911 and future repercussions - in light of so much conspiracy theory

because the "evidence" tends to confused, barking and potentially vastly offensive?

that said, the sunday herald in scotland ran this piece back in 2003. and i'm now going to refrain from any further comment.

I'm sure they'll get right on to it as soon as they've satisfied hundreds of paranoid bloggers that the moon landings did happen.

Although obviously there's no point, because the people who believe this crap will dismiss any explanation as more lies by the people behind it all— "They would say that, wouldn't they" and so on.

x-post

Hehe.

Governments never secretly conspire to do anything that would harm some of their own citizens, there are no hidden agendas, the things governments keep secret don't concern us, there's no need to even consider evidence that contradicts the official story. . .

(Incidentally, I consider this article an argument for considering the arguments against the official account of 9/11, not an actual presentation of those arguments.)

Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy!
Anyone still care about the heap of disturbing, unsolved questions surrounding Our Great Tragedy?

- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Here is your must-read for the month. Here is your oh-my-God- I'm-sending-this-piece- to-every-smart-person-I-know hunk of outstanding, distressing, disquieting media bliss.

Here it is: an absolutely exceptional inside scoop on the white-hot world of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, writ large and smart by Mark Jacobson over at New York magazine, and it's mandatory reading for anyone and everyone who's ever entertained the nagging thought that something -- or rather, far more than one something -- is deeply wrong with the official line on what actually happened on Sept. 11.

See, it is very likely that you already know that Sept. 11 will go down in the conspiracy history books as a far more sinister affair than, say, the murky swirl of the Kennedy assassination. You probably already know that much of what exactly happened on Sept. 11 remains deeply unsettling and largely unsolved -- or to put another way, if you don't know all of this and if you fully and blithely accept the official Sept. 11 story, well, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

But on this, the third anniversary of the launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by way of whoring the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his cronies' appalling gain, what you might not know, what gets so easily forgotten in the mists of time and via the endless repetition of the orthodox Sept. 11 tale, is the sheer volume, the staggering array of unanswered questions about just about every single aspect of Sept. 11 -- the planes, the WTC towers, the Pentagon, the fires, the passengers and the cell phone calls and the firefighters and, well, just about everything. It is, when you look closely, all merely a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go.

Verily, Jacobson, in his New York mag piece, encounters crackpots and fringe nutballs and those who think Sept. 11 was connected to aliens and electromagnetic fields and the Illuminati. It can, unfortunately, get a little crazy. But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction -- which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more -- who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.

Whose help? This, of course, is the biggest question of all, one which many of the more well-researched theories go a surprisingly long way toward answering.

You have to sift and sort. There are disturbing questions about collapse speeds and controlled demolitions and why the towers fell when the all-steel infrastructure was designed to easily withstand the temperatures of any sort of fire, even burning jet fuel. There are questions of the mysterious, media-documented blasts deep in the WTC towers that took place after the planes hit. There are questions of why there was such a short-selling spree on shares of American Airlines and United Air Lines the day before the attack, huge doubts about the failures of NORAD and the FAA, the bizarre case of the missing plane in the Pentagon crash, and also the downing of Flight 93 where, according to the coroner, no blood or major plane wreckage was actually found. There is, ultimately, the stunning failure of the entire multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Just for starters.

There is also the very big question of what happened to 7 WTC, the only building not hit by anything at all, but which collapsed anyway, in a perfect controlled-demolition sort of way, for no reason anyone can sufficiently explain. But which just so happened to contain vital offices for the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and more.

But perhaps Jacobson's article is insufficient for you. Perhaps you have heard much of it before, or you're more of the visceral type and need to actually see the proofs in order to delve deeper, have them laid out like gruesome body parts in a mesmerizing autopsy. Fair enough.

For you, we have the surprisingly compelling indie documentary "9/11 Loose Change" (Google it), freely available on the Internet and produced by three very astute and very young and very strong-willed dudes who managed to cobble together a truly astounding array of proofs and interviews and evidence, a full 1 hour and 20 minutes' worth of mesmerizing footage you will not be able to easily forget.

Or maybe you should peruse one of the countless Sept. 11 conspiracy sites, many of which link to relevant video and one of which -- scholarsfor911truth.org -- claims to be "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11." Start there.

Now, it's very true that some of the more specious conspiracy claims have been largely discredited and proved false. Some of the more radical "evidence" gathered by theorists is quite suspect and easily placed in the category of no-way-in-hell. This is valid. This is as it should be. You have to chew through a lot of skin and gristle to get to the real meat.

But oh the meat. The overwhelming quantity, the bloody, deadly stench of it. Fact is, it is quite impossible to watch the entire "Loose Change" documentary and not come away just a little shaken, a little awed by the sheer number of perversely interrelated facts and aberrant coincidences-that-aren't-coincidences, shaking your head at how it all seems to irrefutably prove there is far, far more to the Sept. 11 tragedy than just crazy Osama and his band of zealots, as you begin to sink into a sighing morass of rage and frustration and suspicion and mistrust. You almost can't help it.

Of course, there is another option. There is another way out. You may, as is the standard cultural default, simply ignore it all, scoff and roll your eyes and shrug it all off because it's just too bleak and distasteful to entertain the idea that the dark Sept. 11 thread winds all the way through the NSA and the FBI and the White House and the Project for the New American Century and Dick Cheney's mangled soul and God only knows where else.

But then again, no. You have to look. You have to try. Knowledge is power, and while the truth may be spurious and slippery and messy and deep, the pursuit of it is just about the only thing we have left. Give that up, and all that's left is spiritual numbness, emotional stasis and death. So what are you waiting for?

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Either
a) because the evidence isn't compelling unless you live in a fantasy world of websites and fringe publications
Or
b) because whenever anyone attempts to put the compelling evidence into the public domain the giant lizards who rule the world have them liquidated

As opposed to, what, the real world of New York Times stories about Iraqi WMDs (for example)?

Remember the official government position in the days after 9/11 was that the air quality was fine and there was nothing to worry about. However, some doubts were expressed in the world of paranoid bloggers.

I watched a bit of it. I noticed:

1/the claim that the wtc building 7 would have been the 3rd building
in history to have collapsed b/c of a fire. What on earth is he on
about. Buildings that have caught fire often collapse, it's not even
remotely unusual.

2/according to the next sequence, in 1945 a B52 bomber crashed into
the empire state building - That's wrong, because the prototype B52
first flew in 1954.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b52.html

The empire state building plane crash was a B25, a much smaller
aircraft than either the B52, or the jet liners that flew into the
WTC.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

Using Google, I got this information in less than a minute. Yet the
blurb by the side of the screen on the page linked describes this piece as being "heavily
researched". The B52 is one of the best-known warplanes in the world.
Even people who aren't interested in aircraft know what a B52 looks
like, and how big it is. Only WW2 aircraft enthusiasts know that a
B25 is a small twin-engined light bomber. If a B52 were to fly into
the empire state building, the empire state building would collapse.
If a B25 were to have flown into the world trade center it would have
done only a small amount of damage, probably three floors or less
burnt out.

Further on, the narrator describes a bunch of other skyscraper fires,
pointing out that in none of these cases did the buildings collapse.
This is irrelevant - in none of these cases did a jet airliner loaded
up with kerosene fly into the building. In none of those cases was
there any damage inflicted by a large aeroplane striking the building
at high velocity, in none of those cases was there thousands of
gallons of kerosene burning at very high temperature.

Further on still, they show footage of the second WTC building being
hit by the aircraft. As the plane strikes, it scores a direct hit,
about 2/3 of the way across the face of the tower. The narrator
describes it as "barely hitting the south-east corner" despite the
fact that YOU CAN SEE THE ENTIRE WINGSPAN OF THE AIRCRAFT HITTING THE
TOWER, WTF? That isn't "barely hitting the south-east corner"!!!
That's a direct hit.
(further stuff snipped for brevity)

These links are useful:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

The real unanswered question, at least with regard to the Israel theory, is how a country with a budget less than 1/10 the size of Italy's could pull off such a well-orchestrated ruse on the most powerful nation in the world, and furthermore, WHY they would do it to a country that has already been a nearly unqualified ally, and that was only becoming more permissive under Bush?!?!?

