EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 130
Rainbow Connection

The truth behind 9/11? - Part II

Post new topic Reply to topic

Author  Message 
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Wed 17 May, 2006  Reply with quote

Even without the footage of the plane (or whatever hit the pentagon) it's seems there are still things they aren't telling us. For example, why was the damage to the pentagon not consistent with such a large plane? And after 5 years, why are they still afraid to release the tape of the impact?


....well, at the very least, my views about at this have certainly changed over the last little while. I feel there's enough evidence of the US Government negligence (whether it was purposeful or not) when it comes to how 9/11 was handled to show that this is the wrong government for leading the world's biggest superpower, and the fact that this government isn't changing is a lot scarier to me than anything else.


back to top
rad
...
Dream Deity
32
Posts: 537
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 27 Oct 2007
 
PostPosted: Wed 17 May, 2006  Reply with quote

Help me Lord, it is happening again dark ...we all like a good conspiracy story don't we? That little thrill that it gives you, some concieved realization that you've been lied to by a big greedy corporation or government and caught them in the act.. for example: many people who read the Da Vinci code are convinced that this NOVEL is based on fact. It is merely an amusing story that loosely ties fact and fiction together in an entertaining way(like this so-called "evidence" that started this debate). But hey, the conspiracy theorists already have everyone believing that we didn't land on the moon, so why don't we just let them crap all over 9/11 while we're at it? Anything to give them their 15 minutes of fame. Right? Honestly who is benefiting from this garbage you or Alex J.?

Most of the debris was taken to government and investigative facilities to be examined more closely, if you draw your conclusion that the government blew up the towers just because they didn't leave a smoldering building or bodies lying all over a few city blocks then I would say that you're jumping to conclusions. There were events that transpired on 9/11 that were hidden from the public eye, but government agencies secretly blowing up a city block in NYC isn't one of them.

It's been said a million times before, don't believe everything people tell you.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Wed 17 May, 2006  Reply with quote

Rad, you're missing the big picture though; 9/11 is just a small part of the whole story. Whether or not it was engineered by the Bush administration (I don't think it was) almost doesn't even matter in the big picture when you consider all these things are happen regardless of thier level of involvement in 9/11; at the very least, the government new about 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. The past US government set up the group that would eventually form Al-Qaeda, and trained Osama Bin Laden. George Bush ordered the arrest of any FBI agent who would try to take action against Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11, used 9/11 as an excuse ot invade Iraq, using the deaths of 3000 people for his own benefit and causeing 0ver 40,000 caualties in Iraq thus far, minimum.......and all this just so happens to greatly benefit Bush and the Bin Ladens. This is not a 'conspiracy theory', this is about a small group of corrupt people who want money and control over people, and these poeple are in power right now. Doesn't that bother you?

back to top
rad
...
Dream Deity
32
Posts: 537
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 27 Oct 2007
 
PostPosted: Sat 20 May, 2006  Reply with quote

Sure it bothers me, I don't like Bush or most of the decisions he has made since his election but the only real "news" is this emerging conspiracy theory. It is common knowledge that Bin Laden was a CIA operative, that we supplied terrorist organizations with small arms and sold the government chemical weapons in the 80's (bad idea). It is also common knowledge that Clinton set up a plan to completely eliminate the Al Quida terrorist network shortly before leaving office, but he decided to allow the new president initiate it so he wouldn't be "handing him a war", then you have the time it took for Bush to actually look at the documents which warned of an inevitable terrorist attack (and a warning from a FBI agent that commercial airliners could be used as an improvised weapon). He was too busy taking one of his cushy vacations in Texas to give a crap about threats to america from abroad. The warning was there and he failed to take the necessary action to try to prevent it from happening, period.

The reason why I'm focusing on the conspiracy theory is that the only topic of interest in this thread is the alleged planning of the Bush administration to commit the catastrophies on 9/11 to further their political agenda. The rest is basically old news.


back to top
JesseRevis
Silent Observer
Somniologist
30
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 14 Apr 2008
LD count: ??
Location: San Diego
 
interesting information
PostPosted: Sun 30 Jul, 2006  Reply with quote

<mod>moved into the existing 9/11 topic moogle </mod>

Some interesting turn of events have taken place. This was shown to me in another forum. Very surprising.......



