September 11th true or false? [Archive]

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 11:26

I am a big fan of Alex Jones and the movie Zeitgeist. It has been 6 years since the tragedy in New York yet the conspiracy theories does not seem to go away. Quite contrary more and more people are believing that the US government is hiding and covering up vital information from the pulic.

There have been various internet web pages, documentaries and books on this issue. The Japanese press TV Asahi has also picked up on this and done a report on it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4896594269740126319

While steel does not melt before it reaches 2000 degrees and fire caused by jet fuel engine does not get more than 1000 degrees. So that in itself I find strange. How can steel melt? But then there was an another building WTC7 which also collapsed yet did not get hit by an airplane.

Then there is the Pentagon. The hole in the Pentagon which is supposed to be hit by an airplane yet the hole is much smaller.

Then there is PNAC. Where it says that a Pearl Harbour event will trigger a new war.

The people in the studio does not buy the conspiracy theory but then added that he understand that some people believe it.

This is Paul Thompson's time line.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=207326015068091009

Goldiegirl

Jan 2, 2008, 11:31

of course it's true. Who cares about conspiracies....the people who died were real and true nothing changes that fact!

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 11:41

Thats not the point. Do you think the US government is telling the truth?

Alex Jones on CNN

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2924696278994633306

Doc

Jan 2, 2008, 12:18

I believe the simple scientific and common sense fact that heat and fuel from two 747s melts metal causing the two towers to drop, over a cruse missile hitting them. The more you bring this crap up, the more it becomes pigeoned holed and faulty. Furthermore, with your last comment on the deaths of over 3,000 people you are borderline on causing trouble. I would advise you to watch your tongue when dealing with sensitive issues such as this one.

sabro

Jan 2, 2008, 14:12

Derfel

Jan 2, 2008, 17:54

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 17:55

WTC 7 did not get hit by an airplane. Yet it collapsed. You could turn it around and say if you really cared about USA you would want to find out the truth.

To be honest. When 3 steel framed building collapses on the same day due to fire that is the conspiracy theory. Because no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before simply because fire does not get hot enough for steel to melt.

I can give 1 2 the benefit of the doubt but when the third collapses without getting hit by an airplane?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063

THe official report says the reason why it fell was due to fire yet you see hardly any fire on the building.

Here is the owner of WTC 7 who says on TV to pull the building. We could start to ponder what he measn by pull it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329

Elizabeth van Kampen

Jan 2, 2008, 18:19

centrajapan,

You are hurting all the families of those who lost their lives that tragic 11th of September.
No American government would ever plan to kill their own citizens and then blaming the Arabs for this act. It was a real tragedy and there were thousands of eyewitnesses.

Derfel

Jan 2, 2008, 18:34

Ok, so, you're saying that it was planned by the government, thats cool, in that case, who the hell volunteered for the suicide plane attack? Americans? No bloody way, it wasn't done by Americans. Say, steel doesn't melt from flames, in that case at least a miracle or an explosion would have been necessary. Obviously the government is not capable of working miracles, and a serious explosion, not one from simply the entering oxygen would have been too damn obvious. So what? The government used David Copperfield to take down the building? Or sent a bunch of chaps to circle around it chanting stuff until it collapses?
That simply can't be, it would be too big scale, too hard.

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 18:38

No one got killed in WTC 7. All the people were evacuated. WTC 7 collapsed much later on the same day. All I'm saying is that this building. A 47 story building which is a very tall building collapsed without getting hit by an airplane. The official report says it collapsed due to fire yet I am saying no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before. Then the owner of WTC 7 says " we pulled it"

If you look at the video of when the building collapses it looks to me like a controlled demolishion.

I am recommending people to start to think a little critical.

Elizabeth van Kampen

Jan 2, 2008, 18:46

Hello Derfel,

Sorry, you misunderstand me. Doesn't matter neither of us is English speaking.

I mean to say that American governments were not planning such tragedy.
Whatever proof some people may think they have, that is one thing I will never belief.
So we are saying the same thing, 9/11 was not done by Americans or their government. Okay?

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 19:27

mean to say that American governments were not planning such tragedy.

The US government has fabricated lies to enter wars before though. It did in the Vietnam war. Tonkin Gulf incident in Vietnam. Where the US government said US Navy ships were attacked by North Vietnamese troops but this has been proven to be false.

There is an another incident. During the 6 day war. Israel attacked an American ship killing American millitary personell. While this is a little different. Some say it was an honest mistake yet some say it wasn't.

So we are saying the same thing, 9/11 was not done by Americans or their government. Okay?

Before you come with that conclusion. You should study each incident.

Derfel

Jan 2, 2008, 20:24

Hello Derfel,
Sorry, you misunderstand me. Doesn't matter neither of us is English speaking.
I mean to say that American governments were not planning such tragedy.
Whatever proof some people may think they have, that is one thing I will never belief.
So we are saying the same thing, 9/11 was not done by Americans or their government. Okay?

Umm, you misunderstood me, I agree with you that the government did nothing that nasty.

scorpion da black

Jan 2, 2008, 22:19

arabs did do that job of blowing the planes to the WTC
i can believe that because no other people are brave enough to die for a cause ( not that i am pro that act...or whether it is false or not ) just saying..Americans don't have the guts to do a suicide act..maybe the Japanese kamikaze or Soviet honer guard ...but not Americans to their home land ..why would they??

but what i can argue is that "" yes the American government did plan for everything ""
it is proved that members of the CIA trained Qaeda jihadists and they were in continuous contact ever since the afghan war against the soviet union ...
in an indirect way, the CIA members willing to start the war made way for the terrorists and even financed them to cause all this havoc...not even this, the terrorists even rehearsed for this under CIA supervision.
it is not difficult to believe so hence the mighty (Qaeda) enemy of the US is in a matter of fact an American creation...
lets say this "the qaeda did more bad to the Islamic world than good"
they could be fools on a mission being fooled by their own religion to do the desires of their enemy..
I heard many times that the members of the Qaeda are brain washed to do what they do...that is true..but who brain washes them..and here the American intelligence come to picture ...

it is all logical...and that WTC 7 is an awesome strengthener to my hypothesis

Goldiegirl

Jan 2, 2008, 22:34

karlyboo

Jan 2, 2008, 22:37

I've never yet heard a convincing theory about 9/11 that isn't full of half-truths and general rubbish which has been repeated so many times it's accepted as fact. The whole business about melting points etc. has been conclusively debunked several times. Try http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html this for a first hit off of google.

So we return to it being a bunch of lunatics who hijacked a plane and caused many, many innocent deaths. Personally, I theorise that humans (in general) have a hard time understanding such large and difficult things so it's a lot easier to start chalking it up to conspiracies to 'explain' it all and make it more rational.

The passengers of United flight 93 showed what honor and courage truly are....

Quoted for truth.

scorpion da black

Jan 2, 2008, 22:44

Americans have the guts to face there enemies not use their youth to blow themselves up and kill innocent people. If you want to see courage think of the Americans who overtook there captors and forced their jet down in a field...That took real courage!

:okashii: misunderstood again

what i meant was..the Americans will not carry out such mission on foreign land for some cause! while other people from other societies may have that in them.

when there is a cause worth dying for, Americans would be ready to die..for example defending a land lets say.....but hurting their own people to start their crusades...i doubt some twisted American will have the guts to do that.

the Palestinians for example wouldn't do such mission ..but they would suicide to fight back the Israeli occupation ...
the Lebanese did that as well when the Israelis occupied their land...
but neither Lebanese or Palestinians would carry out 11 September's mission on other Lebanese or Palestinians...

maybe I am wrong..maybe there is Americans who are ready to this mission just like Iraqi terrorists blow their own people just to get two or three Americans standing by the crowd

Goldiegirl

Jan 2, 2008, 22:50

Suicide is considered a sign of weakness and cowardly act, no matter what the cause. You fight to win and win to fight again another day.

scorpion da black

Jan 2, 2008, 23:03

Suicide is considered a sign of weakness and cowardly act, no matter what the cause. You fight to win and win to fight again another day.

not rue not true...

when some one is fighting a mightier enemy with more advanced weapons and more in number the only left option is a devastating blow to their bases...a human cruise missile ..a human time bomb..a powerful weapon using primal weapons compared to modern weapons...
the Lebanese did that to fight the Israelis off their lands ..what you don't get is that we fought a country that bombed us with bombs that destroyed a city block each....and yet despite the huge difference between their technology and ours they were kicked out off our country. we consider those suicide bombers ( who attack armed men in uniform not civilians ) as heroes..they are celebrated brave martyrs...
when we have cruise missiles and continent crossing bombs we wouldn't have to use suicide bombers to win a war.

centrajapan

Jan 2, 2008, 23:13

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

As for WTC7 and the picture.

It states that the building collapsed due to fire and as a side effect of WTC 1&2 collapsing. But if you look at the picture from that web site. How come the other buildings around WT7 did not collapse but only WTC7? ANother fact that one has to think about is if no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire how come 3 collapsed on the same day and 1 collapsed without getting hit by an airplane.

If you look at the way it collapsed it does look like a controlled demolishion. Why does not that web site show a video when WTC7 collapsed? The FEMA report is not only full of half truths it just does not explain very well at all. It's not logical.

Then there is the Pentagon. US version.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan?
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen

But the hole is rather small. It is very small. If an airplane crashed into the Pentagon you have to remember that the airplane crashed into the Pentagon 5 meters or so above ground level. Thats quite a pilot stunt in itself. Before crashing into Pentagon it took a 270 degrees turn and then crashed into Pentagon and the hole it made in the Pentagon is much smaller than a commercial airliner.

If it is a commercial airliner then surely the Pentagon could have released a video release making sure to public that it was a commercial airliner. It hasnt. Surely one of the most secured buildings on the planet can come up with better evidence than this.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

This picture here is not very convincing.

Suicide is considered a sign of weakness and cowardly act, no matter what the cause. You fight to win and win to fight again another day.

This is off topic. Start a new thread about the brave Americans some place else. But I will asnwer this but this has nothing to do with this thread. Martyr operations are not concidered suicide. It is not coward to sacrifice your life for a cause you believe in.

karlyboo

Jan 2, 2008, 23:18

To throw my 4 yen in to the (side) debate-

A soldier gives his body as a weapon of the war, to quote Donovan, so I personally see no problem with volunteer suicide attacks against legitimate military targets. If people want to volunteer to die to help their side win, that's sort of part of being a soldier imo. You're expected to fight (and die if necessary) to serve your nation.

That said I would like to clarify that opinion comes against the backdrop of my considering war a pointless and colossal waste of human life at the best of times and something which should have been consigned to history long ago, along with most forms of combat (including suicide attacks), but governments will keep starting arguments and expecting their respective peoples to go out and fight on their behalf...

My apologies for continuing the off-topic thread.

Goldiegirl

Jan 2, 2008, 23:25

it's true for Americans...what's acceptable for other cultures I can't say...I am just basing my opinions on what I know. Even Timothy McVeigh didn't kill himself...anyway this is all off topic. 9/11 is very true no matter who did what, innocent people were killed and their families still suffer...that's the real truth.

scorpion da black

Jan 2, 2008, 23:43

thank you karlyboo san for explaining my point

and centrajapan san... i didn't get off topic, i just explained my opinion...you can read that again in post 14!

Derfel

Jan 3, 2008, 00:02

If cowardice was a substance, suicide would be made of it.
Suicide bombers are just chaps who want to win at all costs, even if they don't live to reap it all.
Bravery ain't what they show in boring mass produced films, all the honour, chivalry, sure there's plenty of that too, but in truth, those are brave who want to win, someone dead is rotting, that is closer to failing than winning, actually its 180 degree different.
Terror can't win wars, its not enough to decrease a country's military power, in fact, its like a fly messing about.
America, regardless of how many underhanded tricks it does, is a country for the sake of its peoples' welfare, whereas countries that train and contain suicide terrorist forces are just mad dogs, loose blowing themselves up, blowing others up, and generally blowing about just for the hell of it, simply cause some rabid madman said so.
Many countries been in thicker mess throughout the centuries, but they cut through it somehow, not by spreading hell and tickets to heaven, but by economy.
Its like kicking the teacher that slapped you for setting your books on fire during class.
Honestly, all this propaganda I see about America being wrong and morally unstable... what the hell? How is that the case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
Do you think this reflects how ethical a country is? Hell no, it reflects how well its citizens worked, and not how bloody well they can blow themselves up and become mincemeat, sacred bloody glorious mincemeat sorry.
Bravery is to question stupidity when you're surrounded by it, and not surrounding your ribs by an explosive belt. I see nothing brave there.
We're not in the age of Pyrrhic victories, fact is, we never were.
Why would anyone want to die? What good does it bring?
America wouldn't have blown up the WTC, there are easier methods to create a casus belli. They could have simply organized a wave of terrorist attacks, small scale ones, I say it would have been a better excuse for war.
Im asking, are we back in the medieval era? Just because you found some random fact, you're labeling America guilty. The inquisitorial law procedures are outta the fashion for a couple of years now. If you can't prove something hundred percent don't go around shooting into the air saying: "Heck, I can't prove this, but knowing how dirty and immoral Americans are, they're probably red handed.!"
This theory is feeble, darn feeble.
Americans live a comfortable life, they can value it. Now lets count how many Americans this plan requires... well at least several hundred. You think at least one of the head honchos wouldn't question the madness?
No way, in this age we're living in, that kind of thing is rather difficult. It would require the cooperation of aliens, ghosts, gods (plural cause only one wouldn't be sufficient for this plan), one million genius autist kids lined up, and probably poor dead Bruce Lee.

scorpion da black

Jan 3, 2008, 00:09

Derfel my rply to you in these posts..post 19...then 14

""you sure should read more"" bro

karlyboo

Jan 3, 2008, 00:16

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7
As for WTC7 and the picture.
It states that the building collapsed due to fire and as a side effect of WTC 1&2 collapsing. But if you look at the picture from that web site. How come the other buildings around WT7 did not collapse but only WTC7? ANother fact that one has to think about is if no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire how come 3 collapsed on the same day and 1 collapsed without getting hit by an airplane.

