Roland

Sorry post never came out correctly.

These are steel framed building. Notice they collapse as a block they do hot fall apart.



Let's just assume the imposable that the fire melted the steel and maybe the impact weakened the the steel which is possible but only around the point of impact. What should have happened is the top of the towers should have fallen off as one giant unit.

The idea that the steel underneath could not hold the wait is ludicrous the steel underneath held the wait since the building was put up.

Even if the pancake theory had come into play the central columns should have stayed as one unit

youcanhandlethetruth

Wow - quite a lot of activity on this thread since I last looked.

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

Frith

Even if you can can't accept the wealth of scientific evidence, how do you explain Larry Silverstein admitting they "pulled" the building ?

Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges

Surely not another "conspiracy theory" ?

If you don't think the mainstream media would lie to you, think again.

youcanhandlethetruth

More very good points Roland.

But I doubt if the cynics will have anything to say in response because they want to believe what's easiest for them to believe.........

youcanhandlethetruth

You have made the same mistake as the BBC did by dreaming up the term "inferno".

Look at the picture in this link...........

BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires

Also note it says:
NYPD officers heard bombs as they ran away from its implosion. First responders were told that the building was to be "brought down," not that it was going to collapse on its own.

So Frith if you want me to believe that:
"the resultant inferno, falling rubble and chaos affected other buildings in the
area." then I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I am martian from the planet Zog !

McLean

It is amazing how much a little knowledge can lead to such perverse theories.

One point I must make is that the theory of an 'inside job' - that the hijackings were staged or that the Administration was complicit in bringing down the WTC buildings with explosives - is of a totally different order from the idea that they knew it was being planned and did nothing about it because it would be convenient to their purposes. The inside job theory takes a few anomalies and builds upon them an elaborate superstructure which is simply fanciful and practically impossible to reconcile with the known facts. The idea that they knew it was coming and failed to act is merely idle speculation, but it similarly does not accord with what is known.

I would agree that plenty of people would have something to cover up - the CIA agents who thought they were running informants when the informants were running them; the FBI agents who did not talk to their CIA counterparts; the State Department officials who allowed radical Islamists into the US; the Administration officials who set artificial boundaries between policing and intelligence; the Pentagon officials that did not pursue the Able Danger data mining project; the NORAD commanders who might have acted differently to intercept flights; and so on. And that is even without counting those who might have other reasons to put a spin on the story, such as the engineers, architects and security personnel of the World Trade Center. It was a massive failure in every way and plenty of people from top Administration officials (in the Bush AND Clinton Administrations) down to ordinary security officers at the WTC could have their own reasons to spin the story.

That does not make it an inside job. That makes it a failure for which nobody wants to take the blame.

If you know about the history of radical Islamism in the US and elsewhere the 9/11 attacks are much easier to comprehend. You might trace the activities of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, for example, and its involvement in the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, and the subsequent spread of EIJ cells. The leader of EIJ, al-Zawahiri, became the number two to bin Laden when Al Qaeda was established. Bin Laden's network effectively moved in on the operations of the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance, mafia-style, and murdered its leader in 1989.

Islamist cells linked to what later became Al Qaeda were operating in the US from at least the mid-1980s. As early as 1989 they were known to have been training for a 'Day of Terror' to blow up the WTC, the FBI office in New York, the UN building and the main bridges and tunnels in Manhattan.

Terror cells were involved in the murder of Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990. The Al Qaeda leadership in New York systematically gained control of the Islamist centres in the early 1990s (for example, murdering the leader of the Alkifah Center).

Did you know that Abdul Hakim Murad was training as a pilot as early as 1991? Murad was a close friend of Ramzi Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Yousef was the main Al Qaeda explosives expert at that time who went on to attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was, of course, the key operations manager behind 9/11. Back in 1992, Murad surveyed the WTC as a possible target. Also in 1992, the Islamist network in New York obtained the blueprints of the WTC from an Egyptian who worked as an accountant for the Fire Department (the FDNY).

Then we had the WTC bombing in 1993. Ramzi Yousef escaped initially and was later involved in plots in the Philippines to assassinate Pope John Paul II, to blow up airliners through a liquid-based bomb (sound familiar?) and to organize the training of pilots who would fly planes into buildings (now, does that sound familiar?).

The plot to kill the Pope was well advanced but a fire broke out in Yousef's bomb factory and the plot was uncovered.

A trial run of the liquid bomb plot killed a Japanese passenger but failed to blow up the plane, but Yousef continued to work on the idea to make it more powerful. It is likely in my view that Yousef's liquid bomb was responsible for blowing up TWA 800 in July 1996, killing 230 people.

The third plot, crashing airliners into buildings, emerged in 1995 as a plan to hit not only the WTC and Pentagon but also the Sears Tower in Chicago, the CIA HQ, the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco and nuclear facility.

In 1994, hijackers with links to Al Qaeda took over an Air France jumbo jet and planned to fly it into the Eiffel Tower. Fortunately, on that occasion, the French fooled the hijackers into thinking it did not have enough fuel to reach Paris. It was diverted to Marseilles where the French stormed the plane and killed the four hijackers.

The Oklahoma bombing in 1995 (which killed 178 people) was of course carried out by Timothy McVeigh with the assistance of Terry Nichols. Eyewitness accounts reported a man of 'Middle Eastern appearance' as a main suspect. Nichols, by coincidence, had links to Yousef's network.

Then we had the Khobar Towers bombing, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000, among other things. These were all carried out during Clinton's term of office.

By 2000, again before Bush came into office, the main personnel involved in the 9/11 hijackings were already in the United States.

Why do I list these things? Because there is a history that can be traced. Even this is only a brief overview of that history. To present the 9/11 attacks as a few guys with box cutters misses the point that this was years in preparation. Sure, if you believe that everything is controlled centrally and nobody ever speaks out you can rationalize the whole thing as an inside job. But to me and others that is just not credible.

youcanhandlethetruth

Your conclusions are not based on any information/evidence but based on subjective beliefs and prejudice.
Using "conspiracy theory" as scientific argument is not only prejudiced but it is repulsive to the use of logic and unacceptable.

Roland

Mcclean

You left your first post on this forum 02-11-2007, 01:04 AM. Since then you have left 11 posts. Your posts consist of very little knowledge about anything other than to try and close down certain subjects.

And now you are the worlds greatest expert on every debunked conspiracy theory.

I would there fore assume you would have knowledge of how the federal reserve system was started by the likes of JP Morgan. How the bankers fronted Woodrow willson. How congress cheated the American people.

How their is no law in America to take income tax off the American people due to the constitution. Which makes the IRS little more than an extortion racket.

But yet you don't mention such things. I find this strange to say the least. A man with so little to say now with such an extraordinary wealth of information.

Regards.

youcanhandlethetruth

I'm not doing a "reply" to the entire post of McClean because there would be no room to read anything, so I'll take his quotes and respond to them:

"The inside job theory takes a few anomalies and builds upon them an elaborate superstructure which is simply fanciful and practically impossible to reconcile with the known facts. The idea that they knew it was coming and failed to act is merely idle speculation, but it similarly does not accord with what is known."

This is what people say when they haven't got any HARD evidence to refute what has already been shown and proved.

Notice the use of the words "fanciful", "elaborate", "impossible", "speculation" and even "perverse" are usad to put the seed of doubt in your mind to stop you focusing on the HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that they claim they deal with but are unable to ever provide.

Notice how 911 truth is accused of "speculation" and not dealing with the "hard facts" by the people that can't provide any facts themselves to explain legitimate and unanswered questions. (e.g. just read mkp's repeated question for a scientific explanation of the collapse of Building 7)
Notice how McClean uses the terms "known facts" and "what is known" without ever descibing or giving details of what these known facts are that would provide a satisfactory answer to all of the issues there are with the official story.

"The idea that they knew it was coming and failed to act is merely idle speculation"

So nice try McClean but let's take a closer look:

9/11: NORAD Stand Down/Wargames

Notice where it says:
"Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the
Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as
Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the
9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said,
"Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

The 9/11 USAF Stand Down

"On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to the location of rogue airliners in it's airspace for over an hour, and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the situation of hijackers using these planes as flying bombs.
This confusion resulted in fighter jets flying around aimlessly whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3000 lives.
All that was required to overcome America's military might on 9/11 were 19 hijackers on 4 airliners.

Does this sound plausible to you? It's what you're expected to believe."

9/11 Flight Controller: "Is This Real World or an Exercise?"

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

And even more amazingly on the very same day...........

Yahoo! News - Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident."

But why would they do that ?
Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

There's so so much more evidence to view through this link........
9/11: NORAD Stand Down/Wargames

But you're saying there "The idea that they knew it was coming and failed to act is merely idle speculation" McClean ?

The you go off into an essay type rant about Al-CIA-da and islamic fundamentalism(more like "mentalism") and other government staged events that I'm not even going to deal with in this post.

I put it to you that YOU are the one that isn't dealing with the hard facts with your fanciful, elaborate, impossible, speculation is to be kind, grossly misleading.


"That makes it a failure for which nobody wants to take the blame."

You obviously are frightened to admit that anyone, especially the government were to blame.

People need to seriously ask themselves why some people are so keen to see the wealth of evidence ignored.

If as Roland says McClean has hardly posted on this site, why has he suddenly appeard from no-where now ?

Frith

How can using scientific evidence make one "prejudiced"? The whole point of our arduous struggle out of the dark ages of superstition was the advent of our capability to use reason above speculation when confronted with certain facts and to arrive at certain conclusions based on both speculation and scientific evidence. A rational species (I use this term with reservation as humans are not always rational) seeks to understand by means of enlightenment and the best way to make the light of reason shine is through painstaking examination of the facts and the evidence. Otherwise we would end up convicting someone of a crime simply because someone else thought he was guilty.

Happy St. Valentine's Day, lads, don't rip each other to pieces over ze tvin towers.

youcanhandlethetruth

Don't twist my words I never said that.

I said: "Your conclusions are not based on any information/evidence but based on subjective beliefs and prejudice."

Why ? Because like you he didn't present ANY evidence, nothing, not one iota, diddly squat.

Let's go back to school............

"Prejudice" = to PRE JUDGE (i.e make up one's mind without looking at the evidence)

Again, you are pretending to support facts, reasoning and science and have presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the 911 inside job issue.

I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Can you refute ANY of the evidence I posted ? Yes or No ? If yes then show us - we're all waiting to see it......... (not for a lecture on scientific reasoning - you're having a laugh !)

If you can't talk about THE ISSUE then you have no grounds talking about science or reason.

So again - a pathetic attempt to try to divert attention away from the real issue.........

If this isn't an indication that the majority of people who believe the official version of events are dumb idiots I don't know what is.......

Am I wrong people ? (not you, you moron !) (Or those who voted no.....)