"C-SPAN has confirmed that their coverage of the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion will air on C-SPAN 1 on July 29th at 8PM (EST). The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

The appearance of this discussion on the nations premiere public affairs cable network is an incredible boon to the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the 9/11 Truth events that C-SPAN has covered in the past are as hard-hitting as the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda program. This panel discussion cuts to the heart of the issue and exposes the events of September 11th, 2001 as a complex premeditated plot carried out by criminal elements within the U.S. Government as a pretext for launching a the endless War on Terror in which the globe is currently embroiled. C-SPANs coverage of this pivotal information will bring considerable national attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It will also lend further credibility to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the premiere organization within the movement for peer-reviewed scientific research on 9/11 issues.

Each member of the panel brought their own particular perspective and expertise to the discussion while each maintained throughout their comments that 9/11 was an inside job.

Alex Jones, a progenitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement introduced the panel and acted as moderator. Professor Steven E. Jones, an expert in Physics, re-capped his vital new research which has conclusively proven that demolition incendiaries were used to bring down World Trade Center and could have only been placed there in advance of 9/11.

As a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and a former Marine Corps officer, James Fetzer cut through the myths surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowman brought up the lack of air defense on the day of 9/11 and shed light on the slough of drills conducted on 9/11 to distract the military and prevent Flights 11 & 77 from being shot down.

Finally Author and Historian Webster Tarpley tied all of the information together to paint a picture of 9/11. He described the drills, Bushs actions and the blow-by-blow details of that fateful day that revealed what could only be called the horrible truth of a conspiracy fact.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards. This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11.
The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST) on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST)."


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Mon 31 Jul, 2006  Reply with quote

I watched some of it on Google video, it was well done. The details about the sulfur incindiaries were very interesting.....not that I think it means it's an inside job, it just means thermite was used. If we jumped to the conclusion that the use of incindiaries meant it was an inside job, that would be bad science.....still, it is interesting yes
I'd encourage everyone interested in this issue to watch this program.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Mon 21 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Well, with yet another recent terrorist scare I've been looking into some more information, and I believe that the damage caused to the pentagon is consistent with the plain that was supposed to have hit it. I refer everyone to the fact that this part of Loose Change, the video I mentioned before, was probably full of inaccuracies (see here, first video at the top of the page, about 15 minutes in, though I hope you all watch the whole thing), along with this computer model of the crash. Also, consider that they have identified nearly all the human remains (including everyone who was on flight 93).
I've also come across a lot of information about the collapse of WTC 7, like how it was on fire, was beginning to sag, and was damaged from when the towers fell on it. Unlike other buildings which have survived fires throughout history, firefighters didn't have sufficient access to control the fires. Remember also that the steel didn't have to melt (it probably didn't melt anyway), because steel looses 50% of it's strength at 650 degrees Celsius, much lower than the burning temperature of jet fuel and certainly much more lower that the burning temperature of office furniture, computers and other hydrocarbons that were in those buildings. This, plus the sturctural damage, engineers say, was enough to destroy the building.

Also check out www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ and www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com if you like.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Mon 21 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Just dropped by so figured I'll contribute here.

Josh Redstone wrote:
Well, with yet another recent terrorist scare I've been looking into some more information, and I believe that the damage caused to the pentagon is consistent with the plain that was supposed to have hit it.

In the absence of decent video footage showing the impact (which the government does have, we know that for a fact), we are still talking about maybes and could-haves. Personally, I think a stronger argument for conspiracy at the Pentagon comes from the nature of the manouvre performed. Consider the following:

Danielle O'Brien, air-traffic controller at Dulles airport, in Washington D.C., told ABC News, "At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol". As far as she and her colleagues were concerned, there was no doubt, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

So with regard the Pentagon, I'd still demand to see multiple video footage of the approach and impact, and I think the footage released so far has been totally inadequate (not one has shown a plane).
Quote:
WTC 7, like how it was on fire, was beginning to sag, and was damaged from when the towers fell on it. Unlike other buildings which have survived fires throughout history, firefighters didn't have sufficient access to control the fires. Remember also that the steel didn't have to melt (it probably didn't melt anyway), because steel looses 50% of it's strength at 650 degrees Celsius, much lower than the burning temperature of jet fuel and certainly much more lower that the burning temperature of office furniture, computers and other hydrocarbons that were in those buildings. This, plus the sturctural damage, engineers say, was enough to destroy the building.

It is true that reports exist which highlight the damage done to Building 7. But I still consider all three collapses *highly* suspect, for the same reasons as before: they were 1) fast, 2) total and 3) symmetrical. Unlike at the Pentagon we have clear video evidence to examine, and I just can't help but come to the conclusion that the collapses were explosive in nature (and you're right that this doesnt automatically lead to inside involvement, but what other options are there? It sure rules out the official theory). Debris was pushed outwards (especially clear with the larger twin towers) and concrete was pulvarised into dust. The "pancake" theory still doesnt do it for me, and I've read analysis and counter-analysis The collapse was just too fast for it, there'd have been waay too much resistance (and this is forgetting the central columns entirely).

So my point is: even if the three buildings were damaged directly and indirectly by the planes' impacts, that still doesnt account for the complete nature of the collapses. Here's a good video with plenty of eyewitness accounts and some pretty outrageous video footage (honestly, look closely at the collapses, the way the floors blow out): http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/210806Explosi ves.htm


And while you're at it, here's an excellent video(better than Loose Change) that can really educate you about the highly suspicious circumstances before 9/11: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=67572670084 00743688&q=learn+sometime


I've really had to take a step back from this debate and re-analyse the evidence, since seeing www.911myths.com But, while the defense of the official argument has caused me pause for thought, there are still too many problems. And the actions of the Bush administration are still as suspicious as ever.

As for the UK terror threat... dude, you have to remember it is officially acknowledged that our police force lied to us about the Menenez shooting. How are we supposed to trust them after that? My verdict is still: "The War on Terror" is phony.




Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Mon 21 Aug, 2006; edited 1 time in total
back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Mon 21 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:

In the absence of decent video footage showing the impact (which the government does have, we know that for a fact), we are still talking about maybes and could-haves. Personally, I think a stronger argument for conspiracy at the Pentagon comes from the nature of the manouvre performed. Consider the following:

Danielle O'Brien, air-traffic controller at Dulles airport, in Washington D.C., told ABC News, "At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol". As far as she and her colleagues were concerned, there was no doubt, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

So with regard the Pentagon, I'd still demand to see multiple video footage of the approach and impact, and I think the footage released so far has been totally inadequate (not one has shown a plane).


I agree, and I'd like to see some more of that footage myself, but after seeing that forensic computer model and how the projected impact is exactly consistent with the damage the plane is supposed to have caused (both to the pentagon as well as the light poles, wire spools on the ground, etc.), I'm pretty sure it was a plane that struck it, seeing as how the bodies of the victims (from the plane in question) have been identified.
I also agree that the way the terrorists flew the planes was unsafe, but then again, they were ultimately going to crash them into buildings (not safe at all) and they probably had never actually flown an airliner before.

Quote:

The collapse was just too fast for it, there'd have been waay too much resistance (and this is forgetting the central columns entirely).


I read an interesting piece of information on this. It went something like, since that the towers had an open floor design, the steel trusses holding the walls together were like if two people faced each other and held hands, then leaned backwards. Holding hands would hold these people up, but if they let go, they'd all fall away from each other. That is what experts believe happened to WTC1 and 2. The steel trusses warped, and the walls were no longer supported by the trusses, cause everything above those areas to fall, which then crushed the floors below as they fell.
It's true the towers fell fast, nearly free fall, but not at free fall. You can see this because pieces of debris falling off the buildings hit the ground before the entire building does.
Also the collapses were not perfectly symmetrical - the 'Screw Loose Change' film I provided shows another viewpoint of the collapses, and you can see that they are not symmetrical.

