The Evidence for 9/11

[no_leaf_clover]

Evidence is mounting in support of "conspiracy theories" in spite of efforts to debunk such claims that we were all deceived by the government on 9/11. A good deal of this evidence is being presented at the following site and is worth reading: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/index.html . Other information has also come forward and it seems to be too much to include in a single post, so I'm summing up a lot and providing links. Point is, a lot of suspicious stuff is coming out and it's worth taking a look at.

Some of the points they make on the link provided above..

· The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand collision with a large aircraft such as those that flew into them on 9/11, with no danger of collapse ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html )

· Analysis of the video footage of the attacks show that temperatures in the buildings were not high enough to cause any significant damage to their structures ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html )

· Fires, even much more severe than those on 9/11, have never caused skyscrapers to collapse prior to 9/11 ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html )

· Only demolitions and earthquakes have ever brought down skyscrapers prior to 9/11 ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html )

· All buildings of the WTC were destroyed, but none of the buildings right next to the area were majorly damaged. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapse.html )

· Many features of the collapse are physically impossible in the scenario that was officially given ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html )

· The seemingly unimpeded fall of the towers is physically impossible in the official scenario, and would require explosives. The towers falling on themselves took about as long as it would for a block of wood dropped from the top of one to hit the ground. This makes the fall of the towers impossible because they had to fall through themselves - thick steel structures, which would obviously slow their collapses significantly! This would also coincide with a firefighter's witness testimony of the floors being blown out one by one all the way down the tower he was in. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html )

· The South Tower's top showed signs during collapse of already being shattered, though it was well above the plane's impact. Further suggests demolition ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/rotation.html )

· The report that gravity caused the towers to collapse on themselves is challenged. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/index.html )

· WTC Building 7 had absolutely no reason to collapse, save demolition. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html )

· The attack on the Pentagon was confined to the outer three layers of the building in an area that was under renovation and was scarcely occupied. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html )

· The security video from the Pentagon shows clear signs of being amateurishly edited to make them look fraudulent. This is because the videos also show that no 747 hit the Pentagon because the object that is concealed is too small to be a 747, leaves an inappropriate vapor trail, and the color of the explosion is wrong. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html )

· Pentagon photos show inconsistent physical evidence in the nature of the crash, including no damage to the lawn of the Pentagon and inappropriately sized and placed holes in the facade. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/no757impact.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/damage.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html , )

· The fires at the Pentagon were NOT the result of jet fuel combustion. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html )

· Aircraft interception procedures were not followed on 9/11, despite being followed on nearly 70 occasions between September 2000 and June 2001. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html )

· The Payne Stuart crash is revealingly compared to 9/11 interception operations. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html )

· Planes that were sent to intercept the 'hi-jacked' planes on 9/11 were sent from bases unnecessarily far away, and did not fly at their top speeds. No interceptors were even sent up from Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from the Pentagon, with two squads of fighters on 24/7 alert in the most protected air space in the country. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html )

· The activities that were reported to have gone on aboard the planes are shown unlikely, and it was reported no data could be retrieved from the black boxes of any of the planes, which is just as unlikely. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/mysteries.html )

· Cell phones seldom work at 10,000 feet, while Flight 93 flew at about 35,000 with no reports of problems that would be associated with cell phone use at this high of an altitude. Other cell phone anomalies also persist from Flight 93. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html )

· Numerous witness acounts indicate Flight 93 was shot down. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html )



Other various links and information:


Stock sales indicate prior knowledge ( http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=112&contentid=1522&page=1 ) :

Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold "short" a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks. These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars."

Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back when the price falls. Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is an indication of foreknowledge.

It is widely known that the CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior. A week after the Sept.11 attacks, the London Times reported that the CIA had asked regulators for the Financial Services Authority in London to investigate the suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock just prior to the terrorist acts.

