9/11 HOW? From who, how, and why?
- Thread starter fedr808
- Start date
- Status
Using CIA supplied undercover intelligence report and CIA secret operatives, gained access to training grounds of airplane school in Massachusets and trained at flying the plane, than crashed into two towers and Pentagon section were the CIA responsible for this was stationed at.
this is easy.
they had a big frat party and started lighting their farts with the intention of seeing who could blow the biggest one.
the winner brought the house down.
yea well....grrrrr
In terms of how the WTC collapsed, I've started a thread on that one, as that subject is enormous and has taken up countless pages on the 'there can be only one' thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960
That is a point though Scott, 9/11 wasn't just technically one event but a number of events that have been personified by the destruction of the World trade Center.
The "HOW" is obviously what has been termed by Terrorism for those on the receiving end. Which was converted into a Religious war (By people that just don't understand how they were manipulated into an unpaid army willing to sacrifice themselves while those ringleaders were probably actually getting paid in profits from either the backing of countries that supported them or those countries that were producing weapons for use in such a war.)
Now the same people might term they are fighting as "Freedom Fighters" in their own countries, of course ignoring that without the cataclysm of attack, there would be no freedom to fight over. They'd still be in the control and under the indoctrination of those that had control over their countries.
This "HOW" of course doesn't look at just how the US was attacked but the World and it's Countries have been effected as well.
So in general the Tower itself is actually not as big as you might like to claim it to be, especially if you take into consideration the number of lives that have been lost since the war on terror. (Those are not just American lives, or lives through UN intervention, but the lives of those that get caught in the crossfire, or are so heavily indoctrinated they can't think for themselves)
The "HOW" is obviously what has been termed by Terrorism for those on the receiving end. Which was converted into a Religious war (By people that just don't understand how they were manipulated into an unpaid army willing to sacrifice themselves while those ringleaders were probably actually getting paid in profits from either the backing of countries that supported them or those countries that were producing weapons for use in such a war.)
Now the same people might term they are fighting as "Freedom Fighters" in their own countries, of course ignoring that without the cataclysm of attack, there would be no freedom to fight over. They'd still be in the control and under the indoctrination of those that had control over their countries.
This "HOW" of course doesn't look at just how the US was attacked but the World and it's Countries have been effected as well.
So in general the Tower itself is actually not as big as you might like to claim it to be, especially if you take into consideration the number of lives that have been lost since the war on terror. (Those are not just American lives, or lives through UN intervention, but the lives of those that get caught in the crossfire, or are so heavily indoctrinated they can't think for themselves)
I don't understand that statement...
You seem to be of the view that the people who brought down the WTC buildings were the 19 alleged hijackers. Most if not all 9/11 alternate theory believers don't hold to that view.
Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that 9/11 was a good thing for Al Qaeda? It doesn't seem like it to me; their host government in Afghanistan, the Taleban, was routed. It has been persuasively argued that the video where Osama Bin Laden allegedly admitted to the attacks on 9/11 was a fake as well.
A gargantuan subject if ever there was one. The WTC collapses alone have been argued about for 7 years now...
I agree; the problem is that I want manageable threads. In all honesty, I have no problem with the idea that after 20 pages of a thread, we try to -sumarize- everything that's been stated, as I tried to do to some extent on my controlled demolition web page, and start a new thread with that summary. Because I honest to god don't want to have to go through another 100+ page thread
.I started the WTC thread off pointing to a web page of mine which starts with the 15 points from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that demonstrate that it was a controlled demolition as well as the 4 points that show that it couldn't have been due to fires, complete with the links they had, but I also expand it to cover the rebuttals made by KennyJC and shaman.
The attacks were orchestrated under the cover of many military drills designed to hobble any response to the hijacks. Amongst many of the drills operating on 911 were simulations involving hijacked passenger airliners. Real planes were electronically remote-hijacked and computer controlled from the ground and flown into their targets. The drills and a second shadow command hobbled any response and neutralised the systems which should have prevented the attacks, with the exception of flight 93 which was shot down due to a delayed takeoff. Anthrax was later sent to the media and key individuals who would be expected to exert congressional enquiry, in order to cement the official story and shut down any investigation against the official myth.
Five books which people who want to understand more and investigate themselves, there are others i would recommend too, but these cover the core aspects of how it was done and a little of why.
All these books are eruditely researched, very well sourced and written by exceptional people.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Truth-Dis...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227028963&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubi...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029156&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=road+to+911&x=0&y=0
http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terro...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029131&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Hist...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029492&sr=1-1
Note, the case against the official story is proven in these books without any reference to demolition of the wtc.
Five books which people who want to understand more and investigate themselves, there are others i would recommend too, but these cover the core aspects of how it was done and a little of why.
All these books are eruditely researched, very well sourced and written by exceptional people.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Truth-Dis...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227028963&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubi...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029156&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=road+to+911&x=0&y=0
http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terro...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029131&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Hist...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227029492&sr=1-1
Note, the case against the official story is proven in these books without any reference to demolition of the wtc.
The problem with the remote control conspiracy is that a number of bodies were found in relationship to the aircrafts that were hijacked, along with various body parts. A remote controlled aircraft wouldn't have the body of a tied up flight attendant still strapped in their seat. I'm sure the comeback in regards to conspiracy is "obviously they visit a morgue and planted all these bodies on board" well that would work to an extent, however in the instance of the flight attendant found they would of easily worked out a time of death and if there had already been a post mortem.
