Off Topic - Did this really happen?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by powayseller on December 15, 2006 - 3:51pm

Warning - this could be upsetting to some people.

I'm tired of hearing all these conspiracy theories about 9/11. They make a lot of sense, but I don't want to believe that our government would and could do such a horrible thing.

The conspiracy theorists say the ultimate purpose of 9/11 was to create a pre-text for the Afghanistan and Iraq war and to reduce our constitutional rights via the Patriot Act.

I am asking for anyone to debunk this story, by former SGT Lauro Chavez, United States Central Command, who gives several items of proof, per his own eye witness accounts, that the 9/11 attacks were ordered and executed by our government.

Please tell me if this guy is lying. Please only respond to this thread only if you have read Sgt Chavez' letter, and debunk each of his points.

I'm also wondering about the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon, and the odd collapse of the 3 World Trade Center towers, which according to some physicists and structural engineers fell by planned demolition and could not possibly fall in that manner by a plane. World Trade Center 7 was not hit by a plane or any significant debris, but yet fell in 6.5 seconds, only .5 second faster than gravity. If the towers actually pancaked as the official story goes, they could not fall at the rapid pace of free-fall, giving zero resistance, which is impossible. The intense amount of debris and steel beams thrown indicate a lot of resistance, so we have 2 conflicts: a rapid fall showing no resistance and debris showing a lot of resistance. Only demolition can reconcile this fall.

" steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

t's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way."

"How does a buildings concrete foundation get pulverized to dust by a plane that crashed into the upper portion of the building? Why did hundreds of firefighters come forward and say that they heard explosives going off in the twin towers before and after that planes hit?"

I hope these people are wrong, wrong, wrong, but their arguments are logical, and that's why I am asking for the input/feedback of the very smart people on this forum. I have a curious logical mind, and I am very troubled by this matter.

Submitted by no_such_reality on December 15, 2006 - 5:35pm.
Submitted by bgates on December 15, 2006 - 6:11pm.

Maybe this is the one guy who's telling the truth.

Maybe the entire NORAD chain of command has been lying for five years. Maybe a team of demolitions experts planted explosives in three skyscrapers - entering the buildings at night, drilling holes in the walls, planting explosives, and replastering the walls, all without any night watchmen noticing them coming or going, for weeks - and all the demolitions guys have kept quiet too. Or maybe the night watchmen were in on the plan, and they all kept their mouths shut. Or maybe the demolitions work was carried out in broad daylight, and thousands of workers, dozens or hundreds of demolitions experts, the top ranks of the military, and the federal government all worked together to murder thousands of people to start a war, and the only person willing to reveal his knowledge is Sgt Lauro Sanchez.

Me, I think it was the ghosts of Indians pissed that the Dutch bought their island.

Prove it wasn't.

Submitted by kewp on December 15, 2006 - 6:19pm.

I hate to comment on this, but I can't let the 'logic' comment slide.

If we are looking at this 'logically'...

Given that 9/11 is the *only* example of large jet planes hitting a modern skyscraper, how is it possible to make the claim its 'not possible' for them to fall in the manner described as a result? Who could even suggest that without a counter-example?

There were other accelerants present beside the jet fuel that increased the temperature of the fire to the temperatures required to melt steel. Numerous eye-witnesses and video evidence have confirmed that the temperature of the fire heated the steel supports white-hot.

If this *was* a controlled detonation, where is the evidence of the same? Why don't we hear the explosions, or see visual evidence of them? Why did the portion of the building above the point of impact remain intact? Most importantly, why is there not any chemical residue left over in the debris?

Lastly, the reason the buildings collapsed the way they did is that they were designed to. All modern skyscrapers are. If they fell over like a tree it would piss off the neighbors!

Really, this is not the appropriate forum for this crap and posting it casts some serious doubt on your previous analysis. If this does indeed seem logical to you maybe the perma-bulls are right about SD RE!

Submitted by LookoutBelow on December 15, 2006 - 6:30pm.

I saw a poll in USAToday I believe a few months back that said over 50% of this country's population thinks the govt covered up some or all of it.

One will never know.....just like our previous knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack at least 3 days prior to it happening. Unfortunately, that wasnt made public until a few short years ago........I imagine 9-11 will have its own ghosts come out of some hidden closet 50-75 years from now too.


Did TWA 800 actually get shot down ? Everybody has an opinion. 


Submitted by LookoutBelow on December 15, 2006 - 6:40pm.

Powayseller, pay no attention to that nonsensical, unresearched crap KEWP just posted, he or she doesnt know what they're talking about. He doesnt know "shinola" about architecture and demolition. Probably some programmer sitting in his cubicle postulating on the web when he should be working for his boss.

I will agree it probably isnt the best forum for this discussion, it however, does NOT cast a shadow on your previous analysis. 



Submitted by 4plexowner on December 15, 2006 - 8:48pm.

Each time I do research on 9/11 I come up with some new interesting information.

Here are some tidbits from my last research:

> asbestos had been used throughout the towers – EPA had issued several waivers allowing asbestos cleanup to be delayed but were increasing the pressure for the asbestos to be removed – estimates for cleanup were in the $1 billion range and none of the insurance companies covering the towers were willing to pay for the cleanup

> the towers were transferred from the New York Port Authority to private ownership (Larry Silversteen) six weeks prior to 9/11 – the towers had become a white elephant for the Port Authority – lots of vacancies and huge expense to provide utilities for the towers – even oxygen had to be provided because the towers were airtight – ie, Port Authority was losing lots of money on the towers and the losses were getting worse as vacancies increased

> Silversteen reworked the insurance policies for the WTC complex to explicitly provide coverage for acts of terrorism

> Silversteen obtained explicit rights to rebuild the WTC complex before completing the leases

> George Bush’s brother was president of the company that provided security for the WTC complex and Dulles airport where one of the aircraft was hijacked – his cousin was CEO of the same company

Other details I have come across in the past:

> there were bomb-sniffing dogs present in the towers 24/7 until two weeks prior to 9/11

> workers in the towers testify that there were unexplained power outages and building evacuations during the two weeks prior to 9/11

> workers in the towers testify that large sections of the towers (whole floors) were vacant and that construction noise could be heard on some of these floors in the weeks prior to 9/11

> legal files for prosecuting the Enron related trials were stored in WTC 7 along with many other files for sensitive SEC investigations

Perhaps my cynical nature and high level of skepticism make me susceptible to conspiracy theories but I believe the story our government is telling us about 9/11 is mostly fabrication.

There are many unexplained questions about how the two towers collapsed and the rarely mentioned collapse of WTC 7.

There are also many coincidental facts that support the idea that 9/11 was done for financial gain. Without considering whether it was a conspiracy or not, look at these aspects of 9/11: it destroyed two asbestos ridden buildings that were losing money because nobody wanted to rent space in them anymore - it destroyed legal files being used to prosecute Enron trials and other trials involving Wall Street bigshots - Silversteen gained several billion dollars in insurance payouts - Silversteen got the right to rebuild the WTC complex.

The biggest benefit from 9/11 went to the neo-cons who used it as a reason to launch the 'forever war on terror'. They have continued to point to 9/11 as they have destroyed the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, dropped habeas corpus, passed Patriot Acts I & II, legalized the use of terror against anyone deemed an 'unlawful combatant' and taken many other actions which have reduced the freedom of us, the American citizens.

If you have a hard time believing that the government would do something like 9/11 to its own people, I suggest that you do some research on 'false flag' events - just Google on the term and check out some of the links. Watch for these in particular: Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty.

Submitted by Heavyduty on December 15, 2006 - 9:25pm.

Anyone who believes the official story is a blithering idiot.

There's ample info on the internet ... youtube and google for anyone who wants to find the truth. The official response from government NIST is bullshit. There have been several NIST engineers who came out publicly after being fired because they wouldn't tow the "official" line.

WTC7 is the smoking gun. No plane hit it! Even the owner of WTC towers admitted that "they pulled it" ... meaning it was brought down intentionally. The towers fell between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. "They pulled" WTC7 at 5:30 in the afternoon. So if "they" ... the authorities decided after the attack that they had to demolish WTC7 for safety reasons, then they'd have about 9 hours to place explosives to "pull" the building. Nine hours (whilst in the middle of kaos) to do a job that normally takes weeks of preparation.

Come on people ... get your heads outa your a____s.

Submitted by PerryChase on December 15, 2006 - 9:33pm.

Interesting topic. I haven't read much about how the towers came down. I'll check into the info you guys mentioned.

Submitted by brianzero on December 15, 2006 - 9:42pm.

I advise anyone who is suspicious about 9/11 to watch this video. Its about an hour and 50 minutes, and time well spent.
Even if you are convinced that the 'official' 9/11 story
is correct, you should still watch this video.

