NationStates Jolt Archive

i posted this on another thread but i felt the different take deserved a thread on its own. yesterday, i was reading about the rise of nazism - out of curiosity - and i was struck by the similarity between the events that preceded WWII and the invasion of Afghanistan (edit: not Iraq). it's a really amazing coincidence of events, which reminds you of the famous sentence "History repeats itself".

for a very long time, i was found in the group that argued that 9/11 conspiracy theories were just plain ridiculous and the product of delusional minds. more recently, i must admit i have seen some stuff that made me challenge my dogma. while i would never state adamantly that this was an inside conspiracy, i have moved to the position where i really don't know anymore. also, take into account that, whoever did this, there was a conspiracy (even if by or including Al Qaeda). it's a fact that a conspiracy happened, it's just a question of who organised it and why. this post does not provide you with an answer.

you ask why i may have moved into a more neutral ground? first, because there are signs that a very similar script has happened in our recent past history and there is some evidence that could point to things being not so black and white, as the Bush administration has led people to believe.

let me go through the bits that made me move to the middle position:

A. history repeats itself?
we've all heard the sentence right? now read this article about the rise of Nazism and allow me to make a crude analogy [in red] to the solidification of the Bush's hawkish right. also, i must state clearly here that i do not know what happened, neither i believe that the motivation of Bush (big if he was somehow involved) was necessarily those of Hitler. there are many possibilities as to why they could have done it.

The Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung in German) [patriot act] is the common name of the decree issued by German president Paul von Hindenburg [US president GWB] in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 [attack on the WTC]. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German [US] citizens. With Nazis ["Bushistas"] in key positions of the German [US] government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis ["Bushistas"], and was used to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

background of Nazism
Adolf Hitler had been named chancellor of Germany [US] and invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government only four weeks previously, on January 30, 1933. Hitler's government urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for March 5.
On the evening of February 27, 1933 — six days before the parliamentary election [shortly before presidential elections]— fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers [the WTC was attacked]. While the exact circumstances of the fire remain unclear to this day, what is clear is that Hitler [Bush] and his supporters quickly capitalized on the fire as a means by which to speed their consolidation of power. Seizing on the burning of the Reichstag building as the opening salvo in a communist [islamic] uprising, the Nazis [Bushistas] were able to throw millions of Germans [Americans] into a convulsion of fear at the threat of Communist [Islamic] terror. The official account stated:

The burning of the Reichstag [attack on the WTC] was intended to be the signal for a bloody uprising and civil [religious] war. Large-scale pillaging [more attacks] in Berlin [the US] was planned.... It has been determined that ... throughout Germany [the US] acts of terrorism were to begin against prominent individuals, against private property, against the lives and safety of the peaceful population, and general civil war was to be unleashed.... [the american way of life]

The decree was improvised on the day after the fire (February 28) after discussions in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, which was led by Hermann Göring, and was then brought before the Reich cabinet. In the ensuing discussions, Hitler stated that the fire made it now a matter of "ruthless confrontation of the KPD" and shortly thereafter, President von Hindenburg, 84 years old and lapsing in and out of senility, signed the decree into law.
The decree, officially the Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State), invoked the authority of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which allowed the Reichspräsident to take any appropriate measure to remedy dangers to public safety.

The decree consisted of six articles. Article 1 suspended most of the civil liberties set forth in the Weimar Constitution — freedom of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone, not to mention the protection of property and the home. Articles 2 and 3 allowed the Reich government to assume powers normally reserved to the federal states (Länder). Articles 4 and 5 established draconian penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings. Article 6 simply stated that the decree took effect on the day of its proclamation.

this is not evidence against Bush, just a very bizarre coincidence of the development of events, which could point to "inspiration". obviously, it didn't take long before the Nazis invaded Poland, just like Bush invaded Aghanistan. also, it is obvious that the Patriot Act doesn't go as far as the Reichtag Fire Decree, but it certainly goes in the same direction (of removal of some civil rights).

now for the second part.

B. circumstantial evidence
here, if you are really interested into delving deeper into the possibility of something other than a plain Al Qaeda attack, you should read the two articles provided to their full extent. they are very well written and they don't try to offer an explanation into who organised the attacks or why; all they do is looking into the scientific evidence of the strange symmetrical collapse of the 3 towers (according to these scientists this would be very unlikely to happen, unless there were explosives strategically allocated), plus some circumstancial evidence.

the website is by PHYSICS 911: (not really the usual conspiracy theory type of website)
"PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

you really have to read the full articles but here are just a few examples of their findings:

1. firemen at the site reported seeing flashes and bangs as the towers collapsed, pointing to a hypothetical reversed implosion.
For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox *News anchor reported:**

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building!* Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)

*

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:*

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building.*** You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me…* He said did you see any flashes?*** I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.* (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
2. these flashes are recorded in videos provided on the website
3. WTC7, which was not hit by any of the planes, took 6 seconds to collapse in a way similar to a controlled implosion.
If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
4. Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself.
5. Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks. He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment.

link 1: http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
link 2: http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

C. other weird events (picked up from a few websites, not so reliable but which provide facts that should be somewhat easy to check:
1. Marvin Bush was on the governing board of Securacom, the company in charge of security for the WTC complex when it was hit.
2. Jeb Bush visited the Florida training school of the ‘hijackers’ a mere 12 hours after the 9/11 event, and together with FBI agents confiscate all of the archives and records of that flight school.
3. On the morning of 9/11, father George Bush met with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, at a conference sponsored by the Carlyle Group in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC.
4. New evidence alledgly links the owner of the Venice Florida flight school which trained Mohamed Atta to the Central Intelligence Agency

now, investigate further and draw your own conclusions if you wish (and can). i really don't know what happened, but i do know that the world is full of dangerous and greedy power-mongers. it certainly seems crazy to think of the possibility, but the fact is that people in the past have used similar tactics for their own purposes. when you consider Bush's profile of many lies and deceit, the allegations of ellection fraud, the bypassing of federal courts for wiretapping (which he now wants a secret court to allow)...

finally, consider these 3 sentences by GWB:
[B]"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

obviously, the idea that Bush somehow might be involved is very very very scary and would require a tremendous organisation of movements and of very sick and dangerous people.

what can i say more? would i trust Bush with my life after reading all this? personally i wouldn't for a split second but then, he's not my president (which doesn't mean i'm safe from the consequences of his hypothetical actions, like the spanish could say)

Also, change a few words and Harry Potter and Star Wars are exactly the same.

Would it be churlish to point out that if the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the collapse of the twin towers, then it was an illegal one under international war? Now, Afghanistan, that is a different matter...

Also, change a few words and Harry Potter and Star Wars are exactly the same.
that's it! it was Darth Vader all along! why did i not think of this before? :D

Also, change a few words and Harry Potter and Star Wars are exactly the same.

Actually, I'd have to say that Eragon and Star Wars are the same. Seriously.

so you are comparing bush to hitler
america to nazis
and islamis terrorists to communists?

Actually, I'd have to say that Eragon and Star Wars are the same. Seriously.

Well, duh. I was going for something not obvious.

The coincidences are a little weird... as far as the building's collapse, nothing this has happened before, so we don't exactly have a predictable model...

I'd say, if the whole WTC & Iraq thing was a plot, then we'll find out in about two years, when the current administration manages to not resign, or somehow we get a new administration that's almost identical in agenda. But with the current state of American politics, anybody willing to plot like that would be insane... Which seems unlikely.

Would it be churlish to point out that if the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the collapse of the twin towers, then it was an illegal one under international war? Now, Afghanistan, that is a different matter...


It would have been legal either way, Iraq violated the treaty that ended the first iraq war in 1991. But some still swear it is illegal...sorry dudes but it was legal like it or not.

Well, duh. I was going for something not obvious.

Oh,well then! How about Mansfield Park and Star Wars?

Where I got my sig from:
http://snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm



"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

Now do people realize why I quote that in my sig? I'm telling you the American Public fell for the exact same trick! Read the whole thing and tell me if it was done to the US or not.

Oh,well then! How about Mansfield Park and Star Wars?

...eh. How long is it?

Look, all of the conspiracy stuff has been refuted time and time again. What we saw on the news was, at least in a general sense, what happened. Connecting it to Iraq was a total sham, of course, and the corresponding decreases in civil liberties have happened time and time again throughout the world, including, yes, in Nazi Germany.

Would it be churlish to point out that if the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the collapse of the twin towers, then it was an illegal one under international war? Now, Afghanistan, that is a different matter...
just realised what you meant... shame i can't edit the title anymore... :D oops.

so you are comparing bush to hitler
america to nazis
and islamis terrorists to communists?
not at all... i'm only making an analogy between the events...

It would have been legal either way, Iraq violated the treaty that ended the first iraq war in 1991. But some still swear it is illegal...sorry dudes but it was legal like it or not.

Given as the treaty was with the UN, not the US, the war was unjustified (under generally accepted interpretations of international law and stuff) unless the US believed it had cause (threats, connections with known enemies, other indication of agressive intent) to declare war. (Speaking of which, does anyone know what sort of diplomatic channels other than the UN that the US tried before the war, if any?)

Of course, the US did have cause, or we thought we did, or Bush convinced us that the evidence showed that we did, or something, so you can't indict the US military for war crimes or anything, since the war seemed justified to most (well, a lot) of the US population. The position of the political leadership is a different (and unresolved) question.

The coincidences are a little weird... as far as the building's collapse, nothing this has happened before, so we don't exactly have a predictable model...

I'd say, if the whole WTC & Iraq thing was a plot, then we'll find out in about two years, when the current administration manages to not resign, or somehow we get a new administration that's almost identical in agenda. But with the current state of American politics, anybody willing to plot like that would be insane... Which seems unlikely.
many building have collapsed before and been imploded. certainly nobuildings have collapsed as a result of a plane crash, but that still leaves WT7 unexplained...

Given as the treaty was with the UN, not the US, the war was unjustified (under generally accepted interpretations of international law and stuff) unless the US believed it had cause (threats, connections with known enemies, other indication of agressive intent) to declare war. (Speaking of which, does anyone know what sort of diplomatic channels other than the UN that the US tried before the war, if any?)

Of course, the US did have cause, or we thought we did, or Bush convinced us that the evidence showed that we did, or something, so you can't indict the US military for war crimes or anything, since the war seemed justified to most (well, a lot) of the US population. The position of the political leadership is a different (and unresolved) question.
i should point out that i made a mistake writing the post... the war in question wasn't Iraq but Afghanistan... i can't edit the title anymore...

many building have collapsed before and been imploded. certainly nobuildings have collapsed as a result of a plane crash, but that still leaves WT7 unexplained...

Well, at the very least you can doubt someone secretly set up a biulding implosion under people's noses.

Only a single molecule separates Gator-Aide from human urine.

just realised what you meant... shame i can't edit the title anymore... :D oops.

When writing of world events it helps to pay attention to both (1) world events, and (2) what you are writing.

i should point out that i made a mistake writing the post... the war in question wasn't Iraq but Afghanistan... i can't edit the title anymore...

Wow. That is one big mistake.

Well, at the very least you can doubt someone secretly set up a biulding implosion under people's noses.
the secret services occupied part of the WT7 building apparently (though i doubt they could have been fully involved to be honest, if the conspiracy theory happened to prove true by any chance) but - according to some of these source at least - one of the Bush brothers was head of Securacom, who was in charge of the security of WT buildings. if they really wanted it, they could have found a way (like maintenance work of some kind, through false janitors, whatever).

have you seen the videos of the WT7 fall from the Physics911 website? you can see the flashes of an hypothetical implosion really clearly both in WT7 and WT1 (or 2 can't remember)

Only a single molecule separates Gator-Aide from human urine.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/03/gatorade-conspiracy.html

With the number of conspiracies that are being promoted lately, I am seriously considering buying stocks in Tin Foil companies.

Everyone should get themselves one of these:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbhead.jpg
^^
An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/03/gatorade-conspiracy.html

This is hilarious. I guess, since I don't drink the stuff, I never noticed the Gatoraide/Penis connection.

But with the current state of American politics, anybody willing to plot like that would be insane... Which seems unlikely.
don't worry little thing... little Bush is perfectly sane...

I'm only making an analogy between the events...

I think that this has been posted before, like a few months ago.

Just thought I'd post an excerpt from the 911 Physics website:

Means and opportunity for the attacks attach naturally to the spy agencies of the countries benefitting most from the attacks. The attacks of September 11 and subsequent "terrorist" activity were probably carried out, jointly or severally, by Israel's Mossad, the CIA, NSA and FBI, as well as Britain's MI6 and, quite possibly, spy agencies from other countries.

