EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 129
Pause Time

The truth behind 9/11?

Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Author  Message 
1984
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
Posts: 266
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 16 Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire, UK
 
PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Ok, well how do you explain the few hundred people killed in the Pentagon plane crash (or however many it was). Were many random families paid to pretend their relatives died? Seems a bit far fetched to me that the truth would never come out, or have you also got evidence of one of them admitting that they actually never lost any family in that crash? And what about the plane company that owned the plane, the traffic controllers, the eye-witnesses etc?

As for the missile thing there was an interesting documentary in the UK about it. It basically made the case that the plane's main body punched through the Pentagon, and the wings folded on impact, leaving a fairly small entry hole. Surely you can all grasp the fact that at 300mph (or whatever) metal wings are as good as tin foil when smahing into reinforced concrete? Plus, if it was a plane-sized missle why was most of the above-ground Pentagon building still standing? A multi-ton missile would have made a slightly bigger hole than the one made. And there was various security footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, I saw it on the documentary, i'm surprised all of you conspiracy enthusiasts haven't seen it!

I think the lack of extra footage though is more likely to be due to the Government being unwilling to release their CCTV etc footage, because which Government would want to show the world reels and reels of footage that shows how incompetent they were?


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 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

1984 wrote:
Ok, well how do you explain the few hundred people killed in the Pentagon plane crash (or however many it was). Were many random families paid to pretend their relatives died? Seems a bit far fetched to me that the truth would never come out, or have you also got evidence of one of them admitting that they actually never lost any family in that crash? And what about the plane company that owned the plane, the traffic controllers, the eye-witnesses etc?


Well, we could debate this back and forward. Without footage of the impact we have to talk indirectly about what happened and it is difficult to be precise.

This is why I believe the focus should stay on events at the WTC building complex because they collapsed in the cold light of day with cameras all over them. Holographic planes (a particularly wild theory), lack of a pentagon plane, these things are not neccesary to prove that the official report and media version of events are inadequate to explain what occured.

In fact I'd say the main focal point should be Building 7:

- it was not hit by a plane
- it collapsed at 5:20pm
- owner Silverstein said in a PBS documentary that the decision was taken to "pull" the building, something which takes weeks to arrange and set up
- the official report said the collapse was caused by fire
- the collapse was textbook demolition (building crinkled towards the centre and fell into own footprint with no resistance)
- charges can be seen going off in one particularly revealing shot (will find link later)
- buildings much closer to the 2 main WTC buildings stayed upright, despite being hit by pieces





* but to address your points with regard the Pentagon, there is a theory that the plane was ditched out at sea, and there were eye witness reports that seemed to be describing a missile. All they need to do is release a little authentic footage showing the approach/impact, but they don't seem to want to do that.




Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Wed 23 Mar, 2005; edited 1 time in total
back to top
Posts: 3575
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Last Visit: 29 Nov 2011
LD count: yes
Location: hare krishna hare krishna, krishna krishna hare hare! hare rama hare rama, rama rama hare hare!
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

i saw a questionable pentagon video which seemed like a missle may have been plausible......

it was too fast and blurry to tell...

can't remember where i saw it but its floating around somehwere.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Yeah, a couple of frames were released but as you say, there is nothing fitting the description of a plane on them. In fact the explosion itself is more in line with that caused by a missile: it is white-hot as opposed to the yellow/red billowing fireball we saw at the WTC. Check out the video "9/11: in Plane Sight" (it is available free online from www.informationclearinghouse.info )

But people, never forget Building 7. http://wtc7.net/


back to top
r3m0t
A head librarian
cookie lover
Posts: 1578
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Last Visit: 23 Apr 2008
Location: London Age: 15 LDs: about 9
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Quote:
A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse.


Hmm. Are we meant to compare to the 110-story towers?

WTC7:
Quote:
A total of 42,000 gallons of Diesel fuel were stored in five tanks within the building


(Wikipedia) that sounds like it could set up a pretty intense fire.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Quote:
Hmm. Are we meant to compare to the 110-story towers?

If we are talking about building 7 then you are comparing it to a 47-story building.

Quote:
A total of 42,000 gallons of Diesel fuel were stored in five tanks within the building


Quote:
(Wikipedia) that sounds like it could set up a pretty intense fire.


Well, there wasnt such a fire. Photographs of Building 7 prior to its collapse show only small areas of fire.

It is still a mystery as to exactly how these small, isolated fires could break out in the first place, seeing as no plane hit, and no chunks of the twin towers hit the building.

