Home | Community | Message Board


Radical Mycology Book by Chthaeus Press
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact'
    #3169215 - 09/23/04 10:42 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact



By Randy Lavello

By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn?t it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. The time has come to admit the sorry truth as a nation, so that we can move on - as a nation.

The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks. Let?s recount some facts of that dreadful day.

Any time an aircraft deviates from it?s course, the air traffic controller requests a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. This was the first time interceptors were not sent up in the history of this policy. The intercept pilots are trained to make a visual check of the cockpit? could this be the reason these interceptors were intercepted? Planes were sent to the New York area, after unprecedented delay, from Falmouth, Massachusetts rather than nearby Ft. Dix or Laguardia. Of course, they didn?t arrive in time - there was no visual scan of the cockpits.

Captain Kent Hill, retired from the Air Force, explained that the U.S. had flown unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, on preprogrammed flight paths from Edwards Air Force Base, California to Australia on several occasions. He believes the airliners used in the attacks had their on board computers knocked out and were subsequently choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System. Along side Captain Hill, an Air Force officer with more than 100 sorties in Vietnam stated, ?Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.? We know that the technology exists to fly hijacked commercial airliners by remote control - it?s called ?Globalhawk.? We also know that the military has had an unmanned drone aircraft known as the ?Predator,? since 1994. A saboteur would merely have to reprogram the controls to switch from manual to remote; those airliners practically fly themselves already with the autopilot. This would require electronic security codes? acquisition of electronic codes would also explain the lapse of interceptor response due to sabotage. Furthermore, it?s a fact that Air Force One codes were known and punched in by a rogue source on 9/11, proving the presence of an inside, subversive element.

As usual, it?s not a good conspiracy, if it doesn?t involve a Bush! Introducing Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it?s an electronic security company, which was ?coincidentally? involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ?handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.? How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers? Bush?s presidency was saved by these attacks - just something to think about.

Five of the twenty ?suicide hijackers? are alive and well according to the BBC and they want their names cleared. So who was flying those planes? We may never know exactly what happened with those jets; what we do know is that the official version crumbles under scrutiny. These planes were merely a diversion, as proven by the presence of bombs? that?s right, PROVEN!

Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, ?many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they?re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ?higher-ups? forbid discussion of this fact.? Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department?s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. ?There were definitely bombs in those buildings,? he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ?pancaked? as it?s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel?s ?don?t trust a truss? explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, ?You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don?t just implode like that; this was a demolition.?

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, ?We think there were bombs set in the building.? Notice he said ?we?. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn?t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.

The seismic record from Columbia University?s observatory in Palisades, NY (21 miles away) provides indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down those towers. At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph. At the precise moment the North Tower began collapsing, a 2.3 earthquake registered; however, as the buildings started to crumble these waves disappeared. The two ?spikes?on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves. If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes. Furthermore, a ?sharp spike of short duration? is how underground nuclear explosions register on seismographs. Underground explosions, where the steel columns meet Manhattans granite would account for both the demolition-style implosions and these ?spikes? on the seismograph. Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.

The American Free Press reported that in the basements of the collapsed towers, where 47 central support columns (per building) connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the attack. There is only one explanation for this: An explosion of unprecedented magnitude destroyed the bases of the columns, then the massive structures buried the impact points, trapping the intense heat below for all that time.

The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure? yet this tower collapsed first. Just before this collapse, the firefighters were up on the burning levels and were heard saying, ?Battalion seven? Ladder fifteen, we?ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.? How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode? Paul Isaac told me, ?Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.?

Why was no investigation permitted of the debris? Dr W. Gene Corley headed the FEMA sponsored engineering assessment of the World Trade Center collapse, which performed no tests on the steel for traces of explosives. When asked about this process known as ?twinning,? he responded, ?I am not a metallurgist.? Dr. Corley also ?investigated? the debris at Waco and Oklahoma City? and we all know how thoroughly those ?investigations? were performed.

No government agency performed forensic examinations of the rubble; no effort was made to validate their official story. The rubble was quickly loaded onto ships and delivered to China for smelting. These are the actions of criminals disposing of evidence! By these actions, FEMA proves itself to be a subversive element in our government!

Former Deputy Director of the FBI, John P. O?Neil stated, ?The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.? Can you think of anyone (Bush) linked to both wealthy Saudi Arabians and U.S. corporate oil? John O?Neil resigned from the FBI after 31 years of service after Barbara Bodine, currently part of the Iraqi transition team, barred him from following up his investigation of the attack on the U.S.S Cole. He took a job heading security at the World Trade Center? his first day of work - September 11, 2001. John O?Neil received the job from Jerome Howard, Former Director of the New York Office of Emergency Management, who happened to have the day off on 9/11. We may only speculate on the case of Mr. O?Neil, but he does seem to be a person which U.S. oil corporate interests would want out of the way? especially during these wars for oil and power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The top FBI officials in Minneapolis called off investigations of Zacarais Moussaoui, causing bitter resentment among field agents. The man who made the decision not to investigate was promoted! Israeli intelligence agents lived next to the alleged hijackers in Hollywood, Florida. The ?hijackers? were trained at U.S. government flight schools. Insider training on United Airlines leads to the conclusion that there was foreknowledge of these attacks; it also establishes that those with this foreknowledge are, at least, relatively wealthy. Another suspicious finding is that the World Trade Center was sold to Vornado Realty Trust in February, seven months prior to the attacks for 3.25 billion dollars? this doesn?t prove anything, it?s merely suspicious.

Who gained the most from the attacks of September 11th? Who had the motive? An Israeli expert on terrorism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ehud Sprinzak said, ?From the perspective of Jews, it is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favor.? David Stern, an expert on Israeli intelligence operations stated, ?This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both Air Force One flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and aerial assault tactics on sensitive U.S. cities like Washington.? He elaborated that the attacks ?serve no Arab group or nation?s interest, but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel?? He goes on to claim ?A U.S. military intelligence report revealed details of an international intelligence memo linking Mossad to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The memo was in circulation three weeks before the attacks.?

Furthering the suspicion of Mossad involvement, five Israelis were seen atop a van smiling and celebrating, while taking videos of the disaster from across the Hudson River. These five were arrested by the FBI and detained for two months before being deported back to Israel. Two of these men were positively identified as Israeli intelligence agents. Eighty-one nations are represented among the World Trade Center?s dead - Israel is not one of these nations even though approximately 1200 of its citizens worked there. As if that wasn?t enough, an instant messaging firm in Israel, named Odigo, received warnings about the towers two hours before the attacks. Everyone who points out the wrongdoings of Israel is immediately labeled ?anti-Semitic?? well, the truth knows no race or religion - it?s just the truth. These aren?t Jews carrying out these plans; it?s merely sick animals who hide behind the Jews!

WorldTradeCenter.com describes David Rockefeller as the ?Visionary behind the World Trade Center.? He pushed the construction of these towers through major opposition with the aid of his brother, then governor, Nelson Rockefeller. David has been quoted as saying, ?We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.? Was this the ?right major crisis? to advance the aims of a global government?

There is overwhelming evidence to support the findings that these alleged Arab terrorists were merely scapegoats used to advance the World Government agend. During the attacks, ?President? George Jr. was reading a book with school children about goats! (Scapegoats?) Arab terrorists did not carry out these attacks which were detrimental to the Muslim world.

All evidence points to elements inside, high atop the governments of Israel and the United States. Those wishing to implement their world government through their control over finance, media and militaries are guilty of these most heinous crimes. This atrocity is proving to advance the domestic police state agendas and consolidate the Middle East?s oil reserves. The people who most benefited from these attacks are the wealthiest, most privileged and powerful men on earth who feel they will finally be able to hold dominion over the nations of the world through their New World Order. For some of these globalists, these attacks were merely a means to an end - a huge step toward ruling a world socialist system. But for others, likely the planners of such a vile crime, this was a mass sacrifice to themselves. This mass ritual sacrifice of the vulnerable and the heroes who tried to save them was perpetrated by power crazed freaks who are simply - satanic.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
    #3169314 - 09/23/04 11:31 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

:thumbup: :sad: :alert:


--------------------
To old for this place


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
    #3169365 - 09/23/04 11:57 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph.

If explosives had been used, we would have detected the 2.1 'earthquake' a few seconds before the south tower began to collapse, not at the precise moment that it started to collapse.  The 'earthquake' detected was from the building falling, not from explosives... the seismographs that I have played with can detect a person walking or a car driving down a road.

The two ?spikes?on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves.