I'd also like to propose that the other groups involved in the 911 conspiracy include the KGB, the BAI, M&Ms and 007, James Bond.

Gawd not another 9-11 comspiracy posting

Boom boom boom we heard as the building started collapsing.... maybe that was the floors letting go and beginning the pancaking


WTC 7 suffered no damage,,,,, well apart from a big hole in the part of the building facing the WTC towers and it was on fire as well.....


Do some proper digging first before posting stuff in here

I think that this has been posted before, like a few months ago.
the analogy between the Reichtag Fire and the WTC attacks?

Oh, I've got to post again, 911 Physics has uncovered another vast conspiracy - the US faked catching Saddam:

The Fake Saddam

On December 13 2002 American troops discovered an underground bunker near Tikrit, Iraq, with a bearded, disheveled man inside. It appeared to be Saddam Hussein himself! He had a pistol in his possession, but did not use it and gave himself up peaceably.

Headlines around the world - but particularly in the west - trumpeted the discovery. The war in Iraq received a boost in public support. Unfortunately the gentleman who surrendered so easily was not Saddam Hussein, as supported by at least two independent lines of evidence.

First, the captured Saddam had rather uneven, somewhat discolored lower teeth, with particularly small and crowded incisors. The real Saddam had a very flashy smile that, in most file photos, reveals the upper incisors, but shows the lower ones imperfectly. But even in the latter photos one can see enough of the lower teeth to realize they are nothing like the teeth of the captured "Saddam." However, we succeeded in locating a file photo of a younger Saddam in which the lower incisors can be clearly seen.

Anyone who has difficulty accepting that these two people are not the same merely have to print out this page and make a few simple measurements: draw two parallel vertical lines that touch the outer edges of the four lower incisors and extend upward past the nose, In the real Saddam the lines have approximately the same width as the nose itself. Saddam had large lower incisors. But the same pair of lines barely cover half the nose of the captured Saddam.

That proves the case. No further argument needs to be made, but we cannot refrain from adding that the captive "Saddam" was flown to Qatar for internment. Only after intense lobbying by Russia was Saddam's wife, Sajiga Heiralla Tuffa, allowed to visit her husband in jail. She emerged in less than a minute: "This is not my husband but his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband". The incident was reported in several Russian and eastern European newspapers.

OMG, it proves the case. I'm convinced. Now we just have to figure out how many of the world's governments were involved in this conspiracy, too. I'm betting it was the Jews in Israel!

Gawd not another 9-11 comspiracy posting

Boom boom boom we heard as the building started collapsing.... maybe that was the floors letting go and beginning the pancaking


WTC 7 suffered no damage,,,,, well apart from a big hole in the part of the building facing the WTC towers and it was on fire as well.....


Do some proper digging first before posting stuff in here
i did. boom boom boom seems to be the sound of explosions, not of a building collapsing boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. have you watched the videos where the small flashes are perfectly visible? also, i've also never heard of a building like WT7 collapsing by fire only in such a symmetrical manner... and scientists say it goes against the law of Thermodynamics and the fires weren't evenly distributed on WT7 to justify them. the WTC7 building was the most farthest from the twin towers. if there was a hole on one side, that side would collapse first.

i suggest you read first the evidence they have presented in an objective manner before you post as well...

Jesus Assis, this 911 Physics website you listed has so much great info on it, I've got to share it with everyone on NSG. A new development, I never would have thought - Israel set up the Richard Reid, the shoe bomber!

Upon landing, Reid's shoes were examined and both proved to contain high explosives in the heels. A fuse led from the explosive to the outside of the heel, the point at which the passenger claimed to have seen Reid apply the match. The explosive was a puttylike substance initially identified as C4. When experts later pointed out that a quantity of C4 that would fit into the
heel of a shoe would be insufficient to blow a hole in the floor of an aircraft, the story changed from C4 to another explosive called TATP, a crystalline substance quite unlike putty.

This story has a number of troublesome elements. Apart from the fact that there was no detonator cap inside the heel (rendering the explosive useless, in any case), how did the passenger sitting behind Reid conclude that Reid had bomb material in his shoes - and to conclude it with sufficient certainty to motivate a physical attack? How did he know that Reid hadn't dropped something on the floor under his seat and was simply using a match to locate it?

Other troublesome elements include the use of "Tariq Rajah" as Reid's name when, in fact it was not Reid's name. The media claimed that Reid was traveling on a forged passport. Later investigations proved that was traveling on a perfectly valid British passport.

It is naturally difficult to piece together what may actually have happened in this incident. But Reid is known to have traveled to Israel earlier that year, spending ten days there before returning to Britain. Any number of cover stories can be invented to explain how he may have been lured there. During a security check, when Reid's shoes were removed, the size and make may have been noted and a duplicate pair acquired, broken in, and specially fitted with explosives. Ten days would easily suffice for the operation.

To ensure that Reid would live to make the flight in question, no detonator cap was inserted in the shoe bombs. For example, if he walked too close to a bonfire, spilled coals, or any other intense heat source, the fuse could have been accidentally ignited and Reid would have lost his feet. In a
subsequent security check before leaving Israel, Reid's old shoes would be switched to his "new" ones, with Reid returning to Britain none the wiser.

Aboard the aircraft, the passenger behind Reid may have been no ordinary passenger. It would be an easy matter for him to light an ordinary sulphur match (or an entire booklet of matches), toss it under Reid's seat, then grab him. It is doubtful that anyone actually saw Reid apply a match to his shoe.

Reid protested his innocence until a sudden change of heart just before the case went to trial. The change shocked both the prosecution and the defence. The reason he gave was to "spare his family the difficulty of . . . a lengthy trial." There may be a particle of truth in this statement - if he was told that his parents "might not survive" a lengthy trial.

Besides keeping the Muslim "terrorist" boogeyman alive in the public imagination, this incident may have had a secondary purpose to implicate a Muslim convert. Conversions in the west have grown phenomenally over the last ten years, an unwelcome development to the group behind the continuing campaign of public terror, both at home and abroad.

Not only that, but Israel and the US bombed the Bali nightclub!

Initially, one Abu Bakar Bashir was blamed for the blast. Bashir not only denied any responsibility, but blamed America and Israel for the blast, instead. Then, under pressure from the west, the Indonesian government found an auto mechanic named Amrozi, who, after being tortured with 220 volt electrodes, "confessed" to the crime. He also "confessed" to links with Al Qaeda, etc. etc. Indonesian parliamentary speaker Amien Rais stated publicly that he doubted that Amrozi was responsible for the blasts.

i did. boom boom boom seems to be the sound of explosions, not of a building collapsing boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. have you watched the videos where the small flashes are perfectly visible? also, i've also never heard of a building like WT7 collapsing by fire only in such a symmetrical manner... and scientists say it goes against the law of Thermodynamics and the fires weren't evenly distributed on WT7 to justify them. the WTC7 building was the most farthest from the twin towers. if there was a hole on one side, that side would collapse first.

i suggest you read first the evidence they have presented in an objective manner before you post as well...

Alright, I'll settle down and be fair. Yes, 911 Physics has people with degrees in sciences for about half of their staff. We can technically call them "scientists", but there is nothing on that website that amounts to science. The scientific method is not used. Nor are the findings subjected to scientific scrutiny, such as peer review.

Thus, we have people with degrees in science and actual "scientists" on two different ends. In the same respect, we have conspiracy theories and real "science" on two different ends. Someone with a science degree does not mean that their conspiracy theories suddenly become scientific, and a cursory reading through their articles demonstrates that the scientific method hasn't been used once. No testing, no experimentation, rather pure hypothesis being asserted as fact.

In the same respect, there are people with degrees in science and medicine today who are raging Nazis and racists. Just like the Nazi regime was founded upon pseudo-scientific theories that were endorsed by real scientists.

You seem to be easily fooled and hypnotized when someone flashes a degree around. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people on their team were signed on as a ruse without actually knowing what the website promotes or contributing to it. I think I may mail some of the universities that their staff list claims to be a part of and see what the faculty says about this nonsense.

Oh, I've got to post again, 911 Physics has uncovered another vast conspiracy - the US faked catching Saddam:



OMG, it proves the case. I'm convinced. Now we just have to figure out how many of the world's governments were involved in this conspiracy, too. I'm betting it was the Jews in Israel!
first, you are splitting one article named "how to fake a terrorist campaign" and splitting it into several pieces, maybe so that they look like several articles. second, i love the alledged reaction of Saddam's wife:

"This is not my husband but his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband". The incident was reported in several Russian and eastern European newspapers.

if this was true (and i really don't know) then i would argue they would have a pretty good reason to say what they are saying...

Jesus Assis, this 911 Physics website you listed has so much great info on it, I've got to share it with everyone on NSG. A new development, I never would have thought - Israel set up the Richard Reid, the shoe bomber!

Not only that, but Israel and the US bombed the Bali nightclub!
you are being unfair: they don't say Israel set up Richard Reid, they say he travelled to Israel which is a different thing. by distorting their arguments, you are showing very little objectivity.

i have not stated here this is the product of an inside job but, i am arguing that - according to WWII history - it is not impossible for an inside job to be used to spark fear and solidify the position of a subversive government.

first, you are splitting one article named "how to fake a terrorist campaign" and splitting it into several pieces, maybe so that they look like several articles. second, i love the alledged reaction of Saddam's wife:

"This is not my husband but his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband". The incident was reported in several Russian and eastern European newspapers.

if this was true (and i really don't know) then i would argue they would have a pretty good reason to say what they are saying...

Oh, which Russian and Eastern newspapers are those? Can you show me? Or is this something that you believe because the conspiracy theorists say so?

And I'm not sure what splitting it up has to do with anything. There are page breaks in between the topics. The fact is, you're going off of a website that blames virtually every terror attack on a conspiracy theory. It isn't just one instance, but virtually everything, down to suicide bombings in Israel that have occured for near 40 years. I guess the fact that major terror groups have taken credit for them doesn't mean anything. Its part of the conspiracy too! Even the London subway bombing (http://www.physics911.net/londonbombings.htm) is blamed on the government on this website.

you are being unfair: they don't say Israel set up Richard Reid, they say he travelled to Israel which is a different thing. by distorting their arguments, you are showing very little objectivity.

i have not stated here this is the product of an inside job but, i am arguing that - according to WWII history - it is not impossible for an inside job to be used to spark fear and solidify the position of a subversive government.

They didn't have to explictly say that Israel did it, because it was implict. In fact, if you read their FAQ, they already accuse Israel of being involved in the various conspiracies. A syllogism can demonstrate that they implictly accused Israel, if you like logic.

And, while the WWII analogy is neat, it is flawed for a key reason as well - it assumes that the Reichstag fire was a Nazi conspiracy. You're taking one conspiracy theory and making an analogy for another conspiracy theory. Its a good analogy, but only because they are both unproven conspiracy theories.

Alright, I'll settle down and be fair. Yes, 911 Physics has people with degrees in sciences for about half of their staff. We can technically call them "scientists", but there is nothing on that website that amounts to science.
they list a lot of facts and facts are science.

The scientific method is not used. Nor are the findings subjected to scientific scrutiny, such as peer review.
well, i can't judge their method, i can read their findings but i can only judge the facts they present. as to peer review, the attitude of the large majority of people towards the possibility of an inside job would make peer review worthless. by the way, this was a position i shared until i read the wikipedia article about nazism two days ago. i never considered the possibility that a government might fake an attack to justify withdrawing civil rights.

Thus, we have people with degrees in science and actual "scientists" on two different ends. In the same respect, we have conspiracy theories and real "science" on two different ends. Someone with a science degree does not mean that their conspiracy theories suddenly become scientific, and a cursory reading through their articles demonstrates that the scientific method hasn't been used once. No testing, no experimentation, rather pure hypothesis being asserted as fact.
there is really no hypothesis related to the profit of some people involving these attacks, or the loss of civil rights in the states, or the set-up of unconstitutional prisons, or of the video evidence they present.

also, in those two articles i linked originally, which were the only ones i had read, they did not try to offer an explanation as to who or why did the attacks.

In the same respect, there are people with degrees in science and medicine today who are raging Nazis and racists. Just like the Nazi regime was founded upon pseudo-scientific theories that were endorsed by real scientists.
the nazi regime wasn't founded upon pseudo-scientific theories. what on earth are you talking about now?