How about because no three steel framed buildings have ever been in a similar situation, two hit by aircraft and one hit by a huge cloud of concrete debris?

Also judging this entirely on pictures is highly dubious, these things require study and understanding of materials, designs, blueprints- not only of the buildings but the collision objects also.

If you look at the way it collapsed it does look like a controlled demolishion. Why does not that web site show a video when WTC7 collapsed? The FEMA report is not only full of half truths it just does not explain very well at all. It's not logical.

Most buildings when they fall down look like a controlled demolition... because that's the point of a controlled demolition.

Where are the half truths in the report? Where are the illogical statements?

Then there is the Pentagon. US version.
But the hole is rather small. It is very small. If an airplane crashed into the Pentagon you have to remember that the airplane crashed into the Pentagon 5 meters or so above ground level. Thats quite a pilot stunt in itself. Before crashing into Pentagon it took a 270 degrees turn and then crashed into Pentagon and the hole it made in the Pentagon is much smaller than a commercial airliner.
If it is a commercial airliner then surely the Pentagon could have released a video release making sure to public that it was a commercial airliner. It hasnt. Surely one of the most secured buildings on the planet can come up with better evidence than this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
This picture here is not very convincing.

Again with the pictures. You need to understand materials and design. You're aware that when a plane hits something bit and hard it is liable to crumple into a smaller shape, I assume?

And what sort of perimeter CCTV camera (aimed towards the ground, as on US home soil that is the most likely vector for intruders) do you think is going to accurately reveal an image of an object travelling at about 300mph?

This is off topic. Start a new thread about the brave Americans some place else. But I will asnwer this but this has nothing to do with this thread. Martyr operations are not concidered suicide. It is not coward to sacrifice your life for a cause you believe in.

I think most people consider it extremely cowardly to attack civilians who by definition are not equipped to effectively fight back.

Your posts are made of lose, my friend. Derfel for the win.

Derfel

Jan 3, 2008, 04:58

I think most people consider it extremely cowardly to attack civilians who by definition are not equipped to effectively fight back.

Yeah, indeed. This question almost went over my head.
Thank You for reminding me.
Not that I can express better what's been said, but I do feel like letting my hate out, damn terrorists.

centrajapan, you truly think that ill bred lunatics having a 1/2:90 brains/explosives ratio are honorable soldiers?
I just don't get it. Are they mad? Well they are, surely they aren't aware that the west takes pity on them, and doesn't retaliate in a similar manner, but still, targeting civilians because they know that our policies don't allow us to do such filthy things is low, thats so very low.
How can that be called brave? Complaining how teh crusader boogeymanz wrought havoc, and how big bad Uncle Sam is munching on their feet. Laugh. If they want war bring it, if they want to be recognized let them target soldiers, we'd sure pick the glove up. But what the heck do they want from civilians? If they kill civilians the number of soldiers won't decrease by one.
Ever since the bombers being called it, the word "brave" received a pejorative meaning: scum, filth, lowlife.
If it was for me, I'd have them spend their last moments in this wellness hotel:
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/graphics/torture_chamber.bmp

Tsuyoiko

Jan 3, 2008, 19:40

Conspiracy theories usually fall apart and something, this big and this complicated could never actually be pulled off: Achem's Razor- the simplest explanation tends to be the best... and when you see hoof prints, look for horses, not zebras... (Unless you are some where where zebras are common.)
I tend to agree. Don't multiply entities beyond necessity. We know those planes and hijackers existed, let's not make any claims for unproven American collaborators unless there's conclusive proof. As always in situations like this, I reserve judgment.

Sorry, these comments are offtopic...

America, regardless of how many underhanded tricks it does, is a country for the sake of its peoples' welfare,
I can't entirely agree with that since the US doesn't have socialised medicine. Access to free healthcare for all citizens is IMO absolutely necessary for any country that values the welfare of its people.

centrajapan, you truly think that ill bred lunatics having a 1/2:90 brains/explosives ratio are honorable soldiers?
I just don't get it. Are they mad? Well they are, surely they aren't aware that the west takes pity on them, and doesn't retaliate in a similar manner, but still, targeting civilians because they know that our policies don't allow us to do such filthy things is low, thats so very low.
Mad? Maybe. Almost certainly brainwashed and most probably desperate, IMO.

scorpion da black

Jan 3, 2008, 20:10

you keep going and going and going drifting my words...twisting it like you like...

i never said martyr missions were targeting civilians and killing innocent people...

reread my posts

i clearly said martyr missions are those against military bases, men in uniform, armed personnel...
when did i ever mention any thing about blowing up civilians??

Derfel

Jan 3, 2008, 21:19

Don't get me wrong, I don't always respond to a post with what I write, simply, when im writing something longer, im usually quite heated. So its all up to you, depending on what you exactly meant, you will know how much if it was directed at you.

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 06:16

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 07:02

Once again, suicide bombing of civilians is cowardly behaviour. People in the military know their risk. It's easy to hide behind martyrs....

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 07:07

One should compare WTC complex to other buildings. There have been many steel framed strcutreds around the world which have caught fire but none has ever collapsed before or after 9-11. In some cases the buildings kept burning for hours. Days. But they still did not collapse.

Once again, suicide bombing of civilians is cowardly behaviour. People in the military know their risk. It's easy to hide behind martyrs....

Once again you are off topic. Please start a new thread.

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 07:17

Read post 31...it's yours! Jeez......

Sarapva

Jan 4, 2008, 07:20

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 07:34

Thank you Sarapva. 9-11 is very suspicious. For me it is WTC 7 which to me is very suspicious.

John Kerry has said.

I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."

Silverstein said. Silverstein was the owner of the WTC complex.

We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

You down load the MP3 file and listen to him saying it. Silverstein said those things on CNN I think it was.

Architect Richard Gage "How the Towers Fell" (1 of 13)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rW6Oez7pag0

More people need to start getting info from different channels and not only through the coorporate media.

IT IS NOT ANTI AMERICAN TO QUESTION 9-11!! IT IS PRO AMERICAN! 28% of Americans belive 9-11 was a set up according to a poll donducted by CBS.

Truth 9-11 Org. Is an organization consisting of engineers, architects and it is growing by millions each year.

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 10:09

The reason why it was a controlled demolishion is because it looks like a controlled demolishion! Its very straight forward thinking.

A fire melts steel? It can't. Thats the conspiracy. If it melts steel it does not make steel melt so that the building falls a symetrical. One part of the steel frame snatches or gets soft then you would think the building would tilt.

The owner of WTC has said it was a controlled demolishion. He said it live on TV.

Because people are so shook on emotional grounds they forget to think logical. Wake up!!

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 10:27

Al-Qaida probably crashed the planes but they didn't have access and time to plant all the bombs in the WTC complex. 49% of New Yorkers believe 9-11 was a set up according to truth.org

http://www.911truth.org/

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 10:48

49% do drugs too, so I wouldn't go by that. And most can't even identify their state on a map. Just because people think something doesn't mean they are even close to being correct. The buildings were designed my a magnificent architect...I believe Japanese, and he made the buildings strong enough for a large plane of that era to crash into them, he hadn't figured on a wide bodied 767 heavy with fuel. He was so sad that they crumbled, but he said he was happy that they fell inward as he had designed them.

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 10:51

66% of Americans. Thats 2/3 rd thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11 at one stage and now we now he had no connection.

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 10:52

Exactly my point! Percentages mean nothing......

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 10:59

Minoru Yamasaki was the architect. He was a 2nd generation American of Japanese descent. Just thought I should do my homework! :)

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 11:01

% does mean something. 90% of the world thought the world was flat at one stage. Atleast Europeans did. But you are right % should not be the criteria. But a rational, scientific independent research is needed.

49% do drugs too, so I wouldn't go by that. And most can't even identify their state on a map. Just because people think something doesn't mean they are even close to being correct. The buildings were designed my a magnificent architect...I believe Japanese, and he made the buildings strong enough for a large plane of that era to crash into them, he hadn't figured on a wide bodied 767 heavy with fuel. He was so sad that they crumbled, but he said he was happy that they fell inward as he had designed them.

Source please. I think closer to 100% of people do drugs. Caffeine, alcohol, chocolate is also concidered drugs. You probably meant illeagal drugs in USA which again is different from illeagal drugs in Holland.

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 11:03

The source...I am on drugs right now! Really.

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 11:15

hahaha. Have fun. Enjoy. Or if you are sick. I hope you feel better soon.

Goldiegirl

Jan 4, 2008, 11:26

Thanks! :) :atchoo:

Doc

Jan 4, 2008, 13:24

There is something suspicious about the towers collapsing, and then the other building, #7, which we don't hear about in the U.S. Even if the fire was hot enough to destroy the buildings at the top, heat rises, so the parts below the fire wouldn't be hot.
I don't know, but there is something suspicious about how 9/11 could have happened in the first place. In the 9/11 Commission Report it showed that the Bush administration cut all kinds of funding for tracking the terrorists, when the Clinton administration had been keeping close tabs on them and even prevented a couple of planned attacks. During the Bush administration they got hold of one of the hyjacker's laptops (Mussoui), but didn't open it because of some regulation about privacy. If they had, they'd have seen the 9/11 plans. How could this have happened? How could they not look at a known terrorist's laptop, for heaven's sake??

So structural damage caused by falling debris, or the shock waves from the two falling towers isn't to blame huh?

The Bush administration wasn't the only ones who cut corners. The Clinton administration did too. There were several key people pardoned, dropped off the list, and the like who were real threats to this country by Clinton. The Clinton administration also did their fair share of ignoring threats as well. The blame game goes around full circle starting back since the Cold War. I'm surprised that you think only now it all started with Bush. Oh how wrong you are. The problem lies much deeper than you think. This is something that will haunt the world for years to come, given that the world is still around in fifty years.

-Doc :wave:

centrajapan

Jan 4, 2008, 23:49

A retired 27-year CIA analyst Ray Mc Govern who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that there are indications that Cheney ordered a stand down of the military on 9/11

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3008938805735782363&hl=en

Francesco Cossiga – Former President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister.

Cossiga indicated his suspicion that the attacks presupposed some form of complicity within the US security system. The mastermind of the attack, Cossiga observed must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel." As for Bin Laden, Cossiga added that "it is not thinkable that he did everything by himself."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Cossiga

The Pakistani President Musharaff don't believe it was bin Laden either. He was perhas a sponsor but not the master mind behind 9-11.

Here are just a few examples. There are alot more. There are alot of people out there who don't believe it was bin Laden and the main reason for it is because the official reporrt from 9-11 has so many flaws.

A good place to start is to demand a new independent investigation. There has not been one. THe best way to get a new independent investigation is actually to mobalise the American public which is why I am happy to see that

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Who is telling conspiracy theories?

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 00:14

911, Rare clip from USA Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3su9mWta-M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fsept11%2F911%5Fcar%5Fbombs%5Fmystery%2Ehtm

Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

Dying heroes, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1855050994689354420&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

A transcript of 9-11 from a New York fire fighter.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

Peter Jennings stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.abc.demolition.infrastructure.wmv

Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said in a PBS documentary that Building 7 was "pulled" on September 11th. "Pulling" is a construction industry term for "intentionally demolishing", as shown in this PBS interview discussing the demolition of world trade center building 6 many weeks after 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Goldiegirl

Jan 5, 2008, 00:22

A 767 wide bodied jet filled with enough fuel to cross the United States IS an BOMB!

karlyboo

Jan 5, 2008, 00:28

On 9-11 3 steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire. If the building was hit hard by debris it still does not collapse. Have you seen buildings from war torn countries? Have you seen pictures from say Beirut or Sarajevo? The buildings have alot of holes and is shattered but they still don't collapse.

And they're also incomparable because they are made of different materials, construction techniques and were damaged in different ways. This isn't hard stuff to understand, mate.

Have you seen pictures of Kobe after the earth quake? How many buildings collapsed like they did on 9-11? 0.

Again, genius, your comparing apple and oranges. How is an earth quake like being hit by a jet liner or a cloud full of hundreds of tons of concrete debris?

Buildings collapsed but not like they did in New York. This could be because of the construction design but I think that possibility sounds even less likely.
Yes.

Based on what? Do you see the recurring theme here in my questioning: why? Why is it less likely?

We see clear pictures of rockets being shot so how hard can it be to show a clear picture of a commercial airliner? In one of the most heavily secured buildings on this earth.

What rockets? When? Try introducing an element before discussing it. What rockets caught on clear picture?

Suicide bombings is not regarded as suicides but martyr operation.

Right, that cleared that up.

Seriously, what are you going on about? So the same halfwits who think killing innocent people is a great idea also consider it a martyr operation, who cares? How does that change what people who in theory have an IQ above 12 think of the matter?

Scarificing your life in battle is not seen as coward.

How is killing innocent people who can't fight back 'a battle'? It's an exercise in murder by most people's definitions I think.

I think they have more guts than American soldiers hiding behind millitary tanks shooting at bomb shelters though.

It takes a lot of guts to murder innocent people who you've taken completely by surprise and who have no means of defending themselves.

I don't agree with any of them but if I have to chose what I think is the most coward. It surely is not the peopole who are willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause. Any attack on civilian is wrong. I personally think punching people is wrong too.

Then what in the name of God were your last few paragraphs about?

It also is coward to impose sanctions on a country and starving close up to a million people like what US did to Iraq prior to the war leading to 9-11.

Which naturally makes everything else completely all right?

If you look at that picture how come the buildings around WTC 1,2 did not collapse but only WTC7?

Because these pictures show the path of debris and the relative structure of buildings? These things are more important than looking at a photograph.

WHo cares who said what.

I care immensely when you're making up these random bat**** data to support what you're saying.

With your own eyes. Take a look at the picture and see for yourself.

Again with this total w***.

The whole point is jet fuel fire does not get hot enought to melt steel! The law of science says that this is impossible. If the water temperature is 60 degrees the water does not start to boil. This is another law of science.
They say it doesn't have to melt but only make it softer. And that is enough to make the building collapse. However I argue that it didn't get hot enought to even make steel softer.

And on WHAT do you base this? FFS.

While I am not an engineer so I am not a specialist in this field.
That much is cripplingly apparently.

Just the fact that a number of engineers are critical to the US version makes it strange.

'Critical' does not equate to 'it's a huge conspiracy look at the photos LOL' really, does it?

Google jet fuel fire. And you end up with alot of web results.

Which means what?

If it wasn't a set up you would have thought that they would atleast not clean the mess and ship the steel away ASAP like the US government did.

Or alternatively it wasn't a set up and they didn't feel the need to leave the rubble there just to please bozos on the internet with too much time on their hands.

Do you remeber how quick they were to point at someone? Then one of Bush's quotes was that there is no room for conspiracy?

Standard politics, blame someone quickly to give the public focus.

These same people wrote a few years earlier through PNAC that a Pearl Harbour style attack is needed to boost millitary spendings. Need a Pearl Harbour? You have to be a nutcase to state in public that US needs a Peral Harbour.

So the US instigated the whole thing to increase military funding. And then lose all of that funding in the cost of fighting two ongoing wars in the Middle East.

So the whole exercise was essentially to get the military's budget increased and then blow it all on extra cruise missiles?

http://www.guildcafe.com/gallery/data/500/icantbelieve128386848407685000.jpg

Here is a picture, since you seem to like them so, now study it. Study it VERY CAREFULLY. OPEN YOUR EYES. Do you see, now?

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 00:31

A 767 wide bodied jet filled with enough fuel to cross the United States IS an BOMB!

2 767 jets taking down 3 buildings? Not likely at all.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 00:47

And they're also incomparable because they are made of different materials, construction techniques and were damaged in different ways. This isn't hard stuff to understand, mate.

If they were damaged in different ways and were made of different material, both steel framed buildings and different design then it is even stranger that they came down the exact same way. No it is not hard to understand is it?

Because these pictures show the path of debris and the relative structure of buildings? These things are more important than looking at a photograph.

There are things more important than the photo. But just an overview and that photo speaks to my advantage. Because buildings around WTC7 are in ruin but they havent collapsed.

Then what in the name of God were your last few paragraphs about?

Suicide bombings is not regarded as suicides. It is regarded as Martyr operations by the people who carry out these operations. That was my point.

So the US instigated the whole thing to increase military funding. And then lose all of that funding in the cost of fighting two ongoing wars in the Middle East.

So the whole exercise was essentially to get the military's budget increased and then blow it all on extra cruise missiles?

Yes and no. False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.

During July 1954, the Israeli Operation Susannah (later known as the Lavon Affair) bombed several American and British targets in an attempt to frame Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

This is the oldest trick in the book. To be able to invade you need to get attacked first. When Japan bombed Pearl harbour US knew that Peral Harbour was about to get bombed. When Germany invaded Poland, the Nazis staged a murder by the Polish border blaming it on the Poles so that they could invade Poland.

No one starts a war because they think they will lose in the first place. Resisting is one thing but waging a war 10,000 kilo meters away from home is an another.

And the motives? Its the oil stupid.

sabro

Jan 5, 2008, 00:52

Sounds like pretty strange paranoid tabloid stuff. Bigfoot, UFO's and 9/11 conspiracies.

Since we know the attacks were planned and executed by al Qaeda... They publicly took credit... and since we know who the attackers were, how they attacked and since engineers have figured out how the building collapsed any talk of US government involvement in conspiracies is kind of nutty.

karlyboo

Jan 5, 2008, 00:55

If they were damaged in different ways and were made of different material, both steel framed buildings and different design then it is even stranger that they came down the exact same way. No it is not hard to understand is it?

You just said they didn't come down, that the ones in wartorn countries stayed up!

There are things more important than the photo. But just an overview and that photo speaks to my advantage. Because buildings around WTC7 are in ruin but they havent collapsed.

Which we just effectively covered above.

Suicide bombings is not regarded as suicides. It is regarded as Martyr operations by the people who carry out these operations. That was my point.

Then you should have stuck to it IMO instead of bringing an attitude of 'Leave the brave American stuff out of this thread etc.'

It's the oil stupid

And how much oil have we got from Afghanistan then, genius? Afghanistan produces poppys, not crude.

yumeitsumo

Jan 5, 2008, 00:57

of course it's true. Who cares about conspiracies....the people who died were real and true nothing changes that fact!
*nods* Things happen. We can't keep arguing about how it happened or blame anyone. Ok. I sound wack. See ya.

:okashii:

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 01:04

You just said they didn't come down, that the ones in wartorn countries stayed up!

Exactly. I said buildings in war torn countries hit by missiles don't come crumbling down. In New York one building wasn't hit by anything and still came crumbling down the exact same way as the 2 other buildings hit by jets.

And how much oil have we got from Afghanistan then, genius? Afghanistan produces poppys, not crude.

Exactly. CIA has a long track record of making huge profits from the cocaine business in SOuth America and there is the pipe line carrying fossil fuel which runs from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan through Afghanistan therefore both Pakisistan and Afghanistan plays a vital geo political role.

If US wanted to catch bin Laden then why is US building millitary bases by the pipe line? Is it to protect the pipe lines from bin Laden? I thought thery invaded Afghanistan to catch bin Laden.

Mycernius

Jan 5, 2008, 01:31

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 02:09

We don't know that it was Al-Qaida. Or if there were more than Al-Qaida. Just because CNN says so 100 times does not make it more true. Such mature thinking Mycernius.

karlyboo

Jan 5, 2008, 02:18

Exactly. I said buildings in war torn countries hit by missiles don't come crumbling down. In New York one building wasn't hit by anything and still came crumbling down the exact same way as the 2 other buildings hit by jets.

Exactly. CIA has a long track record of making huge profits from the cocaine business in SOuth America and there is the pipe line carrying fossil fuel which runs from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan through Afghanistan therefore both Pakisistan and Afghanistan plays a vital geo political role.
If US wanted to catch bin Laden then why is US building millitary bases by the pipe line? Is it to protect the pipe lines from bin Laden? I thought thery invaded Afghanistan to catch bin Laden.

I'm going to save myself time instead of disassembling this: you haven't backed any of this up with anything- in the first instance you're not even debating, you're just being contradictory, and the second is entirely supposition on your part due to the lack of data to back it up.

So: you're either bat**** crazy enough to believe all this, or you're just trolling.

Either way debating this is obviously a lost cause. I give up.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 02:27

Well I have backed up how 3 buildings collapsed atleast tried to back up with links.

As for Afghanistan and the pipleine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

As for cocaine and CIA.

http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html

Don't put a label on me just because my opinions and what I believe in is so far off your opinion. Do research yourself. And find out for yourself.

I am confident. This 9-11 was a big set up.

Watch this movie

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Its an eye opener.

Derfel

Jan 5, 2008, 02:31

We don't know that it was Al-Qaida. Or if there were more than Al-Qaida. Just because CNN says so 100 times does not make it more true. Such mature thinking Mycernius.

Why is it that I have this feeling that you're trying to tell us who is trustworthy and who isn't? Why would we buy your stuff? Why would it be true because you said it 100 times? How are you any different?
Honestly, you can suspect everything, really, everything, but whats the point? You could go around saying that black is white because xy source says so, and there's a great conspiracy in the background to fool people into believing that black indeed is black.
Honestly, the fact that I hate sweets doesn't mean that the guy who bakes them wants to poison me.
Couldn't even hide that high and mighty know it all attitude of yours, nor the resentment for America, so we can assume that whatever the pro-America or neutral camp would bring up, you would still say that their information is false, simply because something that doesn't reek of contra-American propaganda can only be wrong. Thats not how things work. You want to believe that the American government is guilty, thats all you want. You actually don't give a damn about what happened, not a damn, simply, you want another reason to hate that country, and a nice little argument that you could present in pretty much any and every topic in the serious subforum that has anything to do with America.
Honestly, you think CNN had his little bro Al Jazeera broadcast what he wanted? Thats insane. "Wait, I HEAR SOUNDS, they say Bush is an alien who came to destroy the world... no, they now say that all Americans are aliens... oh drat, the voices are telling me to save the pure races from teh evul American aliens!"
Why don't you play chess instead? I mean honestly, such complicated campaigns and tricks can only happen in chess.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 02:34

Why would we buy your stuff? Why would it be true because you said it 100 times? How are you any different?

You don't need to believe me because I am saying it 100 times. I am just saying study each episode more carefully an don't take everything you get from TV as granted.

Power corrupts people. Wake the føkk up.

Derfel

Jan 5, 2008, 02:49

My brothers and sisters, this day our eyes were opened by none other than the great, the magnificent, the brave, the pure [please insert all positive adjectives here] CENTRAJAPAN.
You revealed the truth that's been obscure for long years.
We shall now worship you.
This is how it all happened.
http://i12.tinypic.com/6ks6heh.jpg

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 02:50

You are ridiculing because you are running out of arguments. What are you? The secret witch hunt gestapo? Thats what Vatican used to do 300 years ago. Get with the programme.

Derfel

Jan 5, 2008, 02:53

You are ridiculing because you are running out of arguments.

There's no need for that, im merely doing this for my own pleasure, after all you can do it yourself can't you?

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 02:56

yawn.. Since you know very little about this subject its rather strange that you start to ridicule. Grow up.

How can 2 jets bring down 3 buildings in the same fashion?
Thats how you need to be thinking.

Derfel

Jan 5, 2008, 03:03

May I ask one question?
Do you believe in what Stephen King writes? No, serious, if you do that explains it all, I won't argue with you anymore.

karlyboo

Jan 5, 2008, 03:10

God why am I doing this... why... it's like talking to a brick wall...

Well I have backed up how 3 buildings collapsed atleast tried to back up with links.

No, you kept posting 'Look at the picture!' and not addressing a single thing I said. Try again.

As for Afghanistan and the pipleine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

It says 'proposed' pipeline, and even then:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

This guy is a reporter for a rather dubious health website! He's hardly an authority on the subject. Doesn't matter though, since he's heading in the direction you want to go in.

As for cocaine and CIA.
http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html

Nearly all from secondary newspaper articles. There isn't a single credible primary source! It's effectively heresay.

I'm sure the CIA has got up to loads of dubious stuff (for once I'm not being sarcastic, I believe they probably have) but you're going to have to do much better than this.

Don't put a label on me just because my opinions and what I believe in is so far off your opinion. Do research yourself. And find out for yourself.

Here we come to the nub of the matter.

Read this carefully:

The US Govt. might well have had something to do with 9/11. I don't rule that out. However I have seen no evidence that they have, you have presented a series of loosely connected circumstantial happenings from a variety of sources of vastly differing levels of credibility.

You can think whatever you like, however presenting your dubious double-think and logically fallible reasoning as truth is something I feel fully justified in having an opinion on and 'labelling' you for.

I am confident. This 9-11 was a big set up.
Watch this movie
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
Its an eye opener.

You've strung together an incredibly tenuous set of reasons with nothing vaguely resembling an unbiased, credible primary source to back up any of it.

Want to believe it? Go nuts. This whole twaddle about 'opening your eyes' though could really do with a rest. As could your opening animosity towards the USA and the attacks in general. I would possibly have treated your opinion with respect if not for that.

Grr.

Goldiegirl

Jan 5, 2008, 03:43

I still believe the architect who said the buildings came down exactly as he had figured they would. He said the impact of the jets blew the sprayed foam fire retardant off the structural support beams and that is why they were able to melt so fast. This was not an ordinary fire. I think that's an important fact that some people aren't understanding. This was a super heated fire that was fueled by jet fuel and plenty of combustible material. If you think a fire can't melt metal your wrong. Our neighbors house burned down and the fire had gotten so hot it melted their fridge and stove. They were melted pools of metal. I also believe that Al-Qaida tried with a car bomb years ago to blow the WTC up and they failed. This time they wanted to get it right. They did.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 04:46

No, you kept posting 'Look at the picture!' and not addressing a single thing I said. Try again.

Try again. What are you trying to say. I don't understand.

It says 'proposed' pipeline, and even then:

The pipeline is a fact. So the proposed pipeline is not a fact because it is only propsed?

The US Govt. might well have had something to do with 9/11. I don't rule that out.

Nice one. We agree.

Dont think because it is USA they are good or because it is US they can't do anything that evil.

karlyboo

Jan 5, 2008, 04:56

The pipeline is a fact. So the proposed pipeline is not a fact because it is only propsed?

No the pipeline is hypothetical since it doesn't exist. You were talking about it in terms that it was a physical thing the US wanted to defend. If you read further on your wikipedia article you'll find that the war in Afghanistan has actually stalled its construction indefinitely.

So obviously the war was started just to get control of this pipeline then!

Which doesn't exist yet.

And won't be finished for years.

Because of the war.

Which America started with 9/11.

Because they wanted this pipeline.

Nice one. We agree.
Dont think because it is USA they are good or because it is US they can't do anything that evil.

Awesome. Except nobody said that that USA was totally good and incapable of evil. Yay for knocking over the straw man. Did he put up a fight?

Mycernius

Jan 5, 2008, 05:21

We don't know that it was Al-Qaida. Or if there were more than Al-Qaida. Just because CNN says so 100 times does not make it more true. Such mature thinking Mycernius.
Such paranoid anti-US rubbish that deserves the respect I give it.
Plus quoting or posting articles from Wiki is hardly a credible source.

Doc

Jan 5, 2008, 06:44

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 08:00

Afghan pipeline

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre- mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,
1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 08:06

Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

Demolition Hypothesis

What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives?

What did officials know? How did they know it?

Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.

Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.

Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.

Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11

A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicag

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 08:44

Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Davis

Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele
http://911proof.com/7.html

Former high-ranking Reagan official and very influential conservative doubts the official story about 9/11

Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task.

http://vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm

New Yorker Article 8/12/02: "Musharraf told me that he was still unconvinced that bin Laden was the main figure in the attacks. "I didn't think it possible that Osama sitting up there in the mountains could do it," he said. "He was perhaps the sponsor, the financier, the motivating force. But those who executed it were much more modern. They knew the U.S., they knew aviation. I don't think he has the intelligence or the minute planning. The planner was someone else.

General Mirza Aslam Beg – Former Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Army.

"Many of us in this region believe that Osama or his al-Qaeda were not responsible for 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, yet the coalition led by United States is busy on ‘Afghan bashing,’ chasing objectives, which go much beyond Osama bin Laden. The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the ‘rogue elements’ of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Davis

I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time.

General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001. Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations. Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.

Goldiegirl

Jan 5, 2008, 08:58

It's good when you can't have a thought of your own, but can only post the thoughts of others. I'd like to something original not just regurgitated words.....

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 09:03

I am still waiting for the source to back up the clamis from the Japanese American architect. I'd really like to see it.

When you are called this and that it is good to know that I am not alone. Infact many world leaders, millitary leaders, scientists just say that this is just impossible. Musharaff who is an US allie in Pakistan don't believe the official story. Here is USA's man in Pakistan waging war against the terrorists. Side by side by US and he doesn't believe itwas bin Laden. What does that say? The president of Pakistan does not believe Bush? Whats going on?

I personally am very happy to hear General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army and other American millitary leaders aswell as former advisors in the Reagen administration. They are not liberals but concervatives just shake their head in disbelief and say.

The official story just does not add up.

Sarapva

Jan 5, 2008, 10:18

The Bush administration wasn't the only ones who cut corners. The Clinton administration did too. There were several key people pardoned, dropped off the list, and the like who were real threats to this country by Clinton. The Clinton administration also did their fair share of ignoring threats as well. The blame game goes around full circle starting back since the Cold War. I'm surprised that you think only now it all started with Bush. Oh how wrong you are. The problem lies much deeper than you think. This is something that will haunt the world for years to come, given that the world is still around in fifty years.
-Doc :wave:

That's probably true - there has been corruption in our government for a long time. I don't think we'll know one way or the other about whether 9/11 was an "inside job" or not, but something's not right when known terrorists get past all hurdles, even through airport security when their names are flashing on computer screens as being a threat (the only decision about this was to check their luggage before putting it on the planes).

Goldiegirl

Jan 5, 2008, 10:25

You seem to be able to work the Internet very well....I gave you all the tools you need to do some more research. I won't do the work for you.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 11:04

Loose change.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7866929448192753501

To understand 9-11. We should study the various events prior to the attacks aswell as each incident very carefully. bin Laden was aparently getting treatment in an American hospital after 1998 in Dubai. 1998 was when bin Laden officially got on the wanted list. Most people be it Americans and non Americans were so numbed that they stopped asking quesions.

This web page is good place to start.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

The hole in Pentagon is so small. A Boeing 767 jet just evaporates like that? A building collapses without getting hit by a jet? Thats the conspiracy theory.

Mycernius

Jan 5, 2008, 22:14

It's good when you can't have a thought of your own, but can only post the thoughts of others. I'd like to something original not just regurgitated words.....
Once his type get a silly idea in their head you cannot shift it, no matter how much info and links and reference material you give him. Bad as YE creationists. No matter the overwealming evidence against they perfer to use the weaker evidence for, despite is shaky science/references/the man nexts door wifes cousin sister said.

centrajapan

Jan 5, 2008, 23:02

You haven´t given any links and just called them silly and paranoid and anti American. Maybe you are the one who should do some more research to it?
according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Thats over 50%. I guess those people are all pchycotic anti Americans then. And it is not only the next door´s wife or whatever. There are many high ranking officials both in US and outside of US who says the official 911 story does not add up. People in CIA, FBI, the millitary aswell as presidents and prime ministers.

Former minister of national defense in Canada Paul Hellier thinks it is hoax too.

http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Another theory is that US let it happen to be able to wage a war on terrorism. Just think about it. Had it not been for 911 then US would not have waged war on Afghanistan or Iraq.

Derfel

Jan 6, 2008, 00:20

You haven´t given any links and just called them silly and paranoid and anti American. Maybe you are the one who should do some more research to it?

Honestly, we all know that the American government ain't flawless, but there's a limit to suspicions. Conspiracies are interesting, they move your brain, but you see, something that sounds ridiculously dumb is usually ridiculously dumb in real life, this is the same. Some dirty things might happen, corruption exists, but some cannot.
You label pro-America sources liars and manipulators... why? I want proof NOW, not proof about the WTC events, I want proof that the P-A sources are lying, please confirm that their information is wrong, that they're paid by the government behind locked doors, that they're accepting bribes from senators. If you can't, you have no right to label those sources anything.
Suspicion does not equal proof, unless someone is proven guilty, he is innocent.

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 00:54

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

False flag operations are not anything new.

The Operation Ajax was the code name of an operation lead by CIA and MI6 in the 1950s. The background for this was because Mossadeq who was the democratic elected president in Iran went on to nationalise the oil and denied Brittish Petrolium to enter the market. So US,UK carried out terrorism and blamed it on Mossadeq. They bombed the home of a religious leader, bombed mosques, shot into crowds with machine guns and blamed it on Mossadeq. They gave out propganda material and leaf lets stating things such as down with Allah up with communism when the truth of the matter was Mossadeq was not a communist.

Mossadeq was then over thrown and a new government took place in Iran. And the CIA then went on a trained the secret police Savak in Iran.

All this was done to secure Iran's oil wells.

Operation Gladio was a NATO operation carried from the 40s up until the 80s. IN western Europe, Middle East, Latin America. What they did was bombed civilians, buses, trains and blamed it on leftists and communists. Italian presidensts have admited to be apart of Operation Gladio and in the 90s. The EU came with a resolution condemning Opration Gladio.

This is declassified information. Western governments bombed trains, buses, civilains and blamed it on leftists and communists.

Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam was a fabricated story where US said American boats were fired eventhough the truth of the matter is that they wern't being fired by Vietnamese boats. They used this lie as a pretext to enter the Vietnam war.

In 1976. A CIA agent planted a bomb on a Cuban commercial airliner killing all the passegers on board but did not take responibility of it until many years later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4535661.stm

Here are just a few examples of false flag operations carried out by USA.

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 01:11

You label pro-America sources liars and manipulators... why?

You should not think pro or anti American. There are both Americans non Americans liberals and concervatives who don't buy the story of the Bush administration.

I am glad it has sparked your interest. I think it is quite interesting to read books and watch movies on this matter. You have the FEMA report. The official Bush administration report which people are questioning. I want proof too. I think US should have an independent investigation. A hearing. How much did the Bush administration know? If there is suspicion wouldit not be better to get rid off the suspicion by going public and have a hearing?

Just prior to the attacks the stock markets was behaving very strange.

Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.

Mystery speculator bets on disaster: Who’s sure enough to gamble $4.5 billion on Stock Market taking 40% nosedive?

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=126&a=3458

Common sense says that there were people who know what was going to happen and they made alot of money from it.

scorpion da black

Jan 6, 2008, 01:21

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 01:38

Thank scorpion da black.:cool:

scorpion da black

Jan 6, 2008, 01:47

i was being honest no need to thank me :-)

i am reading and reading and still cant finish..that is one marvelous argument you have there...all the links you provide are so rich...neat work..keep doing your best centrajapan san

Derfel

Jan 6, 2008, 02:07

Ok, now, I don't believe that the government did all that.. but lets say they did it.
Now lets imagine the information surfaces, it leaks somehow, people find out about it.
Imagine the chaos, imagine millions of people wreaking havoc all around, the unrest, it would turn into a bloody rebellion. Now lets decide, do we want a rebellion?
People even believe in hypothetical information such as this, some are howling for blood even without facts, not everyone can discuss it on forums in a civil manner. Let us admit, there are loads of idiots out there who only need an excuse to go and destroy, and this, this would be a great excuse for them.
I say: Obscure minds must be kept obscure for their own good.
Whether this is true or not (I still say its false), it shouldn't spread too much.

karlyboo

Jan 6, 2008, 03:17

seriously the information centrajapan is providing make a lot of sense..and make you think!!

take that seriously ..i am not saying this as a biased person..
just read the information as an observing peer and judge

And for those of us who can think for ourselves we'll make up our own minds, cheers.

Until he addresses the thirty-odd points I made, Centra is just posting baseless theory as far as I can see. He still has yet to explain to me why the Americans started a war for control of a pipeline which has not been built and who's construction has in fact been delayed by the war (amongst other things he hasn't explained).

Or alternatively, let's hear it for factless anti-Americanism based on internet articles written by unqualified hacks who usually write for Health magazines! Yay! If only Dimitree were still around, this complete lack of analytical reasoning was really his forte.

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 03:36

And for those of us who can think for ourselves we'll make up our own minds, cheers.

Until he addresses the thirty-odd points I made, Centra is just posting baseless theory as far as I can see. He still has yet to explain to me why the Americans started a war for control of a pipeline which has not been built and who's construction has in fact been delayed by the war (amongst other things he hasn't explained).

I already gave you the BBC link for the pipeline. Cheers. For those who can think of ourselves. Your flaw is that you only believe the coorporate media therefore you are not thinking for yourself. Dig in a bit deeper. Read not only BBC, CNN, FOX, Al Jazeera but Indian, Pakistani press too.

I already gave you 130 odd points which you haven't answered. Think for yourself indeed.

Derfel

Jan 6, 2008, 06:38

And for those of us who can think for ourselves we'll make up our own minds, cheers.
Until he addresses the thirty-odd points I made, Centra is just posting baseless theory as far as I can see. He still has yet to explain to me why the Americans started a war for control of a pipeline which has not been built and who's construction has in fact been delayed by the war (amongst other things he hasn't explained).
Or alternatively, let's hear it for factless anti-Americanism based on internet articles written by unqualified hacks who usually write for Health magazines! Yay! If only Dimitree were still around, this complete lack of analytical reasoning was really his forte.

What? Are you talking bout these (http://ihateusa.uw.hu/) sites he always brings up? :D

Well why not? Aren't random sites the best? Maybe he does an "america crime" search on google and links all the sites on by one as the topic advances.

sabro

Jan 6, 2008, 10:46

Karlyboo... don't let logic and facts interfere with this dicussion!

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 14:37

Lets turn the question around. On 9-11 Saudi Arab terrorists hijacked airplanes crashed into 2 buildings. 3 buildings collapsed. And another in Pentagon.

USA knew nothing about the events. It would have been impossible for US and the CIA, millitary intelligence to do anything about it and waged war on terrorism and invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq? To over throw Taliban and Saddam.

Think for yourself?

Mycernius

Jan 6, 2008, 19:10

karlyboo

Jan 6, 2008, 20:46

I already gave you the BBC link for the pipeline. Cheers. For those who can think of ourselves.

The link said exactly what was in Wikipedia- it was still being planned. It brought nothing new to the discussion: why was the war started for a hypothetical pipeline who's construction was delayed by the war anyway?

Your flaw is that you only believe the coorporate media therefore you are not thinking for yourself. Dig in a bit deeper. Read not only BBC, CNN, FOX, Al Jazeera but Indian, Pakistani press too.
I already gave you 130 odd points which you haven't answered. Think for yourself indeed.

I've answered every single one of your points in nauseating detail, one by one, and most of my ripostes have been ignored. Thanks, by the way, for deciding where I get my information from and what I believe (I wasn't aware you were a mind reader).

Let me guess, am I either brainwashed by them or am I in fact one of them?

centrajapan

Jan 6, 2008, 23:52

The link said exactly what was in Wikipedia- it was still being planned. It brought nothing new to the discussion: why was the war started for a hypothetical pipeline who's construction was delayed by the war anyway?

As of 1992, 11 western oil companies controlled more than 50 percent of all oil investments in the Caspian Basin, including Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Pennzoil, Texaco, Phillips and British Petroleum.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

The reason why it is still planned is because Afghanistan is in turmoil. There needs to be stability in Afghanistan before one can start with the pipeline. Thats why there needs to be a pro western government in Afghanistan.

