Was 9/11 a terrorist attack?

xyz_9 · #**1691** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor the Bold

Couldn't be more different?

Explain how then.

Comparing your 2 photos. One has arched horizontal beams, the other not. In one photo it seems the height between horizontal beams is 1 storey, in the other photograph it looks to be a height of 3 or more stories.

Destiny's Soldier · #**1692** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Why should it be for the likes of truthers to postulate what is going on in the minds of psycopaths who run the White House?

We believe the eye witnessess who can verify that the hijackers themselves were US creations.

Lt Col Stephen Butler (Vice Chancellor Student Affairs) of the US Defense Language Institute stated before he was subsequently fired for accusing George Bush of "knowing the attacks were going to take place" that, "Mohamed Atta sat in my class."

A September 16 article in the New York Times reported: “Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.

“The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.”

J. Michael Springmann, formerly chief of the visa section at the U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, explained in various interviews with European and Canadian media, that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications in the late 90s, but the C.I.A. officers overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued. Springmann protested to the State Department, the office of Diplomatic Security, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and congressional committees, but was told to shut up. Springmann observed that 15 of the 19 people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA-dominated consulate in Jeddah.

Springmann stated he was told by CIA officials that those same named hijackers whom he tried to reject visa accreditation, were US agents in the 90's.

Cassandra Syndrome · #**1693** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by drkpower

Typical. You have time to try and pick holes in one explanation yet dont have the time to put forth your own.

So how does Occam's Razor work when there is only one explanation on the table, because the 'other side' dont 'have the time' (or more likely the moral courage) to suggest their explanation......?

Come back when you have the courage of your own convictions. It is easy to poke a few holes and spread mud about certain parts of a theory and then hope the theory falls as a result; its a little tougher to actually propose a theory and stand behind it. Unfortunately you cant even attempt the hard thing. Muppet.

That's it, edit my post doen to just 3 words of what I said. And I see you are keeping the namecalling and personal attacks line going. Just showing yourself up there. There are plenty of intelligent truthseekers on this thread to argue rationally the flaws in the official version, thankfully so they don't anymore help.

As I said the economic collapse is the current major issue to truthseek and to try and prevent the tyranny that is being implemented as we speak. Economic data and statistics take ages to analyse and the mainstream media are completely spinning and brainwash people with it.

Spending hours on end trying to point out 9/11 blatant facts and flaws about something that is so obviously an inside job is counterproductive. Wake up and take the red pill and try and see the forest from the trees or something.

So go on ahead and edit and twist whatever I said, I don't care, I've got work to do.

Conor the Bold · #**1694** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by HughinBandon

You should know. Nice job with the cutting and pasting Conor. Forgot to add the bit where Kennedy fired Alan Dulles for the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs Invasion and also that Dulles, yes, the man fired by Kennedy, was appointed to investigate Kennedy's assassination by Lyndon Johnson.

Smell a rat, or is your nose too far out of joint?

So the Director of the CIA got fired for Bay of Pigs, Big Whoop. But nothing seemed to have happened for the 2.5 years after that leading up to JFK's death. Apart from JFK not splitting up the CIA, sanctioning clandestine activities, raising the CIA's budget, requesting more intelligence and JFK praising the CIA.

Sounds like a man on a mission, who really hated the CIA...

Conor the Bold · #**1695** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by xyz_9

Comparing your 2 photos. One has arched horizontal beams, the other not. In one photo it seems the height between horizontal beams is 1 storey, in the other photograph it looks to be a height of 3 or more stories.

"Arched" Horizontal beams...

Right. Nothing to do with possible damage, compression or what not. Or just being a different building in the WTC complex?

So we have two photos from the same source, both damaged or collapsed buildings and you without any actual supporting evidence, claim that one is not from the WTC.

Question: How many buildings made up the WTC? The two photos are from the WTC, they came from the same source and I don't know about you, but there haven't been many demolitions or collapses in New York since, or elsewhere since. Do you know of any collapsed high rises since?