Quote:

And while you're at it, here's an excellent video(better than Loose Change) that can really educate you about the highly suspicious circumstances before 9/11: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=67572670084 00743688&q=learn+sometime


I'll be sure to watch it smile

Quote:

My verdict is still: "The War on Terror" is phony.


I agree. I still think this is about money. I don't buy Alex Jones' take on the whole situation where the 'New World Order' is out to get us rolleyes - this is as simple as greedy rich men taking advantage of a horrible situation.
Anyway, I'll be sure to watch those videos smile


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Tue 22 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Hey Josh, great to be debating with you again, although obviously it would be nice if we were discussing a more positive topic. The sad thing about this is that no normal human being would choose for either theory to be correct, the implications of both are very grim indeed (choose your enemy: foreign or domestic). But obviously it's important to have a clear idea of what happened during what has proved to be politically the most signifigant day of our lives to date.

Josh Redstone wrote:
I agree, and I'd like to see some more of that footage myself, but after seeing that forensic computer model and how the projected impact is exactly consistent with the damage the plane is supposed to have caused (both to the pentagon as well as the light poles, wire spools on the ground, etc.), I'm pretty sure it was a plane that struck it, seeing as how the bodies of the victims (from the plane in question) have been identified.

Yes, I've seen that computer model, and it certainly was impressive, with the lamp-posts and all. I was a little confused with regard their use of the CCTV footage right at the end though. They seem to clearly identify the plane in that one frame released by the government, and when I go back and check the footage elsewhere I just can't see it. There's something white at the extreme right of the shot, but it seems to me to be a lot closer to camera than suggested in the computer sim.

But hey: this is all besides the point. The government should release clear and unambiguous footage as obviously that will tell us much more than any computer simulation. Although... there is still one possibility that wouldnt be ruled out, and that is that the plane was controlled by remote control. I'm still amazed at how well that guy is supposed to have flown it. He basically cut the pentagon's lawn with a commercial jet.
Quote:
I also agree that the way the terrorists flew the planes was unsafe, but then again, they were ultimately going to crash them into buildings (not safe at all) and they probably had never actually flown an airliner before.

True, I thought the "unsafe" comment was a little strange, and I was going to omit it from my cut-and-paste job. But then I thought that would be highly dishonest of me. But still, a room of qualified air traffic controllers said they thought it was a military plane.
Quote:
I read an interesting piece of information on this. It went something like, since that the towers had an open floor design, the steel trusses holding the walls together were like if two people faced each other and held hands, then leaned backwards. Holding hands would hold these people up, but if they let go, they'd all fall away from each other. That is what experts believe happened to WTC1 and 2. The steel trusses warped, and the walls were no longer supported by the trusses, cause everything above those areas to fall, which then crushed the floors below as they fell.

Yeah, this sounds like what's commonly known as the "pancake" theory. When you talk about the "steel trusses" warping, do you mean the outer walls or the central load-bearing steel columns? The experts who spoke at the C-SPAN braodcasted event accused the official theory of ignoring the central columns.

The video evidence clearly shows materials being propelled out of the towers at points lower than the main collapse, and the alternative theory proposes that these were caused by explosions rigged to cut the load-bearing core columns. I need to know if there is a rival official theory to explain their failure.
Quote:
It's true the towers fell fast, nearly free fall, but not at free fall. You can see this because pieces of debris falling off the buildings hit the ground before the entire building does.
Also the collapses were not perfectly symmetrical - the 'Screw Loose Change' film I provided shows another viewpoint of the collapses, and you can see that they are not symmetrical.

I think the buildings' collapses were not perfectly symmetrical in the sense that they were not at absolute free fall speed: but in both categories they came close. I don't think even acknowledged controlled demolitions fall at actual free fall speed and are perfectly symmetrical. Such ideals are things to aim for, to be close is good enough. If they had collapsed for the official reasons offered, I don't think they should have been anywhere near close (see Jim Fetzer's comments on the time taken for collapse).