9/11 Mysteries:

Submitted by zk on December 15, 2006 - 10:22pm.

"Perhaps my cynical nature and high level of skepticism make me susceptible to conspiracy theories but I believe the story our government is telling us about 9/11 is mostly fabrication."

If you are truly skeptical, you should be less susceptible to conspiracy theories, not more. For most of the conspiracy theories that are out there to be true, thousands of people would all have to keep giant secrets. Any amount of skepticism should keep you from believing that such a thing could happen.

"Anyone who believes the official story is a blithering idiot."

Heavyduty follows that not-very-well-thought-out statement with equally well-thought-out arguments and documentation backing up his position.

People who believe conspiracy theories generally believe them for the same reason people believe that housing won't go down: they want to believe them, and they therefore engage in confirmation bias. They'll ignore overwhelming evidence that their theories are not true, and focus on the scant evidence that supports their case. Then they'll ignore that evidence that refutes the scant evidence that supports their case.

Why would anyone want to believe these theories? Perhaps it makes them feel smart. "All these blithering idiots believe this story. I must be smarter than them." Or maybe they like the adrenalin rush they get from their world view. "Holy shit!! WE knocked the towers down!!!" Maybe they're super-left wing nuts who'd really like to discredit the neocons. Maybe they're super-right wing nuts who want to discredit our entire government (our entire system of government.

"Powayseller, pay no attention to that nonsensical, unresearched crap KEWP just posted, he or she doesnt know what they're talking about. He doesnt know "shinola" about architecture and demolition. Probably some programmer sitting in his cubicle postulating on the web when he should be working for his boss."

Powayseller, pay no attention to LOB's rhetoric. It contains no information or logic or reason or facts or evidence whatsoever. Sure, maybe 50% of the people in this country polled by USA Today do believe there was a conspiracy. But don't forget that half the people in this country have IQs of less than 100, also (probably the same half that reads USA Today). None of that is any evidence of a conspiracy.

I despise the neocons much more than your average person. But to say that they planned and executed 9/11 and then covered it up gives them way too little credit for humanness and way too much credit for cleverness.

Submitted by zk on December 15, 2006 - 10:36pm.

From a pretty interesting Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories:

"Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance."

There's more in the article on the psychological and socio-political origins of conspiracy theories. True believers might want to read that article see if they don't see themselves there. If you can take a hard look at yourself, maybe you'll see the world a little more clearly. If you can't take a hard, honest look at yourself, you most likely never will.

Submitted by Heavyduty on December 15, 2006 - 11:45pm.

The Empire State Building Plane Crash ... July 28, 1945 ... a B-25 Bomber Hits 78th Floor.

The building didn't fall down.

There are many other modern buildings which have caught fire and burned for days. They didn't fall down either.

Combined military services in this country employ over 1.25 million active military personnel. The CIA doesn't release employment figures, but estimates are between 260,000 to 350,000 employees. How does the CIA keep 260,000 people quiet? It's called Command and Control.

Standard procedure to diffuse any political movement which threatens the status quo ... discredit the messanger. "He's a conspiracy-nut".

The families of 9-11 victims are outraged with the 9-11 Commisions findings, and are calling for a real investigation. Are they conspiracy nuts too?

Here's my question ... Why would any sane, rational, normal person not be interested in questioning the events of such a tragic national disaster, given it's global consequences?

To the poster above ... thanks for the psych-review. However, facts are facts. And I haven't seen anything coming from the government to negate the facts that conspiracy-nuts are talking about. For god's sake, they won't even publish pictures from cameras around the pentagon showing us what actually crashed there.

Submitted by bgates on December 15, 2006 - 11:45pm.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were present until the day before the attack. I would think the presence of heightened security would make it more difficult to sabotage the buildings, yes?

I would imagine Silverstein wanted terrorism coverage and the right to rebuild the towers because they were a well-known landmark and, oh by the way, they had been attacked by terrorists in the past.

The towers were such a white elephant that Silverstein paid more than twice what had been estimated three years earlier. Silverstein was a successful enough man that he could come up with a hundred million dollar down payment and promise to pay three billion dollars over 99 years (and he wasn't the only bidder on the project willing and able to do so - were they all in on the scheme?), all for what 4plexowner assures us was a money-loser. They must have started losing money in a hurry - they had over 90% occupancy as recently as mid-98. Was there a recession in Manhattan in the late 90's that I didn't hear about?

I'm sure there were lots of files in the towers. They were very large buildings. Despite whatever Enron-related losses occurred, last I heard several high-ranking Enron officials have been convicted.

A B-25 has a maximum takeoff weight of 41000 lbs, and top speed of 275 mph. A Boeing 767 is nine times as heavy and has a cruising speed of 540mph.

As for the neo-con reign of terror, I can't help but notice no one on this thread has been locked up - but I blame that more on Reagan's emptying the mental institutions in the early 80s. Pity. Just because someone calls you a conspiracy nut doesn't mean you're NOT crazy.

Submitted by kewp on December 16, 2006 - 12:08am.

Actually, I think I've figured this out.

This was a massive *left-wing* conspiracy.

The Democrats were behind the 9/11 attacks, which they timed to coincide exactly with Dubya reading a children's book about goats. Just to make him look extra-dumb.

This in turn was a setup to lead us into a futile war in Iraq, inciting unrest and returning control of both the senate and the house to the Dem's. And ultimately, most likely, the White House. The end of the Bush dynasty will be an added bonus.

Makes sense to me!

Submitted by Heavyduty on December 16, 2006 - 12:49am.

Sept. 11 was a Tuesday. Bomb sniffing dogs were pulled the week before on Thursday. In addition, construction on various floors had been going on for months previously.

Silverstein paid twice as much ... big deal, all real estate had doubled in price from $50 per square foot to over $110.

90% occupancy ... great. If it was making so much money, why did the port authority want to sell it to some REIT.

Boeing 767 vs. B-25. Empire State was built with 1930's technology. It's still standing. The 1970 WTC was more advanced and designed to take on two (2) Boeing 707's. So WTF happened?

So what's your point? You haven't negated any facts I've stated, nor given me anything to make me believe the "official storyline".

"Just because someone calls you a conspiracy nut doesn't mean you're NOT crazy". Go back to english grammar school... you just used a double negative, i.e. "Just because someone calls you a conspiracy nut does mean you're crazy".

The link posted above ... 9/11 Mysteries:

... is a good start for anyone who wants to seriously look into the questions and discrepancies surrounding the "official storyline" of what happened on Sept. 11.

And to all the blithering idiots ... a "question" is the backbone of any scientific inquiry. A question must first be asked in order for the answer to be found.

Submitted by kewp on December 16, 2006 - 1:09am.

Lets see, a modern, fully fueled jet aircraft weighing nine times as much as B-25 and moving twice as fast would, in my mind, would result in a fair bit more damage to anything it collided with.

Beyond that, the ESB is based on a 3D grid design, with columns and beams throughout the structure. This leads to a very robust design, at the expense of open floor space. Contrast this with the WTC, which is a 'tube' design. The majority of the load bearing structure is on the outside of building, which unfortunately turns out to be a weak spot vs. jumbo jets piloted by suicidal terrorists.

If anyone is interested in the science behind exactly WTF happened I'll suggest checking the Nova special on it.

...though I guess PBS could be part of the conspiracy as well.

Submitted by masayako on December 16, 2006 - 3:00am.

Larry Silversteen (owner of the WTC) himself told the news that WTC7 is pulled by the fire department for safety reason.

Bring down a building for safety reason in a matter of hours during the nation's biggest crisis??? This thing take weeks to plan and execute. What about liabilities? Even if all these are do'able, why didn't NIST put that in their report?

BECAUSE they can't even convince themselves this is a good enough explanation. How could they expect anyone to believe such bull crap?!

Only idiots will believe anything our government feed them.

911 is a 100% inside job. That's a fact which is easier to tell than the housing bubble. Anyone with half a brain should realize that.


Submitted by Heavyduty on December 16, 2006 - 4:14am.

Nova special .... yes, we've all seen the Nova special from PBS which shows a computer generated cartoon explaining the famous "pancake theory".

But Nova scripwriters never talk about the steel core inside the building that's left standing in their little cartoon. What about that steel "3D grid frame" composed of structural rectangular steel members 2 feet thick? What about them? Why aren't they still standing?

And what about the million tons of steel reinforced concrete that came pouring down on New York after being magically pulverized and turned into dust? When a concrete freeway overpass collapses during an earthquake ... what happens? Well, it falls down ... but it doesn't turn to dust.

And why were people still finding small body parts and bone fragments on the top of neighboring buildings 2 months after the incident? If their collapsing "pancake theory" was true, then all the bodies and desks and chairs and file cabinets should have been found crushed and sandwiched between the WTC floors. But instead, they're finding bits and pieces of human remains on rooftops 3 blocks away.

And why won't the government release all of the recordings of the phone calls to 911 from people inside the building?

Why won't they release all the recordings of the fireman's radio conversations? Maybe they don't want the public to hear the pop-pop-popping sounds of small explosions going off from the controlled demolition. Surviving firemen have talked about the explosions and pop-pop-popping sounds, but maybe the 911 commission doesn't want you to actually hear those things.

And why doesn't the government tell us why there were pools of molten steel buried deep in the rubble and still burning 2 months after the event. Jet fuel burns at a maximum 1796 degrees. Burning chairs, and fabrics, and paper can reach 1500 degrees. But, steel melts and becomes molten at 2750 degrees. So how did that steel get so hot and melt, and keep going for 2 months?

Submitted by PD on December 16, 2006 - 8:41am.

have been reading this thread with utter amazement. Anyone who believes that 9-11 was manufactured and orchestrated by our government is a person who could be convinced of any ridiculousness, so long as it casts our government in a bad light.

Lets see, strange popping noises as evidence of explosives? I happen to think that there would be all sorts of strange noises in a building that has just been hit by full sized jet liner that has enough fuel on board to fly all the way across the US. Hmmm, does anyone really think that a building which has just sustained enormous damage would be silent? I bet some people reported groaning noises. Hey, maybe those were sound effects piped in by the vast group of people who would be required to pull this off. I can see them now, sitting around their big conference table, taking turns groaning into a tape recorder and then laughing maniacally at the results.

How many people would be needed to successfully pull this off as a US conspiracy, complete with previously placed bombs? A 1000? I haven’t heard anything from all those people. Just one Sergeant. Lets all believe this one guy and ignore the fact that he might be a liar, a guy with mental problems, a guy just after fame or a guy with an ax to grind.

Wow, all that talk about construction happening within an aging building is really scary proof! Everybody knows that once a building is up, there is never any need for repairs, remodels or improvements, right? Well, maybe if you are an owner of a four plex…

Gasp! Silverstein actually made sure he was covered for a terrorist attack! This is proof indeed!

Submitted by PD on December 16, 2006 - 9:13am.

Hey, I have a new conspiracy theory for you! It is great and it would be a thousand times less expensive and far easier to pull off.

(Read the following in a hushed but urgent whisper, frequently looking over your shoulder to make sure no one is watching you)

What if there is a group of people out there who hate the current administration and the US and want to discredit both? So, get this, they hire a bunch of people to post a bunch of nonsense online about how the US engineered 9-11! These people cobble together a bunch of stuff about asbestos, lack of rubble, popping noises and convince everyone that buildings can never fall down no matter how they are damaged (we all know engineers are perfect and that there are never any short cuts taken in construction and that mistakes are never made). These people use some sort of cover, like interest in real estate, to hide their real agenda… EEEK! I’m getting Goosebumps!

This just in - there is new evidence suggesting that the 9-11 hijackers weren’t really radical Muslims who hate the US. They were, in fact, CIA agents who had face transplants. I heard from a reliable source that the US actually has a real transporter (like Star Trek) that was reconstructed from the Roswell spaceship and we used it to beam them off the planes at the last second. They have now had new face transplants are now posing as President Bush and his advisors.

Submitted by 4plexowner on December 16, 2006 - 9:23am.

One of the many interesting aspects of 9/11 is the fact that the towers collapsed at all.

There have been numerous high-rise buildings that have caught fire in the past. Some of them had several floors burning for more than 24 hours and didn't fall down.

And then 9/11 occurs - first time in history that a steel-framed building collapses due to fire - it might be reasonable to think that forensic engineers would be allowed to study the steel members that failed so buildings could be built better in the future.

But what happened at 'ground-zero'?

The site was sanitized as quickly as possible.

The steel was sold to recyclers who promised to melt it quickly.

GPS units were placed on the trucks used to haul the steel to ensure that the steel went directly to the recyclers and nowhere else. One driver was fired because he took a two hour lunch break while he had a load of steel on his truck.

Does any of this prove that 9/11 was an inside job? Nope - but it sure makes me wonder.

I have a degree in aerospace engineering. The history of aerospace is replete with accidents - mankind didn't learn to fly without breaking a few eggs. When an accident occurred, the remains of the vehicle were studied so the vehicle could be built better next time. Metals were closely analyzed to determine exactly how the failure occurred - did the metal fatigue and gradually give way? - was the metal brittle and snapped? - was the metal not strong enough and tore?

When I contrast the degree of study given to aerospace accidents to what happened at ground zero, the cleanup of ground zero looks like a cover-up. It appears that the metal remains of the towers were intentionally destroyed before forensic engineers could examine them.

Does this prove anything? Nope - just more questions that aren't answered by the government's version of what happened on 9/11.

Submitted by no_such_reality on December 16, 2006 - 12:34pm.

I have a degree in aerospace engineering. The history of aerospace is replete with accidents

This wasn't an accident.

Submitted by bub on December 16, 2006 - 1:18pm.

Christ powayseller did you check out the site that you found this "insightful" information? Below is from one of the advertisers(left side of page). Also check out the right side of the page.

Private Web Hosting "a private membership organization for straight, white, non-jews" When the internet was young, people could put up web sites to express just about any opinion, without fear of reprisal. Sadly that has changed. Today, Internet Service Providers (ISP's) and Web Hosting Companies have cumbersome "Acceptable Use Policies (AUP)" and nasty "Terms Of Service (TOS)." These policies have been perverted into tools to stifle the free and open exchange of ideas and of opinions. Often, sites are routinely shut off by web hosts as "hate speech" or because they are deemed "offensive" or "racist." We're changing that! We will pretty-much take web sites covering ANY (lawful) topic! Private Web is a private membership club. We do not do business with the general public. As such, we can pick and choose with whom we associate. In order to have your web site hosted by us, you need to be a straight, white, non-jew. If you meet these basic criteria, you _may_ qualify for membership in our club and for our service.

Submitted by Borat on December 16, 2006 - 2:21pm.

Keep in mind that getting an idea published on a racist website is a very easy way to discredit it.

The collapse of building 7 is very hard to explain away. But there may have been multiple things happening that day. I think the attack was real, Al Qaeda had attempted to blow those towers up in 1993 and almost succeeded. They also had a plan to hijack multiple airliners foiled when their explosives lab in the Phillipines blew up by accident. So Al Qaeda was probably behind the attacks on September 11. However, it is entirely possible that a few people with connections in high places may have received advance warning of the plot and taken advantage of it for political or economic gain. The intelligence services of the US, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and many other countries have been monitoring Al Qaeda for some time and may have had some foreknowledge of the plot.

September 11 is this generation's Kennedy assassination. In both cases the official story is every bit as unlikely as most of the conspiracy theories. We're also unlikely to know the real story in either case. BTW, did anyone see the recent Guardian story with new details about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy?.

And I promise there is no racist content to be found on any of my links :-)

Submitted by salo_t on December 16, 2006 - 3:25pm.

Borat I'm with you on this one. I think we were attacked by radical muslims and anyone with half a brain can see that something is askew with the whole event. I also feel that our government knew this was coming, hell it was handed to Condi in a memo which she later tried to claim she didnt remember.
Bush wanted to take us to war with Iraq very very bad but if you remember just before 9/11 his ratings were actually not very good and he would need something very powerful and dramatic to get the US people on board to go to war with him.

Enter 9/11, it was all the administration needed to go get Sodam (who had nothing to do with any of it) and to start his fake war on terror. 9/11 was used for political gain and nothing more, it was Bush's Pearl Harbor so he thought and he never lost a chance to use it as a defense for his wrong and misleading actions. The American people are right to throw these thugs out of office. Its only a matter of time before Bush will go down as America's most miserable president.

Submitted by jg on December 16, 2006 - 2:52pm.

I do not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy of the U.S. government.

I do believe, however, that terrorists may have had a hand in the following:

Downing of TWA flight 800

Downing of American flight 587

Bombing of Oklahoma City

There are bad folks living amongst us; I found this book a real eye-opener:


Submitted by kewp on December 16, 2006 - 3:05pm.


Go watch footage from 9/11. One can clearly see the tops of the towers begin to list just minutes prior to the collapse. The fire didn't need to get hot enough to 'melt steel', just hot enough to soften the steel supports until they could no longer bear the load of the upper floors. I noticed this the day of the attacks, as did other observers on the ground. Including a friend of mine who worked in building 7 (whom felt the heat from the fireball of the second blast and could see the steel supports glowing with heat).

Speaking of building 7...

"NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors."