And besides, the collapse itself was not consistant with such events:

"The precisely vertical collapse of WTC 7 around 5:20 on the afternoon of September 11th necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as fires or explosions, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.

Moreover, it is a fact that fire has never caused any steel frame high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction"

Check out this site on the Windsor building fire, and conduct a compare/contrast exercise on building 7: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html


back to top
1984
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
Posts: 266
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 16 Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire, UK
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Well, I don't have much of a problem accepting that elements of the current U.S. Government (and previous Governments) could be capable of planning and carrying out an attack on their own citizens, but I do have a problem accepting that such an attack could ever be accomplished without it being clearly and comprehsively proven to be the work of said Government.

Are you really telling me that you believe that the U.S. Government killed about 3,000 of its citizens, destroyed two of its largest and most prestigious buildings, contaminated a massive civilian population with god knows what and all in front of the world's media in one of America's largest cities, and no-one has any damning conclusive proof? And i'm not talking about your crack-pot web sites with all their 'facts'. Don't you think that if this had really happened it wouldn't just be the conspiracy theory community claiming various plots, but that it would the media, academics and mainstream public opinion proving such plots.

If you really want to have your theories taken seriously you're going to have to explain how such an operation can be planned and executed without someone blowing the whistle or proving to the world beyone doubt what the Government was up to. Because it would take an awful lot of man power and resources and all of the people involved would have to be firm believers in killing many of their own civilians, or paid an awful lot to keep quiet.

The conspiracy theories seem utterly ridiculous to me, where as a terrorist attack using America's stupidly unguarded airlines, to simply crash planes into large buildings, seems like a much more sensible and logical explanation. But then, conspiracy theories rarely side with the most likely explanation of an event.


back to top
Lebowsk1
cookie lover
cookie lover
39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
 
PostPosted: Thu 24 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

1984 wrote:

Are you really telling me that you believe that the U.S. Government killed about 3,000 of its citizens, destroyed two of its largest and most prestigious buildings, contaminated a massive civilian population with god knows what and all in front of the world's media in one of America's largest cities, and no-one has any damning conclusive proof?

No, there is damning conclusive proof. Building 7 demolishment, caught live on tv. Testimony from firefighters and even reporters on the scene that there were secondary explosions that brought down the towers (these reports being dropped from subsequent coverage), actual recorded evidence of said explosions, the physical impossibility of what happened (it is still unprecedented, including the huge Madrid fire), building 7, building 7..

Quote:
And i'm not talking about your crack-pot web sites with all their 'facts'.

Ad hominem. I would recommend you check out Alex Jones. As he says in his latest documentary "The owner of the complex admitted on a PBS documentary that he took the decision to pull building 7 and yet I am called a crank for saying the official report is nonsense?"

Quote:
Don't you think that if this had really happened it wouldn't just be the conspiracy theory community claiming various plots, but that it would the media, academics and mainstream public opinion proving such plots.

Ok, 400 of the relatives of those killed are currently trying to bring a lawsuit against Bush and his administration with regard 9/11. Firefighters are trying to sue. Hardly the "conspiracy theory community" but I don't blame you: mainstream media pays no attention to these facts.

A hugely respected firefighters publication printed an article that detailed how ridiculous the official story was and they actually fought to release taped communications between firemen on the day that disproved the official version.

Compare this to the so-called academic and mainstream media: for example, the Popular Mechanics Magazine rebuttal of the conspiracy theories. This 'article' was written by the cousin of the Secretary for Homeland Security.

Look at the kind of thing the mainstream news now features: Rush Limbaugh, Ann *** Coultier... it is propoganda.

Quote:
If you really want to have your theories taken seriously you're going to have to explain how such an operation can be planned and executed without someone blowing the whistle or proving to the world beyone doubt what the Government was up to.

Ok:

There are on-record details of wargame drills practiced over the Twin Towers in the weeks (and the very morning of 9/11).
John Ashcroft warned not to fly on 9/11.
First attack on WTC years ago has been officially aknowledged as a guy trained and equipped by the CIA.
Alex Jones urged people to call the White House on his July 2001 show and tell them "if we are attacked, we know you did it"
Employees of Odigo, an Israel based text messaging company, did not show up for work on 9/11 because they were warned.
Building 7 fits the description of a demolition.

Just check out Alex Jones's stuff.