You seem to be easily fooled and hypnotized when someone flashes a degree around. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people on their team were signed on as a ruse without actually knowing what the website promotes or contributing to it. I think I may mail some of the universities that their staff list claims to be a part of and see what the faculty says about this nonsense.
a couple of weeks ago, i was arguing with my brother that i really didn't belive 9/11 was an inside job. that's more than 4 years after the event, so i'm not that easily convinced. in any case, i'm not convinced of anything, i have no way to know the real truth.

On 9/11/01, I was in Sarasota, FL. If you recall, some mock Bush for reading My Pet Goat to some children that morning. That happened while Bush was visiting an elementary school in Sarasota, FL. I remember seeing it on the local news: Bush was laughing and talking with children. Then, an advisor approached Bush and whispered in his ear. His countenance immediately sunk -- almost as abruptly as if he had been punched in the stomach. I've seen the video several times, and it seems Bush is utterly, genuinely shocked when he hears of the Twin Towers. He is happy, laughing, playing with children one moment, exceedingly somber the next. I don't think Bush is smart enough to act that well.

Let me also say: I disagree with much of what Bush has done. But one can only say he knew about 9/11 beforehand if they start with that assumption. Otherwise, it makes little sense.

they list a lot of facts and facts are science.

No, facts are not synonymous with science. Science involves the scientific method. And, its a fact that the scientific method has not been used to support a single one of the claims posted on that website.

well, i can't judge their method, i can read their findings but i can only judge the facts they present. as to peer review, the attitude of the large majority of people towards the possibility of an inside job would make peer review worthless. by the way, this was a position i shared until i read the wikipedia article about nazism two days ago. i never considered the possibility that a government might fake an attack to justify withdrawing civil rights.

And yet, science is all about method. Without the scientific method, you don't have real science. If they didn't use proper method, then they don't have any real scientific "findings."

there is really no hypothesis related to the profit of some people involving these attacks, or the loss of civil rights in the states, or the set-up of unconstitutional prisons, or of the video evidence they present.

1. Claiming that profit was a motivator is a hypothesis, by definition. The website hasn't proven it, or even provided a single piece of scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
2. The website hasn't demonstrated that a loss of civil rights as a result has anything to do with a conpsiracy theory. This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
3. "Unconstitutional prisons" is your own interpretation of the law. Subjective, unscientific.
4. They don't present video evidence - they present the videos that we all have, and then claim that their own interpretation (unverified interpetation that does not conform to any scientific or academic standards) is "evidence." It isn't evidence any more than me presenting a video and claiming that the flashes of light are laser beams from a UFO.

also, in those two articles i linked originally, which were the only ones i had read, they did not try to offer an explanation as to who or why did the attacks.

I was reading through all the articles.

the nazi regime wasn't founded upon pseudo-scientific theories. what on earth are you talking about now?

Pffft. False racial theories and false genetic theories were taught in schools. The extensive human experimentation they did during the war and pre-war was in an attemt to confirm their pseudo-scientific genetic theories. See Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics), Racial Hygiene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene), and the Racial Policy of Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany). Practically everything that Nazis believed and taught regarding race was based on pseudo-science, pseudo-science that was supported by many of the most brilliant (but obviously wrong) scientists in Germany. Today, of course, its all been discredited.

He is happy, laughing, playing with children one moment, exceedingly somber the next. I don't think Bush is smart enough to act that well.

Well, the conspiracy theorists (and in this case, the Noam Chomsky groupies) might have you believe that Bush has been trained to act stupid so as to fool the American public. This is actually what Chomsky claimed during a CSPAN interview recently.

the nazi regime wasn't founded upon pseudo-scientific theories. what on earth are you talking about now?



The idea of aryan superiority is/was a pseudo-scientific theory. Racism is pseudo-scientific, i'm afraid.

Well, the conspiracy theorists (and in this case, the Noam Chomsky groupies) might have you believe that Bush has been trained to act stupid so as to fool the American public. This is actually what Chomsky claimed during a CSPAN interview recently.

I'm aware, TS... my reaction is, yeah, whatever. I understand they think that. Conspiracy theories think people are sooooooo organized and have it all together, and that people don't ever screw up. Whatever. The more likely scenario is that Bush is not articulate, and is not quick when put on the spot.

Conspiracy theorists tend to be just like the religious, in that they explain away anything that goes against their theory without regard to the fact that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/03/gatorade-conspiracy.html


LoL ... It is shaped like a penis! Never crossed my mind before. That was pretty good. :)

On 9/11/01, I was in Sarasota, FL. If you recall, some mock Bush for reading My Pet Goat to some children that morning. That happened while Bush was visiting an elementary school in Sarasota, FL. I remember seeing it on the local news: Bush was laughing and talking with children. Then, a lady approached Bush and whispered in his ear. His countenance immediately sunk -- almost as abruptly as if he had been punched in the stomach. I've seen the video several times, and it seems Bush is utterly, genuinely shocked when he hears of the Twin Towers. He is happy, laughing, playing with children one moment, exceedingly somber the next. I don't think Bush is smart enough to act that well.

Let me also say: I disagree with much of what Bush has done. But one can only say he knew about 9/11 beforehand if they start with that assumption. Otherwise, it makes little sense.

You've watched it many times and thought that man in a suit that whispered in his ear was a lady?

edit: that man was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card

No, facts are not synonymous with science. Science involves the scientific method. And, its a fact that the scientific method has not been used to support a single one of the claims posted on that website.
you are being biased and not very accurate, so you're actually damaging your credibility as being objective and scientific. an hypothesis does not require observations, only a theory does. theories can be based on the available observations. since they do not present a theory of who did it or why (in those two articles i linked, at least), i would argue they have been very scientific and that you are the one being fallacious. they had no way to do a thorough investigation, since most of the evidence was shut from them. still, you cannot say there is no evidence or observations; if you do, you are the one being fallacious, delusional and subversive.
And yet, science is all about method. Without the scientific method, you don't have real science. If they didn't use proper method, then they don't have any real scientific "findings."
their "findings" are some observations of facts. as such, they are perfectly methodical. again, you're damaging your credibility. also, how can you adamantly say there is no method in measuring the time WT7 took to fall, or the fact that the way it falls goes against the second law of thermodynamics? again, you're damaging your credibility.
1. Claiming that profit was a motivator is a hypothesis, by definition. The website hasn't proven it, or even provided a single piece of scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
1. again, your arguments are actually damaging your claims. everybody knows who "profited" billions dollars from insurance. what they cannot do - and i haven't heard them say it adamantly - is that those who profited were directly involved. an hypothesis does not require observations; again you damage your credibility.
2. The website hasn't demonstrated that a loss of civil rights as a result has anything to do with a conpsiracy theory. This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
2. please... they don't need to present evidence. the bush administration has done it officially by passing the patriot act.
3. "Unconstitutional prisons" is your own interpretation of the law. Subjective, unscientific.
3. so is yours that Guantanamo is constitutional.
4. They don't present video evidence - they present the videos that we all have, and then claim that their own interpretation (unverified interpetation that does not conform to any scientific or academic standards) is "evidence." It isn't evidence any more than me presenting a video and claiming that the flashes of light are laser beams from a UFO.
4. "They don't present video evidence - they present the videos that we all have"... you are sounding so scientific... why are you talking about UFO's? have you ran out of rational arguments?

you seem to be very informed in scientific methods and interpretation of the law (i hope you have a degree on both). yet, you keep disregarding the fundamentals of science by saying stuff like "they haven't provided evidence to support their hypothesis", damaging the credibility of your own supposed objectivity. by trying to make analogies between facts and fiction, being false saying things like "there is no evidence", you are being much more fallacious than they are.
Pffft. False racial theories and false genetic theories were taught in schools. The extensive human experimentation they did during the war and pre-war was in an attemt to confirm their pseudo-scientific genetic theories..
the nazi regime wasn't founded on neither of those things; they were products of the already existing nazi regime, founded on a delusional, subversive and dangerous man and a "terrorist" attack on the Reichtag.

i would argue that Bush isn't worth of an inch of trust, even if i allow for the possibility that he is not as bad or as clever as Hitler. still, if it was proved that GW Bush wanted to install a hidden dictatorship, i would say he was playing much more clever than Hitler or - at least - that he had learned with his mistake.

You've watched it many times and thought that man in a suit that whispered in his ear was a lady?

edit: that man was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
says it all how people who adamantly say "there is no inside job" are so objective...

I'm aware, TS... my reaction is, yeah, whatever. I understand they think that. Conspiracy theories think people are sooooooo organized and have it all together, and that people don't ever screw up. Whatever. The more likely scenario is that Bush is not articulate, and is not quick when put on the spot.

Conspiracy theorists tend to be just like the religious, in that they explain away anything that goes against their theory without regard to the fact that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
maybe you should read Crown Prince Satan's signature, a quote by Hitler, and think a bit about what it means. not always the simple answer is the correct one.

You've watched it many times and thought that man in a suit that whispered in his ear was a lady?

edit: that man was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card

That's not the point of my post; I haven't seen the video in five years. Watch the video and either agree with or refute the actual point of my post, if you would.

says it all how people who adamantly say "there is no inside job" are so objective...

Who the hell is objective? (No one, including you.) You act as if there's something wrong with having an opinion.

maybe you should read Crown Prince Satan's signature, a quote by Hitler, and think a bit about what it means. not always the simple answer is the correct one.

No, it's not always correct, but it usually is. You really don't think Al Jazeera, some European media outlet, etc. would have broken a story if this were legitimate?

I'm Arab and have Arabic channels on Dish Network, including Al Jazeera. It would have been broadcast there 24/7 if there were any good proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Again, if you look for a conspiracy in anything, you can convince yourself one exists. What good does it do to say it was a conspiracy, even if it was? If there were indeed a conspiracy, better proof than what is presented here would be needed in order to effect any change. So until any better proof arrives, this is probably just a lot of flapping of the gums, unfortunately.

9/11 Conspiracy-Debunking Document. (http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc)

9/11 Myths.com Website. (http://www.911myths.com/)

This thread is a unique breed...

Bush = Hitler

and

September 11 Conspiracy Theories



I'd have to say that it's quite amazing.

3. WTC7, which was not hit by any of the planes, took 6 seconds to collapse in a way similar to a controlled implosion.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

For those of us who are suckered in by the September 11 conspiracy stories, I might recommend Penn & Teller's television show Bullshit, and the episode it did on this topic. It's a basic examination, but thorough, scientific, and certainly NOT from Bush allies. Not only that, but it's quite entertaining, as everything by P&T is.

I'd also recommend that you refer to the Popular Mechanics article regarding the subject. More in depth, and quite thorough.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/2722456.html

Silverstein is receiving $4-5 billion in insurance claims.

Which is all fine and dandy... except, the World Trade Center is being rebuilt with that money. In addition, he is not able to charge tenants for use of the space in the meantime. How exactly is that PROFIT?

Furthermore, I cite Occams Razor. (When multiple solutions present themselves, the simplest one is the most likely).

Which do you think is simpler? That the government managed to carry out a massive plot, which would have involved thousands of people, and been subject to Murphy's Law, and subsequently conceal the entire thing from the entire world, so as to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Or...

A handful of terrorists hijacked airplanes, and flew them into buildings, so as to get martyrdom and get into heaven.

i did. boom boom boom seems to be the sound of explosions, not of a building collapsing boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. have you watched the videos where the small flashes are perfectly visible? also, i've also never heard of a building like WT7 collapsing by fire only in such a symmetrical manner... and scientists say it goes against the law of Thermodynamics and the fires weren't evenly distributed on WT7 to justify them. the WTC7 building was the most farthest from the twin towers. if there was a hole on one side, that side would collapse first.

i suggest you read first the evidence they have presented in an objective manner before you post as well...
Actually given the manner in which the building collapsed, one would not be surprised to hear boom boom boom, because the building fell in stages. The first floor to collapse triggered the second floor, which triggered the third floor, and the independent booms would quite likely be each individual floor impacting on the floor below it. I would like to ask you if you have ever seen a building demolition?

Furthermore: Why WTC7? The big towers had already collapsed, and the media impact had already been had. Occams razor slices once again.

Time to use the Ad Hominem Shotgun...

i think you should see a psychiatrist... you are obviously suffering from paranoid delusion and "conspiracy theory syndrome".*

I think you were talking about yourself there kiddo.


*Quote taken from thread titled "The Problem With Islam"

Well, the conspiracy theorists (and in this case, the Noam Chomsky groupies) might have you believe that Bush has been trained to act stupid so as to fool the American public. This is actually what Chomsky claimed during a CSPAN interview recently.
I think there is some truth in that, though.
Bush is promoted as the 'sorta guy ya could enjoy a beer with at a BBQ in your backyard and talk football', whereas in reality that's nowhere near the truth.
His family is one of America's bluebloods and have been a rich and powerful influence in politics for decades. Thus, not the sort of person who would turn up to Joe Lunchbox's place with a sixpack and a dozen pork chops.


Anyhoo...getting back to the topic: Might I respectively suggest: DON'T bother arguing with Assis.
He blindly believes any and every conspiracy theory out there, regardless of how silly and outrageous. What makes it even more frustrating is that he constantly parrots that he is open-minded and scientific, yet will totally ignore every attempt one makes to show the ridiculousness of the conspiracy and will analyse & nitpick to death every fact you present which shows the conspiracy is a load of crap, in order to 'prove' it wrong.
Ironically (and a real shame), he doesn't bother doing this with the conspiracy itself.
If that doesn't work, he'll accuse you of not being 'scientific' or not being 'open-minded', and thus being blind and ignorant.
Look up some of his threads. They follow the same tired pattern:
Put up an interesting conspiracy
Claim to be open-minded about it
Request ppl to debate it and prove it wrong
Spend the next several pages accusing said ppl of being 'unscientific' and 'close-minded' cause they don't believe the conspiracy, as well as ignoring every bit of information presented that shows the conspiracy is a load of hooey.

I remember seeing it on the local news: Bush was laughing and talking with children. Then, a lady approached Bush and whispered in his ear.
That was no lady! That was my White House Chief of Staff!

couldn't resist, sorry.

Time to use the Ad Hominem Shotgun...

*

I think you were talking about yourself there kiddo.


*Quote taken from thread titled "The Problem With Islam"
doesn't work... i'm not convinced this was an inside job. just believe that it wouldn't be impossible to do it, if someone really wanted it. as far as i know, they could have even used Al Qaeda to do it, without them knowing who was behind the scenes. i only looked at the possibility, based on what happened in the past in Nazi Germany.

Actually given the manner in which the building collapsed, one would not be surprised to hear boom boom boom, because the building fell in stages. The first floor to collapse triggered the second floor, which triggered the third floor, and the independent booms would quite likely be each individual floor impacting on the floor below it. I would like to ask you if you have ever seen a building demolition?
no i haven't, precisely why i chose to not shut my ears to a pannel of people who have most likely heard them many times; i.e. PHYSICS911 (enginneers, architects, etc). i have no academic or professional qualifications to trash their arguments.

Furthermore: Why WTC7? The big towers had already collapsed, and the media impact had already been had. Occams razor slices once again.
as i said, i will not offer straight answers in this thread or state that this is definitely an inside job. just presenting some weird facts. i made this pretty clear in the original OP.

according to the website, the secret services occupied two floors and lost thousands of records on investigations. don't ask me what that could mean or whether this was the main motif, since i have no way to know what information they lost. again, i'm not offering answers, just facts.

DON'T bother arguing with Assis.
He blindly believes any and every conspiracy theory out there, regardless of how silly and outrageous. What makes it even more frustrating is that he constantly parrots that he is open-minded and scientific, yet will totally ignore every attempt one makes to show the ridiculousness of the conspiracy and will analyse & nitpick to death every fact you present which shows the conspiracy is a load of crap, in order to 'prove' it wrong.
Ironically (and a real shame), he doesn't bother doing this with the conspiracy itself.
If that doesn't work, he'll accuse you of not being 'scientific' or not being 'open-minded', and thus being blind and ignorant.
Look up some of his threads. They follow the same tired pattern:
Put up an interesting conspiracy
Claim to be open-minded about it
Request ppl to debate it and prove it wrong
Spend the next several pages accusing said ppl of being 'unscientific' and 'close-minded' cause they don't believe the conspiracy, as well as ignoring every bit of information presented that shows the conspiracy is a load of hooey.
you are not being fair. i'm quite happy to have a moderate argument when people stick to a sound argument, instead of saying stuff like:
"The website hasn't proven it, or even provided a single piece of scientific evidence for the hypothesis"
hypothesis do not require evidence, theories do. those two original articles don't offer a theory about who or why this might have been done. also, there are observations like the videos, the statements from firemen who heard repeated "booms" and saw the flashes and the observations of how the buildings collapsed, by a pannel of academics and professionals involved in construction. whether one chooses to believe or not is a whole other matter, but you cannot say "there is no evidence". you can refute the evidence, if you can back it up of course, and most certainly you can say that doesn't prove the "inside job theory". still, if you cannot back you counter-arguments, you have to allow for things not having happened exactly how we were told; e.g. did Al Qaeda somehow manage to allocate explosives? would this imply an even bigger security failure?

when i'm reading comments like this:
"I remember seeing it on the local news: Bush was laughing and talking with children. Then, a lady approached Bush and whispered in his ear."
why should i be convinced?

or:
"I'm betting it was the Jews in Israel!"
if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better...

also:
"He is happy, laughing, playing with children one moment, exceedingly somber the next."
this proves nothing. assuming the possibility (do i have to emphasise this word every time i write it?) he was involved somehow, would he continue laughing in front of a camera?

i'll look at the the websites debunking it though... i'm quite happy to do it. don't you think i would also be more reassured to know without any doubt this wasn't an inside job? the possibility really scares me, hence why i'm not joining the "this was an inside job" that easily.

all i am saying is that it is a fact that something similar happened in the past and may happen in the future again. conspiracies do happen, otherwise we wouldn't have a word for them in our dictionaries. after seeing what Hitler did after gaining power, i have little doubt he may have ordered the burning of the Reichtag, to gain even more power and put his real agenda forward.

if people want to argue with me, they should provide links like someone has done, not throw spurious and empty arguments at the table. that isn't logical, rational or "scientific".

i did. boom boom boom seems to be the sound of explosions, not of a building collapsing boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. have you watched the videos where the small flashes are perfectly visible? also, i've also never heard of a building like WT7 collapsing by fire only in such a symmetrical manner... and scientists say it goes against the law of Thermodynamics and the fires weren't evenly distributed on WT7 to justify them. the WTC7 building was the most farthest from the twin towers. if there was a hole on one side, that side would collapse first.

i suggest you read first the evidence they have presented in an objective manner before you post as well...


the key word in the first sentence is SEEM ie.. something appears to be happening so how can you tell the difference between the floors pancaking and explosions.
WTC 7 began sagging on one corner as it started its collapse, I think someone has the seismic recording showing that the collapse took 30 seconds in total, and in any case I refer you to the posting on page 4.

OK its time to get you thinking.
WTC brought down by controlled demolition...... lets see, how to do it, ok lets cut about 125 columns on the exterior walls, combined with cutting the central core.
Stage 1 .. remove concrete surrounding the columns, otherwise the concrete absorbs the blast
Stage 2 wrap each column in steel cutting cord, this ensures the column is cut through
Stage 3 do the same to same column on the floor above, this avoids having the column drop 2 inches and nothing else happening
Stage 4 repeat for lets say 200 columns in total
Stage 5 to rig each column device takes 2 men 10 mins
Stage 6 work out how many ppl would be needed to do the job to both towers over a weekend ... about 100
Stage 7 Monday morning Hope the normal office occupants for those floors dont notice concrete dust over everything and the yards of suspicious cables everywhere
Stage 8 Tuesday morning: remotely fly the aircraft into the same floors as you've previously rigged with explosives.... wait 45 mins to 90 mins before triggering the charges


Please please do some proper science and dont believe everything you read on the Internet is true
:headbang:

no i haven't, precisely why i chose to not shut my ears to a pannel of people who have most likely heard them many times; i.e. PHYSICS911 (enginneers, architects, etc). i have no academic or professional qualifications to trash their arguments.


as i said, i will not offer straight answers in this thread or state that this is definitely an inside job. just presenting some weird facts. i made this pretty clear in the original OP.

according to the website, the secret services occupied two floors and lost thousands of records on investigations. don't ask me what that could mean or whether this was the main motif, since i have no way to know what information they lost. again, i'm not offering answers, just facts.

Yes, but the facts you are choosing are facts that remind me of a thread long in the past. A thread in which someone impugned that the Harry Potter books were virtual Bibles of Satan. He referenced all sorts of facts throughout the books, when, taken on their own, seem to damn the books. But when taken with the entirety of the books, it's clearly bullshit. (All the while maintaining that he was keeping an open mind.)

That's precisely what you're doing here. You are showing one side of the facts, and conveniently not mentioning the massive pile o' data that supports the official story.

Furthermore, you're failing to cite the radical differences between Germany of that time period and the modern United States, which are legion.

Furthermore, referencing Bush=Hitler clearly invokes Godwin's Law, and serious study of what is being claimed is due. Falsehood must be disproven by the OP in the event of Godwin.

Yes, but the facts you are choosing are facts that remind me of a thread long in the past. A thread in which someone impugned that the Harry Potter books were virtual Bibles of Satan. He referenced all sorts of facts throughout the books, when, taken on their own, seem to damn the books. But when taken with the entirety of the books, it's clearly bullshit. (All the while maintaining that he was keeping an open mind.)

That's precisely what you're doing here. You are showing one side of the facts, and conveniently not mentioning the massive pile o' data that supports the official story.
fair enough but maybe people trying to counter-argue the facts that i've presented should back their arguments with the official evidence or at least provide links to enlighten me, instead of comparing this thread to fiction and throwing spurious and blatantly uninformed comments. how does that amount to being more rational than me or how is that going to convince me of anything? in all the posts in this thread, only two people bothered providing links (you and Minkonio) and only Cypresaria posed valid questions. i'm looking at them now... i'm not shut to debate as some have accused me, hence why i'm discussing this in a thread instead of doing it on my own. that's the whole point of forums; rational debate so that we can come to a consensus. maybe the problem is that while i never looked at this issue before, you are already fed up of hearing about it. still, it doesn't justify calling me delusional and irrational.

Furthermore, you're failing to cite the radical differences between Germany of that time period and the modern United States, which are legion.
obviously there are radical differences between WWII Germany and modern US. did i ever say there were none (or even few)? what i am not so convinced is that Bush is so much better than Hitler behind the cameras or privy eyes. i would not trust a man that is quoted 3 times about how it would be so much easier if the US was a dictatorship and amazes me that americans don't show their outrage or are deeply worried when he makes comments like these.

Furthermore, referencing Bush=Hitler clearly invokes Godwin's Law, and serious study of what is being claimed is due. Falsehood must be disproven by the OP in the event of Godwin.
the world has moved on since WWII. people's minds have as well. any ultra-right-wing dictator-wannabe in the US would know he would be thrown out of office the moment he made his intentions clear. instead, he would have to resort to much more subversive and discreet tactics. i'm not saying this is what Bush is trying, but the signs are really not much in his favour. on top of his infamous quotes, the whole world has watched how american citiziens have seen their civil rights erode during Bush's presidency. shady people like Rumsfeld and others surround him like hawks. a leaked memo condones the use of torture. the Washington Post exposed two secret american prisons in eastern europe. peopel are being abducted out of their homelands. he justifies it all with the war on terror. guess what; that is precisely what Hitler did (hence this thread). my parents grew up in a dictatorship and know the signs. do you think they lived in perpetual fear of the state? no. why? because they were not political activists. do i think civil rights activists have reasons to worry in the US? obviously not as much as in Nazi Germany but certainly more than pre-9/11 times (think voting act or the allegations around the Florida election fraud).

if you really need evidence of Bush being false, maybe you haven't been listening to the news as carefully as i have. he has lied about the use of torture. he is against the independence of Tawaian (a democracy)...

as to the 9/11 issue, as i said, i'm looking at the debunk sites now, so please bear with me if you are in any way interested in listening to what i have to say. you are free to choose this thread or other threads to read and post, your freedom guarantees you that. make sure you do everything so that you don't loose your freedom and never take it for granted because - if you do - someone one day may turn your passiveness against you:

"It's a fortunate thing for governments that men don't think."
Adolf Hitler

Furthermore, referencing Bush=Hitler clearly invokes Godwin's Law
by the way, i had never heard about this Law before... since you mentioned i looked it up and realised the implications...

No, it's not always correct, but it usually is. You really don't think Al Jazeera, some European media outlet, etc. would have broken a story if this were legitimate?
right now? the moment anyone touches the subject they are ridiculed, most of the times without their arguments even being objectively analysed. for nearly 4 years i heard my brother saying it and i thought he was being delusional; now i have my doubts (while not being certain about anything anymore). even people who haven't read either side of the argument laugh at you without considering the possibility (like i did at others, although i wouldn't voice my laugh). it would be professional and corporate suicide for BBC or Al Jazeera, even if they were right, and it would require much more evidence than the Bush administration would ever allow them to gather. if anything, the only thing they could do (to keep their credibility) would be expose the "dark side" of his administration (through other unrelated scandals) and hope for you to kick him out for other reasons.

imagine if i was convinced, which i am not... i just became less skeptical and it took me seeing a lot of rotten and fishy stuff coming out of this administration. the possibility only really struck me when i saw the same pattern in the rise of Nazism; i'm not a great fan of coincidences.