Investigations into stock purchases turn silent: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml

More in-depth information on the stock situation: http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

Bin Laden video doubted authentic among experts and citizens of the Mid-East: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR112A.html

Bin Laden claims he is not involved on September 28th: http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/Al-Qaeda_Not_Involved/al-qaeda_not_involved.html

The possibility of Israeli involvement: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackmail.html , http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112801.html

Contradictions regarding the identity of the supposed hi-jackers, as well as other information: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html

FBI admits there is no evidence to link hi-jackers to 9/11: http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html

Computer simulations of the attacks: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/index.html



Also worth mentioning are the balls of fire that ignited under both planes preceding their impact with the towers (This was proven by the video of the first plane's impact as the plane and its shadow were a significant distance from touching as the flash sparked. The plane and its shadow would contact upon hitting the building.). Also, the claim that the object attached under the second plane was merely a play of light can be easily dismissed as it can be viewed from four different recording angles simultaneously, which does not support an optical illusion as some will debunkers claim.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/index.html has concise and solid evidence. Beyond that there is a sea of information, of which of course some may be right and some may be wrong. But by watching the actual footage of the attacks you can make out clear oddities, such as the flashes of light at the end of the objects attached under the planes, the unexplainable collapses of the two towers despite no physical sign of extreme heat (and no physical sign of them falling on themselves either, going by laws of physics), and all the obvious flaws on the Pentagon attacks.

[Gandalf]

Well, all of the above i would normally dismiss as wild nonsense (and most of it still sounds like it, although i will read it!), but one spooky factor not mentioned is the secret military recomendation to government that was issued in the 1950's which detailed measures with which to combat communism and the threat from Cuba specifically.

This is where it gets scary, because the recomendations include 'raising public support for an all out attack on Cuba': The most efficiant way of doing this would be by placing explosives aboard US navy ships and other govenment instalations as well as buildings in *US cities*, with the aim of causing significant casualties,  then blame the devastation on Cuba and therefore gain the publics complete and overwhelmng support for action against that country.

now this military recommendation was rejected by the government of the time, (thankfully) and it only surfaced again under the freedom of information act more recently, but the worrying point here is that the military WAS ACTUALLY CONSIDERING THIS as a 'reasonable' course of action..... cold war crazies or what?

This revelation does serve to make the 9/11 conspiracy stories sound not quite so outlandish as they first appear, although i still have my doubts about it as i said.. but worth thinking about at least.

I used to have a link to the 1950's report, if anyone has a link to a copy maybe they could post it here.

Doug

PS btw I'm sure most of the circumstances outlined in the 9/11 conspiracy theory can be explained in other ways due to the particular circumstances that unfolded on the day.

[Gandalf]

More info on the 1950's Cuba scenario:

'The media has so far been slow to look into this declassified material. To the extent that they have covered the story, they have treated the Pentagon's plans for provocation as far-fetched inventions of low-level intelligence operatives. In reality, the documents released by the ARRB carried the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were certified by the military command as "suitable for planning purposes."  

The Pentagon offered a wide range of options for manufacturing a pretext to attack Cuba. In one memo it proposed using Soviet-made MIG fighter planes piloted by Americans to shoot down either a US warplane or a "civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela." The downing of the plane would then be blamed on Cuba and the US would launch a massive assault on the island.  

Another document declared: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."  

Yet another plan called for the US military to "sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)," and place the blame on Cuba.  

In what was dubbed Operaton Bingo, the Pentagon proposed creating "well-coordinated incidents ... in and around Guantanamo" with the aim of simulating an attack by "a hostile Cuban force" on the US Naval Base. The staged incident would be followed by a devastating air assault on Havana.  

Operation Dirty Trick was drafted on the eve of the first US manned space mission in 1962. It called for the US to blame Cuba in the event the mission, piloted by John Glenn, ended in disaster. "This would be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans," the memo said.  

Finally the Pentagon offered the "Remember the Maine" option, recalling the sinking of the US warship in Havana harbor which ignited the US war against Spain in 1898. "We could blow up a warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the memorandum stated. Thankully the government did not act on these recommendations at the time.'

[nisucy]

gandfalf, where could i read this information?  the closer to the source the better.

[Gandalf]

ABC NEWS : American Joint Chief of Staffs made plans to blow up U.S. civilian planes and bomb US cities to frame Cuba and provoke war
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders drafted plans [called OPERATION NORTHWOODS] to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Including bombing U.S. Civilian planes and boats, then blame it on the Cubans in order to justify a war.

The document, "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba," was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

You can find the complete document located at George Washington Univ. in .PDF format @
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430

Or you can go to National Archives and Records Administration site
http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/16238/standard.txt?action=tER9uPO7QBPJ-lYYTwGpVqrx8r6KS5Gw46ChJlTjSI09

or if the above link has expired go to
[urlhttp://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=standard.txt&id=demo&pass=&OK=OK[/url] and search for "Intervention in Cuba" it will be listed as the fourth article in the database.

Here are excerpts:.

From page 11 of the PDF file.

"we could blow up a US Ship... and blame Cuba."

from page 13

"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as Harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba"

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a uban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner....">

from page 11

"Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave if national indignation."

I find this scary. And yes, you may say "So what, this happened a long time ago.." Did it really it was only a few decades ago. And its odd how everything in this document has happened in the past 2 years. Does history repeat itself?

I'm not sure how or if this information applies today? I hope that it doesn't at all. After all, If you do your duty and follow the links to the complete version, it will have been proven that the government has tried to do this before.

Again the link to the completed document in one file located on GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV.'s website is
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430

The link to the entire documents located in the NARA database [YOUR TAX DOLLLARS PAY FOR THIS SO USE IT!!!] National Archives and Records Administration site
http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/16238/standard.txt?action=tER9uPO7QBPJ-lYYTwGpVqrx8r6KS5Gw46ChJlTjSI09

or if the above link has expired go to http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=standard.txt&id=demo&pass=&OK=OK and search for "Intervention in Cuba" it will be listed as the fourth article in the database.

You can find links to email or snail mail your letters of concern to politicians @ http://www.infowars.com/govtlinks.html

[/url]

[chohan]

24.  summer 2001 (est.) - Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmad (see above) orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta who was, according to the FBI, the lead terrorist in the suicide hijackings. Ahmad recently resigned after the transfer was disclosed in India and confirmed by the FBI. The individual who makes the wire transfer at Ahmad's direction is Ahmad Umar Sheik, the lead suspect in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. [Source: The Times of India, Oct.11, 2001.]

42.  August/September 2001 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average drops nearly 900 points in the three weeks prior to the attack. A major stock market crash is imminent.

50.  Sept. 6-7, 2001 - Put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) totaling 4,744 are purchased on United Air Lines stock, as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the United puts are purchased through Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), http://www.ict.org.il/, Sept. 21, 2001 (Note:The ICT article on possible terrorist insider trading appeared eight days *after* the 9/11 attacks.); The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2001]

51.  Sept. 10, 2001 - Put options totaling 4,516 are purchased on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options. [Source: Herzliyya Institute - above]

52.  Sept. 6-11, 2001 - No other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those experienced by United and American. The put option purchases on both airlines were 600 percent above normal. This at a time when Reuters (Sept. 10) issues a business report stating, "Airline stocks may be poised to take off."

53.  Sept. 6-10, 2001 - Highly abnormal levels of put options are purchased in Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re(insurance) which owns 25 percent of American Airlines, and Munich Re. All of these companies are directly impacted by the Sept. 11 attacks. [Source: ICT, above; FTW, Oct. 18, 2001, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/oct152001.html]

57.  Sept. 10, 2001 - According to Newsweek, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. [Source: Newsweek, Sept. 24, 2001]

63.  Sept. 11, 2001 - Gen. Mahmud of the ISI (see #24 above), friend of Mohammed Atta, is visiting Washington on behalf of the Taliban. He is meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 7, 2001; The New York Times, Feb. 17, 2002]

entire list found at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

9/11 = America's Reichstag Fire

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_040103_nazi.html


cheers,
cho

[no_leaf_clover]

9/11 = America's Reichstag Fire

I'd never even heard of the Reichstag Fire, though it's definitely worth remembering, wouldn't you say? Don't think it's even in any of our history books.

Of all the things I've read and watched of 9/11, I think what sticks out most now are the ways those buildings collapsed. I mean.. think about it.

The structures were supposed to have been so damaged by the planes that they could no longer withstand their own weight and fell in on themselves. Yet, as mentioned earlier, it took it about as much time for those buildings to fall as it would've for a block of wood dropped from the top of them to reach the ground: a little over 10 seconds. It was if all the parts of the building suddenly collapsed all at once, so that the bottom halves gave absolutely no resistance to the falling top halves. The buildings didn't even hesitate to fall, and, as one firefighter witness noticed, the floors were being blown out one by one all the way down the floors.

