9/11 Mysteries

2456712

Comments

  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274

    I have posted this on here plenty of times but because the Senior Editor of Popular Mechanics or something like that is someones 3rd cousin in the Bush Administration he is also part of the conspiracy.

    They choose to ignore the information in the article is based on scientific fact.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    I have posted this on here plenty of times but because the Senior Editor of Popular Mechanics or something like that is someones 3rd cousin in the Bush Administration he is also part of the conspiracy.

    They choose to ignore the information in the article is based on scientific fact.

    hahaha

    Here's some info on building 7

    WTC 7 Collapse
    CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

    FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

    WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    The funny thing is that these people can't offer any scientific proof to discredit Popular Mechanics or any of the science in their article.

    When they can't, they then proceed to turn toward conspiracy theories about who got the terrorists to do it. Ignoring anything that doesn't fit with an Anti-Bush, Anti-U.S. Government lean, they assess the information and mold it to fit their biases.

    This is pseudo-scientific babbling by nincompoops that don't know anything about engineering, detonation, the U.S. government, or Islamic extremism.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    hahaha

    Here's some info on building 7

    WTC 7 Collapse
    CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

    FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

    WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

    They will say, "How convenient that they needed more time after people started questioning how it collapsed."
    Again, this is another hollow arguement. The simple fact is it just took more time to figure out what happened and these facts are now supported by scientific evidence.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    They will say, "How convenient that they needed more time after people started questioning how it collapsed."
    Again, this is another hollow arguement. The simple fact is it just took more time to figure out what happened and these facts are now supported by scientific evidence.

    What it comes down to is this:

    Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

    Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

    They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    What it comes down to is this:

    Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

    Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

    They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.


    Some don't subscibe to your government as you do.

    http://www.reopen911.org/
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • What it comes down to is this:

    Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

    Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

    They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.

    This is why it's so pointless to try to discuss these things here. Many people on this board have given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinions and research but no matter how many times these things are posted, hard headed people like yourself will just pretend like these things have never been posted and continue to spout off bullshit claims like:

    "Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

    Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists."

    That's why I don't want to even bother with it anymore...you're just going to ignore it all anyway no matter what is posted. It's pointless to keep trying.
    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
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    7 was not demolished but you ask a good question.
    When did they rig up the building?
    How come no one saw them doing this?
    How were they able to get away with rigging the building when I am sure it would have taken weeks?
    How did they get behind the walls to the structural support without anyone working in the building seeing them do this?

    I need someone to answer my questions with FACTS not theories you saw on youtube.


    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211248
    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
    hahaha

    Here's some info on building 7

    WTC 7 Collapse
    CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

    FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

    WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


    i thought the head nist investigator said he had "no idea" what happened to building 7?????
    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
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    This is why it's so pointless to try to discuss these things here. Many people on this board have given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinions and research but no matter how many times these things are posted, hard headed people like yourself will just pretend like these things have never been posted and continue to spout off bullshit claims like:

    "Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

    Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists."

    That's why I don't want to even bother with it anymore...you're just going to ignore it all anyway no matter what is posted. It's pointless to keep trying.

    You are correct that it is pointless to discuss on here. Many people on this board have also given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinion...so on and so on. And hard headed people like you also pretend these things have never been posted spout off bullshit claims.

    That is why I also don't bother anymore. I don't know why i jumped back into this one.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    El_Kabong wrote:

    These points have already had so many holes poked in them that they can be ignored in my opinion.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • You are correct that it is pointless to discuss on here. Many people on this board have also given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinion...so on and so on. And hard headed people like you also pretend these things have never been posted spout off bullshit claims.

    That is why I also don't bother anymore. I don't know why i jumped back into this one.

    Like what? That same Popular Mechanics piece that has an obvious bias...you guys treat it like the holy grail.
    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
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    Like what? That same Popular Mechanics piece that has an obvious bias...you guys treat it like the holy grail.

    Why does the Popular Mechanics have an obivous bias...because of someone who works at Popular Mechanics?? Show something in that article that is biased and not based on fact.

    Why do I bother with this? It is a circle of arguements with one side that I believe is based on nothing but theories and speculation. No facts. Like I said before, I appreciate other peoples opinions but just in this instance I don't think you could be more wrong. The simple fact of how many people would be involved with this conspiracy to stay a conspiracy is too much for me to believe.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • Why does the Popular Mechanics have an obivous bias...because of someone who works at Popular Mechanics?? Show something in that article that is biased and not based on fact.

    Why do I bother with this? It is a circle of arguements with one side that I believe is based on nothing but theories and speculation. No facts. Like I said before, I appreciate other peoples opinions but just in this instance I don't think you could be more wrong. The simple fact of how many people would be involved with this conspiracy to stay a conspiracy is too much for me to believe.
    yes, theories and speculations but all based on hard and convincing evidence...

    if you do... provide a link to an argument about this... something with hard evidence that suggests otherwise.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Why does the Popular Mechanics have an obivous bias...because of someone who works at Popular Mechanics?? Show something in that article that is biased and not based on fact.

    Why do I bother with this? It is a circle of arguements with one side that I believe is based on nothing but theories and speculation. No facts. Like I said before, I appreciate other peoples opinions but just in this instance I don't think you could be more wrong. The simple fact of how many people would be involved with this conspiracy to stay a conspiracy is too much for me to believe.

    yes, there have been FACTS posted...you might not like them but that doesn't negate their existance.

    There have been plenty of 'conspiracies' that have included numerous people to pull them off. That statement doesn't make or break the argument for either side.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=249173
    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
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Like what? That same Popular Mechanics piece that has an obvious bias...you guys treat it like the holy grail.