"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

i'm pretty certain he knew what he was saying and so does Michael Moore (just one example to illustrate someone being denounced for lack of patriotism). also, i would advise you to read some of the threads in the general forum about how the NY Times is now being called "traitor" and exposing the country to danger. the hypothetical propaganda techniques could be working so well that some individuals could already be doing most of the dirty work for the government, without realising it. instead of uniting everyone under one flag, some people are being segregated; muslims, gays, pacifists and other voices of dissent.

1. major and unexpected terrorist attack. (Reichtag - 9/11)
2. restriction of civil rights. (Reichtag decree - Patriot act)
3. war. (WWII - War on terror)

I'm Arab and have Arabic channels on Dish Network, including Al Jazeera. It would have been broadcast there 24/7 if there were any good proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Again, if you look for a conspiracy in anything, you can convince yourself one exists. What good does it do to say it was a conspiracy, even if it was? If there were indeed a conspiracy, better proof than what is presented here would be needed in order to effect any change. So until any better proof arrives, this is probably just a lot of flapping of the gums, unfortunately.
9/11 was a conspiracy! the only question here is who did it. how exactly do we expect proof to come out (if it's true), if everyone just sits by waiting for it to happen? are we expecting to find a memo saying "GWB did it"? and if it did come out, would we listen to it or just dismiss it outright and expose the exposer to ridicule?

sad state of affairs indeed, when people forget past history and allow it to repeat itself over and over again... let wait and see what happens in the 2008 election... if another major terrorist attack happens in the US, who will you vote for? republicans or democrats? unfortunately, a bunch of coloured people may not get the chance to vote (again).

again... my analogy is all about tacticts, not of motivations... as i said, the world has moved on.

I, like you recently have seen some things that have led me to believe that 9/11 is questionable.

A good video to watch is called: 911 loose change, it's featured on google video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Three major questions I would like answered are:

1) Why did the third tower fall, when there was no fire, no airplane collision and no major debris hitting it from the twin towers themselves?

2) Why is there no wreckage and no debris trail at the pentagon crash site?

3) Cell phones do not work at 20 000 feet (look at your phone next time you fly there are no bars). How did the people on the 4th plane make all of these calls?

The ramifications of a faked 911 to start an offensive war, are so scary that I don't want to believe it. But looking at American History, it's not all that hard to believe.

First of all, another documentary to watch is called "Why we Fight" by it is a DVD release: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Whenever a detective investigates a crime the first question they ask is: Who benefits?

The war in Afganistan and then Iraq benefited Bush by driving oil prices through the roof. The Texas Oilmen and Saudi Royals (who funded his election campaign) have made ridicilous amounts of money. Check out the '06 oil profits. - http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earns/


The other major industry that has made ridicilous amounts of money from the war is defense contractors i.e. Haliburton, AEGIS, Bering Point, Lockheed Martin etc... The same industry that Dick Cheney came from.

Here's some history:

1898- The Spanish American war - A Naval Accident is painted as an Attack on a US Naval Ship by the press. US Goes to an unprovoked war.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html

1915- America enters WW1 after the Sinking of the Lusitania - 128 Americans Die. What we don't hear about is it's cargo of weapons bound for England. Germany classed the attack as the destruction of a weapons shipment. http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika00.htm

1941 - America enters WW2 after yet another unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbour. There are multiple reports of prior knowledge of the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate.

1964 - America enters Vietnam after North Vietnamese PT boats attack US Destroyers. The PT's existence is questionable.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

America has a history of justifing wars as defensive, is this one really any different?

I, like you recently have seen some things that have led me to believe that 9/11 is questionable.

A good video to watch is called: 911 loose change, it's featured on google video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Three major questions I would like answered are:

1) Why did the third tower fall, when there was no fire, no airplane collision and no major debris hitting it from the twin towers themselves?

2) Why is there no wreckage and no debris trail at the pentagon crash site?

3) Cell phones do not work at 20 000 feet (look at your phone next time you fly there are no bars). How did the people on the 4th plane make all of these calls?


See my previous posts of the Popular Mechanics articles. They deal with these issues.


Whenever a detective investigates a crime the first question they ask is: Who benefits?
Not necessarily, for quite often a crime is a crime of passion, and noone benefits.


The war in Afganistan and then Iraq benefited Bush by driving oil prices through the roof. The Texas Oilmen and Saudi Royals (who funded his election campaign) have made ridicilous amounts of money. Check out the '06 oil profits. - http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earns/

While instability in Iraq has aided the increase in the price of oil, the primary factor for the massive price increases is linked to drastic increases in demand in South and East Asia. Not to the current situation in Iraq, any serious economist will tell you this. Oil prices would go through the roof even if we had a strictly non-interventionis policy in the middle east. And they will continue to rise because of the rapid increases in demand.

The other major industry that has made ridicilous amounts of money from the war is defense contractors i.e. Haliburton, AEGIS, Bering Point, Lockheed Martin etc... The same industry that Dick Cheney came from.
Who really doesn't experience a tremendous boon, because the weapons that are being used were primarily already in the arsenal.

Here's some history:

1898- The Spanish American war - A Naval Accident is painted as an Attack on a US Naval Ship by the press. US Goes to an unprovoked war.
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
It was painted as an attack because no one really knew what happened. It wasn't confirmed that it was a boiler accident until fairly recently. It is case of poor information and poor intelligence.


1915- America enters WW1 after the Sinking of the Lusitania - 128 Americans Die. What we don't hear about is it's cargo of weapons bound for England. Germany classed the attack as the destruction of a weapons shipment. http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika00.htm

The US entered the First World War not because of the sinking of the Lusitania alone, but because of a protracted campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare on the part of the German Navy. The sinking of the Lusitania was just fuel on the fire.


1941 - America enters WW2 after yet another unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbour. There are multiple reports of prior knowledge of the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate.

Pure and total malarky. Japanese signals were intercepted, but no firm commitment to attack was detected by the SigInt people. They suspected an attack to come on Sunday December 1, 1941. When it didn't, their credibility was hurt, and they were more conservative on the next go round. They waited until they had all of the message, and because the Japanese had timed their attack for a time in which the US Government would be at its lowest level of readiness, the signal did not get to the high command, and then to the fleet, in time.


1964 - America enters Vietnam after North Vietnamese PT boats attack US Destroyers. The PT's existence is questionable.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
That the PT boats existed is barely in question, the severity of their attack is in question. It would seem that the North Vietnamese PT boats came around the destroyer, and might have fired a few small caliber shots across the bow. The event was overhyped both by the miscommunication that resulted in the trans-Pacific communique and other factors.

America has a history of justifing wars as defensive, is this one really any different?
Yes, because it, just as these other wars were, is.

The debunk sites I've read associate the sounds of explosions to the pancaking effect.

Several eyewitness accounts that report hearing explosions immediately prior to the collapse. The fact they happened prior to the collapse throws out the explanation that these sounds resulted from pancaking.

These accounts were reported in the New York Times.

Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers

The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Accounts Earlier Made Public

Prior to the release of the oral histories, eyewitness reports of with descriptions of the World Trade Center building collapses came from a variety of diverse sources, such as mainstream media, documentaries, and the Web.

Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly:

I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York, recalled events in the South Tower:

When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:

I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.

As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

The video 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold contains several excerpts of video reports in which witnesses describe what they saw and heard. In the first, a reporter gives the following account:

The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.

The second excerpt records the impressions of an amerature videographer

45 minutes into the taping that we were doing there was an explosion -- it was way up where the fire was -- and the whole building at that point bellyed out, in flames, and everybody ran.

The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:

I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.

The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:

and all of a suddend it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.


Neil deGrasse Tyson provided a graphic description of the South Tower collapase in an e-mail sent to his family and friends on 9/12/01.

John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:

I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’

Firefighter Videos

Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations in the South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___ just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car, I hid under the car, I was waitin' to die.

The following eyewitness compared the scene to a Hollywood disaster movie, as did many other people.

When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F_____?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood.

anyone with a plausible explanation, other than pancaking?

First of all I would like to express my regret on my choice of Nation State name... didn't realize that I would be having a serious 911 debate

OK, you cite Popular Mechanical's article on 911 debunking as your primary source for the response to my three questions

Here's what they said:

WTC7: Pop Mech says:

25% of a the south face was destroyed
Intense Fires caused by diesel fuel caused structural damage
Unusual design caused a domino effect of one structural failure overloading the next load bearing structure and toppling the building

Have you ever seen the demolition of a small building by a crane rather than explosives? if I tear down a quarter of the structure and wait it doesn't just collapse into a perfect pile. You have to tear down much more than that & when is does go down it tends to fall sideways this is because the load bearing walls don't collapse at the same moment... or even within a few seconds of each other. Pop Mech describes the building design as a proverbial house of cards. That building fell straight down and the alleged fire would have to be burning uniformally on every support structure at the same high temperature of the building in order for it to fall like it did. As well if there was a fire hot enough to destroy concrete supports where was all the black Diesel Smoke?

Pentagon:Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

That is the exact quote from Pop Mech... How does it Address the lack of a debris field? Especially when it clearly states that one wing hit the ground prior to impact. On that note where are the engines? Airplane engines have Titanium components that would have survived the "liquification" of the rest of the plane. That's why they make nukes out of Titanium- To survive re-entry >2300*.

Cell Calls: Pop Mech doesn't address this issue at all, but ask yourself why would airlines be testing cell base stations installed in aircraft right now, if you could use your phone without them?

OK... that addresses my initial questions.

Now on to the rest.

You responded that a crime of passion can be a cause for crime, and you got me there.

If I were to rephrase: Whenever a detective investigates a crime the first question they ask is: Was it a crime of passion? R: NO So... The second is: Who Benefits?

OK, your next response leads readers away from Oil being a primary reason for the war.

Quote:
While instability in Iraq has aided the increase in the price of oil, the primary factor for the massive price increases is linked to drastic increases in demand in South and East Asia. Not to the current situation in Iraq, any serious economist will tell you this. Oil prices would go through the roof even if we had a strictly non-interventionis policy in the middle east. And they will continue to rise because of the rapid increases in demand.

Agreed... China & India and others are industrializing and thus consuming more Oil causing demand to increase. That is a long term trend that should reflect a steady increase in prices over time. The short term $.30 fluxuations caused by successes and failures in the war. That's where the short term jack in oil companies pockets is coming from. Notice that prices dropped right after the most recent Al Queda leader was bombed?

I said that Arms Contractors were making money from the war al la Dick Cheney. You said:

Who really doesn't experience a tremendous boon, because the weapons that are being used were primarily already in the arsenal.

Dude, it's not the Tanks and Planes it's the five million dollar cruise missles and rebuilding the crap that the missiles blew up. It's not the razor that cost you money... it's the blades.

As for the history lesson, I couldn't possibly argue what happened 40 - 100 years ago. Just trying to demonstrate that it's always painted as defensive war regardless of the circumstances. Check out the links.

PS - How do you make those cool quote text boxes?

the key word in the first sentence is SEEM ie.. something appears to be happening so how can you tell the difference between the floors pancaking and explosions. WTC 7 began sagging on one corner as it started its collapse, I think someone has the seismic recording showing that the collapse took 30 seconds in total, and in any case I refer you to the posting on page 4."
could you tell me which post, please? my view settings are different so i only have 2 pages...

well, i don't say i know for a fact that they are due to explosions. however, the witness accounts go against this. also, pancaking does not explain WTC7. it was actually this collapse that challenged my beliefs first, more than the two that were struck by the planes. it seemed very strange that a building would collapse so symmetrically due to fire, as if it wasn't strange enough that it should collapse entirely in the first place. i have never heard about a building collapsing symmetrically to rubble due to fire only. when the WTC7 building collapsed, there were no major fires visible either.

first, if you watch the video of the WTC7 collapsing, it shows clearly that it didn't take anywhere near 30 seconds, but much more the 6-7 seconds.
second, the WTC7 building didn't collapse like the first two. watch the video and you'll see that the puffs (signalling hypothetical explosions) happen on the top floors and there is no sign of pancaking. the building collapsed from the lower floors.

first video
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
close up
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg


OK its time to get you thinking.
WTC brought down by controlled demolition...... lets see, how to do it, ok lets cut about 125 columns on the exterior walls, combined with cutting the central core.
Stage 1 .. remove concrete surrounding the columns, otherwise the concrete absorbs the blast
Stage 2 wrap each column in steel cutting cord, this ensures the column is cut through
Stage 3 do the same to same column on the floor above, this avoids having the column drop 2 inches and nothing else happening
Stage 4 repeat for lets say 200 columns in total
Stage 5 to rig each column device takes 2 men 10 mins
Stage 6 work out how many ppl would be needed to do the job to both towers over a weekend ... about 100
Stage 7 Monday morning Hope the normal office occupants for those floors dont notice concrete dust over everything and the yards of suspicious cables everywhere
fortunately, i'm not an expert on implosions or explosions so i can't comment on the number of charges needed. also, just let me point out that PHYSICS911 don't claim that the explosions alone would have caused the collapse. obviously, the planes crashing and the fires that followed would have had a part. we've all heard how fires weakened the structure. an initial set of explosions could have triggered the collapse of an already weakened structure. PHYSICS911's other argument is that the charges would have aided a symmetrical collapse, rather than an assymmetric. they say that the initial assymetric toppling of the top of WTC2 or 1 (can't remember) can be observed in photos but somehow corrected itself. they find this to be very unusual and unlikely and i have no way to disprove them. also, what are the probability of 3 buildings ravaged by fired collapsing in a symmetrical way? How many buildings have collapsed like WTC7 due to fire? Why didn't the other WTC buildings that where closer not collapse, despite being hit by much more debris?

i agree with you about the placement of the charges (where could they have hidden them?) but since i've never been to the WTC towers or seen plans or whatever, i also have no way to dismiss that possibility either. also, the explosives would not require wires these days. we live in the age of wireless technology. The Madrid bombings were triggered by mobile phone signals.

obviously, i can't tell either if there was a need for 200 charges, since the fires would have weakened the structure (which doesn't happen in a controlled implosion). if Bush's brother was heading Securacom, it would have been very easy to gain access to the buildings (maybe during the previous weekend, like you said).

Stage 8 Tuesday morning: remotely fly the aircraft into the same floors as you've previously rigged with explosives.... wait 45 mins to 90 mins before triggering the charges
well, i'm actually not buying into the remotely flown aircraft theory. PHYSICS911 don't take upon that and - to be honest - i also feel it is very very far-fetched. Al Qaeda has got plenty of men willing to blow themselves up and i do believe those planes were piloted, whatever the real story is. no one can deny the links between the Bin Laden and the Bush family and if (this is really a big if) there was a plot, then we would be looking into something a lot more complicated then we could ever imagine. wasn't Bin Laden trained by the CIA? Maybe he hasn't become a "traitor" to a small group of people. after all, he hasn't been caught.

Please please do some proper science and dont believe everything you read on the Internet is true
:headbang:
whenever there are fundamentalists involved, i prefer not to believe anyone. Bush has proved time and time again to be what i would personally describe as a christian fundamentalist, while we all know what Bin Laden is. i prefer to trust neither.

as i said, i'm not believing anyone or anything at this stage... to be honest, i probably never will make up my mind (how could i?). if anything, i will just be a lot more concerned and weary about what is going to happen in the next presidential elections.

First of all I would like to express my regret on my choice of Nation State name... didn't realize that I would be having a serious 911 debate

OK, you cite Popular Mechanical's article on 911 debunking as your primary source for the response to my three questions

Here's what they said:

WTC7: Pop Mech says:

25% of a the south face was destroyed
Intense Fires caused by diesel fuel caused structural damage
Unusual design caused a domino effect of one structural failure overloading the next load bearing structure and toppling the building

Actually, intense fires caused by all of the combustibles inside the building resulted in the collapse.



Have you ever seen the demolition of a small building by a crane rather than explosives? if I tear down a quarter of the structure and wait it doesn't just collapse into a perfect pile. You have to tear down much more than that & when is does go down it tends to fall sideways this is because the load bearing walls don't collapse at the same moment... or even within a few seconds of each other. Pop Mech describes the building design as a proverbial house of cards. That building fell straight down and the alleged fire would have to be burning uniformally on every support structure at the same high temperature of the building in order for it to fall like it did. As well if there was a fire hot enough to destroy concrete supports where was all the black Diesel Smoke?

Beyond the fact that the area was completely and totally covere


Pentagon:Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
What happened is something that every model rocket enthusiast is well acquainted with. At the speeds the plane was going, and the physics of what was occuring, the wings would have had to punch through concrete to create their own holes. Instead, they buckled. They collapsed backwards, something akin to flush against the fuselage, and went into the same hole as the fuselage.

That is the exact quote from Pop Mech... How does it Address the lack of a debris field? Especially when it clearly states that one wing hit the ground prior to impact. On that note where are the engines? Airplane engines have Titanium components that would have survived the "liquification" of the rest of the plane. That's why they make nukes out of Titanium- To survive re-entry >2300*.
Parts of the engines were made out of titanium, but not all. Pieces of the airplane were recovered, such as the centerpiece of the engine, which, if I remember correctly, is shown in the video, although it's misidentified by the video's producers, who are complete and total hacks, but that's another story.

Cell Calls: Pop Mech doesn't address this issue at all, but ask yourself why would airlines be testing cell base stations installed in aircraft right now, if you could use your phone without them?
Because the flights were not flying at cruising altitude. Instead they had taken off, had been hijacked, and the hijackers were taking the plane lower, perhaps into cell phone range. I've no personal evidence on this one, as per the fact that no authoritative source has bothered to look into it.


You responded that a crime of passion can be a cause for crime, and you got me there.

If I were to rephrase: Whenever a detective investigates a crime the first question they ask is: Was it a crime of passion? R: NO So... The second is: Who Benefits?
Of course,the investigator should come to the conclusion, based on the evidence, that in this case it was a crime of passion. A passion for a form of their religion that drove them to kill themselves and several thousand other people.

OK, your next response leads readers away from Oil being a primary reason for the war.

Quote:
While instability in Iraq has aided the increase in the price of oil, the primary factor for the massive price increases is linked to drastic increases in demand in South and East Asia. Not to the current situation in Iraq, any serious economist will tell you this. Oil prices would go through the roof even if we had a strictly non-interventionis policy in the middle east. And they will continue to rise because of the rapid increases in demand.

Agreed... China & India and others are industrializing and thus consuming more Oil causing demand to increase. That is a long term trend that should reflect a steady increase in prices over time. The short term $.30 fluxuations caused by successes and failures in the war. That's where the short term jack in oil companies pockets is coming from. Notice that prices dropped right after the most recent Al Queda leader was bombed?
Of course oil wasn't the primary reason for the war. The primary reason was American national interest in the region, and a desire to make it so the region is more stable, so that American influence would grow, and as a secondary benefit that the price fluctuations in oil decrease. The folks involved said about as much in PNAC. They didn't believe in their ownpersonal profits, they believed in American global supremacy, they're neo-conservatives, not classical conservatives.

In fact, Al Qaeda operatives have made moves in various foreign countries that have destabilized the price of oil all on their own, without the involvement of the US government.


I said that Arms Contractors were making money from the war al la Dick Cheney. You said:

Who really doesn't experience a tremendous boon, because the weapons that are being used were primarily already in the arsenal.

Dude, it's not the Tanks and Planes it's the five million dollar cruise missles and rebuilding the crap that the missiles blew up. It's not the razor that cost you money... it's the blades. Since the fall of the Hussein regime, very few cruise missiles have been fired. And concurrently, much of the ammunition in use would have been purchased anyways.

As for the history lesson, I couldn't possibly argue what happened 40 - 100 years ago. Just trying to demonstrate that it's always painted as defensive war regardless of the circumstances. Check out the links.

There's an immense amount of speculation as to those issues in those articles you linked to. I can basically recount the entire buildup to Pearl Harbor, and show evidence every step of the way that the only people who knew about it were Japanese government or military, although US Naval Intelligence had some basic suspiscions, there was nothing solid.

PS - How do you make those cool quote text boxes?

You put the word QUOTE= inside brackets at the beginning of the quote, and put /QUOTE inside brackets at the end. If you want to specify a speaker, you put the speakers name after the equals sign, but still inside the brackets. Do not leave any spaces.

Wonk, wonk wonk wonk wonk

Just thought I'd post an excerpt from the 911 Physics website:



I'd also like to propose that the other groups involved in the 911 conspiracy include the KGB, the BAI, M&Ms and 007, James Bond.

Bond works for M16 so that's out. But your forgot big oil, small oil, medium sized oil, and the British Dental Association.

Lemmings, Lemmings, Lemmings of the BDA!

for those who have read popular mechanics, i would suggest you read this article debunking the debunkers...

link: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/

Bond works for M16 so that's out. But your forgot big oil, small oil, medium sized oil, and the British Dental Association.

Lemmings, Lemmings, Lemmings of the BDA!
if you are american, you have a patriotic duty and responsibility to investigate this as far as you can, in an objective manner. i do not believe a mainstream newspaper like the NY Times would lightly publish information (the witness accounts) pointing to a different explanation to that was officially presented.

we are not talking about a tabloid here... and - if you are american - it may be your civil rights and freedoms that may be at stake.

if you are american, you have a patriotic duty and responsibility to investigate this as far as you can, in an objective manner. i do not believe a mainstream newspaper like the NY Times would lightly publish information (the witness accounts) pointing to a different explanation to that was officially presented.

we are not talking about about a tabloid here...

I reserve the right as an American to make Monty Python references in serious threads.

I reserve the right as an American to make Monty Python references in serious threads.
and you are in your right... i'm just reminding you of your responsibilities as well, if you want to protect that right. the founding fathers emphasised the importance of the press as a check to the government; don't ignore them.

that a newspaper like the NY Times would make such a bold move should make you think twice... there are many websites that offer poor explanations, but it is becoming clearer to me that there are some extremely unusual details around this whole issue.

well, i don't say i know for a fact that they are due to explosions. however, the witness accounts go against this. also, pancaking does not explain WTC7. it was actually this collapse that challenged my beliefs first, more than the two that were struck by the planes. it seemed very strange that a building would collapse so symmetrically due to fire, as if it wasn't strange enough that it should collapse entirely in the first place. i have never heard about a building collapsing to rubble due to fire only. when the WTC7 building collapsed, there were no major fires visible either.

Typically because fire control systems and fire crews are able to control fires in large buildings before they get to the point where they can collapse. But this case seems to be more than a little bit extraordinairy, doesn't it? After all, the FDNY was decimated, and there was total chaos in the vicinity of the WTC site.

first, if you watch the video of the WTC7 collapsing, it shows clearly that it didn't take anywhere near 30 seconds, but much more the 6-7 seconds.
second, the WTC7 building didn't collapse like the first two. watch the video and you'll see that the puffs (signalling hypothetical explosions) happen on the top floors and there is no sign of pancaking. the building collapsed from the lower floors.

first video
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
close up
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg

It doesn't look like an asymmetric collapse at all. In fact, it would seem that the side we cannot see fell first. The damaged side. this one's obvious because of the bow in the middle of the roof, not only does it bow downwards, but it also bows inwards. The dust cloud also rises from the other side before it rises from the side we are seeing. The videos we're seeing here are only partial facts, part of the story is being hidden.

fortunately, i'm not an expert on implosions or explosions so i can't comment on the number of charges needed. also, just let me point out that PHYSICS911 don't claim that the explosions alone would have caused the collapse. obviously, the planes crashing and the fires that followed would have had a part. we've all heard how fires weakened the structure. an initial set of explosions could have triggered the collapse of an already weakened structure. PHYSICS911's other argument is that the charges would have aided a symmetrical collapse, rather than an assymmetric. they say that the initial assymetric toppling of the top of WTC2 or 1 (can't remember) can be observed in photos but somehow corrected itself.
Explain the presence of the explosives. Were they placed there before the plane impacts, a situation in which the resulting structural changes would have been noticed by somebody in the building. And more than that, after the impact of the planes, what would the impacts effect have been on the explosives? A goodly number would have been affected in the impact, and nullified.

they find this to be very unusual and unlikely and i have no way to disprove them. also, what are the probability of 3 buildings ravaged by fired collapsing in a symmetrical way? How many buildings have collapsed like WTC7 due to fire?
Given that I've demonstrated that the WTC7 building did NOT collapse symmetrically as you claim, this is irrelevant.

