Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 119

Thread: 9-11

  1. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    As long as we're doing thought exercises, riddle me this: Hypothetically, if you will, if there is something conspiratorial going on in this case, would you want to know about it?
    If Bush, or whoever, is behind this conspiracy, what was the alleged motivation for this? What was gained? A national tragedy? A tanked economy? A very long, unpopular war?


  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    If Bush, or whoever, is behind this conspiracy, what was the alleged motivation for this? What was gained? A national tragedy? A tanked economy? A very long, unpopular war?
    There's lots of reasons, but the main one was formulated by the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. It was a neo-conservative think tank created in 2000 riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisers. Some of those involved were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowiitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby.

    PNAC, issued a document, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. The paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." I think 9/11 was their new pearl harbor. They wanted to make America the only superpower, and make a lot of money from it. To them, with Russia in decline after the cold war, it was their time to make America the only super military power.

    Makes me think about the 2000 election, and the potential fraud in that election to get Bush in. 9/11 happened less than 8 months after Bush came into power.
    Last edited by JimmyJamesMD; 09-13-2017 at 01:42 PM.

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    There's lots of reasons, but the main one was formulated by the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. It was a neo-conservative think tank created in 2000 riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisers. Some of those involved were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowiitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby.

    PNAC, issued a document, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. The paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Makes me think about the 2000 election, and the potential fraud in that election to get Bush in. 9/11 happened less than 8 months after Bush came into power.
    I see. But the Trump/Russia thing, with dozens of unexplained coincidences, is all a bunch of BS, right?

  4. #49

    Default

    There are many ideas, concepts, events, etc. that even the brightest and most experienced among us aren't able to explain. That is to say, even the most intelligent lack the capacity to fully explain some things. That being generally agreed upon and understood, I don't understand why so many latch on to the most far-fetched and dumbassed ideas in an attempt to explain the inexplicable.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreview
    Posts
    10,569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    If Bush, or whoever, is behind this conspiracy, what was the alleged motivation for this? What was gained? A national tragedy? A tanked economy? A very long, unpopular war?
    That's what I would ask, too. There are a number of hypotheses, and Jimmy explains the most widely supported above. There's even one I heard about there having been a flaw in the integrity or durability of the buildings, and demolishing them solved that problem. Not sure how much merit there is to that one, though. As Jimmy has noted, I'm not sure if the collapse of Building 7 has ever been convincingly explained.

    I should mention that probably most of the people who have approached me about this matter are fellow civil engineers having the same misgivings about the collapse as I explained earlier in the thread. Generally, they wonder how ASCE (the American Society of Civil Engineers) could have come to those conclusions. These are people who haven't tended to a conspiratorial mindset their whole lives...until this instance, when things don't add up in light of our technical understanding. I have all the respect in the world for ASCE (I'm a member; they've extended an invitation for me to be a fellow, which is sort of a lifetime achievement award for civil engineers, but I haven't applied because I don't think I actually deserve it), but their finding is sort of a head scratcher.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post

    I should mention that probably most of the people who have approached me about this matter are fellow civil engineers having the same misgivings about the collapse as I explained earlier in the thread. Generally, they wonder how ASCE (the American Society of Civil Engineers) could have come to those conclusions. These are people who haven't tended to a conspiratorial mindset their whole lives...until this instance, when things don't add up in light of our technical understanding. I have all the respect in the world for ASCE (I'm a member; they've extended an invitation for me to be a fellow, which is sort of a lifetime achievement award for civil engineers, but I haven't applied because I don't think I actually deserve it), but their finding is sort of a head scratcher.
    Congrats. That's pretty cool.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    That's what I would ask, too. There are a number of hypotheses, and Jimmy explains the most widely supported above. There's even one I heard about there having been a flaw in the integrity or durability of the buildings, and demolishing them solved that problem. Not sure how much merit there is to that one, though. As Jimmy has noted, I'm not sure if the collapse of Building 7 has ever been convincingly explained.
    This is where secondary reasons come in. The trade towers were filled with asbestos and other toxins. The costs were astronomical to both get rid of the toxins or tear the building down piece by piece. And although it was well built from a structural stand point, it was junky and was losing tenants.