And that on top of that, the videos of the towers burning show that temperatures weren't even hot enough to hurt the structures of the buildings. Windows weren't bursting from heat, and the fires didn't even spread to other floors. Both of those things would've happened if the fires in the buildings were hot enough to damage the structures.

And finally, the buildings were designed so that large planes (707s) could be flown into them with no problem. Even multiple planes. Just watch for yourself, the planes hitting the buildings, and then the videos of their collapse. Totally unproportionate. It's like shooting someone in the foot with a BB and their foot suddenly explodes a minute or two later because of bleeding.

I heard once on the news after 9/11 that the two planes hit in exactly the right places to cause the buildings to collapse. That bothered me right from the start, because the planes hit different parts of the buildings, though the buildings were built, as far as I know, structurally identically! I don't understand. A lot of this stuff doesn't make much sense at all, unless it was staged.

[chohan]

I'd never even heard of the Reichstag Fire, though it's definitely worth remembering, wouldn't you say? Don't think it's even in any of our history books.

I've always had a high level of interest in that time/era perhaps since my dad served in Europe during WWII.

We were spoon fed the "Pearl Harbor" analogy after 9/11 but yes, I'd say the Reichstag is worth remembering. Maybe what bothers me the most are some of the quotes from that era:

'Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.'

Hermann Goering

or this:

'An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland.'
   
Adolf Hitler

Of all the things I've read and watched of 9/11, I think what sticks out most now are the ways those buildings collapsed. I mean.. think about it.

Yes. It's all very bizarre. As for the physical evidence, I've never seen a government be in such a hurry to recycle 'evidence'. It's just steel garbage mates! No worries though, we've installed these trusty GPS devices on the trucks to make sure you drivers don't lollygag around and spend too much time on your lunch breaks. We need to get this 'evidence' barged up and sent to the recyclers.

Whatever. I just try to stay in observer mode although I admit to finding the Game fascinating. Thanks for the links.

cheers,
cho

[Gandalf]

Those are worrying quotes by the Nazi leadership: Guys like the minister of propaganda Geobbels and others, including Hitler himself were geniuses of political propaganda and showmanship. I would dare anyone to watch 'Triumph of the Will' (detailing the 1935/6 Nuremburg rally) and not feel the emotion and grandeur of it all and feel yourself be carried away by it, despite the rational part of your mind telling you how horrific it all is. This is because all great propaganda works at the emotions primarily (as well as pure mis-information as well of course).

What's more worrying is that any politician worth his salt will have a respect for these guys' techniques and will have studied them carefully, as they form the basis for modern political propaganda today... don't be fooled, its being used all the time, only the term 'propaganda' is given the more user friendly term 'spin' these days.

Of course propaganda is not new.. The first Roman emperor Augustus was a true master of propaganda and spin, but the Nazis were the first to use modern mass media to its full extent. The spin coming from the Whitehouse about criticizing American policy being 'unpatriotic' is an amazing example of pure propaganda to bolster the current regime.

This technique wouldn't work in the UK as we do not have this big thing about 'patriotism' that Americans do.. with an oath of allegiance every day in school and all this kind of thing.. we kind that stuff pretty corny, but since it is so ingrained in the American psyche the spin merchants have been able to utilize that and turn it on their own people for the politicians own advantage.. Which is what you see at the moment.

Doug

[Don Corleone]

On the subject of the 9/11 attacks, all of the conspiracy theories can be dismissed by more realistic explanations.

The buildings may have been built to withstand the impact of a plane, but they were not designed to endure the massive explosion and fire that hundreds of tonnes of aviation fuel causes.  Also, the fire protection material that was used to protect the steel super structure was blown off by the explosion.  Therefore, the fires were able to melt the steel itself.  In previous skyscraper fires there will not have been the kind of explosions caused by planes and aviation fuel necessary to blow away the protective coating.

With regard to the floors seeming to explode, what kind of pressure do you think is caused by a building falling in on itself?  When one floor collapsed on to another all of the air and debris was pushed outwards, which may look like and explosion to an observer.

