ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/25/2014 08:13 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Current Events
N.J. Man Arrested for Selling "Ebola" Heroin
Four Dead Babies Found in Winnipeg Storage Locker
People Are Selling Their Imaginary Friends on eBay
Woman Goes to Jail for Not Mowing Lawn
Woman Arrested After Being Stuck in Chimney of Ex-Boyfriend´s Home
Piglet Born With "Elephant Trunk"
NYC: Stepfather Charged After Beating 3-Year-Old Girl to Death
Oscar Pistorius Sentenced to Five Years in Prison
Pizza Hut Apologizes for "Pink Fat Lady" Comment on Receipt
Uber Passenger Clams She Was Kidnapped
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you worried about getting Ebola?
  Latest Events
10/25/2014 05:55 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'US/Palestinian Citizen Shoot Dead By Israeli Troops '
10/25/2014 01:24 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Biden´s Son Kicked Out of Navy for Cocaine'
10/25/2014 01:15 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Paralyzed Man Walks Again After Revolutionary Cell Transplant'
10/25/2014 01:04 AM
captainJane receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'US/Palestinian Citizen Shoot Dead By Israeli Troops '
10/25/2014 12:26 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'California Prisons End Race-Based Lockdowns'
10/25/2014 12:26 AM
dolcevita receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'N.J. Man Arrested for Selling "Ebola" Heroin'
10/25/2014 12:25 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Toys ´R Us Stops Selling Controversial "Breaking Bad" Action Figures'
10/25/2014 12:25 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Toys ´R Us Stops Selling Controversial "Breaking Bad" Action Figures'
10/25/2014 12:23 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Four Dead Babies Found in Winnipeg Storage Locker'
10/25/2014 12:23 AM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'N.J. Man Arrested for Selling "Ebola" Heroin'
  3.899 Visits   7 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/28/2006 09:54 PM ID: 52535 Permalink   

U.S. Officials Lying about 9/11: BYU Professor's Group

 

A group named Scholars for 9/11 Truth, claim that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "prepositioned explosives." The group maintains that the official version of what happened on 9/11 is its own conspiracy theory.

The group which is headed by Steven E. Jones, a Brigham Young University physics professor along with Professor Jim Fetzer, consists of 50 others, one of which includes former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" program, Robert M. Bowman.

"What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind," says Fetzer. Another distinguished member includes Morgan Reynolds, who served under Bush's first term.

 
  Source: deseretnews.com  
    WebReporter: banshee9898 Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  44 Comments
  
  More  
 
The following is copied from the story's source:
• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.
The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."
The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.
Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

• Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."
 
  by: banshee9898     01/28/2006 10:00 PM     
  Okay,  
 
everyone will need these instructions:

http://zapatopi.net/...
 
  by: lurker     01/28/2006 10:01 PM     
  lurker  
 
You really think those things work? Hehe.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/28/2006 10:08 PM     
  Seriously Though,  
 
These scholars seem to have a point.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/28/2006 10:16 PM     
  2c  
 
I think a lot of people have suspected this for a long time. I know I found the tape of Osama sitting there claiming responsibility just a little to convenient. It looks like there is a president + some staff ready to take their place in the hall of fame along side hitler, pol pot, stalin and friends
 
  by: ixuzus     01/29/2006 12:18 AM     
  I'm  
 
with lurker on this one. I find the double fold helmet works wonders.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 01:08 AM     
  Emp3r0r, lurker  
 
You guys may want to this news story before you put your hats on. Facts don't lie.

http://www.shortnews.com/...
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 01:54 AM     
  banshee9898  
 
Yeah, but whose facts do you chose to believe? Everybody seems to be slinging "facts" around these days. The National Enquirer claims to have a lot of facts, too. ;)
 
  by: lurker     01/29/2006 02:34 AM     
  Here are some from more reputable sources than the  
 
Here are some from more reputable sources than the Enquirer :).

http://www.wanttoknow.info/...
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 02:53 AM     
  There are holes, such as the dec Osama tape  
 
See the pictures here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...
That is not Osama!

Motivation for USA can be read about here (The New Pearl Harbor):
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...

Some interesting short videoclips:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/... (real media. On war games held on 9/11 hindering shoot down)
http://prisonplanet.com/... (real media)
http://prisonplanet.com/...
http://www.911truthmovement.org/...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/... (the infamous "pull it" commentary about WTC7 which was not hit by an aircraft yet still collapsed)

Also look up "Operation Northwoods".
Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
 
  by: Kaleid   01/29/2006 04:15 AM     
  I've read this stupid sh*t before  
 
The web is full of conspiracy theory web sites that feature this sort of nonsense. Put your tin foil hat on. Aplly coat hangers to the side for better reception.
 
  by: W.S. Blevins     01/29/2006 04:29 AM     
  @banshee  
 
Little bit of the faults here that i see
and note, this isn't anything new.

