# The Great Conspiracy - 911 documentary



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

*Here* is some important companion information.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

The Doug said:


> *Here* is some important companion information.


Hahaha! Nice.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The Doug said:


> *Here* is some important companion information.


:lmao: Bookmarked that one!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:lmao: Good one Doug!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nobody can explain the fall of WTC 7
amazing how a building that wasn't hit by any plane, fell like a house of cards and the owner has been captured on video saying; "we decided to 'pull it' "

and i don't think it was the wool over our eyes, altho' i kinda worked out that way


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> nobody can explain the fall of WTC 7
> amazing how a building that wasn't hit by any plane, fell like a house of cards and the owner has been captured on video saying; "we decided to 'pull it' "
> 
> and i don't think it was the wool over our eyes, altho' i kinda worked out that way


Been watchin' Jerry Springer again have we?


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Don't want to get into the whole WTC thing, but there is one fact that no one can dispute and that is there is only one use for thermate and only one. So Sinc, and I address this to you as you made the JS reference, why was there thermate residue on the vast majority of the columns left standing as well as ones in the rubble?


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

The Doug said:


> *Here* is some important companion information.


LMAO!!! Brings back memories of when my younger sister actually tried this and wore it for a day! Luckily we caught a photo of her with it!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dubya's brother headed up security at WTC UNTIL 911


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

maccam said:


> Don't want to get into the whole WTC thing, but there is one fact that no one can dispute and that is there is only one use for thermate and only one. So Sinc, and I address this to you as you made the JS reference, why was there thermate residue on the vast majority of the columns left standing as well as ones in the rubble?


ONE "researcher" of dubious repute made this claim, and now some people take it as gospel. Well I'll shake off my vow of secrecy, and have you know that the buildings were actually brought down by the Martians. As we have long known, the Martians have always wanted to destroy earth but since the drastic downturn in the interstellar economy the most they have been able to afford to do is destroy the World Trade Center buildings. That, and Kenny Rogers' new face (which is arguably a work of destruction itself).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Doug said:


> ONE "researcher" of dubious repute made this claim, and now some people take it as gospel. Well I'll shake off my vow of secrecy, and have you know that the buildings were actually brought down by the Martians. As we have long known, the Martians have always wanted to destroy earth but since the drastic downturn in the interstellar economy the most they have been able to afford to do is destroy the World Trade Center buildings. That, and Kenny Rogers' new face (which is arguably a work of destruction itself).


:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i still don't hear any explanation of why WTC 7 fell late that afternoon without being hit by any plane and why the owner, Silverstein, is quoted on video tape; "We decided to 'pull it' " referring to WTC 7



> In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;
> 
> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

link to video showing Silverstein quote to PULL IT

sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i still don't hear any explanation of why WTC 7 fell late that afternoon without being hit by any plane and why the owner, Silverstein, is quoted on video tape; "We decided to 'pull it' " referring to WTC 7
> 
> 
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
> ...


I'm with you MacSpectrum. While I don't entirely believe in the broad conspiracy that I've seen floated in some of these documentaries, they do bring up many valid questions that just don't add up. People can say the whole concept is crazy, but they really are deluding themselves if they don't think something else was going on, as there are too many things that simply don't make sense about those terrorist attacks.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "We decided to 'pull it' "


<underline>*Pull it*</underline>. Now get your head out of the ground (if that's where it is).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Doug said:


> <underline>*Pull it*</underline>. Now get your head out of the ground (if that's where it is).


nah, gov't would never lie...
oh, by the way, how many WMD have been found in Iraq?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Did you even look at the link I provided, where firefighters themselves discuss the meaning of the term "pull it"? No, you didn't. And now you're onto WMDs, which is not what this particular thread is about. Work Ignatieff into it, and you'll have a Trifecta!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think MS has tunnel vision.

*Pull it:*

_ Usually it means to pull the sheet rock. I've used it and I've heard it used in reguards to opening up walls to check for fire in walls. Hope this answers your question._
~
_Other definitions could be for pulling hose, pulling additional alarms, or the ceiling._
~
_Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable, can also mean to cease all interior operations. Years ago, before SCBAs, mask cans made interior operations possible, but when those inside operations had to be abandoned in favor of an exterior attack the commaders would order the men on the outside to pull - and pull hard - on the interior hose line. This was a signal (as were long air horn blasts and whistles) to get out asap. Pulling on that interior line to signal the interior crews to stop and get out asap led to the term "Pull It" and it is still used by many today; that tactic is still in use also, especially when very heavy radio traffic prevents communication with interior crews._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

link to Silverstein's explantion of 'pull it' - after years of silence


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> link to Silverstein's explantion of 'pull it' - after years of silence


He doesn't explain anything about what 'pull it' means.



> Whatever Silverstein meant by the term "pull it," the fact remains that the building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition and it wasn’t even hit by a plane. It was 'pulled' in the true sense of the term, by well placed explosives...


So if I say somebody is 'pulling' my leg, what does that mean? beejacon


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Pull my finger. C'mon, _pull it_. beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"I'm not losing sleep about that."


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Just heard on the radio that a new Ipsos-Reid poll says that 22% of Canadians believe that there was a conspiracy of American power figures. 32% in Quebec.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> He doesn't explain anything about what 'pull it' means.
> 
> 
> 
> So if I say somebody is 'pulling' my leg, what does that mean? beejacon


and if you happened to own a building that collapsed as if it were part of a controlled demolition AND the building was never hit by an aircraft as were others...?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Get thee to a window, and breathe some fresh air!


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

The Doug said:


> Pull my finger. C'mon, _pull it_. beejacon


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and if you happened to own a building that collapsed as if it were part of a controlled demolition AND the building was never hit by an aircraft as were others...?


You _really_ think a conspiracy exists, don't you? Turn off this mindless theory of yours before you hurt yourself.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I believe building #7 WAS damaged by the other two towers and considered unstable so it was brought down as well, well after the other two towers.

If you want to really know why the towers fell, watch any educational channel's diiscussion of it, not some conspiracy theorist's junk. There is too much info about the towers falling to believe some BS like that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Kosh said:


> I believe building #7 WAS damaged by the other two towers and considered unstable so it was brought down as well, well after the other two towers.
> 
> If you want to really know why the towers fell, watch any educational channel's diiscussion of it, not some conspiracy theorist's junk. There is too much info about the towers falling to believe some BS like that.


are you saying that WTC 7 was brought down on purpose?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> are you saying that WTC 7 was brought down on purpose?


If a building is beyond repair (i.e.; costs more to repair than it's worth putting money into), most buildings are then destroyed. Yes, on purpose. This has already been discussed in previous 9/11 threads on ehMac. Why is this diffcult to understand? Think about your car getting into an accident, and then the bodyshop and insurance company considering it totaled. When the damage exceeds the value of the vehicle, the insurance company will cut you a check and not bother having the vehicle repaired. Same deal with WTC#7. If it was damaged beyond reasonable repair, it would have been torn down.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

but why would the owner of said building, Silverstein, deny it?


----------



## Pantechnicon (May 9, 2004)

Well, at the risk of successfully ending this thread like I did on another occasion

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=388912&postcount=109

in this thread:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=39629

I linked to an article I had found on the NOVA television show on PBS outlining an explanation for the collapse of building 7. Unfortunately the link no longer leads to the article I found. But here is what I read then:

"Ever since analyses of the collapse of the twin towers began to appear, I have been troubled by the omission of a most relevant piece of evidence. Dr. Eagar alludes to it in his first sentence but never follows up. My problem is: If the towers came down as a result of the crash-related structural damage, obliteration of fireproofing, and burning fuel, then why did the 47-story Building 7, which was not hit, also fall some hours later? It apparently failed as the result of a common fire. Now that is scary, because it suggests that all tall buildings are likewise vulnerable. Will someone please explain that?"

Bill Denton
Mempis, Tennessee


Dr. Eagar responds:

"I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities."

Perhaps someone else can find the original article. I can't be bothered.

Please feel free to ignore this post as well.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> but why would the owner of said building, Silverstein, deny it?


Silverstein is quoted on one of the videos to say the building was pulled or words to that effect, ie a controlled demolition.
Big question is how did they manage to pull that off in a few hours - it normally takes a few days of intensive planning and work to set that up.

But the thing that intrigued me more - what happened to the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? It just seems to have vanished into thin air.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Pantechnicon said:


> Dr. Eagar responds:
> 
> "I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities."


That explanation doesn't make any sense at all.
It first of all contradicts the statements that building #7 was demolished on purpose...these comments imply fire brought it down.
Pictures also show very few fires in building #7, certainly not tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel burning, 
And if you watch the building collapse, it's very much a controlled demolition.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> what happened to the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? It just seems to have vanished into thin air.


If a plane hits the earth, or an object on earth, at 300+ Km/hr., in dive mode, not much of such a plane will continue to exist on impact. That's like asking where the bodies went of the people on the planes that hit the WTC.

However, your comment makes me wonder - is there a claim that no evidence of a plane exists at the pentagon? Regardless, such a question or even statement isn't relevant, because there is no conspiracy, and yes, a plane DID hit the pentagon.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Lars said:


> If a plane hits the earth, or an object on earth, at 300+ Km/hr., in dive mode, not much of such a plane will continue to exist on impact. That's like asking where the bodies went of the people on the planes that hit the WTC.
> 
> However, your comment makes me wonder - is there a claim that no evidence of a plane exists at the pentagon? Regardless, such a question or even statement isn't relevant, because there is no conspiracy, and yes, a plane DID hit the pentagon.


The comments I read were that none of the newsreports ever showed a plane or any parts of it in the very few pictures of the pentagon hit that were released.
But your explanation that the plane essentially disintegrated makes sense - it's certainly supported by this website:
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Here is an interesting collection of articles about 9/11 for anyone interested

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and if you happened to own a building that collapsed as if it were part of a controlled demolition AND the building was never hit by an aircraft as were others...?


How about the fact that it was located in the immediate vicinity of two extremely tall towers that had both just collapsed? To believe that WTC7 was set up to be demolished in zero time is absurd... about as absurd as believing the twin towers themselves were "pulled".

Maybe do some research instead of how much time and effort is taken to correctly "pull" a building? Oh, wait... since it's a conspiracy, they probably had everything to go months in advance, right? :lmao:


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

I agree with a member here who posted. "Im not losing sleep over this"! I've tried having a discussion about this topic with my dad... it just got ugly because we are so set in our ideas of what is truth. Me personally I know there is a cover-up. Not that Im guessing... I know. Anyways... for those who dont believe governments lie, governments do evil.... read some history books! You'll be shocked! I love history but it's sad to see that people never learn


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

krs said:


> The comments I read were that none of the newsreports ever showed a plane or any parts of it in the very few pictures of the pentagon hit that were released.
> But your explanation that the plane essentially disintegrated makes sense - it's certainly supported by this website:
> http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm


You don't know me from a hole in the ground so discount this if you will...my wife's nephew was on the highway right near the Pentagon (parking lot distance away) and actually saw the plane fly overhead and strike the Pentagon. He's not too young to mix up a huge plane and a rocket/missile.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

darkscot said:


> You don't know me from a hole in the ground so discount this if you will...my wife's nephew was on the highway right near the Pentagon (parking lot distance away) and actually saw the plane fly overhead and strike the Pentagon. He's not too young to mix up a huge plane and a rocket/missile.


Case closed.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

darkscot said:


> You don't know me from a hole in the ground so discount this if you will...my wife's nephew was on the highway right near the Pentagon (parking lot distance away) and actually saw the plane fly overhead and strike the Pentagon. He's not too young to mix up a huge plane and a rocket/missile.


I always thought the missle was a bit of a stretch, but the part that seemed suspicious about the Pentagon was that the plane crashed into the most reinforced area of the building. That area had also been under construction for awhile, so there were very few people actually in that part of the building compared to other sections of the facility. It could be coincedental and the terrorists just failed to do their homework, or you could choose to believe the darker truth that it was a setup. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

darkscot said:


> You don't know me from a hole in the ground so discount this if you will...my wife's nephew was on the highway right near the Pentagon (parking lot distance away) and actually saw the plane fly overhead and strike the Pentagon. He's not too young to mix up a huge plane and a rocket/missile.


ok, so someone very few, if any, of us know claims to have a nephew that saw the plane fly overhead

does anyone else but me recall how that poor kuwaiti girl cried in front of a congressional/senate hearing claiming that iraqi troops took kuwaiti babies out of incubators and left them on the cold floor to die?