Second question: Even IF the two photos are of locations thousands of miles are from each other and decades in time, can you point out how this contradicts my assertion that those cuts are from Oxy-Actylene cutter torches which are using when clearing up collapsed building work utlising steel.

No. Of course. It's more likely than the three buildings where covertly wired for demolition than during the clear up, steel beams with actually cut to enable easier clean up of the site!

Conor the Bold · #**1696** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

That's it, edit my post doen to just 3 words of what I said. And I see you are keeping the namecalling and personal attacks line going. Just showing yourself up there. There are plenty of intelligent truthseekers on this thread to argue rationally the flaws in the official version, thankfully so they don't anymore help.

As I said the economic collapse is the current major issue to truthseek and to try and prevent the tyranny that is being implemented as we speak. Economic data and statistics take ages to analyse and the mainstream media are completely spinning and brainwash people with it.

Spending hours on end trying to point out 9/11 blatant facts and flaws about something that is so obviously an inside job is counterproductive. Wake up and take the red pill and try and see the forest from the trees or something.

So go on ahead and edit and twist whatever I said, I don't care, I've got work to do.

Lovely.

Yet more on how you haven't the time to respond to simple questions and stating your case - but have all the time to post a whinge on how you don't have the time.

If you don't have the time, stay of the thread. It's what most normal people do, me included.

Incidentally, the time you've spent on the last two posts could have been used to rebut me, instead of just posting noise.

xyz_9 · #**1697** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor the Bold

Nothing to do with possible damage, compression or what not.

You're embarassing yourself now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor the Bold

Or just being a different building in the WTC complex?

Again, you're embarassing yourself. You are on record saying, "Despite the differences in Perspective, it looks to me like the two photo's have been taken in and around the same locale." Implying that both photos are of the same building, albeit different parts, and from different angles.

It doesn't take me to point out the fact that todays episode has done nothing but prove that your intelligence is as questionnable as the "offiical" story of 9/11, if not more.

Begging the question, why do governments pay professionals to cover up their lies when out there, somewhere out there, alone, is Conor the Bold? Godspeed.

xyz_9 · #**1698** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor the Bold

Even IF the two photos are of locations thousands of miles are from each other and decades in time, can you point out how this contradicts my assertion that those cuts are from Oxy-Actylene cutter torches which are using when clearing up collapsed building work utlising steel.

I'll be hoping for proof that this process was used in ground zero by years end and that the cuts in the photos are the result of this process.

Somebody loves you.

drkpower · #**1699** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

That's it, edit my post doen to just 3 words of what I said. And I see you are keeping the namecalling and personal attacks line going. Just showing yourself up there. There are plenty of intelligent truthseekers on this thread to argue rationally the flaws in the official version, thankfully so they don't anymore help.

As I said the economic collapse is the current major issue to truthseek and to try and prevent the tyranny that is being implemented as we speak. Economic data and statistics take ages to analyse and the mainstream media are completely spinning and brainwash people with it.

Spending hours on end trying to point out 9/11 blatant facts and flaws about something that is so obviously an inside job is counterproductive. Wake up and take the red pill and try and see the forest from the trees or something.

So go on ahead and edit and twist whatever I said, I don't care, I've got work to do.

So, no alternative explanation then. its only reasonable to conclude that Occam's Razor operates to suggest that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. You didnt even give Occam a chance.....

Truth seekers; you give them a chane to suggest what happened and what do they do......? Hide. Ah yes, keep fighting the good fight!!

I am actually relatively open-minded on these types of issues, and will always give an alternative theory a chance. Ive watched dozens of videos from Dylan Avery & Co - some of it, on the face of it, seems to pose some real questions. But what I want from the truth-seekers is some kind of unified theory, something that ties the pieces together (and isnt entirely ludicrous). But they always fail to do it. Why? Because once you have a theory that you are behind, others will dissect that too. And it seems that CTs are all too aware that when their theory is stacked up against the official theory, the CT theory will be dissected far more thoroughly than the official one. But I am happy to be proved wrong; so please let's have the alternative explanation. Please. Im still waiting.
In the absence of an alternative explanation, I think

Cassandra Syndrome · #**1700** (**permalink**) 11th January 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conor the Bold

Who know what goes on in the Secret Service. But perhaps they thought that the first Airliner to hit the WTC was a tragic and surreal accident. The Second? A concerted attack on New York City?

