So what reappl happened with 9/11?

[hmkpoker]

BenFranklin:

[ QUOTE ]
Investigations after the fact, reported in the media, indicated that the attack was planned in detail, and included members who had engineering degrees. The results were expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat:

[ QUOTE ]
3. Osama himself has said that the building collapses were beyond his wildest dreams. Of course, he liked it, but had no idea the destruction would be so complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources?

[Lestat]

I'm sure there have been other incidents of smaller planes crashing into buildings... But to my knowledge, this is the first time a fully fueled jumbo jet willfully crashed nose first at full speed into a skyscraper.

I'm just saying that in order for something to be "extremely unlikely" as you state, there should be something to base that opinion on. Since, it's never happened before, there is no sample size from which a claim like this can be (or should be), made. Especially, not by lay-people like us. So I'm perfectly fine with accepting it as being completely reasonable until shown otherwise. I do see your point however.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Lestat:

Quote:
3. Osama himself has said that the building collapses were beyond his wildest dreams. Of course, he liked it, but had no idea the destruction would be so complete.



Sources?
</font>

At the time Bin Laden admitted responsibility for the attacks, he also gave a brief discription on how it was plotted out and what the expectations were. I either saw, heard, or read this from a reputable news source, like CNNC. Newseek, etc.

I'll try to cite a specific source, although I'm terrible at researching things on the internet. My point is, I didn't make it up and should be pretty well established he said this in case anyone else is inclined to find a source.

[Lestat]

Maybe I'm getting better at research?

First, I never said this attack was not planned in painstaking detail. Surely it was. My only point was that the damage exceeded expectations.

Here is one link from CNN, which indicates that while Bin Laden was experienced in building design and DID expect a partial collapse, it was only the floors above where the planes struck. He did not anticipate the entire building coming down. This is not a full transcript of Bin Laden's comments. A fuller review states that he did claim that a total structural collapse was beyond his expectations. But this is what I found for now after a quick search (from CNN)...


"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for," . bin Laden said on the tape

Link

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there have been other incidents of smaller planes crashing into buildings... But to my knowledge, this is the first time a fully fueled jumbo jet willfully crashed nose first at full speed into a skyscraper.

I'm just saying that in order for something to be "extremely unlikely" as you state, there should be something to base that opinion on. Since, it's never happened before, there is no sample size from which a claim like this can be (or should be), made. Especially, not by lay-people like us. So I'm perfectly fine with accepting it as being completely reasonable until shown otherwise. I do see your point however.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reasoning for considering it as "very unlikely" has more to do with considering the difficulty involved in a planned demolition. If one were to plan the demolition of one of the towers, a great deal of planning, rigging and research would be necessary to ensure that the building collapsed into a neat little pile, and didn't collapse unevenly, resulting in the tower tipping over to one side and not demolishing completely.

Yes, I know that we don't have other examples to compare it too, it just seems astounding to me that a laborious planned demolition could be counterfeit by a simple, brutish explosion at the high end of the tower. (Does this mean that we are overpaying our demolition experts for unnecessary calculations and time when all you need to do to bring down a skyscraper completely is to just create a massive explosion somewhere in the building?)

What I can more accurately call extremely unlikely, however, is the collapse of building seven. The twin towers were the first time that a jumbo jet filled with that much explosive power crashed into a tall building, but building seven was not caused by that. It simply caught on fire as a peripheral effect of the explosions. This is not the first time that a large building was consumed by flame, but it is the first time that a building was properly demolished as a result of it.

Whether the building was brought down as a result of the fire, or whether it was brought down by a planned demolition, it is undeniable that the effect of the incident was functionally identical to that of a planned demolition; the collapse of building seven undeniably resembles that of a demolition. Unless I am mistaken, I believe this is the first case in which a fire-ravaged building ended in a complete, symmetrical collapse.

Again, I know that there are just as many, if not far more problems with the conspiracy theories surrounding the event, but it seems to me that the disaster should be at least considered something of an architectural anomaly.