Remember, the central columns below the point of impact would have been entirely un-damaged. For them all to fail in the fashion they did, to come straight down like that, with video evidence of what appear to be explosions going off below the main collapse, is suggestive of demolition. Also the damage suffered by Building 7 was in no way symmetrical, the debris would have hit it from one side only (although I do agree the damage to it would seem to be heavier than I implied earlier in the thread).

And all that pulverised concrete, is there any official explanation for that? It does seem that, if there was a demolition job, a different technique was used for B7 than for the TT, but then they are very different kinds of buildings.
Quote:
I agree. I still think this is about money. I don't buy Alex Jones' take on the whole situation where the 'New World Order' is out to get us rolleyes - this is as simple as greedy rich men taking advantage of a horrible situation.

Well what do you make of Alex's "Bohemia Grove" stuff? I'm not really sure how far to follow him down his particular rabbit hole. But I'm convinced the Operation Northwoods documents are real, and if that's the case it's highly doubtful that they represent a one-off, isolated kind of idea.

But anyway, Jones has stuck his neck out and made another prediction/prophecy of major attack. It actually made at least one major news station too, and he believes that this in itself may have prevented the event. But whether he's OTT or not, I think he's alright (although I was not impressed with the homophobic element of one of his latest rants. That's his Christian side coming out, no doubt).


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:

But hey: this is all besides the point. The government should release clear and unambiguous footage as obviously that will tell us much more than any computer simulation. Although... there is still one possibility that wouldnt be ruled out, and that is that the plane was controlled by remote control.


I'm all in favour of the government releasing clearer tapes, in fact, I think that the fact that they haven't shows how badly they're handling this situation. But, I'm very skeptical of a conspiracy theory because it's not unreasonable to assume that militant fanatics with lots of money could do something like this, and if there were a conspiracy afoot, why would the government conspire to kill thousands of Americans, along with thousands more Iraqis and Afghans, but do nothing to stop people like Alex Jones from making their documentaries....it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote:

I'm still amazed at how well that guy is supposed to have flown it. He basically cut the pentagon's lawn with a commercial jet.


I think it depends on how you look at it. I've read reports that he was actually a bad pilot, since no one in their right mind would attempt to maneuver a plane like that, he could have stalled it and went into a free-fall; probably not something he intended to do.

Quote:

True, I thought the "unsafe" comment was a little strange, and I was going to omit it from my cut-and-paste job. But then I thought that would be highly dishonest of me. But still, a room of qualified air traffic controllers said they thought it was a military plane.


True enough.
You know, I recently watched a documentary on 9/11, and the air traffic controllers who were monitoring the situation were guests on the show, and they talked about how none of them had ever seen anything like what happened on that day. When I think about it, I just don't find O'Brien's comment that out of the ordinary, considering the transponders of the planes were turned off, communications were being ignored and the planes were behaving erratically.

Quote:

The video evidence clearly shows materials being propelled out of the towers at points lower than the main collapse, and the alternative theory proposes that these were caused by explosions rigged to cut the load-bearing core columns. I need to know if there is a rival official theory to explain their failure.


The theory I've heard, part of 'the official theory', is that compressed air from the collapses is being blown out the sides of the buildings. If you watch the videos of the collapse, you'll notice that the blasts coming out of the buildings are moving at the same speed as the building is falling. If they had been 'squibs', they would have travelled much faster, before the building started to fall. I wanted to see for myself so I watched some buildings being blown up (on video of course) and it's true, the squibs are travelling faster than the blasts coming from WTC 1 and 2.

Quote:

Remember, the central columns below the point of impact would have been entirely un-damaged. For them all to fail in the fashion they did, to come straight down like that, with video evidence of what appear to be explosions going off below the main collapse, is suggestive of demolition. Also the damage suffered by Building 7 was in no way symmetrical, the debris would have hit it from one side only (although I do agree the damage to it would seem to be heavier than I implied earlier in the thread).


