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

chopitdown

El_Kabong wrote:

'it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse'

'resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure'

this doesn't look like a disproportionate collapse, looks pretty uniform to me...

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

where, exactly, is it disproportionate???

and are you a structural engineer? I'm honestly asking. Disproportionate doesn't have to mean grossly disproportionate. If the interior of the structure collapsed before the west penthouse (or whatever) do you know if that would even manifest in something that could be picked up visually and externally?

The Illinoisemakers

Maybe at first the German public didn't believe that their gov't was running concentration camps, but it had to have become pretty apparent when they were being setup in their back yards, or when all the Jews in their towns started to disappear. We are 5 years past 9/11, and there is not one piece of credible evidence that supports a conspiracy. I would expect that one of the 1,000 of people it would take to put together the 9/11 conspiracy would have talked by now, or the people who 'didn't really die in the planes used, because they were taken to an air base in ohio, and then to area-51' would have some how gotten word out to someone.

I don't know one person who has had the gov't perform a 'seceret wire tap' on them or who has lost their due process, because they were preceived to be a terrorist. The notion that your civil liberities are being thrown down the toilet is just false. The worst thing that has happened to me since 9/11 is once after a flight my luggage was zip tied shut and when I opened it a nice card was set on top of my stuff telling me homeland security had searched my bag. Big deal, I'm glad they did, and I hope they do that to everyone. If it keeps on plane from being blown out of the sky, we should be all for it. Why is it ok for use to use these techniques on suspected drug dealers & smugglers, but when it comes to terrorist suspects its a violation of everyones civil liberities? It makes no sense.

Abookamongstthemany

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Maybe at first the German public didn't believe that their gov't was running concentration camps, but it had to have become pretty apparent when they were being setup in their back yards, or when all the Jews in their towns started to disappear. We are 5 years past 9/11, and there is not one piece of credible evidence that supports a conspiracy. I would expect that one of the 1,000 of people it would take to put together the 9/11 conspiracy would have talked by now, or the people who 'didn't really die in the planes used, because they were taken to an air base in ohio, and then to area-51' would have some how gotten word out to someone.

I don't know one person who has had the gov't perform a 'seceret wire tap' on them or who has lost their due process, because they were preceived to be a terrorist. The notion that your civil liberities are being thrown down the toilet is just false. The worst thing that has happened to me since 9/11 is once after a flight my luggage was zip tied shut and when I opened it a nice card was set on top of my stuff telling me homeland security had searched my bag. Big deal, I'm glad they did, and I hope they do that to everyone. If it keeps on plane from being blown out of the sky, we should be all for it. Why is it ok for use to use these techniques on suspected drug dealers & smugglers, but when it comes to terrorist suspects its a violation of everyones civil liberities? It makes no sense.

What would be credible enough for you? Do you think that it would be somehow easy to go against that amount of power and influence? Lives could easily be turned upside or worse. These are people with tons of power. Even people that ratted out the mob had to go under witness protection. So how do you think a person would feel going up against a group with ties to the military and it's technology? So that alone isn't enough to make me believe the official theory.

Abookamongstthemany

chopitdown wrote:

and are you a structural engineer? I'm honestly asking. Disproportionate doesn't have to mean grossly disproportionate. If the interior of the structure collapsed before the west penthouse (or whatever) do you know if that would even manifest in something that could be picked up visually and externally?

I realize that this isn't the same building but it seems pretty odd to me that this building suffered much more damage and didn't collapse.
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/02/310954.jpg

The amount of damage to WTC7 from the clips I've seen didn't seem to be near as bad as buildings much closer to the towers which didn't collapse. I certainly wouldn't have guessed that it would collapse.

chopitdown

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I realize that this isn't the same building but it seems pretty odd to me that this building suffered much more damage and didn't collapse.
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/02/310954.jpg

The amount of damage to WTC7 from the clips I've seen didn't seem to be near as bad as buildings much closer to the towers which didn't collapse. I certainly wouldn't have guessed that it would collapse.

that building does look a lot worse off than WTC 7...the only I know to do with it is ask questions re: age of that building, height of the building, design...I don't know squat about structural engineering (except if a building is standing it's sound and if it falls, it ceases to be sound).

Unless we had video cameras inside the WTC towers we will truly never know. I wouldn't have guessed it would have collapsed just from looking, but I'll analogize it to something I do know...I wouldn't guess by looking at some people they have cancer, yet people do have that. All that we can do is hypothesize about what the structural integrity was and what possibly brought it down.

DPrival78

chopitdown wrote:

and are you a structural engineer? I'm honestly asking. Disproportionate doesn't have to mean grossly disproportionate. If the interior of the structure collapsed before the west penthouse (or whatever) do you know if that would even manifest in something that could be picked up visually and externally?

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.

The Illinoisemakers

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What would be credible enough for you? Do you think that it would be somehow easy to go against that amount of power and influence? Lives could easily be turned upside or worse. These are people with tons of power. Even people that ratted out the mob had to go under witness protection. So how do you think a person would feel going up against a group with ties to the military and it's technology? So that alone isn't enough to make me believe the official theory.

There are people who work for the gov't who question it all the time. Joe Wilson and Erek Whatata (sp) come to mind. It would take thousands of people to pull off 9/11, and to not have one of them or a group of them come out and admit involvement, just lends more proof that it wasn't a conspiracy. Some want to believe so badly that it was a conspiracy, keeping reaching I guess.

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

'it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse'

'resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure'

this doesn't look like a disproportionate collapse, looks pretty uniform to me...

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

where, exactly, is it disproportionate???

I was going to post essentially what chopitdown said so I don't need to repeat myself.

So let's debate a single topic to an end without diversion or distraction. I'd like to address the Pentagon or WTC 1 or 2. These are the events that have the best documentation. If you want to continue with WTC 7 that's fine. Pick one and let's put this to rest.

Ready?

DPrival78

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

There are people who work for the gov't who question it all the time. Joe Wilson and Erek Whatata (sp) come to mind. It would take thousands of people to pull off 9/11, and to not have one of them or a group of them come out and admit involvement, just lends more proof that it wasn't a conspiracy. Some want to believe so badly that it was a conspiracy, keeping reaching I guess.

i don't think that "thousands" would need to know what was going on. with all the wargames going on that day involving hijackings and planes crashing into buildings, many people could have been fooled into thinking that what was happening was just part of a drill. as an example, there are tapes of air traffic controllers expressing confusion, saying "is this real world or exercise". people may have been part of something that they didn't realize.

The Illinoisemakers

DPrival78 wrote:

i don't think that "thousands" would need to know what was going on. with all the wargames going on that day involving hijackings and planes crashing into buildings, many people could have been fooled into thinking that what was happening was just part of a drill. as an example, there are tapes of air traffic controllers expressing confusion, saying "is this real world or exercise". people may have been part of something that they didn't realize.

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.

trappedinmyradio

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

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.

DPrival78

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

The Waiting Trophy Man

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?

trappedinmyradio

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.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

trappedinmyradio

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.

El_Kabong

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

jlew24asu

basically none of you can hold on to an argument without mentioning WTC 7. weak

ledvedderman

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.