The only 'conspiracy' here is to cover up the fact that there were plenty of warning signs that these attacks were coming and nothing was done about it. Don't give Dubya and his cronies the credit to have masterminded anything. They are simply incompetent.

Submitted by zk on December 16, 2006 - 4:03pm.

That link to the downing of AAL587 is a joke. There are too many errors and falsehoods to count. (But don't tell that to conspiracy theorists; they won't listen.)

I don't have time (or care enough) to refute each one of them, but I will shed some light on one part that I'm more or less an expert on: Having read quite a few NTSB reports about quite a few aviation accidents, I know that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are extremely unreliable. Even eyewitnesses who are pilots routinely give differing accounts of the same accident. And people with no knowledge of aviation usually see (or hear) things that just aren't there and miss rather obvious things that are. These errors occur whether a Cessna 150 buys a farm in Podunk, Canada or an Airbus falls out of the sky over New York City. And I'm pretty sure terrorists aren't targeting Cessnas in Saskatchewan.

Submitted by sstearns2 on December 16, 2006 - 7:56pm.

The point about steel melting at 2750 degrees is misleading. Yes, steel melts around that temperature and yes, kerosene will not burn above about 1500 F, but the steel will loose structural integrity above about 1000 F.

The point about how fast the buildings fell is also misleading. The structure one each floor is designed to hold that floor, so once you get a few floors worth of equipment, furniture, etc., falling onto the one below it's like dropping a bowling ball through a toothpick. It doesn't slow it down much. Also, the main structure of the building is designed to primarily take the vertical load, so it comes apart pretty fast once you start twisting and bending the individual members.

Also, I'm sure the firefighters heard explosions. A 10 inch steel I-beam snapping will make an explosion like you wouldn't believe.

A little internet research will make it obvious that dropping a building like that by explosive demolition would be a monumental effort and impossible to hide.

So, yes, it's BS.


Submitted by powayseller on December 16, 2006 - 8:20pm.

My friend, who told me about this theory, easily refuts the NIST report as total bullshit. PD, get your head out of the sand and at least watch a video about 9/11 and then decide what you think happened. Total compliance to the government is unpatriotic. True patriots protect their country, think independently, and march against wrongs. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Does anyone in this country even have the guts anymore that the founders had, or are we turning into compliant followers? Our founders rebelled against their government. If they had not, we'd still be ruled by England. It's sad that this courage has been dismissed as unpatriotic. Is it so hard to believe that the people who gave us the housing bubble and Iraq war are capable of cover-ups? Greenspan telling people in 2004 to get ARMs? That doesn't sound like a benevolent government to me. So it's natural, as I'm peeling back the layers of housing bubbles, to question what else they are up to.

Copied below is his e-mail response

The biggest weakness of the "buckling" theory is why the center column collapsed.

The center column was EXTREMELY strong - it was the main support structure of the buildings. You can read lots about this if you search Google. It was actually a very unique design - these center columns were STRONG.

If it is true that the trusses weakened due to heating, and buckled, OK, so the floor would detach from the center column and collapse down to the floor below it.

But why would the floors about it collapse????? They are still connected to the center support columns.

And even if they did somehow magically collapse AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT as the floors below - WHY DID THE CENTER COLUMN COLLAPSE? I can see the floors collapsing around the center column, and the center column remaining standing at the end - which it easily could, it was extremely strong, basically all dense steel and concrete, holding up almost the entire weight of the buildings - but if you look at the final pictures, and those videos, there is NOTHING left of the center column at the end. Not even 10 feet sticking up above the ground.


The NIST report does adequately refute some of the less sanguine "conspiracy theories", but it doesn't at all dispell the fundamental argument that it was a controlled demolition which the government - in this case, NIST - is covering up.

Just one example - FAQ 6. Of course the above floors were heavy enough to cause the lower floors to collapse - but they say the lower floors were so weak that they did not even slow down the upper floors (as if they were in free fall).

This ignores two fundamental principles of physics - the law of inertia and the law of energy conservation. When the buildings were collapsing, all of the concrete - of which there were endless tons, you can research if you like - was pulverized and turned into dust. This required a tremendous amount of energy. This energy had to come from the force of the building collapsing. Hence, some (a great deal) of that force was exhausted in crushing the cement and spewing it hundreds of years off to the side. Obviously this is not enough to stop the collapse - but independent investigators have confirmed it *is* enough to *slow* the collapse.