turns out she lied



> "Nayirah," the 15-year-old Kuwaiti girls who shocked the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 19, 1990, when she carefully asserted that she had watched 15 infants ain't taken from incubators in al-Adan Hospital in Kuwait City by Iraqi soldiers who "left the babies on the coal floor to die." The chairmen of the Congressional group, Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, and John Edward Porter, an Illinois Republican, explained that Nayirah's identity would be kept secret to protect her family from reprisals in occupied Kuwait.
> 
> There was a better reason to protect her from exposure: Nayirah, for real name, is the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S., Saud Nasir al-Sabah.


http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Nayira-Witness-Incubator-Kuwait6jan92.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/incubatorlie


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> are you saying that WTC 7 was brought down on purpose?


Actually I made a mistake. It was WTC Building #4 and #5, two 9-storey buildings that were demolished because of damage from 1&2. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

Buildings are brought down if they are unsafe, you know.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

didnt anyone watch the "abc" 9/11 movie last night? anyways after it they had a question answer period about the pentagon airplane crashsite.

they dispelled all theories of conspiracy... 1. theres plenty of photo's of airplane material on the ground. 2. the lamp poles along the street infront that are nocked down are consistent with wingspan of a plane. missiles dont have a large wingspan.

anyways there was plenty more. i'm not a huge conspiricy theorist guy nor pay attention to that hogwash. i'm just saying the pentagon crash was explained.. not that i'm saying beleive everything you hear on tv to be true either... but hey.. "idhgara"


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

VNJ85 said:


> didnt anyone watch the "abc" 9/11 movie last night?


You mean "The path to 9/11"?
I watched the first part the night before and found it so boring that I kept dozing off.
Interestingly, CNN had another rerun of "In the foosteps of Bin Laden" or something like that, and that program directly contradicted parts of the abc movie - the part for instance why Bin Laden escaped the US missile attack. 

The Wiki covers a lot of the consiracy theories as well, but also leaves some gaping holes.
Interesting for example how a Madrid Skyscraper burns for 17 hours leaving a skeleton standing while the WTC towers collapsed in about an hour with only damage in a number of the upper floors.
It also doesn't make any sense that the fire burned hot enough to allow the steel beams to buckle when you can see a lady with long hair looking out through the hole where the plane struck.
I'm also wondering if you can really make cellphone calls from an airplane going 500 mph - how does the cellphone communicate with the towers to initially set up the call and then hand off the call from cell to cell.
Here is some theory on it - also check the last link on that page
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cell-air.htm
One report I just read is that a call was established for 25 minutes on one plane that crashed into the WTC tower and there were calls made from the plane that crahed in PA - sounds like bunk to me!


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Re: the Pentagon on 9/11

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...gon+9-11&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

That last Google link & the Purdue University study / modelling of the Pentagon impact is factual, well done, and fascinating. Sadly, conspiracy fans seldom let facts into their equations.

Visualization of the scene immdiately before impact, scale of building & jet are correct









Real after-impact image


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Kosh said:


> Actually I made a mistake. It was WTC Building #4 and #5, two 9-storey buildings that were demolished because of damage from 1&2.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center
> 
> ...


1. i have never questioned WTC 4 or 5
2. seems that silverstein is denying anyone brought down WTC 7


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

w.r.t. the Pentagon, i have not yet seen any video tape from the various cameras covering the plane's last few seconds that were confiscated by "officials"


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Interesting for example how a Madrid Skyscraper burns for 17 hours leaving a skeleton standing while the WTC towers collapsed in about an hour with only damage in a number of the upper floors.
> It also doesn't make any sense that the fire burned hot enough to allow the steel beams to buckle when you can see a lady with long hair looking out through the hole where the plane struck.


See : http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[emphasis added]


> The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.
> 
> After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.
> 
> ...


Also http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



> 10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?
> 
> NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.
> 
> ...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Hi Voyager -

I read many of the government accounts five years or so ago of how this all supposedly happened and never thought more about it until this thread here.

But now there are a number of discrepancies that really make you wonder.......and if some things are fabricated (like the cellphone calls maybe), you wonder about the rest.

Even in your two quotes.....the first one talks about each floor progressively 'pancaking' to the ground and if you look at the complete link your second quote comes from, it states:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

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

You know, some of the statements made by nist are almost comical....for instance:

"NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source"

well duhhhhhh..........

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

What actually made me wonder what was really going on five years ago, shortly after this happened, was G. Bush's response/reaction when he was told about the planes hitting the WTC. It seemed he already knew all about it and so he merrily continued reading to the class.
His reaction (or lack thereof) just doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Hi Voyager -
> 
> I read many of the government accounts five years or so ago of how this all supposedly happened and never thought more about it until this thread here.
> 
> ...


In the end the, buildings designs were probably a factor in their collapse. They were never designed for such an "accident".

Bush's reaction could also have been caused by shock and disbelief. Do you really think the U.S. government could have keep this a secret if they had been responsible in any way for all that destruction. When was the last time the government was able to keep anything secret for long without it being leaked by someone for money or publicity? The bigger the secret the bigger the temptation for someone to gain something by revealing it.


----------



## chuckster (Nov 30, 2003)

Quote "Do you really think the U.S. government could have keep this a secret if they had been responsible in any way for all that destruction."
Of course the U.S. government is responsible. The US government and US businesses are known world wide for screwing things up for everybody else. No wonder they are a target. They are not that well liked, have more money than everybody else put together, and are snotty about it. I had a relative like that. I didn't like him either. Of course he didn't have any tall buildings, but still ...


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

chuckster said:


> They are not that well liked, have more money than everybody else put together, and are snotty about it. I had a relative like that. I didn't like him either. Of course he didn't have any tall buildings, but still ...


Quote of the day right there:clap:


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

chuckster said:


> Quote "Do you really think the U.S. government could have keep this a secret if they had been responsible in any way for all that destruction."
> Of course the U.S. government is responsible. The US government and US businesses are known world wide for screwing things up for everybody else. No wonder they are a target. They are not that well liked, have more money than everybody else put together, and are snotty about it. I had a relative like that. I didn't like him either. Of course he didn't have any tall buildings, but still ...



So, because people don't like the U.S., it's okay to indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent people? By your logic, if someone didn't like a few Canadians or the Canadian government, it's okay to wreak havoc anyone from Canada?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

He didn't say it was OK. He said that the US was responsible. That's overstating it, as far as I am concerned. I would rather say that they are partly responsible, or share some responsibility. But none of that is the same as saying that the terrorist response was OK.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> In the end the, buildings designs were probably a factor in their collapse. They were never designed for such an "accident".


The very first Q&A addresses that in the link you posted - apparently impacts by multiple 707's was considered but nobody can find the study anymore.



> 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
> 
> As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
> 
> ...


As to Bush's reaction...didn't he say "That must be a terrible pilot" and left it at that?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> The very first Q&A addresses that in the link you posted - apparently impacts by multiple 707's was considered but nobody can find the study anymore.
> As to Bush's reaction...didn't he say "That must be a terrible pilot" and left it at that?


krs,

If they can't find the study, then we may never know what parameters they used and whether they were accurate or not. Looking at the building makes you wonder what it really was made to withstand.

Were those Bush's actual words or an urban legend. I've never heard of him using those words.

Voyager


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

krs said:


> Interesting for example how a Madrid Skyscraper burns for 17 hours leaving a skeleton standing while the WTC towers collapsed in about an hour with only damage in a number of the upper floors.


You can't compare two totally different buildings and disasters with different parameters. Your talking different sizes, structures, floor area, how many floors were hit/on fire, where in the height of the building the fire started. The Madrid skyscraper was also NOT hit by a jetliner, so your missing a large impact force - the survivors of the WTC incident clearly described an impact where it felt like the building moved/swayed several yards in one direction. Doors on various floors below the impacted floors could not be opened as there was visible buckling of the ceiling.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> He didn't say it was OK. He said that the US was responsible. That's overstating it, as far as I am concerned. I would rather say that they are partly responsible, or share some responsibility. But none of that is the same as saying that the terrorist response was OK.



What he said was


> Of course the U.S. government is responsible. The US government and US businesses are known world wide for screwing things up for everybody else. No wonder they are a target. They are not that well liked, have more money than everybody else put together, and are snotty about it. I had a relative like that. I didn't like him either. Of course he didn't have any tall buildings, but still ...


It certainly implies he thought it was okay.