[GoblinMason (Craig)]

[ QUOTE ]

An event occurred that gave ample opportunity to retarded conspiracy theorist idiots to make fools of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments like this make it painfully obvious that you didn't even bother to watch the video.

I agree that generally conspiracy theories like this don't have much merit (like the moon landing ones.) However, I at least gave the movie a chance, and it seems to have some merit. Their sources are valid and arguments seem solid, and I'm interested in learning more about it.

You're reaction was essentially the same as mine when I opened the thread.

-Craig

[CheeseMind]

Actually, to anyone who has spent time actually doing the research themselves, its painfully obvious that the government was behind 911.

There are over 300+ University professors who started a group to study the evidence regarding 911 and they all now believe the government was involved. And not just involved, but carried it out. Here's Fox News interviews with a few of the professors:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LfqYBQYYD1g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J0XhEW39fgY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wyq0EiAvQ8Q

I personally think its naive to think that super rich and powerful people WOULDN'T use this power to achieve their goals. You think because they're our leaders that they actually care about us? Think again and think serious about this. All throughout history, leaders have proven time and again to have their own agendas and have done whatever it takes to achieve this. Including killing their own citizens. It happened in Rome, it happened in Germany, and it has now happened in America.

You don't think the American Government has ever thought to kill US citizens to get backing for a war?

Operation Northwoods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&amp;page=1

The only people that still think Osama was behind 911 are all people who haven't spent the time to research it themselves. It's too easy to believe the mainstream story. You're actually an outcast if you think for yourself. But what's more important? Getting people to like you, or knowing the truth so you can protect your family and your fellow countrymen?

There are so many flaws to the official story its sickening that people actually believe it. But then again, when that's the only story you hear, its easier to just believe it. They say the jet fuel was hot enough to melt or weaken the steel beams? Except that in the video right before the towers went down, you could see people in the windows waving for help and jumping out (remember?). If it was so hot as to melt the steel, wouldn't those people have melted instantly? What about the fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel? What about the fact that architects that built the WTC, actually built it to withstand a plane crashing into it??

What about the fact that firefighters THERE THE MORNING OF 911 TESTIFIED THAT THEY HEARD EXPLOSIONS IN THE BUILDINGS? They testified to the 911 commission and now there are gag orders placed on all the firefighters that testified this. Why? What about the seismic readings proving there were explosions other than the plane crash on that day? What about the proof that there were explosive residue on the rubble, that has been verified by several scientific labs?

Did you know that the WTC was public property its entire existance, until just 6 weeks before 911? A jewish man by the name of Larry Silverstein leased the WTC just 6 weeks before 911 happened. Not only that, he took out a special terrorist attack clause in the insurance policy, netting him 7 billion dollars when 911 happened.

Did you know that building 7 was "pulled" by Larry Silverstein in a controlled demolition that same day? Why were there bombs already in the building? Check out Larry Silverstein admitting in a PBS special that they ordered the building pulled:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Start piecing these things together people. I didn't believe it at first either. It sounds too incredible. But the more you research into the truth, the more you realize how possible it really was, and how sloppily it was done. You think there are millions that believe the government did it for no reason? There are are just millions of loons out there? Well, look at the evidence yourself, and you'll see that the government's version of events is the biggest conspiracy theory of all.

Or just believe what you're told, be obedient, the government will protect you...

[UATrewqaz]

I pity you and your need to believe such things to feel intelligent and special.

[OneForTheMel]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

Done and done. Loose change is crap.

[CheeseMind]

[ QUOTE ]
I pity you and your need to believe such things to feel intelligent and special.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I pity you as well for believing blindly and walking with the masses.

It has nothing to do with feeling intelligent. It has everything to do with not believing what you're told, and doing research yourself before you believe something. If you call it a "need to be intelligent" then so be it.

ALL governments, not just ours lie to the people. It is only "common sense" to assume they are lying, and research yourself the truth.

Go ahead and pity me. You're not going to be losing any sleep until its you or your kid dying in a war over there. You might not even lose sleep then...I personally worry about the world my daughters are coming into.

Listen to the professors explain themselves, even though they're being attacked and bombarded. They don't sound like "nutbag conspiracy theorists" to me.