The area of the Pentagon hit by the plane was 'scarcely occupied'....184 people were killed when the plane hit the Pentagon.  In actual fact, the damage would have been much worse if it wasn't for the fact that that part of the building had been recently strengthened in order to withstand the force of an explosion.  I believe that this wing was the first part of the building to undergo this renovation.  If this work had not taken place then the plane may have penetrated further through the layers of the building.

There are explanations to all of the other points raised.  It is unfortunate, yet inevitable, that terrible events such as this will attract outlandish conspiracy theories.  I appreciate that the views expressed are those of the website mentioned and not necessarily of the posters here.  It just really annoys me when people ignore all of the facts and evidence just to push their own bizarre theories.

[no_leaf_clover]

The buildings may have been built to withstand the impact of a plane, but they were not designed to endure the massive explosion and fire that hundreds of tonnes of aviation fuel causes.  Also, the fire protection material that was used to protect the steel super structure was blown off by the explosion.  Therefore, the fires were able to melt the steel itself.  In previous skyscraper fires there will not have been the kind of explosions caused by planes and aviation fuel necessary to blow away the protective coating.

As mentioned on the site above, the fires weren't hot enough to damage the steel on a scale that would cause such a collapse. The fires would have to have been a certain temperature. The video evidence shows the fires did not reach that temperature. This doesn't have to do with protection material, but how fire damages steel. Other skyscrapers have seen fires of much worse intensity and heat and never collapsed. The explosions alone did not cause enough damage to the structures to bring the buildings down or they would have came down much sooner. The fire that continued afterwards, again, was not strong enough.

If the buildings were designed to withstand plane crashes, and the explosions were normal for this type of event, wouldn't the building be prepared for such an occurence?

With regard to the floors seeming to explode, what kind of pressure do you think is caused by a building falling in on itself? When one floor collapsed on to another all of the air and debris was pushed outwards, which may look like and explosion to an observer.

The key was that it happened in quick succession, one after another as is done in demolitions. The total process of the building falling took a little over 10 seconds in this manner. With the resistance that should have been there from the bottom half of the buiding, undamaged and still standing obviously, the building would've taken well over a minute, and that's being conservative. The building would have taken much longer, or never actually fallen completely, if the bottom half had held up as it should have if no demolition charges were placed.

The area of the Pentagon hit by the plane was 'scarcely occupied'....184 people were killed when the plane hit the Pentagon. In actual fact, the damage would have been much worse if it wasn't for the fact that that part of the building had been recently strengthened in order to withstand the force of an explosion. I believe that this wing was the first part of the building to undergo this renovation. If this work had not taken place then the plane may have penetrated further through the layers of the building.

Take the following into account:

a) The number you gave also includes those supposedly killed in the 'plane' crash.

b) The number is actually for the total for those 'unaccounted for'.

c) Approximately 23,000 people work at the Pentagon, according to their own site. That kind of dwarfs 184, especially when you subtract those the numbers added from the 747 crash that never occured.

There are explanations to all of the other points raised. It is unfortunate, yet inevitable, that terrible events such as this will attract outlandish conspiracy theories. I appreciate that the views expressed are those of the website mentioned and not necessarily of the posters here. It just really annoys me when people ignore all of the facts and evidence just to push their own bizarre theories.

Remember Waco? Refer to the title of this post.

[Don Corleone]

The type f fire protection material that was used was not designed to take an explosion.  The initial fireball that resulted from the impact blew away the fire protection and,  therefore, left the steel open to the fire.  I'm sorry, but the caused by aviation fuel, plus the items within the building that caught fire , would have been enough to melt steel.  Do you honestly believe that someone planted explosives on each floor of the WTC, then convinced terrorists to fly an airplane into the building and then, at precisely the right moment and all fully synchronised detonated the explosive charges.  If the aviation fuel did not melt the steel, as you say, then what did?  I have seen the architects of the WTC and numerous engineers explain exactly what I have stated above.  Are they all deluded?

[alexd]

http://www.hugequestions.com/911.swf

This may interest some of you.


Alex

[no_leaf_clover]

The type f fire protection material that was used was not designed to take an explosion.  The initial fireball that resulted from the impact blew away the fire protection and,  therefore, left the steel open to the fire.

Steel is not flammable! It doesn't NEED protection not to "melt". That's why fire needs to be a certain temperature to sufficiently damage it, and the fire was not that temperature. If you don't believe me, pull out a lighter and stick it to some steel and see what happens. Especially when it's a steel bar as thick as the ones in the towers.

I'm sorry, but the caused by aviation fuel, plus the items within the building that caught fire , would have been enough to melt steel.

The steel did not melt in any case. I'll assume you meant 'become hot enough for the building to collapse'.

If the fire was that hot, it would also spread to other floors and burst the windows from heat. Watch the videos. This did *NOT* happen. Therefore, logically, the fire was not magically hot enough to melt the steel without doing those two things. We know those things happen when fire is hot enough to melt steel because, again, there have been much hotter fires than those in the buildings on 9/11. Refer to the pages on the site originally linked to.

Do you honestly believe that someone planted explosives on each floor of the WTC, then convinced terrorists to fly an airplane into the building and then, at precisely the right moment and all fully synchronised detonated the explosive charges.

Ah! What does it matter what I honestly believe? It doesn't change what's at hand in any objective way.

But, that aside, that isn't how it happened. There was no 'precisely the right moment' because the buildings did not fall immediately after the collisions. Nor did the buildings fall at the same time. They could've set off the demolition off hours later and it would still seem just as believable to the public, if not moreso because of the unproportionately sudden and dramatic fall of the buildings that seems so out-of-place.

If the aviation fuel did not melt the steel, as you say, then what did?

Nothing melted the steel. The steel was fine until the demolition charges went off and had the massive buildings down in a matter of seconds.

I have seen the architects of the WTC and numerous engineers explain exactly what I have stated above. Are they all deluded?

I have seen architects say the exact opposite and explain how the buildings were designed like 'window netting', and that a plane flying into them would be like stabbing a pencil into the netting. It would still stand, only with a hole in it. What you should really be wondering is if you are deluded. I believed terrorists did it too, for a while.

[chohan]

I appreciate that the views expressed are those of the website mentioned and not necessarily of the posters here.

My apologies for your confusion. My views are fairly close to the views of former LAPD narcotics investigator, Michael Ruppert who discovered that the CIA was trafficking in drugs in 1977. After attempting to expose this he was forced out of LAPD in 1978 while earning the highest rating reports possible and having no pending disciplinary actions.

"In 1996, he finally achieved one of his deepest wishes in a face to face public encounter with then CIA Director John Deutch on national television. Washington sources later told Mike that Deutch's mishandling of the encounter cost him a guaranteed appointment as Secretary of Defense.

On November 28, 2001 Mike gave his first post 9-11 lecture at Portland State University, which was attended by more than 1,000 and resulted in a standing ovation. FTW's video, The Truth and Lies About 9-11, has sold more than 15,000 copies. It includes special exclusive interviews with Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Professor Peter Dale Scott, (UC, Berkeley), Professor John Metzger (Michigan State) and Catherine Austin Fitts (former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Managing Director, Dillon Read)."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml

Those were his sourced materials that I linked to previously.

INSIDER TRADING

The documented pre-Sept. 11 insider trading that occurred before the attacks involved only companies hit hard by the attacks. They include United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill-Lynch, Axa Reinsurance, Marsh & McLennan, Munich Reinsurance, Swiss Reinsurance, and Citigroup.

In order to argue that the massive and well-documented insider trading that occurred in at least seven countries immediately before the attacks of Sept. 11 did not serve as a warning to intelligence agencies, then it is necessary to argue that no one was aware of the trades as they were occurring, and that intelligence and law enforcement agencies of most industrialized nations do not monitor stock trades in real time to warn of impending attacks. Both assertions are false. Both assertions would also ignore the fact that the current executive vice president of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) for enforcement is David Doherty, a retired CIA general counsel. And also ignored is the fact that the trading in United Airlines stock -- one of the most glaring clues -- was placed through the firm Deutschebank/Alex Brown, which was headed until 1998 by the man who is now the executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.

One wonders if it was a coincidence then, that Mayo Shattuck III, the head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutschebank -- which had its offices in the WTC -- suddenly resigned from a $30 million, three-year contract on Sept. 12, as reported by the New York Times and other papers.
The American exchanges that handle these trades, primarily the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE) and the NYSE, know on a daily basis what levels of put options are purchased. "Put options" are highly leveraged bets, tying up blocks of stock, that a given stock's share price will fall dramatically. To quote 60 Minutes from Sept. 19, "Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market."

