9/11 Truth: Bush Admin. sets the towers to fall, raises military budget, Iraq for OIL

17891012

Comments

  • I'm talking more about the logistics that would require so many people. Preparing 3 buildings, two of which are massive to be placed with explosives. The people needed to take care of the people who were actually on the planes that crashed into their targets. There's no way the biggest con of all time would have been possible with only a small group of people.

    yes, to bring down a building of that size...well, shit, make that two of them...well, shit, make that three of them...you have weeks of work to do. and, you can't just up and learn how to do something like that, flawlessly, without a lot of work over time...think trial and error.

    i question how planes were allowed to get that close without being shot down when they were so obviously off course. i question how things seemed to fall in place for the administration relating to their and special interest group's goals. i think the buildings falling down were a blessing. the important thing, here, is not to debate the buildings falling down (because there is objective evidence of the cause of those buildings falling...add to that they were designed to come down in their own space if something tragic were to befall them [everyone seems to ignore this]). the questions need to be HOW, WHY, and WHAT CAN WE do to keep this from happening again. because this line of debate is not achieving anything.

    there, i've said it AGAIN.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CT Posts: 2,263
    the questions need to be HOW, WHY, and WHAT CAN WE do to keep this from happening again. because this line of debate is not achieving anything.

    i think the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to have this debate, in order to find out exactly what happened, exactly who was behind it, and what their motives were (are). we can't simply "let this one slide" and move on. our real enemies need to be exposed, or else they'll keep duping us into war after war, after terrorist attack after terrorist attack, until we're all pretty much dead.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    i think the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to have this debate, in order to find out exactly what happened, exactly who was behind it, and what their motives were (are). we can't simply "let this one slide" and move on. our real enemies need to be exposed, or else they'll keep duping us into war after war, after terrorist attack after terrorist attack, until we're all pretty much dead.

    I agree. If some people don't want to debate or even discuss it then that's a pretty easy problem to solve......JUST DON'T. So simple.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • The Waiting Trophy ManThe Waiting Trophy Man Niagara region, Ontario, Canada Posts: 12,158
    the real question is "Why", isn't it - "Why?" - the "how" is just "scenery" for the suckers ...Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Extremists - it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question - Why? Why did the towers come down? Who benefitted? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?
    Another habit says it's in love with you
    Another habit says its long overdue
    Another habit like an unwanted friend
    I'm so happy with my righteous self
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    i think the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to have this debate, in order to find out exactly what happened, exactly who was behind it, and what their motives were (are). we can't simply "let this one slide" and move on. our real enemies need to be exposed, or else they'll keep duping us into war after war, after terrorist attack after terrorist attack, until we're all pretty much dead.

    notice the HOW and the WHY and the prevention element of my statement. what happened doesn't matter...how it happened is what matters...the reason i don't think it matters is because i don't think there were "internal" explosives in the buildings that caused them to fall...and, even if there were...i think it's a moot point that is uselessly being debated here because the important stuff is what i mentioned...the how, the why, and the solution that keeps it from happening again. but, if you must go on and on, my friend.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • I agree. If some people don't want to debate or even discuss it then that's a pretty easy problem to solve......JUST DON'T. So simple.

    you're missing the big picture which is the problem.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • aBoxOfFear wrote:
    the real question is "Why", isn't it - "Why?" - the "how" is just "scenery" for the suckers ...Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Extremists - it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question - Why? Why did the towers come down? Who benefitted? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

    NO, do not get caught up in thinking that the method of carrying out such an act is just scenery...you have to know why AND how something was done to understand it and to keep it from happening again...you have to think outside of the box...how do they catch serial killers? patterns...how they accomplish something. knowing how something happened is just as important, if not more so, than knowing why someone did something...because you learn from how...not from why. once you know why someone did something you can just say, "okay" but once you know how someone did something, you can trace behavior in later actors...and derivatives.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    DPrival78 wrote:
    wtc 5 had raging fires in it (nothing like what building 7 had), and also bore the brunt of the towers collapses. yet, it did not collapse:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

    wtc 4 partially collapsed, due to the north tower falling directly on top of it, but it did not completely collapse:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html

    (there are additional pics/info on the other wtc buildings on that site as well.)

    building 7 was the farthest away from the towers, and suffered less structural damage than any of the other buildings in the complex. yet it falls down in 6 seconds into a neat little pile while the others remain standing (until demolished, or "pulled" according to a construction worker interviewed in the same pbs doc that silverstein said building seven was "pulled")

    it also happened to be a building that housed offices of the CIA, secret service, SEC, and others. it also had an emergency command bunker on the 23rd floor, which had its own air/water supply, blast proof windows, and all sorts of communication equipment.

    giuliani was there, but left after, and i quote him, "we were told that the world trade center was gonna collapse." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hNmf76GUCw

    i'd like to know:
    a. who told rudy that?
    b. how did they know, particularly since no one expected the buildings to come down?
    c. why the fuck wasn't anyone else told?

    a shiny nickel to anyone who has those answers.



    i found this interesting concerning nist and building 7

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

    'Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building which clearly has suffered significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south facade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south facade.[1] '

    so...they have pics of other sides of the building...just not the side w/ the 10story gash in it? convenient

    'The final report from NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July 2005, but study is ongoing.[7]'

    gee, what's takin so long??

