9/11- Interesting video raises some serious questions

[Northman]

http://www.loosechange911.com/



This raised my eyebrows a bit. Im not one for conspiracy theories but this video raises a lot of questions that havent been answered. Take a ponder for yourself at it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Good grief!! How many times can college kids dupe the American public?


http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread....ht=video+steel

[Northman]

Im just looking at it from a different angle. If you got some great rebuttal sites than by all means put them up so i can look at them. Im not saying its right or wrong im just throwing it out there. Didnt realize it was already a topic but none the less i was curious.

[Taco John]

There is still zero plausible explination for the collapse of WTC7. Just some government hokum that people buy because it's what they told them to.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Taco John

There is still zero plausible explination for the collapse of WTC7. Just some government hokum that people buy because it's what they told them to.

There is more credible explanation than a team of 3 eight man crews working weeks, stripping steel columns and running miles of wire to run a controlled demolition.

Knowing about the structural makeup of the building, all the added storage fuel, eutectic reactions of some columns and beams gives plenty doubt to some kind of fantasy conspiracy, controlled demolition nonsense.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Good grief!! How many times can college kids dupe the American public?


http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread....ht=video+steel

Meh... People will believe what they want , despite what evidence there is or iisnt ....... Alot of questions about building 7 need to be answered , I watched that Larry Siliverstien on a PBS show shortly after 9-11 , his confesion about "ripping 7" is all I need to know about what went down .......
in a case like this , caculations can be like NFL stats , twisted to fit your line of thinking .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Meh... People will believe what they want , despite what evidence there is or iisnt ....... Alot of questions about building 7 need to be answered , I watched that Larry Siliverstien on a PBS show shortly after 9-11 , his confesion about "ripping 7" is all I need to know about what went down .......
in a case like this , caculations can be like NFL stats , twisted to fit your line of thinking .....

Please get it right. He has stated he never said he ordered a building blown up. Only the Internet nerds could come up with that sh*t. He has, many times stated he said "pull it" to the fire chief who pulled his men because of the growing fire.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Among the 9/11 conspiracy theories is belief that 7 World Trade Center was deliberately destroyed. Conspiracy theorists cite a 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein used the term "pull it". These conspiracy theorists believe the term is industry jargon used in controlled demolition.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [2].
In recounting the day's events, Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22 also uses the term "pulled" in discussing the evacuation of the firefighters contingent from 7 World Trade Center. [3]
Controlled demolition experts at ImplosionWorld.com refute this, saying that they have never heard the term used to refer to the demolition of a building. They also debunk the theory that controlled demolition was used to bring down 7 World Trade Center.<sup>[12]


http://tinyurl.com/rcyy3</sup>

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Please get it right. He has stated he never said he ordered a building blown up. Only the Internet nerds could come up with that sh*t. He has, many times stated he said "pull it" to the fire chief who pulled his men because of the growing fire.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said anything about blowing up . the correct term would be imploding ..... Now you tell me how they got the explosives set during all of that collasping of the 2 towers , Dust , and the Building 7 being so damaged it is concidered unstable ..... I am no demolition expert , but it seems to me that , it is never a good idea to plant explosives in a building that is on fire . but that could be just me ....

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

There is more credible explanation than a team of 3 eight man crews working weeks, stripping steel columns and running miles of wire to run a controlled demolition.

Knowing about the structural makeup of the building, all the added storage fuel, eutectic reactions of some columns and beams gives plenty doubt to some kind of fantasy conspiracy, controlled demolition nonsense.

I'm sorry but citing a gov't piece of propoganda doesn't make it true. Esp. when FEMA isn't an investigative dept. Not to mention the steel was recycled after the report was published further hinduring further investiations. Not to mention in the very same FEMA report:

"WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."


So pull what, there were no manual firefighting actions being done on WTC7?

And that's all i'm gonna say 'bout that willis.

[Spider]

This is a controled implosion , you dont even see smoke comming out of this building ........

[Spider]

taken from what really happened site

ake a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.