It is hard to believe that they missed:

- A jump in UAL put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack– [CBS News, Sept. 26]

- A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. [CBS News, Sept. 26]

- No similar trading occurred on any other airlines. [Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel citing data from the CBOE]

- Morgan Stanley saw, between Sept. 7 and Sept.10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. [ICT Report, Mechanics of Possible Bin-Laden Insider Trading Scam, Sept. 21, citing data from the CBOE].

- Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. [Ibid]

These trades were certainly noticed after the attacks.

"This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life...This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence," said Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, interviewed on Good Morning Texas on Sept. 20.

"'I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets,' said John Kinnucan, principal of Broadband Research, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle," reported the Montreal Gazette on Sept. 19.

The paper also wrote, "Agence France Presse, on Sept. 22, reported, 'And Germany's Bundesbank chief, Ernst Weltke, said on the sidelines of the meeting that a report of the investigation showed "bizarre" fiscal transactions prior to the attacks that could not have been chalked up to coincidence.
"Weltke said the transactions, 'could not have been planned and carried out without a certain knowledge,' particularly heavy trading in oil and gold futures."

ABC World News reported on Sept. 20, "Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant said, 'it's absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe."

How much money was involved? Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament responsible for oversight of Germany's intelligence services estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion, according to Tagesspiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the amount at $12 billion. CBS News gave a conservative estimate of $100 million.

Not a single U.S. or foreign investigative agency has announced any arrests or developments in the investigation of these trades, the most telling evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks. This, in spite of the fact that former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would "certainly be able to track down every trade."

What is striking is that a National Public Radio report on Oct. 16 reported Britain's Financial Services Authority had cleared bin Laden and his henchmen of insider trading. If not bin Laden, then who else had advance knowledge? Who else had certainty that the attacks would succeed to give them confidence to make millions of dollars in stock purchases?

It has been standard and established USG policy to be alert and responsive to anything even remotely resembling an attack on U.S. companies and/or the economy. The word "remote" does not apply here. The possible claim by the Bush Administration that, 'Gee, we just happened to miss this,' becomes even more implausible when considering the lengths intelligence agencies go to in order to track stock trades.

full article here:  http://www.copvcia.com/

Seems like the ex-narcotics detective has quite a bug-a-boo for sourced materials which I just happen to share.

It just really annoys me when people ignore all of the facts and evidence just to push their own bizarre theories.

Well it annoys me a bit when people wander around under a
light-sweet-crude blanket of denial but what the hell, you still have a cool nick.

cheers,
cho

[chohan]

I have seen architects say the exact opposite and explain how...

I think this is the whole problem in a nutshell clover.

When it comes to the scientific/physical evidence. Our experts vs their experts and the jury winds up confused.

To my thinking, this makes the physical evidence such as how the WTC's collapsed, whether explosives were placed in the towers, whether the planes were remote controlled, whether an airliner really hit the Pentagon, etc. basically irrelevant. Remember, they hauled the evidence away and recycled it. I have to agree with the ex-cop Ruppert again by saying it's far better to be focusing on "documentary, non-scientific lies and using as a starting point only official statements of the US government, hard records and reports from the government and established mainstream sources."

Btw, did you know that Popular Mechanics came out with an article debunking 9/11 researchers?

What I find amusing is the article is written by Benjamin Chertoff, allegedly a cousin of our new Department of Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. Haha, call it a funny.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2005/160305ghanditruth.htm

Speaking of Michael Chertoff, I really sleep better at night knowing we have a dual citizen (Israeli/American) in charge as Homeland Security Czar. <enter sarcasm>

cheers,
cho

[no_leaf_clover]

Btw, did you know that Popular Mechanics came out with an article debunking 9/11 researchers?

Yes, and that 9/11 research site responded recently with an article titled "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man". lol

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

I agree that the whole experts vs experts thing is confusing to people, but a little thinking and scientific 'common sense' can certainly aid on some issues, if there's anyone up for it. I'm no scientist by any means but some of this stuff is basic (towers falling for example..).