I don't find it hard at all to believe that well-trained men with box-cutters could hijack planes and fly them into buildings, guided by some "lunatic in a cave" (he actually happens to be the head of a massive and well-funded global organization). I mean it's not the first fucking time somebody hijacked a fucking plane!!!

People who claim that the pentagon was hit by a missile must have forgotten their iraqi war footage of what missiles do to buildings and earth.

Oh come on, you've seen "Scooby Doo", that could easily be a projection or a hologram

the deal is, so many - so so so many - have cashed in on so many elements of post 911 society in conflict - so so many - that too much revision would rock too many comfortable boats, i deem

youre not rocking any boats, dipshit

This refers to buildings with a steel structure. (I don't remember this particular video in detail, but there are lots of videos out that point this out.)

*cough cough* this is sarcastic, right?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

x-post

Well, okay, so that's Loose Change. The steel-frame issue is mentioned in many, many places. (I realize you were asked by someone else to respond to that particular video.)

yes - sarcastic - that was the end of a message that i accidently sliced in two - I was referring to the fact that loose change works aesthetically just too well, rather like a whodunnit a la michael moore - and that we shouldn't be swayed by the rhetoric - we should question - which is why i started this thread, which is why i'm surprised to have been called a dipshit for doing so.

in any respect, i have no conviction about anything in this debate - neither for nor against conspiracies. Some of the 'evidence' in loose change has now been revealed to me as being suspect, and yet still much of the official versions of events remains even more suspect, in particular the two 'vaporising' planes of the pentagon and the field...

And that's assuming that the 9/11 planes were not reconstructed, I don't actually know if an attempt was made to reconstruct the fragments or not. I wouldn't take this guy's word for it that they weren't, that's for sure.

The "vaporising" plane at the pentagon is not even remotely suspect. A hollow metal structure - a thin metal skin, stretched over a light metal framework is propelled at high speed into a reinforced concrete structure. Why is it an issue that only tiny fragments of it were visible in the aftermath?

and your description of a plane doesn't sound a lot like a plane

In some ways, it's easier or less frightening to believe in an all-powerful entity or conspiracy (even if it's an evil one) than to accept that 19 men with boxcutters, or one nut with a gun could actually change the course of history (see also JFK, Archduke Ferdinand, etc.).

The "truth" behind 9/11, whatever that is, is murky and nebulous, but as Pash points out, I'm less concerned with debunking whether or not Building 7's collapse was physically impossible and more concerned with the greater political causes and rammifications. I do think, to a certain extent, that all this wild theorising actually discounts the more important stuff - it becomes lost in this haze where any criticism can be dismissed as "tin hattery" or "nude spock" (whatever that means) and it becomes a namecalling exercise.

I like conspiracy theories, but I do think that they distract from genuine issues in this case. However, the way to stop them from distracting is counter them with and remind them of the actual issues.

It makes me angry when I see some bogus documentary, some guy I suspect dishonestly mistaking a b52 for a b25 in order to make his case, describing an aircraft hitting the face of a building full on as barely hitting the corner of a building and so on. It makes me angry because 1/it's a load of fucking shit. Every physical phenomena - wtc7 collapsing, the "vanishing" pentagon airliner, the plumes of dust coming out of the wtc building windows, all of it is perfectly explicable. See that popular science link above. It makes me extra angry because 2/real historical isssues relating to this - US middle-eastern foreign policy post 1945 - the propping of the mujahedein (sp?) in afghanistan before the soviet invasion and after, the propping of saddam hussein's regime for over 20 years, the simultaneous propping of 2 opposing regimes during the iran/iraq war "in an ideal world, they'd both lose" - grim, unglamorous stuff like that, which doesn't make for arresting documentaries, that all gets hidden behind this bullshit. But that's the stuff that's relevant, not, you know, "look, the jetliner was modified to fire a missile into the WTC", wtf.

exactly what money and power was gained here? what money and power were the unnamed conspiritators imagining to get? the bombing of the WTC and the Pentagon has only negative consequences for everyone except osama bin laden. it made bush look weak, it made america feel frightened, republicans are losing their grip on congress, bush's poll numbers are in the toilet, and so much money is being spent on the current military adventure in iraq that new, lucrative projects for america's stalwart defense contractors are being shelved left and right.

i have no trouble believing that some officials knew more than just 'chatter' about the time/date of the attack and kept quiet for self-serving purposes, tho i strongly doubt its anyone we already know the name of

and i don't think it's wrong or tin-hatted to say that certain defense contractors are doing pretty well thanks to that "current military adventure in iraq."

many xposts

xpost, i know ethan!

God I hate this place

"which planes? which buildings? when?"

http://www.atf.gov/kids/graphics/art_contest/dsc_554820%25.jpg

"oh, okay, I'll just call the FAA and have them shut down all airports for a month."

look, any president of any nation would have gotten a huge "bounce" from having two 100-story towers in the heart of their densest, most famous urban area turned to dust. but he eventually reacted just like osama hoped he would (after a shockingly effective and restrained operation in afghanistan) so he really spent that capital making a downpayment on osama's jihad

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/The_da_vinci_code.jpg/222px-The_da_vinci_code.jpg

COMING THIS SUMMER TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU

Only recently did the our government finally make "all the footage" available to the public. In this new footage, you see no gun or even a hint of a gun where it was supposed to be, but standing in the grass (nowhere near where the shot was said to come from) you clearly see a man firing a rifle (flash coming out the end) right at the president. But unfortunately you can't see his face, of course. Also, someone else who was filming just happened to stop filming just before coming to the spot where the man with the rifle was standing. If she had continued, the assassin would be caught on tape plain as day. Of course. Darn those odds!

This "new" footage is proof positive that the real assassin was never brought to justice and very suspicious that the FBI sat on this for so long. Also, remember several "experts" said his brains blew apart perfectly naturally based on the physics of the supposed trajectory, which we now know is a completely false trajectory. It is obvious now that these "experts" were presenting a false testimony. His brains clearly blew up according to the laws of physics confirmed by real trajectory, the bullet fired from dude with the rifle standing in the grass. Of course, "nutcases" pointed out this all along, didnt' they?

9/11 is the same sort of situation regarding "experts" backing up the official lies.

-- +++ (...), March 30th, 2006 12:44 PM. (later)

what, like this one?

http://www.foogle.biz/world_trade_center/tourist_guy.jpg

The stuff I saw on tv last week. New is a relative term. It's not ass-breakingly new, but who would break their ass to publish a story about new footage at this point, anyway? AKA: perfect time to release the footage. Although I really don't understand why they don't just burn shit like this.

(I did that AKA thing on purpose for all of you who loved it so much in the Loose Change video :-))

wow, that's specific.

Theres the dude with the gun:
http://www.ricenpeas.com/Images/JFK/Top%20bar.jpg

Well, to a point, I think that conspiracy theory in general is an attempt to make sense of a world full of chaos and contingency. The idea that there is a supreme cabal of secret cheifs running the world is marginally more comforting, since at least it suggests that history is engineered through human agency.

This is not to say that there are no conspiracies, no secrets, no cabals, or no corridors of power hidden from all but the most privileged -- but at least their plans and actions are subject to uncertainty and unpredictability, just like anyone else.

i read this as 'secret chefs'

In Australia the aborigines speak of a reptilian race that lives underneath the Earth and governs over men. The Aborigines have spoken of going into the Earth where these beings resided. There they claim there is extensive technology.

Cecrops, the legendary first King of Athens was said to have been half man, half snake.

Physicist tells me that inter space planes do not have a natural energy source like a dimension. Any entities operating there would need to create an energy source for themselves and they have fear. When we feel fear it generates a vibration, an energy field. Every time we think and feel, no matter what our state of being may be, we are sending out "broadcast" waves that vibrate to the frequency of the particular thought or emotion. We feel these frequencies coming from people in what we call "vibes".

