board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

The 9/11 Thread - oscar winning

Post Reply   Page 1 of 76  [ 1518 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 576 »
What is your opinion of the official 9/11 story?
I believe the official story 100%. The government has been completely honest on every detail.
  
4% [ 3 ]
I believe the general framework of the official story, even if some of the details might be wrong.
  
55% [ 40 ]
The official story is most likely true, but I sometimes have doubts.
  
15% [ 11 ]
I don't know what to believe.
  
10% [ 7 ]
I believe the official story is most likely a cover-up of some sort.
  
8% [ 6 ]
I believe this was a conspiracy meant to further the governments aggressive foreign policy (i.e. a "New Pearl Harbour")
  
8% [ 6 ]
Total votes: 73
Author Message
Iavas_Saar
Post subject: The 9/11 Thread - oscar winning
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 12:57 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
The more I read, the more anomalies regarding 9/11 become apparant. I don't pretend to know what truly happened that day, but I do know that the official story does not seem at all sound to me.

To start things off:

1. Why was the security camera footage from the gas station close to the Pentagon confiscated by the FBI and never released? What possible reason could there be for not letting everyone see what happened to the Pentagon if it would simply confirm the official explanation? Official photos of the crash scene have been released, so why not footage of the crash itself?

2. Was it just sheer coincidence that the cameras atop the WTC didn't happen to be operating on the fateful day? Kinda like the security cameras in the tunnel where Diana's car crashed just happening to black out at the right moment!

3. Why did noone trapped above the crash points climb up on to the rooves to be rescued by helicopter? Most probably because the doors up on to the rooves were all locked that day.

4. Was it just coincidence that highly valuable gold reserves were removed from the WTC basement early on the morning of the disaster?

I'll stop here for now, but the list goes on and on - there are many more of these questions and anomalies which I will bring up in future posts. One or two strange anomalies might be expected from a day when so many extraordinary things happened. But the number of anomalies we have here is, IMO, too high to write off.

Last edited by Iavas_Saar on Mon 03 Mar , 2008 7:00 pm, edited 45 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 1:00 am
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
I rarely buy into government conspiracy stories.

Mostly because I think the government is way too fucked up to ever be organized enough to make a conspiracy work for any amount of time. They just aren't that clever, honestly.

Many of the "facts" you post are dubious, especially the climbing up to be resuced by heliocopter one. Anytime a fact has "most probably" in it, it isn't a fact.

9/11 was a total fuck-up, but not a conspiracy.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 1:05 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
There are always things kept hidden in the interests of national security.
Especially when those things that would be revealed could come back to haunt us. There will always be secrets and you will never know the whole truth about anything.
I don't believe there is any conspiracy, just some things kept from us that should probably be kept from us.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:09 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Jewel, I didn't say they were "facts", but anomalies. :) I also think that some attempt should be made to explain those anomalies.. after all, the official story is fairly straight forward. I do seem to notice that very few people actually confront the specific points raised, but rather prefer to talk in generalities. If you believe the towers were in a natural state on 9/11, which you seem to, can you explain why noone who found they couldn't descend the towers didn't try the obvious thing and get up onto the roof where they might have a chance of being saved?
Quote:
I don't believe there is any conspiracy, just some things kept from us that should probably be kept from us.
I don't see how that can be. The information provided to us, that terrorists can ram jetliners into skyscrapers in what should be the most well monitored airspace in the world, couldn't really get any more frightening. What possible security reasons could there be for not letting us see the Pentagon crash, when we all got to see the far more horrific WTC crashes in all their gory detail? If the official story is true, there is nothing about the Pentagon crash the public needs protecting from. You'll have to provide better reasons for the secrecy when there isn't even supposed to be a secret.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
tinwe
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:26 am
Waiting for winter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Location: Jr. High
 
Hey Iavas, how’s the simulation coming? Made any progress on it? I’d love to hear your results.


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:27 am
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
Iavas, the jet hit the core supports in the North Tower and effectively destroyed not only the stairs (there were 4 staircases) but also the dry wall surrounding the stairs and knocked the fireproofing off of the support beams. No one climbed to the roof because they couldn't climb and also because the temperature went to almost 2000 degrees F. It was a raging inferno.

In the South Tower, the jet hit the tower much higher up and at an angle. Only 1 staircase was viable. But, again, the fireproofing was gone and the steel support structures began to collapse pulling the bolts out of the walls.

Helicopters circled the Towers looking for survivers on the rooftops. It was considered too dangerous to even attempt a landing.

If you get the chance, watch a PBS NOVA special called "Why the Towers Fell." It will explain a great deal about the conditions inside at the time of, and immediately following the crashes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Last edited by Sassafras on Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
oldtoby
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:37 am
Cuddly Studmuffin
Offline
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 10:41 pm
 
Quote:
The information provided to us, that terrorists can ram jetliners into skyscrapers in what should be the most well monitored airspace in the world, couldn't really get any more frightening.
Well monitored is a far cry from having assets in place to deal with a hijacking. Even the US military doesn't have the capability to maintain a 24 hour Combat air patrol over even a tenth of our airspace for any continuous time period.
Quote:
What possible security reasons could there be for not letting us see the Pentagon crash, when we all got to see the far more horrific WTC crashes in all their gory detail?
Why do we need to see it? It couldn't have been caused by anything other than a crashing jetliner. The only other theories that could be suggested are that either a) DoD deliberatly blew up the Pentagon after seeing the planes hit the towers to take advantage of the event. or b) that the entire thing was a massive govt conspiracy from the get go.


Top
Profile Quote
tinwe
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:41 am
Waiting for winter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Location: Jr. High
 
oldtoby wrote:
DoD deliberatly blew up the Pentagon after seeing the planes hit the towers to take advantage of the event.
Why do you put ideas into their head?

On second thought, can anyone really prove that DoD didn’t blow it up? ;)


Edited to add:

Iavas,
Your poll needs another option: I don’t believe it was a conspiracy, despite what I might think about the government.

The truth is, I could very easily pick any one of 2-5 on your list, but none of them adequately describes my opinion on the matter.

Last edited by tinwe on Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
oldtoby
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:47 am
Cuddly Studmuffin
Offline
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 10:41 pm
 
Quote:
On second thought, can anyone really prove that DoD didn’t blow it up? ;)
Not funny


Top
Profile Quote
tinwe
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:52 am
Waiting for winter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Location: Jr. High
 
oldtoby wrote:
Quote:
On second thought, can anyone really prove that DoD didn’t blow it up? ;)
Not funny
No, it’s not, but going by some of the conspiracy theory websites I have looked at (most of which I had to force myself to look at so I could respond to Iavas in his Manwe thread on this topic), this is the sort of logic many conspiracy theorists tend to use. I’m not accusing Iavas of being one of those types, but if you look at what some of them say, this isn’t that far from the truth. Sadly.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 3:57 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
tinwe,
Quote:
Hey Iavas, how’s the simulation coming? Made any progress on it? I’d love to hear your results.
I had to abandon it for now (with all the job interviews, and now having a job, I don't have the masses of free time that I did a couple of months ago). I think I got to the point where I was trying to make it too complex, and it was getting tough to work it all out in my mind. Basically, I was trying to incorporate simple assumptions about the structural strength, which was tough, but I could have done it until I realised that making the building rigid would change the forces acting on the collapsing part of the building as well as the part still standing, which would mean completely revamping the momentum conservation that I had made the heart of the model. Hope that makes a tiny bit of sense.

Before it got too messy, the collapse times were inconclusive - 12-13s for the south tower and 14-15s for the north tower. It could be a significant difference, or it could be close enough to be consistent - without getting a decent estimate of the structural effects, it's tough to say. The big problem is estimating the level of pulverisation of the concrete - that has the biggest effect on the collapse time. But it's really hard to estimate what fraction of the concrete was pulverised before the collapsing material hit the ground, and how small the pulverised particles would have been.

I'm sorry I didn't have the right poll option for you, it's too late to add it now unfortunately.


Sass, I know all about the standard explanations for the collapses. It is certainly a very easy story for people to believe, and certainly I never questioned it myself when I first heard it. But I've come to realise you can't believe every story the carefully controlled news stations feed you.

It wasn't a "raging inferno", and it was nowhere near hot enough to melt the steel. Look at this picture:

[ img ]

Notice the two people standing looking out of the impact hole. There is a better version of this photo somewhere where you can clearly see that these people have the time to assess their situation, they aren't being forced to jump by 2000F infernos in the building behind them. When firemen reached the scenes of the crashes they found limited fires and fully expected to deal with the blazes quite easily.

Take a look at this photo of the plane impacting the north tower:

[ img ]

How do you explain those puffs at the top of the tower? That could be another reason why noone got onto the roof.

I don't claim to be an expert on helicopters, but I would think they make far more hazardous manouevres during sea rescues in storms etc. For all everyone knew, there were simply fires burning several floors below the rooves. The only danger I can see would be low visibility due to the smoke. In any case, even if helicopters couldn't have landed it doesn't explain why people were jumping to their deaths instead of congregating on the roof. There was always a chance that a rescue could come if they stayed on the roof. I know that if I found I couldn't get down the roof would be the next obvious place to go.

I've read the transcript of the NOVA special and find it simply peddles the official line without addressing any of the physical problems with it. The thing is, any documentary like that will prove what it wants to prove. If you want to prove that the towers fell by themselves, you can pick and choose the evidence to fit that.


toby,
Quote:
Well monitored is a far cry from having assets in place to deal with a hijacking. Even the US military doesn't have the capability to maintain a 24 hour Combat air patrol over even a tenth of our airspace for any continuous time period.
But over Washington jets can be scrambled extremely quickly. Are we to assume that about 1 hour after two jets hit the WTC the airforce don't take any action against another jet heading towards the nations capital? You would think the Pentagon would be exceptionally well protected against an attack, especially one with an hours warning.
Quote:
Why do we need to see it? It couldn't have been caused by anything other than a crashing jetliner. The only other theories that could be suggested are that either a) DoD deliberatly blew up the Pentagon after seeing the planes hit the towers to take advantage of the event. or b) that the entire thing was a massive govt conspiracy from the get go.
Why do we need to see more than one video of the planes hitting the WTC? Why do we want to gain any extra information? If nothing else it's natural human curiousity to want to see one of the most important historical events captured on film. Why did we need to see Kennedy's assassination in graphic detail? If that film exists, and it has nothing to hide, it should be shown to the public. There is absolutely no reason for it not to be unless it shows something the military don't want us to see. Come on, be serious.. important, historical footage is withheld from the world because they "don't need to see it"??? Well, um, I can assure you that MILLIONS would tune in to watch it if it were ever broadcast.

Also, the military could do a lot to quell the conspiracy theories if they just showed the footage and proved the theorists wrong. Sorry, but they are not withholding that video out of respect for what the public needs or doesn't need to see. No way.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 6:03 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
The thing is, while there are certainly fishy facts and antecdotes regarding 9/11, every alternative explanation I've seen has more problems than the official one. In all probablility, a lot of people have told a lot of lies for no other reason than to save face. 9/11 was, as jewelsong said, a total fuck up.

That having been said, if you really want to read 9/11 conspiracy theories--whether you actually believe them or are just looking for some entertainment--you have to check out Michael Ruppert and http://fromthewilderness.com. But don't say I didn't warn you.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:03 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I don't believe there was a conspiracy.

I do believe that there was complacency - a lazy 'it can't and won't happen to us' approach and posts filled with pen-pushing amateurs (unlike B77 of course).

There has been a cover-up of sorts - but only to protect those people and those who appointed them. There was a lack of professionalism at every level.

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 13 Jul , 2005 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:11 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
TheLidlessEyes wrote:
I don't believe there was a conspiracy.

I do believe that there was complacency...
My first thought, when it happened, was "Oh, my God, somebody finally did it."

Then I had to deal with a middle school of over 1,000 students which was located 3 miles from Logan airport and across the street from a medium-security government building. It was a total nightmare. I also had some kids from the mid-east and a teacher from Bosnia who suffered from post-traumatic stress and had to be sent home in an ambulance. We dismissed about 150 kids in 90 minutes to parents who were literally storming the building demanding their kids. We got through it.

After everyone had gone home and I had made sure my own kids were safe, I stayed to get a few things done and took a call from an irate parent who wanted to know "what the school had done to upset her daughter so much!" :Q

Here's a question. If there was a conspiracy, what would the goal of said conspiracy be?


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:42 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Well, the obvious goal would be public support for the largest anti-terrorist offensive in the history of the world.

However, I don't believe there was a conspiracy that resulted in the attacks themselves.

It was too devestating of an event to think our leadership at any level could have been involved.

There are things that were covered up that day, and I'm very curious to know what they were, but I don't think the whole thing was a conspiracy...

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 2:44 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Also, conspiracies often assume that the world is a far more organised place than it is, both in terms of military and political power and terrorist "networks". The CIA does a lot of its research through the internet, and their experts fluent in Middle Eastern and Arab languages and dialects are insufficient for the task (quite a few whistleblowers have pointed this out). Complacency, and a feeling that America's geographical isolation would translate into virtual immunity, made it possible for the 9/11 hijackers to succeed as spectacularly as they did.

