American Government responsible for 9/11 and covering it up

[DiggityBiggity]

Why do you people always assume a conspiracy?

Can't things like this happen and actaully be the work of terrorists?

Uhm, by the way. The idea that 19 arabs with box cutters conducted 9.11, that's a Conspiracy theory, it's just the conspiracy theory that our government dealt to everyone, and then told everyone not to accept any OUTRAGEOUS theories... like theirs wasn't so outrageous itself.

Sorry guys... 19 arabs can't make NORAD stand down... 19 arabs can't defy the laws of physics... 19 arabs can't put in anonymous put options on airline stocks... 19 arabs can't put Florida under martial law 4 days before the attacks (but Jeb Bush can and DID do just that)

http://www.myflorida.com/eog_new/eog/or ... 07-01.html

Wake up people... Wake the eff up

[DiggityBiggity]

Oh... yeah... Mainstream Media doesn't cover anything???

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/110 ... s_911.html

[DiggityBiggity]

And Larry Silverstein... how did he know building Seven was going to fall??? Of that's right, HE TOLD THEM TO PULL IT!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

[rube]

Sorry guys... 19 arabs can't make NORAD stand down... 19 arabs can't defy the laws of physics... 19 arabs can't put in anonymous put options on airline stocks... 19 arabs can't put Florida under martial law 4 days before the attacks (but Jeb Bush can and DID do just that)

CYA?
Air defense communication records.
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

[DiggityBiggity]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 2-2004May6

"the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building"

Interesting... wtf??

[DiggityBiggity]

Official Timeline:

http://complete911timeline.org/timeline ... rtpos=1000

8:43 a.m.: NORAD Notified That Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked

After 9/11, NORAD and other sources claim that NORAD is notified at this time Flight 175 has been hijacked. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; Newsday, 9/10/2002] The 9/11 Commission, however, later concludes that New York flight control gives NEADS its first notification that Flight 175 has been hijacked at 9:03 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] If this earlier account is the accurate one, NEADS technicians learn of the hijacking at the exact same time the flight controllers do. They already have their headsets linked to Boston flight control to track Flight 11 at this time,and so they learn instantly about Flight 175. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002]

We've got conflicting stories gentlemen... who do we believe? 9.11 commission? Vanity Fair? NEADS?

[DiggityBiggity]

Just take a look at building seven collapse...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

If you aren't convinced that shit fell through controlled demo, then this argument is over, cause you're a :knob:

[rube]

If you aren't convinced that shit fell through controlled demo, then this argument is over, cause you're a knob

I'm a knob. Dude, proof.

[DiggityBiggity]

If you aren't convinced that shit fell through controlled demo, then this argument is over, cause you're a knob

I'm a knob. Dude, proof.

The proof is looking at that building fall... you can't trust your own eyes?? Do you see it crease in the center? Do you see it fall in about 7 seconds?? Come on, Jesus Christ... Read the 9.11 Scholars for Truth paper by Prof. Stephen E. Jones... He proves it was demolished by thermite... but oh wait... you need the government to tell you it was demolished by thermite, not some physics prof. That's right...

http://www.st911.org/

[rube]

The ONLY thing the video proves is that the building fell. NOT why. And just to save a lot of time tell me what PROOF the good professor has that it was thermite? Proof dude, not suspicion, heresay, inferences, it could only have beens. Honest-to-God-stand-up-in-court proof.

If you can tell the building fell due to charges blowing well I'm sure you're in high demand as a forensic investigator. No need for interviews with witnesses, tests, modeling or reconstructions.

[Mach10]

You do NOT need to provide a solid countering theory in order to disprove a different theory.

It's the same logical fallacy as the "Creation Science" idiots love to ignore. "A !=B, Therefore A = C"

Regardless of what actually HAPPENED to the building, the fact that the OFFICIAL explanation is severely defective is more than enough cause for concern.

You don't need to come forward with conspiracy theories to acknowledge that the 911 commission DID NOT DO IT'S JOB.

What was the body count? People come up and say that questioning the investigation is disrespectful of the dead.

Which is a pile of horseshit. Every person that dies under any kind of suspicious circumstances gets an autopsy--or at least a perfunctory look-over by a coroner--to verify what happened.

So why where 2 ENTIRE BUILDNGS examined so haphazardly?

[zonyl]

Here is a good example of seemingly smart people losing sight of common sense:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

Code: Select all

Subjective: This person (and hundreds of thousands who support this theory) who has done a lot of math and research has concluded that the jet fuel cannot reach a temperature above 260(C).  This is not a fact, but is a rational conclusion by someone who is not an expert in building construction.

Fact: Critical temperature of steel is 600 (C)

Lets look at this from a "common sense" perspective. Looking at just these things would make anyone agree that the planes could not have taken down the buildings

... HOWEVER ...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/fact ... e_data.htm

Fact: WTC engineers designed the steel beams with additional fireproofing material coating..