People keep saying it is this government's fault or that government's fault and they have to share responsibility. It's a convenient excuse but I wonder if history will bear that out. Al Qaeda was not created by the U. S. government but rather by the Soviets. Would Al Qaeda have been formed if the Soviets had never invaded. Who knows. 
One wonders, because Osama bin Laden's policy includes purging Muslim countries of Western influence and establish fundamentalist Islamic rule. Would he have created Al Qaeda at some point anyways due to his fundamentalist beliefs and his desire to implement them, especially if he had these beliefs due to following the Wahhabi movement and its literal interpretation of the Koran?

Voyager


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Were those Bush's actual words or an urban legend. I've never heard of him using those words.
> 
> Voyager


Bush's actual words in the TV clip were: "I used to fly myself...there is one terrible pilot"


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> What he said was
> 
> It certainly implies he thought it was okay.
> 
> ...


Did you watch the CNN documentary 'In the footsteps of bin Laden"?

I keep only catching bits and pieces when they rerun it, but according to this bin Laden only became involved initially because terrorists were looking for a funding source and he can certainly provide that.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Bush's actual words in the TV clip were: "I used to fly myself...there is one terrible pilot"



Incredibility stupid thing for him to have said. But then again politicians, sometimes, have the ability to say the dumbest things.

Voyager


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> You can't compare two totally different buildings and disasters with different parameters. Your talking different sizes, structures, floor area, how many floors were hit/on fire, where in the height of the building the fire started. The Madrid skyscraper was also NOT hit by a jetliner, so your missing a large impact force - the survivors of the WTC incident clearly described an impact where it felt like the building moved/swayed several yards in one direction. Doors on various floors below the impacted floors could not be opened as there was visible buckling of the ceiling.


I would tend to agree with you if the buildings had collapsed when the jetliners hit or shortly thereafter.
But one collapsed almost an hour later and the other almost two hours after it was hit. the cause based on government documents was the fire not the damage done by the planes.
Lots of interesting bits and pieces in the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Did you watch the CNN documentary 'In the footsteps of bin Laden"?
> 
> I keep only catching bits and pieces when they rerun it, but according to this bin Laden only became involved initially because terrorists were looking for a funding source and he can certainly provide that.


No, didn't get a chance to see it. 

Voyager


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Incredibility stupid thing for him to have said. But then again politicians, sometimes, have the ability to say the dumbest things.
> 
> Voyager


So true especially for


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> No, didn't get a chance to see it.
> 
> Voyager


You should try to watch it - certainly seems more factual than the abc program.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

krs said:


> The very first Q&A addresses that in the link you posted - apparently impacts by multiple 707's was considered but nobody can find the study anymore.





> a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of *a [single, not multiple]* Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed


I'll bet that analysis was based on a plane lost in fog or otherwise off course at relatively low speeds, not one being flown into the building at full throttle. That was (and hopefully always will be) the problem with such comparisons. There is no real point of comparison for a fully loaded, recently fuelled plane crashing in this manner.

Where are the computer models that recreate the whole scenario, structural implications and all, anyway? It's surprising nobody's done it independently yet (AFAIK). Surely there's enough public info on the structural characteristics of the WTC.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> I would tend to agree with you if the buildings had collapsed when the jetliners hit or shortly thereafter.
> But one collapsed almost an hour later and the other almost two hours after it was hit. the cause based on government documents was the fire not the damage done by the planes.
> Lots of interesting bits and pieces in the wiki
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories



The South Tower was hit lower down. More weight above the point of impact could cause a faster collapse. The impact may also have caused more severe initial damage causing it to collapse more quickly. It is possible If there has been no fire, neither may have collapsed. There most likely were multiple factors at play, each contributing to the collapses. 
It has been said that many accidents have multiple causes, each cause by itself may not have been fatal but, combined, create a catastrophe.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Food for thought

Don't worry, it's pretty much completely non-religious.



> Liberals find out what is really real about this world - not what we wish to be real.
> 
> If we are driven by our hatreds, we are no better than either the worst of the neo-conservatives we oppose, or the Islamic jihadists who are doing some really real evil in this world.
> 
> I thought we were better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Food for thought
> 
> Don't worry, it's pretty much completely non-religious.


Thanks for the post.


----------



## chuckster (Nov 30, 2003)

Thanks RevMatt


----------

