue:

53

Atheist: to answer a couple of your questions:

Firstly the whole incident, coupled with the media onslaught that proceeded immediately after the incident, has been able to sell the official version of events to most people. But closer examination does indeed show it up as a ridiculously stupid stunt: NO steel sky-scraper has ever collapsed due to fire. They ask us to accept that two such towers collapse after being hit by planes and the limits of credibility are tested. Building 7, which was hit by no plane, just goes way beyond such limits. Once again we find ourselves detecting design…

But to stay on topic, it is believed Building 7 was demolished (and all 3 look like demolishments. On some clips you can actually see the charges sequentially going off down the sides of the buildings, they fell at free-fall speed) because the operations that took place on 9/11 were being run from the specially equipped command centre in building 7. Evidence had to be destroyed.

54

If the towers were imploded, why would they have fallen from the top downwards? Imploded buildings all down entirely at the same time.

55

^ Pointless to implode the WTC’s, far too large. Rather, just use the building to take ITSELF down. Charges set on every other floor (which you CAN see exploding out WAY before the floors above it even collapse, I’ll grab the video that describes what the Fireman were saying verbatim) to let it free fall and ensure that the entire building comes down, much more plausible. ■■■■, I have footage of the intial blast that took the tower down that the US Government said never happened, yet Videos, Seismic Data, Firemen, Police, Civilians and News Channels all prove they did.

Please people, don’t by into Fox News so blindly. Just because you live in the US doesn’t mean it can’t happen here. The people of Nazi Germany also felt “that would never happen here.”

Don’t know the conversation that brought it up. What I DO know is the evidence does not line up, period, as I displayed above. I was a supporter of this cause until as time passed, I never recieved the answers I sought. These are the conclusions that I came to and all I did was read the official government story and looked at the evidence myself. The videos I posted alone prove that WTC7 was “demolished”. But how could it be demolished if they didn’t have time to rig the building OR it was already rigged for weeks.

So if the Government is OBVIOUSLY covering up something about the WTC7, then what else are they covering up?

Do you find it ANY coincidence at all that all FIVE videos of the Pentagon that were captured (3 freeway cameras, 1 on the Sheraton Hotel and 1 at the Gas station) and never released? They show me vids of the WTC’s 24/7, why not the Pentagon? What do they not want us to see?

You ask for a motive or a reason yet its all around you. We used and exploited 9/11 to justify a war by scaring people into it. Easy and simple.

Lets not forget all the people the BENEFITTED from 9/11, including shareholders and all the money going into the rebuild of them at that. Lets also not forget how they use it anytime they need to justify some kind of cause. And I know PLENTY of idiots that think we’re in Iraq because of what “they” did on 9/11. “They” are Saudis, not Iraqis yet we still invaded Iraq using the pre-tense of a link to Al Quada and thus 9/11, something the 9/11 Commission already said did not exist.

What mistakes? Most sheep simply take the story at face value: Planes hit two of the largest buildings in the World, the sheer weight caused them to collapse and it was all carried out by a bunch of Radical Muslims that hated Freedom and America, headed by one specific Muslim that REALLY hates Freedom (Americas lost Boogieman; Osama Bin Forgotten). And most people accept this without question so whenever someone like me DOES bring up the obvious holes, I’m labled either a) Conspiracy theorist or b) Terrorist. How nice that I’m considered Un-patriotic just because I don’t accept only one story from one source and desire to research my own instead. They aren’t mistakes, it went how it needed to go. The key is they created a Society that doesn’t believe anything if it doesn’t come from the electronic talking box in the living room. They didn’t need to worry about mistakes because they knew people wouldn’t believe what people like I had to say to begin with. Research WWII sometime, I promise you’ll be shocked at the parallels of Society. People thought Hitler caused the Reichstag fire as well…and guess where those people ended up?

56

What an asanine statement.

The Government (on 9/11) let their central HUB of Intelligence (the Pentagon) get struck by a slow, lumbering civilian Jumbo Jet that didn’t respond to Radio Hails or requests without even raising the threat level.

The government would be more careful than that, I think..

57

If you could posts some links with your ‘proof’, that would be cool.
By the way, if the Government wanted to set up 9/11, they wouldn’t have had destroy the twin towers completely. Just the plane crashes would’ve been enough to pass off as a terrorist attack, wouldn’t you say?

Well, Bush’s government, or Al Qeida…both are terrorist regimes anyway.

58

Buildings would have been fucked anyway. Silverstein signed a record breaking insurance deal on them shortly before 9/11… and even then he tried to claim that, legally, 9/11 should constitute two attacks and that he should get double the initial amount.

“We thought it would be best to pull the building”

Josh: Building 7 should be all the evidence you need but check out “9/11: The Road to Tyranny” by Alex Jones if you need more.

59

Did the insurance deal include cover against terrorist attacks? I know from my experience in Home and Contents insurance, (well at least in Australia), if your house gets blown up by a terrorist we won’t pay… if your house is detroyed due to an act of war… we wont pay. Calling the new war… a war on terror… would in that case negate alot of compensation for people caught in the middle.

Besides… obviously there are disagreements as to what actually happened that day, but one thing for sure is that everybody here will still agree that the current US administration is rotton and up to no good… and that they had a hand in this somehow.

60

Does Alex Jones have a website where I can get some more info about this?
I haven’t been convinced of your points just yet, but I am curious :wink: