Jump to content

Www.911revisited.com


integral
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a different theory on why there haven't been any new terrorist attacks since 9/11. I got a magic rock to protect the nation after it happened. Since there haven't been any new attacks, I must conclude my magic rock is working.

 

Seriously, a lack of attacks proves nothing. The only "foiled terrorist attempted attack" I'm aware of is the Pedillia case. Supposedly, he was going to detonate a dirty bomb in New York City. Last I heard, they've kept him locked up without charging him with any crimes or access to any attorney. I was under the impression that we're all entitled to a fair and speedy trial but obviously I'm mistaken. The government can grab anyone off the street, slap a "terrorist" label on them and lock them up until the end of time without ever charging them with a crime.

 

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has been great for the terrorists. We toppled a regime that was hostile to Bin Laden and created the perfect playground for Osama. He's no-doubt made great use of this example of American aggression in his propaganda to bring more of the inflamed Muslim world to his cause. Meanwhile, the war is sucking up lives and money that could have been spent in Afganistan to crush Al Qaida. Best case scenerio that I can see is a Shi'ite theocracy friendly to Iran.

 

Oh, did I mention that Bush put forward the minimum possible effort against Bin Laden in Afganistan? So much for his pledge to bring Bin Laden to justice no matter the costs. We had an opportunity to crush Al Qaida with the support of the rest of the world after 9/11 but Bush decided his personal vendettas against Saddam were more important.

 

Short of surrendering to Bin Laden and declaring America an Islamic Republic, I can't think of anything more Bin Laden would have wanted us to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do I feel safer?.....No, not really. But I don't entirely blame that on the government, but I do on 9-11.

 

Before that to most Americans (including me) terrorism, crazy Muslims killing in the name of their vengeful God, innocent people dying in the thousands......That was all very far away from me. Sure, it happened. But not here, among civilized people. It wasn't something I needed to be afraid of, or worried about. This was America and we were safe. The rusty diplomatic machinations between the US and the world at large were hardly existent in my mind.

 

Now I know that there's millions of people out there, who think that killing me, Sage, is one of the greatest ways to please their God. I'm an American. I must die.

 

I didn't appreciate how blissful ignorance really was. Now I know that at any moment some Middle Eastern fundamentalist mullah just might loose a couple nuclear warheads in our direction and obliterate an entire large American city, killing millions of innocent people in a matter of seconds. I know that our country is being led by a group of people who view their vengeful God's influence paramount in matters of state and world. Every day I am awakened to the fact that thousands of other innocents die throughout the world for the same God, and with every death, their rage at us - the common Americans - grows ever stronger.

 

Now more than ever (if I ever did realize it before) I know that the people who actually create war - presidents and prime ministers, rich puritans and politicals - rarely suffer from it. I suppose that's why it's so easy for them to send millions of young men and women into deadly combat for months, even years, at a time. They never have to face the blood, the agony, the wailing, the death. They're still coddled and wrapped up in their mansions or hideaways, directing their drones to do their will as they sit on their asses and don't dare to pick up a gun and throw their own precious selves into the heat of battle. (Bin Laden, anyone?) No, the people who suffer in war are those who are least responsible for it: the commoners, the salt of the earth, the everyday people who are just trying to get food in their mouths and warmth near their bodies and not masturbating to the idea of their own military glory.

 

I think I liked it better when I didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting read by Ohio State University's John Mueller, in a Cato institute paper on terrorism:

 

Terrorists can be defeated simply by not becoming terrified — that is, anything that enhances fear effectively gives in to them.

 

The shock and tragedy of September 11 does demand a focused and dedicated program to confront international terrorism and to attempt to prevent a repeat. But it seems sensible to suggest that part of this reaction should include an effort by politicians, officials, and the media to inform the public reasonably and realistically about the terrorist context instead of playing into the hands of terrorists by frightening the public. What is needed, as one statistician suggests, is some sort of convincing, coherent, informed, and nuanced answer to a central question: "How worried should I be?" Instead, the message the nation has received so far is, as a Homeland Security official put (or caricatured) it, "Be scared; be very, very scared -- but go on with your lives." Such messages have led many people to develop what Leif Wenar of the University of Sheffield has aptly labeled "a false sense of insecurity."

 

:scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the fuck did you pick up the idea that WTC 3 didn't suffer collateral damage from falling debris? 'Cause, whoever told you... or whatever site you read it on... is completely full of shit. Especially since, yanno, WTC 3 was right underneath the two main towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the fuck did you pick up the idea that WTC 3 didn't suffer collateral damage from falling debris? 'Cause, whoever told you... or whatever site you read it on... is completely full of shit. Especially since, yanno, WTC 3 was right underneath the two main towers.

Well you could tell by looking at it that it didn't fall due to falling debris. There obviously wasn't enough to make it fall especially in the way that it did. Contrary to what you said the building was 400ft away from the towers and not "right underneath the two main towers". Also the other factors such as fire caused by the planes can't be used for this building. Also this building did fall like a controlled demolition.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a Doctor of physics and astronomy at BYU that believes it was caused by demolition and offers proof of it. His name is Dr. Steven Jones. Whether he is right or not I'd rather listen to him "than a bunch of bored college students"

 

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steve...inar-video.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a Doctor of physics and astronomy at BYU that believes it was caused by demolition and offers proof of it. His name is Dr. Steven Jones. Whether he is right or not I'd rather listen to him "than a bunch of bored college students"

 

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steve...inar-video.html

 

 

Umm.....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Criticism

Qualified experts have dismissed Jones' paper as being a "non-issue", and containing "nothing to debunk." Since Jones' paper has not been published in a scientific journal, there are academicians, including some from Jones' own university, who question whether the article has been properly vetted by other experts in the field. [3]

 

The BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences has issued a statement in which they distanced themselves from Jones' research<now why would they go and do that?>. A similar statement was issued by BYU's structural engineering faculty, the "Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology." These statements noted that Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners, and that his analyses and hypotheses had not been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." They went on to say "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [12]

 

D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU [13], responded to an article from the Provo Daily Herald which detailed a presentation that Steven Jones had recently given, and remarked that after reading reports from FEMA, the ASCE and from other professional engineering organizations, as well as Jones' paper, he found the thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) had caused the collapse of the Towers, "very unreliable." Dr. Firmage further added: "Before one (especially students) <oh snap....there's your bored college students!>supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me, a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years, Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."[14]

 

And then there's this:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

 

Interesting tidbit from that link regarding Jones:

 

His other paper is called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.

 

:twitch:

 

Aaaand you want to trust this guy? A physics prof who wrote a paper evidencing Jesus be-bopping around America?

 

:Doh:

Have fun with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching Taylor's video now and have a few comments.

 

Thanks for the research WR, you are always good at fact checking, which I think is important for finding the truth. That said, this guy raises some issues that are quite interesting.

 

Let me digress for a moment. I feel totally unqualified to debate this issue. I'm not an engineer. It also gives me pause that my fellow skeptics disagree so vehemently with those that challenge the government's claims. I feel naked and alone because of this due to my own distrust of those claims.

 

I am not going to take a dogmatic position on this, but I do, admittedly, have some real issues with the official 911 story. I'm trying to be objective, but frankly, some (SOME) of the conspiracy claims make sense to me.

 

Here's food for thought, and it's just that, food for thought. When someone comes on this site and they raise fanatical claims debunking ToE, it is easy to pooh pooh them since what they are doing is making wild claims against a theory that has developed over decades and that has endured an overwhelming peer review process. Making a claim against this theory then puts a massive burden on the one making the claim since the ToE has already met an insurmountable burden of proof.

 

What do we have with 911 though? We have a 911 commission report that was put together by a group of politically motivated, and politically manipulateable group of individuals. This report was not put together by a group of independent, objective scientists. Perhaps the report has been widely peer reviewed by those that are independent and objective. If so, I am unaware.

 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm not going to make any claims that I can't support. I am skeptical of the 911 Commission report and the official explanation. It is obvious that a certain group of individuals benefited from this event, regardless of the fact if a conspiracy can be proven or not. I may be seen as an extremist for not accepting the official story without a better debunking of what I have thus far seen as potentially legitimate claims. I can't help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

I'm watching Taylor's video now and have a few comments.

 

Thanks for the research WR, you are always good at fact checking, which I think is important for finding the truth. That said, this guy raises some issues that are quite interesting.

 

Let me digress for a moment. I feel totally unqualified to debate this issue. I'm not an engineer. It also gives me pause that my fellow skeptics disagree so vehemently with those that challenge the government's claims. I feel naked and alone because of this due to my own distrust of those claims.

 

I am not going to take a dogmatic position on this, but I do, admittedly, have some real issues with the official 911 story. I'm trying to be objective, but frankly, some (SOME) of the conspiracy claims make sense to me.

 

Here's food for thought, and it's just that, food for thought. When someone comes on this site and they raise fanatical claims debunking ToE, it is easy to pooh pooh them since what they are doing is making wild claims against a theory that has developed over decades and that has endured an overwhelming peer review process. Making a claim against this theory then puts a massive burden on the one making the claim since the ToE has already met an insurmountable burden of proof.

 

What do we have with 911 though? We have a 911 commission report that was put together by a group of politically motivated, and politically manipulateable group of individuals. This report was not put together by a group of independent, objective scientists. Perhaps the report has been widely peer reviewed by those that are independent and objective. If so, I am unaware.

 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm not going to make any claims that I can't support. I am skeptical of the 911 Commission report and the official explanation. It is obvious that a certain group of individuals benefited from this event, regardless of the fact if a conspiracy can be proven or not. I may be seen as an extremist for not accepting the official story without a better debunking of what I have thus far seen as potentially legitimate claims. I can't help it.

 

I understand how you feel. I just don't believe the WTC was brought down by explosives. WTC7s collapse is a bit more mysterious, but there was one hell of a raging fire in that building. When the conspiracy theorists show pics of WTC7 they always show it from the least damaged side. The side facing the towers had a massive hole in it with a huge cloud of smoke billowing out. That said, WTC7's collapse does look like a controlled demolition. But, let's consider the fact that wiring a building with the explosives necessary to make it collapse neatly into it's own footprint takes several weeks of labor. I find it hard to believe the building had been being prepped for this weeks in advance, but I suppose it's possible.

 

In any case, I don't think Larry Silverstein meant "destroy it with explosives" when he said "pull it". I'm pretty sure he meant to evacuate the personnel. It makes no sense that this guy would fake the collapse of his building by fire for insurance fraud only to turn around and announce to the world on tv that that's what he did. That makes ZERO sense.

 

I don't trust my government, or any government for that matter. But I sure as shit don't trust conspiracy theorists. Their job, and they love it, is to lie through their fucking teeth to the most gullible audience they can find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video I'm watching seems to dispute well a few of the findings here. Most interesting is the fact that the building fell at the same rate as an apple dropped with only wind resistance; even the minor resistance of colapsing concrete and steel would have surely slowed things up a bit. I don't know. He makes some believeable claims to this old fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video I'm watching seems to dispute well a few of the findings here. Most interesting is the fact that the building fell at the same rate as an apple dropped with only wind resistance; even the minor resistance of colapsing concrete and steel would have surely slowed things up a bit. I don't know. He makes some believeable claims to this old fool.

 

Well considering the momentum of 40 floors falling (about 10 000 tons) and the fact that the wtc's volume is 95% air, it couldn't have offered much resistance. Once the core or the tube (the metal truss surrounding the tower) buckled under the weight there is nothing to really stop the tower. But it was somehow slowed down, you can see the debris ejected fall faster than the bulk of the tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how you feel. I just don't believe the WTC was brought down by explosives. WTC7s collapse is a bit more mysterious, but there was one hell of a raging fire in that building. When the conspiracy theorists show pics of WTC7 they always show it from the least damaged side. The side facing the towers had a massive hole in it with a huge cloud of smoke billowing out. That said, WTC7's collapse does look like a controlled demolition. But, let's consider the fact that wiring a building with the explosives necessary to make it collapse neatly into it's own footprint takes several weeks of labor. I find it hard to believe the building had been being prepped for this weeks in advance, but I suppose it's possible.

 

I hear what you are saying Shiva, and I'm certainly not confident in my ability to evaluate the claims made on either side. Just as a hypothesis regarding the issue of how the building could be wired without knowledge though: I understand that Bush's brother was in charge of WTC security at the time of 911. Couldn't the nightly janitor crew have secretly wired the building if the head of security were complicit.

 

Anyway, the prof I'm watching on this video claims that the WTC 7 fell within its own footprint; something that only a handful of the world's demolition experts can make happen. He also points to the fact that it buckled in the middle, the same way an imploded building does; due to the fact that they blow out the main support first.

 

I agree with you about believing conspiracy theorists. I just wish that the evidence that we have not didn't only come from a politically motivated commission. I would like to see a few real engineers debunk more than just a straw man of the claims. That's all it seems that the PM article did.

 

Bottom line, whether or not the government was complicit or not, the meaning that I derive from the whole event does not change. Bush has used the event to take away rights with the promise of trading them for our safety. This safety has not been forthcoming, but the rights have eroded nonetheless. Bush has also gained political muscle to push his agenda in other unrelated areas throwing around the term "unpatriotic" at those who oppose him. If I found irrefutable evidence that debunked the conspiracy claims, I don't think that I would fear the direction the government is taking the country any less.

 

Perhaps as such, I am but a crackpot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. XC

OK. What is wrong with this picture? Planes collide with high profile buildings, no fighter jets were scrambled, even though they are typically scrambled for something as small as an unruly passenger. When Bush hears the news, he has the most unsurprised look upon his face. If that dumb ass of a president had not already known of the plan to strike the towers, he would be at least a little surprised. With that, and the dozens of other suspicious events around 9/11, and a building like the WTC collapses so perfectly deserves much suspicion.

 

And where the fuck is the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? The places where the jet engines where supposed to be left no mark and the titanium from the engines do not just melt into thin air. See

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flo8cmARmsE part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3hCzGcd7g part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgYP3NTr7s part 3

 

People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

 

I recommend Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

 

Okay Captain Credulous, what you need to do with that sweeping generalisation is see if you can trade it in for a few more brain cells. I'm pretty sure I've seen all the same "evidence" you've seen, and though I have some questions, I don't think the conspiracy theory adds up. It might be because I've bothered to hear from both sides and not just swallowed the words of the woowoos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

Or, maybe, I'm just speaking as someone who WATCHED THE FUCKING EVENTS HAPPEN, and who knows not one, but SEVERAL New Yorkers who were right there, no more than a couple miles away, watching it all unfold right in FRONT OF THEM. The Twin Towers fell because two planes hit them, causing (and possibly exacerbating existing) structural damage. WTC3 fell because it was hit by several thousand pound of FLAMING DEBRIS (ooooh, 400 feet away. Yeah, like that's SO HARD TO BRIDGE when we're talking about the collapse of buildings that were at least a thousand feet tall. I'd provide exact measurements, but I kinda have to leave for work in about, oh thirty seconds). The REST of the buildings fell due to damage and fire. Anyone who thinks that there's some massive "OMG CONSPIRACY" is the one who's "simplifying things to not have the complexity of real life".

 

Asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. XC
People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

 

Okay Captain Credulous, what you need to do with that sweeping generalisation is see if you can trade it in for a few more brain cells. I'm pretty sure I've seen all the same "evidence" you've seen, and though I have some questions, I don't think the conspiracy theory adds up. It might be because I've bothered to hear from both sides and not just swallowed the words of the woowoos.

I hate to ask. Exactly what kind of "evidence" was this? Did you look at a wide range of events surrounding 9/11 or did you pick a few, such as the construction of the WTC and demolition theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. XC
People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

Or, maybe, I'm just speaking as someone who WATCHED THE FUCKING EVENTS HAPPEN, and who knows not one, but SEVERAL New Yorkers who were right there, no more than a couple miles away, watching it all unfold right in FRONT OF THEM.

 

Asshole.

I am sorry that you believe that your distance from the incident (a couple miles away, no less) makes you an authority on this. Maybe the events around the WTC are too difficult for research. I suggest looking for the plane that hit the pentagon. Can you find one?

 

Hmmm... "People who think that there is no conspiracy involved in the moon landing, are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their worldview into on that does not have the complexity of real life." THAT'S what I hear when I read the above. Seriously this conspiracy is right up there with "moon landing hoax." It makes plenty of sense to those on the inside of it (just like scientology makes sense to scientologists), but for those of us outside your box, it's ludicrous...and not because we want to feel "comfy and safe at night in our beds".