George W. Bush after 9 / 11: "The hijackers were instruments of evil who died in vain. Behind them is a cult of evil that seeks to harm the innocent and thrives on human suffering. Theirs is the worst kind of cruelty, the cruelty that is fed, not weakened, by tears. Theirs is the worst kind of violence, pure malice while daring to claim the authority of God. We cannot fully understand the designs and power of evil; it is enough to know that evil, like a goodness, exists. And in the terrorists evil has found a willing servant." The cruelty that is "fed, not weakened, by tears". Exactly.

PROVEN BY SCIENCE

what is this? new-age parapsychology? it's such bs. that "vibes" thing can be explained otherwise like body language cues

Dr. Carroll Quigley is best known as Bill Clinton's professor of
history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He
also taught at Princeton and at Harvard.
His 1300 page book "Tragedy and Hope" is unique among other
history books in its exposure of the role of International Banking
cabal behind-the-scenes in world affairs.
He does not spend a lot of time explaining what he calls
"unorthodox" financial methods as opposed to "orthodox" financial
methods which can be be distinguished by the fact that "orthodox"
finance has governments allowing banks to create the money and then
borrowing that money from them at interest to create massive growth of
public debt whereas "unorthodox" finance has government Treasuries
create the money and borrowing that money from the Treasury without
interest to create a stable debt where all payments go against the
principal.

The recurrent theme of these historical texts is the
oppression of the poor by the International bankers. When I speak of
Rothschild and Rockefeller (R&R), I am treating them as the epitome of
the parasitic usurer families for according to the golden rule, those
who have the gold makes the rules and throughout most of recent
history, the Rothschild and Rockefeller families have been the most
prominent owners of the gold. Blame for all the genocides and most
murders of recent history can be laid at their feet though it is a
responsibility shared by their banker cronies the world over. I know
that if Christ came back and had a whip in hand, it's these
moneylenders he's go after, once again.
Over and over, Quigley details governments acting for the
benefits of the owners of money to the detriment of the poor to the
point where the poor strike or riot rather than face starvation
quietly.
Quigley, on a regular basis, mentions orthodox versus unorthodox
financial methods without ever detailing the unorthodox methods
responsible for the happiness of the citizens though he goes into
great depth about the orthodox financial methods which result in such
oppressive misery.
Whereas orthodox financial methods can be best explained as
government licensing private banks to create the money and then borrow
it from them at interest whereas unorthodox financial methods can be
best explained as government Treasury creating the money and paying no
interest to middlemen. Recent use of orthodox financial methods is
detailed at: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/np2.htm
I will be studying his book in conjunction with the greatest
book about monetary systems in antiquity, David Astle's "Babylonian
Woe," In anticipation of a major improvement on the current unsafe
engineering design of money, I will be arguing that the unorthodox
financial methods we will be studying are better than the orthodox
financial methods that now are enslaving all the planet's nations to
insurmountable debt.
commentary at: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/quig00.htm

The correct answer would be, of course, the person who wrote that book, which is not me, apparently.

But having lots of money helps.

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

also, as of this afternoon, i no longer am gettin' paid, since i got downsized. boo.

The fact that simulations of terrorist attacks were being carried out both on 9/11 and at the exact location of the London bombings on their date is also at least mildly interesting, no matter what you believe to have actually happened.

9/11/1922 was the beginning date of the British Mandate in Palestine.

The idea that terrorists planned to re-do the 1993 basement bombing, while racheting up the number of bombs inside the buildings and adding the shock element of airplane crashes, seems more believable to me than any of "Bush knew" bullshit.

In this event, the government and 9/11 commission would have been involved only in the cover-up, to hide the extent to which their security had been breached (I know, the breach was horrible regardless).

Obv how the hell conspirators could gain enough access to the WTC in order to rig them with explosives is, of course, totally unknown and adds a degree of implausibility to the whole thing.

^^^ lol u lost

I read about half of _Tragedy & Hope_, which is one of the longest
non-reference books I'm ever encoutered. Although technically Quigley was a leftist, he was more like the prophet of internationalism and technocracy.

His general thesis: It's the duty and responsibility of educated, wealthy Americans to coerce the rest of the world into peace and prosperity. I think both of our parties are generally in line with this thinking, which is all well and good now that we're making the rules - but one of the days the chickens will come home to roost.

Of late, I've started having this strong suspicion that the whole "9/11 'truth'" thing is some sort of cointelpro-esque operation designed to draw attention away from the US govt's security failings by discrediting govt critics, using this ridiculous story to make them appear to be paranoid fantasists.

The Feds didn't really have to mount a full-scale COINTELPRO op either. Appointing Kissinger to be the 9/11 Commission head might as well have been a guilty confession.

That recent Lawrence Wright article on John O'Neil and the Cole investigation was pretty fantastic.

"Yeah me and my bud here just decided to wire the WTC to collapse sometime and then these planes flew into it! So we tripped the switch for kicks."

Ok, so the government managed to smuggle in and install enough explosives in BOTH TOWERS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER to demolish them, and then FLEW PLANES INTO THEM TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE TERRORISM, meanwhile, somehow either disposing of the real flights or getting a bunch of actors to play fake grieving families. And why did they do all this? Either so some investors could make money on short-sold stocks, or so we could have a pretext for a completely botched invasion of Iraq.

And the Big Dig was designed not to collapse. And the Titanic was designed not to sink.

And of course, every intrepid internet investigator is suddenly a self-appointed demolition expert (and steel expert, and explosives expert, and general physics expert.) But if it was really so compelling wouldn't every ACTUAL demolition expert in the country be raising hell?

veep4lifebitchz: "okay okay, so listen. we bring down the twin towers, right? we shoot a cruise missile into the pentagon (cross yr fingers that no one sees it or better yet, sees it as a united airlines/american airlines flight). we pretend a band of heroic passengers crashed a flight into rural pennsylvania. and let's not forget dessert: bringing down wtc 7!"

condi_r_99: "why wtc 7?"

veep4lifebitchz: "that'll really fuck with 'em because they won't expect it!"

condi_r_99: "oh right! think we'll get away with this?"

veep4lifebitchz: "yeah. now let's wire those fucking buildings and pray the pilots hit them in just the right spot."

WHAT A COINCIDENCE

Reading this thread makes happy.

Yeah, and I thought alot of it was bullshit. Note above, I'm not spouting any conspiracy theories. The "conspiracy theory" response is a straw man argument, which I shan't dignify
here any longer.

xpost

Preferably all of the above.

of course, most americans don't actually hate the government (i.e., they don't think that congress should be dismantled and replaced with a parliament or that we should suspend the constitution and elect a dictator for life), they just hate the people governing them.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

So far, it seems pretty on the money.

those loose change guys are total retards

thanks for the link though it has raised my blood pressure somewhat

and the agent provocateur argument becomes tempting also, because the more ludicrous the 'alternative/real/conspiracist' version is, the more *any* non-official readings of anything become tarred with the same brush.

what i find interesting, is, the people who made this video, how/when did they come to the hypothesis they did? was it immediate? presumably it tied into their outlook pre 9/11. i wonder what their history is

Not to mention it's just another example of a theory with no evidence except "things don't quite seem right."

Seems highly plausible to me that it was pretty hot in there to melt the structure.

I should think that the first rule of intelligence is to restrict operational knowledge to the minimum number of people. By preparing 20 hijackers distributed across four jetliners, the planners went beyond what was required for a failsafe in case of operational failure and unreasonably jeopardized the operation by making it larger than the operational requirements.

haha

they weren't planes, they were missiles disguised with holograms, obv.

well of course, it's nude spock/conspiracy theorist s.o.p. to come up with a non-technical explanation that says that the more socialized/educated are on the wrong side/dupes/dumber.

but it wouldn't be a nude spock post without troll s.o.p. like 'neocon juniors.' though i suppose that's no less ridiculous than the notion that little miss sunshine is the best movie ever (fuckuppery->hollywood ending - of course it is!).

The one thing that I do remember from architecture school is that the WTC was *not* constructed from the standard steel frame architecture. It was constucted from a then-experimental concrete shell architecture.

I'm not getting into anything else, but yes, it's entirely possible that an experimental concrete-shell built building could behave in ways that no steel-frame built building has before or since.

Anyway, that's just my 2p. Personally, I think this conspiracy crap distracts from the truth about the flaws of the US and its government and intelligence agencies, rather than pointing them out, but whatevs.

anybody know if we have yellow-carding on this board?

-- Brad Laner (b...), September 15th, 2006.

But Brad, you keep harping on this idea that you don't think the plane crash and subsequent fires, molten jet fuel pourage, transformer explosions, etc. could have caused the collpase. So what could have caused it then? Every alternative explanation I've heard so far is FAR LESS PLAUSIBLE than the "official explanation."

But I think this link debunks a lot of the supposed "inconsistencies" about the collapse of the towers:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

and until you have a rebuttal for all the points here, I'm not really interested in arguing this any further.

So how were the buildings wired for demolition without anyone at all noticing?

Without knowing who did it and why, your theory has no explanatory power.

No. I have a better-formed theory with more explanatory power, jojo.

Your thinking about this seems to have no rationale or purpose. You seem to be convinced there is some merit to your thinking, but you just don't seem to know what it might be. In any attempt to persuade others of the merit of your POV, this is akin to being unable to locate your ass in the dark, using both hands. Enjoy.

-- Brad Laner (b...) (webmail), September 15th, 2006 11:49 AM. (Brad Laner)

aren't you going to tuck me in? nooo don't touch me there

oh yeah, and you know you guys got short-shrift in David Cavanagh's book, right?

yes looks like they did. should be zilinskas.

Actually, brad apparently played in a bunch of like, bands and stuff, including Medicine:
http://www.bradlaner.com

He even guested on an Eno album and the last Vetiver.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), September 15th, 2006.

BOW AND P[HEA-R WHEN YUO SEE THIS CHALKED ON TEH PAVEMENT, or SCRaTHCeD oN THe dOOr, FEWL!!!1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/MutedPosthorn.png

(The 9/11-doubters hit a special place on my vomit spot, though, thanks to their lowering of tone, disregard of science, self-indulgent knee-jerkery of all stripes, and a few other, more personal reasons that I don't think I need to elaborate upon, thank you very much.)

not his nephew, jesus fucking christ.

They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "No one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff," he says.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy_2.htm

I'm not sure how they expect to stop this at the airports unless they plan to cut off everyone's fingers. Such extreme measures could be easily sidestepped, however, by a bizarre enough distraction, such as pulling a one-man band out from behind your back and marching straight to the plane. The noise of a one-man marching band will only distract for a moment; this must be followed by a quick change into a stewardess uniform once boarding the plane. If security is still hot on your trail, use your newfound "girlish" charms to lull them into smitten complacency. Just don't let them see your little fluffy tail. If worse comes to worst, you can always employ those pesky gremlins.

good enough for me.

If you find yourself on a plane which is about to crash and/or if you find yourself in a burning building about to hit freefall demolition speeds, simply STEP OUT THE WINDOW just before hitting the ground. However, if it is simply too hot, you may alternatively step out the window while still several stories high up in the air, just DON'T LOOK DOWN. Remain standing in mid-air until help arrives. If possible, sit on an imaginary chair and read a book or periodical so as to avoid the conscious acknowledgement of nearby clouds and birds.

http://www.laner.com/

2xpost

I broadly agree with Ned and Elvis here: there is really no fucking point farting around with WTC scenarios that wreck havoc with lex parsimoniae when so many of Bush & Co.'s subsequent sins in Iraq and elsewhere are not even remotely a kabbalistic secret.

So no, I don't agree. There may not be a kabbalistic secret, I am sure there wasn't/isn't, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned. Don't go from one extreme to the next, y'know. And it IS important to question past events to realize why things now are happening (or could happen) and that some people should be questioned.

It doesn't mean that, by questioning the past, you totally ignore what's happening now. People are able to multitask.

I mean, shit, I don't buy the big conspiracy theories, but I don't think we should just blatantly shove it all in the dustbin and giggle at people who don't believe everything that's presented.

But hey whatever. I'm sure you'll rip my post apart. You can check my website. ;-)

xpost

Also, no, I wasn't the one looking for Laner's site for DIRT! (though I have been on his site, FWIW); instead, I found the stuff about Vetiver et al. in the A-ron's post Laner himself quoted above.

this looks interesting but hey why actually discuss the issues of 9/11 when we can brand people as kooks?

I kinda thought by making a distinction between "questioning the past" and "fabulating shit unconstrained by evidence" I was sorta saying this. Guess I wasn't, then.

Your use of "neocon juniors" earlier belies this, though: in the context of this thread, the only way I can understand it as an insult is if it implies that those who doubt the doubters are in league with BushCo., wittingly or unwittingly doing the job of spin control for them. And the only way I can see "facts" about free fall, the melting point of steel, thermite, etc. as being inconvenient to the Bush administration is if one implies these facts point to the BushCo.'s complicity in 9/11.

I also question:

- The mysterious stock transactions in the days just prior to Sept. 11
- Why were the Treasury Dept.'s investigations into Saudi/Al-Taqua/Al Qaeda financial connections were suspended?
- Why were John O'Neill's FBI investigations thwarted (sure, the guy was kinda a dick, but I *want* someone who's super aggressive in that role)?
- Why the extra forces weren't sent into Tora Bora when Osama Bin Laden was cornered and in the CIA's sights?
- Is Grover Norquist acting in the best interests of the US?
- Was Ahmed Chalabi spying for Iran, and why is he even still around?
- What exactly was Mohamed Atta doing in Florida for all that time?
- Why was Sibel Edmonds silenced?
- Why are Adnan Khashoggi and John Gray involved in the 9/11 Truth movement?

Once those questions are answered, then I'll have some time for WTC7

I've been wondering more about both of these for some time.

Everyone always talks about the various battles for Monte Cassino but little about why they were there in the first place.

Ever wonder what people will say about the Iraq War in a couple hundred years?

Yes I do. My prediction will be "whatever happened to the USA?"

Those are all excellent questions that begged to be answered, Elvis.

I have NEVER SEEN ANYONE CLAIM THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY "FIRE"

I'm sorry I'm SHOUTING, but I keep posting LINKS THAT EXPLAIN ALL THIS, and people keep IGNORING THEM.

If you're talking about the "short selling" thing, I can answer your question: there is no mystery. Short selling is an enormously popular method of investing and goes on in huge volume all the time. I'm not sure which "mysterious" stock transactions your referring to in this particular case. Maybe it's "the Israelis," or maybe it's a different group, or maybe all of the above. But there's nothing mysterious about it.

For example, I'm sure if you looked into it, you could find plenty of people who short-sold stocks that could have been expected to be hurt by Hurricane Katrina only weeks before the Hurricane. Does that somehow imply that they had foreknowledge of the hurricane?

Or let's say a group of Israeli investors buys a large number of shares in an oil exploration company, and only weeks later the company discovers a major new oil field. Does that in any way imply that the investors had foreknowledge?

However, I would like answers to some of your other questions as well.

"I don't think"

Did you apologize for the Chertoff thing, too?

lolz

Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

also this:

For example, I'm sure if you looked into it, you could find plenty of people who short-sold stocks that could have been expected to be hurt by Hurricane Katrina only weeks before the Hurricane. Does that somehow imply that they had foreknowledge of the hurricane?

is a terrible example since hurricances take weeks to form.

Good point. I'm suddenly reminded of "No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees."

Furthermore, there seems to be no massive outcry from the engineering community or people in the demolition industry, the two groups of people whom I'd expect to have the best ability to notice if the collapse reeked of controlled demolition (not to mention the dubiousness of the proposition that anyone could actually rig the towers for demolition with no one noticing).

I won't claim to know any more about engineering and physics than Brad Laner or anyone else here. But yeah, I trust "science" and "the experts." They're "people who spend their lives studying laws and phenomena relevant to this event." They're not "bloggers seeking the truth."

It's fun to go down the list of members of the 9/11 Scholars for truth - folklore professor, English professor, software designer, wha - oh, an engineer! Let's Google him. Oh, I see. He believes he's been contacted by aliens, and that the military has detonated an "anti-matter weapon" on Jupiter.

examples please ?

And I'm certain we'd find no nutty folks at all on the debunking hobbyist side.

http://www.eskimo.com/~tegan/blog/torvald/TrollMugshotFront.jpg

-- Brad Laner (b...), September 18th, 2006.

Brad, what I'm getting at here is that it's hard to find a NON-nutty person on the "truth" side - at least a non-nutty person who is also qualified to evaluate the subject.

I mean if you go to their membership list there are no more than a handful of people who even claim any kind of background in a relevant area of engineering, for example, and none of those people appear to be at a particularly high level in their field.

Contrast that with the multitudes of high-level people in the engineering world who do not seem to have great qualms about the "official explanation" -- either that or the government cabal has cowed the entire engineering world into submission.

Ok. He wrote a paper in which he claimed archaeological evidence for Christ having visited the Native Americans.

Besides that, I believe his main area is energy.

Christ's Visit in Ancient America

By Steven E. Jones

The Book of Mormon makes the bold statement that Jesus Christ, shortly following His resurrection, visited people in the New World and invited them to "feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am...the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. ... Ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice..." (3 Nephi 11:14, 15:21). The Bible states that Jesus "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days" and that this witness of Christ would be "unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:3-8) and that Jesus would indeed visit "other sheep" (John 10:16).

Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe - but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!

Figure 1 portrays the death of the great Mayan Deity known as Itzamna, as found in a painting from a classic Mayan vase. (Marvin Cohodas, "Transformations: Relationships Between Image and Text" in Word and Image in Maya Culture, 220). Notice that both hands of this dying Deity show definite round spots. The artist evidently took some pains to bring the right arm over the head, and the spot on this hand can be seen as well as the marking on the left hand. Only one foot is visible, and it again displays a round marking! The very notion that the great and kindly Itzamna would die is suggestive; we soon learn that this Deity will later be resurrected!

In describing the scene, Marvin Cohodas explains that this is related to the beautiful legend of Hunab Pu "who dies and travels to the underworld later to be reborn [or resurrected]" (Ibid, 229-230). While much could be said about this legend [see Jones 1999], I would just comment briefly on the death and resurrection of Hunab Pu/Itzamna and the symbolic connection to the planet Venus. Although lacking telescopes, the Maya achieved an impressive breadth of knowledge about the stars and planets. In particular, they studied and recorded data on the planet Venus because it represented to them a Deity. Closer to the sun than earth, Venus appears in the sky as "the evening star" just after sunset, or as "the morning star" just before sunrise. When the travel of Venus takes it in front of or behind the sun, it cannot be seen for a few days. Thus, Venus appears as the "evening star" then disappears for several days after which it re-appears as the "morning star."

A non-LDS scholar explains the Mayan legend:
"According to tradition, [Hunab Pu] appeared as morning star after being dead for [several] days, the period between disappearance of Venus as evening star and the planet's reappearance as morning star. As Venus as morning star is frequently depicted with death symbols, one may assume that he obtained these in his journey through the underworld during the [few] days between his disappearance in the west as evening star and reappearance as morning star in the east." MHW 172

Thus, in the Mayan view, the Deity Hunab Pu/Itzamna is associated with Venus and the "morning star" with his resurrection. The Maya followed the death of the evening star and its transit through the world of spirits. Men would follow this path also. Venus as Morning Star thus signifies the Deity following his resurrection. The notion that Christ, the Morning Star of the New Testament (Rev. 22:16), descended into the underworld prior to His resurrection is found in the Bible:

"Now that he [Christ] ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Ephesians 4:9 (See also I Peter 3:18-19.)

The notion of a Deity who dies then is resurrected is remarkable among the Maya and reminiscent of the Christian belief. Striking indeed is the fact that the visible foot and both hands of this Deity as he died are each marked by a round spot [Figure 1].

Mayan Deity Itzamna

Look at the sculpture in Figure 2 - notice anything peculiar about the hands? George E. Stuart and Gene S. Stuart describe the sculpture as "...the exalted Itzamna, lord of sky and earth" (The Mysterious Maya, 97). And Robert Elliot Smith describes the line drawing of a similar sculpture [shown in Figure 3] as "Itzamna, the old god...[with] prominent cheekbones, markedly Hebraic nose..." (Robert Eliot Smith, The Pottery of Mayapan, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and ethnology, Harvard University, 1971, pp. 50-52). Yes, the nose does look "Hebraic" as he says, not like the typical Mayan nose. Interesting. [I quote only non-LDS sources in this paper, by the way. And all of the artwork pre-dates Columbus by many years.] According to Michael Coe, Itzamna can be traced to the hieroglyphic record to "the mid-second century after Christ" (Early Steps, 117). Would you agree that the holes in the hands or wrists of this Deity are clearly portrayed?

Who is Itzamna?

Before going on to more ancient Mayan artwork, let's see what the non-LDS scholars say about this Deity Itzamna:
"Chief of the beneficent gods was Itzamna. He was the personification of the east, the rising sun with all of its manifold mythical associations....He was said to have come across the eastern waters. One of his titles was Lakin-Chan, the serpent of the East...As light is synonymous with life and knowledge, he was said to have been the founder of the culture of the Itzas and the Mayas. He was the first priest of their religion; invented writing and books...As a physician he was famous, not only knowing the magic herbs but possessed of the power of healing by the laying on of hands...For his wisdom he was spoken of as the royal or noble master of knowledge" (Daniel Brinton, American Hero-Myths).

"Itzamna was also...able to cure the sick and even bring the dead to life. People came from all over the land to his shrine, and for that reason he was known as Kabul, 'Maker with his hands'...it seems to be the equivalent of Bitol, 'Maker,' title of the Quiche creator" (J. Eric S. Thompson, The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, 229).

"Itzamna was the high god of the Maya. Fitting his role as paramount king, he often bears the title of ahaulil, or "lord," in the Postclassic Yucatec codices....he was considered as the first priest and the inventor of writing....Itzamna was identified with the powers of curing" (Mary Miller and Karl Taube, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya, 99-100).

"The greatest god of the Yucatec Maya, but in some respects the most puzzling, is Itzam Na. As we shall see, he came near to incorporating most of the other major gods in his person...the Indians of [Yucatan], before the introduction of idolatry, worshiped a single god named Hunab Itzamna (Itzam Na). Hunab, "Unique," was a name applied to the creator....we deduce that in one of his aspects Itzam Na was the creator" (J. Eric S. Thompson, Maya History and Religion, 209-210).

These descriptions of Itzamna compare favorably with those given of the resurrected Lord in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon, in which the people come to the temple at Bountiful in the New World to hear Jesus Christ, to touch his wounded hands, and to be healed. Now back to the artwork of the ancient Maya as it whispers to us from the dust.