    LOL

    The PM piece has a bias but you don't, of course!
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • http://jonesreport.com/articles/100806_debunking_lies.html


    Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

    It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

    The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

    Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

    Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

    This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

    continued further in link
    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
  • LOL

    The PM piece has a bias but you don't, of course!

    I don't have any direct interests conflicting with mine.
    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
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    yes, there have been FACTS posted...you might not like them but that doesn't negate their existance.

    There have been plenty of 'conspiracies' that have included numerous people to pull them off. That statement doesn't make or break the argument for either side.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=249173

    In my opinion there have not been any facts posted that support these claims. An you are right about plenty of 'conspiracies' including numerous people. I for one believe in the JFK conspiracy but it would have involved a handful of people on the inside and the people who were outside that circle were killed. In this instance we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of people who would have to be involved and to me that just isn't possible.

    But hey, I like you and have read a lot of your posts and you are obviously a smart person. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i thought the head nist investigator said he had "no idea" what happened to building 7?????

    Don't worry, that still doesn't even come close to addressing Popular Mechanic's expert testimony from all across the scientific spectrum. Pick out another random detail about 9/11, though.

    They interviewed top rate engineers from universities whereas you've read a few crackpot blogs and seen some YouTube videos. But no! I'm going to agree with you. You've got things figured out.

    This explains why you are completely incapable of addressing the scientific data. Nothing 9/11 Truth people say has anything to do with science because that would open their claims up to intelligent discourse, which would quickly destroy them on contact.

    You can tell their ideas are completely unreasonable because when confronted with legitimate engineers on the issue, they all switch their arguments. That is the mark of a lousy theorist.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • In my opinion there have not been any facts posted that support these claims. An you are right about plenty of 'conspiracies' including numerous people. I for one believe in the JFK conspiracy but it would have involved a handful of people on the inside and the people who were outside that circle were killed. In this instance we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of people who would have to be involved and to me that just isn't possible.

    But hey, I like you and have read a lot of your posts and you are obviously a smart person. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    I always like your posts, too....just not the ones concerning 9/11. :p

    It's cool...we can definitely agree to disagree. :)
    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
  • mookie9999mookie9999 Posts: 4,677
    I have posted this on here plenty of times but because the Senior Editor of Popular Mechanics or something like that is someones 3rd cousin in the Bush Administration he is also part of the conspiracy.

    I didn't realize that Bush or anyone in his family or his cabinet's family believed in Science. Interesting.
    "The leads are weak!"

    "The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"

    "What's your name?"

    "FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,274
    mookie9999 wrote:
    I didn't realize that Bush or anyone in his family or his cabinet's family believed in Science. Interesting.

    That is funny.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • Don't worry, that still doesn't even come close to addressing Popular Mechanic's expert testimony from all across the scientific spectrum. Pick out another random detail about 9/11, though.

    They interviewed top rate engineers from universities whereas you've read a few crackpot blogs and seen some YouTube videos. But no! I'm going to agree with you. You've got things figured out.

    This explains why you are completely incapable of addressing the scientific data. Nothing 9/11 Truth people say has anything to do with science because that would open their claims up to intelligent discourse, which would quickly destroy them on contact.

    You can tell their ideas are completely unreasonable because when confronted with legitimate engineers on the issue, they all switch their arguments. That is the mark of a lousy theorist.

    Those are bullshit claims. Any quick search of the 9/11 threads would prove that. but please...continue to say whatever you want... whether it's true or not apparently means nothing to you.
    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
  • i don't believe in science... :rolleyes:
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Those are bullshit claims. Any quick search of the 9/11 threads would prove that. but please...continue to say whatever you want... whether it's true or not apparently means nothing to you.

    You guys don't know shit about 9/11
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • You guys don't know shit about 9/11

    Since you said it...it must be true!
    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
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    g under p wrote:
    I'm sure by now many have seen various videos and movies on 9/II. However, take a look at this movie called 9/II Mysteries and please share your opinion on what you think? Forgive if this has been posted here before but I had my doubts on 9/II the Twin Towers and who would profit from their demise. This is only my 2nd post here.

    This movie somewhat ties in with that other movie posted here "Zeitheist" which begs us to "Question Authority" then make be accountable.


    Peace Everybody
    Earle

    nice to have you here earle

    check who profits from inventing the mysteries. if you can't believe your eyes then you can't believe your mind. nobody profited from 9/11. it cost us all something whether it be tax dollars or losing a loved one.
    look at the fact that even if washington knew the time of the attack a week in advance; what could they do? a preemptive strike would have put the world in an uproar. the hijackers were already in the us so grounding all aircraft would have been the only solution. once again the country would be in an uproar.
    conspiracy theories sell books and tele shows. that's where the profit is. there was also a lot of profit to anyone that had pictures or video of the attack. that day brought the highest price; it was lower the next day. anyone with video sold it and it was public within a week. now we see videos surfacing 6 years later. do you think this person saved this video or maybe doctored an existing video?
    if bush had any profit from the attack; i'd like someone to tell me what it was. it actually cost him. it cost him popularity and he couldn't follow through with projects and programs he wanted to do. so he paid the highest price.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    You guys don't know shit about 9/11

    you're right. they don't. who here is an expert that can really say? not one. we just pass BS around and come up with hair brained theories. it's our way of wasting time. it's our way of pointing fingers. people think if they say it enough others will start to believe.
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    if bush had any profit from the attack; i'd like someone to tell me what it was. it actually cost him. it cost him popularity and he couldn't follow through with projects and programs he wanted to do. so he paid the highest price.


    The guy had the world in his pocket and only after trying to convince them that there was no need to go and bomb the fuckhead's countries back into the stone age who were actually behind the plot and to go after Iraq is when his little world came crumbling down. Only after that mistake. 911 made him a god and he couldn't even run with that properly.
    You've changed your place in this world!
Sign In or Register to comment.