An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001

[CptSternn]

Personal attacks - the last resort of a man losing an debate.

But hey, yer a yank in the military - might as well get used to being called a loser.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

And "yer" a jackass-- you should probably get used to personal attacks.

[LostAndCrazy]

Did anyone mention the fact that 3-5 of the alledged hijackers who were on the planes and were supposed to have died were actually alive and living in the middle east? 9/11 reeks of lies and deceit.

[TSW|Abaddon]

Actually they are all dead. That rumor started from a BBC article after the 11th. The BBC has since recanted their story. If they really were alive wouldn't you think they would say something? Or pulitzer prize seeking author would go out and find them?

[TSW|Abaddon]

Here is the link to the BBC article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

[Mick Ignis]

I think 9/11 is a ridiculous conspiracy that makes liberals look bad and distracts everyone from real issues, such as the war in Iraq.

As for the conspiracy that a plane never crashed into the pentagon:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

It's somewhat insulting and disrespectful to the families of the people who died on Flight 77 to say they never existed.

[Rizash]

First.... The twin towers were designed to take in impact from a SLOW MOVING low on fuel 707... not a fully loaded 727/737.... There were tons of jet fuel on those aircraft. The aircraft had high speed warnings going off as they hit the trade center.... warnings saying that if they stayed at that speed they would basically shear the wings off just by going too fast, no building can withstand that for too long)

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. (quoted from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html)
Problem is.. people read that and assume OH it couldnt melt the steel so it was imploded. The problem is that the collapse was caused by failure of STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM floor trusses..... Aluminm softens much sooner than steel in a fire from everything I've read, and....

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

Again, people see that and say "Oh the steel was full strength" no... the steel was moderately weakened, and the aluminum that held the floors up (remember one acre PER floor we're talking held up by aluminum) weakened in the fires (after already being damaged by an impact FAR greater than the building was ever designed to withstand)

READ and educate yourself before saying stupid things. I've talked to mechanical/structural engineers about this stuff, the extensive use of lightweight structural aluminum floor trusses and the heat insulating foam being blown off those trusses were what caused the failures.... Frankly people always blame the US because we're the last superpower in the world.... GET OVER IT...

The US is one of the most isolationist countries in the world. We just want to be left alone. We make other countries rich and we make ourselves poor yet we take all kinds of crap simply because the rich jerks that control the political power are corrupt. Please dont blame us for the fact people hate us.... ANY nation that is as bullied as we are would over-react from time to time. If you think that Bush is a bad leader, fine... But remember, the more a country is badgered/bullied the WORSE the next leader will fight back to protect that nation. If you want peace then push in YOUR country to support PEACE towards the US so peace can come to the US.... And then maybe we can use our status as a super power to actually help those other nations (like Iraq) that need our help more than most people even know.

[Rizash]

Related: For those who say we invaded Iraq for oil... Read, dont take my words as fact, but OPEN YOUR MIND. Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Because it has OIL.... Iraq's oil reserves are almost nonexistant, russia has about 10-20X more oil than Iraq has left. Also... FYI.... Saddam DID have chemical weapons, that is a FACT.... Ask the soldiers in the first gulf war who were injured when we bombed their chemical weapons stores and facilities.... ask the Kurds how many hundreds of thousands of their friends/family members died to Saddam's genocide.... Yet this happens across the world NOW in Darfur.... And people bitching about "whats what" and stupid outdated religions and stupid racial differences will continue to fight and ignore the problems that dont hurt them. One of these days our ignorance of just how bad the situation is will bite us in the ass and we WILL be in trouble.

Sorry if I offended anyone, from this point on I will just ignore the stupid political thread and avoid posting in other topics that are bothersome. I simply can not ignore people blaming OUR country that was attacked for the evils of the world. OUR country has been the one to help bail out people at the drop of a hat, yet now that WE need help (our blunder in Iraq and Katrina, and the 9/11 attacks....) the world ignores us and blames us for our own trouble. We hand out so much stuff its sickening. I dont think the world realizes just how hard the average american struggles just to keep alive.