The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

Do you find this plausible?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

[Taco John]

They remain convinced: U.S. behind 9/11
By EVAN LEHMANN, Sun Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON -- The sudden collapse, the seamless downward cascade of the crumbling World Trade Center towers planted doubt in Bruce Henry's mind.

The way the buildings fell didn't seem right. The implosion-like plummeting, the absence of central beams and girders refusing to fall, the speed of the collapse -- all raised suspicion for the retired mathematics professor from Worcester.

"That was the seed," said Henry, who taught at Worcester State College. "To me it seems so transparent with a minimal amount of reflection that there's something catawampus," or cockeyed, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Finally, he came to a shocking conclusion that runs counter to the accepted history of America's darkest day: The towers, he believes, "were brought down by planted explosives."

He's not alone.

Henry and several other Bay State residents are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a controversial group that claims elements of the U.S. government, not Osama bin Laden, masterminded the deadly attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans.

Members of the group, including about 80 professors nationwide, generally believe the attacks were designed around building support for an aggressive U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

Members point to a string of what they describe as discrepancies in the accepted history of the attacks, including continuing uncertainty about why a third World Trade Center tower, known as Building 7, collapsed without being struck by a plane.

"There is something hugely wrong with the official story," said Gwendolyn Atwood, 45, of Lincoln, a clinical psychologist trained at Harvard University and a group member.

The group's theories collide with the findings of the 9/11 Commission and an exhaustive investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, launched to determine the cause of the buildings' collapse.

Fires resulting from the impact of the fuel-laden airliners destroyed the twin towers, according to reports by the NIST, which assigned 200 employees to the two-year investigation.

The agency interviewed more than 1,000 people near the scene of the attack or who helped design the buildings, analyzed 236 pieces of metal from the wreckage and studied 150 hours of video and almost 7,000 photographs capturing the collisions and collapses.

The agency's final report rejects "alternative hypotheses suggesting the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

Many people, however, are not convinced.

A poll released this week by Scripps Howard News Service found that 36 percent of Americans believe "people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East."
Guido H. Stempel III, director of Scripps Survey Research Center, believes the poll highlights discontentment with the Bush administration, which has struggled to convince Americans that the war in Iraq is justified, faced criticism for its domestic eavesdropping program and weathered declining approval ratings.

"The (administration's) effort to tie 9/11 to the Iraq war is just something a lot of people don't buy," Stempel said. "What I'm saying is if (government officials) tell you a story that's not correct, people say 'What else is wrong?' "

Fifty-one percent of Democrats responding to the poll said the government was involved in 9/11, compared to 18 percent of Republicans, Stempel said.

Conspiracy theories are popular in American culture. Forty percent of Americans still believe the government was involved in President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and 38 percent believe the government is hiding proof that aliens exist, according to polls taken last month.

Lacking a smoking gun to make their argument, Scholars for 9/11 Truth members point to a list of reasons they say proves their point when taken together.

"It's sort of a cumulative effect," said Gustavo Espada, 31, of Somerville, a member and graduate of Harvard, where he works in information technology. "I don't think anybody has a 100 percent view of what actually did happen on 9/11."

Espada spends about 10 hours a week handing out literature, Web logging and talking with people on the street about his views on 9/11. A 90-minute symposium organized by Scholars for Truth was also broadcast on C-SPAN last month.

"There's a point of view out there ... we just wanted to shed some light on it," said C-SPAN spokeswoman Jennifer Moire.

The message, however, has not reached Don Goodrich, whose son, Peter, died aboard Flight 175 when it struck the second tower of the WTC.

"I don't pass judgment on the groups," said Goodrich of Bennington, Vt., adding that they are "unimportant to me."

Goodrich, too, has searched for evidence that could explain the attacks -- an exercise that has generated little fulfillment.

"The inevitable consequence ... is that much is unknown and forever will be unknown about what happened that day," he said.

http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_4173789

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

There is more credible explanation than a team of 3 eight man crews working weeks, stripping steel columns and running miles of wire to run a controlled demolition.

Knowing about the structural makeup of the building, all the added storage fuel, eutectic reactions of some columns and beams gives plenty doubt to some kind of fantasy conspiracy, controlled demolition nonsense.

Beerslug, you're my hero on this subject

Rep.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Taco John

There is still zero plausible explination for the collapse of WTC7. Just some government hokum that people buy because it's what they told them to.

Building 7 was 2-3 blocks away from the Twin towers. There were buildings closer that did NOT fall down.

Building 7 was never hit by a plane, hence there was no jet fuel, and it suffered very little damage from fire. How then did this 47 story ferro concrete skyscraper fall into its tracks on 911

I heard the video tape of Silverstein, including the line about "pulling the building." He was not referring to an evacuation. He used the phrase in the context of a demolition. No question about it. The spin doctors had to work overtime on this, doing damage control, to give the official story some plausibility. But it just ain't there.

Americans have been sold the biggest lie in the history of our nation. The bigger the lie the smoother they go down. MG

[Taco John]

I don't believe in coincidence. When it gets revealed that the think tank behind the Bush Administration concluded in the 90's that there would have to be a new Pearl Harbor in order for them to execute their world changing campaign in the Middle East, and as soon as their guy gets in, IT HAPPENS, I raise an eyebrow.

Start from that uncanny coincidence and work down the vast list of them. Before too long, it's a matter of mathematical improbablility that all of these "coincidences" don't connect to paint a larger picture.

I don't know what happened for sure, but I'll be damned if I don't believe that this administration, at some level, knew that it was coming. My gut tells me that they knew it was coming, and knew it is what they needed to get over and oust Hussein and get a foothold in the Middle East. With that knowledge, they did what they could on their end to make certain that it wasn't just a blip on the radar.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't believe in coincidence. When it gets revealed that the think tank behind the Bush Administration concluded in the 90's that there would have to be a new Pearl Harbor in order for them to execute their world changing campaign in the Middle East, and as soon as their guy gets in, IT HAPPENS, I raise an eyebrow.

Start from that uncanny coincidence and work down the vast list of them. Before too long, it's a matter of mathematical improbablility that all of these "coincidences" don't connect to paint a larger picture.

I don't know what happened for sure, but I'll be damned if I don't believe that this administration, at some level, knew that it was coming. My gut tells me that they knew it was coming, and knew it is what they needed to get over and oust Hussein and get a foothold in the Middle East. With that knowledge, they did what they could on their end to make certain that it wasn't just a blip on the radar.

So what do you think about the prophesies that Jesus filled?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by angryllama

So what do you think about the prophesies that Jesus filled?

Which ones are those? Many of the prophecies aren't actually prophecies, but things taken for prophecies after the fact because they fit the story. Others were definitely fulfilled, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And still, others go against the grain of modern Christianity to be fulfilled (Elijah reincarnating as John the Baptist to fulfill a prophecy - (Matthew 11:13-14)
(Matthew 17:10-13).

All of that was over 2000 years ago, so I don't really think about it much (actually, that's clearly not true... I can cite the verses... but it's not important to this discussion)

I'm trying to talk about coincidences that have taken place in the last 15 years. Stuff that is shaping our lives today.

[Northman]

And thats what im just getting at. Certain events that led up to 9/11 dont make sense to me. The guy takes out a huge insurance policy 6 weeks before the WTC is attacked? When the Pentagon got hit i was delivering supplies across the street. And when i walked up to 395 there was no plane wreckage and no one around me who was out there mentioned a plane. Initially someone mentioned a bomb had gone off. And there are a lot of cameras on the surrounding buildings including the Pentagon so why not show the Plane smashing into it? That would only solidify their arguement of a terrorist attack. I just find as of now too many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 before and after the attacks. Again, im open for any rebuttals to these questions as i cant believe so many people would be involved in a conspiracy like this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't believe in coincidence. When it gets revealed that the think tank behind the Bush Administration concluded in the 90's that there would have to be a new Pearl Harbor in order for them to execute their world changing campaign in the Middle East, and as soon as their guy gets in, IT HAPPENS, I raise an eyebrow.

Bingo.

Anyone who doesn't raise an eyebrow at this sort of thing is worse than a conspiracy theorist - he's a coincidence theorist.

