9/11
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">What really happened?</div> Some very interesting analysis into what really happened on 9/11. The part that is most interesting to me is the scientific analysis into the WTC collapse, how the fires within could not have possibly caused the towers to collapse. Americans have been fooled into believing that Arab terrorists plotted and executed the destruction of the WTC towers.
<a href='http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html' target='_blank'>WTC Analysis</a>
The page has this quote at the top, which is very fitting:
<i>"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."</i> — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
Take a look at who gains by bringing war to other countries, and where the money is going... then you can start to understand what the current Bush Administration is doing, and why. We have entered a new era in history, and one that will undoubtedly be an incredibly black mark for America.
<a href='http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html' target='_blank'>WTC Analysis</a>
The page has this quote at the top, which is very fitting:
<i>"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."</i> — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
Take a look at who gains by bringing war to other countries, and where the money is going... then you can start to understand what the current Bush Administration is doing, and why. We have entered a new era in history, and one that will undoubtedly be an incredibly black mark for America.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The fact is about 30 well known countries supported the US actions in Afghanistan, and if you think an event that was known to every international community in the world could have some kind of "covered up" eveidence behind it is just silly. There are enough countries out there that don't like the US and have the capacity to uncover any such covering up, and I doubt you can say every country in the world was in on it, or can you?
If they were after that wouldn't we have gone after the Saudis not Afghanistan first? What have we taken from Afghanistan? Or Iraq for that matter? What would the gain be in the USA? We have enough oil and we are already the wealthiest nation in the world. Are they insinuating that the war on Iraq and Afghanistan made us wealthier? I think not now that we are asking for 87 billion in UN aid. And if this attack was so carefully planned why were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so full of hitches?
Using big words to sound smart can backfire, apotheosis means the perfect example of. One of the funnier errors I found.
Hehe I like how they are "exposing the truth" on a public domain and claiming that there was an international media cover up, and yet they can't shut down one website?
If they were after that wouldn't we have gone after the Saudis not Afghanistan first? What have we taken from Afghanistan? Or Iraq for that matter? What would the gain be in the USA? We have enough oil and we are already the wealthiest nation in the world. Are they insinuating that the war on Iraq and Afghanistan made us wealthier? I think not now that we are asking for 87 billion in UN aid. And if this attack was so carefully planned why were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so full of hitches? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't have enough oil, at least not in the continental US. Our supplies are of course at an all-time low. Why do you think they're desparately trying to open up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? Iraq has the second largest oil deposit in the world, next to Saudi Arabia. We didn't need to invade Saudi Arabia because they're already in the oil cartel's back pocket. You know that Saudi investors have literally trillions of dollars invested in American businesses? This goes a long way to explaining why we don't bother them.
Iraq is not the same as Saudi Arabia, specifically because of Saddam. Saddam was trying to run his own show. He was greedy. Everything was fine with Saddam-U.S. relations when we supported him, gave him weapons, and taught him how to use them during his 8-year war with Iran in the early 80s. It was okay for him to kill over a million Iranians and Kurds during that war because Iran was our enemy. He was experimenting with chemical weapons on the Kurds during this timeframe and we did nothing about it. Nay, no one in the U.S. even really knew it was happening because it was against our enemy. His mistake was when he decided to take over Kuwait in 1990. Whoa, big mistake. Kuwait is just like Saudi Arabia. Lots of money there, and the oil cartel is heavily involved with the Kuwaitis. Saddam's presence there was no good. Boom, Gulf War I... we drop more ordnance on Iraq in that war than we did during all of our other wars combined. Once the Iraqis were out of Kuwait, our "excuse" for going to war was done.
Afghanistan was to fulfill the oil cartel's desire to build a pipeline across the country. Something that could not be done with the Taliban in power, since the Taliban was demanding too large a piece of the action. They had wanted to put that pipeline in for years, but couldn't do it without somehow removing the Taliban from power.
Note that this isn't about the U.S. proper. Don't think this is about you, or me, or America itself. This is about a select group of people and corporations... specifically George HW Bush, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel, the defense industy, countless Saudi investors... huge names with more money and influence than you could ever possibly imagine. They truly control U.S. policy via their influence in owning large stakes in the defense industry, the mass media, their political ties through lobbyists and direct relationships (just look at the list of Carlyle Group employees... it's a whos-who in political influence.)
This select group has huge ties to the oil industry. With the U.S. oil supply and oil deposits reaching their end-of-life expectancy, there is no alternative but to go out and capture more land with oil under it. Hence our unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The very first thing they did was send out an oil fire-fighting team to Kuwait in advance of the actual war. This team (owned by a subsidiary of Halliburton, **** Cheney's former company,) was there to deal with the inevitable fires that the Iraqis were going to set to their oil fields. Why? Because oil is the only redeeming commodity that Iraq has. This team was there months in advance of the start of the invasion. War was inevitable, all it took was some convincing of the U.N. so they wouldn't come after us. Well, they went in without U.N. consent, and now the U.S. looks like idiots.
Ask yourself this... why are we in Iraq again? Do you personally believe that Saddam, or Iraq, had anything at all to do with 9/11? Do you think there are any weapons of mass destruction there? Haven't found any yet! Maybe they were going to throw rocks at us from way over there or something. Really dangerous, those gosh-durned Iraqis. Gotta blow them to smitherines before they even think about throwing sand at our troops.
<a href='http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/' target='_blank'>Bring Them Home Now!</a>
If you look at the video from 9/11, there are a lot of questions that come up. Why did the South Tower fall before the North Tower, when the North Tower was hit first? Most of the jet fuel exploded outside the South Tower, and it was not burning anywhere near long enough to melt steel. Analysts say there is no possible way the fire could have reached temperatures necessary to melt the steel beams. The story fed to Americans was that the floors collapsed because of flimsy trusses that ran from the outer walls to the central steel beams. If they had used flimsy trusses, as this story expects you to believe, there is no way to explain how the building held its strength in any kind of a wind. The truth is that they did not use flimsy trusses in the floors; they were solid steel beams. Pictures taken of the building during construction show that there were large steel beams connecting the outer walls to the central beams, NOT flimsy trusses as the media-fed story says.
There is no way the buildings could have collapsed because of an internal fire. They purposefully designed the buildings to withstand an impact from a 707. The lead engineer for the WTC towers was interviewed after 9/11 and he said he was flabbergasted when he found out that they collapsed so quickly. Unfortunately for the us, the architectural documents for the WTC towers will not be released.
Why did WTC-7, a building two buildings removed from the towers, <b>completely</b> collapse from a supposed "fire" while WTC-6, directly to the east of the towers, was still standing even though it was severely damaged from both falling debris and fire? How can this be explained? The answer seems simple to me... it and the towers were demolished via explosives.
Why was all of the material from the WTC wreckage quickly and efficiently moved out of the country to foreign scrap dealers before any of it could actually be combed through for evidence?
Where are the black boxes from all four planes? What do they contain?
Where is the plane wreckage at the Pentagon?
Why is the Bush administration trying so hard to make sure no one questions the story they have given us? Why are they trying so very hard to make sure the story they gave is the only one allowed in the media? Don't you think we deserve a complete, full investigation into what really happened? Why are we so quick to accept the explanation given to us... when there are hundreds of other questions still unanswered? Is it because they really don't want us to be asking questions?
I find it very interesting that the WTC complex was leased out to a new group of people only 7 weeks prior to 9/11.
What are the names of the people who placed put options on the major airlines just days prior to 9/11? Who were they, how did they know in advance? Why was no investigation brought in regards to that, and why don't we have an official explanation for who those people were?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a lichenstein domain. They don't have any control over domains in other countries.
But what about the fact that the Towers should've collapsed? That the way they did resembled a demolition? That, to me, is the scary part.
Rhuadin
I think that this whole theory gives the US government more credit than I'm willing to give them. I don't think that a conspiracy as large as the site claims could exist without someone in the administration blabbing. Given the government's track record with covering up anything else it seems amazing that they could manage to keep an operation of this scale and magnitude under wraps. Plus some parts of the report are just bizzare, such as convincing F-16 pilots to smash their aircraft into buildings or bombing Afghanistan to get resources (that's like bombing the Saharan Desert for resources <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
I'd also like to check up on their claims that jet fuel fires can't melt steel.
So far I haven't been able to find a single person supporting this with an engineering degree. Nuff said.
The fires created by the jet fuel probably wouldn't have out and out melted through the steel, but it would have greatly weakened it. What we saw in the videos of the day was that after a time, the buildings collapsed because the weight of the upper floors became too great, thus setting off an accordian-style affect. The collapse is consistant with the steel supports being weakened, which in turn is consistant with the jet fuel fires. Hence the WTC collapse makes perfect sense.
Now the Pentagon is another matter. I'd really love to see some picture or video evidance from the Pentagon site that showed that the building was hit by an aircraft. What pictures we do have simply seem to indicate an explosion of some sort; there doesn't seem to be any debris and the explosion hole is rather small. So if someone can show some pics or provide links I'd love to be proven wrong.
I hope someone can come up with an explanation for that.
There are some pictures, one of which shows a piece of the airliner. Here's a link that explains what physically happens whena a plane hits something that fast <a href='http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html' target='_blank'>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0...n.Pentagon.html</a>
Btw, could someone tell me if the Pentagon has/had some kind of defense system? As in, are there any troops stationed there with some SAM sites or something?