We should also remember that the buildings didn't fall all at once as in a controlled demolition, they fell from the top down, buildings aren't typically demolished in this way. It's the pancaking theory again, the top sections crush the sections below as they fall. Also, the two towers had an open floor design, so much of the weight of the building was also distributed via the walls, as well as those columns; once those metal beams started to warp and let go of the walls, the building's integrity would have been badly compromised.

Quote:

And all that pulverised concrete, is there any official explanation for that? It does seem that, if there was a demolition job, a different technique was used for B7 than for the TT, but then they are very different kinds of buildings.


Well I'm no expert but I have built with concrete before, it it is quite brittle. In fact, water is around 10 times a dense as concrete, just to give you an idea, so I don't know, maybe this is just a shot in the dark, but several million tonnes of concrete and steel all falling down on top of itself might be pulverized a little bit.
However I do agree that WTC 7's collapse is weird. As far as I know, it's still not conclusive as to what exactly caused it to fall. Sure, it was on fire, sure there was diesel in the basement that probably fueled the fire, sure it was damaged from the North Tower's fall, but according to engineers, it should have been able to withstand that stuff, which has actually led engineers to re-evaluate the way the engineer buildings to withstand fire.


Quote:

Well what do you make of Alex's "Bohemia Grove" stuff? I'm not really sure how far to follow him down his particular rabbit hole. But I'm convinced the Operation Northwoods documents are real, and if that's the case it's highly doubtful that they represent a one-off, isolated kind of idea.

But anyway, Jones has stuck his neck out and made another prediction/prophecy of major attack. It actually made at least one major news station too, and he believes that this in itself may have prevented the event. But whether he's OTT or not, I think he's alright (although I was not impressed with the homophobic element of one of his latest rants. That's his Christian side coming out, no doubt).


Yeah, I think North-woods was real, but the fact that those documents have been declassified show that the government is being honest about it's past, it's being accountable to the people. Why would the government declassify something that would incriminate them the future, if they really were the ones to carry out 9/11? It doesn't add up, at least to me.
But about Jones, I think he's quite a character ^^
I don't like his christian bias, which does show through his work quite a bit. As for Bohemian grove, I watched his film 'Dark Secrets of Bohemian grove'. It certainly sounds like they do weird stuff there, which doesn't bother me much. What bothers me is that these powerful people don't tell the public this stuff, because I believe politicians should be absolutely accountable to the public in not only their policies, but also their businesses and interests, as well as what they do at their Gentleman's Clubs.

...and it's nice to discuss all this with you as well smile


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

An open letter that was released recently, written by Brent Blancard, the Senior editor of implosionworld.com and the Director of Operations at Protec Documentation Inc., a company that monitors and documents demolitions, and performs them as well. In other words, this guy is an expert. I encourage everyone to read this. You'll need Acrobat reader to open it.

back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
cookie lover
37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Excellent find, Josh. I think the statements in this report are pretty conclusive. There doesn't seem to be a single shred of evidence supporting the assertion that explosives were used to bring down the towers. Not a single claim withstands in spite of the explanations provided in this document.

Really, though, is this a surprise? It was obvious from the very beginning the the towers began collapsing from the point of impact, not from the ground floors (which would have implied controlled demolition). How could the explosives have been planted prior to the events of Sep 11, and how could they have withstood the destruction of the impacts (along with the intense fires) for nearly an hour before being set off? I think people just got carried away by the thrill of conspiracy.

Whether it was an inside job or not (and I'm not discounting the possibility that it was), the towers fell, without a doubt, from the impact of the planes and the resulting fires, and not for any other reason.


back to top
Wissam
Change is good
Dream Deity
29
Posts: 836
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 17 Nov 2018
Location: Middle East
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

This is all very confusing. There is some many things and so many bizzare conspiracies that i don't really know what to beleive.

back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Aug, 2006  Reply with quote

Just a quick post here to counter the main claim that seems to have been made here (expert testimony with regard collapse of the towers):

Structural engineer Charles N. Pegelow speaks with Jim Fetzer about the collapse (download the second hour of the show to hear Charles): http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

For those who may doubt his expertise on the subject, his qualifications are as follows:

Quote:
Education:
B. S. Civil Engineering 1972, Lamar University
B. S. Mathematics 1972, Beaumont,Texas

Experience:

Present: FULTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - private consulting engineer/ contract

1998: Contract Engineering - Paragon Engineering Inc. (Houston, TX)
1) Shell Nigeria onshore gas gathering compressor flow stations and pipeline export station.
2) Mozambique - offshore field development and design for 4 caisson platforms and one central gas export caisson platform.