    Enter Larry Silverstein. A big time property guy, friends with Netanyahu, who owned WTC7. The twin towers were always owned by the port authority. However, Silverstein (and other minority investors) took out a 99-year lease (not purchase) and got a 4.6 billion payout for the attack. Only $1 billion went back into building one world trade.

  8. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    This is where secondary reasons come in. The trade towers were filled with asbestos and other toxins. The costs were astronomical to both get rid of the toxins or tear the building down piece by piece. And although it was well built from a structural stand point, it was junky and was losing tenants.

    Enter Larry Silverstein. A big time property guy, friends with Netanyahu, who owned WTC7. The twin towers were always owned by the port authority. However, Silverstein (and other minority investors) took out a 99-year lease (not purchase) and got a 4.6 billion payout for the attack. Only $1 billion went back into building one world trade.
    So it was all a big insurance scam? Couldn't they have had a plane hit it at say 3 AM and saved thousands of people?

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    So it was all a big insurance scam? Couldn't they have had a plane hit it at say 3 AM and saved thousands of people?
    You're funny. They needed access to plant explosives in the buildings. So Silverstein had to take control of the building, and got rewarded for it. He ate breakfast every morning at WTC, but didn't that morning. Lucky guy.

    The main goal was for the neo-cons to get their new pearl harbor. Many others benefited as well.

  10. Default

    El Amin - here's what I think happened and why. I'll try to make this short and high level. Joint operation by US Neo-Cons, Israel, and to a smaller part, Saudi Arabia.

    Main reason was neo-cons (many who are dual US and Israeli citizens) wanted it because war is big money and they wanted the US to remain the only power, and to do that to a country that was not interested in more war; they had make up a terrorist attack, or in their words, a "new pearl harbor." They wanted to do it for Israel (as a dual citizen) so they could have the US destroy all their enemies, do their dirty work. Do their own "war on terror"). Lots of others benefited to, including lots of military people who should have gotten canned, but were then promoted instead.

    9/11
    Many drills were being run that day, including ones about commercial jets getting hijacked, (Northern Vigilant, Northern Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian, etc.) which caused lots of confusion, and decreased the amount of available fighter jets to shoot down real planes. Due to this confusion, they were unable to shoot down 3 "planes."

    Whatever hit the Twin towers were not commercial jets, they were some sort of missiles or drones that mimicked the planes. Otherwise, I don't know how a flimsy aluminum plane goes through steel walls without much resistance. I think most of the planes should have never made it into the building or caused the road runner type holes. Commercial jets are not heavy or dense, otherwise they couldn't fly. I've seen birds beat up jets and I've also seen video of planes breaking apart when landing very easily. So I just can't believe they acted like missiles on this day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtSa-TZ6x8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAcjxKtQSEQ

    They were just for the show. Had nothing to do with the building collapses. So all 3 buildings has explosives in them. Bring them down for maximum effect, get interested parties maximum payout. There are plenty of youtube videos out there give audio on many explosions in the buildings before demolition. Also videos breaking down how they were a demolition. This is a video debunking the pancake theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4x82L0&t=377s

    Pentagon was hit by a missile. Cheney was in charge as I alluded to before, down in the bunker at the WH. There is no evidence, other than a few planted parts of an old plane, at the Pentagon. It was an impossible angle that the plane had to take to hit that spot on the pentagon. The only spot in the entire pentagon that had just gone through reconstruction to withstand a hit like that. It's also the spot where navy budget analysts were researching where the $2.3 trillion in money had gone, after Rumsfeld announced it was missing the day before.

    Something was shot down in Pennsylvania, but dont think it was a plane. The coroner was quoted as saying he stopped being a corner after about 30 seconds because there was no bodies, no blood, and that it looked like someone had just dumped a bunch of garbage in a hole.

    What happened to the planes? I don't think they were destroyed. I also don't think any hijackers were on there. Many of the hijackers showed up alive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

    The plane customers were either paid off or killed at an undisclosed location. This is an interesting video about Flight 93. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmySdwR0p70

    I could go on and on all day about the coincidences and impossible odds type of facts and stories. But there are people out there that have done of research on it.

    Here are a few of my favorite videos. The first one to go with is probably zero, it probably gives the best high level reasons whats wrong with the official story. Zero was shown in front of EU parliament and European media. But only 6 of 785 EU politicians showed up to watch. Also thousands of journalists were invited to show up, but none did. The other ones are more detailed.

    Zero https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3puhwRQMhZY
    Loose Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbZAXFKt-8E
    The New Pearl Harbor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
    Last edited by JimmyJamesMD; 09-14-2017 at 12:03 PM.

  11. Default

    One of my favorite clips showing what our plans were after 9/11. Not to just go after OBL and Al-Queda, but to dominate the middle east.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The Woodlands, TX
    Posts
    701
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    So who in the Gov't masterminded all of this and when did it originate? Bush was in office for less than 8 months, I don't think he was behind it. The military? Clinton? Who pulled this off?

  13. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    I haven't looked at the website of the skeptical engineers that Jimmy references, so I don't know what their deal is. To (sort of) answer your question, when steel heats up at the floors of impact, it doesn't affect the structural integrity of the steel in the 80-plus floors below it. That's why you build buildings out of steel: it can't be crushed like masonry - "pulverized," as the article you cite calls it. Steel doesn't pulverize.
    The unheated steel did NOT pulverize. The concrete and insulation around it did. That's what you saw. The rest of the steel bent under weight; and then heated in a pile of burning debris and reacted with its surroundings (thereby changing its chemistry and microstructure) until cooling and/or cleanup.

    The "skeptical scientists" remind me of the AGW deniers. Same ****, different story. Believe it at your own peril. Conspiracy theories are fun, but usually very wrong.
    Last edited by cncmin; 09-15-2017 at 12:05 AM.

  14. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    I've read these. The pancake theory is about as fluffy as pancakes. I'm sure you're a big snopes fan.

    A big problem on both sides of the aisle is confirmation bias. I've attempted to have healthy skepticism on the conspiracy side of things, but the logic I've used (you can make fun of me here) has pushed me towards the cover up side of things. Sorry, but all I see is the building dropping at near free-fall speed through what should have been the path of greatest resistance. The building was "pulverized," which makes me believe it was destroyed by some sort of explosives. If it was truly "pancaking," the destruction would have slowed down and stopped so it would have only been a partial collapse. But the entire building was basically gone. Makes no sense to me.

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-...mechanics.html

    You're obviously into debunking. Above is a link to other engineers debunking PM. It's best to read both, use your own common sense, and come up with your own conclusion. I think NIST's and PM's explanation is crap.
    Sorry man, I know this stuff excites you, but it's not real.

  15. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    I appreciate the respectful discussion. I would argue that we knew for sure that Occam's razor didn't apply to your physics analogy, because there were indisputable unexplained deviations, so we **knew** there was something missing (i.e., it wasn't that simple). To feed your view for a second, I suppose your argument is that there are unexplained deviations on 9/11. My response would be that I don't disagree, but that doesn't automatically mean it is a conspiracy any more than the missing piece in physics indicated that God was out there messing with stuff, just to screw with Al Einstien, et al.
    yep

    Quote Originally Posted by dpodoll68 View Post
    There are many ideas, concepts, events, etc. that even the brightest and most experienced among us aren't able to explain. That is to say, even the most intelligent lack the capacity to fully explain some things. That being generally agreed upon and understood, I don't understand why so many latch on to the most far-fetched and dumbassed ideas in an attempt to explain the inexplicable.
    and yep

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •