9/11 Conspiracy

[DB7]

Originally Posted by spinalman The specualr highlights is a nice try, but not in this case where the same bulk has been seen from a variety of angles. Specular highlights might be viable in one photo, but not all of them, and certainly no explanation for corresponding "specular shadows"!

As this shows, there are many pictures of 767's with pods. I don't know why you think the US would need to go to these lengths to fabricate a terrorist attack when the CIA could probably covertly fund/inspire such an atrocity without the risk of exposure. As they say it's going 'round the Wrekin' to achieve an objective.

"Pod People" hijack the 9/11 truth movement

[David Brent]

It certainly is entertaining being able to debate 9/11. Everyone has come up with good and valid points.

One part of the 9/11 attack that many do not remember is the collapse of Building Seven, part of the Trade Centre complex.
The forty two storey Building Seven was not directly hit in the attack but collapsed some eight hours after the Twin Towers - due to damage sustained in the attack.

Larry Silverstein, the lease owner of the World Trade Centre, was interviewed on US television network PBS soon after the collapse of Building Seven. He had this to say - "I got a call from the fire department commander telling me they wern't sure they could contain the fire. We had had such terrible loss of life ...the smartest thing to do was pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
By "pull it" Mr. Silverstein was talking about demolishing the building. In the interview he is admitting that Building Seven was brought down by a controlled demolition.
To my knowledge, the controlled demolition of any building takes weeks to organise by trained experts.

My questions are - How would it have been possible to organise and implement the proceedures to a controlled demolition of a 42 storey building in just EIGHT HOURS after a surprise attack on the Twin Towers and while New York was gripped in terror and confusion?
How was such a controlled demolition possible if it hadn't been planned in advance?
If there were explosive detonators already planted in place inside Building Seven is it at all possible that detonators could have also been planted in advance inside the Twin Towers?

As I mentioned earlier, many fire crews and police on the scene reported loud "bomb" explosions coming from within the Twin Towers long after the planes had hit.
Police at the time told the media that they thought there were bombs planted inside the building.

If you look at film coverage of the collapse of Building Seven you will see it falls in a highly controlled manner - much like the way the Twin Towers fell.

Dave.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by David Brent My questions are - How would it have been possible to organise and implement the proceedures to a controlled demolition of a 42 storey building in just EIGHT HOURS after a surprise attack on the Twin Towers and while New York was gripped in terror and confusion?

A strong wind could have brought them down :rolleyes:
OK, maybe a slight exaggeration. But check out the building techniques used. They weren't the strongest buildings. They didn't come under the normal building rules for the rest of NYC. They were put up very quickly, and some say shoddily.

Steve

[David Brent]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook A strong wind could have brought them down :rolleyes: OK, maybe a slight exaggeration. But check out the building techniques used. They weren't the strongest buildings. They didn't come under the normal building rules for the rest of NYC. They were put up very quickly, and some say shoddily. Steve

Hi Steve,

You're up early. Hangover?:rolleyes:

Shoddy weak buildings certainly do collapse - but not in a controlled manner.

Dave.

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by DB7 As this shows, there are many pictures of 767's with pods. I don't know why you think the US would need to go to these lengths to fabricate a terrorist attack when the CIA could probably covertly fund/inspire such an atrocity without the risk of exposure. As they say it's going 'round the Wrekin' to achieve an objective. "Pod People" hijack the 9/11 truth movement

Hi DB7, As I have stated previously, I am not a supporter of the conspiricy theory in the WTC case -please read my posts. I too stated that there are much easier ways to create worldwide condemnation without building TWO blogus planes -ie. hire a madman to do the deed. What I am saying is there appears to be a pod that can't be explained .

Buildings don't need to be brought down in a "controlled" way unless they wish to protect adjacent buildings...in this case that was hardly a priority. So-called demolition of the WTC seems fanciful...I doubt anyone would be able to differentiate between what they imagine a detonation sounds like, and sound of the weight of 110 floors shifting and concertenaring...and once again, why would the Govt. do so?

I think it is illuminating that we are debating this probably because there is so much doubt in the minds of many that the US Govt. are trustworthy. Thank goodness we live in a country with a transparent political process.....er....mmm.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by David Brent By "pull it" Mr. Silverstein was talking about demolishing the building. In the interview he is admitting that Building Seven was brought down by a controlled demolition. To my knowledge, the controlled demolition of any building takes weeks to organise by trained experts. My questions are - How would it have been possible to organise and implement the proceedures to a controlled demolition of a 42 storey building in just EIGHT HOURS after a surprise attack on the Twin Towers and while New York was gripped in terror and confusion? How was such a controlled demolition possible if it hadn't been planned in advance? Dave.

On the day I suspect the fire dept would have been too busy to organise the controlled demolition and in 8 hours given the hectic conditions is even more doubtful. Neither can I accept pre-planned charges and cabling as there is a mass of wiring and it involves sinking the charges (a lot of Kango work) into the structure.

To many 'pull it' means withdraw rather than demolish. (Silverstein has denied his comments meant to demolish the building)

The low-rise buildings have little media value in terms of a 'spectacular' and the only reason I can imagine for flattening them would be if they were unsafe or the fire dept didn't have the resources to deal with

For all I know a 'cover up' may be due to the buiding's construction or materials used.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by spinalman I think it is illuminating that we are debating this probably because there is so much doubt in the minds of many that the US Govt. are trustworthy. Thank goodness we live in a country with a transparent political process.....er....mmm.

True, but does anybody really expect the US Govt to release everything on file? In all such instances governments release the minimum information and it's no different to pressing Blair over Iraq. The majority will never see the light of day even with the '30 year rule.'

My problem with conspiracy theorists is that rather than offer facts and let the reader draw his own conclusions they go on a flight of fancy and offer their own ill-informed answers - often muddying the water yet further.

[Rowdon]

While we're on the subject of 'forgotten' episodes around that time - does anyone else remember that a passenger plane came down onto a residential area (Brooklyn I think) the day after (or so)?
The first time a passenger plane has ever crashed into houses.
Apparently it was unhappy coincidence.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Rowdon While we're on the subject of 'forgotten' episodes around that time - does anyone else remember that a passenger plane came down onto a residential area (Brooklyn I think) the day after (or so)? The first time a passenger plane has ever crashed into houses. Apparently it was unhappy coincidence.

Where do these stories come from? What about the "clear skies" policy that was in effect for about a week afterwards?

Steve

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Where do these stories come from? What about the "clear skies" policy that was in effect for about a week afterwards? Steve

Erm, this is no story. This was a disaster that would have been occupying our screens for a long while had it not happened in the shadow of 9/11.

I wonder what support there was/is for the families of those killed in this accident compared to the 9/11 outrage"?

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Where do these stories come from? What about the "clear skies" policy that was in effect for about a week afterwards? Steve

I recall watching the news feeds and net that afternoon and there were confused reports coming in left, right and centre of crashed/shot down aircraft. I suppose it's part fog of war - part people on a wind up. (I seem to recall a hoaxer was arrested re: the London underground attacks.

A jet did come down in NY but I think it was a month later.

Maybe in years to come Dr David Kelly will be alongside Princess Di, Lord Lucan and Jack the Ripper for our own conspiracy theorists.B)

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by David Brent Hi Steve, You're up early.

No, late.

Shoddy weak buildings certainly do collapse - but not in a controlled manner. Dave.

They can if the heat buckles the horizontal beams which aren't fixed very securely to the frame. As they sag they begin to collapse and the beams of the floors below that are only just strong enough to support the things on each floor so when one falls they all fall like a pack of cards.

Steve

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook No, late. They can if the heat buckles the horizontal beams which aren't fixed very securely to the frame. As they sag they begin to collapse and the beams of the floors below that are only just strong enough to support the things on each floor so when one falls they all fall like a pack of cards. Steve

9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy

"The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon."

I seem to recall after many years they deduced it was the composite of the steel that did for the Titanic too.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by DB7 I recall watching the news feeds and net that afternoon and there were confused reports coming in left, right and centre of crashed/shot down aircraft. I suppose it's part fog of war - part people on a wind up. (I seem to recall a hoaxer was arrested re: the London underground attacks. A jet did come down in NY but I think it was a month later. Maybe in years to come Dr David Kelly will be alongside Princess Di, Lord Lucan and Jack the Ripper for our own conspiracy theorists.B)

Looking back it did seem close to 9.11 but actually it happened in November

'12 November 2001; American Airlines A300; Queens, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic when it crashed into a residential neighborhood just outside JFK airport. The aircraft experienced an in-flight breakup, with the vertical fin and one engine landing away from the main impact site. There were a number of homes damaged or destroyed by the crash, and five people on the ground are missing and presumed dead. All nine crew members and 251 passengers on the aircraft were killed, including five infants. '

A more detailed account is set out in

Investigation of the Crash of American Airlines Flight 587

As for the building collapse caused by intense heat I wonder how many lives would be saved if aviation and car fuel could possibly be made non inflammable.

Freddy

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Freddy As for the building collapse caused by intense heat I wonder how many lives would be saved if aviation and car fuel could possibly be made non inflammable. Freddy

Good idea - except that then cars & planes wouldn't move very far.
If you also made bullets travel v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y then you could cure a lot of other problems as well.

Steve