First off... this article is saying the US staged this, but at the same time ignored warnings of a terrorist attack?
SO are you saying they setup explosives and when the planes crashed in, they set off the dyno? come on be a little more believable. Is it the terrorist or the U.S , oh they must be working together.

If they are working together, do you really think the terrorist are going to kill themselves so that they can cover up something more for the US?
And if you believe it wasn't terorrists but US operatives, why would they dispose of their own lives?

Also you do know that the airport has video tapes of the terorrist before getting on the plane, right?
Also families that are missing those same people. that is all a lie?

"67 times in the year prior to 9/11"
What about the year it was CHANGED, this is misleading it completely. Don't tell me you didn't catch that, or maybe you were too caught up in beliving this crap.

You did know that terrorist did try doing the explosives in the underground parking previously, right? SO was that just a failed attempt the government was doing before?

I've watched videos of demolition from this website
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/...
and i see no similarities at all, all of the buildings demo'd start to break from the bottom and collapse within themselves, which the world trade center does not do.
And how exactly do these experts know how an airplane running into the building is going to fall? no one is an expert on that, because we don't test those kinds of things.
Here is the world trade center falling:
http://www.cnn.com/...

Have you gone to their site?
http://www.st911.org/...
Look at the who list

They are all cospiracists that have come together, wrote books about a bunch of BS, and are just paranoid.
Another thing to note, none of them supirisinly are demolition experts or are engineers in the field of buildings.

here i like this one
McKnight professor of philosophy
hahaha philsophy, what a creditable source.

i like this part in the article
"Most of the members are less well-known."
I figured as much.

@Kaleid
The pull it comment, can be taken so out of context its not even funny. Pull it? the team of firefighers that were in rescuing?
DO you really think a cover up so big, this man would be talking about the cover up itself? come on.

Im not even going to comment on the other videos, i've already wrote enough on this reply.
 
  by: sp00ky187   01/29/2006 04:52 AM     
  sp00ky187  
 
You read and or clicked on the links? Wow you have more patients then me.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 06:53 AM     
  @spookey  
 
<And how exactly do these experts know how an airplane running into the building is going to fall? no one is an expert on that, because we don't test those kinds of things>

Err, yes they do. They test exactly this type of thing on skyscrapers and other large towers.

You seem to be missing the point, the things you point out are part of a wider conspiracy. You can't lie about terrorists crashing a plane into a building without faking things.

Going to ask something, i don't actually know the answer. Has there ever been a news report involving a lot of relatives of people that died in the 3 planes that crashed? I mean a gathering, not just one or two couples
 
  by: pornohippy   01/29/2006 07:07 AM     
  The least you could say  
 
...is that there was pre-knowledge and they let it happen.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/... and the [Before 9/11] section.

To get a short introduction listen to 18 minutes interview on Fox with Paul Thompson, writer of 9/11 The Terror Timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...

If you have a lot of time, download all with represantive Cynthia McKinney:
http://www.question911.com/...
It's a quick way to learn a lot more than you knew before.

Barbara Boxer is another politician that doesn't complete buy the official story, or atleast that there needs to be a new investigation:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   01/29/2006 08:02 AM     
  AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!  
 
The Sky is falling!!!!
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 09:10 AM     
  sp00ky187  
 
First off, don't put words in my mouth
because I never said I knew who carried it out simply because I don't. The more that I read on this subject the more I find out I don't know. I'm simply saying there are facts that most do not know about witch point to the official story being a fallacy.

That being said, let me point out what IS known.

"Also you do know that the airport has video tapes of the terorrist before getting on the plane, right?"

Did you know that several of the hyjackers have been found alive and well in their respective countries? In regard to video evidence, there are tapes of the Pentagon crash from businesses across the street witch were immediately confiscated in the name of national security and never released to the public? Only 4 frames of video were ever released from a Pentagon security camera witch show a blurred image of something flying into the pentagon then the resulting explosion.

"Also families that are missing those same people. that is all a lie?"

No, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're dead.

"67 times in the year prior to 9/11"
What about the year it was CHANGED, this is misleading it completely. Don't tell me you didn't catch that, or maybe you were too caught up in beliving this crap."

It makes sense to me. I may be wrong, but doesn't "67 times in the year prior to 9/11" mean from 9/11/00 to 9/11/01? It was changed during this time frame in June. One of us seems to be misreading this.

"You did know that terrorist did try doing the explosives in the underground parking previously, right? SO was that just a failed attempt the government was doing before?"

I don't know much about this incident. Here's a supposed article from the New York Times about it: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...
I would really like to see this article in the newspaper to confirm its authenticity.

"I've watched videos of demolition from this website
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/... and i see no similarities at all, all of the buildings demo'd start to break from the bottom and collapse within themselves, which the world trade center does not do."

I think you would agree that those videos have more "rectangular" shaped buildings (if viewing from the air) than the square WTC. If memory serves me, the Twin Towers had 4 main support columns (in the same square shape) that must have failed at the same time to bring the buildings straight down. Take just one or two out (like the planes should have), you might find a building toppling over onto other buildings. Your statement is irrelevant anyway and is just an opinion. If you look at the destruction of WTC 7 however, you will find that it does look like those controlled demolitions. Not to mention that Larry Silverstein said on national television that they had decided to "pull it" witch is common slang for demolishing a building. Here is more info on this subject: http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

"And how exactly do these experts know how an airplane running into the building is going to fall? no one is an expert on that, because we don't test those kinds of things."

Now you're just making up things. The WTC Twin Towers were indeed designed for an impact collision by a commercial airliner. Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001).

"They are all cospiracists that have come together, wrote books about a bunch of BS, and are just paranoid."

Again, opinion.

"Another thing to note, none of them supirisinly are demolition experts or are engineers in the field of buildings."

Oh really? Demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (of the same company your link is to) Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” Interesting stuff, huh?

"Im not even going to comment on the other videos, i've already wrote enough on this reply."

Please do, I'm just getting warmed up.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 09:14 AM     
  which witch  
 
Am I the only one who noticed this?
Banshee9898 either doesn't seem to like the word "which" or he is watching too much Disney channel nowadays.
 
  by: evox777   01/29/2006 10:24 AM     
  In any crime....  
 
...look who benefits the most.

Draw your own conclusions.
 
  by: ozric   01/29/2006 10:38 AM     
  @banshee9898  
 
""Another thing to note, none of them supirisinly are demolition experts or are engineers in the field of buildings.""

are you avoiding the questionablity of the people that support the site, by talking about the guy on the site that i posted? pathetic.
( please do warm up a bit more, and stop with the weak arguements and picking out the only things you can reply to)

There are some "rectangular" buildings on there, look a bit harder. or are you saying they are higher?

think about
it....geometry....same width and hieght increasments have the stability.

First off im not talking about pentgon tapes, im talking about the WTC towers.
So i really don't care about the few tapes about the pentagon. The WTC is a bit more public than the Pentagon, so therefore there are more tape footage of it.

You reliise that the year before that was 462 times average of flight scrmabling before the law in enacted to follow suspicous flights? Right? so does that now increase your suspicions? Maybe if i increase it to 1k it will secure your reasoning a bit more.
Or maybe the law caused it to decrease in a innocent way.

" don't know much about this incident. Here's a supposed article from the New York Times about it"
So prior to sept 11 you would have believed that if someone said they were going to crash airplanes into the WTC, you would have believe them? , nah i pretty sure everyone would have laughed at them.
Again you contradict yourself, you know why?
You are mixing your "facts" up with the truth that you believe, because according to you airplanes can't bring down the world trade center, but at the same time you think the authorities should have acted more vigorisly towards the threats of terrorists bring down the WTC with airplanes. Eventhough it seems to you its laughable that it could bring down the towers.

"Again, opinion."
about the books, there are several books about deception , conpiracy, and suspicions of the government. Again you avoid the question and state it as my opinion.

And are you denying these people are all conspiring that the US is decieving us all?
So no its not an opinion that they are all thinking that the US govt is a cloud of smoke and are gathering together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
here is the wiki of the 1993 attempt of terrorist attack.


Here is cnn article of the 1993 attack
http://www.cnn.com/...
im guessing you took the top hits of google when you search the topic, cause it was there'; let me know when you are off your high seeing articles disputing such horrible attacks and lay off jumping the gun like the president of iran saying the holocost didn't happen.

"No, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're dead."
Thats pretty funny, because one of them was in my city tucson, az and was pretty well known in the mosque that he went to? dead? i think not.

"you might find a building toppling over onto other buildings."
Im still waiting for your proof of airplane testing and the way they fall "with" videos of the proof how they should fall by being hit by airplanes. If not i'll accept that you believe whatever you read.

in the very article you provided
" Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition"
This comment is in there, wow yea great thanks for the info.
What a great way to back up your facts, from such a bias news source, is that all you can do? weak.

I've watch the video of WTC 7 , it doesn't collapse within itself it falls all together, and you SEE NO charges blasting.


I'd also like to know what words i put in your mouth that you didn't state you believed in.

Im pretty drunk now, so mind my grammar or whatever i messed up on. but it was pretty easy to come back on your "weak" agrument so far.
 
  by: sp00ky187   01/29/2006 10:45 AM     
  WTC squibs  
 
"I've watch the video of WTC 7 , it doesn't collapse within itself it falls all together, and you SEE NO charges blasting."

Looky here:
http://st12.startlogic.com/...