This could simply be the top half of the building slamming into the bottom half of the building with the split between halves being where the plane struck.

If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses.

Only true if the buildings were floating... the superstructure of the building would easily have transmitted the forces from the intial collapse into the foudation...

Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes.

No... in other words, most of the energy went into breaking things apart as they were falling rather than being transfered into the ground through the foundation.  While the substructure was intact, at the beginning of the collapase, I would expect a large force to be transfered into the ground, but as the collapase proceeded, this structure needed to transfer the energy would have been destroyed.  The break already landed would absorb a tremendous amount of energy as more rubble landed upon it.

This is the difference between hitting a bowl of hardened concrete and a bowl of sand.  The sand, just like the rubble, absorbs a lot of energy and doesn't hurt much when you hit it.  The concrete on the other hand, which is like the solid foundation at the start of the collapse, hurts a lot when you hit it.

Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.

Exactly...thank you for making my point for me... the building, which is coupled to the ground, would transfer energy from the initial collapse into the ground.  As the coupling into the ground was destroyed, the energy transfer would taper off... which is what the data shows.

If a bomb were used, there would be a very small initial spike, followed by an increase as the building started down, followed by a decline as the rubble built up... this is not what was seen.

If a nuke was used we would have a large and easily detectable amount contamination which could not be cleaned away and could easily be detected for tens of years, if not hundreds of years.

hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the attack.

Steel holds heat very well.  Ground is a good heat insulator which is why basements are always cool even in the summer.  The mass of the molten steel was not mentioned, but would be a huge number.  The energy released by the falling building was similiar to that of a small nuclear bomb... why is it surprising that molten steel was found more than a month later?

Paul Isaac told me, ?Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.?

So if I cut a hole in a tree and let termites eat out the center, the tree must fall in the direction of the hole that I cut?  If the impact of the plane had brought the tower down, then there would be a point here... but the fire melting away the superstructure brought the building down, not the impact of the plane.

/me thinks these consipracy nuts should take a few more engineering classes before spouting out bad science as fact.  :rolleyes:  I could tear apart the rest of his "science", but it is a waste of my time...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: Seuss]
    #3169459 - 09/23/04 12:19 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I'm gonna have to go with the fella's at Columbia University, but you gave it a good shot, thanks.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
    #3169465 - 09/23/04 12:20 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

If by bombs you mean two passanger planes flew into them then this is definatly worth looking into. :blush:

...give me a break.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Edited by Innvertigo (09/23/04 12:54 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3169502 - 09/23/04 12:29 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

> I'm gonna have to go with the fella's at Columbia University, but you gave it a good shot, thanks.

I went with the fella's from Columbia University... read carefully... nowhere do they claim that a bomb was used to drop the building... the nut that wrote the article sneaks in his own fantasy around the quotes from experts making it sound as if he were an expert and that the experts are agreeing with him.

Quote:

Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.?




Is the only quote from anybody at Columbia University, and I agree 100% with what he says. The fact that only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion in no way implies that a bomb was responsible for the collapse.

Edit:

Actually, there is one more statement that isn't quoted by somebody frmo Columbia University:

Quote:

Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.




... which actually helps show that a bomb wasn't used... "Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes", yet no explosions were seen...

Taken with his previous words:

Quote:

Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. ... "Building don?t just implode like that; this was a demolition.?




If it were a big explosion as claimed, then why did the fireman say the building imploded... I would expect an explosion from a big bomb, not an implosion. Firemen should stick to putting out fires and leave civil engineering to civil engineers.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,289
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 12 days, 33 minutes
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
    #3169634 - 09/23/04 01:15 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I used to get annoyed by all of these conspiricy theories. I mean, on 9-11 I knew it was only a matter of time... before the tin hats came out. But... the consparicy theories are getting fun... as well as easy to disprove.

The first theory I heard: THE JEWS WERE TIPPED OFF! And they didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9-11. I mean who in the world would rather see America go to war with Islamic extremist Terrorists? Israel of course! They had to set it up!

I also heard some bullshit that passenger jets weren't used in the attacks. Of course! There were four UNMARKED planes used that day. This is why all the videos of the attacks show passanger jets... and all the murdered passenger's belongings were found among the rubble.

But... THIS ARTICLE TODAY TAKES THE CAKE!

What a crock of shit.