Here is a map of the various pipelines.

http://worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm

Pakistan already has a pro western millitary dictatorship. Most countries around the Caspian sea already have a pro western dictatorship.

The Caspian Basin already is rich on natural resources. US and other western countries want to make sure to have control over these natural resources by privatizing the oil, gas fields as much as possible. The oil being in a land locked area needs to be transported in pipelines.

Let me guess, am I either brainwashed by them or am I in fact one of them?

Let me guess. You think US is waging a war on terrorism?

I've answered every single one of your points in nauseating detail, one by one, and most of my ripostes have been ignored. Thanks, by the way, for deciding where I get my information from and what I believe (I wasn't aware you were a mind reader).

I assume you have heard of the strange movements in the stock markets prior to the attacks.

Put” options on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the World Trade Center’s most prominent occupants, also spiked in the days before 9-11. The 9-11 Investigation Committee made no attempt to pursue this highly sensitive matter.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=126&a=3458

Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. The evidence of insider trading includes:

Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

The stratnge movements in the stock market has not been investigated.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 00:14

Stopping acts of terrorism isn't an easy thing to do. You might have some info saying that one is to take place, but you must find out where, when and how, and when dealing with terrorist that isn't exactly easy. If it was the UK wouldn't have suffered over 30 years of terrorist truobles from the IRA. The US couldn't even stop one of its own commiting the Oklahoma bombing. If you where now to commit an act of terrorism, either as a group of nutters of as an individual, how would the police/government stop you?
Instead of sitting behind a computer in your nice ideal world of hindsight try to view the problem with what it really entails. You are the one that should be thinking.

It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, rather than assume their duties as decision-makers.

It is standard procedure to respond to commercial airliners who has diverted. On 9-11 the US air defense system failed completely. The year before US responded 67 times to airliner diverting. On 9/11 mothing. The various agencies, the Pentagon, the US Air Force, as well as the 9/11 Commission have given different explanations to why the defense system failed that day.

After the attacks while no airplanes could fly in or out of US the bin Laden family was flown out of US.

Despite having responded successfully on 67 occasions during the preceding year, the US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights four times on the morning of 9/11.

http://911curious.org/questions.cfm

Here are other pilots who question 9-11.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 00:37

There are these American pilots who says 9-11 is all a scam. Another pilot.

John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.

People ask, you know, why do I think that 9/11 was a scam. They say, "Why would the government do that?" And I said, there's three basic reasons. Number 1; they wanted to take away all our liberties and they had to pose a threat to do that. Number 2; they wanted a reason to go into Afghanistan. ... Then the third thing was we had to have a pretext for going into Iraq.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

First off. Pilots question how it is possible for someone with minimum flying hours to navigate the airplanes like they did. Especially the one in Pentagon.

Another pilot says.

At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft?

Please watch this documentary.

Loose Change 2007. On Septemb-er 11 2006 thousands of people marched in New York to demand a new investigation of 9-11. A growing number of people are sure that the US government has not told the truth.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2035108967536002048&q=loose+change+final+cut&total=171&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden as long as US came with evidence. bin Laden praised the attacks but has not taken responsibility.

BIN LADEN IS NOT WANTED FOR 911 BY FBI!!!

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 04:52

If Bin Laden is not wanted for the attacks on WTC by the FBI then why is US waging a war on terrorism?

Please watch this documentary. In 1975 Twin Towers burnt twice as long as it did on 9-11 yet there was no hint of a collapse. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to a fire. The tower which was hit last collapsed first. Then the second tower which was hit afterwards collapsed.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=9%2F11+mysteries&total=437&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

It explains the collapse of Twin Towers or the failed engineering.

After that please watch the collapse of WTC7. A building which never was hit by a damn thing.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8350603291379996071

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 09:05

The mayor of San Fransisco got warnings about riding an airplane the day before 9-11.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2/MN229389.DTL

On July 26, 2001- 47 days before the Sept 11 attacks- CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.

Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4582.htm

The London Times reported that Salman Rushdie got a similar warning about not to fly to New York.

http://www.rense.com/general19/prior.htm

US troops evacuated Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters to Pakistan from Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...636763,00.html

8000 Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters were flown out by US carriers to safety to Pakistan.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 09:31

1. Many people knew not to fly on 9-11. Pentagon officials cancelled a meeting on September 10 in New York due to security reasons.

2. Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the attacks on 9-11.

3. 3 buildings collapse. 1 was not hit by an airplane.

4. Pilots say it is impossible to fly a Boing into Pentagon the way it did and not leave any trace of the wreck. The lawn was not damaged one bit.

5. USA flies 8000 Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan to Pakistan to safety.

There is more. Still, there are people in this day and age who think the US government is telling the whole truth and not with holding any information.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 17:30

6. Inside trade. People in the stock market made a fortune on short sell. They gamble that the stock market will take a nose dive. Stocks from American And United Airlines were being sold in a frantic tempo just before 9-11.

Some people still say. But do you really think the US government is THAT terrible? I have already given you many examples of false flag operations carried out by US. In Iran, Operation Gladio, Tonkin.

7. There is also OPERATION NORTHWOOD

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to stage acts of simulated or real terrorism on US soil and against US interests and then put the blame of these acts on Cuba, so as to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

This never was put in motion but it is declassified information. This is not a conspiracy. US planned to hijack airplanes and blow them up and then blame it on Cuba.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 18:33

8. Survivors of 9-11 who was in WTC witnessed an explosion in the basement before the towers were hit by an airplane. There were people who got injured from the explosion in the basement.William Rodriguez says the he helped a man to safety who was blown from an explosion in the basement.

William Rodriguez – WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives.

They first heard an explosion in the basement first. Then a second explosion up in the building which was when the tower was hit by airplane.

Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,

Another witness who was in WTC on 9-11 in the basement.

Mr. Johannemann was in the basement of the North Tower when the first plane impacted. "I was right there. I was down in the basement. Came down. All of a sudden the elevator blew up. Smoke. I dragged a guy out

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

There are survivors who witnessed a freakin explosion in the basement before the plane hit the towers.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 19:31

So you have survivors who heard explasions and who were injured by explosions in the basement. You have pilots who say that they would never be able to fly like the pilots did on 9-11.

9. Then you also have architects.

It is impossible for the lightest 'upper' part of a building to plow through the strongest 'lower' section through the force of gravity alone."

This was a set up. One the greatest scams of this century. There should be a new investigation right now! Why are not more people in US demanding it? One more event in US will turn US into a police dictatorship. Itll be like DDR or Pinoche Chile. Where there is a massive secret police who infiltrate the civilian population either by tapping their phones or mingeling among people. People will get kidnapped one day out of the blue.

Im not American so I dont care that much but Americans should. US is passing all these vicious laws which is giving more and more power to the authority and they are losing liberty and freedom. People are in a sheeple mind set. Well, yes! I love my country so I dont care what the government does. I can give out finger prints because I have nothing to hide. Before you know it youll have a micro chip up your bum and the secret police monitoring every single move.

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 20:54

Now that we have expert comments aswell as survivors. US did not invade Afghanistan because of 9-11. US already had plans to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11.

By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place -possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

centrajapan

Jan 7, 2008, 21:24

What has changed in US since 9-11? Well apart from spending billions and billions of dollars on the war. A few hundreds thousands of deaths both Americans and non Americans.

US has come with some new laws. Here are just a few.

The government can authorize secret arrests in terrorism investigations, which can overturn a court order requiring the release of names of their detainees.

Not even an attorney or family need be informed until the person is formally charged, if that ever happens. The government can kidnap whoever they please when ever they please.

The government can wiretap US citizens’ phones and e-mails without proper warrants.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

The FBI is now currently making a data base of every single American. Even Americans who have never committed any crime. The government can force private information about their clients, relatives, or employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

United Police State of America.

centrajapan

Jan 8, 2008, 02:23

What do I think of USA? I think the population has been dumbed down by stupid no brainer entertainment and the government has managed to spread fear. Hence the American public is scared and apathetic.

Derfel

Jan 8, 2008, 14:40

Oi, this be no notebook for private use.

centrajapan

Jan 8, 2008, 18:04

True. I have been talking to myself. I have either been completely ignored or I have completely outdebated other people. Not quite sure which. The 9-11 conspiracy is how people actually believed Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. News Flash! He is not wanted for the attacks on New York. It is all a big set up. WTC7 is the best evidence there is. A building collapses without getting hit by an airplane? It was a standard controlled demolishion.

The Twin Towers were built to take impact from Boeings. The planes in itself could not have made the towers collapse.

Mycernius

Jan 9, 2008, 01:25

I have either been completely ignored
I'm going with this one.

centrajapan

Jan 9, 2008, 01:29

You really haven't added much to this debate I am afraid. You could have come with reasons. You have not come with one reason apart from my reasons being ridiculous without stating why.

Derfel

Jan 9, 2008, 04:31

That goes for you as well, you've simply added a hell load of letters with nothing but hatred and resentment behind them.
We're not living in the medieval era, pride and patriotism doesn't prove much now.

Derfel

Jan 9, 2008, 05:42

The fact that you hate and detest the USA with all your heart makes all your stuff questionable by default, now take the dodgy sources you cite, and there you go, you're holding a 3rd grade, z category overhyped book that is aimed at people who not only believe in superstitions, but even in ones that contradict each other.
You say we should not believe everything we are told... cool. A little bit of healthy suspicion never killed anyone, but its exactly you who blindly believes anything that would stain America.
Honestly, If I made a website saying that Bush is raping newborn Iraqi girls, you'd be citing it in two days no doubt.

centrajapan

Jan 9, 2008, 05:57

How hot does jet fuel fire get? Please talk about various fires. Do you think if the steel collapsed due to jet fire that the frames are more solid at the bottom than up high? Advisors were warning Rumsfeld for close up to an hour. The plane got closer and closer to the Penatgaon. All what was needed was an emergency alarm. Why did not Rumsfeld push the button? Why was bush reading my peg goat in a kindergarten even after the first tower getting hit. How come WTC 7 collapsed? How come USA has not provded with a butt føck evidence that it was UBL?

If you got good answers I want to listen to them if not you should clap it.

Derfel

Jan 9, 2008, 06:06

I've got a nice question, why are you only concerned with the evil doings of the USA?

If you were talking about North Korea, I'd probably believe in stuff you say, or at least i'd try to understand your point, but in this case I cannot, you are not objective at all, how could we believe someone who not only stated facts about the USA but also hate filled narrations about not only the USA, but the whole Saxon world in general.
If you want people to believe you, present your beliefs and opinion in an edible manner.

centrajapan

Jan 9, 2008, 06:08

I dont care if it was USA but why dont you answer my questions? Due to 9-11 ca 1 million people have died. North Krea has not killed 1 million people. Get this shallow anti-pro American out of your head. You are starting to bore. You KGB American? Whats up?

Watch Loose Change Final Cut - November 200...Its American.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2035108967536002048&q=loose+change+final+cut&total=171&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

scorpion da black

Jan 9, 2008, 07:13

yes centrajapan you have out debated every one..and this time yes i am taking sides...
you did a great job...
and others can do little to ridicule it out of jealousy

Sarapva

Jan 9, 2008, 08:18

centrajapan - Your posts have not been ignored - there are a few pages of posts on this thread. Just be patient. I've been watching the "Demolitions Recut" video bit by bit, and it is very interesting and brings up good points about how the towers collapsed. It's also very informative - I didn't know all those things about steel and how the towers were built. I'm going to watch the rest of it, and there are probably others watching it, too. Just don't expect immediate responses to this. 9/11 is something that has affected all Americans in almost a personal way, and no one wants to believe that our own government had a hand in it. But overall we're open to that possibility.

Just be patient and don't start insulting people just because no one has responded to your most recent post.

centrajapan

Jan 9, 2008, 10:57

es centrajapan you have out debated every one..and this time yes i am taking sides...
you did a great job...
and others can do little to ridicule it out of jealousy

Cheers!! Hard fought battle. 911 was an inside job. I mean it.

centrajapan

Jan 10, 2008, 10:58

At first people get really offended when I say. 9-11 was an inside job but then if you look at the incident it becomes so obvious. Right before the Twin Towers collapsed it looked in good shape. Granted there was a fire and then all of a sudden it just collapses symetrical. Free fall. And then an another building which was not hit by anything then also collapses. WTC WTF?

It is very logical thinking!! Its the deniers who are not thinking logical.

Plese watch this.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=9%2F11+mysteries&total=437&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Now I am assuming that it will not take a long time before the main stream media starts to pick up on this theory. There is tons and tons of documentaries, books, information about the 9/11 lie in the alternative media, web pages. As people start to snap out of their coma. Its about time they do. They will realize that they have been manipulated and lied to. Its one of the greatest scams of this century.

Then after that watch this.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=917&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Loose Change is also a very good documentary.

centrajapan

Jan 10, 2008, 18:44

If there were bombs planted in buildings which it looks like looking at they way the buildings collapsed then why does not the US government say there were bombs? After all, they could have said the Terrorists planted them in the buildings and not the US government.

Why has the main stream media been so quiet about this when on the internet there are literally 1000s of web pages and 100s of books documentaries etc.

Thats the part I dont understand. I think Charlie Sheen is one of the few celebreties who has openly supported the theory that the buildings collapsed due to implosions rather than it being hit by airplanes.

There are many government offcials, millitary leaders, engineers who has supported the theory that it was a controlled demolishion too and when according to a poll more people believe that the US government is hiding something than telling the truth there should be more talk about this topic on the main stream media.

centrajapan

Jan 10, 2008, 21:28

If a building is burning. There are many many steel frames. Not only 1 or 2 frames but a whole bunch. It is like a grid. The theory is that all the frames melted at the same time therefore the buildings collapsed. This is not likely. Any structure is more soild at the bottom than the top. So a building should not give in like it did.