Second is the law of inertia. Each floor below (each of which was quite heavy) was at rest. The combined weight of the floors below, in fact, greatly exceeded the combined weight of the top floors. Each of these lower floors had to be started from a state of non-motion - i.e. the upper floors had to overcome the laws of inertia.

Again, this would not be enough force to stop the top floors from collapsing - but it would definitely *slow them down".

As the report itself admits, both towers fell at the rate of free fall - if you dropped a bowling ball from the top of the building at the time the collapse started, it would have hit the ground at the exact same time as the top of the building.

Think about it. Would the bowling ball not have been slowed down, if at each step along the way, there was a suspended bowling ball it had to bring down with it (imagine the other balls were *barely* suspended, so that any amount of energy would break them.

Number 7. They say the steel trusses buckled due to insulation being blown off by the impact. This also is total bullshit.

Yes, steel softens when it reaches 1000 degrees. But in their own simulations, the buildings did not collapse under this scenario, until they "fudged" their simulation enough to force the collapse.

Second, there is no evidence the insulation was blown off, apart from their assertion, that I can find.

Third, it is true that hydrocarbons can burn at 1000 degrees but that is under optimal simulations - when there is enough oxygen (e.g., a blue flame on a stove, or a blast furnace, called blast b/c air is blasted onto the fire to keep the oxygen supply high). When there is a lot of smoke, it is obvious that the fire is oxygen starved and not burning nearly as hot.

In the WTCs, the fuel would have burned away in a few minutes. The second building impacted (which collapsed first) is the best example - almost all the fuel was burned off outside the building right after impact. Aside from that Kerosene evaporates quickly at room temperature. You can do your own experiment - spill a gallon of kerosene on the ground, light it, and see how long it burns. Maybe a few minutes, that's it.

But the buildings collapsed over an hour after impact. If the steel beams somehow (impossibly) did get really hot from the kerosene, they would have cooled by then.

If you look at pictures of the buildings, there was hardly any fires - small, isolated ones. Compare these fire pictures of the WTC w/ the Spanish Windsor building fire that burned several years later, but did not collapse:

WTC fires:
Other buildings:

Look at these pictures and tell me, which fire was high and hot enough, to heat steel to 1000 degrees.

Finally, steel has a remarkable ability to transfer heat. E.g., if you heat one part of steel, the heat travels down the steel quickly. That is why when people forge (unhardened) steel, they use tongs to grab the steel. The WTCs had countless tons of steel, all connected. Any heat being applied to the steel beams, would have been transferred through the building quickly.

In terms of all those scientists - keep in mind the problem of "group think". They are all told this is how the building collapsed, now substantiate it. Everyone knows that to question it, is to accuse their government of complicity in the crime. Who will do that? How do we know they didn't try, and were threatened one way or another? How were these scientists selected - b/c they tend to "go with the flow" or for their renowned critical analysis and whistleblowing? Did they have to sign confidentiality papers? Why have none of these scientists publish independent reports?

Why did the lead demolition expert in the US, when he saw the buildings collapse, exclaim it was a controlled demolition, only to retract his story days later after the CIA visited him? Was he told this is a question of national security?

BTW - here is a thesis of how the gov't managed to shut these scientists up. (And this is the backup story if the demolition theory is finally validated in the public arena, which it eventually will be.) They will claim: they were afraid the building would collapse. If it did, it would not collapse straight down, and knock nearby buildings over. These buildings were still filled with people. Therefor, they had to bring the WTCs down to save the neighboring buildings. They cannot say this publicly b/c people would not understand, people are emotional - but we are the gov't, we were acting to protect people. That is the backup lie.

BTW, one of these links has a nice picture of the Windsor building burning (it burned for almost 2 days) in Spain in 2005 or so - the building did not collapse despite the obviously much greater fire (in contrast the WTC fires were minor, you can see people standing in the hole where the airplane entered, firefighters were saying there were only "isolated pockets" of fire, and there was only thick black smoke coming from the building, up until it collapsed):
Windsor building, Spain, Building did not collapse

This building has a similar design to the WTC, but despite the much greater fire, did not collapse.

So there are so many unanswered questions, that I am really unsure what happened.

4plexowner really nailed it: why were the remains of the building not studied, and so quickly hustled off to recyclers? Why was Osama bin Laden immediately named as a suspect, without any investigation? Those 2 questions make me suspect of the official government version. Why no whistleblowers? Well, why didn't the cigarette companies or Enron have whistleblowers? For decades, we were told cigarettes are safe, even though hundreds or thousands of insiders knew otherwise.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.