Also on WTC1 and 2:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/...
 
  by: Kaleid   01/29/2006 11:24 AM     
  Not sure why people don't proofread their articles  
 
"The group witch is headed by Steven E. Jones, a Brigham Young University physics professor along with Professor Jim Fetzer, consists of 50 others, one of witch includes former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" program, Robert M. Bowman."
Never knew there was a "witch" hunt.
 
  by: LuxFestinus     01/29/2006 12:44 PM     
  Not sure why my assessment was removed.  
 
due to the gross spelling mistakes in the article.
 
  by: LuxFestinus     01/29/2006 12:53 PM     
  sp00ky187  
 
"are you avoiding the questionablity of the people that support the site, by talking about the guy on the site that i posted? pathetic. ( please do warm up a bit more, and stop with the weak arguements and picking out the only things you can reply to)"

What site are you reffering to and what else would you like me to reply to? Your other opinons on the group?

"First off im not talking about pentgon tapes, im talking about the WTC towers.
So i really don't care about the few tapes about the pentagon. The WTC is a bit more public than the Pentagon, so therefore there are more tape footage of it."

Maybe we SHOULD be talking about the missing security tapes of the Pentagon. The Pentagon attack was a part of the 9/11 attacks as well and should not be ignored.

"You reliise that the year before that was 462 times average of flight scrmabling before the law in enacted to follow suspicous flights? Right? so does that now increase your suspicions? Maybe if i increase it to 1k it will secure your reasoning a bit more.
Or maybe the law caused it to decrease in a innocent way."

Could be, but what I do know is that we have the largest defense budget on Earth and you're telling me its normal for a 30 minute delay after the planes strike the WTC to scramble fighters?

"So prior to sept 11 you would have believed that if someone said they were going to crash airplanes into the WTC, you would have believe them? , nah i pretty sure everyone would have laughed at them."

I don't understand your reasoning for me to believe that at all, lol.

"Again you contradict yourself, you know why?
You are mixing your "facts" up with the truth that you believe, because according to you airplanes can't bring down the world trade center, but at the same time you think the authorities should have acted more vigorisly towards the threats of terrorists bring down the WTC with airplanes. Eventhough it seems to you its laughable that it could bring down the towers."

Your argument has no merit. It was the cheif engineer of the WTC that said that planes shouldn't have done anything to the buildings, I am not the expert on his building design. You can watch video of him proclaiming this confidently here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

"about the books, there are several books about deception , conpiracy, and suspicions of the government. Again you avoid the question and state it as my opinion."

No arguments here on the books, but I fail to see what question you're referring to. I was responding to your comment that "They are all cospiracists that have come together, wrote books about a bunch of BS, and are just paranoid." That sir, is not a factual statement; it is your opinion.

"And are you denying these people are all conspiring that the US is decieving us all?
So no its not an opinion that they are all thinking that the US govt is a cloud of smoke and are gathering together."

I do not deny that there are people that write books on government conspiracies. I don't exactly know how to respond to your comment because it doesn't make much sense, lol.

"Here is cnn article of the 1993 attack
http://www.cnn.com/... im guessing you took the top hits of google when you search the topic, cause it was there'; let me know when you are off your high seeing articles disputing such horrible attacks and lay off jumping the gun like the president of iran saying the holocost didn't happen."

Did I not tell you that I knew little about the 1993 WTC attack and that I wanted verification of the linked article? There is no argument here. The only gun I jumped was accepting the corperate news' version of the story as fact without researching it first for myself.

"Thats pretty funny, because one of them was in my city tucson, az and was pretty well known in the mosque that he went to? dead? i think not."

Ok first of all you state, "Also families that are missing those same people. that is all a lie?". Now you're saying one is alive? No, I don't personally know the man that lives in your city, that's why i said i could be wrong that all of them aren't dead. Hint hint.

"Im still waiting for your proof of airplane testing and the way they fall "with" videos of the proof how they should fall by being hit by airplanes. If not i'll accept that you believe whatever you read."

No, they were designed not to fall if a full capacity plane hit them. I'm not saying that they should have. Already answered above, but here you go again: http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

"in the very article you provided
" Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition"
This comment is in there, wow yea great thanks for the info.
What a great way to back up your facts, from such a bias news source, is that all you can do? weak."

Don't forget to ignore the
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 01:08 PM     
  continued, wow this is getting long  
 
fact that Silverstein said when he said "pull it" he meant to evacuate firefighters. There were no firefighters in the building. A news agencies bias towards or against something does not make their stories false. Fox News has a bias towards Republicans, but do you accuse them of false statements in their news stories because of this? I have yet to see you back up your spoon fed knowlege.

"I've watch the video of WTC 7 , it doesn't collapse within itself it falls all together, and you SEE NO charges blasting."

So this MUST mean that a small fire on two floors made the entire building collapse perfectly horizontally, right? Nevermind the fact that a fire had NEVER before brought a steel framed building to the ground and none have since.

