I absolutely agree with that. I don't think that the government has been anything close to forthcoming or honest in regards to 9/11. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but that it no way means that I believe the "official" version. I do think things have been covered up, not because the government plotted the whole thing, but to cover up their bumbling incompetence. That was my hunch a few years ago ... seeing their performance during Katrina reinforced that hunch to the point where it's now a pretty firm belief.
I think it goes deeper than that but to each their own. The government couldn't keep this kinda thing covered but I believe a few powerful people inside the government with ties elsewhere could. It could go either way, no one knows for sure. There's just so much that seems convenient, fishy and just straight up doesn't make sense about that day.
Ten Dude wrote:
Perhaps the biggest one would be the fact that this administration didn't want any part of having an "investigation" on the calamity and once they gave in, would only testify behind closed doors, without taking an oath.
BBC reported the building had collapsed before 5 pm. It didn't actually fall until 5:20. Later they go to this lady in NYC for live coverage of the event and there's the building, still standing, right behind her head! Just watch the clip.
they just ran an old video behind her...
I find this the least damning. How many Presidents/VPs have testified in open session, under oath, while in office, in front of a panel of investigators?
if this has been discussed already, i apologize..
if it hasn't..
and watch the video. a BBC journalist in NYC is reporting live on the collapse of building 7. the only problem is... you can see the building standing behind her - it didn't collapse until almost a half hour later.
Ten Dude wrote:
Far too many of our nation's leaders have skirted testimony, under oath, while in office, in front of panel of investigators. That's one of the fundamental problems with the current arrangement. And after 9.11, the Bush admin. didn't want any part of having an "investigation."
What kind of message does that send?
BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed before 5 pm. Building 7 didn't fall until 5:20pm.
A sitting President has testified only once in an open session of a congressional hearing under oath as far as I know. In 1975 Ford did, when a congressional committee quizzed him about his pardon of Nixon. Have there been others?
Since this has happened only once in our 250 year history, I tend to see this as an extremely rare exception. It may not send the right message - I'm not arguing that point; but my point was that I don't see how it is damning evidence of foul play, since there is simply no real precedence for this to happen.
Ten Dude wrote:
I think 9/11 trumps the Watergate scandal, no? And for an administration to initially NOT want to cooperate with an investigation speaks volumes. What do they have to hide? Why would these people not want to embrace and support an investigation?
I find it damning because they were against having any kind of investigation following the worst attack in this country's history. It sure as hell would have been good precedence for taking a lead and actually showing some sort of leadership and accountability by way of government investigation.
I know what you're saying. I was just pointing out that sitting presidents don't agree to open sessions, under oath, before partisan bodies. Just the way it has been/is/always will be.
I completely agree with your last sentence. I am no fan of government in general, and would love to see more accountability.
They do know why it fell. I don't care who the editor or owner of Popular Mechanics is but this is from their article debunking 9/11 conspiracy with science.
"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."
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”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".
as for the 10 story gash...
The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, 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 façade.
no pics or evidence of this? guess we'll just have to take them at their word, eh?
I don’t really consider myself a conspiracy type, but every time I step back, I cannot help but see the move where a chess player sacrifices an asbestos laden rook to get a pawn queened in the middle east.
Crazy enough, I can't really disparage their methods since it worked pretty masterfully.
Very similar to how Australian news had reported Kennedy's shooting before it actually happened.
wow is that true? that is not at all similar btw.
an engineer can look at wtc7 and suspect it might collapse. and then someone can confuse or exaggerate that a collapse is near or happened.
someone taking a wild guess that the president would be shot is a whole other ballpark.
Well, a 47-story building falling down...is a pretty big thing. The shots fired in Dallas on November 22, on the motorcade, with all the speculation the President had been shot...the media kept their mouths shut until the official word came out.
The towers had fallen. The big ones. To pretend that a building as large as WT7 falling at that point in the day was somehow less than important than anything else that had happened that day is a bit of a stretch.
ok so this tells me she is a idiot. what else am I supposed to ascertain from it?
I believe you're are personally involved Jlew. What did you say you did for a living again? Covert demolition incorporated or something, wasn't it? :eek:
Yet, that's how's its been played, treated.
That's why I think it was being played, even on that day.
o yea I remember. your the guy who talks to himself.
and you're the one-sentence wonder. no offense, i've seen you make a good post or two, but i can tell by the replies you've made on this subjuect that you're not altogether certain what this is all about, either.