 

Have you thought perhaps, you are overcomplicating matters?

You can associate my statement with the moon landing if you would like, but I think the evidence around the pentagon plane crash speaks for itself. If that is a cover up, it would only be logical to put the WTC under suspicion as well. I did not say there was a cover up with the WTC, I said that there should be suspicion. Not the "oh, the government knows what is best for us" type attitude that I have found here.

 

Anyone who thinks that there's some massive "OMG CONSPIRACY" is the one who's "simplifying things to not have the complexity of real life".

I am talking about 9/11 as a whole (which includes the pentagon crash), not just the WTC falling. At the very least, I think we should still have suspicion around the events near the WTC, but notice that I did not claim that the WTC itself was destroyed a certain way according to a conspiracy.

 

Jumping to conclusions about my statements is a good way to be seen as emotional. This is a touchy subject, so I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
People who think that there is no conspiracy theory involved with 9/11 are ignoring obvious facts so that they can simplify their world view into one that does not have the complexity of real life. It disturbs me that the people here who are smart enough to find that Christianity is a false religion deny any wrongdoing by the US government. Maybe they just took that Christianity is false "on faith."

 

Okay Captain Credulous, what you need to do with that sweeping generalisation is see if you can trade it in for a few more brain cells. I'm pretty sure I've seen all the same "evidence" you've seen, and though I have some questions, I don't think the conspiracy theory adds up. It might be because I've bothered to hear from both sides and not just swallowed the words of the woowoos.

I hate to ask. Exactly what kind of "evidence" was this? Did you look at a wide range of events surrounding 9/11 or did you pick a few, such as the construction of the WTC and demolition theory?

 

 

I've seen a half dozen videos and read twice as many webpages about this "conspiracy" and they all say the same shit. They all show the same photos. They mostly reach the same paranoid conclusions.

 

I'm not trying to say that the US government is squeaky clean. I think Bush is a friggin fatuous moron. I can easily imagine Cheney eating a live baby. I just don't think the evidence shows that the WTC was brought down by anything other than planes flown by terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. XC

I'm not trying to say that the US government is squeaky clean. I think Bush is a friggin fatuous moron. I can easily imagine Cheney eating a live baby. I just don't think the evidence shows that the WTC was brought down by anything other than planes flown by terrorists.

Right, and to a certain extent, I agree with you, but the other events of 9/11, such as the pentagon plane crash, shows that our government is not telling us what it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu
I suggest looking for the plane that hit the pentagon.

 

That's like saying "where's that sandwich I just ate"?! What do you think should be left after thousands of gallons of jet fuel explode in an enclosed space with the addition of shitloads of heat producing kinetic energy?

 

Jumping to conclusions about my statements is a good way to be seen as emotional. This is a touchy subject, so I understand.

 

Hey, jerkwad, you slouched into this thread and regurgitated a tiny portion of your diseased brain onto the floor, daring anyone and everyone to mop it up for you. If you're now going to pretend that jumping to conclusions hasn't been, in this thread, exclusively your dominion, you may kindly go fuck yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. XC
I suggest looking for the plane that hit the pentagon.

 

That's like saying "where's that sandwich I just ate"?! What do you think should be left after thousands of gallons of jet fuel explode in an enclosed space with the addition of shitloads of heat producing kinetic energy?

 

Jumping to conclusions about my statements is a good way to be seen as emotional. This is a touchy subject, so I understand.

 

Hey, jerkwad, you slouched into this thread and regurgitated a tiny portion of your diseased brain onto the floor, daring anyone and everyone to mop it up for you. If you're now going to pretend that jumping to conclusions hasn't been, in this thread, exclusively your dominion, you may kindly go fuck yourself.

OK. Lets see which of us has a diseased brain.

 

Does jet fuel and kinetic energy melt titanium? Yes or no.

 

Look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3hCzGcd7g

 

Am I supposed to believe that the 6 tons of steal and titanium from the engines of the Boeing 757 disappeared prior to impact? The impact on the pentagon was a hole, just big enough for the body. The windows on either side were intact. Where did the engines hit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.