Investigate 9/11 part II (if we're not all 9/11'd out)

[JanH]

Original thread here

MB did you watch the jeff king video?

okay, so if not all of the fires were not oxygen starved why did they go down cores protected from the chimney effect?

Were all the building security and maintenance men that lax?

can a building be designed to fall in practically the same way every time whatever the circumstance that causes it?

I genuinely don't know.

ok, so having read all this [bar watching the Jeff King video - all the other bits of sound i could hear] i still feel it is entirely plausible that the two planes could have brought down the towers. I do find the WTC 7 and the pentagon stuff more puzzling, but that is not to say i believe the conspiracy. I think it is a bit of a leap to compare a very shocking incident re the Coventry bombing, which was a decision taken during a world war presumably to try to save even more lives in the long run [not saying it was right] and what some people seem to believe here, that an extreme right wing organisation did all this, and were prepared to kill so many innocent lives purely for financial profit and oil revenue. Is that what people really think?

it is estimated that by having the enigma codes broken, and keeping that a secret from the Nazis may have shortened the war by around 1-2 years.

Vile as it was to let people die, it ultimatly saved thousands upon thousands of lives.

The two are simply not comprable

I don't really believe the government were involved, as I said before if anything it is probably more that they didn't act (on intelligence) or react (to the situation) as well as they might.

Having recently watched a 911 documentary and heard the (recorded) conversations that passed between some of the agencies, I was quite shocked at the apparent lack of urgency. Of course this is all with the benefit of hindsight and I'm sure there was a lot of confusion/shock that this was happening. There again you'd expect a super power like the US to be prepared for anything and be able to deploy fighter pilots at a moments notice.

government was involved (oh the shame)

no, you are right about that mb

while you can deploy fighter pilots at a minutes notice, they still have to have the time to fly from their base to the site of the attack. They fly planes, not use transporters!

but JoolsToo, if the govt was not involved, and it was terrorists, are people seriously saying they managed to rig the WTC with explosives? I mean i can agree some things seem weird, but if oyu take the conspiracy to its logical conclusion, you have to believe a far right group would be prepared to kill thousands in a top secret and highly convoluted operation purely for financial profit. Can anyone come out and say they believe that? If not all the speculation in the world falls flat.

I don't think it's far-fetched to suggest that terrorists gained access to the building prior to the 11th and planted strategic explosives. From what I've read (and I've read a lot on this subject!) you don't need masses of explosives it's the placement that matters. If terrorists can live in the US for years and learn to fly as Joe Public and then later hijack four aircraft on one day I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some terrorists held positions of employment at the WTC but having a further agenda.

This is me just speculating of course and it wouldn't explain the collapse of WTC7 either. I just find it all fascinating.

I do beleive in the theory that there was no plane at the Pentagon - a building with cameras all round it has no footage of aircraft flying at it.

well, there is evidence of bits of crashed planes that you can find on the web, thet tends to blow that theory. Unless you think that people were out thrwong round bits of aircraft and body parts round the site

2nd attempt

okay, so if not all of the fires were not oxygen starved why did they go down cores protected from the chimney effect?

Were all the building security and maintenance men that lax?

The buildings are the most "evidence" available, so much is known about the buildings. Its not really a question, for me, of "who" did, but why" attacks* like this happen and why *attack with such retribution. Its scary.

If my son hit your son - would your entire family come and beat up my whole family. No I would hope we could be more civilised

what I said was that you can't assume that all the fires were o2 starved, because some of theme might have been.

That is the prob with all this consipracy stuff, people take stuff as gospel, with no proof and then build a whole sequence of things on top of it.

you just can't so that.

if some of the fires were not o2 starved how did they get down shafts that were blocked off and designed to be low in o2?

the proof is that there are plans of the buildings showing that is how they are designed.

How could have the inner cores have melted so severely??? For me it is just toooo incredible, all 3 buildings have the same reaction - to identical.

because the o2 starved ones could do that, and the non o2 staved could have gone somewhere else. The whole building isn't going to respond in the exact same way. when parts of it were blown open to the air outside! Whuch would have had large amounts of o2 in it.

Jeez. All I'm saying is that you can't assume that all the fires were the same as exach other!

but they must have been somewhat similar because flames never came out the window in huge quantities. All the smoke from smoldering office equipment instead.

These fires burnt internally in places designed to inhibit fires.

Don't you think that is abit counter to the design of the building? Jeff King explains the layout and function of the building very factually.

Having read the whole of both threads (honest!) IMO the key to the collapse of the two main towers is the aircraft, more specifically the fumes and vapours given off by aviation fuel.
These fumes are incredibly unstable and flamable and surely could have dissipated (sp!) throughout the towers - would this not have created mini explosions where there was a build up of vapours, and the heat to ignite them?

I know we have kind of covered this...but I was just reading through a report written by
Project for the New American Century....

This quote is in it...

Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission, put it: "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

They also say this...

Focused on the narrow question of whether Saddam had any hand in the attacks of 9-11, they have ignored the reports coming from prisoner debriefs, uncovered internal Iraqi intelligence documents and, for that matter, declassified Clinton-era National Security Council memos pointing toward a budding "marriage of convenience" between Saddam and bin Laden.

And this....they really are amazing aren't they!!...

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

And who has signed this?????

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb BushDick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

"American leadership is good both for America and for the world"

"We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership."

Janh.....Actually you have already pointed this out haven't you....

(And these are the people who decided that to make a way forward for America is for A Pearl Harbour type incident to occur...)

They wrote this in 2000...coincidently..

(sorry if I have repeated you Janh...I'm a bit slow on the uptake!....)

Its the people who have signed up to be in agreeance with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's quite scary ludaloo.

I don't think Janh will be back with us for a while

Its just a thought.....

Has anyone considered that the planes could have been full of genuine passengers...and genuine pilots...no terrorists...but Remote controlled??

The pilots had no control....or at least at the last minute had no control

There were no black boxes were there.....

[ducking from absolute abuse....but its not as crazy as it sounds]

Just one of the thoughts that runs through my mind....but it is far more concievable than the theory that a plane dropped 200 people at a Nasa Base...and then gassed them....

oh...is she ok???