When you have a controlled demolishion they blow up from the bottom first. If you are going to knock a stack of something you knock the bottom part and not the top right? And if you see WTC7 it looks exactly like a controlled demolishion.

Silversteind then said on TV that we pulled it. Pulled it. Pull it means a controlled demolishion but he then later stated that he meant that he pulled the fire fighters. Then why did he say IT? And not them?

Why are we not getting more answers and why are not more people asking questions?

:(:(

People should not be afraid to speak out.

centrajapan

Jan 10, 2008, 21:49

They got the entire world to believe that a ragtag organization called Al Qaeda, fronted by a seriously ill guy in a cave armed with only a laptop and a phone, managed to orchestrate an unbelievably complex plan that had involved years of planning and training, much money, split-second timing and ridiculously good luck.

They got the entire world to believe that four hijackers who couldn't fly single-engine Cessnas well enough to graduate from flight school suddenly became the Blue Angels when at the controls of large, twin-engine Boeing jetliners, and this during the most stressful moments of their short lives.

So why is NATO waging war against Afghanistan and Iraq again?

They got the entire world to believe that the crime of the century was pulled off by 19 guys with box-cutters whose names (or any other Arabic names) don't appear on any passenger manifests and at least four of whom have been seen alive and well in the Middle East since 9/11/01, (this one even interviewed by the BBC).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Better yet, they got the entire world to believe their evidence linking these 19 guys to the hijackings, using for proof a few cell phone calls that couldn't have happened with 2001 technology. Then there's the famous carry-on bag supposedly left behind by alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta containing, among other things, a copy of the Koran, a Boeing flight manual and his will (and that's surely something you'd take with you on a flight you knew was going to be vaporized). And then the kicker, a passport allegedly belonging to Atta that miraculously survived a massive explosion and temperatures we're told were high enough to soften steel and fluttered unsullied to the ground, where it was eventually found among the debris a couple of blocks away from what used to be the World Trade Center.

They got the entire world to believe that the seriously ill guy in the cave had such vast control over US armed forces that he ordered four exercise scenarios -- Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian and Northern Vigilance -- which diverted to northern Canada or Alaska many of the NORAD fighter jets that would have been scrambled per standard operating procedure in the event of a suspected hijacking in the northeast corridor.

They got the entire world to believe that this same guy in the cave was able to insert at least 11 and as many as 21 false radar blips (according to FAA administrator Jane Garvey) onto air traffic controller screens throughout the northeast corridor. As a result, controllers had no idea which blips represented planes that had been hijacked, which ones represented non-hijacked flights still in the air and which blips were phantoms. They were thus incapable of following the actual moves of the four hijacked jets and/or coordinating with the FAA to relay warnings to NORAD interceptors (most of which, again, were screwing around over the arctic wastes).

They got the entire world to believe that the remaining NORAD forces -- which had been a perfect 67 for 67 in 2001 prior to 9/11 -- managed to fail completely in their missions four separate times that morning.

They got the entire world to believe that it was only a coincidence that a fifth exercise was taking place at the same time, this one designed to test emergency response capabilities at the National Reconnaissance Office in the event that an off-course plane from nearby Dulles airport crashed into one of the NRO's four office towers.

They got the entire world to believe that two planes took down three skyscrapers, WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7, and that for the first and only time in history, fire brought down reinforced steel and concrete structures and caused them to collapse vertically rather than keel over sideways and take out a few blocks of the New York City financial district.

They got the entire world to absolve them of any complicity in "the events of 9/11," even though the above list of "coincidences" is inexplicable without the knowledge, involvement, approval and direction of people high up in the federal food chain.

And that was only the beginning . . .

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2818.shtml

I think what speaks in Bushs favour is that this guy has proven to be so incompitent that it would be hard to believe that a guy like him would be able to pull a stunt like he did.

If it was Bin Laden a man up in the caves in Afghanistan then atleast you would have thought that he was wanted for the attacks on September 11th. But he isnt.

So basically. US got attacked on September 11 and waged war on 2 countries and have yet not been able to find out who was behind it. From echoing We want him dead or alive. They dont like freedom to well he is not any interest, to well we can not prove that he was behind the attacks after all.

Sarapva

Jan 11, 2008, 02:00

In the "Demolitions Uncut" video it is convincing that the towers fell the way they would only by an implosion. And people who were near the towers said they heard explosions from the basement. I still need to watch the rest of that.

centrajapan

Jan 11, 2008, 15:13

For me the thing which made me question 9-11 is because there was the third building which collapsed. And that building was not hit by an airplane. Then you question so if fire melted steel. Eventhough fire in itself can not melt steel or make steel softer. It has be to be some super fire then. If it was a super fire. There are many steel frames. Not just one or two but many and all the steel frames gave away all at the exact same time... ? Not likely.

Police officers, recue workers when they entered Twin Towers the windows were blown out in the first floor. This has been completely ignored in the official report.

centrajapan

Jan 12, 2008, 06:29

The war on terror. US gets attacked by Bin Laden. Bin Laden and the Bush families have a personal relation and are business partners. US flies the Bin Laden family out of USA right after 9/11 while no other planes can fly in or out of USA. Bush then rallies we want him dead or alive. They carpet bomb Afghanistan and n the after math they found out that they missed the target. Question. How can you cluster bomb and not hit target? US to this day has still not been able to come with hard evidence that it was Bin Laden after all. 3 buildings collapsed after being crashed by 2 jets though the 2 towers were designed to take an impact from airplanes.

In the mean time US has turned into a semi Gestapo state where they go around the world kidnappng people.

Can US be that stupid?

Sarapva

Jan 13, 2008, 02:41

I'd never seen before what was in the "Demolitions" video about how people who worked at the Trade Center and survived said that three weeks before 9/11 there was a "blackout" at the WTC for a whole weekend - all the electricity and everything was off, meaning there was no security and anyone could get in the buildings. Some workers were going in with cable, which they said was to upgrade computers and things, but some believe it could have been cable used in demolitions for steel buildings.

Then a couple of people said that about a week before 9/11 they heard thumping and moving around on floors that were empty, then saw lots of dust on the window sills. They'd heard drilling noises, and the idea is that they could have been drilling to put explosives in the walls like they would for a demolition, because when someone looked on that floor there was nothing on it. In the views of the towers collapsing there are what look like small explosions on the sides.

Not saying I think either way here yet - still just thinking about it. But there do seem to be a lot of people who were there that day who heard explosions and saw things that we don't hear in the news.

centrajapan

Jan 13, 2008, 03:22

Not saying I think either way here yet - still just thinking about it. But there do seem to be a lot of people who were there that day who heard explosions and saw things that we don't hear in the news.
The best way to get rid off uncertanties is to get a new investigation. This current US administratipn has been absolutely disasterous. So has the official investigation been.

While it is quite a jump to blame the US government for the respnsibilities of 911 what is quite certain by the looks of things is that there were bombs planted.

Japanese politicians in the parlament is questioning 9-11. Its time American politicians do too. Aswell as other people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9PQayrX-s

This politician is tearing the parlament and stating the implosions. Who is this guy? This guy is speaking the truth. He is talking about the bombs which went off in the Twin Towers and he is stating the fact that an another building WTC7 collapsed without getting hit by an airplane and the inside trade prior to 9-11 or the Put Options.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhlYD0uguiQ

The FEMA report does not mention anything about WTC7.

Just the fact that there is a discussion about 9-11 in the Japanese parlament means that they are on the right track.

centrajapan

Jan 13, 2008, 03:33

The same politician is asking. How can such a large plane only make such a small hole in the Pentagon? The flying route of the plane to Pentagon. This has been on the main stream news in Japan recently. About time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LHUInaZ9M&feature=related
Please watch Loose Change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNPJ9utU9sI&feature=related

centrajapan

Jan 13, 2008, 03:49

This series of videos. Links above. Japanese politicians in Japan questioning their own prime minister for over 30 minutes concerning what really happened on 9/11. They ask Was Al-Qaeda the real culpit? They delve into the collapse of building 7, discuss insider trading and debate the attack on the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8&NR=1

The popular name of Al Qaida is Al Ciada. This is quite a common term used in various circles.

centrajapan

Jan 13, 2008, 23:14

So now we have Japanese politicians discussing 9-11 in the Diet. Here are a few more links I urge people to watch. To start to realize that Twin Towers were blown to pieces by dynamite and did not collapse due to fire. The various governments not only in US but UK and also Japan is creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil, This is a very old trick. The Nazis spread the fear of "global conspiracy of world Jewry", while stripping their citizens of liberties. This is what is happening in especially USA but also in other parts of the world. The global terrorist conspiracy. This legitimizes US to invade Afghanistan, Iraq and now possibly Iran and this legitimizes the Japanese government to treat every non Japanese individual who sets foot in Japan as a criminal. US now has a prison system outside of criminal law. The US government can arrest anyone they like whenever they like. This in return is making more and moer Americans scared to speak out.

To be able to understand some questions which the US and the various governments never asked.

September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful ... all » documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=september+11th+revisited

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=improbable+collapse

Using their own video and words, "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" aims to point out ... all » not only the bad science used in the film, but also the several accounts of lying, quote mining, tricky editing and strawman arguments.
NOTE: There may be some grammatical errors in this video. Everything was spell-checked but I can't promise anything

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934&q=SCREW+9%2F11+MYSTERIES&hl=en

What's The Truth? We should'nt need to ask these questions, we should know the truth. This film highlights the strong possibility that the Twin Towers and ... all » Building 7 might have been brought down, not by fire, but by controlled demolition

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665&q=what%27s+the+truth

The greatest fear is fear itself.

centrajapan

Jan 14, 2008, 01:46

Video: Controversial TV Interview in which Benazir Bhutto states that Osama bin Laden was assassinated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg&eurl=http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=3734

Benazir suspected various terrorist groups of planning to assasinate her. She also stated that what was important was to identiify who supporting these groups. Are these groups associated with the government? Benazir stated that at least one of these groups is are associated with the Pakistani military government.

Bhutto as you know has been assasinated and no one knows who assasinated her. But she was the light of democracy and freedom in Pakistan unlike the US Allie and the millitary dictator Mushraf.

centrajapan

Jan 14, 2008, 01:54

A large part of the Pakistani population and many of them believe Usama Bin laden is a CIA agent. He is a creation of the CIA to justify USA's war on terror. He is there to put Islam in a bad light.

Good Morning America learns that Bin Laden is a CIA agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGXVic15ho&eurl=http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/041207Laden.htm

Sarapva

Jan 14, 2008, 02:13

The "ZEITGEIST" movie is informative and well-done (I still haven't finished watching it yet). I didn't know about the Federal Reserve being a central bank and lending money to the government. That would explain how the U.S. government is "beholden" to all these money lenders, and therefore not firstly concerned with its citizens.

centrajapan

Jan 14, 2008, 03:13

Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.

Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm

The "ZEITGEIST" movie is informative and well-done (I still haven't finished watching it yet). I didn't know about the Federal Reserve being a central bank and lending money to the government. That would explain how the U.S. government is "beholden" to all these money lenders, and therefore not firstly concerned with its citizens.

Yes. Exactly. Zeitgeist is an eye opener. Everyone should see it to be able to understand how and who is running this world.

centrajapan

Jan 14, 2008, 05:45

Now that we agree that Twin Towers were blown to pieces by dynamite and did not collapse due to fire. Who do you think planted these bombs in the various buildings in New York?

Its quite ironic that people can be so stupid in believing that 3 buildings collased because of fire due to 2 jets ramming into WTC like a stack of cards.

Have we woken up from the coma yet? Sheeple?

centrajapan

Jan 14, 2008, 06:19

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for ... all » over 30 years

RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3606159506368831731

centrajapan

Jan 29, 2008, 05:55

WTC7 collapsed due to debris and jet fuel fire from the Twin Towers? This is a difficult question because it is hard to prove but equally as difficult to disprove.