    'NIST released a progress report in June of 2004 outlining its working hypothesis. On this hypothesis a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[8][9] In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.” and then added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[10]'



    i also don't understand how a 'disproportionate' collapse doesn't look disproportionate? doesn't disproportionate mean being out of proportion?

    and the sec lost the files to a looooooooot cases and investigations in that collapse
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    basically none of you can hold on to an argument without mentioning WTC 7. weak
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    basically none of you can hold on to an argument without mentioning WTC 7. weak

    I think WTC 7 is a corner stone to it all. If WTC7 was brought down on purpose SOMEONE must have known the attacks were coming, and everything else builds from there.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    If WTC7 was brought down on purpose SOMEONE must have known the attacks were coming,
    why are those 2 mutually exclusive? 7 could have been taken down simply because the building couldnt be saved. if thats the case, why they lied about it, I dont know. but I dont see how it relates to SOMEONE knowing the attacks were coming.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why are those 2 mutually exclusive? 7 could have been taken down simply because the building couldnt be saved. if thats the case, why they lied about it, I dont know. but I dont see how it relates to SOMEONE knowing the attacks were coming.

    I'm pretty sure it takes weeks, at the very least, to plan out a demolition. It's a very precise process to ensure the building falls into itself. I don't think it could have been done in the chaos of the day with only 6 hours from the time the building was hit until WTC 7 came down. That would be some kind of a record for a perfect demolition
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I'm pretty sure it takes weeks, at the very least, to plan out a demolition. It's a very precise process to ensure the building falls into itself. I don't think it could have been done in the chaos of the day with only 6 hours from the time the building was hit until WTC 7 came down. That would be some kind of a record for a perfect demolition
    this building was already heavily damaged. IF it was taken down, my guess would be that some demo guys could take out some crucial support beams. which makes me wonder, where were all the explosions? I watched that building come down LIVE on TV. I saw or heard no explosions. when I see a controlled demo happen, there are multiple explosions on several levels. you think demolition teams can stroll around that building for "weeks" before 9/11. setting up explosives, detonators, etc and go unnoticed? for weeks? seems you would use your common sense on that one. not to mention the same thing would happen over in WTC 1 & 2?? 2 of the tallest most secure buildings on the planet
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    who cares. its been almost 6 years.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    this building was already heavily damaged. IF it was taken down, my guess would be that some demo guys could take out some crucial support beams. which makes me wonder, where were all the explosions? I watched that building come down LIVE on TV. I saw or heard no explosions. when I see a controlled demo happen, there are multiple explosions on several levels. you think demolition teams can stroll around that building for "weeks" before 9/11. setting up explosives, detonators, etc and go unnoticed? for weeks? seems you would use your common sense on that one. not to mention the same thing would happen over in WTC 1 & 2?? 2 of the tallest most secure buildings on the planet

    Funny you should mention that. I have read many reports that mention power failures the weeks leading up to the attacks and bomb sniffing dogs being pulled out 2 weeks before the attacks. I also remember reading where there was a lot of unusual people around during those two weeks during the power outages.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    macgyver06 wrote:
    who cares. its been almost 6 years.

    Good attitude. No matter who is right, you should care about the events of that day. If the conspiracy theorists are right, than it shows a massive level of corruption by some in the gov't, and if the official story 3,000+ innocent people lost their lives by a terrorist attack. Seems like a big deal to me
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Funny you should mention that. I have read many reports that mention power failures the weeks leading up to the attacks and bomb sniffing dogs being pulled out 2 weeks before the attacks. I also remember reading where there was a lot of unusual people around during those two weeks during the power outages.
    you read "many reports" huh. :rolleyes:
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Good attitude. No matter who is right, you should care about the events of that day. If the conspiracy theorists are right, than it shows a massive level of corruption by some in the gov't, and if the official story 3,000+ innocent people lost their lives by a terrorist attack. Seems like a big deal to me
    this we can agree on
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you read "many reports" huh. :rolleyes:

    Don't get your panties in a bunch jlew, I'm looking for the articles now. I'm sure they won't be "credible" sources to you. Who needs facts when one has a strong opinion.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    An article in New York Newsday documented the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just five days before the attack.

