A third tower fell on 9/11

[Beachguyj]

You 9/11 conspiracy wackos are people who are easily duped.

I'm no fan of Bush, but his reaction is no indication of him knowing about it. Just because it's not your reaction doesn't mean it's not valid. He didn't know what was going on and neither did anyone else when it happened. If the White House knew about it before hand don't you think they would have scheduled a different event or have him going to the class at a later time, or whatever they had to do so his reaction was not filmed?

Where I was working at the time the biggest dummy (besides the boss) was always stupid enough to fall for conspiracy theories and he was the one to yell "we are being attacked" meaning he felt that he was in immediate danger.

 

[bankside]

For a given conspiracy you have to consider that as the complexity increases, the probability of maintaining secrecy dwindles. Ask the NSA how that works. No one has leaked anything about this conspiracy, after a change of heart or just for the fame, because there is nothing to leak. Because there is no conspiracy.

As far as all the armchair structural engineers saying "this kind of thing never happened before! Sulphur! Eutectic!" please sit down. I can find quotes from dozens of structural engineers saying that no building could collapse due to having a plane flown into it. They were mistaken in their data and their assumptions about WTC 1 and 2, probably because we don't have a program of flying aeroplanes into office towers to verify all those engineering calculations and assumptions under controlled conditions.

So no one had ever demolished a building with an aeroplane before. And no one had ever demolished a building by setting fire to a giant pile of adjacent debris before. Responsible engineers would have recognized this changes things, and they can't apply their standard assumptions about an entirely new situation.

BTW, "eutectic" is an adjective, not a thing. You can't have "a eutectic," you have to have "a eutectic something or other."

And BTW, going into Afghanistan to bomb the shit out of the taleban and to find bin asshole was entirely proper, justified, sensible, ethical, and desirable. It's a pity the Dunce-in-Chief was distracted from Afghanistan by Iraq, a premature, ill-considered, unethical, and basically illegal act of discreditable adventurism.

 

[eastofeden]

The thread topic was about the third tower, Building 7. There is no mystery about this. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This is a field that I know enough about that I can assure all the doubters out there that the building performed exactly as expected after failure of a key structural element.

In simple easy to understand terms:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Or:

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

Thank you for the link...I have always pretty much thought that was the case anyway BUT I have also always been open to any of the questions raised. I do that a lot.

I DEFINITELY 100% think the administration was aware of the impending attack well in advance and my problem is whenever anyone questions that sociopath they are called "conspiracy theorists". It is dismissive and it is also a Republican Party/Faux News Daily Talking Point to dismiss anything questioning the circumstances in any way a conspiracy theory...as well as being "unpatriotic". This is the reason I defend the people who DO question. They may actually be asking the wrong questions or following the wrong path but I appreciate the effort.

The media did a number on us during Bush's reign of terror....the weekly red terror alerts up until the day he was elected and then they stopped cold. I complained about it every week and even said plainly over and over they would stop when he was elected...I was right. Of course...I was called a "conspiracy crackpot" by the resident Springers and Reardons of that particular board....and when they actually stopped they didn't have anything to say except that Bush had done a "good job of scaring the terrorists"....

At the time...too many people such as Jeff Gannon... aka faggot from hell... were asking the well rehearsed propaganda questions.....

 

[eastofeden]

The only problem is that you would be asking questions of a "sociopathic lying moron". You already know that the answers, if you get them, would quite likely be lies, so what is the point of asking them? Any politician who has something to hide will not answer questions admitting to it and will do whatever necessary to keep it hidden. We have politicians hiding stuff all over the place up here, and 2 in Toronto trying to hide their drug pasts.

Did Bush arrange 9/11? No. Did he know about a terrorist attack and allow it to happen? Very likely. I'm not sure he know that the WTC was the intended target, though. What I DO know, however, is that Bush arranged it with the UN that he could never, ever come under investigation what whatever actions he took in Afghanistan. He could never, ever be tried for war crimes. He could act with impunity.

We'll probably never know the real truth. It's just very sad that so many lives were lost because of one man's superiority complex and thirst for power. Even more sad is that there will be many more just like him to come along.

See my answer above....

One of the problems is he had sociopathic lying morons like Jeff Hannon ASKING too many of the important well rehearsed questions before he gave the well rehearsed lies and hit his talking points.

They aren't all liars or sociopaths....that is also a talking point. It takes away from the actual sociopaths and liars to put them all into the same category. I am not saying you are doing that but that is what Republicans did when they were up against the wall.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

You 9/11 conspiracy wackos are people who are easily duped.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm more on the side of playful speculation, and open to the idea that there could have been more going on behind the scenes (in any situation). I question everything, and don't readily believe everything I'm told 100%. I'm not a sheep, and I don't follow the herd blindly just because it's the politically correct thing to do.

IMO the Trade Towers were pretty obvious... 2 jets hit them, they suffered structural loss and collapsed. The Pentagon looks a bit more dubious. IMO !!! I am allowed to have those, you know.

... plus, I think it's a bit naive to NOT think there's more going on behind the scenes as far as governments go. They're all sneaky, self serving, power hungry, lying, cheating, bastards.

 

[Beachguyj]

IMO !!! I am allowed to have those, you know.

.

Yes I know.

Plus I wasn't told anything I saw what happened.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

Does it really look like a Boeing 757 made this hole in the Pentagon?

Yes I know.

Plus I wasn't told anything I saw what happened.

So what's your opinion of Mikey3000's post? Do you think a 757 made that hole? There's no damage to the walls where the wings should have hit. The debris is blown outside, where it should have been knocked inside. There are no broken jet parts.

 

[rareboy]

To begin with...I have no idea of what this is even a picture of. It isn't the Pentagon. I can assure you of that.

