Loose Change....

farfromglorified

jlew24asu wrote:

you add nothing to the discussion. now please let the adults talk

Please lighten up. Your very reply here disproves your contention. If someone is saying things you don't feel contribute to the discussion, act accordingly and move on.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

i don't know what exactly happened. however, it is my belief that the official story is horseshit, and that the official investigation was a complete whitewash. there should be a new investigation that doesn't ignore building 7; that offers an explanation for pools of molten steel in the WTC basements that smoldered for weeks; that explains how, in the case of flight 93, debris was found miles away from the supposed crash site; that explains where our air defenses were that day; that explains how hani hanjour made a near impossible manuever with a 757 when he wasn't capable of flying a small single engine plane; that actually holds someone accountable for what happened; etc., etc, etc.

cop out. so you dont believe the offical story. I got it. what do you believe from those almighty websites you constantly quote? did rumsfield or people at the highest levels of government know that planes would fly into the wtc that day? did they pick the targets? did a missile hit the pentegon? where bombs placed throughout the WTC days prior? and then set off by someone in a precise and timely manner during the choas 90 minutes after the planes hit?

ledvedderman

jlew24asu wrote:

i'm so tired of all of you just quoting some loony toon websites.

whatreallyhappened.com......guess what....i made a site too...its called nothingbutthetruth.com....do u believe everything on there? its the truth i promise.


just tell me exactly what you believe to be true. its simple. dont tell me you dont know, dont tell me you dont believe the offical story. tell me exactly how you feel. what really happened on September 11th, 2001. grab your sack off the floor and just say it.

ah yes, the main card in your deck, instead of debating any kind of information you attack the website...again

jlew24asu

farfromglorified wrote:

Please lighten up. Your very reply here disproves your contention. If someone is saying things you don't feel contribute to the discussion, act accordingly and move on.

i know. your right. i'm trying.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

ah yes, the main card in your deck, instead of debating any kind of information you attack the website...again

I presented what I believe to be true. I was asking him and others like you a direct question. feel free to answer, but I'm sure I'll just get i dont know, the govermenet lied.

ledvedderman

jlew24asu wrote:

I presented what I believe to be true. I was asking him and others like you a direct question. feel free to answer, but I'm sure I'll just get i dont know, the govermenet lied.

Please repost your question, and I will try to give you an honest answer as to why I believe what I do.

As far as what a reliable sources, on the previous page there were a ton of them posted.

spiral out

jlew24asu a question for you?

You say the buildings collapsed because of a fire weakening steel by burning at 800c.

Now if this is the case and the fire was this hot how comes there were fire fighters on the 77th-78th floor?



transcript of the tape

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

Please repost your question, and I will try to give you an honest answer as to why I believe what I do.

As far as what a reliable sources, on the previous page there were a ton of them posted.

just tell me exactly what you believe to be true. its simple. dont tell me you dont know, dont tell me you dont believe the offical story. tell me exactly how you feel. what really happened on September 11th, 2001. grab your sack off the floor and just say it

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

Now if this is the case and the fire was this hot how comes there were fire fighters on the 77th-78th floor?

That's like asking how it's possible to stand next to a campfire without being burned.

Just because fires can reach upwards 1000 degrees, it doesn't mean the the whole floor or the whole building experienced those temperatures.

spiral out

farfromglorified wrote:

That's like asking how it's possible to stand next to a campfire without being burned.

Just because fires can reach upwards 1000 degrees, it doesn't mean the the whole floor or the whole building experienced those temperatures.

Ok what about the bit where the firefighter says "we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Is that a raging 800c fire?

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

jlew24asu a question for you?

You say the buildings collapsed because of a fire weakening steel by burning at 800c.

Now if this is the case and the fire was this hot how comes there were fire fighters on the 77th-78th floor?

call me crazy, but those floors were alot of square feet. isnt it possible the firefighters were on the opposite side of the fire.

firefighters are amazing people. i'm sure they were able to be in very herendous conditions.

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

Ok what about the bit where the firefighter says "we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Is that a raging 800c fire?

Is what a "raging 800c fire"?? The fires this guy saw? There's nothing from the transcript that really gives us an indication.

ledvedderman

jlew24asu wrote:

just tell me exactly what you believe to be true. its simple. dont tell me you dont know, dont tell me you dont believe the offical story. tell me exactly how you feel. what really happened on September 11th, 2001. grab your sack off the floor and just say it

I believe, and it is well known, that the US government knew that there was going to be an attack on America using highjacked airliners.

a) The 8/6 Presidential Memo
b) John Ashcroft from July on, when he received the word that commercial airlines were at risk, began flying private chartered flights
c) The Willy Brown phone call from Condoleeza Rice on 9/10, warning Brown not to fly to New York or DC the next day
d) The fact that Jeb Bush shortly before 9/11, when he knew the President would be in Florida on 9/11, declared a state of Matial Law specifically mentioning to keep the peace against possible terrorist threats

"Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes."

I believe that WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, and because if WTC 7 was brought down that way, it makes it a lot easier to believe that if they would do that to 7, why not Towers 1 and 2.

