Could this be truth? 9-11 Mystery

Politics International Politics
1

It is hard to imagine the demonic assumption and theory that this film provides could actually be true. Horrific if so, and mind numbing. Watch for yourself, watch all the way to the end, and then as the film says itself…think for yourself…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4049590380102614532&hl=en

At first I didnt want to watch, a skeptic of conspiracy theories, etc. But curiosity got the better of me and I watched the film. There are good points brought up by this film that now throw some doubt into my mind…

Edit:

I am adding this list of questions. If anyone can offer a reasonable answer, please try…

  1. If the fires in the towers were out in 10 minutes (as FDNY firemen reported), why did the buildings fall? And how were the cores obliterated?

  2. How did jet fuel (kerosene) achieve burning temperatures of 5000dF, enough to cause pools of molten steel at the base of the buildings weeks later?

  3. How did incompetent, failing flight-school students maneuver Boeings at high speeds through difficult turns?

  4. Why were the hijackers not on the passenger lists? Where did their names and pictures come from a day later?

  5. If Mohammed Atta and his pals were Islamic fundamentalists, why did they frequent strip bars, drink hard liquor and leave deliberate “clues” (flight-school manuals and Korans) in obvious places?

  6. Why was the hole in the Pentagon so small? What happened to the wings of the Boeing, the heavy engines, the bodies of the passengers?

  7. Why were news reporters mystified at the lack of plane debris at Shanksville? Why did Donald Rumsfeld “mis-speak” about the plane being shot down?

  8. Why did Larry Silverstein, new landlord of the WTC complex, announce that Building 7 had to be “pulled” when such an operation takes weeks of planning?

  9. Why did President Bush fail to react in the Florida schoolroom and then say he had watched the first crash on live TV?

  10. Why did US air defense do absolutely nothing to intercept planes that were off course for as much as 1-2 hours?

2

I haven’t watched it, nor did I bother following previous threads on this topic, but off the top of my head…

[quote]

  1. If the fires in the towers were out in 10 minutes (as FDNY firemen reported), why did the buildings fall? And how were the cores obliterated?[/quote]There have been some good documentaries on this. Has to do with the construction of the floors. All it took was a couple weakened supports to pancake the whole thing. Were the fires out? Those buildings sure were smoking.

[quote]2. How did jet fuel (kerosene) achieve burning temperatures of 5000dF, enough to cause pools of molten steel at the base of the buildings weeks later?[/quote]Beats me. Enclosed areas trapping heat, plus readily available oxygen (windy up there)?

[quote]3. How did incompetent, failing flight-school students maneuver Boeings at high speeds through difficult turns?[/quote]Doesn’t take much, I’m told, once the plane is in the air.

[quote]4. Why were the hijackers not on the passenger lists? Where did their names and pictures come from a day later?[/quote]News to me.

[quote]5. If Mohammed Atta and his pals were Islamic fundamentalists, why did they frequent strip bars, drink hard liquor and leave deliberate “clues” (flight-school manuals and Korans) in obvious places?[/quote]Maybe they were more pissed off than holy? Why would flight-school students be packing flight manuals? Uh… :wink:

[quote]6. Why was the hole in the Pentagon so small? What happened to the wings of the Boeing, the heavy engines, the bodies of the passengers?[/quote]Dunno. It’s been hashed out elsewhere.

[quote]7. 8.[/quote]Dunno

[quote]9. Why did President Bush fail to react in the Florida schoolroom and then say he had watched the first crash on live TV?[/quote]Because he’s a (barely) talking monkey?

[quote]10. Why did US air defense do absolutely nothing to intercept planes that were off course for as much as 1-2 hours?[/quote]Not standard operating procedure? Beats me.

While I’m sure that the administration exploited their “Pearl Harbor-like event”, there’s a world of difference between doing so after the fact, and helping or allowing it to happen.

There’s lots and lots of stuff I’m ignorant of, and I’m awfully suspicious of this administration, but I’m not stupid.
Nor am I suggesting that you are, but unless you’re looking for interesting answers to engineering, flight mechanics, and psychological questions, you could probably learn more about what happened by looking elsewhere. Presumptuous of me, I know, but I have a hunch that it’s a safe bet.