 

[bankside]

To begin with...I have no idea of what this is even a picture of. It isn't the Pentagon. I can assure you of that.

It seems that it is a legitimate photo. The bonkers conspiracy, however, is nicely debunked here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

Basically if you fly a plane into a building, there will be a big hole in one side, and a small hole that pushes through, like we see in the photo, on the other side of the building where the landing gear shoots through. The plane didn't have to fit through that hole because it never went through that hole.

 

[rareboy]

^ I guess that I should have said there's no way that that was a pic of the exterior side of the Pentagon. Because it isn't. As you note though, it would only have been made by a piece of the plane blowing through the wall and not the entire plane fuselage.

 

[Beachguyj]

So what's your opinion of Mikey3000's post? Do you think a 757 made that hole? There's no damage to the walls where the wings should have hit. The debris is blown outside, where it should have been knocked inside. There are no broken jet parts.

You think the government made a fake hole? Why? Did they fake it and fly the people to an island like in Lost? If they wanted to fake something wouldn't they choose a different target? If something is not logical, most likely it didn't happen. It's illogical that the plane did not crash into the pentagon. If you have a masters in plane holes then your argument can be considered. Things don't happen like in cartoons or like in movies or how you expect them to.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

It seems that it is a legitimate photo. The bonkers conspiracy, however, is nicely debunked here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

Basically if you fly a plane into a building, there will be a big hole in one side, and a small hole that pushes through, like we see in the photo, on the other side of the building where the landing gear shoots through. The plane didn't have to fit through that hole because it never went through that hole.

^ I guess that I should have said there's no way that that was a pic of the exterior side of the Pentagon. Because it isn't. As you note though, it would only have been made by a piece of the plane blowing through the wall and not the entire plane fuselage.

You think the government made a fake hole? Why? Did they fake it and fly the people to an island like in Lost? If they wanted to fake something wouldn't they choose a different target? If something is not logical, most likely it didn't happen. It's illogical that the plane did not crash into the pentagon. If you have a masters in plane holes then your argument can be considered. Things don't happen like in cartoons or like in movies or how you expect them to.

THIS is why I enjoy asking questions... I find the forensic aspect of it all ... fascinating. I like knowing the how's and why's things work. I thought the hole pictured was an entry point. Now I know it's the exit. It explains the lack of damage from the wings.

I didn't think it was a fake hole, but I did think it might have been a missile, or a planted explosive, or even a smaller plane than what was suggested.

I'm one of those people who learn more by questioning everything and trial and error than memorization. Being wrong, and failure can be a great teacher.

 

[bankside]

If you read the link, you will see why you should not expect wing damage even on the other side of the building.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

The thing that gets me is he sat there because he didnt want to frighten the children. Go ahead and frighten 30 kids and get to work

Did it ever occur to you that it takes time to prep, inspect and fuel the Presidents plane, which would have to really move up on the schedule to get him out as fast as they did. The rush was on because the time schedule was pushed up greatly. Those planes get a go over between every flight and every thing not like a United 767 sitting on tarmac at the loading gate (and that is pretty thorough too).

Doesn't matter who the President is as I am certainly no Bush fan. But here I don't understand the hate on Bush. Transportation on even the most important person in the country takes time to plan even with emergency prep in place. The people that coordinate the operation still need time to understand what is going on. Don't forget the travel from the school and airport, after a attack that all has to be investigated over and over again more so then it would have anyway.

This was AF1 mission No. 3,480 Depart Andrews Air-force base at 1315 Sept 10,2001 with scheduled stops in Jacksonville and then Sarasota. Sarasota airport isn't a military facility and may not be equipped (its a smaller airport) with the allied support ahead of schedule to check and replace things.

Maybe he should have jumped up and go wait in the limo? Or get back and sit in Air Force 1 while getting the same information he was afforded in the 21st century via technology and still take off at the same time?

From the pilots point of view:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...ts-911-mission-Keep-president-safe/50138134/1

 

[Telstra]

The pic poster on post 1 cost a lot of money.
My question is, who are the people behind "Rethink911.org" and what are their motives ?

 

[bankside]

The school was not a security concern. The plane likely was not but a security incident involving multiple planes might cause a few minutes of analysis regarding the security of the presidential plane. Mostly though it was not necessary to move him instantaneously because the location was deemed secure at the moment. It was a different situation at the White House where the risk was deemed sufficient to pick up the VP bodily from his chair and escort him away by the elbows, with his feet occasionally touching the ground.

For all I'm privy to in the public record, the threat assessment was correct as was the response. As far as "not scaring the children," it probably sounds braver than "well actually I wasn't in any immediate danger."

 

[mikey3000]

It seems that it is a legitimate photo. The bonkers conspiracy, however, is nicely debunked here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

Basically if you fly a plane into a building, there will be a big hole in one side, and a small hole that pushes through, like we see in the photo, on the other side of the building where the landing gear shoots through. The plane didn't have to fit through that hole because it never went through that hole.

The only thing wrong with this theory is...

Where's the plane then? Any of it? If this was pierced with the nose as an exit hole, where is the part that exited it? Where is the plane?

 

[eddielee]

Friends, there is no logical reason why the United States government would have blown up the World Trade center.

 

[mikey3000]

^ Man, are you serious? Do you realize how many civil liberties you've lost because of 9/11? Look it up.

 

[bankside]

The only thing wrong with this theory is...

Where's the plane then? Any of it? If this was pierced with the nose as an exit hole, where is the part that exited it? Where is the plane?

I see you didn't read the link. I assume you see the difference between a Pentagon and...well, to put it in "Little Pig" terms, the Pentagon was not exactly made of straw. Did you think they should have been able to buff out a few dings in the plane and put it back into service?