9/11 Mysteries

Drowned Out

oops

MakingWaves

Drowned Out wrote:

WTC 7 was useless? The exchange commision investigations were nothing, huh? Losing a CIA office when intelligence is about to be scrutinized is no biggie? Because no one died, you're not curious as to why they'd lie about bringing it down intentionally (since you admit it's possible)?

your version is somewhat plausible...but myself, I don't buy that those towers fell so perfectly solely because of planes hitting them. There are one or two other things that don't sit right about that day as well...:rolleyes:

where exactly do you get your information from?

I wouldn't say those towers fell perfectly. Did you see the area of damage that was done by those building falling?

jlew24asu

Drowned Out wrote:

WTC 7 was useless? The exchange commision investigations were nothing, huh? Because no one died, you're not curious as to why they'd lie about bringing it down intentionally (since you admit it's possible)?

useless, meaning it was going to have come down one way or the other. sure I'd be curious to know why they lied. maybe it was liability reasons, maybe money reasons? I dont know. its much more important that not a single person was hurt or killed. but I also dont believe that such a lie could be kept secret. someone would have alot to gain but telling the story of how they took down the building on purpose.

regardless, I believe it came down because of the damage sustained and design of the building.

Drowned Out wrote:

your version is somewhat plausible...but myself, I don't buy that those towers fell so perfectly solely because of planes hitting them. There are one or two other things that don't sit right about that day as well...:rolleyes:

fell perfectly? WTF does that mean. I saw nothing perfect about it. allow me to throw some common sense at you. the planes hit about 2/3 or higher up on the building destroying some major support columns. a very hot fire weakened (not melted) other support beams. WTC was the tallest concrete structure in the world. when the support gives way, the building has no where to go but DOWN. we in the scientific community call that gravity.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

this place cracks me up. 70% ?? fuck it, make it 99.9999

Hey...whatever flies your flag.

Cosmo

The only connection I can see between the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Bush Administration is this...
The Bush Administration (specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice) seized upon the attacks as an opportunity to get at and eliminate Saddam Hussein. I don't believe they orchestrated the attacks... but I DO believe they are opportunists and used the attacks to convince the American people that Hussein must go... otherwise, we can expect to see similar attacks (or worse) on other American cities.
I can imagine the sales pitch and the battle plans for Iraq being drafted by this bunch beginning at about 5:00 P.M. EDT on September 11, 2001.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

You keep dragging me back in.

One jet responded to Payne Stewarts plane and it took about 80 minutes which is about the same amount of time it took the jets to respond on 9/11. Seems consistent to me. What do you think, they sit there with the jets turned on ready to go at a moments notice. Again, sounds good but come back to reality.

There's ground to air missiles also eh? And basically yes. That's their job. They are like firemen waiting for a fire.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

he was handed 2.85 billion because he had insurance. do you need a lesson on how insurance works?

this argument is such bullshit. so what you are saying is silverstein had a hand in organizing, planning, etc the 9/11 attacks so he can cash in his insurance policy ? he is a life long new yorker.

so really, are you saying he hand a hand in 9/11? if so, what role did he play?

there are a few of you jokers on here that firmly believe 9/11 was an inside job but will give NO specifics on who knew and did what.

what role did bush play? how bout cheney? did they call osama in the caves and all agree the 11th would be a good day?

grow a pair.

bush? i don't think so (at least not george)

cheney? yup

call usama? no, did you read the news report of the cia meeting usama in a hospital in dubyai shortly before?

i guess they picked the 11th as a good day considering cheney and rummy changed a war exercise dealing w/ hijacked aircraft to be performed on the 11th far away....

oh, and oddly enough...what happened the day before 9/11?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."

The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the financial statements."

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year," he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy's 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.

In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers."

El_Kabong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You gotta be kidding me. You don't think this could have planned this several months or years in advance?

You doubters just blow my mind. Too funny. You think the gov't is a sacred organization of honest god fearing people that walk on water.

It's just really incredibly naive.

let's not forget when the building was bombed the first time a government/fbi informant told the authorities about the bombs but they let it go ahead anyway??

El_Kabong

MakingWaves wrote:

No, I don't think they are crazy. I just think they are wrong about the building being blown up and a missle hitting the pentagon and all of that type stuff.
If we want to discuss if the administration had knowledge prior to the attacks that something like this was going to happen and were too arrogant to think that it could happen and chose to do nothing, then I would probably agree with a lot of your points. But to me, this part of the theory is absurd.

Also, there are polls that say 70% of the population think it was an inside job and there are polls that say 70% don't believe it was. You can find a poll to fit anything you wish.

so you think rumsfeld is crazy? he said a missile hit the pentagon

El_Kabong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

And you believe the pentagon has such crappy security cameras and so few? You don;t think they had more camera surveillance? Citgo & Sheraton tapes confiscated within minutes of the strike? Still confiscated...still hiding them away. They can't show them because it would show what really happened.

And they raced over immediately to snap up the tapes the second as it happened. Ridiculous.

How can they claim who was in the pentagon plane? zero remains were recovered that plane vaporized but somehow they got fingerprints...uh-huh.

How stupid do they think people are? Oh but it was terrorists...oh yes... big nasty ones.

and on, and on, and on, it goes all the way through the entire 9/11 story.

Oh yeah and their official explanation keeps changing again, and again, and again to counter the accusations as they arise.

