New Theories Urgently Needed

[Fischkoepfin 1]

the attacks on the WTC were before the pentagon crash, right? I wonder why norad didn't shoot down American 77. sorry if anyone thinks that is a stupid and ignorant question.

Exactly. What was NORAD doing that day? Even if they weren't paying attention, something should have been done by the timte the first plane had hit the WTC.

I agree with Fishdude, though, that regardless of what happened on 9/11, it is the Iraq War and everything surrounding it that should be the focus of our attention.

There is actually a procedure that has to be done before a commercial or private plane can be shot down by the government. American Airlines tells it's pilots that if they are hijacked they can and will be shot down WITH presidential approval. He has to give the word. Remember that the events of 9/11 were all over in about what? 3 hours tops? It was mass confusion. The air traffic controllers had NO clue what was going on. It was to put it mildly, a clusterf*ck. They scrambled the jets to shoot down flight 93. It was too late as the plane crashed before they reached them. (which some people who believe in the conspiracy are going to argue that point to the death). Mass confusion. I think that sums it up best as to what happened that day. Which, incidentally, is what terrorists want: confusion and terror. I think they succeeded with that (and with these theories that float around harboring distrust in our own government) Congrats Bin Laden: You won.

I know there were reasons the planes were shut down, among them the fact that the president who had to give the order was not informed in time or did not react in time. But that is exactly one of the points that raises the questions lingering in many people's thoughts.

Anyway, as to people harboring distrust in their government, I think that is a necessity and one of the duties we who live in democratic governments have. There's is nothing worse than blind trust in authority and it smacks of autocracy. If the terrorist attacks and everything that happened since then have made Americans more distrustful and questioning, then that's probably the only positive outcome in a series of negatives because it would indicate that people are taking responsibility for their own and their national destiny again. And that is probably not what Bin Laden wanted....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What exactly are you after? a signed confession?

Just one credible source alleging a conspiracy based on first hand knowledge. You know, like Richard Clarke who came out on how the administration was hell-bent on marching into Iraq. First hand knowledge, credible guy. Where is his 9/11 equivalent?

[yabasta 0]

1. what you are saying essentially is that the military is full of stupid people. that offends me. a lot means Adv. 1. a lot - to a very great degree or extent. i rest my case on that part of this.

2. the comment of mental midget is just a recap of what you have been saying. nothing more, nothing less.

3. it's obvious that you've never served your country, which i presume to be america. and i consider that you've never served to be a blessing in disguise.

4. basic army pay is low. just as any other job. but what you don't see is the benefits of health and dental. if such is taken into account the average new recruit just one month in is making far more than the average burger flipper.

5. don't presume to educate me about how the military works. it's apparent you know zilch about such.

ps - there are always vacancies in the military, and it does not occur just due to war. do some research.

1.

Again no i didn`t say it was full. Again you twist my words by adding your own or by simply misunderstanding the meaning of a word. So to clarify for you. I did not say the military were stupid. The concept i find rather dumb and as i said before a lot of those who join are indeed not the smartest of people. The definition of the term "a lot" is debateable but pointless. I didn`t mean that so that is what is important.

2.

Your recap was based on you misunderstanding me. I have clarified my point with you now i hope.

3.

Point 3 is just an insult for no purpose. I am from the U.K. but i consider myself a human being above a British human being or a male human being. I was in the boys brigade and i think i would make a great soldier if i were able to blindly follow orders i did not agree with and didn`t mind being degraded.

4.

Well exactly. Poor people can see the benefit of medical and the like. Low pay with benefits as i am sure i mentioned. It is a good job if you don`t have moral objections to the work. See i would never flip burgers unless it was to survive and even then i would try and find a more moral job.

5.

I was not trying to educate you about how the military works i was stating what i saw and see as obvious. I know zilch is rather a blanket statement from you. At the start of this you claimed i made a blanket statement but you have made bigger blankets about me in retaliation.

It is obvious that dead soldiers will need to be replaced.

Not that much larger. The designer said it should withstand a few 707`s and the fuel is supposedly what brought down the tower despite very little fire that didn`t burn for very long at all and the speed that they came down. Plus is it not odd that the tower hit first fell last?

where did you read that? i'd like to know. and yes a 767 is quite a bit larger. a 767 is able to cruise at a higher speed, so dont you think they are made stronger? a 767 could penetrate further than a 707.

I looked it up on Boeing`s website. I think they have possibly since removed the details of the jets although i could be wrong. The penetration was never the issue though. The fuel was the issue. Fire warped the central column they say. The jet fuel wa snot hot enough and it burned up for the most part outside the tower. It just doesn`t add up that after impact living people who were not on fire could be seen standing at the hole left by the plane. There was no towering inferno.

Also we have the reports of the firemen to consider.

[crashandcari 0]

Yes you have said enough both of you. Sayign you were there doesn`t explain how 110 floored steel building came down when they were designed to take such hits from 707`s. Ignore the facts and physics all you like but don`t look down your nose just because you were there when it happened.

Jeez what arrogance... I promised I wouldn't get drawn into this bs but if you ever watched any documentary about the building of the WTC yes they were made withstand being hit by jets... but the hypothesis was jets slowing down for landing at the airport... NOT flying at full speed with full tanks of jet fuel..

Just because you weren't smack dab in the middle of it all that day don't look down YOUR nose at those of us who were.. I'm all for healthy debate but going out of your way to insult survivors of that day is the most obnoxiously rude attitude I have ever seen

[yabasta 0]

What exactly are you after? a signed confession?

Just one credible source alleging a conspiracy based on first hand knowledge. You know, like Richard Clarke who came out on how the administration was hell-bent on marching into Iraq. First hand knowledge, credible guy. Where is his 9/11 equivalent?

How do you decide who is credible though?

Morgan Reynold`s?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...02755-6408r.htm

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

1. what you are saying essentially is that the military is full of stupid people. that offends me. a lot means Adv. 1. a lot - to a very great degree or extent. i rest my case on that part of this.

2. the comment of mental midget is just a recap of what you have been saying. nothing more, nothing less.

3. it's obvious that you've never served your country, which i presume to be america. and i consider that you've never served to be a blessing in disguise.

4. basic army pay is low. just as any other job. but what you don't see is the benefits of health and dental. if such is taken into account the average new recruit just one month in is making far more than the average burger flipper.

5. don't presume to educate me about how the military works. it's apparent you know zilch about such.

ps - there are always vacancies in the military, and it does not occur just due to war. do some research.

1.

Again no i didn`t say it was full. Again you twist my words by adding your own or by simply misunderstanding the meaning of a word. So to clarify for you. I did not say the military were stupid. The concept i find rather dumb and as i said before a lot of those who join are indeed not the smartest of people. The definition of the term "a lot" is debateable but pointless. I didn`t mean that so that is what is important.

2.

Your recap was based on you misunderstanding me. I have clarified my point with you now i hope.

3.

Point 3 is just an insult for no purpose. I am from the U.K. but i consider myself a human being above a British human being or a male human being. I was in the boys brigade and i think i would make a great soldier if i were able to blindly follow orders i did not agree with and didn`t mind being degraded.

4.

Well exactly. Poor people can see the benefit of medical and the like. Low pay with benefits as i am sure i mentioned. It is a good job if you don`t have moral objections to the work. See i would never flip burgers unless it was to survive and even then i would try and find a more moral job.

5.

I was not trying to educate you about how the military works i was stating what i saw and see as obvious. I know zilch is rather a blanket statement from you. At the start of this you claimed i made a blanket statement but you have made bigger blankets about me in retaliation.

It is obvious that dead soldiers will need to be replaced.

A lot of people in the army are there because they are of a certain intellect or a certain violent disposition or perhaps they are turned into viiolent people. I am not suggesting that they are all dumb violent people but there is an element of that.

"Again no i didn`t say it was full."

you said a lot. a lot = to a very great degree or extent. end of story. i have zero interest in continuing this conversation with someone who has not a clue yet makes such broad statements. have a nice life.

[yabasta 0]

Yes you have said enough both of you. Sayign you were there doesn`t explain how 110 floored steel building came down when they were designed to take such hits from 707`s. Ignore the facts and physics all you like but don`t look down your nose just because you were there when it happened.

Jeez what arrogance... I promised I wouldn't get drawn into this bs but if you ever watched any documentary about the building of the WTC yes they were made withstand being hit by jets... but the hypothesis was jets slowing down for landing at the airport... NOT flying at full speed with full tanks of jet fuel..

Just because you weren't smack dab in the middle of it all that day don't look down YOUR nose at those of us who were.. I'm all for healthy debate but going out of your way to insult survivors of that day is the most obnoxiously rude attitude I have ever seen

I didn`t go out of my way to insult the survivors. I also fail to see any time when you have been open to debate. The fact you were there does not give you license to look down your nose at me and insult me. If you want to debate by all means debate. You are allowed to insult me but i am not allowed to return words? How does that work?

Again the jets impact was not the issue as it made little impact on the tower. They swayed as they were designed to but that was it. Reports of further explosions were all over the news and reported by the emergency services. Just watch Loose Change if you don`t believe me as it is all well documented in that.

Also the chances are that jets flying domestically would not have full tanks of fuel as full tanks would not be required. However the fuel on the south tower mostly exploded outside the building. Once it became smoke it was not burning as hot.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Plus is it not odd that the tower hit first fell last?

WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE, FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

[crashandcari 0]

Yes you have said enough both of you. Sayign you were there doesn`t explain how 110 floored steel building came down when they were designed to take such hits from 707`s. Ignore the facts and physics all you like but don`t look down your nose just because you were there when it happened.

Jeez what arrogance... I promised I wouldn't get drawn into this bs but if you ever watched any documentary about the building of the WTC yes they were made withstand being hit by jets... but the hypothesis was jets slowing down for landing at the airport... NOT flying at full speed with full tanks of jet fuel..

Just because you weren't smack dab in the middle of it all that day don't look down YOUR nose at those of us who were.. I'm all for healthy debate but going out of your way to insult survivors of that day is the most obnoxiously rude attitude I have ever seen

I didn`t go out of my way to insult the survivors. I also fail to see any time when you have been open to debate. The fact you were there does not give you license to look down your nose at me and insult me. If you want to debate by all means debate. You are allowed to insult me but i am not allowed to return words? How does that work?

Again the jets impact was not the issue as it made little impact on the tower. They swayed as they were designed to but that was it. Reports of further explosions were all over the news and reported by the emergency services. Just watch Loose Change if you don`t believe me as it is all well documented in that.

Also the chances are that jets flying domestically would not have full tanks of fuel as full tanks would not be required. However the fuel on the south tower mostly exploded outside the building. Once it became smoke it was not burning as hot.

I don't mean to insult you and I suppose I don't debate this issue because it makes me crazy. Why does there have to be conspiracy behind everything? Don't misunderstand me please.. For I watch tons of shows that claim to uncover the secrets behind.... (fill in the blank). But to me discussing whether or not 9/11 was a government coverup is a slap in the face to those who were directly affected.

How do planes flying cross country that just took off NOT have full tanks of fuel? The buildings were not meant to take that kind of impact. Nor did anyone ever analyze what that much fuel dumped inside the elevator shafts would do. And I do know for a fact that the plane that hit the south tower revved its engines before impact. Thats what made me turn and look as it flew over my head. And for how hot it was burning.. it was hot enough that I felt the heat about 5 blocks away.

For the record, I do believe our government is capable of covering plenty up. I just think this is one topic that does tend to hurt those people who were there whether it intended or not.

I was trying to say, in a nice way (I mean that), is that you can have whatever theories and discussions that you all want to have.. just please be aware that there are people who were actually there when it all happened.. not just watching on tv.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

[SteveLaura 0]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Needed saying. Cheers, FishK.

[yabasta 0]

[

"Again no i didn`t say it was full."

you said a lot. a lot = to a very great degree or extent. end of story. i have zero interest in continuing this conversation with someone who has not a clue yet makes such broad statements. have a nice life.

Well feel free to ignore what i said but this is off topic and not important.

A lot is a large number not a majority. "There are a lot of people on visa journey from USA but not all or most of them are" for example.

[sukie175 0]

[crashandcari 0]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

Edited May 17, 2006 by crashandcari

[yabasta 0]

I don't mean to insult you and I suppose I don't debate this issue because it makes me crazy. Why does there have to be conspiracy behind everything? Don't misunderstand me please.. For I watch tons of shows that claim to uncover the secrets behind.... (fill in the blank). But to me discussing whether or not 9/11 was a government coverup is a slap in the face to those who were directly affected.

How do planes flying cross country that just took off NOT have full tanks of fuel? The buildings were not meant to take that kind of impact. Nor did anyone ever analyze what that much fuel dumped inside the elevator shafts would do. And I do know for a fact that the plane that hit the south tower revved its engines before impact. Thats what made me turn and look as it flew over my head. And for how hot it was burning.. it was hot enough that I felt the heat about 5 blocks away.

For the record, I do believe our government is capable of covering plenty up. I just think this is one topic that does tend to hurt those people who were there whether it intended or not.

I was trying to say, in a nice way (I mean that), is that you can have whatever theories and discussions that you all want to have.. just please be aware that there are people who were actually there when it all happened.. not just watching on tv.

Well it makes me crazy too to debate this issue. I just happen to feel strongly about this issue. It is after all an important issue i am sure we can all agree.

I am sorry if this debate is upsetting to you but i do not see how it is a debate that is a slap in the face to you. I did not suggest your relatives or friends had it coming or brought it upon themselves or anything of that nature. I simply sugegsted that maybe it was not the people who have been claimed responsible.

I realise the gravity of the situation and i am aware that my t.v. experience of the events is never going to be as powerful as if i had been at ground zero. Of course at the same time my distance perhaps enables me better view that is not clouded by being there. I am not saying that it does i am just saying that both viewpoints are valid and different.

The people who died were murdered and i simply want justice for them and for the many people killed, imprisoned and tortured in their name around the globe.

As far as fuel is concerned i am no expert but i am under the impression that aeroplanes are often fuelled up based on how much distance they will be covering. This however is a side issue. Assuming the planes were fully loaded then you need to examine why the towers fell and i do not buy that it brought the towers down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBGKSZNWB4

Edited May 17, 2006 by yabasta