Beyond that, I'd like to see their credentials. Are they just college students with a laptop in a basement, or are they actual structural engineers, and authorities in their fields to boot? Somehow I doubt it.
Why didn't the other WTC buildings that where closer not collapse, despite being hit by much more debris?
Engineering and design, engineering and design.

i agree with you about the placement of the charges (where could they have hidden them?) but since i've never been to the WTC towers or seen plans or whatever, i also have no way to dismiss that possibility either. also, the explosives would not require wires these days. we live in the age of wireless technology. The Madrid bombings were triggered by mobile phone signals.
The WTC towers were very open. A large central support ran down the middle, with the individual floors radiating off of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg

The building plan was open, and the support struts were generally visible to those who worked in the WTC. They would have seen something. Explosives in the center shaft would also have experienced technical difficulties as the result of the firestorms that shot up and down the central elevator shafts


obviously, i can't tell either if there was a need for 200 charges, since the fires would have weakened the structure (which doesn't happen in a controlled implosion). if Bush's brother was heading Securacom, it would have been very easy to gain access to the buildings (maybe during the previous weekend, like you said).
The amount of work, the manhours, and the technical sophistication that would have been required would have taken far more than a weekend. It takes a normal, controlled demolition months to set up. A weekend would just not cut it. The presence of the number of workers required to do the work AND THEN COVER IT UP that you're talking about would be noticed.

Furthermore, I cannot mention it enough. The fires would have degraded any explosives that had been put in the area. C4, for example, will not explode in fire, but it is not fire or heat resistant.



He's carried out enough attacks against US interests throughout the world prior to this incident, and under a different administration, to certainly show that he's not the CIA's lapdog.


[QUOTE=]whenever there are fundamentalists involved, i prefer not to believe anyone. Bush has proved time and time again to be what i would personally describe as a christian fundamentalist, while we all know what Bin Laden is. i prefer to trust neither.
That's a silly reason for not believing something. In fact, I believe that's the classic example of an argumentum ad hominem fallacy

as i said, i'm not believing anyone or anything at this stage... to be honest, i probably never will make up my mind (how could i?). if anything, i will just be a lot more concerned and weary about what is going to happen in the next presidential elections.
Your statements previous would belie this statement.

and you are in your right... i'm just reminding you of your responsibilities as well, if you want to protect that right. the founding fathers emphasised the importance of the press as a check to the government; don't ignore them.

that a newspaper like the NY Times would make such a bold move should make you think twice... there are many websites that offer poor explanations, but it is becoming clearer to me that there are some extremely unusual details around this whole issue.

Well the founding fathers also believed that it was acceptable to leave slavery legal and that women didn't deserve a vote. But that's an argument for another day.

Anyways, Bush may not have been responsible, but he certainly used the events of 911 to his advantage, for example, to pursue an agenda against Sadaam.

Anyways, Bush may not have been responsible, but he certainly used the events of 911 to his advantage, for example, to pursue an agenda against Sadaam.

True, true. Just as long as you don't suggest that some other President would have completely avoided turning the incident to political advantage somehow.

True, true. Just as long as you don't suggest that some other President would have completely avoided turning the incident to political advantage somehow.

Well, only Republican, Federalist, Bull Moose, Democratic, Inpendent, Green, Anti-Federalist or Whig presidents.

for those who have read popular mechanics, i would suggest you read this article debunking the debunkers...

link: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/
I posted the response to that. It's just below the initial article.

I'd go on to debunk it in it's entirety, but it's impossibly long, and I've not got the time. Furthermore I've got to get up for work sometime tomorrow. Although the most comical statements come here.

First that statement that privileged individuals were pre-warned. Why not warn the Solicitor General, a close friend of President Bush against it. After all, his wife died on September 11.

The claim that not a single suspect has been convicted anywhere in connection to the attacks. There have been several convictions. Moussaoui is the most visible, but the Spanish have also convicted someone as well.

The charge that no military officials were demoted is comical. The military did not respond until civilian authorities had made a decision. They did exactly what a military does in a democracy, they wait until their commander and chief decides to move. Beyond that, it was an intelligence failure, not a military failure.

The constant citation of eyewitnesses is almost comical. Despite their power of persuasion, untrained experts are terribly unreliable for reporting anything but the most basic facts of the situation. This is espescially so when dealing with aircraft crashes and aircraft behaviors.

The article makes the horrendously flawed assumption that the Pentagon is defended by missile batteries. In fact, it admits that it is an assumption. In fact, the Pentagon is not defended by SAMs. It has been assumed for the past sixty years that a surprise attack would take the form of a strike from a major power, not a terrorist group operating inside the US. In that event, we'd have the benefit of the NORAD Radar (which points outward I might add, the coverage of the continental US is limited) to warn us that they're coming, and would could down their inbound bombers with fighter-interceptors. The Pentagon is not defended by missile batteries. After the September 11 attacks, Humvee Avengers were deployed around DC, and around the Pentagon explicitly, to protect against inbound aircraft.

Just a few errors in the space of a few pages that I noted.

Here it is.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/2722456.html

Typically because fire control systems and fire crews are able to control fires in large buildings before they get to the point where they can collapse. But this case seems to be more than a little bit extraordinairy, doesn't it? After all, the FDNY was decimated, and there was total chaos in the vicinity of the WTC site.
i'll only answer the first part now, since i have to go out. i'll continue tomorrow.

i ask you to read this very objectively and back-up counter-arguments with observations, not just arguments, if you can please. if you cannot see the images, use the links since they show the violence of the fires.

there have been fires much more severe than those observed in WTC7 and the skyscrapers never collapsed.

source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/meridian_plaza_c.jpg

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/fib_la_fire1_s.jpg

The First Insterstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.



The New York Plaza Fire
New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. 7



Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor9c.jpg

The Windsor Building fire
The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.

source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor6.jpg

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

Estimated time frame of collapses

Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

WTC7 couldn't of collapsed due to an unmanaged fire, it had an automatic sprinkler system. which means that as soon as a temperature of 130*+ is reached the bulb contained in the sprinkler breaks and water sprays out.

Actually, intense fires caused by all of the combustibles inside the building resulted in the collapse.

The fire couldn't have raged to the heat level required to render concrete brittle and the steel rebar encased inside it to the level required to cause the collapse. Even if it did, (which as far as I am concerned is impossible) there is no way that it burned at the uniform level throughout the building required to cause every load bearing support to collapse within that short a timespan. This building was constructed to UL specification, which is a fire protection standard designed to stop fires before they can get out of control.

As for FDNY being decimated... they were, but they were all there.

Smoke- I didn't see a third building on fire on the News networks... Maybe they missed it covering the other crashes


What happened is something that every model rocket enthusiast is well acquainted with. At the speeds the plane was going, and the physics of what was occuring, the wings would have had to punch through concrete to create their own holes. Instead, they buckled. They collapsed backwards, something akin to flush against the fuselage, and went into the samoids e hole as the fuselage.

It's not the hole size in the building it's the lack of any kind of gouge in the ground leading to the pentagon. Pop Mech says the one wing hit the ground prior to colliding with the pentagon. Where's the debris trail, the smashed wing outside the building. As for the turbine blade they found it's way too small. A 737's turbine is 3-4 ft in diameter and 5-6 ft in total diameter.

Crime of passion- Touche. If it's Al Queda then passion, If it's a fake to start a war it's benefit. Requires the answer to conciede the point.

Altitude changes allowing for cell phone calls- unlikely but possible. Unlikely because the transcripts have passeners saying "I have to go" etc... We would need to see the radar logs from air traffic control.

War Profiteering - Well the Trillion dollars in the budget for the war has to go somewhere.

Being versed in Pearl Harbour you must have heard of the "Pearl Harbour effect" (also called groupthink) - where people choose to make up explaniations for evidence provided because the alternative is unacceptable to them. It applies here as well as to Pearl Harbour, Challenger Disaster etc...


- Thanks for the help with the quotes.


Bond works for M16 so that's out. But your forgot big oil, small oil, medium sized oil, and the British Dental Association.

Lemmings, Lemmings, Lemmings of the BDA!

AM I the only one who finds these "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" replys annoying?

i'll only answer the first part now, since i have to go out. i'll continue tomorrow.

i ask you to read this very objectively and back-up counter-arguments with observations, not just arguments, if you can please. if you cannot see the images, use the links since they show the violence of the fires.

there have been fires much more severe than those observed in WTC7 and the skyscrapers never collapsed.

source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Because the fires were never coupled with the impact of a debris from the other WTC 1 and WTC 2. If you remember, a whole side chunk was taken out of the building.

3 alone does not make 4, but 3+1 does.

Furthermore, the fire department predicted that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and set up a cordon around the building. They knew this becase the building was actually physically moving. They did this a full half hour before the building collapsed. How would explosives explain the movement that was occuring in WTC 7 a full half hour before they allegedly went off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center

WTC7 couldn't of collapsed due to an unmanaged fire, it had an automatic sprinkler system. which means that as soon as a temperature of 130*+ is reached the bulb contained in the sprinkler breaks and water sprays out.
The sprinkler system lost power, the water system was incapacitated. The building suffered severe structural damage before it collapsed. It's perfectly reasonable, nay, likely, that the sprinkler system didn't activate.



The fire couldn't have raged to the heat level required to render concrete brittle and the steel rebar encased inside it to the level required to cause the collapse. Even if it did, (which as far as I am concerned is impossible) there is no way that it burned at the uniform level throughout the building required to cause every load bearing support to collapse within that short a timespan. This building was constructed to UL specification, which is a fire protection standard designed to stop fires before they can get out of control.

As for FDNY being decimated... they were, but they were all there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center

Smoke- I didn't see a third building on fire on the News networks... Maybe they missed it covering the other crashes
Perhaps it was ensconced in the dust cloud.



It's not the hole size in the building it's the lack of any kind of gouge in the ground leading to the pentagon. Pop Mech says the one wing hit the ground prior to colliding with the pentagon. Where's the debris trail, the smashed wing outside the building. As for the turbine blade they found it's way too small. A 737's turbine is 3-4 ft in diameter and 5-6 ft in total diameter.
If you notice, that piece actually lacks the turbine blades themselves, instead it is only the centerpiece to which the turbine blades are attached.

Crime of passion- Touche. If it's Al Queda then passion, If it's a fake to start a war it's benefit. Requires the answer to conciede the point.
Occams Razor. Which is the simpler?



War Profiteering - Well the Trillion dollars in the budget for the war has to go somewhere.

Being versed in Pearl Harbour you must have heard of the "Pearl Harbour effect" (also called groupthink) - where people choose to make up explaniations for evidence provided because the alternative is unacceptable to them. It applies here as well as to Pearl Harbour, Challenger Disaster etc...


Groupthink tends to come into effect when a disaster is of your own incompetence. Groupthink is the reason the Pentagon was not protected by anti-air missiles. Groupthink is the reason NORAD has limited coverage of the continental US. Groupthink was a reason why the September 11 hijackers were not caught.

Groupthink in the Leadup to the Iraq War.

The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors, and managers, to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized. [4]

Groupthink tends to be a way in which people build prejudices before the event, not some way to cover up some horrible truth.

Furthermore, the "authority" who drives the controlled demolition theory is Steven E. Jones. Most all of the claims of controlled demolition are derived from what he has written. A physicist at Brigham Young University in Utah. His credentials are respectable, for a particle physicist. He is not a structural engineer, and does not seem to have any particular training in this field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Furthermore, his findings have been challenged as unworthy of peer review because they have not meet sufficient levels scientific criticism by academics to be considered serious work.

An appeal to authority only works if the person you're appealing to is actually an authority in the field in which you're making the appeal.

Another thing that lends itself to you side of the argument is the obvious inepititude of the Bush administration. They couldn't organize clean water & transportation to Katrina Victims. How could they possibly have pulled this off.

As for the sprinkler system damage, the water feed comes from city water pressure directly from the underground so the supply would not be cutoff. If a pipe was severed then it would gush water from the open pipe end. Even if the sprinkler system was deactivated somehow that fire would have to be extremely hot for an extended peroid of time.

I was referring to groupthink as a way to dismiss 911 evidence, as the alternative to a Terrorist attack is too much to handle.

Another thing that lends itself to you side of the argument is the obvious inepititude of the Bush administration. They couldn't organize clean water & transportation to Katrina Victims. How could they possibly have pulled this off.

Certainly. Despite what the current administration says so very often, they really have little moral certitude on most issues. They talk and talk about stuff and never get it done. I doubt that they'd be capable of such a grand scale operation.

Now, the bed calls for me. I have to wake up in 6 hours, leave for work 1 hour after that and spend 8 hours after that sitting around the office and throwing paper airplanes at Ludlow. G'night.

Furthermore, the "authority" who drives the controlled demolition theory is Steven E. Jones. Most all of the claims of controlled demolition are derived from what he has written. A physicist at Brigham Young University in Utah. His credentials are respectable, for a particle physicist. He is not a structural engineer, and does not seem to have any particular training in this field.

I'm surprised BYU still lets him stay on as faculty. Letting a conspiracy theorist hang around as staff and teach students can't do much good for the already failing reputation of BYU.

I'm surprised BYU still lets him stay on as faculty. Letting a conspiracy theorist hang around as staff and teach students can't do much good for the already failing reputation of BYU.
He seems to be a decent enough physicist, and if his work on physics is not harmed by his little...side jobs...then I'd keep him on.

He seems to be a decent enough physicist, and if his work on physics is not harmed by his little...side jobs...then I'd keep him on.

I can understand that, it would be probably be fair to keep him on. Although, people who support conspiracy theories don't set a good example for students, academics standards, or give the university a good reputation.

While not extreme, it would be like having a Holocaust denier on the faculty. Or someone who supports racial superiority theories, the idea that the Illuminati is controlling the world.

I can understand that, it would be probably be fair to keep him on. Although, people who support conspiracy theories don't set a good example for students, academics standards, or give the university a good reputation.

While not extreme, it would be like having a Holocaust denier on the faculty. Or someone who supports racial superiority theories, the idea that the Illuminati is controlling the world.
Well done little thing. When in lack for good arguments, compare the dissenter with lunatics. Always does the trick.

if you are american, you have a patriotic duty and responsibility to investigate this as far as you can, in an objective manner. i do not believe a mainstream newspaper like the NY Times would lightly publish information (the witness accounts) pointing to a different explanation to that was officially presented.

we are not talking about a tabloid here... and - if you are american - it may be your civil rights and freedoms that may be at stake.
They are TRAITORS... Everybody knows this. I will shut their filthy mouth.

They are TRAITORS... Everybody knows this. I will shut their filthy mouth.
of course they are... they seem to be the only ones defending the true values of the US these days. the fact that the Bush administration is after them like dogs only confirms my worse fears...

of course they are... they seem to be the only ones defending the true values of the US these days. the fact that the Bush administration is after them like dogs only confirms my worse fears...

The whole reason our ancestors sailed over here was specifically to avoid this kind of powerful, pervasive government. Yes, even a government that thinks its acting in our best interests is problematic. And again...like someone in the other thread and I keep saying, the administration is underestimating the terrorists. Al Qaeda is well aware that our agencies are spying on them so I don't see what the big deal is about the leak.

The whole reason our ancestors sailed over here was specifically to avoid this kind of powerful, pervasive government. Yes, even a government that thinks its acting in our best interests is problematic. And again...like someone in the other thread and I keep saying, the administration is underestimating the terrorists. Al Qaeda is well aware that our agencies are spying on them so I don't see what the big deal is about the leak.
i know exactly what the big deal is; they are becoming dangerous to the administration, not the american people. attacking the press goes against what the founding fathers preached. for them, the press was supposed to check on the government. as you said, Al Qaeda is well aware of spying. trying to slander or even shut down the the NY Times will weaken or even shut a very loud voice of opposition. a voice that seems a lot more brave than the democrats these days. only a blind man doesn't see that but i'm sure people will call me delusional and paranoid for saying such things.

of course they are... they seem to be the only ones defending the true values of the US these days. the fact that the Bush administration is after them like dogs only confirms my worse fears...

With you on that.


Another thing that scares me is, in Nazi Germany, there was a great racial hate of the Jews as we all know, but as we all know, the germans were able to keep the fact of "genocide" relativley secret to most german society. they knew that the jews had been takin away, but they did not know where or what happened to them. What if something similar is happening in america or even europe again to muslims? or anyone that speaks out against the government.... America has so much more space than germany too, it would be easy to find a 100 square mile area that no-one inhabits and set such a thing up. :(

They are TRAITORS... Everybody knows this. I will shut their filthy mouth.

they are not traitors, they are hero's fighting against a corrupt government trying to impose a police state.

With you on that.


Another thing that scares me is, in Nazi Germany, there was a great racial hate of the Jews as we all know, but as we all know, the germans were able to keep the fact of "genocide" relativley secret to most german society. they knew that the jews had been takin away, but they did not know where or what happened to them. What if something similar is happening in america or even europe again to muslims? or anyone that speaks out against the government.... America has so much more space than germany too, it would be easy to find a 100 square mile area that no-one inhabits and set such a thing up. :(
well, if they wanted to do it, they would certainly not make it overground these days... the world has moved on and oppressors have learned with past mistakes.

What if something similar is happening in america or even europe again to muslims? or anyone that speaks out against the government.... America has so much more space than germany too, it would be easy to find a 100 square mile area that no-one inhabits and set such a thing up. :(

No no no, now let's not get crazy here. That will never happen to American muslims. Nothing that big would be able to be kept secret. Sure, the government might arrest people who end up being innocent, but a mass genocide in the fashion of Hitler's Germany, not on our watch.

But Bush's brother left the company in June 2001...............


[QUOTE=Assis
as i said, i'm not believing anyone or anything at this stage... to be honest, i probably never will make up my mind (how could i?). if anything, i will just be a lot more concerned and weary about what is going to happen in the next presidential elections.

Well hopefully the demoprats can put up a decent candidate in 2008... and we all know bushie cant stand at all.

As for the rest, treat all conspiracy theories with the same degree of skeptism as you do the official account,.

No no no, now let's not get crazy here. That will never happen to American muslims. Nothing that big would be able to be kept secret. Sure, the government might arrest people who end up being innocent, but a mass genocide in the fashion of Hitler's Germany, not on our watch.
i agree that we shouldn't go crazy and speculate without any observation. if anything like that was happening, some muslims would be shouting that a lot of people were disappearing. in nazi germany, all jews were moved to a gettho before being moved to concentration camps.

still, no one in europe ever imagined that something like the holocaust could have happened in the 20th century, so nothing should ever be taken for granted; hence why it is vital to defend the press at all cost, particularly when they are a voice of opposition.

But Bush's brother left the company in June 2001...............
fair enough... still, the link remains and i cannot know how influential he might have been. we've all heard of how some companies have seen their profits rise, companies where present members of government worked in very high ranks. influentiality doesn't wear off when you leave to join the government, much by the contrary. surely, we can argue that it is natural to business life (it's how it works really), to a certain extent, that you choose to work with companies that you know well. however, it certainly makes foul-play much easier. no one can deny it.
Well hopefully the demoprats can put up a decent candidate in 2008... and we all know bushie cant stand at all.
allow me to speculate a bit and ask you a question. how and what would you personally think, if somehow the republicans won the next election, while civil rights activists complain about minorities being blocked from voting (again) or if new allegations of fraud were made?
As for the rest, treat all conspiracy theories with the same degree of skeptism as you do the official account.
i absolutely agree with you here but - to do that objectively - i had to open my ears to the "conspiracy theories" and try to rationalise how it could have been possible, instead of buying the theories i'm now finding on the internet. i've bought the official account over and over again for more than 4 years, without even checking the evidence. if i dismiss the other side outright, i'm not treating both accounts with the same degree of skepticism. i'm just being a blind sheep.

allow me to speculate a bit and ask you a question. how and what would you personally think, if somehow the republicans won the next election?

If I may, I'll also give my take on that situation. It won't be as bad as it sounds. Bush will be gone and more importantly Cheney will probably be gone. We'll still have Congress to deal with but right now the Republican candidate seems to be John McCain who's at least, a reasonable guy. He's more willing to work with Democrats than the current administration.

If I may, I'll also give my take on that situation. It won't be as bad as it sounds. Bush will be gone and more importantly Cheney will probably be gone. We'll still have Congress to deal with but right now the Republican candidate seems to be John McCain who's at least, a reasonable guy. He's more willing to work with Democrats than the current administration.
you most certainly may :D thanks. i'm not american, so i hadn't heard about him. after a quick scan, i hope you are right and that wikipedia is wrong. i'll be watching him closely.

According to voteview.com, McCain's voting record in the 109th Congress is the third most conservative (As of Nov. 2005)
or that he becomes less conservative, if and when he does get the presidency. somehow, i would feel a bit more reassured if the democrats won the next round. God, how i hate politicians, without wanting to over-generalise of course....

Well, McCain's conservative economically, I'll tell you that. In fact, his greatest enemy right now is Congress that is spending taxpayer money like there's no tomorrow, which he wants to put an end to. He's also famous for wanting to remove money as a factor in elections (i.e. the campaign finance cap) which is something he's united with Democrats on. He does support the Iraq war, but is much more wary of an all pervasive federal government than the Bush administration is.

you most certainly may :D thanks. i'm not american, so i hadn't heard about him. after a quick scan, i hope you are right and that wikipedia is wrong. i'll be watching him closely.

or that he becomes less conservative, if and when he does get the presidency. somehow, i would feel a bit more reassured if the democrats won the next round. God, how i hate politicians, without wanting to over-generalise of course....
Of course John Kerry was also rated as the third most liberal in 2004. I put very little stock into these rating systems, given the fact that they are all very, very subjective.

Furthermore, McCain has shown a rather strong defense of civil liberties. Have you heard of the McCain Amendment? It was recently passed by the Congress, and it was an explicit ban on torture. You see, Senator McCain is well aware of the horrors of torture, as per the fact that he experienced them during Vietnam.

How about McCain-Feingold? A bill that was strongly opposed by a lot of Republicans, to limit campaign contributions in the form of soft money.

Or perhaps the fact that he was a member of the group that organized the compromise to the Judge confirmation showdown. He prevented the nuclear option from being used, and he got several of the judges through the system.

You will see that McCain votes conservative on most of the more mundane issues, but when he's confronted with something he believes in he will run against his party. He is very much a fiscal conservative, loathing budget increases and irresponsible taxation. His voting record as a conservative is quite solid on that issue. An issue that will play very effectively to the Robert A. Taft Republicans who are rapidly being alienated by Bush.

well, if they wanted to do it, they would certainly not make it overground these days... the world has moved on and oppressors have learned with past mistakes.
There is little doubt that the German people did actually know what was going on. Instead the allowed it to happen in the name of national survival or some bull like that. After the war, it was virtually impossible to get a confession out of a German that they did indeed have a clue about what was happening, for the simple reason was that they were indeed quite embarassed that they allowed it to happen.

Trust me, if camps were opened up in the US that were designed for the extermination of individuals, we would know.

Of course John Kerry was also rated as the third most liberal in 2004. I put very little stock into these rating systems, given the fact that they are all very, very subjective.

Furthermore, McCain has shown a rather strong defense of civil liberties. Have you heard of the McCain Amendment? It was recently passed by the Congress, and it was an explicit ban on torture. You see, Senator McCain is well aware of the horrors of torture, as per the fact that he experienced them during Vietnam.

How about McCain-Feingold? A bill that was strongly opposed by a lot of Republicans, to limit campaign contributions in the form of soft money.

Or perhaps the fact that he was a member of the group that organized the compromise to the Judge confirmation showdown. He prevented the nuclear option from being used, and he got several of the judges through the system.

You will see that McCain votes conservative on most of the more mundane issues, but when he's confronted with something he believes in he will run against his party. He is very much a fiscal conservative, loathing budget increases and irresponsible taxation. His voting record as a conservative is quite solid on that issue. An issue that will play very effectively to the Robert A. Taft Republicans who are rapidly being alienated by Bush.

Thanks man. You actually pointed out McCain's good points better than I did. I had forgotten about his ban on torture. I say at the very least, he is not as corrupt as other politicians and is a more or less, honest, decent guy. He was in the Wedding Crashers, remember? lol

allow me to speculate a bit and ask you a question. how and what would you personally think, if somehow the republicans won the next election, while civil rights activists complain about minorities being blocked from voting (again) or if new allegations of fraud were made?



Well since my minority friends in the US deep south have no trouble in voting..........

Anyways..... I dont hold out much hope of the demoprats unseating the repuglickons.... after all Bush is a fairly unpopular president*... and they could'nt unseat him in 2004.....

El-Presidente-for-life Boris

*understatement of the year there

no, no, no... i really hope i had not found this... :(

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

Article continues
The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography

Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1312542,00.html

you realize WTC7 was "pulled" right? You have seen that video clip right? Or are you just talking out of your ass.

no, no, no... i really hope i had not found this... :(



source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,1312542,00.html


:eek: I had seen something like that before...Creepy,eh?

if there is a corelation between wars,the one who comes to my mind is,fear.
That is the mother of all battles,that's the one you will dance for,while crying in your shit hole .
THIS IS WAR .
I think other 10 years from now ,we will regret hypocracy.