Terror Threat raised to Severe

[phillip j fry]

just a thought but,if the west was capable of creating a huge conspiracy to destroy the twin towers would they not have also been capable of of another conspiracy to 'find' wmd's in iraq and thus legitimising the war in the eyes of the voting public .the fact they didnt is a mark against conspiracy theories in general imo.

[Guest Bilo]

just a thought but,if the west was capable of creating a huge conspiracy to destroy the twin towers would they not have also been capable of of another conspiracy to 'find' wmd's in iraq and thus legitimising the war in the eyes of the voting public .the fact they didnt is a mark against conspiracy theories in general imo.

A good point.

Not as if ourselves and the US are short of WMDs ourselves for the purpose of falsely planting.

[Trav Le Bleu]

A good point.

Not as if ourselves and the US are short of WMDs ourselves for the purpose of falsely planting.

Wait a minute? WE have WMDs?

When do we get invaded?!

[Guest Bilo]

Wait a minute? WE have WMDs?

When do we get invaded?!

The French made a pre-emptive strike but it failed a little.

[Bellend Sebastian]

The French made a pre-emptive strike but it failed a little.

I like how the failure of that is blamed partly on 'indiscipline'. If you're going to invade another country, it's always best to have soldiers who aren't going to start mucking about at a crucial moment

[Babylon]

But wouldn't the hotter side have buckled first before the rest of the structure?

If there was a hotter side that weakened first yes it would have, and probably did. Because it was free fall though there wasn't enough time for any lateral velocity to take effect and the downward force was too great.

A rather rudimentary example (and not exactly scientific):

Throw a tennis ball and it will go 40 metres away from you.

Throw a shot put and it will go 10 metres away from you.

Throw a bag full of 20 shot puts and I'll probably go about 5 cm away from you.

The effect of sideways velocity is altered depending on the size/weight etc of what is going sideways.

PS. I'm no scientist, i'm sure those who are could explain better.

[Zingari]

those BBC reporters are fookin good ,

just watch as this reporter tells everyone that the Salomon Bros building (WTC 7 ) has collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually had did collapse .

how did they know it was going to collapse ?,

what reason did they have that it was about to collapse ? ,

it looks no worse than any of the other adjacent buildings that remained standing

did someone cock up and get the message out too soon ?( this was never shown on tv again )

come on , are you not the least bit suspicious that all was not as it seemed ?

(3 mins 7 secs )

[Guest Bilo]

those BBC reporters are fookin good ,

just watch as this reporter tells everyone that the Salomon Bros building (WTC 7 ) has collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually had did collapse .

how did they know it was going to collapse ?,

what reason did they have that it was about to collapse ? ,

it looks no worse than any of the other adjacent buildings that remained standing

did someone cock up and get the message out too soon ?( this was never shown on tv again )

come on , are you not the least bit suspicious that all was not as it seemed ?

(3 mins 7 secs )

I imagine the fire-fighters knew it was going to collapse because of the state it was in and they relayed the message to the press in order to warn their reporters away from the site. With so much going on and things as chaotic as they were, it's not difficult to imagine the message being misinterpreted.

EDIT: The words cock-up not conspiracy spring to mind.

[Zingari]

I imagine the fire-fighters knew it was going to collapse because of the state it was in and they relayed the message to the press in order to warn their reporters away from the site. With so much going on and things as chaotic as they were, it's not difficult to imagine the message being misinterpreted.

EDIT: The words cock-up not conspiracy spring to mind.

you've got a very trusting nature Bilo , I hope not too many people take advantage of it

ok I admit it , I'm just a suspicious old dog

[l444ry]

those BBC reporters are fookin good ,

just watch as this reporter tells everyone that the Salomon Bros building (WTC 7 ) has collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually had did collapse .

how did they know it was going to collapse ?,

what reason did they have that it was about to collapse ? ,

it looks no worse than any of the other adjacent buildings that remained standing

did someone cock up and get the message out too soon ?( this was never shown on tv again )

come on , are you not the least bit suspicious that all was not as it seemed ?

(3 mins 7 secs )

Why would the "conspiracists" pre-warn anyone? Surely, WTC7 falling would be enough of a story when it did happen. This entire conspiracy theory involves too many people for it to be credible!!!

[Zingari]

Why would the "conspiracists" pre-warn anyone? Surely, WTC7 falling would be enough of a story when it did happen. This entire conspiracy theory involves too many people for it to be credible!!!

maybe they cocked up ,

i'm not saying all conspiracies are executed perfectly , thats how they get found out , it depends if enough people join up the dots

[Guest Bilo]

you've got a very trusting nature Bilo , I hope not too many people take advantage of it

ok I admit it , I'm just a suspicious old dog

Bugger trusting, the only reason I believe that the official version is correct is because the evidence on that side happens to be the most compelling.

I'm not stating that politicians don't lie and bend the truth to get what they want, especially with one of the most barefaced liars in politics trying to defend himself at the Iraq Enquiry today, it's just that the 9/11 conspiracy theories don't make a huge amount of sense to me. I do believe that the events of that day pretty much sealed Saddam's doom as it was obvious that Iraq was going to be portrayed as the Big Bad Wolf by the neocons and I'm not convinced that the Saudi and Israeli intelligence services were ignorant of what was to come either, with the US reaction guaranteed to fit their interests and so it proved with Saudi Arabia's biggest foreign threat neutralised, resources devoted to tackling Wahhabism within the country and Israel enjoying the closest relationship with a US government in many years.

[l444ry]

maybe they cocked up ,

i'm not saying all conspiracies are executed perfectly , thats how they get found out , it depends if enough people join up the dots

Firemen were aware that WTC7 had been hit by falling debris, well before it fell This is well documented. Zinger, you let you admirable conspiratorial nature go wild sometimes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=javiWrKZrdk

[Zingari]

Bugger trusting, the only reason I believe that the official version is correct is because the evidence on that side happens to be the most compelling.

I'm not stating that politicians don't lie and bend the truth to get what they want, especially with one of the most barefaced liars in politics trying to defend himself at the Iraq Enquiry today, it's just that the 9/11 conspiracy theories don't make a huge amount of sense to me. I do believe that the events of that day pretty much sealed Saddam's doom as it was obvious that Iraq was going to be portrayed as the Big Bad Wolf by the neocons and I'm not convinced that the Saudi and Israeli intelligence services were ignorant of what was to come either, with the US reaction guaranteed to fit their interests and so it proved with Saudi Arabia's biggest foreign threat neutralised, resources devoted to tackling Wahhabism within the country and Israel enjoying the closest relationship with a US government in many years.

i really hope you're right mate , even after all these years i suppose i'm just having a job getting my head round the whole business , from the trillion dollar failure of NORAD defence system and the whole cumulative evidence that seems to put doubt on the official line .

maybe one day i'll accept , and even if i don't i doubt if anything will ever change

sometimes it's just good to talk about it all again , glad you've indulged me a bit

[Guest Bilo]

i really hope you're right mate , even after all these years i suppose i'm just having a job getting my head round the whole business , from the trillion dollar failure of NORAD defence system and the whole cumulative evidence that seems to put doubt on the official line .

maybe one day i'll accept , and even if i don't i doubt if anything will ever change

sometimes it's just good to talk about it all again , glad you've indulged me a bit

No worries fella.

Always good to get the thinking caps on and expand my own knowledge a little bit.

[BoneDog]

I still can't understand why people are saying that physics proves how the buildings came down. It doesn't.

I know that this man isn't spouting the government line but he is a Professor in Physics (he was anyway until he was put on paid leave for speaking out).

Professor Steven Jones is one of many who speak out against what happened and how it happened. He has a Phd in Physics. He used to be a senior engineering specialist at Idaho National Laboratory. He has done work for the US Department of Energy. The man is "a solid research scientist" with very high credentials.

He did a talk called '911 Breaking the Laws of Physics', and he has many more talks about 911 on GoogleVideo.

I'm just trying to show that many Physicists are speaking out.

I think that these two websites show up the NIST report for what it is.

Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice

Journalof911Studies

[Hugo Sanchez]

Why do people buy into bullspit theories ? Like it was the god damn CIA who smashed into them towers not the world peace groups such as the taliban or al qaeda ...

Seriously have a word, EL Empty just hates America at the end of the day. If Bin Laden himself drove himself into the empire state building he would probally say the CIA shot him from cannon.

[BoneDog]

Why do people buy into bullspit theories ? Like it was the god damn CIA who smashed into them towers not the world peace groups such as the taliban or al qaeda ...

Seriously have a word, EL Empty just hates America at the end of the day. If Bin Laden himself drove himself into the empire state building he would probally say the CIA shot him from cannon.

If Bin Laden did what you describe then yes I would say that the CIA had done it, cos Laden is a CIA asset. He doesn't live in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan. And if he wasn't a CIA asset he would of been killed or at least captured years ago. Nobody can surely still believe that the US are trying to capture Laden?

A short while before 911 Bin Laden was still the most wanted man in the world and the CIA said they had no clue where he was. The biggest intelligence agency in the world, with the biggest budget in the world, said that they had absolutely no clue where he was. But at the same time a couple of jackass reporters from CNN found him (in June 2001 I think) and interviewed him. So did a few other authors and reporters. They just waltzed into his 'hideout' and interviewed him, while he was on the CIA's most wanted list!!!!

So yes, if Bin Laden did do anything to the US then I would blame the CIA.

I don't hate America, I just hate American foreign policy. If I lived in America I would be a true patriot and I grew up loving the USA like many kids do.

I do hate a few people in America, the ones who stand up and tell the world what to do and are shitting on their own citizens, I hate them.

The ones who give the orders to bomb shit out of people around the world (constantly for the last 100 years) and then tell others that they can't have weapons cos they would be a threat to the world, I hate them. I hate American foreign policy but that's because I understand it. You and everyone on here would hate it too if you even had a clue.

The irony when Hilary C, Rumsfeld or someone else in the administration stands up and says "so and so can't have weapons of mass destruction cos they would be a threat to world peace" is astounding. But hey, they're only trying to save us and help our children in the future so let's let them get on with it and ignore them

[Zingari]

Firemen were aware that WTC7 had been hit by falling debris, well before it fell This is well documented. Zinger, you let you admirable conspiratorial nature go wild sometimes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=javiWrKZrdk

Firstly can I just state quite clearly again that they are not my theories, and am not standing by them, nor taking credit for them, I merely think that “just maybe” there are indeed many inconsistencies in the official line, and far too many very creditable experts that are willing to put their heads above the parapets and declare their doubts.

That said, well done, you’ve probably linked me to a supposed “debunking “that is almost laughable in its assumptions. And I can imagine many of the faceless NIST experts squirming .

I shall only deal with a few points as the others have been gone over ad nauseum throughout this thread and it would be far easier for you to go back through and look at replies from similar questions .

Right , the supposed debunking ;

WTC 1 collapsed around 10:30 , and yes, lots of debris caused damage to WTC7 ( as it did to many other building around , Marriot , Deutch Bank etc etc ) . The damage was on the south / west side of the building , and random in nature as were the sporadic fires that ensued .

It states that this flying debris sliced through a significant number of the support columns of WTC7 . ( surely the speed of these columns cannot have exceeded the speed at which they were falling due to gravity , unless of course the were hurtling due to an explosion , and its doubtful that they could reached speed needed to cut through other steel girders .if they were travelling at speeds due to gravity .

And it not only fails to explain the symmetrical fall , it actually gives more credence to the fact the collapsed should have been vastly asymmetrical .

Yet even if we accept the highly unlikely possibility , the building was in plain view from other sides , which showed absolutely no signs of exterior distress for a further 7 hours until the spectacular free fall symmetrical collapse at 5 : 30 . Which NIST states was due to “fire”

Surely a building so badly damaged on 1 or 2 sides would start to show distress on the opposite sides as it starts to fall towards the damaged section . No such evidence can be shown , Why ?

Take a JCB digger and severely damage 2 sides of a 4 sided building and i think i know what the outcome will look like .

One other point that is perhaps worth mentioning is the reference to “ many firemen saying how badly the building was damaged , but chose only to show one unaccredited photo of an unknown fireman , yet chose to completely ignore the well documented evidence of firefighters talking of massive explosions

What he fails to address is also significant ;

It is well documented that the owner of the building said "we took the decision to pull it "

If a building is going to collapse because of damage and fire , it doesn't make any difference what external "decisions " are made by the firefighters, owners etc regarding the outcome unless you actually do something that "initiates the fall" , therefore some decisuion was made to facilitate the collapse , What decision was that ? Was it an explosion ? , if not what else ?

Sorry , I still have my doubts , and remain open minded and will always listen to good explanations , but this one falls well short .

He should have said the collapse was due to lots of obese Americans stomping around in panic inside the place

thanks for taking an interest in my ramblings anyway

[BoneDog]

1. .....And it not only fails to explain the symmetrical fall , it actually gives more credence to the fact the collapse should have been vastly asymmetrical .

Surely a building so badly damaged on 1 or 2 sides would start to show distress on the opposite sides as it starts to fall towards the damaged section . No such evidence can be shown , Why ?

2. One other point that is perhaps worth mentioning is the reference to “ many firemen saying how badly the building was damaged" , but chose only to show one unaccredited photo of an unknown fireman , yet chose to completely ignore the well documented evidence of firefighters talking of massive explosions.

3. It is well documented that the owner of the building said "we took the decision to pull it "

If a building is going to collapse because of damage and fire , it doesn't make any difference what external "decisions " are made by the firefighters, owners etc regarding the outcome unless you actually do something that "initiates the fall" , therefore some decision was made to facilitate the collapse , What decision was that ? Was it an explosion ? , if not what else ?

1. I agree, this is obvious stuff. As for WTC 1 and 2, the tops would of just slipped off the sides and the hundreds of undamaged floors below would of still been standing. For people to watch how they came down and then say it was natural because of the damage is just beyond belief.

2. Yes, I've seen many fireman who were there that day talking of explosions. Some of the firemen were inside the towers when they heard them and some were outside (there were many explosions). These firemen know the difference between the sound of an explosion and a crash, so I trust them fully. Have you seen that video of the 3 firemen on the public payphone when that massive explosion goes off at ground level on one of the towers? That was an obvious very loud explosion/bomb and one of the firefighters was shitting himself.

3. This is a very important point because to 'pull it' as the owner of the building said they did, the explosives and demolition charges would already have to be in place as that job takes quite a long time to do. There is no way the building could of come down as it did without a team of experts prepping it beforehand.

[Babylon]

I agree, this is obvious stuff. As for WTC 1 and 2, the tops would of just slipped off the sides and the hundreds of undamaged floors below would of still been standing. For people to watch how they came down and then say it was natural because of the damage is just beyond belief.

No they wouldn't. It's not a giant game of Jenga.

[BoneDog]

No they wouldn't. It's not a giant game of Jenga.

Well they certainly wouldn't of collapsed the massive structure below them. That's just a fact of life.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

Well they certainly wouldn't of collapsed the massive structure below them. That's just a fact of life.

Based on what theory?

[Babylon]

Well they certainly wouldn't of collapsed the massive structure below them. That's just a fact of life.

A fact of life?

Seriously get a grip, the laws of physics which are a "fact of life" suggest other. The forces involved are more than enough, we are talking thousands of tonnes here. The floors hit sustained damage almost all the way through. It's not like chopping into the side of a tree and it falling to one side. The building is made up of 95% air, it's not a solid mass.

Based on what theory?

The theory of complete and utter fooking nonsense.

[Houdini Logic]

those BBC reporters are fookin good ,

just watch as this reporter tells everyone that the Salomon Bros building (WTC 7 ) has collapsed , a full 20 minutes before it actually had did collapse .

how did they know it was going to collapse ?,

what reason did they have that it was about to collapse ? ,

it looks no worse than any of the other adjacent buildings that remained standing

did someone cock up and get the message out too soon ?( this was never shown on tv again )

come on , are you not the least bit suspicious that all was not as it seemed ?

(3 mins 7 secs )

If this theory is true then do you think this information was 'let out of the bag' too soon and the BBC were innocently reporting on what they were told or do you think the BBC knew what was going on?