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't know what happened for sure, but I'll be damned if I don't believe that this administration, at some level, knew that it was coming. My gut tells me that they knew it was coming, and knew it is what they needed to get over and oust Hussein and get a foothold in the Middle East. With that knowledge, they did what they could on their end to make certain that it wasn't just a blip on the radar.

There's an abundance of evidence that Team Chimp blew off numerous warnings from multiple intelligence sources that al Qaeda was planning suicide attacks inside the U.S.

The bush junta doesn't exactly have a good track record for truth-telling (e.g., "we never could have imagined anyone would use aircraft as missiles...")

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Taco John

There is still zero plausible explination for the collapse of WTC7. Just some government hokum that people buy because it's what they told them to.

"Zero plausible" ...?! You are so married to this conspiracy theory on WTC7 that you'll say "zero plausible"?

For these terrorists/conspirators to spend ANY extra time or effort on WTC7 would be akin to a group of bankrobbers stopping on the way out of the bank, duffels stuffs with cash, and running back in saying, "Wait!! We gotta get the quarters and dimes!"

Doesn't make sense. The two towers were the prize. The towers were the stacks of Franklins. Nobody in Al Quada or in any shadow government conspiracy is gonna worry about the quarters and dimes.

[BroncoBuff]

Milton Friedman calls it his standard "risk-benefit" analysis.

Friedman theorized (won a Nobel Prize in economics for) his 'rational maximizer' theory of risk-benefit analysis. That, as 'rational maximizers,' everything humans do, say and think is preceded by a "risk-benefit" or "cost-benefit" analysis.

In light of this: It would be unthinkable, illogical and even unintelligible for these terrorists/conspirators - in the midst of planning and executing the greatest terrorist attack in history with the twin towers clearly the target - to create and spread so much more risk, just to knock down a third building that 75% of Americans and 99% of the world don't even know exists.

BTW - for me anyway - this analysis works the same for much of the recent interviews posted around here with Noam Chomsky. He says over and over and over in these interviews, "what the western media doesn't report," "that they agree not to reveal" "with the tacit agreement of the media." I spent 7 years in television news, and there's not a reporter on this planet who would NOT report a big story, for example, that Bush browbeat Olmert into attacking Lebanon/Hizbollah. These reporters are ambitious - voracious for scoops/recognition. The 'rational maximizer' theory goes double for them.

Dey get nuttin' for keepin' dare yaps shut.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Taco John

They remain convinced: U.S. behind 9/11

I remained convinced that a large number of Americans lack basic, reasoning and logic skills.

Was the Bush administration not on point, absolutely.
Did they not take seriously multiple warnings that we were going to be attacked, affirmative. Are they then responsible in degree for 9-11, probably so.

Did they know radical religious scumbags were going to attack us on 9-11, no.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I remained convinced that a large number of Americans lack basic, reasoning and logic skills.

Was the Bush administration not on point, absolutely.
Did they not take seriously multiple warnings that we were going to be attacked, affirmative. Are they then responsible in degree for 9-11, probably so.

Did they know radical religious scumbags were going to attack us on 9-11, no.

But did Silverstien ? Not trying to Bust your balls here Slug , just pointing out there are so many roads to look down ......

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I remained convinced that a large number of Americans lack basic, reasoning and logic skills.

Was the Bush administration not on point, absolutely.
Did they not take seriously multiple warnings that we were going to be attacked, affirmative. Are they then responsible in degree for 9-11, probably so.

Did they know radical religious scumbags were going to attack us on 9-11, no.

Good take slug...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

But did Silverstien ? Not trying to Bust your balls here Slug , just pointing out there are so many roads to look down ......

Larry Silverstein has real estate holdings all over New England. His sons are in business with him at various levels. He's a born and bred American and is a billionaire.

Why in world would he be part of some fantasy to blow up one of his buildings up? He stood to make hundreds of millions before 9-11 and will now after.

I can't understand how people think some demolition company was sneaking in at nights, stripping walls, steel columns and beams for WEEKS, stringing miles of det wire across multiple floors without being seen by the hundreds of people in these buildings every day. Where is your common sense people?