Since I was THERE, in Downtown Manhattan on 9-11, why don't I tell you what I saw, heard and smelled:

The biggest explosions came when the planes (full of jet fuel) hit the towers.

The towers both collapsed from the point of impact. You could see the tops of both towers tilting and sliding off center before the towers collapsed. I could both feel, and hear their collapse.

The WTC complex was the biggest building complex IN THE WORLD! When it fell, the fire burned FOR THREE MONTHS! I smelled it burn (nothing smells like a skyscraper). It is no surprise to me why molten metal was found a month after 9-11. The WTC was still on fire! It was the biggest building complex in the world, and it was turned into the biggest burning heap of rubble in the world. After the collapse, the fire burned below ground and could only be extinguished as the rubble was removed. Believe what you wish. I chose to believe my nose. After all... my nose (while not Columbia educated) was there.

Trust me, with all the cameras in the world trained on the WTC on 9-11. You would have been able to see the explosions that took 'em down. But you don't even need to look. It is a waste of time...

You see...

The proof, that the buildings fell because of airplanes can be found by looking at the terrorist's actions... and plans.

The first tower was hit near the top of the building. This is because the terrorists hoped to knock the building over, not down. They wanted the WTC to fall on its side (this would have caused MUCH more damage... if you can believe it).

When the second plane came around, the pilot saw that the first tower was on fire, but still standing... so... he did what any good terrorist hijacker would do... he hit the second tower LOWER than the first.

Why did he do this?

Well, about a half hour later, we got our answer. The second tower fell first!

It fell, because the plane hit it so low... the building couldn't support the weight of the 40 floors above the point of impact. The fire from the airplaine caused the support structure of the second WTC tower to melt, then collapse. The second tower to be hit, fell first.

The first tower fell about a half hour after the second. It fell the same way... and for the same reasons as the other tower... but it took much longer to IMPLODE... because there were only 20 floors above the point of impact.

I have many friends who also wittnessed the events with their own eyes, ears and noses. They aren't government Men in Black. They are New Yorkers... all were going about their business in Downtown Manhattan... when TWO PASSENGER PLANES flew overhead at a VERY LOW ALTITUDE and a VERY HIGH SPEED.

They know what they say, as do I. We have no reason to lie. We want to see the people responsible for these attacks punnished.

I guess the most important question is: If the buildings were going to be blown up, why the hell did people need to fly perfectly good airplanes into them? Your atricle really doesn't answer this question.

This isn't rocket science.

Stick with the "Elvis is alive!" conspiracies. At least they're plausable.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (09/23/04 01:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
    #3169733 - 09/23/04 01:50 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I guess the most important question is: If the buildings were going to be blown up, why the hell did people need to fly perfectly good airplanes into them? Your atricle really doesn't answer this question.




To create a conspiracy and cover up the fact that the creepy-crawlies planted a low yield nuclear bomb in the boiler room...  :rolleyes:


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLoki
fluid druid
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 15,467
Loc: Zone ate
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
    #3169752 - 09/23/04 01:54 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

So there was no third spike from wtc6? but a huge crator?

It was arabs, plane and simply saudi arabs.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 14 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
    #3169871 - 09/23/04 02:24 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I honestly can't believe people buy into this shit. If anything in the world can get Republicans, Libs, and Dems to agree.. it would be this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
    #3169948 - 09/23/04 02:41 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I'm on break at work so I don't have alot of time to reply, but I have a question. Can you explain how building 7 collapsed? It wasn't even hit by an aircraft. Also, there is video evidence of a huge poof of smoke arrising from the trade center buildings right before the first building collapsed..I will see what I can do about finding a clip, I know there is one in "9/11 in plane site" which seems VERY suspicious. This was shown on live television one time, and was never seen again.

Also here's an audio analasis of possible bombs on flight 175: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/250804moreproof.htm

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like an aircraft could take down a building like that..I'm going to look further into this after work. I am still far from convinced that 9/11 was soley perpetrated in the way in which it was declared in the media.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: Loki]
    #3169959 - 09/23/04 02:43 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

It was arabs, plane and simply saudi arabs




yuk, yuk. I found it funny that you put "plane" instead of plain...was this intentional?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,289
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 12 days, 33 minutes
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
    #3170141 - 09/23/04 03:35 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

WTC 7 fell because of the nuclear warhead planted in its foundation.

The airplanes were used as a decoy... their real target was WTC 7.

