Tears dont cut it Mr. President

[Guest]

If the yanks set up 9/11 themselves and killed 3000 of their own just to invade Afghanistan then that'll do me.

But why invade either Iraq or Afghanistan anyway ??

Well it's no secret that Afghanistan is the home base of Al-Qaeda, and they did claim responsibility for 9/11\. American's, being as patriotic as they are demanded action so it was pretty much a forgone conclusion they'd invade the joint. As for Iraq…I think the US was more concerned about the possibility of being screwed over in relation to oil reserves, and they are the number 1 consumer of oil in the world, although China would probably give them a run for their money.

Either way, I think they felt they'd crush both nations through technology and superior firepower, except that will only get you so far once your enemy decides to live off the land and go "dark". The US rules and the skies but once it gets up close and personal (in places where tanks and armour can't effectively fight), they come back to the playing field pretty quickly.

Anyway, that's another debate altogether.

 

[stryker]

But why invade either Iraq or Afghanistan anyway ??

A small group of politicians believed strongly that the fact that Saddam Hussien remained in power after the first Gulf War was a signal of weakness to the rest of the world, one that invited attacks and terrorism…. Remember America is the world’s worst war mongering country – this is how they think.

IMO they needed something big – something terrible to persuade not just the American people but the United Nations as well that a huge payback styled war was required.

Enter 9/11.

Shortly after taking power with George Bush in 2000 and after the attack on 9/11, they were able to use the terrorist attacks to justify war with Iraq on this basis and exaggerated threats of the development of weapons of mass destruction.

The military strength of the U.S. and the brutality of Saddam's regime led them to imagine that the military and political victory would be relatively easy. Iraq was simply a soft target.
It was also a payback of sorts…remember Bush’s famous statement – “he (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy”. This was a ‘big dick’ exercise from Bush.

However when it became apparent the WMD’s couldn’t be located which would prompt the rest of the world started saying why the hell are we over here fighting and bombing the crap out of this country they had to think quick. Simple solution was we are now fighting a global war on terror with particular focus on the so called axis of evil which as Bush described was Iraq, Iran and North Korea. These countries possessed nuclear weapons and were enemies of the United States and its allies. The war proceeded.

At the same time they had to go after Bin Laden as they had named him the mastermind of 9/11\. When Afghanistan and the Taliban refused to hand him over once again the US had to show its balls and went in after him.

There are of course other reasons such as religious dominance and undoubtedly the oil reserves…the whole thing was stupid and greedy and vicious.

 

[happy_tiger]

Br53ky ,Willow and Stryker

I understand all of that , but it doesn't support Stryker and Br53ky argument Especially seeing that for the past 3-4 years the Americans are in almost financial ruin with a Trillion dollar debt

Any fool knows that once the Americans leave the Taliban and / or Al Qaeda (not calling you fools guys sorry , but those Bush boys thats a different story ) are within 2 years going takeover either militarily or with bogus elections

What are the Yanks going to do then ?? Come and storm back into Afghanistan or Iraq They will never get control over the oil reserves in Iraq as the rest of the Middle East will kick up a stink of biblical proportions and cause far more problems than the Iraqis or Afghanis ever could

The only point I agree on is the Yanks have this "We are the masters of the Universe God complex" and don't want any country to try and pull their pants down

Some people try and put a political relevance to this , but this was always going to fail as once the American people realized the only way they could fix the issue was to permanently locate their troops in both countries that the loss of troops and the Billions of dollars involved to do this was logistically not possible

Again I don't think the Americans would do this , but if there were any Presidents who would think this logical decision it would be the Bush boys

 

[stryker]

Just to make a few comments on issues raised on this page:

The appearance of something exploding doesn't mean their are explosives present. What appears to be things exploding are objects being forced out at pressure. Put some stuff in a box and then smash it and things will be launched out.

Weight baring down on something will cause it to collapse unless their is sufficient resistance to support that weight. Same reason why a fat man breaks a chair.

The building doesn't collapse where the plain went in because buildings (well that one at least) aren't designed that way. What held that building up were the internal core supports. That's what the plane damaged. When the fire weakened everything else the damage to the supports meant the floors couldn't support themselves. As each floor collapse more weight comes onto the remaining floors. If floor 84 can't support the weight above it, floors 1-83 are no chance.

WTC7 was collateral damage. It caught fire and the fire couldn't be put out. Rather than collapse at free fall speed the process to a hell of a long time.

The core of the WTC buildings was so strong that both buildings took a hit from passenger airliners travelling at 100’s of miles per hour. That is a huge collision. There were 4 people who were above the crash site and managed to get out alive. One of them was stated as saying the tower lurched to the side on impact and returned to upright after 10 seconds or so. He was convinced it would just break off and send him and his colleagues hurtling to the ground. This tells me that the core was able to withstand the impact. Given the dense grid of long vertical columns in the tower's core, the collapse proposed would have caused the tower's top to topple from the crash zone, like a falling tree. But even if the core were completely severed at the crash zone, the intact portion of the core below would deflect the falling portion of the building away from the centre.

What we got though was 2 x 110 story buildings dissolving into their own footprints leaving behind a pile of rubble less than 10 meters tall. Where did all of this super strong structural steel and concrete go? It seems to have just vaporised.

The buildings fell at near free-fall acceleration. If this were a gravity-driven collapse, the falls would have been greatly slowed by two energy sinks: the crushing of each story encountered, and the acceleration of its mass downward (since the stationary rubble would have to catch up with the falling top). That energy could only have come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass, decelerating it. Even if you can buy the physical impossibility that the floors by themselves could have fallen that fast, it doesn't begin to explain where the energy to shatter the outer wall and inner core columns came from. And then there is the energy required to pulverize the floors' concrete into fine dust before it hit the ground. That energy alone is on the order of the entire potential energy of the building's elevated mass.

The towers were designed to survive collisions by 707s carrying over twice the fuel that the similar-sized 767s were and it is generally agreed upon that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out in 5 minutes. The official story is that the heat generated from the fire softened and buckled the structural boxes. This is not possible in that time frame. There has never been a total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise in history due to fire or any other cause except planned demolition and severe earthquakes…fact.

And one last thing… the 47-story WTC 7, underwent a complete and systematic collapse even though it sustained no impacts with aircraft or large debris. It just had a few small fires that were barely visible.

 

[stryker]

Happy it doesnt support our arguments now…it is 11 years later and the plan has not gone to script.

But at the time these decisions were made it was most definetly concievable that the yanks would lead a crusade of vengence to the middle east, kill all the bad guys, take control of the oil pipelines, setup bases right throughout the region, make a fortune on the war itself and become the undisputed super power that it always thought it should be.

What they have ended up with is a red face and an economy going backwards as they have spent 2.5 trillion dollars over there...mostly funded by loans.

So I understand your question...but you have to take yourself back to 2001 to answer it. The Bush administrations war on terror was a fraud and 9/11 was a tool they used to make it happen.

 

[brk53y]

Just to make a few comments on issues raised on this page:

The appearance of something exploding doesn't mean their are explosives present. What appears to be things exploding are objects being forced out at pressure. Put some stuff in a box and then smash it and things will be launched out.

Weight baring down on something will cause it to collapse unless their is sufficient resistance to support that weight. Same reason why a fat man breaks a chair.

The building doesn't collapse where the plain went in because buildings (well that one at least) aren't designed that way. What held that building up were the internal core supports. That's what the plane damaged. When the fire weakened everything else the damage to the supports meant the floors couldn't support themselves. As each floor collapse more weight comes onto the remaining floors. If floor 84 can't support the weight above it, floors 1-83 are no chance.

WTC7 was collateral damage. It caught fire and the fire couldn't be put out. Rather than collapse at free fall speed the process to a hell of a long time.

The core of the WTC buildings was so strong that both buildings took a hit from passenger airliners travelling at 100’s of miles per hour. That is a huge collision. There were 4 people who were above the crash site and managed to get out alive. One of them was stated as saying the tower lurched to the side on impact and returned to upright after 10 seconds or so. He was convinced it would just break off and send him and his colleagues hurtling to the ground. This tells me that the core was able to withstand the impact. Given the dense grid of long vertical columns in the tower's core, the collapse proposed would have caused the tower's top to topple from the crash zone, like a falling tree. But even if the core were completely severed at the crash zone, the intact portion of the core below would deflect the falling portion of the building away from the centre.

What we got though was 2 x 110 story buildings dissolving into their own footprints leaving behind a pile of rubble less than 10 meters tall. Where did all of this super strong structural steel and concrete go? It seems to have just vaporised.

The buildings fell at near free-fall acceleration. If this were a gravity-driven collapse, the falls would have been greatly slowed by two energy sinks: the crushing of each story encountered, and the acceleration of its mass downward (since the stationary rubble would have to catch up with the falling top). That energy could only have come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass, decelerating it. Even if you can buy the physical impossibility that the floors by themselves could have fallen that fast, it doesn't begin to explain where the energy to shatter the outer wall and inner core columns came from. And then there is the energy required to pulverize the floors' concrete into fine dust before it hit the ground. That energy alone is on the order of the entire potential energy of the building's elevated mass.

The towers were designed to survive collisions by 707s carrying over twice the fuel that the similar-sized 767s were and it is generally agreed upon that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out in 5 minutes. The official story is that the heat generated from the fire softened and buckled the structural boxes. This is not possible in that time frame. There has never been a total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise in history due to fire or any other cause except planned demolition and severe earthquakes…fact.

And one last thing… the 47-story WTC 7, underwent a complete and systematic collapse even though it sustained no impacts with aircraft or large debris. It just had a few small fires that were barely visible.

This x1000

It's also a coincidence that 4 beams left in the rubble where sheered off at a 45 degree angle, exactly the way they are left after a controlled demolition. The charges are placed on beams at that angle and are designed to cut through them like a hot knife through butter.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

this is getting a little sad. How in the world is it imaginable that Bush would kill his own people on his own soil. I cant get my brain around it. i really cant.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[innsaneink]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Theres explosive substances in just about every household

Only one bloke here seems to be using much common sense - Yoss

Ppl just love putting 2+2 together and coming up with everything bar 4

 

[stryker]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Theres explosive substances in just about every household
Nanothermite? Very weak statement you have made there…in fact it means jack squat.

Only one bloke here seems to be using much common sense - Yoss
Common sense is very subjective. To me it is common sense that if a building has a plane slam into the side of it, than the destruction to the structural integrity of that side dictates the building will lurch and come apart at that point. It doesnt make sense that the whole thing pancakes.

You either accept and believe what the mass media is feeding you as the truth or you look outside the box. To Yoss's credit he seems to have read a fair bit on the subject and has indeed looked outside of the official line. He has taken a line and has found information to back him up through his research. Guess what? so have we. This is why events like this are always shrouded in mystery....there is a multitude of evidence on both sides of the fence.

Ppl just love putting 2+2 together and coming up with everything bar 4
Typical reaction of someone who believes everything they are told to believe. Those who employ critical thinking are crackpots, conspiracy theorists etc....I think people who watch the news and swallow everything presented as gospel are brainwashed so each to their own.

Heres a summary of the collapse by a collective of Architects, Chemical Engineers, Metalurgists, Material analysis experts, Structural Engineers, Material science engineers, Physists and other experts including chemistry professors, mathematicians and aeronautical engineers who dont agree with the 'official' story.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:
1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

 

[brk53y]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Theres explosive substances in just about every household

Only one bloke here seems to be using much common sense - Yoss

Ppl just love putting 2+2 together and coming up with everything bar 4

Please elaborate ink. Explosive substances such as?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[stryker]

this is getting a little sad. How in the world is it imaginable that Bush would kill his own people on his own soil. I cant get my brain around it. i really cant.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

The bush's are an evil family mate. Go back through their history.

The Bush administration were capable of this and far worse. They made up lies about Iraq's WMD's and sent us to war….what about Guantanmo Bay? Abu Ghraib? The NSA tapping citizens pnones illegally in direct contrevention of the FISA and their own 4th amendment rights?

 

[Yossarian]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Firefighters are hardly explosives experts and I've not read anywhere that the majority of firefighters there that day support the theory of a controlled detonation. I'd be interesting in reading the exact quotes from the firies if you can find them.

I'm probably not making much progress here but ask yourself these questions:

How was some able to plant these "explosives" in the first place without anyone noticing?
Supposedly these explosives were located in the shell of the building in order to ensure its collapse. Are we to believe this was done in the 1970s when it was constructed? If not how was this done post construction?
Has any evidence been found apart from traces of a substance linked to explosives but which is also used in construction? Any explosive caps etc?

To me this is like finding iron in the moon surface and suggesting its evidence of a mine. It has all the hallmarks of reaching a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it.

 

[cktiger]

Happy it doesnt support our arguments now…it is 11 years later and the plan has not gone to script.

But at the time these decisions were made it was most definetly concievable that the yanks would lead a crusade of vengence to the middle east, **kill all the bad guys**, take control of the oil pipelines, setup bases right throughout the region, make a fortune on the war itself and become the undisputed super power that it always thought it should be.

What they have ended up with is a red face and an economy going backwards as they have spent 2.5 trillion dollars over there...mostly funded by loans.

So I understand your question...but you have to take yourself back to 2001 to answer it. The Bush administrations war on terror was a fraud and 9/11 was a tool they used to make it happen.

This was Bush's mistake… should have nuked them!
All over quickly and show who's boss. :wink:

 

[happy_tiger]

Sorry Stryker ,but they had a precedence with Afghanistan with the Russians

And the Americans had already had their own Afghan war 20 years earlier in Vietnam

You can't kill all the bad guys when you find it very hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys

 

[happy_tiger]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Theres explosive substances in just about every household

Only one bloke here seems to be using much common sense - Yoss

Ppl just love putting 2+2 together and coming up with everything bar 4

And you just love weighing in with nothing and criticising everybody elses opinions

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

this is getting a little sad. How in the world is it imaginable that Bush would kill his own people on his own soil. I cant get my brain around it. i really cant.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

The bush's are an evil family mate. Go back through their history.

The Bush administration were capable of this and far worse. They made up lies about Iraq's WMD's and sent us to war….what about Guantanmo Bay? Abu Ghraib? The NSA tapping citizens pnones illegally in direct contrevention of the FISA and their own 4th amendment rights?

but why would he do that? I dont understand.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

and 2 planes DID fly into the World Trade Centre right? can we clarify this?

 

[brk53y]

Yoss I understand your theory about things being forced out under pressure. Working with high pressure energy is part of my job. That doesn't explain the numerous statements from firefighters in the buildings who said there were explosives in there. It also doesn't explain the flashes coming from 10 floors below when the building is coming down.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Firefighters are hardly explosives experts and I've not read anywhere that the majority of firefighters there that day support the theory of a controlled detonation. I'd be interesting in reading the exact quotes from the firies if you can find them.

I'm probably not making much progress here but ask yourself these questions:

How was some able to plant these "explosives" in the first place without anyone noticing?
Supposedly these explosives were located in the shell of the building in order to ensure its collapse. Are we to believe this was done in the 1970s when it was constructed? If not how was this done post construction?
Has any evidence been found apart from traces of a substance linked to explosives but which is also used in construction? Any explosive caps etc?

To me this is like finding iron in the moon surface and suggesting its evidence of a mine. It has all the hallmarks of reaching a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it.

I will dig them up for you when I have time yoss.

The theory of how explosives were planted stems from these points. Not saying that I fully agree with it but I can see how the opportunity would arise.

George bush's brother marvin is head of a security company called securacom, who controlled all security operations at the towers.

Bomb sniffer dogs were part of the patrol process of the towers. 5 days prior to the attacks, they were withdrawn from patrol. A fact backed up by numerous people who worked in the towers.

2 weeks prior to the attacks regular emergency evacuation drills were carried out at the towers, an event described as unusual by employees. After the drills unidentified people were allowed access to the building to make sure it was safe, with workers told it was all part of the drill. A fact backed up by numerous people who worked in the towers.

4 days prior to the attacks the tower suffered a 36 hour power loss. Workers were told this was for maintenance and for the replacement of cables. During this time no security cameras were operational and security doors usually requiring an access card were unrestricted. A fact backed up by numerous people who worked at the towers.

So IMO there was ample opportunity for explosives to be fitted to where ever they needed to be.

Yoss I may be wrong but you seem to be taking this personally? Stryker and myself are merely presenting an alternative theory backed by IMO pretty strong evidence. You are also presenting pretty strong evidence that supports the official theory. Which one of us is correct we may never know. There is to many inconsistencies for my liking though.

You say do I have any other evidence other then explosive material found in the dust left over. Why should this be discounted. You and ink claim it is found in many households yet haven't named what explosives you are talking about.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[brk53y]

and 2 planes DID fly into the World Trade Centre right? can we clarify this?

Yes. I don't doubt that for 1 moment. There are theories that say they were holograms or military aircraft fitted with MTHEL weapons. I don't believe any of that for a second. So I'm not a total loony!!
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[brk53y]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-911-f … apsed.html
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_