"I'd also like to know what words i put in your mouth that you didn't state you believed in."

These are the words: "Is it the terrorist or the U.S , oh they must be working together." I never claimed to know who did it.

"Im pretty drunk now, so mind my grammar or whatever i messed up on. but it was pretty easy to come back on your "weak" agrument so far."

What about the Pentagon tapes? What is your reasoning for their witholding? If they showed a plane crashing into the pentagon, what's to hide?

As ozric said:
"In any crime....
...look who benefits the most."

Look at how much Larry Silverstein benifits. First link your Wipedia, notice he purchases the WTC 7 weeks before 9/11 for a small initial investment of a few hundred million. He insures his new complex for billions of dollars. ALL of his buildings are destroyed, He then collects his policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www.tenantwise.com/...
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...
I think you get the point.

There are so many other points to bring up for tomarrow, but its now past bedtime. Hopefully this has gotten your gears grinding a little :) Good night.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 01:12 PM     
  I feel confused, sick and angry  
 
http://www.wtc7.net/... there's another link for anyone interested.

Certainly 'IF' these claims by the group are true...how sickening and cold blooded is it to think that a democractice government, led alone just A government could plan for the deaths of 3,000+ for political gains domestic and foreign..to wage a war on the middle east whilst controlling the masses at home. It defies everything that I hold to be good about our existence..the reason why I feel confused is because I have a glimmer of hope that it's not true...if it is the founding fathers would be mighty pissed. America doesnt need to be put in its place, neither Americans but American Governments....whats the point. It'll turn back one day, people don't stand for it...once the truth comes out and it's true about the claims - woh nelly it's a free for all and im having 2nd's.
 
  by: Mr-Anderson   01/29/2006 02:17 PM     
  bah  
 
Its just moon landing stuff don't overreact.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 02:27 PM     
  Sorry.....  
 
I watched the videos of WTC7 and it just looks like windows breaking out from the building twisting as it fell.

 
  by: gnathon   01/29/2006 02:28 PM     
  @banshee  
 
You are having a field day picking out some of the things i argue and then introduce new things and new links.
Why don't you state what YOU believe?
Do you even believe the airplanes hit the WTC?
Do you believe there were terrorist on the plane?
Let me have an idea what exactly im arguing, thanks!

And if you are just warming up, at least try a bit harder, most of your argument is about not understanding what i say and quoting what i say.

"What site are you reffering to and what else would you like me to reply to? Your other opinons on the group?"
Im talking of your site http://www.st911.org/... and its creditabilty.
You keep mentioning people outside this site, it doesn't neccessarily mean they are saying that the WTC was demo'd. You see clips of them saying "yes it appears like its demo'd" "if i wanted a building to fall this way, i would have demo'd" ; if you have any sources that actually

As far as the Pentagon tapes missing, are you now saying airplanes weren't used? come on, banshee airplanes or no airplanes used to crashing in the buildings, which is it?
And i consider the Pentagon a military base, so i wouldn't expect tapes from them. I also would assume there might be something that happened that they don't want people to know, but not a cover up.

"Could be, but what I do know is that we have the largest defense budget on Earth and you're telling me its normal for a 30 minute delay after the planes strike the WTC to scramble fighters?"
(you are avoiding my question or you just can't think of anything so you answered my question with a question, but i'll answer it)

I think 30 minutes is very quick, first off from what i believe no one even knew airplanes hit the WTC, i remember watching the news thinking it was a bomb at first. Then they find out its a plane, what types of planes? it could be airlines but also smaller jet planes being used, you can't assume things right away. Then they have to find airplanes that are off course, you can't scramble jet fighters and chase all planes, do you have an idea of how many planes are in the air at this very momment? So yes 30 minutes is acceptable.
 
  by: sp00ky187   01/29/2006 08:27 PM     
  @banshee 2  
 
"I don't understand your reasoning for me to believe that at all, lol."
My reasoning is.... if someone told you pre-sept11 , that planes were going to be used as suicide bombers would you have believed them?
Anyone before this would have dimissed it as a joke or just a little threat.

"Your argument has no merit. It was the cheif engineer of the WTC"

As your video does?? , this video was taped before sept 11th he does say airplanes shouldn't have harmed it, but people are often wrong, its human. Why don't you find a video more up to date, maybe he would say that its possible now that airplanes could have taken it down.
Take a look at the example below, and i think people sometimes exaggerate things and i think thats what the video is.

The Titanic wasn't supposed to sink from an iceberg, so do you have a conspiracy theory for that as well?

"Now you're saying one is alive? No, I don't personally know the man that lives in your city, that's why i said i could be wrong that all of them aren't dead. Hint hint."
Why don't you read a little closer and think about it for a momment.
Families = alive
Terrorist = dead
Families of terrrorist = alive
Friends of terrorist = alive
Therefore there are people that knew them and what i was stating was are they are all lie too? Families missing them.