For the record, those of you wondering how I stand and why I am so opinionated.... in the richest country in the world my parrents pay over $650 a month between the two of them for health care, my dad is disabled and brings no money home after paying for medical bills. My mother, brother, and myself all work our tails off and all have a signifigant ammount of debt we are trying to pay off. And what do I have for working 50+ hours a week-7 days a week for the last 2 years, until this year, now I'm not quite full time, but I'm trying to self educate myself in maya, etc) I have an aging POS computer, my car that needs a lot of help, a few cameras, the clothes on my back, and a bed. Thosee are the only posessions I own.... This in a house with 4 people.... in the richest country in the world. I am tolerant, I am forgiving, I am far more understanding than the average person because of my situation, both inside and outside my mind. The world we live in is not for the weak of heart or the ill equipped to deal with sadness. The only way we can ever get over our problems is to work together, strengthen our friendships and create bonds that surpass all borders. Should I live to the day that people stop judging people by what side of an imaginary border they live on, it would be the greatest day of my life.

[Binkie]

Rizash,
there were actually a few reasons for the invasion of Kuwait and indeed one of them had to do with oil. But it was not about Iraq stealing Kuwait's oil, but rather the reverse. The Ba'athists were accusing Kuwait at the time of slant drilling, or drilling at an angle beneath the surface in order to cross the border and strike/steal Iraq's underground oil. That just aided in their decision to overrun Kuwait, since one of the main reasons was because of the debt that Iraq owed to Kuwait from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. To fight a war that carried on for some 8 years, Saddam's government ended up borrowing billions on top of billions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

When it came time to pay the bills in the 1990s, Iraq was struggling like hell to do so. Add to this other issues, such as the fact that Kuwait was originally partitioned from Iraq by the British in the early 1900s - afterwhich Iraq refused to recognize Kuwait, and you can see there were many ideological and economic reasons for the invasion. The forgiving of debt was the foremost economic reason. Taking over oil fields for economic purposes wasn't thrown into the spotlight until the Ba'athist regime began to look to Saudi Arabia's northern fields, which were EXTREMELY lucrative. They'd use the "no clear border" card in order to drive their military occupation on south from Kuwait, though that was promptly countered when they ran into the UN Coalition.

[Rizash]

Right, I knew about the debt, but I had been reading that it was too expensive for Iraq to actually drill for new oil, and since Kuwait had so much around yet they were looking for a cheap way out... Bah, 15 years ago is a LONG time when you're 23... lol... I dont remember the details that well, only that the Iraqi people love us, they just wish they could get along with each other

[Binkie]

Hmm... that may have been the case then with the drilling. I know Iraq was banking on having the OPEC price hike in crude (via production cuts) help to pay off their international debt, but Kuwait ended up increasing it's production at the time so that the price of crude never hiked. That was to sort of trap Saddam's government and twist Iraq's arm into settling their border dispute in favor of Kuwait so that in exchange, their debts would be either forgiven or lowered. Apparently the Ba'athists weren't on board for that one. :P

[Rizash]

Well, oil is such a joke anyway.... 30 years from now we really SHOULDNT need it... Bio plastics and bio fuels are very eco friendly and efficient to grow.... THe problem is our governing bodies are too cheap to force people to take the better way out....

[Binkie]

This is true, but unfortunately the major alternative fuel source everyone here in the US is really eyeballing with any seriouness is ethanol. And by the current system we use to produce it, just as much energy is put into producing and transporting it than what we yeild from it as an end product. According to the Department of Energy we get a little over a fraction more (1/3) from the ethanol produced, but I'm not sure if that includes transporation since ethanol can't be carried through pipelines. :/

[Rizash]

What I really dont get is why the hell dont we make more hydro power plants? Seems all I see are wind turbines going up but I've yet to see one dam be built.... Well, hydrogen has a future (assuming you're using a renewable energy source to actually generate it from water, or that you're burning it, not just re-combining it in a fuel cell (this is a net loss of power) we MAY find another easy way to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from water... if we do hydrogen would be an almost endless supply of power. Fusion may only be 20-30 years away... so I dont know how that will turn out. In fact... I lost the link but they just built the first PRODUCTIVE fusion generator... the first in history to produce more electricity than it takes to maintain the magnetic fields required to contain the plasma. It only produces a tiny profit over cost, but its a start.

[LostAndCrazy]

I think having alternate power sources could help resolve alot of conflicts really quickly. I must stress that politicians make a killing out of war (defense contracts and the like) and it also helps keep focus off of domestic issues. *rambles on but doesnt bother typing it*. I think most of us are smart enough to be on the same page about this.

[Binkie]

Hydrogen would be a great alternative energy source, but the problem there is that the technology that makes it useful is a bit costly to put in vehicles. I can't remember who just came out with hyrdogen consuming cars ("prototypes" may be a better word) here recently, but the pricetag on the new technology is well out of the affordability range for most folks.

As far as involvement in international matters, I don't think it's intentionally done so to keep focus off of domestic issues, but is one of the main reasons many countries are sometimes surprised by them when they come to light in tragic occurances. Such is evident in America with some of the issues surrounding the aftermath of Katrina, in France with the massive riots of 2005, Australia with the Cronulla riots, etc. I wouldn't attribute energy to being one of the main factors in international involvement either from many of these countries (though it does play a role) - alot of it has to do with commitments to regional partners/allies or are part of a greater polical realignment.

[Rizash]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Hydrogen would be a great alternative energy source, but the problem there is that the technology that makes it useful is a bit costly to put in vehicles. I can't remember who just came out with hyrdogen consuming cars ("prototypes" may be a better word) here recently, but the pricetag on the new technology is well out of the affordability range for most folks.

As far as involvement in international matters, I don't think it's intentionally done so to keep focus off of domestic issues, but is one of the main reasons many countries are sometimes surprised by them when they come to light in tragic occurances. Such is evident in America with some of the issues surrounding the aftermath of Katrina, in France with the massive riots of 2005, Australia with the Cronulla riots, etc. I wouldn't attribute energy to being one of the main factors in international involvement either from many of these countries (though it does play a role) - alot of it has to do with commitments to regional partners/allies or are part of a greater polical realignment.

In Katrina... the military wanted to get aid in faster... because of legal reasons they couldnt.... it was just a matter of politics that caused so many people to suffer. On that note I still say that few cities could have coped with a disaster of that scale as well as New Orleans did... its on a scale most people will never understand.

[Binkie]

I think one of the major issues that delayed the National Guard's relief efforts was the fact that most of the roads were rendered impassable after the storm. And until the ground forces could arrive, most of the efforts by air (be it by the Coast Guard or National Guard) were endangered by the fact that people were actively shooting at them from the ground. Not to mention once they arrived they had to quell the scattered violence before relief efforts could get underway.

But at any rate, I'm mostly talking about the immense national policy debates that were spawned from the relief efforts that had to do with proverty.

[Rizash]

ah yes... poverty sucks... you should have seen new orleans before katrina... I'm sorry to say many areas of that city were quite scary to drive through.... impoverished isnt even the word.

Well, what can I say... our lower class citizens really have it rough... that needs to change.

[Binkie]

I did happen to get a chance to visit New Orleans in the mid 90s, but I never visited the really impoverished neighborhoods outside the main city. Some of the older areas of downtown I visited durring the daylight hours were probably just as... "interesting."

Despite it's reputation for some of the bars, that's not the town I'd want to be stumbling out of one drunk late at night in. :P

[CptSternn]

Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
Published: 25 August 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece

Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.


You have to admit, when mainstream media reporters start asking these sorts of questions, those people who so far have been dismissed as crazy seem a bit more credible.

[1 4m 4n 3gg ph34r m3]

IT WAS THE JEWS!
Troll4eva
Troll4eva
TRoll4eva

[Saphyra Runa]

Saphy is at wits end on this thread subject. She asked me to step in for her and lend some reason and fact to the discussion. I am Poppacross, and I have been following this event sense I watched it live over breakfast on that September morning.

The first point I wish to make concerns "as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said.

I do agree with that statement. Al-Qa'ida is part of the Global Islamo-facist movement. A major part of their manifesto includes making Bagdad the capitol for their "Global Islamic State." We hold that bit of real estate and they want it back, which is why we can flush them into the open in batallion strength in Central Iraq as oppposed to trying to deal with small cells in Chicago. Remember that fact. Fighting them on their home turf is in America's best interest. I will quote General George S. Patton as to the true object of war. " The true object of war is to make some other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country."