The official story holds no water at all. It's junk. Lies.

not to mention a known hijacked plane (about 1 1/2 hrs after the first tower was hit) penetrated DC's multi-trillion $ defense network not once, but TWICE and they couldn't get any fighters from andrew's air force base (10 miles from DC) or anywhere else???? what kinda defense system is this that it could penetrate DC air space and the no fly zone, again 1 1/2 hours AFTER the first hit??????

El_Kabong

polaris wrote:

c'mon ... they knew a bunch of planes were hijacked ... the first plane hit ... and how long before the second one hit and no fighter planes in the air when there was a base close by? ... not even for the pentagon??

cheney waited until right before the pentagon got hit to give the order...and he claims to know it was an attack after the 2nd plane hit!!!

sooooooo...it was "obvios" to him that we "were under attack" and yet he waits so long to send any fighters????? yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

:rolleyes:

El_Kabong

even flow? wrote:

You and your boy from Chicago need to brush up on your English or visit more places then the States for vacations if you can't understand. english, that is a good one.


Not false, but bullshit. A no fly zone get penetrated and nothing goes up. Okay, your not even close to the mark.

penetrated TWICE

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

9/11 commission report?????? pfffffftt so brainwashed. :rolleyes:

isn't that the report that left out pakistan's name or that the head of their ISI (their version of the CIA) wired mohammed atta, what, $100,000 shortly before 9/11 b/c pakistan asked them to???


hahahahahahahaha

and let's not forget one of the co-chairs also said no laws were violated in the iran/contra scandal

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

WTC 7 ? its possible it was taken down on purpose. so I wont go 100% on that one. BUT if it was taken down on purpose, no one died or was hurt. and the building use useless.

I base all my information from www. itsontheinternetsoitmustbetrue.com

except for all the files destroyed getting rid of thousands and thousands of cases the SEC were investigating....

jlew24asu

how many times did you just bust a nut a kabong, christ.

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

not to mention a known hijacked plane (about 1 1/2 hrs after the first tower was hit) penetrated DC's multi-trillion $ defense network not once, but TWICE and they couldn't get any fighters from andrew's air force base (10 miles from DC) or anywhere else???? what kinda defense system is this that it could penetrate DC air space and the no fly zone, again 1 1/2 hours AFTER the first hit??????

honestly, i dont know what the fuck happened that day.

but what your mentioning above will always stick with me. there is no fucking way 2 hijacked planes slam into the wtc in front of the entire world, and the plane headed to dc much later doesnt get intercepted?

that makes zero sense. smells funny.


not to emntion cheney had control of norad and the identical " hijack excercises" that were being run that day.

again. that is very, very, VERY fucking strange

g under p

ledvedderman wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MakingWaves
Who is Marvin Bush. From what I have read they can't even prove they are in fact related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush

This is just too much, another wealthy Bushite waiting in the wings to cease his turn for power and influence. Also I may be wrong but if next year President Bush imposes Marshall Law for whatever can't he still remain in office?

Too much to think about, time for bed here on the right coast.

Peace
Earle

Gary Carter

my2hands wrote:

honestly, i dont know what the fuck happened that day.

but what your mentioning above will always stick with me. there is no fucking way 2 hijacked planes slam into the wtc in front of the entire world, and the plane headed to dc much later doesnt get intercepted?

that makes zero sense. smells funny.


not to emntion cheney had control of norad and the identical " hijack excercises" that were being run that day.

again. that is very, very, VERY fucking strange

i know what happend that day, the govt and president lets us down on 9-11 and thats a sad thing to say. i cant even trust these assholes anymore. no i dont blame bush for it, both bill and bush 1 knew something like this was gonna happen. you think after the first wtc bombing in 93 the govt would of done something, but nope they let it go, to me thats what bothers me the most bout all this and yet now theres reports al queda is stronger then before 9-11, to me thats fucking scary. im so glad i take a train into penn or grand centeral station to go to work, thats how there gonna get us next. it worked in spain and worked in london.this whole thing just makes me sick

El_Kabong

Cosmo wrote:

The only connection I can see between the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Bush Administration is this...
The Bush Administration (specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice) seized upon the attacks as an opportunity to get at and eliminate Saddam Hussein. I don't believe they orchestrated the attacks... but I DO believe they are opportunists and used the attacks to convince the American people that Hussein must go... otherwise, we can expect to see similar attacks (or worse) on other American cities.
I can imagine the sales pitch and the battle plans for Iraq being drafted by this bunch beginning at about 5:00 P.M. EDT on September 11, 2001.

their roadmap for america they laid out a year earlier stated clearly the need to occupy /control iraq as well as break the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and build more nukes, militarize space, cut social spending to put into 'defense'....and the only way to get enough support was if a "new pearl harbor were to occur"

it could be coincidental, but i think at the very least certain ppl helped stir the nest...the cia and isi have extensive ties w/ the groups we helped arm and train in the 80's...we even used some of them in the 90's, too

then the head of the isi had mohammed atta wired a hundred grand or so shortly before....?

then what of this?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=250573

????

it is obvious they want more and more war and weapons, it is equally obvious they need justification for it

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=250954

the plan isn't to ever leave completely, we will always have a presence there, maybe it will be private contractors like blackwater, i don't know, but i don't think we ever meant to leave...the embassies, the bases....if we do, and we just plan to turn these over...can't we maybe...scale them down a bit? hell, even if we plan to stay do we really need all that?

69charger

Jenga!