The damage is consistent with impact on a reinforced structure. Some of the walls are 24" thick concrete with staggered steel bars. That is better than most military class bunkers. The wings cracked at the fuselage and were folded back as the plane went through the building and broke apart.
It was a flock of commercial jet-liners that caused the damage to both the WTC and the Pentagon.
I know people present both in the buildings and mobilized for clean-up afterwards, thankfully none of them were injured. From what they said and what I saw at the Pentagon, I have no doubt of it.
Here is a photo of WTC-7 exploding, with the two towers still standing:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/thirdexplosionon_cnn_a.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Here is thermal imaging of the WTC shortly after the disaster:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/wtc_thermal.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Notice how WTC-7, on the far left, is completely levelled. WTC-6, just to the right of WTC-7 in the image, is still standing although severely damaged. WTC-5 shows barely any damage at all.
Another photo. WTC-7 is the middle, bottom left. WTC-6 just above and to the right:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersevenafter.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
WTC-7 is completely and utterly destroyed. The "official" explanation is that it was damaged by fire. Certainly not jet fuel fire, since no plane struck WTC-7. There has never been a fire capable of completely levelling a steel and concrete building. The only explanation to me is that it was demolished using high explosives. So were the WTC towers.
Several generators set up to run off some 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel were in that building and the tanks either ruptured from falling debris or heated up and burst. The building was burning for quite some time before it collapsed. The others were just lucky to avoid such damage. Things like that do happen.
Some jet fuel burned outside the towers, but most of it was sucked in by the impact. Fuel, or anything, inside the plane is travelling at the same speed as the plane when it hits something. The fireballs were spectacular because there was no wall left to contain them. Even after the initial burst there was still a ton of jet fuel left to burn off.
Some people have hypothesized that the buildings should have been able to stand. Others have said they were gutted by the flame and structural damage and a collapse was inevitable. Maybe the builders cut some corners or used substandard material in what was a large and costly (but very important) project. Maybe what people think they know from our vast knowledge pool of what happens when jet airliners impact a skyscraper is wrong.
Here is a photo of WTC-7 exploding, with the two towers still standing:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/thirdexplosionon_cnn_a.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Here is thermal imaging of the WTC shortly after the disaster:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/wtc_thermal.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Notice how WTC-7, on the far left, is completely levelled. WTC-6, just to the right of WTC-7 in the image, is still standing although severely damaged. WTC-5 shows barely any damage at all.
Another photo. WTC-7 is the middle, bottom left. WTC-6 just above and to the right:
<img src='http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersevenafter.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
WTC-7 is completely and utterly destroyed. The "official" explanation is that it was damaged by fire. Certainly not jet fuel fire, since no plane struck WTC-7. There has never been a fire capable of completely levelling a steel and concrete building. The only explanation to me is that it was demolished using high explosives. So were the WTC towers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stuff happens. In LOTR: The Two Towers several orcs far away from the explosion at Helms Deep died, but some right next to it survived. WTH??? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, the one Orc had Amor of Fire, which negated fire damage by 4d12
EDIT
Also, I <b>HATE</b> that quote. Lefties pull it out as if it proves their wackjob conspiracy theories correct. Wow, someone said something cynical and that makes you right. Is it impossible to believe that some wars are in fact justified? The Bush Administration did not need to 'convince' the people they were attacked to drag the country on a war for 'oil'. I think the smoking piles of rubble did that for them. Also, before you say "irak is teh oil war!!112" consider this: the enemy is fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was a known sponsor of terror, especially against Israel.
gg
YAY! Jammer's back!
Rhuadin
Also, the one Orc had Amor of Fire, which negated fire damage by 4d12
EDIT
Also, I <b>HATE</b> that quote. Lefties pull it out as if it proves their wackjob conspiracy theories correct. Wow, someone said something cynical and that makes you right. Is it impossible to believe that some wars are in fact justified? The Bush Administration did not need to 'convince' the people they were attacked to drag the country on a war for 'oil'. I think the smoking piles of rubble did that for them. Also, before you say "irak is teh oil war!!112" consider this: the enemy is fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was a known sponsor of terror, especially against Israel.
gg <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen.
I could go on about how Clinton without even advising his security advisers launched missiles at Sudan blowing up a factory that produced Medicines for an African country (and the only company that produced for that country) and nothing else. There must be a conspirarcy there to, right? Oh wait, no, it was just a ploy to get peoples eyes of his sex scandals.
Sorry, but some wars are justified, and that site is pure BS.
/ot
unhkg jh
<i>Please</i> tell me that that last part is intentional irony.