I just want more answers than I am getting.

sabro

Jan 29, 2008, 08:02

Well since we know that people were on the planes, and witnesses spoke to people on the planes on cell phones and passengers said that they saw the hijackers... and since we have witnesses that saw the planes hit three buildings, and others that heard the one go down in Pennsylvania... and since all this fits the physical evidence... the fuel, the video of the plane strikes, the wreckage, airport footage of the hostages... and since none of the planes or their hundreds of passengers ever showed up anywhere else... and engineers have simulated and recreated the collapses of the buildings due to the impacts and fires....it seems clear to me that the "Official" version of 9/11 is probably the most reasonable.

centrajapan

Jan 29, 2008, 16:29

The thing with conspiracy theories is that they are hard to prove and hard to disaprove. The reason why there has been so much conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is because of the secrecy of the US government and there have been alot of false statements and statements which makes one go hmmmm.

how could wtc7 collapse. were there really bombs planted in the buildings?

there are countless witnesses who said they heard explosions in the basement of twin towers first. then you have to ask is what they say or the web sites you get their information from credible?

the bush administration has been caught lying so many times. so, many people ask since they have lied about so many things why would they not lie about 9/11 too?

then other people ask. how can some people do such things to their own people? there has been cases where western countries have committed an act of terrorism against its own people. like for instance operation gladio. where western intelligence planted a bomb in a train station and killed about 100 people in italy in the 80s. at that time the terrorist attack was framed in such way for the public to believe it was leftist extremists who had planted the bombs there but in the after math it was found out that it was people in the italian government who was responsible for the train bombings. they did this to make people afraid in return that would strengthen their own position in italy.

cia has in the past blown up commercial airliners and in the 60s it planned an operation called operation northwoods. where the us government was thinking about committing terrorism such as hijacking of planes and planting bombs in various places and kill its own people and they would blame it on cuba so that us could mobalise the americqan public and legitimise an invasion of cuba. this plan was never put in motion but opereation northwood has been declassified.

bin laden the shadow boogey man is supposedly the master mind behind 9/11 but after all these years the us government still has no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11. bin laden is not wanted for the attacks on 9/11 by the us government.

the 5 frames which the pentagon released does not show an airplane. instead it gives more questions than answers.

centrajapan

Jan 29, 2008, 19:11

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&feature=related

This is one of my favourite clips. BBC reported that WTC7 collapsed actually before the collapse itself. There is BBC reporting about just a new collapse when the building is still standing.

centrajapan

Jan 29, 2008, 19:28

i think wtc7 was a controlled demolishion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM&feature=related

for me this makes more sense than building collappsing onto itself like a stack of cards due to fire. i dont think that is very likely.

sabro

Jan 30, 2008, 00:31

Again, when you see how the whole complex was constructed and understand the type of damage that WTC 7 suffered from the collapse of Tower 2 then the "official explanation" makes more sense than a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take weeks to set up... removing supports, interior walls, setting timed charges...

The buildings sat in a big hole called "the bathtub" which managed to contain much of the flaming debris from the collapse. Building 7 had substantial damage, especially to the exterior and underground support structure. Collapse was inevitable.

Then there is that little matter that not only did hundreds, possibly thousands see the planes hit three buildings, millions of us saw it on video. Weeks later, we even got to see tape of the first plane hitting taken by a French film crew. Millions of us watched in horror and shock when the towers came down.

And to believe that Dubya is actually competent enough to carry out a conspiracy like this? Did you see how he has handled Iraq, Afganistan and the Katrina disaster? Is there any thing in his past performance over seven years that tells you he could competently carry this out? I really don't think so. They couldn't keep the Plame thing under wraps... the whole WMD thing unravelled... a conspiracy this big, with no leaks or loose ends. Not Dubya. No way.

And the biggest evidence against Bin Laden is provided by his organization taking credit for the attack... the tracing of money to the hijackers... the evidence the hijackers left... they say they did it. He admits to doing it. I believe them.

This seems pretty silly to me.

centrajapan

Jan 30, 2008, 06:39

mind the gap

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2001897549763616199&q=mind+the+gap&total=863&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

911 was an inside job

sabro

Jan 30, 2008, 07:32

The video doesn't seem to show anything conclusive about the nature of the 9/11 attacks... only that the British government lied about the invasion of Iraq. It talks about the incriminating "Downing Street Memo" which meant that Bush and Blair were lying and weren't simply mistaken, and the treatment of a wistleblower and the possible cover up in the 7/7 train bombings. The video clearly shows both planes hitting the towers... All of which could be true and still have the official version of 9/11 be entirely correct.

It does not support your conclusion.

centrajapan

Jan 30, 2008, 18:00

You saw the video? Its a very good documentary. It tells how our governments or to be more precise the English and also the American governments have lied to its own people. As for 9/11. The Bush administration has been caught lying so many times that whatever they say about 9/11 is as credibile as some of the Holocaust deniers.

It is odd to see the buildings collapse like they did. It also is odd that there are witnesses who heard explosions in the basements have been ignored by the 9/11 investigation. I think if there was a fire one of the beams would get soft so the building would have tilted then collapsed and not collapsed onto itself.

You do come with some good points about the magnitude of this operation so it must have leaked some place. However secrets on this scale has been kept a secret before. THe Manhattan Project during WW2. Operation Gladio, Northwoods had been kept a secret for many years.

What US needs is a new investigation. An independent one.

Numark

Jan 31, 2008, 01:32

Mycernius

Jan 31, 2008, 01:36

He doesn't live in the US, he lives in Norway. I doubt very much, given the type of posts he has put up in the past, that he would even want to go to the US.

Pachipro

Jan 31, 2008, 01:56

All i know is that if you believe 9/11 to be an inside job, and you live in the U.S., you should be leaving the country/ making serious plans to. This is not an irrational stance. If you believe the government is willing to kill thousands of its own people, and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of property and businesses in order to garner support for a war, or what have you, then WHAT MAKES YOU SAFE? if this is the case, YOU ARE NOT SAFE, and you should not be living in this country.

The truth be told, we ARE NOT safe anymore.

The same can be said of Pearl Harbor and the US getting into WW II. They knew the Japanese would attack and goaded them into it in order to get us into the War to help England as Roosevelt ran on the campaign promise that, "If elected, I will never send your sons to war in Europe".

Like 911, the day after Pearl Harbor all Americans were willing to go to war which is what they knew would happen. Google it if you do not believe me. The writings of Roosevelt, his cabinet, the military personnel, etc are all out there for now.

If you do your research you will discover on Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)that, in order for us to go to war with Iraq, with the full support of the American people, it was written that their must be a "Pearl Harbor type of event" where the American people would be all for invading Iraq and fighting in the Middle East. If you're really interested in the quote, you'll search the site or google it yourself. It's there, in black and white. Those that do their own research will discover the truth. For now.

Mariat_San

Jan 31, 2008, 04:17

There is tons and tons of documentaries, books, information about the 9/11 lie in the alternative media, web pages. As people start to snap out of their coma. Its about time they do. They will realize that they have been manipulated and lied to.

I very do agree with your opinion.
I'm really conviced, that the whole thing stings up to heaven.

but... as sad it is, I don't think the most people will realize. The brainwashing endured for too long. And if they do; what are they supposed to do?

centrajapan

Jan 31, 2008, 22:21

PNAC wrote in their blueprint that they would need a new Pearl Harbour to fullfill their plan on global domination. You have to have a sick mind to write that USA needed a New Pearl Harbour.

The people who were members of PNAC are for the most part members in the Bush Administration. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld. They all were members of PNAC. YOu can go to their web page and see who are members.

Not only US but we all are doomed. EU is following in the path of US with surveillence, censorship etc. We are losining liberties as fast as the collapse of the buildings on 9/11.

centrajapan

Feb 2, 2008, 22:36

What is true is that the official story of 9/11 given to us by the US government is false.

Derfel

Feb 3, 2008, 00:27

What is true is that the official story of 9/11 given to us by the US government is false.

Yes... and did you all know that the USA is the codename of Satan?
You didn't? Well i'll tell you:
U, when cracking hypersuperubersecret codes and stuff can mean N, while S stands for TA in the dictionary of megasecretsuperconspiracies, and A means SA in Rottenspeak, the official language of Illuminati, Freemasons, Cathars, Hermetic Mages, Vampires, Werewolves etc.

Either learn to add: "in my opinion", "i think" or refrain from posting uncertain facts.

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 01:44

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 01:55

Or you can believe that US was one day out of the blue attacked by a group of terrorists with box cutter knives and that 3 buildings collapsed though 1 of the building was never hit by an airplane. That the air system comletely failed that day and that one of the airplanes vaporised when hitting the Pentagon.
The occult symbolism used by Illuminati and for instance the Dollar Bill or whatever is a fact.
You know... the US, was one day out of the blue attacked by a group of terrorists with box cutter knives... they planned and executed an attack that was brutal, and that went around the basic assumptions that we accept about hijackers and civilized behavior. With rudimentary skills they murdered over 3000 innocent people.

3 buildings collapsed and four others were damaged. The third was at the foot of two of the tallest in the world and shared a foundation. When billions of tons of flaming wreckage falls into your basement and through your walls and roof, sometimes it doesn't leave enough support to keep your building standing.

Check the pictures and security footage... that shows the plane hitting... of the pentagon being hit. There is clearly aircraft wreckage... clearly a landing gear assembly... pieces of wings and engines outside the building. Over 80% of that plane was recovered...

Derfel

Feb 3, 2008, 02:23

You know... the US, was one day out of the blue attacked by a group of terrorists with box cutter knives... they planned and executed an attack that was brutal, and that went around the basic assumptions that we accept about hijackers and civilized behavior. With rudimentary skills they murdered over 3000 innocent people.
3 buildings collapsed and four others were damaged. The third was at the foot of two of the tallest in the world and shared a foundation. When billions of tons of flaming wreckage falls into your basement and through your walls and roof, sometimes it doesn't leave enough support to keep your building standing.
Check the pictures and security footage... that shows the plane hitting... of the pentagon being hit. There is clearly aircraft wreckage... clearly a landing gear assembly... pieces of wings and engines outside the building. Over 80% of that plane was recovered...

That makes no sense. When there is clear evidence, it is impossible for it to be true. I mean, life is like a Conan Doyle novel, you know, its like Sherlock Holmes, the thing you least expect is always the truth. There is no valid proof of any sort of nasty plan, but thats exactly why there must be one. Also, we're talking about the USA, who btw have a contract with Satan, so it should be obvious that the USA diet is to blame.
Valid facts are for sissies!

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 02:31

Derfel, you have exposed me for the US Government shill that I am! I am indeed a protector of the conspiracy!

Damned Occam's Razor! It is obvious that the simplest explanation is just TOO simple to be believed! The genius of the whole conspiracy astounds me!

If it wasn't for you blasted kids and that darned DOG!

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 02:42

Also, we're talking about the USA, who btw have a contract with Satan, so it should be obvious that the USA diet is to blame.

The US is a Freemasonary inspired country. Why does the US Dollar Bill even have a Egyptian Pyramid on it? USA does not have any pyramids. This comes from occult symbolism. This is not a conspiracy.

Valid facts are for sissies!

Maybe you should look into some of the facts. Such as how US found a passport among the debris. How many of the hijackers are still alive. How 3 buildings collapsed due to jet fuel fire when no building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to jet fuel fire. How witnesses heard explosions in the basement of the Twin Towers before the plane crashing into the towers.

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 03:10

The US has many pyramids. San Francisco. Las Vegas. Long Beach... I've seen them.

How many buildings have been hit by jumbo jets since 9/11? Are you saying that jet fuel fires can't collapse buildings?

I don't know any witnesses that heard explosions in the basement. Besides, that isn't how the building collapsed any way, look at the footage of the collapse. They clearly come down beginning at the floors that were hit.

Derfel

Feb 3, 2008, 03:59

The US is a Freemasonary inspired country. Why does the US Dollar Bill even have a Egyptian Pyramid on it? USA does not have any pyramids. This comes from occult symbolism. This is not a conspiracy.
Maybe you should look into some of the facts. Such as how US found a passport among the debris. How many of the hijackers are still alive. How 3 buildings collapsed due to jet fuel fire when no building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to jet fuel fire. How witnesses heard explosions in the basement of the Twin Towers before the plane crashing into the towers.

There is no one denying the existence of masons... however, you can't draw a line between their existence and some hocuspocus theory just because they exist. I mean imagine. Your dog gets killed yeah? You know that there are cults of satanist kids who sacrifice animals... but when say, the blue cross doctor or whoever checks the carcass, and tells you that the dog died of starvation, you don't assume that the cult killed the dog by manipulating you so you can't feed it, right? I mean, hey, are you going to accuse masons for causing natural catastrophes next?

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 04:04

Is that what happened to Beauregaurd? Danged Masons!!!!

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 04:46

The US has many pyramids. San Francisco. Las Vegas. Long Beach... I've seen them.

Which are inspired by Illuminati. There is one in Paris too.

How many buildings have been hit by jumbo jets since 9/11? Are you saying that jet fuel fires can't collapse buildings?

Yes. Fire is not hot enough to melt steel.

I don't know any witnesses that heard explosions in the basement.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

Google William Rodriguez.

Here is the google seacrh for William Rodriguez.

http://www.google.com/search?q=William+Rodriguez%2C+a+9-11+Survivor&rls=com.microsoft:no:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7PCTA

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 04:49

There [I]are[I] pyramids in the US. Steel is melted with fire every day. Explosions in the "basement" of the twin towers is an unfounded myth.

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 04:52

9/11 Survivor Questions Official Story on local Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIC0Kl4TKoU

Fire which melts steel dont give out lots of smoke. On 9/11 the fire gave out lots of smoke.

sabro

Feb 3, 2008, 04:53

The discovery channel had a great program on why the towers collapsed. Nice computer graphics, too.

Now, whenever I see exposed steel beams with that spray on insulation, I always see what kind of condition it is in. That insulation is pretty important stuff in a fire. (Fire melts steel, you know.)

Burning towers filled with people, jet fuel, carpeting, wiring and other materials puts out lots of smoke. And it does get hot enough to weaken the connections that held the floors together in that type of construction, especially when the insulation has been blasted away by the impact of a plane. We saw it on 9/11.

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 18:46

You could be right. sabro-san. I have seen documentaries which support your theory and I have seen documentaries not supporting your theories.

Now that we have so much access to different information I find it to be very confusing. On that youtube link that I put. Here is one of the survivors from 9/11 William Rodriguez on FOX news which is very concervative saying that the official 9/11 story is not true.