I'm going to assume that 'buckles' should read burns. You do realise however that you've just repeated what is possibly the worst argument in the history of 9/11 conspiracies and highlights just exactly why you're not an engineer (which helps).

Your point is wrong for a variety of reasons....

Steel does not melt at 550 degrees C. That is correct. To bring a steels melting point into the conversation is a diversion around the real issue. Like most solids when heated up, it becomes malleable and less rigid. It also expands. Basically at temperatures at which aviation fuel burns at - you are looking at structural members with insufficent fireproofing being weakened quite considerably.

However the 'kerosene burns at such and such a temperature' is again a diverson. The WTC was a gigantic office block - full of products based on hydrocarbon, wood and other flammable components ( All of which would have produced temperatures much higher than the temperatures which could have been expected in a fire soley fueled by Kerosene).

As for each floor can stand the 3 times the wieght of the stories above it? Well I would love to see a citatation for this, as a safety factor of 3 is quite a considerable undertaking - however again you're misunderstanding the issues.

Floors in buildings are built to withstand a force exerted upon it (not a weight - the distinction is important). What happens if the weight which is exerting a force on the floor below it, suddenly drops 3,4 or 5 metres onto the floor below it? The force exerted on the floor below will massively increase.

Example: Place a 30 kg dumbbell on your chest. It's quite heavy, but you can breathe and survive. Now get somebody with a ladder to hold aforementioned dumbbell 4 metres above your chest. Do you feel like giving the guy the OK to let go of the weight?

Incidentally Occam wouldn't have believed in conspiracy theories.

Why? Because it's much simpler for a small group of people to actually crash planes into buildings than it is to fake it...

Same with Conan Doyle.

First point. The nation is under attack. The media were saying that several planes were missing. There was chaos. It was known that the President was going to be in that school. So why wasn't he immediately secured and removed after the second plane hit? He was still there when the Pentagon was hit.

Regarding steel buildings? How many steel structures collapsed before 9/11? None. 3 collapsed that day. Look at building 7, very little damage and it collapses within seconds.
A huge skyscraper being built in Shanghai burnt for days without it collapsing. Why was this?

Kerosene burns extremely quickly. Its high propensity to combust as a hydrocarbon ensures a more intense localised burns. People who spontaneous combust in the past have left their charred bodies with everything surrounding them intact and not burnt. Those fires would have burnt themselves out relatively quickly.

The buildings collapsed vertically and in a freefall manner. The twin towers had 3 massive vertical steel columns of differing heights. As the planes crashed above these points the top floors collapsing woud have hit the forst steel column forcing the collapse to tilt to one side. The simplest way for the buildings to collapse in a perfect vertical motion is for these steel columns to be part of the controlled detonation of the lower floors prior to the collapse. Many Puffs of smoke are seen moments before the collapse. It happened too early to be explained by air moving down.

As I said this post took near 15 minutes and no doubt you will reply with some form of personal attack, but as I said I haven't time for this blatant inside job. The contolled demolition of the economy is far more serious and evident. Ok?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Terrorist attack in Mumbai: 80 feared dead	Fr. Hank Tree	Foreign Affairs	339	15th January 2009 02:51 PM
What sense does the 'terrorist' attack in china make	Undercover Reporter	Foreign Affairs	3	6th August 2008 08:44 PM
Mossad plan Terrorist Attack on Ireland soil	roller	Foreign Affairs	108	1st August 2008 06:26 PM
Clinton, Obama, JFK, and the next terrorist attack	Destiny's Soldier	US Politics	15	2nd February 2008 09:00 PM
Terrorist attack in Britain 'imminent'	dubsthcentralboy	Current Affairs	61	1st July 2007 06:20 PM