I believe that the government DID NOT have a direct role in planning the attacks. I do believe however that people who are involved in the government would allow manipulate a series of events to allow this to happen and pave the way for the agenda they could pass through this administration.

a)The head of Security at the WTC and the Boston airport, where the planes came from, was the Presidents brother. Does that mean I think the President was in on it? No. I think this was way over his head.

b)The fact that no jets were scambled because they happened to be hundreds of miles south doing training. This reminds me a lot of the Kennedy assassination where the military was given a stand down order involving Kennedy in Dallas.

I believe that Flight 93 was shot down. Do I fault the government for that? No. Do I think they glorified the whole "Let's Roll" theory? Yes. Just like they did with Pat Tillman. Many people stated that there was a plane tailing 93 and circled the area right after it hit the ground, then it took off.

I believe I am not smart enough to know what steele melts at or what kind of reaction Thermite produces. However, I do know politics, and I do know corrupt politics. There are members of this administration who are more corrupt than anything I have ever come across or studied. I then believe that knowing of the the events that were doomed to happen to our nation, that members of this administration who were involved in organizations outside of their government role, put a stand down order out, and the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen to give them the authority to carry out their agenda which they had been looking for an excuse for a long time.

I hope you can understand why I believe what I do. I know politics and the way it works behind closed doors. That's why I believe what I do, I know how things like this work.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

your post here

ok good now we are getting somewhere. good response. we actually arent that far off. well kinda.

I dont know if flight 93 was shot down. my gut feeling is that it was not. even if it was, I dont fault the government for doing so. its an incredibly hard call to make. I will go by the black box recording and taped phone calls from the people on board that leads me to believe they rushed the cockpit and caused the terrorist to crash the plane.

I do not believe anyone in our governement, at any level, knew to what extent we would be attacked. I agree that we knew an attack was coming. but we always know that. we have this alert system now that raises the alert level. i'm sure we are always getting intelligence suggesting we will be attacked but when their plans are that good, we can stop it, we can only hope to. like when new york's subway system was put on alert. they must of know they wanted to attack the subway system. could they have gotten a bombs off in the subway even if we knew it was coming? of course.

before 9/11 we were not in a defensive position. neven with good intelligence its hard to imagine such an attack will happen. obviously we learned that it can, and security has tighten up in many areas of our country. I see it everyday on the streets on downtown chicago.

I also will contend that I have my doubts about wtc 7. but lets think logically about this. IF this building was brought down on purpose, is it really a big deal? the building was probably beyond repair and more importantly they seemed to make sure no one was in or around the building. NO injuries were reported from this building going down. is it shady that they (might have) lied about it? sure. but I dont know what the truth is. I'm just happy no one was hurt by that collapse. the building came down, ok, lets build a new one and move on.

but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.

ledvedderman

jlew24asu wrote:

but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.

I don't think anyone had anything to gain by there, which is sad, if people did not die. Think of what happened in the days, weeks, months, and years after 9/11. Patriotism was at an all time high. The approval for this administration was near record highs for any administration. They were basically given a blank check because of the events that took place on that day, and no one cared how they spent it. Anything that can get done to get back at those who attacked us that day was ok. Anything to avange the deaths of our citizens was OK.

A lot of people had a lot to gain because these poor souls gave their life.

It just amazes me how much everything has changed since September 12th, 2001. The world was on our side, the US citizens were united, and that was all lost when this administration went too far. Not just the war in Iraq, but everywhere.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't think anyone had anything to gain by there, which is sad, if people did not die. Think of what happened in the days, weeks, months, and years after 9/11. Patriotism was at an all time high. The approval for this administration was near record highs for any administration. They were basically given a blank check because of the events that took place on that day, and no one cared how they spent it. Anything that can get done to get back at those who attacked us that day was ok. Anything to avange the deaths of our citizens was OK.

A lot of people had a lot to gain because these poor souls gave their life.

It just amazes me how much everything has changed since September 12th, 2001. The world was on our side, the US citizens were united, and that was all lost when this administration went too far. Not just the war in Iraq, but everywhere.

the administration would still had its "blank check" regardless if they brought down the buildings on purpose with all those innocent people still inside. many people died from the intial impact and people jumping. plus the united feeling that americans had on sept 12th was becuase we were attacked on our soil. the number of dead wasnt very relevant. could have been 1 or 3000. the effect would still be the same.

ledvedderman

OK, I can go for that. However, the WTC Towers were an asbestos nightmare. The Port Authority had been trying to get rid of the building for years, but could never get the rights to demolish the building. Let's not forget either that there was plenty of vacancies at the WTC

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

OK, I can go for that. However, the WTC Towers were an asbestos nightmare. The Port Authority had been trying to get rid of the building for years, but could never get the rights to demolish the building. Let's not forget either that there was plenty of vacancies at the WTC

9/11 perpetrated because of "asbestos nightmare"......ok I've added that one to the list

In seriousness, good posts before this one. I don't agree, but at least you're talking some sense.

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

but if wtc 7 then why not towers 1 and 2 you say? 1 and 2 came down with hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers still inside. why purposely kill all those people when it could have been done hours later. (assuming it was a controlled demo you can bring it down whenever they wanted). building 7, IF brought down on purpose, was done so much later with no one around.

Ok so you believe that building 7 could have been brought down on purpose, then so could have towers 1 and 2.

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

9/11 perpetrated because of "asbestos nightmare"......ok I've added that one to the list

In seriousness, good posts before this one. I don't agree, but at least you're talking some sense.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]

I'm not saying 9/11 was done because of asbestos, but it would make a case for possibly demolishing the buildings