The place to start might be the 9-11 Report.

3

There have been a number of decent articles that take a look at the 911 conspiracy theories. I think this short article (I’ll quote just the last two paragraphs, but the whole thing is not much longer) is fairly representative:

[quote=“Scientific American Magazine”]For example, according to www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag–straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon “missile strike,” for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. “The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives,” he solemnly revealed. “Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off,” I retorted, “is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?” My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000[/quote]

For answers to some of your other questions, Quarters, this Popular Mechanics piece does a decent job.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Cheers,
H

4

:flog: :smiley:

5

I love conspiracy nutters. They’re funny. I especialy liked the bit at the start where he says he stayed up for an entire week working on it.

Yup, that’ll do it, all right. You’d be hearing imaginary voices and all sorts. :laughing:

6

Quarters, movies like this do not even want you to “think for yourself.” They present their twisted gloryseeking POV in a manner that any idiot incapable of critical thinking would be drawn in and made a believer.

Jump on over to David Icke.com and watch a LOT more movies like this.

Once I watched this movie about ghosts and how they were invisible an shit, and I SWEAR I became more aware of these invisible ghosts in my own house!

I moved. :laughing:

7

Quarters, movies like this do not even want you to “think for yourself.” They present their twisted gloryseeking POV in a manner that any idiot incapable of critical thinking would be drawn in and made a believer.

Jump on over to David Icke.com and watch a LOT more movies like this.

Once I watched this movie about ghosts and how they were invisible an shit, and I SWEAR I became more aware of these invisible ghosts in my own house!

I moved. :laughing:[/quote]

Don’t misunderstand me here. I am not convinced by this film that 9-11 was a conspiracy. It was just interesting to see how many different takes tehre are on it. Thinking for myself…it happened, its over. That is all I know.

8

Double post

9

[quote]It was just interesting to see how many different takes tehre are on it[/quote]There are many different takes on it. For example, for the Pentagon crash, there are theories that it was a small private plane, a military jet, a missile, a bomb, and probably others. They can’t all be right.

And there’s that video proving that 9-11 was done by aliens. When I say “prove” I mean the same sort of proof that is usually wheeled out in videos like this.

10

think you can apply occam’s razor easily here. was there an unbelievably dangerous and complex plot by our own government, or did a bunch of guys hate our guts and try to blow us up. in the absence of evidence to the contrary–“isn’t it strange that…” type conjecture not counting there of course–i think i’ll have to stick with the latter theory, which hardly requires any explaining at all.

11

Sounds like a mission for Myth Busters :laughing:

12

But wait, there’s more.

[quote]Like the Unscathed Hijacker Passport Found Near Ground Zero, Now Comes Flight 77 Passenger’s Perfectly Intact ID Card Found at Pentagon Meltdown

Never before revealed passport of Pentagon victim called by critics ‘another piece of bogus evidence’ planted by the FBI like the passport, hijacker luggage and other suspicious evidence quickly linking the 19 Arab hijackers to 9/11.

One day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero, even though its next to impossible such a flimsy item escaped the towering inferno unblemished.

Now comes another piece of mysterious evidence, like the Al Suqami passport, never before revealed to the public and overlooked by authorities and the media, showing again the FBI probably was busy planting evidence at all 9/11 locations, including the Pentagon.

Never before released and revealed first to the Arctic Beacon, a first responder said he found a perfectly intact California ID card at the Pentagon on Sept 13, 2001, supposedly now revealing the identity of one of the alleged passengers who perished on Flight 77.[/quote]

The obvious question is, did that hijacker need his passport to get into heaven and those 72 ladies?

HG

13

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]The obvious question is, did that hijacker need his passport to get into heaven and those 72 ladies?

HG[/quote]

No offense, HG, but I think that question is belittles the serious nature of this thread.

Obviously a valid passport is not a requirement for a martyr to get his 72 raisins. How do we know that? Well think about it – Satam al Suqami would not have rolled down the window in the plane and thrown his passport out seconds before impact if he knew he’d be needing it to get his raisins would he?

“Well maybe he just didn’t know he’d need it?” I hear you saying…

Again, just think it through. These people were organized. They had everything planned out. Do you honestly think they wouldn’t have visited the relevant website and checked the FAQ to see which items they would need to have with them to get into heaven? It just doesn’t make sense.

A little thought before you post next time, okay? Especially when we are discussing a topic as earnest as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

14

I’m finding this thread hilarious for all the wrong reason.

I imagine what would be said if the video was about something that happened in Iraq, Iran, or Cuba, involving their president, his family’s involvement in security at that time, his flying out of the main suspect’s family, the fact that one crony made a record insurance claim on the event, the mystery of why one building (owned by the same crony) with little damage collapsed (while a hijacked plane was brought down before hitting its intended target), how procedures that day weren’t followed regarding such an emergency, how the captain of one of the planes worked on a project with that country’s secret police and which mimicked exactly one of the attacks, etc., etc., etc.

If this happened in a country that was not friendly to the West, you would be calling for invasion and the hanging of its president.

As far as I can see, there are serious questions raised in these videos. That’s not to say that I think the US government planned, executed, or even knew about the attacks, but there are serious questions there, raised by high-level professionals with credentials and facts to back them up, and I believe those who brush them off to be more foolish than those who unquestioningly believe the implications.

Seriously, what would you be saying if this happened in Iraq ten years ago? You certainly would not be labeling it a conspiracy theory, and in fact would be calling anyone that did all manner of insulting names. :unamused:

Just a thought.

15

Why more foolish and not equally foolish, SD?

  • Group A thinks the moon is made of cheese
  • Group B thinks the moon is not made of cheese
  • Both groups believe “unquestioningly”, neither has any interest in actually looking at the evidence or listening to the other side

I can see why you would call one of these groups more foolish than the other. But the reason would be that you, personally, believe that one of the two sides of the argument is inherently more credible, and that it is thus somewhat less foolish to believe it unquestioningly (even though in an ideal world you’d rather see both sides ask questions). Do you believe that the conspiracy claims are inherently more credible. :question:

16

Or, Hobbes, I wrote the above very quickly on my way out to lunch.

You and your conspiracy theory. :unamused:

17

[quote=“Stray Dog”]Or, Hobbes, I wrote the above very quickly on my way out to lunch.

You and your conspiracy theory. :unamused:[/quote]

:bravo: Touche. :laughing:

18

Stupid question, but here goes…

What happened to all the stuff kept in the two tower buildings? From what I heard a lot of floor space was allocated for safe-keeping purposes, with, amongst others, stuff like diamonds, gold, paintings, etc. kept in massive vaults.

True or false?

If true, what happened to it all? Melted? :loco:

If false, I said in the beginning it’s a stupid question, didn’t I? :blush:

19

Of course it was all an elaborate setup, after all 911 did not happen on the 11th September as proven by the security video at the Pentagon that recorded the impact:


Source (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration)

It should be noted that the time stamp was cropped out on a lot of “official” footage released.

And even Rumsfeld said it was a missile attack on the Pentagon:

Source (US Department of Defense, no less)

On a more serious note I would find it hard to believe that the US government is complicit in the attacks or organized them, but there are a lot of open questions that they are not willing to answer (including lot’s of video footage that has not been released). Doesn’t prove anything but it makes the whole thing suspect.

More stuff on the subject: 9/11 conspiracy theories @ Wikipedia

20

Another question that crops up and which I haven’t seen answered yet is Why didn’t Osama take credit for what must be seen as the most ‘successful’ (for want of a better word) attack on US interests, when he happily raised his hand to accept blame for all the other attacks he has been credited with? Why not take the credit? He said it wasn’t him but he commends those that did it. The only evidence that I know of that links him directly is that grainy video in which he mentions planning the attacks but where he is also depicted as right-handed when actually he’s not.

So, why didn’t bin Laden accept responsibility for the big one?

This is a legit question with no opinions tagged onto it, thank you very much.