A LOT more people seem to just be blindly following the media, and blandly labelling anyone that raises such points 'conspiracy theorists' with a negative connotation (similar to 'liberal' ), without themselves looking at any of the evidence that's being brought up. This is extremely dangerous, obviously. It's also why Thomas Jefferson always warned of newspapers! He said things like 'those who don't read the newspapers are smarter than those who do' pretty often. But nobodyyy listensss to the pastt anymoreee.  

[chohan]

Yes, and that 9/11 research site responded recently with an article titled "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man". lol

Thanks, I hadn't ran across that one previously.

I agree that the whole experts vs experts thing is confusing to people, but a little thinking and scientific 'common sense' can certainly aid on some issues, if there's anyone up for it. I'm no scientist by any means but some of this stuff is basic (towers falling for example..).  

Yes and don't take me wrong, I appreciate every single site that calls attention to this subject. In fact, just this evening I heard from an old high school friend who only seems to call once every month or two. He's asking me about some new laptop that he's considering as a purchase then out of the blue he pops out with...

"Hey, have you ever checked out this website prisonplanet.com?"

I reply, "Yeah, why?"  and off he goes talking about 9/11 and how Bush this and the CIA that. I was impressed because I'd always respected him as a "Mr Practical" type, he never just blew with any wind blowing. That plus he didn't get any input on the subject from me until tonight, he did his own legwork and came to his own conclusion. The sad thing is we both voted for Bush and now we feel like fools.

A LOT more people seem to just be blindly following the media, and blandly labelling anyone that raises such points 'conspiracy theorists' with a negative connotation...  

Such as this?

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

George W. Bush before the UN, 11 November, 2001

From my perspective, deep within the bible belt of the 'land of murka', the powers that be appear quite fearful of the internet. The whole idea of being globally connected and no longer having to rely merely on American media for our single news source seems to get under their skin. The 'Michael Meirings' start coming out of the closets.

I live and work among many Americans who have read the complete 'Left Behind' series and they honestly believe Bush is helping God fulfill their version of Biblical Prophecy. These folks are not very concerned about Peak Oil or government complicity with 9/11 because Islam is the Beast you see. It's all evil and fear (unless you're one of the 'chosen'). I don't want to hear about the petrowar, can't you see the Nascar race is on? Israel, blood and locust, Jesus is coming back to wipe out all those deluded Jews and Muslims unless they see the light and become Fundies, etc.

It's very surreal stuff, maybe I should do a 'reality check' and look at my hands. Perhaps this is just Gandalf's dream and he'll wake up and let me escape.  

cheers,
cho

[no_leaf_clover]

In fact, just this evening I heard from an old high school friend who only seems to call once every month or two. He's asking me about some new laptop that he's considering as a purchase then out of the blue he pops out with...

"Hey, have you ever checked out this website prisonplanet.com?"

I reply, "Yeah, why?" and off he goes talking about 9/11 and how Bush this and the CIA that. I was impressed because I'd always respected him as a "Mr Practical" type, he never just blew with any wind blowing. That plus he didn't get any input on the subject from me until tonight, he did his own legwork and came to his own conclusion. The sad thing is we both voted for Bush and now we feel like fools.

That's awesome.

I've started bring the subject up with friends and had some respond by telling me I was stating the obvious, and how I could find lots of sites up with good information on the subject. A while ago I brought up some of the fascist policies the country has been recently taking with my mom, and she said she had already heard and been effected by some of them where she works. So the news does seem to be getting around one way or another (or both/all), which is just what needs to happen. Thank goodness for a media source that isn't dominated by the wealthy!

Such as this?

Exactly like that! 'land of murka' - LOL!

It's very surreal stuff, maybe I should do a 'reality check' and look at my hands. Perhaps this is just Gandalf's dream and he'll wake up and let me escape.

Yeah, it's definitely going to be surreal when things start going down, whatever may come. This kind of stuff has happened all throughout history, though. Colonists during the revolution were probably just as in awe at what dramatic events were befalling them, or the same with the French revolution or any other such domestic wars that have happened all over the world. I think something like 40% of colonists just sat on their butts during the revolution, probably thinking 'wtf?' to themselves. Another third didn't even want to revolt. But it was well worth it - for about the first century.