Wait a minute.. Why would the WTC engineers fireproof the beams of the WTC building?!? If Jet Fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperature needed to collapse the building, WHAT CAN? A cigarette in a trash basket??? Were the designers of the WTC buildings complete idiots?!? Why did they waste the money on a threat that is not possible to achieve according to the theory above.

I think common sense here should tells us all that people who design buildings know a lot more about how temperature and fire affect steel structures than most of us will know and quite likely the fire brought down the building.

and BTW:

Fact: The initial explosion of the airplane collision blew the fireproof coating off a lot of the steel beams.


----

Building 7 remains a mystery to me, however, Im sure the vast amount of Diesel Fuel sitting in the middle of the building didnt help it withstand the damage as well as 6.

[whipped]

Fact: The initial explosion of the airplane collision blew the fireproof coating off a lot of the steel beams.

not to mention probably sheared a third of them...

[MNFatz]

But the book, it has the FEMA report in it... sorry if that link didn't.

Second, I'm sick and tired of this subject. I didn't post this subject, and I stopped posting about it a long long time ago.

Maybe all you people who think the government is SOOO good, should do some research on Project NorthWoods..

Seacrest Out.

And the predictable Changing Of The Subject.

No matter what you say, or how you say it, or how many times you try to change the subject, the information you presented was false.

To some of us--me included--that's tantamount to pissing on the graves of everyone who died in the attack.

Keep that in mind next time.

What the fuck are you talking (yea, I'm gonna curse because at this point I just don't give a fuck)

I didn't change the fucking subject. In the book I own and am holding in my hands RIGHT NOW the FEMA report is INCLUDED in the 9.11 Commission Report. I'm sorry if that website didn't have it on there, I thought it would.

As for Project Northwoods, you are questioning why the government would do something like that, it's not changing the subject, it IS the fucking subject. Government sponsored terrorism IS the subject.

Project Northwoods IS THE SAME SUBJECT

And as for pissing on the graves... Sorry dude, that would be you, in wanting NOT to do them justice by finding out what actually happened.

And another predictable attempt to change the subject.

Hell, there's a whole bunch of em!. Let's get back to the false information you're trying to divert attention from.

Here's the link again:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

You've got two ways out.

1) Post the link to the chapter in the 9-11 commission report containing your quote so I can humbly admit I'm wrong;

2) Admit your original claim that the quote is from the 9.11 Commission Report is false.

Then we can move on to your next argument--you can choose it as long as it concerns facts--not opinion or here say.

[Mach10]

Actually, I thought the most compelling argument was how rapidly the building imploded. The top section which collapsed plowed through the remaining building to hit the floor at--or faster--than gravity should have allowed.

Which implies that the lower floors offered NO perceptible resistance to the descent.

And as far as fire weakening things... The WTC north, south, and Building 7 are the ONLY steel-framed buildings to have collapsed due to fire, despite not having burnt as long or as hot as several other fires on record. Besides which, given the symetry of the collapse, you can't honestly beleive that the supporting structures all failed simultaneously and evenly?

You don't need a conspiracy theory to say "Uh, What the fuck?"

[rube]

You do NOT need to provide a solid countering theory in order to disprove a different theory.

It's the same logical fallacy as the "Creation Science" idiots love to ignore. "A !=B, Therefore A = C"

That logic is not in use here. I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other but those who make claims that the government is responsible need to show some.

Actually, I thought the most compelling argument was how rapidly the building imploded. The top section which collapsed plowed through the remaining building to hit the floor at--or faster--than gravity should have allowed.

How do buildings fall if not due to gravity? :scratch:

This whole argument is like the one raging for years about whether or not the NSA was tapping into internal U.S. communications. We suspected it but there was no proof. Now there is proof and it's gone to court and the powers that be are scared shitless about it.

[DiggityBiggity]

Mach is perfectly correct. Of course buildings fall because of gravity, d'uh, what doesn't. But the SPEED at which they fell is what he's arguing. Why did the lower floors provide NO resistance?

[DiggityBiggity]

1) Post the link to the chapter in the 9-11 commission report containing your quote so I can humbly admit I'm wrong;

2) Admit your original claim that the quote is from the 9.11 Commission Report is false.

Then we can move on to your next argument--you can choose it as long as it concerns facts--not opinion or here say.

I already told you, the FEMA report was included in the 9.11 Report which I purchaed, I'm sorry that link didn't provide it, I assumed it would.

I'm trying to find an official FEMA website with the report, but for now, here is a link with it copied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

It's the FEMA report, not the 9.11 Commission... HOWEVER... that report was quoted MANY times during the commission... SO so sorry...

[DiggityBiggity]

That logic is not in use here. I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other but those who make claims that the government is responsible need to show some.

If the government is covering it up, it shows complicity. You can't hide a convict in your house, can you?

[eHoward]

Brian, I have a hard copy of the 9/11 Commission Report sitting on top of my monitor. Tell me what page # you are citing and I will confirm that it exists.