Is William Rodriguez lying or is the US government lying?

centrajapan

Feb 3, 2008, 21:49

Member of Japanese Diet Doubts Official 9/11 Fairy Tale

He asked whether Terrorism is crime or war. Some Japanese people were killed, so he believes this was a crime, so Japanese police should investigate the real suspect even though Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda since Bush told Koizumi so and sent the self-defense force to Iraq. Can Japanese police arrest president Bush if he was one of the suspects?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/130108Japanese.htm

sabro

Feb 4, 2008, 03:05

It is possible that William Rodriguez is lying. It is also possible that he is simply mistaken. Being in a building that has just been struck by a plane and witnessing the murder of over 3000 people is traumatic. Nothing in his statements explains away what millions of us saw watching live TV. We saw the second plane hit. We saw the buildings burn. We watched them collapse. It is apparent to me that both buildings were struck by planes, that they caught fire due to the impacts, and then collapsed due to the fire and impact damage. There seems to be no reliable evidence of "basement" explosions... or some controlled demolition.

The "official" version... the one most often spoken of, is the most convincing, reasonable, simplest, most direct explanation. I spoke of Occem's razor and of looking for horses when you see hoof prints. This is the kind of preponderance of evidence that would support the official version. It appears to have the physical evidence and eye witness support, along with the support of so-call experts, of the 9-11 commission, of the press at large, of engineers and scientists... and it really doesn't take all that much imagination at all to believe.

Members of the Japanese Diet can be mistaken also. People believe in UFO's, psychic powers, Uri Geller, Aliens, bigfoot... and all kinds of unsupported nonsense. It doesn't mean that these things aren't "true"... just that they are unsupported by the evidence and are unlikely to be true. It doesn't mean that there isn't some shady uber-conspiracy... it just means that the proof would be yours to provide... and you have not remotely even begun to do this. I suppose they can arrest George Bush if there is ample evidence that he has committed a crime.

LongCountdown

Feb 6, 2008, 00:12

CentraJapan, I share your thinking. Scientists, engineers, architects and even the Democratic Party of Japan agree with you. Sadly, most people refuse to put aside their emotions and look objectively at the material you've presented.
More Japanese people were killed on 9/11 than in the Tokyo Sarin attacks, and we should be demanding answers, which is what Councilor Fujita was doing in the Japanese Diet. He questioned the basis for the "War on Terror" which has led to Japan supplying the US with fuel in the Indian Ocean, and all foreigners being fingerprinted when entering Japan.

Derfel

Feb 6, 2008, 01:23

Sadly, most people refuse to put aside their emotions and look objectively at the material you've presented
You shouldn't give advices that you yourself can't keep.
Your words below make it sound almost as if it was mainly a Japanese tragedy and not American. Sure, its sad that Japanese people died there, but really, who died in majority? Now you're demanding answer from those who suffered most.
When you're talking about a cool head and putting aside emotions don't go around throwing big words left and right. The below quote reeks on scarred pride and security. America is causing unrest because of war on terror, true, but terrorists are the ones to blame.
And you can put whatever you wish aside, when there is no proof of such a conspiracy, simply agreeing won't prove anything. Scraps of information can't prove anything. Information from the internet does not prove anything either. Media is unreliable as hell, but internet has even more BS.

More Japanese people were killed on 9/11 than in the Tokyo Sarin attacks, and we should be demanding answers, which is what Councilor Fujita was doing in the Japanese Diet. He questioned the basis for the "War on Terror" which has led to Japan supplying the US with fuel in the Indian Ocean, and all foreigners being fingerprinted when entering Japan.

Pachipro

Feb 6, 2008, 01:31

.....when there is no proof of such a conspiracy, simply agreeing won't prove anything. Scraps of information can't prove anything. Information from the internet does not prove anything either. Media is unreliable as hell, but internet has even more BS.

What proof are you talking about? The media? HA! The internet may have BS, but the media has more. If you look hard enough, you'll find enough credible evidence to make the 911 commission look like a fairy tale.

Derfel

Feb 6, 2008, 02:33

What proof are you talking about? The media? HA! The internet may have BS, but the media has more. If you look hard enough, you'll find enough credible evidence to make the 911 commission look like a fairy tale.
Its a neither nor situation. The official explanation is accepted as true generally. As long as you can't prove it, there's no conspiracy. Since we can't trust the media, and we can't trust the internet either, and we can't trust pretty much any source its safe to assume that:
a, the official explanation is correct.
b, by the time the opposite is proven the matter will be history, so say, in 15-20 years?

Its really like this: You can't prove it, they needn't.

sabro

Feb 6, 2008, 15:03

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams

Pachipro

Apr 9, 2008, 00:59

An interesting news article yestersay on Fox News and the EU media mentioned that cell phones will be allowed on planes flying travelling above 10,000 ft. "EU To Allow Cell Phone Use on Airlines (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347508,00.html)". However, what is interesting is that a "base station" must be installed on the planes, that the pilot has complete control over and can turn it on or off at his/her leisure that will allow the phones to work.

I find this to be very interesting as on the day of 911 it was reported that many people had used thie cell phones to call loved ones before the planes went down. I myself tried to turn my cell phone before and shortly after 911 when I was flying and was unable to get a signal anywhere. So why were passengers on those planes "allowed" to use their cell phones? was it all BS? I don't know.

All I know is I find it very interesting that a "base station" must be installed on the planes in order to allow cell phones to be able to work on planes. Why was this not the case during 911? Hmmm. Just another weird question that comes to mind when thinking about 911.

JimmySeal

Apr 9, 2008, 08:29

Can you point to some article that mentions cell phone use from the planes on that day? I too would think it quite impossible to use a cell phone from a plane unless the plane were flying rather low.

The planes do, of course, have those onboard phones that can be used with a credit card.

Pachipro

Apr 9, 2008, 22:53

Jimmy Seal, after a quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cell+phone+use+flight+93), rather than post all the links for you, I think you can have your choice.

Click on the link above and after reading them what do you think? Practically all the articles seem to disprove cell phone usage above 10,000 ft. My own trial proves it!

Does anyone not find anything weird or contradictory concering the Fox/EU news story and the suspicious cell phone usage on 911? Something is not clicking here and it justs adds more fuel to the conspiracy theory.

If they couldn't/didn't make the calls, then who did and from where? Or were the wives and mothers called just lying and for what reason?

otoko

Apr 9, 2008, 23:24

Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing. Although that number seems low, keep in mind that it represents the furtive activity of a small number of rule breakers.

This was part of a much larger piece of research. Research that had nothing to do with 911. Real research.

authors:

Bill Strauss is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center and is the technical activities committee chairman for the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society. He recently completed his Ph.D. on this topic in the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh. M. Granger Morgan (IEEE Fellow) is head of Carnegie Mellon's department of engineering and public policy and a professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering. JAY APT is a distinguished service professor in the department of engineering and public policy and a research professor at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon. He is an active pilot and former NASA astronaut. Daniel D. Stancil (IEEE Fellow) is a professor in Carnegie Mellon's department of electrical and computer engineering.

Pachipro

Apr 9, 2008, 23:47

Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.
Web site please otoko! Their background and the letters after their name means nothing especially from Carnegie!

All a degree from Carnegie tells me is that a person is easily persuaded to think the way "they" want you to think and then to go out and spout what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

Did you read any of the web sites in the link posted above especially about those from engineers saying it's impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane travelling at more than 350 mph and higher than 10,000 ft as the phone can not get tuned to any particular tower? I thought so

If they are using a phone as you quoted, they are using it under 10,000 ft as the quote implies. Not at 30,000 ft!

Your post would make one believe that it was possible when 10,000 or more links prove otherwise!

Therefore, before you make a post like that, please do your research first and have a website or two to back up your claims or insinuations. Also, it would help to KNOW what you are talking about rather than making irrational posts and quotes on something you apparently know nothing about.

Unless you have something better to add, I still stand by my increasing belief that it was impossible to make a hand held cell phone call from one of those planes.

otoko

Apr 10, 2008, 12:28

Web site please otoko! Their background and the letters after their name means nothing especially from Carnegie!
All a degree from Carnegie tells me is that a person is easily persuaded to think the way "they" want you to think and then to go out and spout what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

I think anybody could make that claim about any university. Once you qualify things like that you can easily pick and choose what you want to believe.

Did you read any of the web sites in the link posted above especially about those from engineers saying it's impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane travelling at more than 350 mph and higher than 10,000 ft as the phone can not get tuned to any particular tower? I thought so

So why I can't choose to believe that these engineers have degrees from "insert name" university that mean nothing. Well there is a discrepency between what is theoretically possible and what was demonstrated.

If they are using a phone as you quoted, they are using it under 10,000 ft as the quote implies. Not at 30,000 ft!

It does say some of the calls were made during landing a take-off. Some. Ironically the research I was qouting was for whether having cellphones would be safe for airplanes, and the most sensitive times where interference is possible is during the take-off and landing.

Your post would make one believe that it was possible when 10,000 or more links prove otherwise!T

I want to point out that googled links are not research. Links themselves do not prove anything. No matter how numerous. Don't you see the problem with such reasoning? It is right because everybody say it is so. With that we would not need science, research or critical thinking skills. Scientific research itself many times does not prove anything definitively without any doubt. Usually using the scientific method shows evidence that a theory may be true most of the time.

herefore, before you make a post like that, please do your research first and have a website or two to back up your claims or insinuations. Also, it would help to KNOW what you are talking about rather than making irrational posts and quotes on something you apparently know nothing about.
Unless you have something better to add, I still stand by my increasing belief that it was impossible to make a hand held cell phone call from one of those planes.

I don't know what you are so worked up about. I have no stake in this matter. I'll take research over websites. Though I will supply you with the link, sorry it will be in my next post. I get the feeling you want to believe what you believe and no convincing reserach would sway you. You would find a way to discount it. Considering how easily you dismissed some research because of what college they work at.

Mars Man

Apr 10, 2008, 12:46

It might be good, dear fellow members et. al, to keep in the mind the atmosphere of the sub-forum we are in--Serious Discussions (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36534).

In discussing matters, it would be to our advantage to take into consideration a number of factors when looking over studies, and especially internet sites, related to scientific or empirical knowledge, and reach for the balanced view. Such may call for our having to suspend judgement for a while, or accept an opposing view as being a possibility, until things can be checked out in full.

Peer review is a necessary thing, and that can be checked; another is article/paper citations in other papers. Then, it might be necessary to check any number of details of any part of a presentation, before moving on in that single argument/presentation/hypothesis, and all that, even, before putting one theory or conclusion against another.

In otherwords, let's check it all out from the bottom up, not rush, and refrain from knee-jerk, emotional overtones or 'leans.'

Thanks for helping out ! Mars Man

sabro

Apr 10, 2008, 14:58

From published reports and the Commission report we know the following:

AT&T and GTE own a service called Airfone which cost $6 a minute and gives the airlines a 15% kickback. Todd Beamer and Mark Bingham were using the Airphone service on flight 93. Two others, including a flight attendant may have used the Airphone also.

Regular Cell phones will work on a plane flying close enough to a tower. Depending on atmospheric conditions, it would be well over 10,000 feet if the plane were directly over the cell tower. If the tower were on a tall building in Denver, even higher. If you are over a large metropolitan area like the greater NY area or in many places between, you are more likely to get a call. Some 4 to 8 others were able to connect on these flights using personal cell phones, but the calls were brief and disconnected. Tom Burnett's calls were documented and clearly from his cell phone. Flight attendant Cee Cee Lyles husband was able to see her caller ID when he answered, so it is clear that she was using her own phone. The call lasted about a minute and got disconnected.

So it is pretty clear from what we have that Cell phones will work... but not very well. It isn't clear why people even tried when there were more Airphones than passengers. It could be that the hijackers were watching or that people didn't know what to do, but it is clear that even though people tried... more often than not, a personal cell phone won't work at that altitude or if it does, your call will be dropped after a very short time.

Pachipro

Apr 10, 2008, 23:39

I don't know what you are so worked up about. I have no stake in this matter. I'll take research over websites. Though I will supply you with the link, sorry it will be in my next post. I get the feeling you want to believe what you believe and no convincing reserach would sway you. You would find a way to discount it. Considering how easily you dismissed some research because of what college they work at.
I can write a thesis discounting peoples work and propaganda based on their college and such because Carnegie, Mellon, and Rockefeller set up the educational system in the US where the people would be taught what "we wanted them to be taught with no dissension" or they would not receive their "license", i.e diploma, that would enable them "to lead profitable lives." I can list dozens of people who only go with the status quo but believe otherwise, or they would not have received their degree, be allowed to work in their chosen field, or be accepted by their collegues for their differing views in the face of facts and research. However, this is not the thread for that.

I get so worked up over the constant garbage the 911 commission and the media feeds us in the face of real research and explainations and no one questions their findings. Not even the media whis is supposed to question these things.

I believe only what I have researched and nothing else, and the research still points to the fact that, at the time, the technology was not good enough to make hand held cell phone calls the likes of which we are told were made. It was virtually impossible. I will never discount research that is irrefutable, even if it is contrary to what I believe, but your quote didn't add much to the debate. If other research comes up that proves I am wrong, I will admit my mistake and take a differing view. I am not as hard headed as some may think.

Concerning the "BS"(IMO) 911 commission report, here is additional information and research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html)refuting what they have reported. Take it for what it's worth, but it does seem plausable and their research is complete with links. You can also download the whole 911 commission report in PDF from this website.

Also, when asked for the records from airphone, researchers were told they were sealed for "national security" purposes! Yeah, right. Therefore, no one can prove who made what call and from which type of device adding more fuel to a cover-up and a conspiracy of some kind.

Also, for the time being I will refrain from commenting on the subject of cell phone usage during 911 unless other evidence arises. I just started it because of the recent reports that implied cell phone usage on planes is not possible without a "base station". Thanks for your input.