I forget who it was that said that police and the good guys in general had to be successful always, but that terrorists (the bad guys) only had to succeed once. We don't get to hear about ALL the instances when terrorist acts are aborted, but there are many to each successful bombing.

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 7:43 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
The thing is, while there are certainly fishy facts and antecdotes regarding 9/11, every alternative explanation I've seen has more problems than the official one.
This is another thing I've noticed - the arguement that "there's no other plausible explanation, so the official explanation must be correct". I don't think it's a prerequisite of doubting the official story that you must have your own detailed theory mapped out. The question can simply be asked: Is the official story true or false? The answer to that does not depend on whether we can conceive of what really happened - that's a separate issue.

So no, you can't explain away the anomalies by just saying that there isn't yet a comprehensive alternative theory that fits. For the alternate explanation to come to light, we first need to show that a new line of reasoning needs to be pursued.

Quote:
I don't believe there was a conspiracy.

I do belive that there was complacency - a lazy 'it can't and won't happen to us' approach and posts filled with pen-pushing amateurs.
But there are many, many indications that important people had foreknowledge of what was going to happen.

Quote:
Here's a question. If there was a conspiracy, what would the goal of said conspiracy be?
Basically, it gives the government free reign to do anything in the name of "protecting America" and "the war against terror". It gives them far more power (i.e. attacking Iraq in the name of making America safer).

Quote:
It was too devestating of an event to think our leadership at any level could have been involved.
That depends how corrupt you believe it's possible for the government to be. I honestly don't know. Part of me wants to believe Bush is what he seems. Part of me thinks the countries leaders might have a very sinister secret agenda.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 7:51 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
I'm curious to know what poll option you voted for, Iavas.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 8:55 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Iavas_Saar wrote:
Quote:
The thing is, while there are certainly fishy facts and antecdotes regarding 9/11, every alternative explanation I've seen has more problems than the official one.
This is another thing I've noticed - the arguement that "there's no other plausible explanation, so the official explanation must be correct".
I'm not willing to doubt the official story wholesale without a plausible alternative. It's too extraordinary a claim.
Quote:
Basically, it gives the government free reign to do anything in the name of "protecting America" and "the war against terror". It gives them far more power (i.e. attacking Iraq in the name of making America safer).
But the thing is, they *haven't* done that. Iraq was not attacked until nearly two years later, and it required tortured logic to link the two together. If they wanted to go after Iraq, why didn't they blame Saddam in the first place? Was Afghanistan more important? And the Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation, but it falls pretty far short of the coup the conspiracy crowd makes it out to be. If 9/11 was part of a plan to launch a war or take over the govenment, the people involved really failed to take full advantage. Using 9/11 to get support for Iraq, reorganize intelligence, etc. strikes me as more opportunistic than anything else.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 19 Apr , 2005 11:24 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
I'm curious to know what poll option you voted for, Iavas.
I voted for the second to last option. I'm curious to know who else did?

Quote:
I'm not willing to doubt the official story wholesale without a plausible alternative. It's too extraordinary a claim.
The alternative is that those in power either planned or had pre-knowledge of the attacks. Those would be plausible alternatives to consider. Even if you can't believe people would do that, it's still technically possible given what we know. You certainly can't claim that there is no other possible scenario other than the official story, even if we can't guess it at this point. First we have to examine whether the official story holds up. If it doesn't, only then will the resources will be available to properly investigate what really happened.

Imagine if this principle was applied to science. Someone makes an important discovery that disproves a certain theory. But that discovery is discounted purely because the correct theory has not yet been worked out. That would limit progress significantly. The discovery needs to be acknowledged before resources are given to working on a new theory.
Quote:
But the thing is, they *haven't* done that. Iraq was not attacked until nearly two years later, and it required tortured logic to link the two together. If they wanted to go after Iraq, why didn't they blame Saddam in the first place? Was Afghanistan more important? And the Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation, but it falls pretty far short of the coup the conspiracy crowd makes it out to be. If 9/11 was part of a plan to launch a war or take over the govenment, the people involved really failed to take full advantage. Using 9/11 to get support for Iraq, reorganize intelligence, etc. strikes me as more opportunistic than anything else.
I was only suggesting a possibility. In any case, they could be implementing their changes slowly and subtley.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 76  [ 1518 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 576 »
Jump to: