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

I would like to know your take on this. I find it eerily true, but maybe I'm gullible( i can't spell).

I mentioned in another political thread the main conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 right now. There are DVD's that explain in detail, how there was no way those towers could collapse from a plane. That's specifically what they were built to be able to withstand.

And it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon at all.

Also, there was a third world trade center tower that fell that day. It had all of the files from Enron inside of it, as well as some others of importance.

Also the towers fell straight down, in a way that only highly trained demolition experts can emulate.

The only thing I don't understand is how or why our government would or could ever possibly conceive doing something like this (the inaction to prevent it, I mean).

I have always thought that something about 9/11 was off.

Then, I was listening to Coast to Coast AM one night and 9/11 was the topic. I learned much. I do firmly believe that somebody high-up in the government had something to do with the collapse of the World Trade Center. Oil is god, I guess.

Also, Hunter S. Thompson did not commit suicide. He was killed because he had uncovered the truth about 9/11.

I'm reading this site now...
I've always had questions about the pentagon attack myself. from day one, while i sat and watched all of it on tv. i never really questioned the wtc tho.

Who is/was Hunter S. Thompson?

Would you believe me if I told you it was Chaney? Also one other person, I forget who.

I'd be interested in reading up on any sources Korova may have. my mom and i spent a few hours talking about all of this last night.

Yeah, those kinds of conspiracy theories brought about the 3 year government-sponsored investigation that involved the "who's who" of structrual and fire engineers in the private and public sectors. All concluded in an extremely comprehensive and vast report that the collapse was not the result of explosives, but due to the fires from the planes.

The lead engineer that built the WTC buildings, Leslie Robertson, also stated quite clearly that they really didn't know that much about fires from planes, and the building wasn't designed in anticipation of that. He also went on to explain how the kenetic energy of the planes' impacts were 7 times greater than the building was built to withstand. Robertson and other prominent designers said they built the towers to withstand a 707 traveling at a very slow speed (a fifth of what the planes on 9/11 were traveling at). They said the building was never built to withstand a 767 traveling as fast as it was.

So, Binkie. Do you think this is just another conspiracy theory? Have you read any of the information on the website that Oubliette linked to?

I don't like buying into conspiracies, but that site presents way too much data that begs questioning. Are we really suppose to believe that all of these fuck-ups became a chain reaction that resulted in 9/11...

Yes, I do believe it's a conspiracy theory. So does 3/4ths of the engineering community, of who's most highly regarded experts took part in NIST's report on the collapse of the WTC. 205 structural and fire engineers out of both public and private sectors to be exact. FEMA released a report which gave quite a bit of detail into the structural failures as well that lead to the collapse, most of which is based on studies and analysis by highly accredited engineers.

And yes, I did read over the site. Gives you selective information. Example: they like to compare the impact planning of a 707 to the 767 in terms of raw stats (cruising speeds, weight, fuel capacity), but neglect to mention that the building was originally meant only to withstand an impact from a 707 [presumably lost in fog] traveling at a pre-landing speed of 180mph as it was coming in to land at JFK but mistakenly crashed into the WTC. Not the full-throttle 590mph, which is what both planes were roughly traveling at when they impacted with the building. They make it seem as though it's odd that the building collapsed after the plane struck, since it's supposed to remain intact after a plane is driven into it. The point was supposed to be that the building doesn't immediately collapse upon impact. And regardless of the fact that the kenetic energy bieng 7 times greater than what the buildings were supposed to be able to handle, they did not immediately collapse. The cause of the collapse was from the fires, not the impact. Something the designers, nor any building inspector, ever anticipated happening on the scale that it did.

A controled demolition would require alot of work that you just can't do without people noticing. First of all you have to strip away the walls in order to have direct access to the beams to place charges on. But before you can place charges on them, you have to cut through a good portion of the beam first, because the explosives generally aren't used to wipe out the entire beam in most cases - just finish them off. It'd be kinda hard to go in to work everyday and not notice people sawing through beams or seeing chunks of the wall cut out and charges set up all over the place.

There were and are too many unanswered quesitons and coincidents that can't and haven't been answered.

The one thing that they point out that I also found to be a big red flag was the pentagon crash.

I was in Richmond at the time and the local news covered the crash which is less than an hour away. Now, they had camera crews on the scene within a few minutes, and there was not one bit of wreckage from the plane shown. Later the DoD said they removed large chunks of the aircraft immediately for evamination, but I mean, they moved a whole plane within minutes of the crash?

Look at all pictures of the pentagon crash. Not one bit of a plane in any picture. Flames, firetrucks, and somehow they moved the plane before the local news crews got there.

But seriously - try to find a picture with the pentagon and the aircraft. There are none.

-S

Also, one other thing there I forgot to mention that they haven't seemed to touch on in that article is the NORAD factor. Google NORAD REMOTE.

Since 1959, NORAD personnel have been installing remote control units in a variety of aircraft and remotely controlling those aircraft in sophisticated aeronautical maneuvers, including combat practice. See "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," written by Alan Staats for Facsnet, and posted on October 2, 2001. (Facsnet is an education service provided for its reporters by Associated Press.)

I learned about this years ago after watching AIRPLANE and discussing it with a half-cousin of mine who is now a commercial pilot (former Air Force Fighter pilot). If you talk to commerical pilots they will tell you a few things like:

1. NORAD had remote systems in most every major commerical airliner these days so if a senario like in the movie AIRPLANE were to occur, they could remotely land the plane with no issues. Also note there are always backup transponders on all planes, and NORAD tracks all planes even without transponders. Remember, these guys are in charge of tracking incoming emeny bombers, missles, UFO's, etc - all of which don't have transponders - so how was it they couldn't find those airliners? I mean, with the transponders turned off, they could have easily found those plane which were 'gone for 20 minutes'. If you discuss this with any airline pilots, they will tell you how crazy this all sounds.

I mean, if the US can't find a commercial airplane flying around the pentagon for 30-40 minutes how exactly are they supposed to find/stop an incoming nuclear missle?

Just a few more questions they never answered...

Well let's answer some of your unanswered questions, Sternn.

You couldn't find pictures of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn at all on this vast internet? Well, thankfully ol' Binkie has the google skills to type in "plane debri pentagon" on google images and looky what we came up with:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/152.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/154.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/067-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/043.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/148.jpg

More debris were found inside of the buiding, along with passanger remains which were recovered, and the black boxs. Thing is though, if you crash a jet into a fortified concrete wall built like the Pentagon was at full throttle, you're not going to be left with large debris. The only incidents in which you are left with large debris is when a pilot is ATTEMPTING to land the aircraft.

Example of a plane crash in which debris are reduced to small nothings (see if you can identify anything belonging to the plane):

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon..._feb1602_1.jpg

Another interesting thing for conspiracy theorists to explain is how a missle ended up clipping several light poles on it's way into the Pentagon:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/030-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/031.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/020.html

As for your NORAD assessments; "no." The IDEA for installing remote control systems in commercial airplanes for the purpose of landings was introduced AFTER 9/11. Yes, the military has been using it for years, but it was not present aboard the commercial flights on 9/11.

Here's the Bush speech introducing the idea to prevent further incidents like 9/11 through the use of remote controlling commercial planes:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010927-1.html

Damnit Binkie, I'll not have any of your research flummoxing my beliefs! Begone, knave, and hope I don't decide to send out the dogs!

The same Government that fabricated the Moon landing,and had a hand in the JFK assassination...they're watching everybody.

Yeah, they plant it in you when you get all of those 'immunizations' as a kid.

This is starting to remind me of a movie,wasn't something like that in "Eraser"?(With Ah-nold)
-oh fididdle,threadjack.

You can decode this whole mystery by looking on the back of the dollar bill. It's all there - I swear!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/152.jpg - Shows fire damage. Nothing else.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/154.jpg - Looks like a burnt lawnchair
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/067-large.jpg - That's too small to be a 747
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/043.jpg - Random pieces of metal. Could have come from anything.
http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg - Looks to be some kind of hydrolic or pump. Could have come from anywhere.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/148.jpg - Doesn't even look like something from a plane.

More debris were found inside of the buiding, along with passanger remains which were recovered, and the black boxs. Thing is though, if you crash a jet into a fortified concrete wall built like the Pentagon was at full throttle, you're not going to be left with large debris. The only incidents in which you are left with large debris is when a pilot is ATTEMPTING to land the aircraft.

Err. One problem. 747 are designed to withstand such high impacts. It's going to leave huge chunks.

Example of a plane crash in which debris are reduced to small nothings (see if you can identify anything belonging to the plane):

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon..._feb1602_1.jpg - You can tell where it stopped. You can also see the scattered debris along the sides.

Another interesting thing for conspiracy theorists to explain is how a missle ended up clipping several light poles on it's way into the Pentagon:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/030-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/031.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/020.html

Missiles can clip telephone poles. It's not likely, but they can. One of the theories is that it was a much smaller plane. Which could have done that as well.

Then again, I'm not expert.

Everyone needs to see this site:http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

That was to freky with the $20 bill.

You'll have to talk to my awesome government teacher for that one. I got that bit from her.