CNN-Build Islamic center on Ground Zero, says Michael Moore

[NonServiam]

I really shouldn't enable this thread any further from it's original purpose, but why not, it's the Snuson way. I've watched many buildings brought down using placed explosives.

While the building comes down much in the same manner as the towers, we are missing the elements of not only seeing the devices detonate in a systematic pattern, but also the sound as well.

The explosion of debris from the floors of the towers may resemble what is seen in demolition work, because it is an explosion. But not incendiary. Rather it is the expulsion of the already present smoke and materials within due to the large amount of displaced air and gases from the massive weight above pancaking floor upon floor. Drop a phone book onto a dusty table or another book and you will get the same affect.

You also have to take into account that the WTC support beams were placed in the center of the building, rather than the perimeter. This also effected the dynamics of the collapse. The metal never melted, but rather became warped and pliable.

Jet fuel alone does not exceed the temperature rating of the steel, but the combination of other combustibles (paper, wood, plastic, etc...) added to the temperature.

While WTC 7 was not exposed to plane impact, it's integrity was compromised from the two previous building collapses in addition to it's own interior fires. Not to mention, the southwest corner of the 18th floor had sustained heavy damage. Literally, a large chunk of the building had been removed from the collapse of surrounding buildings.

[sgreger1]

I really shouldn't enable this thread any further from it's original purpose, but why not, it's the Snuson way. I've watched many buildings brought down using placed explosives.

While the building comes down much in the same manner as the towers, we are missing the elements of not only seeing the devices detonate in a systematic pattern, but also the sound as well.

The explosion of debris from the floors of the towers may resemble what is seen in demolition work, because it is an explosion. But not incendiary. Rather it is the expulsion of the already present smoke and materials within due to the large amount of displaced air and gases from the massive weight above pancaking floor upon floor. Drop a phone book onto a dusty table or another book and you will get the same affect.

You also have to take into account that the WTC support beams were placed in the center of the building, rather than the perimeter. This also effected the dynamics of the collapse. The metal never melted, but rather became warped and pliable.

Jet fuel alone does not exceed the temperature rating of the steel, but the combination of other combustibles (paper, wood, plastic, etc...) added to the temperature.

While WTC 7 was not exposed to plane impact, it's integrity was compromised from the two previous building collapses in addition to it's own interior fires. Not to mention, the southwest corner of the 18th floor had sustained heavy damage. Literally, a large chunk of the building had been removed from the collapse of surrounding buildings.

Well, there were visible flashes and people heard explosions. This could be explained away, but they were there. I think the main thing the 9-11 truth movement has going for it is the fact that we didn't scramble any jets. We can scramble jets ina matter of minutes for routine air traffic violation, yet after a plane has already hit the twin towers, we can't get anything in the air untill the pentagon has been hit,a nd the towers have been hit twice. I still think they shot down flight 93, which was the right choice. But they'll never admit it.

[NonServiam]

Do I think that 9/11 was a hoax...No. Do I think the gov't had prior knowledge of an impending attack...Yes. The small flashes/explosions seen do not exhibit that seen in a controlled demolition. These handful of flashes grow in brightness and area in respect to duration. A controlled blast's greatest power is at the moment of detonation, and then it recedes.

To bring down the towers with explosives would have required a large amount of them which would result in an equally large number of explosions heard, culminated with the echo effect. I'm sure sounds resembling explosions were heard. Tons and Tons of building pancaking onto itself is not a peaceful event.

As far as the scrambling of jets, per Popular Mechanics: "On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

I know my presented documentation is highly unlikely to change anyone elses contradictory theory, nor is it intended to. It's another one of those events in history that will always be surrounded by suspicion. And the suspicion may be justified.

Like I said, I think the gov't had knowledge of the attack. But , I think they were unprepared and those in charge did not have enough intel to take the appropriate actions to divert the attacks.

Plus, can you imagine the chaos in America that would have ensued if they would have disclosed the information to the public. They would rather keep us blind and naive and then deal with the after effect on a case by case basis.

[tom502]

On the MOtruth site I posted, one of the retired Military officers was aying how it was not normal for no servicable wreckage to have been found, by that, I mean any scrap that can be accurately shown to have come from a certain plane. And I still think the no black boxes is very odd. One might argue their destruction in the towers, but even a passport survived(or was it planted), and then flight 93, in a field, no black box, no wreckage, no bodies........... magic.

[NonServiam]

On the MOtruth site I posted, one of the retired Military officers was aying how it was not normal for no servicable wreckage to have been found, by that, I mean any scrap that can be accurately shown to have come from a certain plane. And I still think the no black boxes is very odd. One might argue their destruction in the towers, but even a passport survived(or was it planted), and then flight 93, in a field, no black box, no wreckage, no bodies........... magic.

Well, I heard that black boxes (don't know if all of them) were found. Which is amazing enough to me, as I would think that would be like a needle in a haystack.

There was wreckage from Flight 93, it was scattered as far as one mile, and in some cases up to 8 miles for lighter floating debris. The medical examiner recalled seeing a spinal cord and four vertebrae upon arrival, but nearly everything else was unrecognizable. He later collected over 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling over 600 lbs. (only 8% of the total passenger weight) over a 70 acre plot of ground. Everyone else was literally obliterated by the 563 MPH 40 degree impact.

But who knows, none of us were there. The only ones who truly know what happened and experienced the horror are dead, or alive and well in gov't if foul play is involved. All this research has worked up an appetite. I believe I am off to lunch.

[truthwolf1]

While the building comes down much in the same manner as the towers, we are missing the elements of not only seeing the devices detonate in a systematic pattern, but also the sound as well.

Mulitple witness reports of many explosions outside and inside the buildings.

The explosion of debris from the floors of the towers may resemble what is seen in demolition work, because it is an explosion. But not incendiary. Rather it is the expulsion of the already present smoke and materials within due to the large amount of displaced air and gases from the massive weight above pancaking floor upon floor. Drop a phone book onto a dusty table or another book and you will get the same affect.

Pancake theory adds time to the collapse which did not happen. It dropped at free fall speed. There is a experiment I put on the bottom of this.

You also have to take into account that the WTC support beams were placed in the center of the building, rather than the perimeter. This also effected the dynamics of the collapse. The metal never melted, but rather became warped and pliable.

It still does not have the weight or force to take out what was below it.

Jet fuel alone does not exceed the temperature rating of the steel, but the combination of other combustibles (paper, wood, plastic, etc...) added to the temperature.

It does but that sucker needs to burn for a long time and there were fireman reports that the fires were nearly out.

While WTC 7 was not exposed to plane impact, it's integrity was compromised from the two previous building collapses in addition to it's own interior fires. Not to mention, the southwest corner of the 18th floor had sustained heavy damage. Literally, a large chunk of the building had been removed from the collapse of surrounding buildings.

It collapsed within it's own footprint. This is the smoking gun.

The whole thing just smells of a cover-up on a multitude of fronts. If you have professionals from the military, pilots, politicians, fbi, cia, architects, engineers, firemen, police, business professionals, conspiracy theorists and the very own 911 commission asking for a new investigation, then why not?

[truthwolf1]

[tom502]

I do know none of the black boxes were found. Which is rare, esp for all of them, as even planes that crash in the ocean, their boxes are found on the ocean floor.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-cove...alo-crash.html

[truthwolf1]

They do have the one from the Pentagon.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6133

[tom502]

Interesting.

[sgreger1]

Do I think that 9/11 was a hoax...No. Do I think the gov't had prior knowledge of an impending attack...Yes. The small flashes/explosions seen do not exhibit that seen in a controlled demolition. These handful of flashes grow in brightness and area in respect to duration. A controlled blast's greatest power is at the moment of detonation, and then it recedes.

To bring down the towers with explosives would have required a large amount of them which would result in an equally large number of explosions heard, culminated with the echo effect. I'm sure sounds resembling explosions were heard. Tons and Tons of building pancaking onto itself is not a peaceful event.

As far as the scrambling of jets, per Popular Mechanics: "On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

I know my presented documentation is highly unlikely to change anyone elses contradictory theory, nor is it intended to. It's another one of those events in history that will always be surrounded by suspicion. And the suspicion may be justified.

Like I said, I think the gov't had knowledge of the attack. But , I think they were unprepared and those in charge did not have enough intel to take the appropriate actions to divert the attacks.

Plus, can you imagine the chaos in America that would have ensued if they would have disclosed the information to the public. They would rather keep us blind and naive and then deal with the after effect on a case by case basis.

Yes i've heard that explanation from Popular Mechanics article. The thing is that, while those excuses sound very reasonable, it just seem like kind of a coincidence that EVERY other time some plane goes off course they can scramble jets with nanosecond accuracy, yet even after a plane had hit the towers they appeared to be flying blind. The airport had not been in contact with the hijacked plane for some time, yet they still did not know what plane was missing somehow, and therefore could not give NORAD any usefull information to go on. Investors put huge "put" options on the airline companies, betting they would do poorly in the near future, so a lot of money was made when this happened. Have you noticed the trend that right before major disasters, all the big money suddenly bets against whatever is about to blow up, like for example the BP oil rig recently? The guy who owned the buildings had just taken out a huge insurance policy too. Then, something like a trillion dollars went missing from the building, and then to top it all off, in ALL of that wreckage, they managed to find the passport of one of the hijackers, and used that to identify him. I mean really, they found his passport in an area where cars on the ground were on fire and molten metal ran through the streets? I dunno man.

I mean, I was never too huge on the 9-11 truth movement, but really this is a situation of immense failure on the part of multiple agencies, coupled with an extreme case of "coincidences" playing out back to back. It certianly seems fishy.



I don't know if anything is up, all I know is that a lot sfmart people think there is, and that includes some members of the orriginal government commission sent to investigate this.


Flight 93 was shot down, plain and simple. They tried to spin it like the heroic passengers muscled their way into the cockpit and crashed the plane instead of just finding out where the terrorists were taking them, but this was pre 9-11, so I doubt too many people assumed the plane was going to be flown into the pentagon or the twin towers. I think it's a BS story. I think the military realized what was happening and shot the plane down, as that was the right thing to do. A plane worth of passengers is easly considered collateral damage when your talking about defending the pentagon from attack. I would have ordered all 3 planes shot down without question if I were in charge and had that option.

And what about the fact they recieved those cell phone calls from within the plane at that altitude? My phone sure as hell doesn't work when i'm on a plane.



It's hard for me to believe someone could pull something like this off in a premeditated fashion, and that is the only thing holding me back from the believing the 9-11 conspiracy thing. But I mean really, there were some seriously odd things going on back to back here. And in the end all the usual characters profited from it, so you can't blame people for thinking there is something more to the story. I think at a minimum they let it happen. Nothing even hit building 7, some debris but that's it. Skyscrapers do not pancake at freefall just because some debris falls on them. Nor do they implode in freefall if a plane hits them, planes have hit skyscrapers many a time before. 9-11 is the first and only time a skyscraper has ever fallen because of fires, or any other reason for that matter. Again, must just be a coincidence.

[sgreger1]

Additionally, here is a piece written by Hunter S. Thompson hours after 9-11. Man did he make a solid prediction:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1250751&22

[NonServiam]

Mulitple witness reports of many explosions outside and inside the buildings.



Pancake theory adds time to the collapse which did not happen. It dropped at free fall speed. There is a experiment I put on the bottom of this.


It still does not have the weight or force to take out what was below it.


It does but that sucker needs to burn for a long time and there were fireman reports that the fires were nearly out.

It collapsed within it's own footprint. This is the smoking gun.

The whole thing just smells of a cover-up on a multitude of fronts. If you have professionals from the military, pilots, politicians, fbi, cia, architects, engineers, firemen, police, business professionals, conspiracy theorists and the very own 911 commission asking for a new investigation, then why not?

Good Lawd!!! I think I'll start making posts like PP or Lazer do, just short witty and clever remarks that are somewhat within the topic. These in-depth forum discussions are exhausting me today. lol

But since you obviously put forth quite a bit effort with the multiple quotes (and I admire dedication), I feel obligated to offer a rebuttal because I'm a such nice guy. Might I add, I am not close-minded to your theory, I just haven't been shown the evidence yet to sway me from my position. I'll go one more round here, and then I think I'll have to move on to "What are you listening to right now" or at least something to give my frontal lobe a break

Mulitple witness reports of many explosions outside and inside the buildings.

I don't dispute that. I also posted earlier that the collapse is not a peaceful event. I'm sure explosions were heard just due to the large scale of material impacting. Many things can sound similar to an explosion when they collide with such magnitude. The fact here is that these "explosions" (which sounded much different than controlled detonation) were heard at and during the time of the collapse, never before. During any building demolition, the detonation flashes and audible boom happens noticeably before any collapse begins. Unless you are very far away which would delay the boom reaching your ears, but not the visible detonation flashes. Plus, the few flashes seen during the collapse (most likely fire from the interior being forced out) did not behave like a detonation.

Pancake theory adds time to the collapse which did not happen. It dropped at free fall speed.

It still does not have the weight or force to take out what was below it.

The potential mass and energy was converted to kinetic energy. The experiment seems concerning when using things of equal weight, i.e. model car hitting model car, billiard balls etc... But we're talking about kilotons collapsing onto a single floor below, which then gives way, gains and adds to the momentum.

Have you ever seen a train noticeably slow down when colliding with a car? In physics calculations it does, but to the naked eye, no. I did use the word pancake, but I wasn't even thinking of the pancake theory. That's just the word I felt described the collapse. Which it does. Controlled demolition or unfortunate collapse, the floors did pancake onto one another. Even the gov't rejects the "pancake theory" now.

The impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors. The large amount of fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and brought about the collapse of the towers. NYPD aviation unit photos/video support this sequence of events for each tower.

It does but that sucker needs to burn for a long time and there were fireman reports that the fires were nearly out.

The fires raged for nearly an hour, and these were not your ordinary fires. There is also a difference in temperature and heat. WTC also had very different construction than most skyscrapers, it has the perimeter columns, but it also has that inner column or tube. That's where your bowing (not Boeing lol) comes in.

It collapsed within it's own footprint. This is the smoking gun

The building didn't collapse until 5:21, that's nearly seven hours of fire (including diesel fuel which may have ignited in the basement) in conjunction with the large gash on the south side which took out nearly ten floors. At 5:20, firefighters began to hear creaking and crumbling. At 5:21, it collapsed. Due to the smaller scale of the building there isn't nearly as much smoke and debris to obscure it's collapse, and I don't see anything remotely similar to a controlled demolition other than the collapse itself. No detonation flashes, no detonations heard.

I think we all can admit here that the tragic events of that day were just as we saw them. No holograms, no computer generated images, etc... I think the debate here is how much gov't involvement, knowledge, and cover-up is there. I think certain persons in gov't intelligence knew of the attacks. I think they were about five steps behind though which may have kept them from knowing which flights and when. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they in fact knew every detail, but had to keep their mouths shut as their was a larger plan at works for American war motive and oil.

I'm just not convinced it was controlled demolition or orchestrated by the gov't. Gov't knowledge, but not orchestration. I think they let it happen.

[NonServiam]

Yes i've heard that explanation from Popular Mechanics article. The thing is that, while those excuses sound very reasonable, it just seem like kind of a coincidence that EVERY other time some plane goes off course they can scramble jets with nanosecond accuracy, yet even after a plane had hit the towers they appeared to be flying blind. The airport had not been in contact with the hijacked plane for some time, yet they still did not know what plane was missing somehow, and therefore could not give NORAD any usefull information to go on. Investors put huge "put" options on the airline companies, betting they would do poorly in the near future, so a lot of money was made when this happened. Have you noticed the trend that right before major disasters, all the big money suddenly bets against whatever is about to blow up, like for example the BP oil rig recently? The guy who owned the buildings had just taken out a huge insurance policy too. Then, something like a trillion dollars went missing from the building, and then to top it all off, in ALL of that wreckage, they managed to find the passport of one of the hijackers, and used that to identify him. I mean really, they found his passport in an area where cars on the ground were on fire and molten metal ran through the streets? I dunno man.

I mean, I was never too huge on the 9-11 truth movement, but really this is a situation of immense failure on the part of multiple agencies, coupled with an extreme case of "coincidences" playing out back to back. It certianly seems fishy.



I don't know if anything is up, all I know is that a lot sfmart people think there is, and that includes some members of the orriginal government commission sent to investigate this.


Flight 93 was shot down, plain and simple. They tried to spin it like the heroic passengers muscled their way into the cockpit and crashed the plane instead of just finding out where the terrorists were taking them, but this was pre 9-11, so I doubt too many people assumed the plane was going to be flown into the pentagon or the twin towers. I think it's a BS story. I think the military realized what was happening and shot the plane down, as that was the right thing to do. A plane worth of passengers is easly considered collateral damage when your talking about defending the pentagon from attack. I would have ordered all 3 planes shot down without question if I were in charge and had that option.

And what about the fact they recieved those cell phone calls from within the plane at that altitude? My phone sure as hell doesn't work when i'm on a plane.



It's hard for me to believe someone could pull something like this off in a premeditated fashion, and that is the only thing holding me back from the believing the 9-11 conspiracy thing. But I mean really, there were some seriously odd things going on back to back here. And in the end all the usual characters profited from it, so you can't blame people for thinking there is something more to the story. I think at a minimum they let it happen. Nothing even hit building 7, some debris but that's it. Skyscrapers do not pancake at freefall just because some debris falls on them. Nor do they implode in freefall if a plane hits them, planes have hit skyscrapers many a time before. 9-11 is the first and only time a skyscraper has ever fallen because of fires, or any other reason for that matter. Again, must just be a coincidence.

Unless I overlooked part of your point, I think the inability to intercept the first two flights was due to the gps being turned off and that the radar only shows outside incoming threats, not planes already within the controlled zone. Plus, what they could observe from within the country was an overwhelming amount of blips, while under a great deal of stress and chaos. It's no secret that once they learned of the hi-jacking, they were unprepared and didn't handle the situation in a sound or efficient manner.

So what do you think of the cockpit recordings from Flight 93? Do you think they were fabricated to support their theory?

I don't trust the owner of WTC 7. I think he was a snake in the grass, and caught wind of a possible attack which prompted his money-wise decisions.

I think we all can admit here that the tragic events of that day were just as we saw them. No holograms, no computer generated images, etc... I think the debate here is how much gov't involvement, knowledge, and cover-up is there. I think certain persons in gov't intelligence knew of the attacks. I think they were about five steps behind though which may have kept them from knowing which flights and when. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they in fact knew every detail, but had to keep their mouths shut as their was a larger plan at works for American war motive and oil.

I'm just not convinced it was controlled demolition or orchestrated by the gov't. Gov't knowledge, but not orchestration. I think they let it happen.

[tom502]

The Pentagon is the smoking gun for me. Just a round hole.