Secrets Can't Be Kept Forever ...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who was the Bond villain in 1969 and 1979?

1969 - Telly Savalas (Ernst Stavro Blofeld)

1979 - Michael Lonsdale (Hugo Drax)

That's a whole different kettle of fish to suggesting that the American government declared war on its own people. In the US at least, that is also unprecedented.

again, fishy .... not unprecedented ... guess Code named Operation Northwoods rings no bells for you??

Didn't work though did it?

[gimygirl 0]

again, fishy .... not unprecedented ... guess Code named Operation Northwoods rings no bells for you??

Didn't work though did it?

thankfully, it was rejected at the time .... but if that idea was out there and accepted behind closed gov't doors in the '60's ... it would be naïve to think that it still isn't there today.

"After the 1898 explosion of the battleship Maine, the 1933 Reichstag Fire, the 1939 bogus Polish "invasion" of Germany, and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, it is irresponsible not to consider the possibility that elements of the CIA and/or Bush administration had a hand in the events of September 11, 2001." ~Bill Weinberg~

ETA: fixed the quote boxes

Edited September 17, 2006 by gimygirl

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

again, fishy .... not unprecedented ... guess Code named Operation Northwoods rings no bells for you??

Didn't work though did it?

thankfully, it was rejected at the time .... but if that idea was out there and accepted behind closed gov't doors in the '60's ... it would be naïve to think that it still isn't there today.

"After the 1898 explosion of the battleship Maine, the 1933 Reichstag Fire, the 1939 bogus Polish "invasion" of Germany, and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, it is irresponsible not to consider the possibility that elements of the CIA and/or Bush administration had a hand in the events of September 11, 2001." ~Bill Weinberg~

ETA: fixed the quote boxes

As I said, questions do not amount to conspiracy or complicity.

[Lewis 0]

.. staggeringly mindnumbing incompetence is a far more typical (and far more likely) explanation.

or is it that they know the ignorant public with widely accept that it was made to look like 'staggeringly mindnumbing incompetence'?

With regards to this event, that would also be unprecedented.

this would not be unprecedented ... remember pearl harbor? or this little tidbit:

"On July 3rd, 1969, the CIA gave birth to Islamic Fundamentalism when President Carter signed a directive for United States Intelligence to provide radical islamic thinking and Arms to afghan fighters, before the Soviet Union invaded." Documented in a 1998 interview Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor

but with regards to this event ... it's unprecedented that never before, or since, has a steeling building collapsed due to the simultaneous weakening of their support structure due to an open fire.

Ok, but it wasn't just an "open fire" that supposedly caused the collapse of the towers. From the info I have seen, an airplane crashed into the tower(s) before that and undermined the structural integrity of the steel. A part of the video compared the plane flying into the structural network of the building to a pencil poking through a mesh screen. IMO, that is a major oversimplification of what happened. Was the screen cut in half horizontally? Was the screen supporting massive shifting weight and pressure from above? I guess some people will never accept the logical explanation unless an identical situation happens again. Even then, it probably won't be enough.

An event like this is unprcedented in many ways, that does not necessarily mean that the explanation of the cause of the collapse is right or wrong. What I ask is this, if the planes crashing into the towers did not lead to the collapse of the towers, then what is the real cause of the collapse of the towers?

[incanada1234 0]

Islamic terrorists must love you, gimy.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I thought for myself and I think the 9/11 conspiracies are masturbatory wish-fulfilment

I have to agree.

[dalegg 143]

What I ask is this, if the planes crashing into the towers did not lead to the collapse of the towers, then what is the real cause of the collapse of the towers?

Well see there. You didn't watch the film! The answer- according to this film and others like it- is bombs.

From watching the footage of the towers coming down I would have to conclude that it must be a combination of bombs on the planes and bombs placed in the center core structures of the buildings at stragic points that would be strong enough to weaken the core, but not strong enough to cause an actual implosion of the building.

I could be wrong about the bombs on the planes though, the alternative is that the explosives were already either on or about the exact floor that the plane hit, and the unmanned planes were guided with precision to hit that exact floor so that spectators would think the plane caused the building to collapse. Either one works I suppose. In any case, you know it has to start at that floor because there is no "pancaking" of the floors above the impact sites.

Next, you have the secondary explosions that weaken the core. These explosives were obviously very carefully chosen to not cause premature toppling of the building from below so that the pancake illusion would seem real. As many times as I've seen the film, I see absolutely no sign of the building suffering structural damage whatsoever on the exterior at any of the lower levels until the growing stack of pankakes hits them, although witnesses report that the explosions happen at much lower floors before the building begins to fall. So, the explosives only affected the core. But remember, as was pointed out in the beginning of the film, the exterior trusses were already known to be weak enough to collapse because of the fire, so they only needed to concentrate on the "indestructable" core. I haven't quite worked this out yet because the first explosion was actually at the base of the tower. They show you that at 34 minutes into the film. It isn't until 9 seconds later that the floors where the impact occurred begin to fall. It's incredible because again, the building doesn't appear to begin to fall at all from the bottom where one might expect had an explosion occurred there, but then again, an explosion at the bottom of the Towers didn't cause them to go down in '93 either. See, the explosion at the base of the tower helped weaken the upper floors.

Another thing the demolition team did that was sheer genious is in the exposions themselves. At about 35 minutes into the film they show you the squibs from the explosions. The demolitions were chosen so perectly that the squibs they produced actually travel out of the building at the exact same speed of the falling building. You might almost get the impression that air is being forced out of that floor from the pressure of the falling building forcing dust out of the broken windows. Clever.

Yes, this is a demolition like no other. An implosion with such precision as has never been seen. At 36 minutes into the film they are nice enough to even demonstrate the difference with a normal imploding building. Notice how the explosives usually go off almost simultaneously and are not just in one small corner of the building, they are all over the building, and when they go off, the area around them immediately crumbles, not waiting for the floors above to help with their collapse. So the whole building crumbles as one nice and neatly. But again, the demolition experts on 9/11 had this planned out better.

Just to summarize,

1st- Huge explosion caused by either bombs placed on the floor that the planes hit, or bombs already on the planes knocking the large upper section loose.

2nd- Explosions occurring at strategic places lower in the towers that would weaken the structure enough so that the tower wouldn't fall as a direct result of the explosion, but as a result of the weight of the loose upper floors falling on it.

-alternatively, explosions timed perfectly to weaken each floor 1/10th of a second prior to the upper floors hitting it.

Got it now?

Edited September 17, 2006 by dalegg

[Mirorgate 0]

Got it now?

no... could you do that again? i got rather confoozed with all the "just millisenconds before" conjecture.

[Not Available 0]

An hour and a half, but very interesting video. Very convincing, but I still dont know what to believe.

[Lewis 0]

Ok, let's suppose the "bomb theory" is correct.

Why go to all that trouble to fly the plane into the building then if the bombs were so effective?

Let me guess-for the drama/distraction and/or to blame terrorists when it was actually our own government that was destroying the towers. Maybe our government was tired of the towers and they just wanted more room for newer buildings. So our own government chose to destroy a crucial cog in the economic machinery of our greatest city and kill thousands of American citizens along with it. Hey, and no one even leaked the secret...... People never tell secrets, especially when it involves unprecedented events.

I did try to watch the movie but got discouraged after the window screen analogy. The main points I get from many of these explanations is that because the event was "unprecedented" it also gives license for unprecedented explanations.

[dalegg 143]

Ok, let's suppose the "bomb theory" is correct.

Why go to all that trouble to fly the plane into the building then if the bombs were so effective?

Because they had two other dramatic plane crash simulations planned for that day. They were trying to create a theme that would make the other two (that actually didn't happen) seem believable.

[Lewis 0]

Ok, let's suppose the "bomb theory" is correct.

Why go to all that trouble to fly the plane into the building then if the bombs were so effective?

Because they had two other dramatic plane crash simulations planned for that day. They were trying to create a theme that would make the other two (that actually didn't happen) seem believable.

Thanks for the explanations, still a non believer in the bomb theory though. B)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok, let's suppose the "bomb theory" is correct.

Why go to all that trouble to fly the plane into the building then if the bombs were so effective?

Because they had two other dramatic plane crash simulations planned for that day. They were trying to create a theme that would make the other two (that actually didn't happen) seem believable.

Thanks for the explanations, still a non believer in the bomb theory though. B)

It does seem rather far fetched.

Considering that when you see the footage of the 9/11 attacks - the planes smash into the building with sufficient force to blow out the opposite side of the building and throw out a huge fireball. It's not clear what purpose would be served by blowing up the WTC - the planes hitting the building are iconic an indelibly imprinted on people's imagination. Even if the towers had not collapsed, there would still be a 'war on terror'.

[dalegg 143]

It does seem rather far fetched.

Considering that when you see the footage of the 9/11 attacks - the planes smash into the building with sufficient force to blow out the opposite side of the building and throw out a huge fireball. It's not clear what purpose would be served by blowing up the WTC - the planes hitting the building are iconic an indelibly imprinted on people's imagination. Even if the towers had not collapsed, there would still be a 'war on terror'.

Aha, but see you forget that the former FBI director John O'Neil had taken a job as security chief for the World Trade Center, and never fessed up to why he left that briefcase with all those secrets unguarded. Possibly the purpose was to actually assasinate O'Neil before he went public with who his contact in the conspiracy was and punish him for disagreeing with the Administrations approach to Anti-Terrorism. Eh? Think outside the box man.

Edited September 17, 2006 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aha, but see you forget that the former FBI director John O'Neil had taken a job as security chief for the World Trade Center, and never fessed up to why he left that briefcase with all those secrets unguarded. Possibly the purpose was to actually assasinate O'Neil before he went public with who his contact in the conspiracy was and punish him for disagreeing with the Administrations approach to Anti-Terrorism. Eh? Think outside the box man.

Is it not possible there could be a simple (innocent) explanation?

I'll not deny that there are questions to be answered - but I don't see those questions pointing towards a conspiracy, as much as hiding incompetance on the part of government officials and agencies.

Various administrations have funded dictators and "Freedom fighters" like the Mujahadeen - both directly and through intermediaries. A disaster on the magnitude of 9/11 would (and did) open up pandora's box of dirty secrets and pose more than a few difficult questions. Its not really a surprise why the government would want to conceal the extent of their involvement in supporting such people - to put a distance between them and a less than salubrious past.

Edited September 17, 2006 by erekose