"No, they were designed not to fall if a full capacity plane hit them. I'm not saying that they should have."
Again, have you done your research? since you believe this so highly.
you do know he was talking about 707's, right?
767 is what hit the building.
Guess what? the 767 is some 30,000+ more lbs than the 707, wow i would think that could make a difference. I guess they make bigger airplanes over time, maybe it was all a conspiracy to build them to cause the destruction of the WTC buildings! yes! (scarcasm)

"Silverstein said when he said "pull it" he meant to evacuate firefighters. There were no firefighters in the building."
Maybe there weren't firefighters, but other people. SO what? they don't have to be firefighters. Are you assuming there was no one at all? assume all you want.

"These are the words: "Is it the terrorist or the U.S , oh they must be working together." I never claimed to know who did it."
I was merely trying to get some sense out of you, and where you stand on this issue. You can obviously tell that im not serious in those comments.
 
  by: sp00ky187   01/29/2006 08:28 PM     
  A few comments for Emp3r0r, sp00ky187  
 
Emp3r0r, it may not be wise to group all so called "conpiracy theories" together as bunk without doing thourough research on them first. The opinion of the masses can easily sway our perception of what is truth and was is fallacy. I personally don't subscribe to the moon landing being fake, there is simply just too much evidence to the contrary. However, my mind remains open to new information on the subject.

sp00ky187, I have finally come to realise that no matter the amount of information on this subject that is provided, nothing will sway your unwaivering belief system. Besides, the only person that can change your mind on this subject is you.

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
-Leonardo da Vinci

 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 08:43 PM     
  @banshee9898  
 
difference is, i actually research it.
You read a website and believe it.
Those websites are made to overload you with "facts" that aren't really facts.
And just make holes into anything, but you can do that with anything even things that are proven as the truth.

I'm not completely saying these conspiracy theories are wrong, but it goes both ways. You say we are so easily beliving the government, but you so easily believe them.
I think its good to have people questioning things.
You are right though you won't sway my thought of this, because im not on either side of defending this article. I just like to argue the opposite side of whatever is already being stated.

So maybe you should re-think what you think of me :)
 
  by: sp00ky187   01/29/2006 08:56 PM     
  whatever  
 
I look at it pretty simply. Why go to all that trouble with the planes and shit? Just blow it up all together.

What happened is far more simple. It is an example of what happens when ones foreign policy is to help governments like the Saudis so we can have a stable supply of oil. It’s not just us it’s the world we all are addicted to it. I think our biggest national security threat is oil.

“How often the simple solution eludes us”
“God bless the homicidal maniacs. They make life worthwhile.” – George Carlin
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 09:15 PM     
  sp00ky187, this one's probably the longest yet  
 
Our entire argument does seem to be based on misunderstanding doesn't it. What I believe is there is enough evidence to seriously doubt the official story. I do not know the ins and outs of what exactly what took place just as you don't. If I said I did, it would add fuel to the fire of another futile argument. Let's try to make some progress.

"And if you are just warming up, at least try a bit harder, most of your argument is about not understanding what i say and quoting what i say.

If one is to look over my responses, most of my argument is in fact not about not understanding what you say. I find it funny you keep writing out statements that are later proved to be incorrect (referring to when you said that nobody ever thought of planes crashing into buildings).
When I state that I don't understand what you're saying, I need simply a clearer explanation. This may have been brought on by you being drunk while writing your statements. I think you may agree that one would find it difficult to argue his side without knowing what is being argued.

"Im talking of your site http://www.st911.org/... and its creditabilty."

Ok thank you for clearing that up for me. I will offer a possible way to think about it. Why would a Professor of Physics along with other scholars risk his integrity going against the grain of public opinion if he did not believe what he says to have merit? My answer is because there might be something to what they're saying. Either that, or they have a large grudge against the administration (witch is stated not to be the case). You be the judge.

"As far as the Pentagon tapes missing, are you now saying airplanes weren't used? come on, banshee airplanes or no airplanes used to crashing in the buildings, which is it?"

I am saying I do not know what was used because the 4 frames of released video is too blurred for one to positively identify it as a Boeing 757.

"And i consider the Pentagon a military base, so i wouldn't expect tapes from them. I also would assume there might be something that happened that they don't want people to know, but not a cover up."

Thank you for acknowledging there might be something that happened that they didn't want people to know about, its a first step. I also can see the Pentagon Security tapes never being released, but not the ones owned by the business across the street. You'd think they would be able to get their security videos back after the investigation was complete.

"I think 30 minutes is very quick, first off from what i believe no one even knew airplanes hit the WTC, i remember watching the news thinking it was a bomb at first. it could be airlines but also smaller jet planes being used, you can't assume things right away. Then they have to find airplanes that are off course, you can't scramble jet fighters and chase all planes, do you have an idea of how many planes are in the air at this very momment? So yes 30 minutes is acceptable."

Ah, grounds for an interesting discussion.
8:25 a.m.: Boston air traffic control notified several air traffic control centers that a hijack is in progress with American Airlines Flight 11. Boston air traffic control first lost communication with American Airlines Flight 11 more than 11 minutes ago. What took them so long to start to implement procedure? Why didn’t they also notify North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) at this time?

If they did follow procedure and notify NORAD at 8:25 and NORAD followed protocol and ordered the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts to scramble at say 8:26 – two F-15’s would have been airborne by no later than 8:32 – these F-15’s would have had at least 14 minutes and 26 seconds to reach the WTC before American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) at 8:46:26. If these two F-15’s were flying at top speed, 14 minutes and 26 seconds is exactly twice the amount of time need to reach the WTC. These two F-15’s could have been at the WTC in just over 7 minutes, or as early as 8:39. Even a spokesperson for Otis said that their F-15’s could reach the WTC in 10 to 12 minutes, which would have them there at 8:42 to 8:44.

8:38 a.m.: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that American Airlines Flight 11 has been hijacked.

8:46 a.m.: NORAD orders the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts to scramble two of their F-15 fighters.

8:46:26 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower

8:46 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 transponder signal stops transmitting IFF beacon signal.

NORAD, by their own account, held on to this most vital information of these two hijacking for at least 6 minutes before ordering Otis to scramble. NORAD may have held on to the vital information of American Airlines Flight 11 for perhaps 8 minutes, maybe 10 minutes (see 8:36 a.m. # 25 statemen
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 10:59 PM     
  continued...  
 
by NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder), possibly up to 26 minutes (see 8:20 a.m. # 14 American Airlines Flight 11 transponder signal stopped transmitting its IFF beacon signal) and let us not forget that the last transmission of American Airlines Flight 11 with Boston air traffic control occurred at 8:13:31, so maybe NORAD had over 32 minutes before they notified Otis to scramble their two F-15’s.
This was the site I was looking for. It is the most comprehensive timeline of what happened and at what time.
http://www.911timeline.net

"My reasoning is.... if someone told you pre-sept11 , that planes were going to be used as suicide bombers would you have believed them?
Anyone before this would have dimissed it as a joke or just a little threat."

Here's another comment that is an opionion that you seem to consider factual. It depends on who told me this, certainly using planes as missiles is not anything new (ie. Japanese Kamakazis). This also has no bearing on whether the official 9/11 story is true or not.

"As your video does?? , this video was taped before sept 11th he does say airplanes shouldn't have harmed it, but people are often wrong, its human. Why don't you find a video more up to date, maybe he would say that its possible now that airplanes could have taken it down.
Take a look at the example below, and i think people sometimes exaggerate things and i think thats what the video is."

If you choose not to believe the cheif engineer of the WTC says about his building's constuction, that's your perogitive. He could be wrong, but I'm more inclined to believe his statements about the building's construction than yours.

"The Titanic wasn't supposed to sink from an iceberg, so do you have a conspiracy theory for that as well?"

Yes. It didn't sink from an iceberg at all, you see. Aliens crashed into it because the Bermuda Triangle made the UFO's instruments go haywire resulting in a complete loss of control.

"Families = alive
Terrorist = dead
Families of terrrorist = alive
Friends of terrorist = alive
Therefore there are people that knew them and what i was stating was are they are all lie too? Families missing them."

Of course some are probably dead, but not all of them. In fact, one of the supposed terrorist's dad had notified US athorities that he had spoken to his son in the days following 9/11.

"Again, have you done your research? since you believe this so highly.
you do know he was talking about 707's, right?
767 is what hit the building.
Guess what? the 767 is some 30,000+ more lbs than the 707, wow i would think that could make a difference. I guess they make bigger airplanes over time, maybe it was all a conspiracy to build them to cause the destruction of the WTC buildings! yes! (scarcasm)"

I sure have and you're putting words in my mouth again, I have read and understand he was talking about the largest planes at the time. You also don't believe his statement that the buildings should have withstood multiple impacts. That is much more weight than just one 767.

"Maybe there weren't firefighters, but other people. SO what? they don't have to be firefighters. Are you assuming there was no one at all? assume all you want."

Do you really think the statement "pull it" refers to the removal of firefighters or civilians from the already burning building? I personally have never heard the phrase "pull it" used to evacuate people from buildings, but I have heard it used for demoloshing buildings. You're assuming that there were people still inside hours after the fire started? One would speculate that they would have had some sort of fire alarm system in such a building for evacuation purposes.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 11:01 PM     
  Emp3r0r  
 
"I look at it pretty simply. Why go to all that trouble with the planes and shit? Just blow it up all together."