Marks on Hands of God K

Figures 4a and 4b show photographs of ancient painted capstones from a Mayan temple in the Yucatan peninsula, from a ruin known today as Dzibilnocac. Eric Thompson suggests that the paintings depict God K of the Maya (F. Nelson, personal communication), who is sometimes identified with Itzamna (Nicholas P. Dunning, Lords of the Hills: Ancient Maya Settlement in the Puuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico, 142).The original painting on the upper right (4b) is badly faded, but if you search near the center of the painting you will see a clear black spot on the palm of this deity's hand. In fact, the spot on the hand is among the clearest surviving features on this painting. The line drawing (Figure 4d) retains this circle on the back of the hand, but shows only an open circle whereas the Mayan artist clearly filled in the spot on the hand. The other capstone (Figures 4a and 4c) also shows the deity with a circular marking on the palm of the hand. (The fingers are not detailed in this case.)Figure 5 is another depiction of Itzamna. Although perhaps not as striking as other paintings, we see markings on the left hand and on the wrist as well. The right hand shows a clear mark on the palm. The examples in Figure 6 portray circle-motif markings on both hands and wrists. These three were painted on ancient Mayan vases, and do not necessarily represent Deity as the previous paintings and sculptures do. Figure 7 shows a stone carving at Yaxchilan, Mexico, also displaying marks in both the hand and wrist. (Photograph by my son David E. Jones, with line drawing by artist Clifford Dunston.) Latter-day Saints generally believe that nails were driven through both the hands and wrists of Jesus (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 14.)

Hands in Mayan Hieroglyphs

Do marked hands appear in Mayan hieroglyphic writing? Yes they do, numbering in the thousands of marked hands! Figure 8 is taken from Piedras Negras, Guatemala, and provides typical examples of marked hand symbolism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. I should mention that a Mayan stone carving may show an actual hole or cavity in the hand, while the modern line-drawing of the carved glyph often simply uses a circle. Usually the wrist is not shown in these carvings. Figure 9 displays Maya glyphs representing "the god of the seventh day." (E. Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, pl 76.)
As I have asked non-LDS archaeologists about the hand-markings, they have generally replied that either they don't know, or perhaps this is a protruding wrist bone as the hand is severed from the body. I don't know who initiated this idea, for I have not seen anyone write it down in published material. Further thought would suggest that the wrist has two bones not just one, and that many of the hieroglyphics show the single mark near the middle of the back of the hand or the palm. Several cases have been brought forth which show marks in both wrist and hand. Finally, the spot is seen on hands of Itzamna while connected to the rest of his body, both as he dies and evidently following his resurrection.

Serious non-LDS commentary continues: "[Note] the close relationship between Maya hieroglyphic writing and religion, for there is no doubt that many forms and perhaps the names of hieroglyphs have religious connotations" (Thompson, Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, 9).

"As in the case of several of the day signs already examined, the design has been shown to reproduce a characteristic attribute of the deity to whom the day was dedicated; it is virtually certain that the hand is the symbol of the god of the seventh day....The hand is also associated with Itzamna...." (Thompson, Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing, 76).
Thus, the marked hand symbol is connected to Deity-in particular with Itzamna, who died, went to the world of spirits and then was resurrected. All of this is reminiscent of Jesus Christ, supporting the claim of the Book of Mormon that New World inhabitants knew of Jesus long before Columbus arrived. There is much additional evidence, and the interested reader is pointed to reference [Jones 1999].

The hypothesis that started my search, that Christ's "other sheep" would have artwork depicting deliberately marked hands, has led to a remarkable conclusion: Hands (and wrists) with clear holes or marks are depicted in the art as well as the hieroglyphic writings of the Maya of Middle America, dating from within about 200 years of the time of Christ. These hands are associated with Itzamna, a kindly Deity associated with healing and teaching the people. He is shown dying in Mayan art, later to be resurrected. Finally, the Maya await the return of this great resurrected Deity in the not-distant future. [See Jones, 99]

These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to "other sheep" who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don't you start reading right away? The Apostle Paul said: "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) Why not? I've done this and for me, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable new witness for Christ, standing as a companion to the Bible.
Appendix: Excerpts from a beautiful Mesoamerican poem that I believe is relevant, providing further insights into the beliefs of the Maya:

The kettle drums color of jade resound,
Brilliant dew has fallen over the earth.
In the house of yellow feathers
it pours down with force.

His son has come down, descended there in the springtime.
He is the Giver of Life.
His songs make flourish, he adorns himself.

O friends, let us rejoice, let us embrace one another.
We walk the flowering earth.
Nothing can bring an end here to flowers and songs,
they are perpetuated in the house of the Giver of Life.
Friendship is a rain of precious flowers.
We are here, we are living here,
but we are only beggars O my friends.

Where do we go, oh! Where do we go?
Are we dead beyond, or do we yet live?
Will there be existence again?
Will the joy of the Giver of Life be there again?
Where is the source of light, since that which gives life hides itself?

Let our hearts not be troubled.
One day we must go, one night we will descend into the region of mystery.
We will have gone to His house,
but our word shall live here on earth.
Remove trouble from your hears, O my friends.
Indeed one must go elsewhere; beyond, happiness exists.

O Lord of the close vicinity, it is beyond, with those who dwell in Your house,
that I will sing songs to You, in the innermost of heaven.
My heart rises; I fix my eyes upon You, next to You, beside You, O Giver of Life!

(Excerpted from Native Mesoamerican Spirituality, edited with a foreword, introduction and notes by Miguel Leon-Portilla. Translations by Miguel Leon-Protilla, J. O. Arthur Anderson, Charles E. Dibble and Munro S. Edmonson. NY: Paulist Press, 1980.

(the people in related fields, of course, lend some credence, but its just not enough for me:/ )

perhaps these kind of things are 'gut feelings' type of things, and its difficult to have a mind changed in either direction. if anyone's got any structural engineers backing this horse (rather than people in related fields), then ^that^ is going to be more difficult to refute

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), September 18th, 2006.

lol, first image coming to mind when i read that was this:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b2/180px-Sam_and_Ralph_clock.png

i'd say it's a more significant film than loose change by an order of magnitude, partly because it doesn't enter into discussions about the towers' structure and questions like that. it's very sad, affecting, damning and powerful.

It isn't necessarily an either/or proposition?

So, then, I just wonder who's more credible: a typical mormon with valid questions which even the 9/11 Investigation agrees with or a hypocritical, totally unethical guy who hangs out with a bunch of people who are encouraging and actively involved in the perpetuating war in order to bring about Armageddon?

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

So, I wonder how that research is going? We won't be hearing anything more, I'm pretty sure.

Point is, it's a non-issue. The comparison you're making does not justify an argument. One guy's continuing research vs. inconclusive and most likely final research? What's the issue? Jones is exaamining something the 9/11 commission specifically did not even begin.

^^ continuing research

and yes it is batshit that someone could plant explosives. but not impossible.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...), September 18th, 2006 10:29 AM. (Hurting) (later)

er, um, as pointed out before, dubya wanted to appoint henry kissinger to lead the commission. and members of the commission and their staff definitely complained of the white house not cooperating very well when it actually convened, so i don't really buy what you're selling here about it just being a "rubber stamp." did you not actually follow the proceedings, or what?

have never heard ANYONE CLAIM THE STEEL MELTED

I didn't notice anyone reply to this, but there seem to be a number of sources who claim to have seen molten steel at base near time of collapse and IIRC, after.

(xpost)

I think Bush's obstructiveness had more to do with wanting to avoid blame than wanting to cover up the secret controlled demolition of the towers.

Most of the comparisons here are specious, starting with response #1 to this thread.

Bush claims the tearists did it, Jones claims analysis of the materials indicate an inside job. Therefore, we can compare their relative wackiness of these two individuals, if we are going to focus on the relative wackiness of one of them.

There was MOLTEN STEEL dripping from the windows by the end of it all. Ive seen footage. Clearly something very hot made the structure fail. And then it fell down as a result. Pretty simple really. I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to find a stranger explanation to something they saw happen right in front of their eyes. Cope with the unthinkable, I suppose.
-- Trayce (spamspanke...), September 15th, 2006.

that the substance could be anything else, that the apparent coloring could be partly the result of the light or the footage quality, etc. Can you do this or cite someone who can?

Would it matter? It doesn't seem like it would.

It was fairly obviously a typo, I would have thought?

Of course it would. You're claiming that there was molten steel falling, which could only have been the result of thermite. Plausability of setting up for enough thermite reactions inside the walls of the WTC aside, why are you so convinced it was molten steel? Because of something about yellow streaks falling from the towers, right? So why are you so convinced those streaks were steel?