    September 12, 2001

    The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

    Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

    "Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

    Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center... 1

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The following e-mail was forwarded by John Kaminski to a CC list of about 50 people in April of 2004. Subsequently, Victor Thorn published an article amplifying the e-mail and promoting its assertions as fact.

    _________________________________________________________________

    From: "Scott Forbes" XXXXXXXs2002@hotmail.com>
    To: XXXXXX@comcast.net
    Subject: Official Ver[si]on of 9/11 - new info
    Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

    To John Kaminski,

    I was pleased to read your article "The Official Version of 9/11 is a Hoax"
    ... Please note some other facts. My name is Scott Forbes and I still work
    for Fiduciary Trust. In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
    Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.

    On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
    the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
    supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
    I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
    all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up
    afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
    in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
    security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
    coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
    shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
    I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
    weekend work ...

    I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
    Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts. Whats
    to hide? Can you help publicise them?

    Please feel free to mail me.

    Scott Forbes


    Now, I have no reason to not believe these events. These people seem to have no political agenda but just want the truth to get out there. The 9/11 Commission isn't the truth, that's for sure. I don't know what the truth is, but I have no reason to discredit one mans testimony because it's either what I don't believe
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I just havnt seen enough proof to think that bombs were laid out in 3 buildings. too many people would have to be involved. and the cover up just wouldnt be so perfect. someone would talk. its good to question the government though. im glad we have that right
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    basically none of you can hold on to an argument without mentioning WTC 7. weak


    Which is a tad stronger than listening to the "official" story get regurgitated with all the glaring holes in it. Flip the coin?
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • I wonder if somebody as credible as Peter Jennings is turning over in his grave when his voice is used in that Loose Change video saying moments just after the event…

    “The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. We have no idea what caused this. Almost looks like one of those planned implosions. As if a demolition team set off, when you see the whole demolitions of whole buildings. It folded down on itself and it was not there anymore. If you wish to bring anybody who's ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that if you're going to do this, you have to get at the at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.”

    Good thing we got the NIST report to clear everything up for us.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Funny you should mention that. I have read many reports that mention power failures the weeks leading up to the attacks and bomb sniffing dogs being pulled out 2 weeks before the attacks. I also remember reading where there was a lot of unusual people around during those two weeks during the power outages.

    i had posted an article a while back about one of the 2 towers that were hit had the power cut from like floor 50 and up while they performed security upgrades...interesting enough a bush brother ran the security company that handled security fro the wtc's as well as the airports that the hijacked planes originated from...i think his contract ended 9/12 at the wtc
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    jlew24asu wrote:
    basically none of you can hold on to an argument without mentioning WTC 7. weak


    ya know what else is weak?

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=4041038#post4041038

    :D
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • It is unbeleivable to think that the government would/could pull off an event such as 9/11 and keep it a secret. This is the same government that couldn't keep a blow job a secret. The same government that couldn't keep watergate a secret. Given your ridiculuos theories, don't you think the government actually being able to keep a secret of this magnitude is giving them too much crdeit?
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    the looney left will hold onto anything that makes repubs look bad.

    "bush brought down the towers"- Because being in office a year he was able to plan that

    "THe Republicans stole the election..kerry won"- No he lost by a million votes...where the outcry for the midterm elections
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • miller8966 wrote:
    the looney left will hold onto anything that makes repubs look bad.

    "bush brought down the towers"- Because being in office a year he was able to plan that

    "THe Republicans stole the election..kerry won"- No he lost by a million votes...where the outcry for the midterm elections
    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    miller8966 wrote:
    the looney left will hold onto anything that makes repubs look bad.

    "bush brought down the towers"- Because being in office a year he was able to plan that

    "THe Republicans stole the election..kerry won"- No he lost by a million votes...where the outcry for the midterm elections

    Kerry lost by more than a million votes? If we're going by your logic that we should be talking about President Al Gore right now. Having the most votes doesn't mean you are President, hell, if you have the majority of votes in a state doesn't mean you get it's electoral votes and the presidency.

    I don't know many people who don't believe the official 9/11 story who put all the blame on Bush and say HE was behind it. There's no way it was Bush. Are you so naive that you think they would only have 9 months to put all of this together? The PNAC came out in 1999, that gives them plenty of time to put something together. I don't believe it was the gov't who did it, but rouge members inside the gov't.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I don't believe it was the gov't who did it, but rouge members inside the gov't.
    really? and el queda was just a set up?
Sign In or Register to comment.