Which if true is strong evidence against the notion that the planes had no people on board, however it provides no evidence against the notion that the planes were being computer piloted.
a flight attendant, handcuffed behind her back, then placed in a seat, then seatbelted? that doesn't make any sense. what about seat belted, then handcufffed with her hands in front in her lap? again that doesn't make sense. What is the source of this story? are you sure you have the correct way of the story?
If anyone were to suggest such a thing, I am sure they would use the word "possibly" rather than "obviously". I'm also sure that if prompted and inclined to speculate they would suggest a more plausible scenario.
This post is in response to phlogistician's post 65 in the "Which moderator..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.
I just wanted to know your opinion on them. They are heavyweights in the 9/11 truth movement. Tony's in sciforums by the way. He posts a fair amount in the WTC collapses thread.
Or atleast that's what what you think it was.
From what I've heard from Gordon Ross, a mechanical engineer like Tony Szamboti, thermite was used at first, on 4 corners, one of which famously spewed out molten metal; after this, it would seem that a fair amount of thermate was used, which is an explosive, on every third floor. He makes a point of stating that he believes the explosives were in the elevator shafts, which aren't things that people using the building would see. In evidence of this, he says that the piece of the twin towers that the.. columns I believe that survived the longest were some of the weakest but were also furthest away from the elevator shafts.
www.thepentacon.com has interviewed many witnesses; apparently what happened is a plane flew -over- the pentagon, not into it. The witnesses were fooled, however, because the explosion went off immediately after the plane flew over. One witness apparently even saw the plane coming out from the other side.
Some may say that the witnesses really did see it crashing into the pentagon and that one witness who saw the plane going over was just wrong. However, there's another point here; the witnesses, who state that the plane didn't fly from the direction that the official story posits. Some may think, so what? But if they plane flew in from an angle different then the angle stated by the official story, the damage done to the pentagon could not have been from the plane, as the damage found in the pentagon, if it were done to a plane, simply had to come in in the manner that the official story's flight route dictated. What this means is that something else had to have damaged the plane. Some people thought that it was a missile, but it seems that more persuasive evidence is that it was explosives already planted inside the building. "Coincidentally", the part of the building that received the damage had been recently renovated; perhaps some of the 'renovators' were doing something other then renovating.
Sounds like the 'you're either with us or you're against us' that Bush famously used. I don't think you're a 'woo woo' just because you believe in the official story. I understand that the issue is a complex one and that's why, 7+ years after the fact, the issue still hasn't been resolved.
I just wanted to know your opinion on them. They are heavyweights in the 9/11 truth movement. Tony's in sciforums by the way. He posts a fair amount in the WTC collapses thread.
phlogistician said:
Or atleast that's what what you think it was.
phlogistician said:
From what I've heard from Gordon Ross, a mechanical engineer like Tony Szamboti, thermite was used at first, on 4 corners, one of which famously spewed out molten metal; after this, it would seem that a fair amount of thermate was used, which is an explosive, on every third floor. He makes a point of stating that he believes the explosives were in the elevator shafts, which aren't things that people using the building would see. In evidence of this, he says that the piece of the twin towers that the.. columns I believe that survived the longest were some of the weakest but were also furthest away from the elevator shafts.
phologistician said:
www.thepentacon.com has interviewed many witnesses; apparently what happened is a plane flew -over- the pentagon, not into it. The witnesses were fooled, however, because the explosion went off immediately after the plane flew over. One witness apparently even saw the plane coming out from the other side.
Some may say that the witnesses really did see it crashing into the pentagon and that one witness who saw the plane going over was just wrong. However, there's another point here; the witnesses, who state that the plane didn't fly from the direction that the official story posits. Some may think, so what? But if they plane flew in from an angle different then the angle stated by the official story, the damage done to the pentagon could not have been from the plane, as the damage found in the pentagon, if it were done to a plane, simply had to come in in the manner that the official story's flight route dictated. What this means is that something else had to have damaged the plane. Some people thought that it was a missile, but it seems that more persuasive evidence is that it was explosives already planted inside the building. "Coincidentally", the part of the building that received the damage had been recently renovated; perhaps some of the 'renovators' were doing something other then renovating.
phlogistician said:
Sounds like the 'you're either with us or you're against us' that Bush famously used. I don't think you're a 'woo woo' just because you believe in the official story. I understand that the issue is a complex one and that's why, 7+ years after the fact, the issue still hasn't been resolved.
OK, you're a nutcase. I don't know why people self loathe so much to want this atrocity to have been performed by the US government, but it says more about the woowoos that hold these beliefs than anything else.
This topic has been done to death. I've debunked it too many times to go over it again. But be sure, you are flogging a dead horse, and you have as much chance of success as proving an alternative theory for the Kennedy assassination.
Seems 9/11 is just another ripping yarn to fantasize about by conspiracy theorists of this generation.
Anyone who starts off with such insults is clearly not worth much of my time. Go have fun with friends of yours like Ophiolite, Read Only, Q and Skinwalker and leave me in peace.
this means nothing.
on any given day the military is conducting drills, all kinds of them.
for example most, if not all, of the questionable UFO evidence is a direct result of military drills.
Last edited:
There is evidence that the drills, which were remarkably like the actual attacks that happened, hampered the military's ability to properly respond. Why was this never mentioned in any official government report?
leopold99 said:
You have any evidence for that?
- Status