I was talking about flaming jet fuel (probably mixed with other flaming materials) pouring/shooting down elevator shafts, not outside the building.

http://www.gallerize.com/Gallerize.News.htm

Also note:

"GO TO MY PDF E-BOOK SHOP TO BUY THESE EPOCH-MAKING REVELATIONS NOW!"

the entire "9/11 'truth'" movement, as I posted above, strikes me as an example of something that could have been put out there deliberately, as you say, to discredit those w/a dissenting opinion.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/050906fringetheories.htm

Whether or not these really were cutter charges, and whether or not the building collapsed in the manner it did due to hours of unchecked fire, its unusual contruction around an electricity substation or the large amount of diesel fuel it contained can remain moot points as far as I'm concerned.

But given that we are still waiting for the official explanation as to why WTC7 fell in the way it did, I think the visual impression of that building's collapse in itself explains to some degree how some aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have evolved, and it's understandable that they would.

I'd urge anyone with the time to watch Press for Truth at the link I posted upthread, as it doesn't contain ominous music or present a conspiracy theory. It simply documents the terrible struggles the families bereaved by 9/11 have had in attempting to find out what happened to their loved ones, and it's well made.

Popular Mechanics seized upon the no planes at the WTC theory and dishonestly exhaulted it as a core argument of the 9/11 truth movement.

I've read the Popular Mechanics piece several times, and it doesn't do any such thing!

I think in general. I feel like there's a stranglehold on reality. What person at this point really wants to go on record against the consensus opinion of reality?

We used to rent office space from an architectural firm and there seemed to be an agreement there that the collapsing towers were quite fishy. The head of another architectural firm we became close with due to a years-long working relationship, agreed that the wtc collapse was "bullshit" and that Bush was "totally full of shit." An almost relative of mine, who is an architect, also told me it seems unlikely. But, we recently did the promotional work for Spitzer, so, you know... liberal spin.

that's easily the most paranoiac notion on this whole thread.

I don't concern myself with that and I wasn't focusing on WTC7 except in remarking on the visual impression it gives when falling in the available video footage. I think the stories the families have to tell are more compelling.

but please, if you'd like to use asking questions about it to discredit other people more by willfully misrepresenting what they write, go ahead, i guess.

The most ridiculous thing, of course being that Bush and his buddies want to perpetuate war to speed up Armageddon.

Yeah, obviously the past activities of COINTELPRO being the stuff of myth and hearsay, whereas 2 large airplanes flying at high speed into skyscrapers not being enough to knock them down, so the buildings had to be prewired for remote demolition being the stuff of pure rational scientific thought, right?

Also, you know, NS, I don’t know how else to put this, but I’ve been assuming you’re more clued-in than you actually are, and that’s been a big mistake on my part.

OK then, let's assume for a minute that WTC 1, 2, & 7 were all controlled demolitions from pre-planted explosives and that a small, manageable team was able to do this. Why bother crashing the planes then? Coordinated hijackings would introduce a whole new set of variables that the conspirators couldn't manage directly and a much greater likelihood of something not going according to plan.

What is your opinion about Flight 93 and Flight 77 then?

Thanks for the tip-off, I found the relevant section in the SEC investigation.

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Like I said on the other thread, Brad Laner is Donald Segretti and I claim my five bucks.

elvis. flight 77 is fishy. no ? i've heard pilots question the maneuvers hanji would have had to have made and the lack of footage is also fuel for the fire. but whatever...

flight 93, i'm not touching that one.

I love this part: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"

So what other ties *did* he have? And who is it?!

I've also heard that the maneuvers in question wasn't Flight 77 at all, but a misidentified F-15 (which would be more logical). ATC traffic was so bolloxed up, that I believe a misidentification was likely. Are FAA air traffic controllers trained to recognize transponder-less fighters in full-pursuit?

Assume that the Pentagon and the FBI release the full movies of the Flight 77 crash from the hotel and the gas station surveillance cameras. Will that satisfy the fake plane/missile crowd? I suspect that it won't.

But if you're *so* sure about shenanigans at the WTC, which occurred in full view of millions of people, then why aren't you floating theories about Flight 93 which crashed in obscurity? You certainly must have a gut feeling.

http://www.webenet.net/~baz/kuklinksi.jpg

???

If you said "Tony," you're wrong! (But don't it look just like him?)

I watched Something large and Boeing shaped crash into the second tower from a vantage point of a rooftop 5 blocks or so away

This one in fact

I did take photos but I destroyed them shortly afterwards as I found the experience very traumatic. I didn't stick around for the towers to fall. My natural instincts took over and I ran away, grabbed a cab and was uptown by the time the towers fell. What did I see?

that's easily the most paranoiac notion on this whole thread.

-- Brad Laner (b...), September 18th, 2006.

Brad Laner OTM this time. I mean it isn't impossible, but it strikes me as quite a gamble to try to distract people from whatever was "fishy" about the collapse by convincing more people that it was, in fact, fishy (but for other reasons).

http://911prophecy.com/Chapters/WTC%20Origami/WTC%20Origami1.htm

-- Elvis Telecom (quartzcit...), September 18th, 2006 3:10 PM. (Chris Barrus) (later)

uh, an institutional investor is more a "what" than a "who." think calpers or something.

that's the last time i defend anyone's finance knowledge.

If anything, the high awareness level of Loose Change probably mirrors the growth of Google Video, YouTube, and torrent clients. I first ran across Loose Change when people were constantly posting it to alt.binaries.conspiracy and linking to excerpts posted on YouTube.

I know, I know. I'm just being hyperbolic and accusatory.

bigfoot people are especially great. no better way to give yourself a headtrip than to talk to a really intelligent bigfooter.

Also, why does people still think I is a feller? :(

At least he's not posting as Tracey Hand anymore. God that was confusing.

I disagree entirely. I think it would sow seeds of dissension among those who think there was something fishy, and help discredit their ideas without risk to whoever would sow those seeds (provided the distraction being put forward is considerably wackier than the idea it is a diversion from, as in this case).

i kinda agree with you, as a fellow aficionado of crackpots and eccentic thinking. but in this case 9/11 conspiracy people and their arguments are mostly boring and distracting from the real problems. i mean, 9/11 was a crazy, incredible and tragic happening all on its own without need for trite conspiracy stuff to complicate it.

i kinda agree with you, as a fellow aficionado of crackpots and eccentic thinking. but in this case 9/11 conspiracy people and their arguments are mostly boring and distracting from the real problems. i mean, 9/11 was a crazy, incredible and tragic happening all on its own without need for trite conspiracy stuff to complicate it.

quoting all of the above for truth (and that's the extent of my involvement in this thread, sorry guys)

If proof of even one of these things came out to prove us all so, so wrong there would be a media blitz. If the whole lot came out, there'd be chaos.

Thankfully, Occam had a razor.

The post-collapse temperatures gathered by satellite heat imagery were radically too high to be just smoldering “building debris;” even with any remaining jet fuel being factored. Buried debris will not burn at a temperature hotter than its open-air temperature. Remember the millions of gallons of water which were constantly being sprayed on the 'pile.' This makes sense if thermite was used, however.

The reason that the firefighters bolted up the stairwell was that they were totally certain that there was no danger of collapse. They had no fear; one may go to the transcripts of the radio traffic for evidence of their associated faith and courage. Steel buildings just don't collapse from fire damage. Now, the world is expected to believe that there were three such collapses on 9-11; one building receiving no impact or affected by jet fuel.

A reasonable mindset finds it simply impossible for three buildings to have done an identical collapse on the same site, within hours of each other, with two architectural styles, two distinct fire sources with all three structures being financially controlled by the same individual/group.

Then, one may go to the history of the insurance policies & claims.

Then, stopping momentarily at "No Questions Asked," try to imagine a million tons of steel being hurriedly sold - overseas - with no opportunity to do a reasonable forensic examination. Then, one may go to the question, "Who authorized the sale; and who collected the profits?" Ask Donald Trump how quickly municipal decisions are made in New York!

That's just scratching the surface.

If that's not enough, one should note the 'more-than-just-interesting' 'cause-and-effect' blank spot on the 7-WTC collapse in the FEMA report.

The reason that the firefighters bolted up the stairwell was that they were totally certain that there was no danger of collapse.
Sure, all their past experience of buildings with planes flown in gave them this certainty. The nuts seem to skip this -- past anecdotal evidence about what buildings do and do not do is meaningless here.

A reasonable mindset finds it simply impossible for three buildings to have done an identical collapse on the same site,
No, it really doesn't. Not when two of the buildings had jumbo jets flown into them, and the other only fell after two of the world's largest buildings had collapsed right next to it.

Either way: picking holes in the account is utterly pointless without some sort of coherent motive. None of the conspiracies so far have come up with anything compelling that makes a degree of sense as to the why of this. Especially when compared to the incredibly straightforward "official" narrative.

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/images/descriptions_zerohour.jpg

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

So why did they stop at three? Why didn't they arrange for *all* the WTC buildings to collapse?

The post-collapse temperatures gathered by satellite heat imagery were radically too high to be just smoldering “building debris;” even with any remaining jet fuel being factored. Buried debris will not burn at a temperature hotter than its open-air temperature. Remember the millions of gallons of water which were constantly being sprayed on the 'pile.' This makes sense if thermite was used, however.

So ... someone had mysteriously managed to fit several hundred thermite charges in all three buildings, without anyone noticing? And explosive charges too, presumably - because theorists like to go on about how they can see plumes of smoke from explosive charges as the buildings collapse, and thermite isn't explosive.

A. The explanation preferred by the government is to admit, eight months late, to absolute and horrendous incompetence, up and down the line (although Bush&Co., surprise!, prefer to focus the blame lower down, letting the FBI be the fall guy). But let's try an alternate explanation. Think about it for a moment. If their key goal was to mobilize the country behind the Bush Administration, get their political/business agenda through, have a reason to move unilaterally around the globe, and defang the Democrats and other critics at home -- what better way to do all that than to have Bush be the take-charge leader after a diabolic "sneak attack"?

Q. You're suggesting the ultimate cynical stratagem, purely for political ends. I can't believe that Bush and his cronies are that venal. Isn't it possible that the whole intelligence apparatus just blew it?

A. Possible, but not bloody likely. There certainly is enough blame to spread around, but the evidence indicates that Bush and his closest aides knew that bin Laden was planning a direct attack on the U.S. Mainland -- using airplanes headed for those icon targets -- and, in order to get the country to move in the direction he wanted, he kept silent.

Q. But if that's true, what you've described is utterly indefensible, putting policy ahead of American citizens' lives.

A. Now are you beginning to understand why Bush&Co. are fighting so tenaciously against a blue-ribbon commission of inquiry, and why Bush and Cheney went to Congressional leaders and asked them not to investigate the pre-9/11 period? Now do you understand why they are trying so desperately to keep everything secret, tightly locked up in the White House, only letting drips and drabs get out when there is no other way to avoid Congressional subpoenas or court-ordered disclosures? They know that if one thread of the cover-up unravels, more of their darkest secrets will follow.

Ok, you could argue that they didn't actually do anything, just allowed it to happen. So why did they continue to look like morons once it all began? "Hey, sit reading My Pet Goat for 10 minutes, don't fly straight to NORAD and take charge. Country'll hate that, and we'll never get to Iraq. Cheney, you run and hide, that'll help."

xpost: or is that the impression you're trying to give? Perhaps this is your sekrit plan to take over ILBks. God, we've all been so, so wrong about this!

Or, I should say, my lackadaisical efforts gave me away, so I figured I might as well admit it now.

How much of this do you actually believe, seriously

I believe the US funded and armed Iraq and Al-Qaida and is now at war with them and I believe it is totally typical Machiavellian crapola that's been going on for the past 100 years or so. I believe there are no actual governments that mean anything; there is a world bank and there is indebtedness and by keeping a certain percentage of people in debt, there can be no opposition to the ruling corporations.

In order for this method of social control to be effective the Machiavellian perpetrator must do the following:

1) Erect conflicts and "issues" which will cause people to fight among themselves rather than against the perpetrator

2) Remain hidden from view as the true instigator of the conflicts.

3) Lend support to all warring parties

4) Be viewed as the benevolent source that can solve the conflicts.

and how much are you putting forward in the interests of "getting a discussion going"?

Zero. You guys are all falling for the illusion.

you don't understand, bush didn't have to know about it. plausible deniability you see. it's all done in cells. top brass makes the decision, a team's assembled. the assasssins could come from any place: Iran, Afghanistan, Boise. no one knows the whole truth, each highjacker answers only to their handler. they could arrive to highjack a plane, fly it to land at the agreed coordinates and not know until they're about to crash that they were headed for their doom, just on schedule to coincide with the controlled demolition.

and then after it all goes down there's no traces left, just a fireworks show for the kids.

Nah.

Butt Dickass: You're confusing the invisible hand of the market for intent and plotting. That's the great thing about capitalism: it can produce evil without anybody really meaning to. What's more, it does it far better than if it had been planned.

to be clear where i stand, that wasn't a serious post

The very nature of exchange-value vs. use-value is the actual problem behind everything. I find it funny to see someone up above has lumped Marxists in with the loonies, which seems to indicate lack of actual reading of Marx. He gets blamed for a lot of nonsense that had nothing to do with what he actually said. Exchange value is a figment of our imagination. Marx was just pointing to the empty nature of the material world, kind of like Buddha.

Capitalism is a production-for-profit by state enterprises controlled by members of the state bureaucracy, like the former Soviet Union.

Democracy and capitalism are not really compatible. That is why we are struggling with it today.

"Capitalist democracy" which exists only in the political sphere, is a device which prevents the emergence of democracy at the economic and social level. A form of government that promises equality and control by the people cannot co-exist with an economy that is based on such inequality as exists between owner and worker, where the owner controls (governs) everything, including the worker.

In order for this method of social control to be effective the Machiavellian perpetrator must do the following:

1) Erect conflicts and "issues" which will cause people to fight among themselves rather than against the perpetrator

2) Remain hidden from view as the true instigator of the conflicts.

3) Lend support to all warring parties

4) Be viewed as the benevolent source that can solve the conflicts.

As TOMBOT points out, do these fuckers care about our general welfare? If they don't care about slave labor and total domination of other countries, what makes you think they care about you? Humanity is humanity. These people play on a global scale. If they don't care about some people, they don't care about people, period. These people are basically just criminals, like the mafia, but worse. You think the toppling of Enron means "nobody gets away" with it or something?

p 211-217
1600 The London East India Company is founded
Imports from India subsequently cause a drain of precious metals from England to India.

p 226-227,236,239
1601 Poor Law introduced in England
The aim is to establish a national pattern for parishes to copy in dealing with the problems of the destitute, which have become more obvious since the dissolution of the monasteries, 1534-1540.

p 215
1602 Dutch East India Company founded
This company provides the financial backing for Dutch competition with England in the Far East for control of the pepper market.

p 548
1609 Bank of Amsterdam is founded
This public bank is established to provide a superior and more controlled service than that available from private bankers. Later its example inspires the establishment of the Bank of England.

so an incredible, incredible failure, then.

By the way, most people wouldn't really define our current money system as being a fiat-currency system anymore.

OTM about it being opposed to democracy though. Handy that the US is a republic.

1) Capitalism was created to keep people down and perpetuate war

2) The definition of capitalism is state-controlled industry

3) Money only exists so we can fight wars

4) If it wasn't for the war on drugs, war on terror, etc., people would, uh, start a revolution or something?

5) All of this began in Holland

6) Hence the state decided to destroy one of its own major financial centers in order to keep perpetuating war and keep us down

Capitalism is just another flawed attempt to defuse the whole Malthusian time-bomb that's been ticking since the beginning. The lot of humanity never looked very good.

http://www.rustyzipper.com/pics/81018L.jpg