Quote:
The conspiracy theories seem utterly ridiculous to me, where as a terrorist attack using America's stupidly unguarded airlines, to simply crash planes into large buildings, seems like a much more sensible and logical explanation.


REPEAT: Building 7 was not hit by an airliner, yet it still collapsed entirely. There is no sensible or logical explanation for this: even the official FEMA report stated that even their best theory had a low probabilility of occuring. Before further research could be carried away all the evidence was removed from the site.

Also, I'm not sure why you think it is a "ridiculous" idea that the government was involved in 9/11 when it has been stated on-record by the Project for a New American Century (inc. Wolfowitz and co) that:

"A new Pearl Harbour would greatly increase the speed of the process we have set in motion" (paraphrased)

Just ask "who stands to benefit?"


back to top
DreamAddict
DayDream
just the colored stars
40
Posts: 2153
Joined: 09 May 2002
Last Visit: 01 Mar 2019
Location: USA
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Alex Jones was on Waking Life. colgate He was the loud cab driver that spoke through a bull horn.

back to top
Relic
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 24
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Last Visit: 20 Feb 2005
Location: MI, USA
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

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 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Relic: That Popular Mechanics article was written by the cousin of the Secretary for Homeland Defense. It is a propaganda piece featuring several pieces of wrong information, most glaringly the complete falsification of the history of air intercepts in the USA. The article claims there has only ever been ONE case (Pain Stewarts plane going off course) when in reality there have been hundreds in the past few years. Anyway, if you consider who wrote it the motivation behind it becomes clear and the strawman arguments are easily identified.

Alex Jones considers it a "hit piece" and dealt with it on his show.


back to top
foo fighter
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate
Posts: 61
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2007
Location: mid Wales, UK
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

1984 wrote:

Are you really telling me that you believe that the U.S. Government killed about 3,000 of its citizens, destroyed two of its largest and most prestigious buildings, contaminated a massive civilian population with god knows what and all in front of the world's media in one of America's largest cities, and no-one has any damning conclusive proof?

Wouldn't be the first time US authorities had seriously contemplated behaving in such a way 1984 .. during the 1950s-60s, US intelligence agencies were pushing hard for the implementation of "Operation Northwoods", essentially a plan to instigate terrorist attacks against US cities, highjacking passanger airplanes, sinking cuban refugee ships, etc, in order to blame Cuba (or Cuban sympathisers) and thereby provide the justification for taking military action against Cuba. The only reason this didn't actually HAPPEN was due to resistance from the then Democrat US administration.

To find out more, just do a Google search for "operation northwoods", and see what comes up [or you can view the original Joint Chiefs of Staff document outlining the pretext/ outline plan for this Operation @ http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.pdf ].


back to top
1984
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
Posts: 266
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 16 Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire, UK
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Thanks for that info foo fighter, but if you look just above the part of my previous post that you quoted you'll see it says how I have no problem accepting that elements of the U.S. Government are capable of deciding to carry out such a horrific attack on their own people. So your info is very interesting but doesn't change my view of the potential of the U.S. Government, and for that matter many other Governments.

To anyone: If you assume then that 9/11 was U.S. planned and executed, why are most of the public so willing to accept the official version of events? And i'm not making this point as a criticism against the conspiracy theorists, just interested in people's views on public manipulation.


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 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

Quote:
To anyone: If you assume then that 9/11 was U.S. planned and executed, why are most of the public so willing to accept the official version of events? And i'm not making this point as a criticism against the conspiracy theorists, just interested in people's views on public manipulation.


"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
My father, for example, will not even take the idea seriously because he believes it is so far-fetched. The idea of the American government being just as ruthless and cold as the regime of Saddam Hussein is just not even compatible with his worldview. The news, the papers, none of these have featured open debate about the events of 9/11. All there has been has been constant repetition of the official version of events, with connections established in people's minds: 9/11 = terrorists = arabs = Afghanistan = Iraq

Of course never mind that most of the supposed hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, it is all power structures. The people that run the media would never dream of running a special on operation northwoods because they are 'in' on the situation. Well, George Orwell probably explains how it is done a lot better than I ever could. I mean Doublespeak is now blatantly occuring: an act that tears up the US Constitution now goes under the name of "The Patriot Act". Don't know whether to laugh or cry!


back to top
1984
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
Posts: 266
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 16 Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire, UK
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Mar, 2005  Reply with quote

http://www.ncte.org/about/awards/council/jrnl/106868. htm

This site has got a good list of modern doublespeak language.


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


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