WTC 7 was such an inflentual building you know... and it was filled with... absolutely nobody... when it fell.

...yawn.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
    #3170212 - 09/23/04 03:50 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

WTC 7 fell because of the nuclear warhead planted in its foundation.




that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.......it's obvious it was a MOAB. I mean it's sort or a coincedence that the military tested one not too long after 911. The government knew that this was going to happen!!!


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,243
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 3 months, 16 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3170344 - 09/23/04 04:26 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

While even I have issues with some of that article, it does raise good points. Such as why the rubble was not examined thouroughly...and the reason why wtc7 fell is still a mystery to me.

There is a book coming out in mid october called "Crossing the Rubicon" and it's author claims to have irrefutable proof that Dick Cheney was at least partially responsible for 9-11. I'm looking forward to it's release...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 15 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rono]
    #3170415 - 09/23/04 04:42 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

> as why the rubble was not examined thouroughly...

Considering that they were looking for itty bitty tiny body parts in the rubble, I suspect it was examined much more thouroughly than we are led to believe by the conspiracy nuts.

There was a lot of rubble to examine. What is expected? Are we supposed to brush every I-beam for finger prints?

They shipped a lot of the rubble overseas as scrap metal... if this is such a huge conspiracy, why would the US ship the evidence that can proove it to a location that they do not control?

> and the reason why wtc7 fell is still a mystery to me

I have only studied the impact on the two towers, not the colateral damage their collapse caused to other buildings. Remember, the energy released during the collapse of the first two towers was similiar to that released by a small nuclear bomb. There was also a lot of structure below ground that we can not see from the cameras on the surface. I suspect that damage from the first two towers falling directly led to the falling of wtc7, but this is a guess on my part.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
    #3170546 - 09/23/04 05:25 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Some stuff on building 7: click for images

Building 7
The Tip of the Iceberg
How Could Fire Make a Steel Building Implode?
Building 7 was the dark sleek building in front of the Twin Towers. It was 300 feet from the nearest tower.

Why should anyone care about Building 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper that imploded? Because, despite the appearance of demolition, we are told that the building collapsed because of fires. Fires have never caused steel frame buildings to collapse, let alone implode and fall neatly into their footprints, as did Building 7. It should have been a huge story. The fires in the building were comparatively small. That a robust steel skyscraper, built to withstand severe fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes, should suddenly collapse for no reason other than fire should have forced a re-evaluation of the safety of all existing skyscrapers and of highrise design in general.

Most people don't remember anything about Building 7's collapse on the day of horrors of September 11th, 2001. The collapse was afforded minimal coverage that afternoon, eclipsed by other 'coverage' like repeated playings of the South Tower impact, and mug shots of Osama bin Laden. After September 11th, it was difficult to find any trace of coverage about building 7 and its collapse. Apparently the most bizarre engineering failure in history warranted only shallow attention on the day of the attack, and virtually none thereafter. Perhaps it was the lack of a human interest angle, since nobody was thought to have died in the collapse.
The Vertical Collapse

Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical motion at near the rate of free-fall. The first sign of the collapse was the falling of the penthouse, immediately followed by the falling of the whole facade. It fell straight-down and its barely more than 6-second time of total collapse was almost as fast as free-fall. (An object would take 5.956 seconds to fall from the height of WTC 7's roof -- 571 feet -- in a vacuum.) The event was captured on several videos, viewable on the wtc7.net website.

Building 7 at 3 seconds into its 6-second collapse. The penthouse started to fall about a second before the entire facade, and the building's center sank faster than the perimeter. Streamers of smoke can be seen emerging from the facade. These are features of a controlled demolition.
Building 7's precise fall left a tidy pile of rubble. Damage to adjacent buildings was limited, the skyscraper having miraculously avoided damaging its closest neighbors, the Verizon building and U.S. Post Office building.
The (Non)Investigation

The total collapse of Building 7 due to fire would violate all kinds of assumptions about the engineering of skyscrapers. It was the largest and least understood engineering failure in World history, excepting the collapses of the towers earlier that day. The remains of the building should have been carefully examined and documented on-site, then removed to warehouses for further study. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $600,000 to investigate the collapse of all three skyscrapers. It entrusted the investigation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, even though it is a non-investigative agency. FEMA assembled a group of volunteer investigators, whose access to the disaster site was limited to a "guided tour."