1997: Contract Engineering - Reading and Bates (Brownsville, TX)
Structural / construction project engineer for the upgrade of Rig 41 for 1000 meters drilling depth. Engineering, construction, scope of work for the support steel for the riser turn-down sheaves, substructure reinforcement, and many miscellaneous structures.

1994-1996: Contract Engineering - Fulton Construction Company (Houston/Livingston)

1994-1995: Hudson - McDermott (Houston)
LNG plant and export terminal for Trinidad. Cost optimization study and conceptual design for jetty and dredging, preparing bid tender documents and design specifications for jetty design / gangway / dredging / bulk steel / nav-aids / and misc. items. Plant foundation and steel design.

1979-1993: Conoco, Inc. (Houston)
Company project structural engineer and design engineer on various projects including drilling and production platforms, gaslift injection platforms, living quarters platforms, and many miscellaneous deck extensions, skids, and access platforms. Duties included feasibility studies, reviewing and writing specifications, design calculations, computer input/output, review/checking structural drawings, scope of work, design premises for outside source work, interfacing with other disciplines, and writing various reports.

1977-1979: Brown and Root, Inc. (Houston)
Structural designer of Gulf of Mexico type platforms. Also mud slide resistant platforms. Deck design, jacket tubular, foundation analysis, flotation and launch analysis, lifting and installation analysis.

1976: King-Wilkinson Ltd. (Scotland, U.K.)
Project management team for the installation of Occidental Petroleum's Claymore "A" platform. Duties included structural design of pile elevator clamps, pile alignment clamps, miscellaneous installation skids and platforms. Review and recommendation of bids for grouting and pile driving. Also, rigging review, pile driving sequence, and module installation.

1974-1976: Earl and Wright Consulting Engineere, SEDCO (San Francisco)
Structural design of North Sea type platforms, deck modules, large tubular joints, control capsules, deck support trusses, punching shear design, and parameter study for laterally loaded large diameter piles for Arabian Gulf SBM's, Semi-submersible platforms.

1972-1974: Associated Engineering Consultants (Houston)
Structural design, analysis, drafting and checking of structural drawings for commercial buildings. Steel structures, foundation, post tension concrete structures, tilt-up construction and high rise building structures.

CODES: Use of following national and industry codes: ASIC, API RP 2A, ANSI 58.1 (AISC), UBC, DNV, ASME Div. VIII vessel.



So, y'know, I don't think the issue is as settled as, say, Atheist claims, and to be honest I also take his explanation for conspiracy theories somewhat personally. The reasons people adopt alternative views on world events are more complicated than you suggest. Yes, some may be sucked in by the hype and find it alluring in some way. But others may have actually thought it through and come to the conclusion that the facts support it, or at least support it better than any competing theories.

Anyway I'm actually going to listen to that interview now, but as far as I can tell he's sceptical of the official pancake collapse theory. Just keep thinking for yourselves about this topic, keep a close eye on your governments...


PS Oh and one other point which I offer here purely to show just how complicated and downright difficult it is to get to the truth of things:

The other day I read a site that forwarded the idea that the Northwoods documents are fakes. They refer to people being "on holiday" which, as they correctly point out, is mostly a British expression. Americans much more usually say "on vacation". So if Northwoods was supposed to have been written by the US military, that's some evidence against it being authentic.

But then... is there something to explain that particular anomally?! This is all about the problem of epistemology, just how to *know* stuff. Sure isnt easy.

PPS Proper response to your post coming up soon Josh.


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB
LD4all ~ spreading the art and knowledge of lucid dreaming online since 1996 ~