I like to keep things simple as well. Do you think the American people would have initially supported a war the middle east without 9/11 happening.

This quote explains it best:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 
  by: banshee9898     01/29/2006 11:15 PM     
  bah  
 
i can though just as many quotes at you. Again why go to all the trouble of planes? you could just as easily done it with bombs and gotten just as much exposure.

“My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific”
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."
-Bush

"You see, I've turned the moon into what I like to call a ‘Death Star’."

yeah... that's a master mind...
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/30/2006 12:10 AM     
  Emp3r0r  
 
I cannot answer why they chose to use planes instead of bombs without speculating. The point of the quote was to explain why 9/11 would have been nessiscary if the administration's original goal was to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those are some of my favorite Bushisms too. He's a really funny guy (in an unintentional way). Here are a few of my favs:

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." —George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

"Wow! Brazil is big." —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 6, 2005

"In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible — whatever that means." —George W. Bush, on his time frame for shoring up Social Security, Washington D.C., March 16, 2005

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." —George W. Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

"Arbolist … Look up the word. I don't know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it's an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees." —George W. Bush, as quoted in USA Today, Aug. 21, 2001

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." —George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." —George W. Bush, May 11, 2001

"It is white." —George W. Bush, asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001

"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." —George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

"Do you have blacks, too?" —George W. Bush, to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001



"My mom often used to say, "The trouble with W" — although she didn't put that to words." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Apr. 3, 2002

Too many to list, you can find more here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/...
 
  by: banshee9898     01/30/2006 01:37 AM     
  Just a little technical info for you here  
 
I have a degree in engineering and one of the primary things I studied was structures and get this, I learned that when you take the supports away from a building it will fall. Another thing is that when you stess floor joists with a sudden impact and then heat them up they weaken, even if the temperature doesn't reach the melting point.

And about the buildings being designed to withstand a plan crash. I can't remember which magazine and which issue, either popular science, or one of the aerospace magazines i get said this; I will try to find and post; The WTC was designed when the largest aircraft was (I forget whether it was the DC-9 or the 707) but either way, it was designed to withstand the impact at the end of the flight (therefore very little fuel left) if the pilot was off coarse to one of the 3 major airports in the area due to weather. Therefore, we have a much larger aircraft full of fuel since it just took off from Boston.

Then I have to ask; what does a phsycoligist know about structures and materials??? (Unless it is a hobby of theirs)
 
  by: testeng     02/01/2006 07:30 PM     
  The New Pearl Harbor  
 
Look for more information here:
http://physics911.net/...

Could you tell how the jetfuel created molten metal at the base of the building?
http://cortez.gnn.tv/...

Here's a supposed comparison between a 707 and a 747:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...

Btw, you can view Loose Change 2 online now:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   02/01/2006 08:01 PM     
  testeng  
 
Thank you for mentioning this. The article you refer to is indeed from Popular Mechanics and ended up being very controversial one (see the seismic activity section).

Since you have a degree in engineering, I'd like to ask your opinion on something. If indeed the official story is true and the structure did in fact weaken to the point of collapse, would you expect it to take a free fall downward as it did? Personally I would expect a weak part of the structure to fall on the remaining supports which would create at least some resistance to the fall. Does this seem an outlandish statement?



 
  by: banshee9898     02/01/2006 08:12 PM     
  Lets try those links again  
 
707 vs 747:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...

Loose Change 2:
http://video.google.com/...

Try also to watch 9/11 Eyewitness: http://video.google.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   02/01/2006 09:10 PM     
  @banshee9898  
 
With my exposure to structurial engineering the way the 2 main towers collapse (I won't talk about WTC7 because I haven't looked at that at all) does make sense to me.

1- the design of the 2 main towers had all the main support in the center of the building with the floors acting almost as cantalever beams hanging off of them (the outside walls actually provided very little support).

2- An instentaneous shock casued by an event such as a plane crashing to a beam causes more damage than the same load being gradually applied and maintained for a long period of time. This would weaken the floor joists on the floors the planes hit.

3- the heat caused by the fire would them continue to weaken the joists. The yield strength (the force required to cause deformation) lowers when the metal is heated.

4- by damaging the main supports and the floor joists, the floors that were hit were longer able to support their own wait causing them to fall on the floor below.

5- each floor is designed to hold its own weight plus that of the people and office furniuture on it, not the floor above it. so when you add the weight of the floor above, the next floor will collapse as well.

6- the videos i've seen show these towers falling in on themselves as they came down which would be representative of each floor falling onto the one below it, therefore pulling the outside walls in towards the core of the building.
 
  by: testeng     02/01/2006 09:11 PM     
  testeng, I'm sorry  
 
I was referring to the WT7 collapse, not the twin towers when I said "the structure". Guess I overlooked mentioning that :P.
 
  by: banshee9898     02/01/2006 09:26 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com