In May of 2002 FEMA's team released its report. The report's authors seem to be certain that fire caused the collapse, but admit to being clueless about how fires did what they have never done before.

FEMA's report stated:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

By the time the report was published, nearly all of the steel had been removed from Building 7's site, most without examination, and was recycled, mostly in India and China. The steel would not be of much use to further research and investigation after it had been through a blast furnace. This evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections fire safety officials, fire-fighters, and victims' families.
The Fires
The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.

There were diesel fuel storage tanks in the building, and rumors abound about fuel tank explosions. Diesel fuel does not burn easily, It would be very difficult to get a diesel fuel tank to explode. Even if the diesel fuel fed fires in Building 7, it would not have endangered the steel frame. No such fire, however long and well-fueled, has ever destroyed a multi-story steel-frame building. Building 7 showed only small areas of fire, on ts 7th and 12th floors, shortly before its collapse.

Fires have never been blamed for the collapse of a steel frame highrise before, and there are examples of skyscrapers being ravaged by severe fires. Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".

If It Looks and Quacks Like a Demolition ...

It is difficult to break up the steel structures of skyscrapers. Structural steel bends rather than shatters, unless subjected to very high blast pressures. Even if several stories of a skyscraper at ground level were obliterated, the whole skyscraper wouldn't shatter. Rather, it would topple, leaving large assemblies intact, if bent. Getting a tall steel building to fall straight down into its footprint is an engineering feat that only a few companies specialize in. Structural elements must be destroyed in a precise order. A second delay in destroying some of the columns on a story could cause such a tall building to topple into adjacent real-estate.

Building 7's straight down collapse, with the outer walls falling inward towards the tower's central axis, is exactly the kind of collapse typically engineered to take down a tall building: the core columns are shattered ahead of the perimeter columns, so the building's central mass sinks ahead of its perimeter, and thereby pulls the the perimeter mass inward.
Tenants

Building 7's tenants included the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and several financial institutions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC lost numerous case files in the collapse -- files relating to investigations of corporations such as World Com.

Building 7 also housed Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center, a bunker on the 23rd floor with blast-resistant windows and its own air and water supply. The mayor was operating out of temporary quarters at 75 Barkley Street when the towers collapsed. Supposedly, the command center was evacuated before the first tower collapsed, even though no-one -- certainly not the firemen -- had expected any of the buildings to collapse.
Conclusion

The official story blames fires for the total collapse of Building 7, but fires have never before or since leveled steel buildings. That, and the fact that the building's collapse has all of the appearances of a controlled demolition, constitutes prima facie evidence that a crime was committed -- a crime the alleged perpetrators of the September 11th attacks did not have the means to commit. Shouldn't this be the subject of an honest investigation? Shouldn't the entire September 11th attack be the subject of a genuine investigation?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
    #3170674 - 09/23/04 05:59 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

If I can believe Muslims did it, why can't you?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Zahid]
    #3170796 - 09/23/04 06:24 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Because the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm not saying they wern't involved - I think it's beginning to look like it was more of a team effort.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 years, 6 days
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
    #3170806 - 09/23/04 06:27 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ekomstop said:
Because the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm not saying they wern't involved, it's beginning to look like it was more of a team effort.




"evidence" :lol: :lol: hearsay at best.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The World Trade Center Demolition
( 1 2 3 all )
Static 3,177 54 08/01/03 01:11 PM
by silversoul7
* World Trade Center Attacks..Political Implications
( 1 2 3 4 all )
shellacct 6,294 72 10/30/11 01:03 PM
by mm.
* Call from the World Trade Center
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phred 2,794 62 08/05/06 09:48 PM
by xDuckYouSuckerx
* conspiracy fact...
Annapurna1
840 13 05/31/07 01:38 PM
by Annapurna1
* New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation Of WTC Collapses usefulidiot 3,160 15 05/08/06 11:28 AM
by Turn
* world trade center building #7 Coaster 472 3 01/11/08 06:35 AM
by Seuss
* poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Annapurna1
8,233 147 07/04/06 12:05 AM
by David_vs_Goliath
* A Letter To "the Official Conspiracy Theorists"
( 1 2 all )
Una 2,447 38 03/28/06 07:22 AM
by Diploid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
10,116 topic views. 7 members, 3 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.075 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 20 queries.