In case you didn't get the memo we are at war. The Islamo-facists want us to kiss off our Constitutional Republic, our laws, and our culture. They want us to to adopt the wacko doomsday cult they call a religion, ( it is not true Islam! I know many ethical and upright muslims, and they do not condone the activities of Al-Qa'adia, either!), then they want us to adopt Shiria as a legal system. Shira is theocaratic despotism. Take all the nasty stuff the lefties acuse the religous right of wanting and put it on steriods and crack, then you have Shiria. Think of Torquamada with the power of a super state, and thermal nuclear weapons.

Then there is the bit of MoveOn.org propaganda about President Bush's activities in the Veit Nam era. He was assigned to the Air Defense Commnand. He flew the F-106 Delta Dagger. His job was to prevent the Evil Empire from invading our air space with trans-continental bombers. Yes the Soviet Union did exist and yes they were trying to take over the planet at the point of a sword.And by the way, the F-106 program in peace time was more hazardous than flying combat in the gulf wars. That horse was know to turn on it's master at the drop of a hat. What Mr. Bush did not do was appear live on TV and accuse honorable American fighting men of war crimes like one other current politico we all know.

As to the claim the that Pentagon attack was a put up job. Here's a little mathmatical formula to program into your computers. The likely-hood of a secret being disclosed increases exponentially with each person that knows the secret. To pull off that hoax would have to have thousands of people in on the secret. Since those same people would have friends and/or relatives in body bags, very few would be motivated to actually keep silent. Then the converse would also be true. Given the utter hatred the opposition party has for the current administration, such shit would be story one day in and day out. Since it is not, I believe this bit of your reasoning to be based entirely upon your own prejudice. Did I mention that I personnally watched the entire attack live on Fox News?

The towers, oh yes the towers. First off plug in the formula mentioned above. Secondly, any fire fighter that has been on the job two minutes will tell you the one that scares the shit out of them is the high rise fire. That's because once the high rises catches it becomes a giant chimney. The fire on the upper floors is fed by air rushing up from below. It becomes a blast furnace. Then increase in available oxygen makes the fire hotter and hotter. Now, we are talking about the World Trade Center. The original specs for that project called for the load bearing structure to be coated with a thick layer of asbestos insulation. This material does work, I have handled red hot steel with asbestos gloves. However, environmental concerns caused all of the insulation to be removed from the steel, it was never replaced. The alternative was a process called incapsulation, it would have retained the benfits of a nice layer of asbestos without the environmental concerns. But the Port Authority caved in to the Environmental activists, and at great monetary expense removed all the asbestos, that contributed to the loss of life on 9/11. Atta admitted to researching the debate, and he admitted to exploiting it!

Speaking of Mohamad Atta. This human turd was actually in police custody two weeks prior to 9/11. He got popped for driving without a valid lisense. However, sense the FBI and the CIA were not sharing data this scumbag was sprung to do the evil that he did. He was a known Terrorist, he had an expired visa, and the coppers could not hold him on anything but a few hundred dollar's bond.

You have to wonder why! The why is because the Clinton appointee to the Justice Department, one Jamie Guerrellick, made the rule that there should be a fire wall betwext the twain, "to protect the cival liberties of Americans." What the rule was really about was to cover Bill & Hillary's transfer of ballistic missle technology to the red Chinese. They were sending guidance systems and super-computers out the front door, while another Clintonesta that was running the Department of Energy let a Chinese spy into Los Alamos to steal the Legacy Program. That's all the math you need to build a hydrogen bomb. It's takes a Cray 2000 to run the damn thing, Bill had already authorized the sale of two to the Red Army! Jamie Guerrellick is now a wheel in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Should Mrs. Bill get into the Oval Office, Jamie Guerrellick will probably get her job back in Justice.

In short, before 9/11 we did have our pants down around our ankles. We only have ourselves to blame because we did elect that traitoruos, womanizing grifter as our Commander in Chief. Now his partner in crime is running for president instead of swabbing the john in a women's Federal pen.

[CptSternn]

None of your response addressed any of the unanswered questions that the article discusses. Your first few paragraphs are actually quite anti-Muslim, and are offensive as well as quite ill-informed.

Your attack on Iran and their culture also seems a bit off, since Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Are you now trying to pull a bush and claim Iran also had something to do with 9/11 or are you just regurgitating right-wing propaganda which you saw on faux news?

[the-broken-harlequin]

They landed on the moon!
O RLY?
THEN WHY IS THE FUCKING FLAG FLUTERING WHEN THERE IS NO AIR IN SPACE, EH?