I just wanted to update everybody to something that happened to me today. After work, I walked out to find my car had been towed. So I went into the office in the first floor of my building to find out what happened to it and call the towing company. This is a surgeon's office and a fairly conservative one (OK, really conservative). BushCo all the way a few months ago. Well, tonight, without my even bringing up the subject they started talking about Fahrenheit 9/11 and some other show on National Geographic about how BushCo knew and did nothing. It just about floored me. They were saying they believed BushCo allowed it to happen. These aren't people who spend a lot of time reading the news. And they all voted for Bush. And they believe BushCo is complicit in 9/11. That speaks volumes to me. And it shows people are really starting to wake up. They weren't agitated about it, per se. No drama. Just saying, "they let it happen so they could make money." It felt so satisfying to hear them saying that.

Make Money - Whose making money - Not the country - You seen our deficit lately?

Oh you must be talking about them Oil/Energy Boys - Rebuild Construction Boys - Them Boys - Not a thing slips by them folks in the country.

Gottcha

National Geographic Channel had two one hour specials "Inside 9/11" that pretty much painted things the way the 9/11 Commission paints it in their report. I didn't see anything shocking, but I don't figure I fit in with the group you are describing either. It will be interesting once school starts back up and we get to talk about the war in some of my classes. I'll sit the fence as much as I can again and try to keep things open minded, but I'm guessing there won't be as many W supporters as there was last year.

Bush didn't plan 911.

The NG special was very good.

But Bush did ignore reports and briefings abuot the danger of Al Qaeda.

He probably isn't smart enough to have done it personally.
But his poppy sure is, as is James "slippery slope" Baker, perle, wolfie,rummy,condie,daddy dickie,anton
and the rest of the gang of thieves when they did it.

Just paid Cuz' Osama to do the dirty work and at a snap of his fingers it was done.

Those Conservative radio talk show pundits have gotta be reading this forum when they start carrying on about the "Wacky Left"...

A simple question, from a pilot (me):

Suppose Sept 11 had not been a beautiful day with 100 mile visibility. Suppose it had been the usual haze and humidity, 2 miles at best.

Do you think these "flying school rejects" could have flown a 767 at 500 mph into a building that they cound not even see until 10 seconds before impact?

Your probably right the plot had to include a clear day to get coverage they wanted, and No they probably couldn't fly squat on a very overcast gray day as well. But that's where a comminication system between the highjackers must have played a minor roll to the task at hand.

Nah. They just make things up at 1000 miles per hour. As such, everyonce in a while they get something right by pure coincidence. The conservatives have their share of conspiracy theories too (after all, they--not us-- are the ones who invaded a wrong country out of fear of their conspiracy theory).

I don't think that even a red-hot military fighter pilot could have done this on a clear day. However, if somebody had placed a small radio homing beacon in a window of the WTC, the plane's autopilot could have done it in zero-zero conditions.

Do you suppose there were beacons placed in the WTC?

We'll never know, will we.

Not being a pilot I will bow to your knowledge. And NO we will never know about beacons, or any thing they don't want us to know. Perhaps long after we are gone, and if America as we knew it returns, some real research will be done and we might as a people learn the actual truth. But most likely it will just fade into the murk of time, and the evil ones who might have had a hand in this terrible event will be in Gods' hands and all we can hope for is justice from Him.

I just want our country back, if possible.

I am not a pilot (but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night), but I dismiss as hyperbole the notion that the 911 hijackers could not see their targets until the last 10 seconds.

They were in AIRPLANES flying above the ground and following well established routes (like the Hudson river) which took them straight to their desired targets.

The WTC were the TALLEST structures in NYC and were probably visible for miles.

And DC does not have a lot of high rise bldgs, and the Pentagon is one of the first giant buildings to come into view from the Southwest.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11. The 9/11 commision's failure to address many of them create a significant vacuum which invites speculation.

I never believed that there were controlled demolitions in the WTC, until I read that no skyscrapers in history have ever collapsed due to fires in the manner that they did. Now I am suspicious.

No skyscrapers in history were ever struck by fully loaded jetliners the way these buildings were hit.

Did you see the National Geograhic Special on 911?

They showed footage of the towers collapsing and buckling at the point where they were struck by the jets. The floors around the impact sites had massive infernos of several thousand degrees that melted all the support beams (after the initial impact blew away the fire retardant materials from the beams and also broke many of the supports at the time of impact).

That's why people were jumping. They couldn't bear the heat. They showed that poor man climbing out the window with some kind of makeshift rope; I suppose he was going to try to make it to the next lower level and then keep doing that until he got to a level he coould escape from. Nearby overhead, massive massive massive massive walls of flames were shooting out. He lost and grip and fell to his death. It was really sad. It was a veritable furnace in the impact areas hot enough to melt any steel.

The video clearly showed the towers buckling and collapsing inward right where the infernos had been raging. Had explosives been there, they would have been setoff hours ago by the raging and uncontrolled fires. Once the top collapsed, it was inevitable the remainder would collapse under that heavy weight and kinetic energy. It was like taking a 30 story building and dropping it on another building. Do you seriously think the bottom building could withstand having a 30 story building dropped on it? Of course not.

They also showed an interview of a man who was working in the Pentagon lawn very close to where the jet hit. He said he and his coworker saw the jet (not a missile) as it screamed toward the nearby SW wall. So much for that missile theory.

Mr. Jim have you not ever seen the Fox news footage of the NY Fire dept. members that were interviewed shortly after it happened ?
They described in pretty good detail what seemed to be bombs going off as the buildings were collapsing. Just Like controlled Demolion.

Larry Silverstein Admitted on a PBS show that they decided to "Pull" #7 .
Pull is a word commonly used in the Demolition Industry. I have E-mailed a Demolition Company and asked them a question about the Amount of time it would require to rigg a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition.
That was about a month ago ! They havn't got back to me yet. I think it's a Valid Question too!

Do you think it possible the crashes of one floor hitting the other might have sounded like explosions? I think so.

Jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near that hot. A very "cold" fire -- it's very much like kerosene.

But your point that the fires would have set off any explosives is worth serious thought.

You see -- my mind isn't made up -- I just have serious questions, and am suspicious of both sides in their explanations.

Yup. Been saying this.

They set it in motion, and no one can predict the weather days before.
It was only coincidence.

And I will keep saying it, no bumbling reject could be sure he would hit the trade center, even though big, it took a perfect reaction to do what they did.


and stephen, you would say it wasn't true even if you saw it.
just saying loony left, it wears thin.
That is the Bush talking point.

Watergate was a conspiracy too- a conspiracy by the President to lie to the nation.
Iraq was a simliar conspiracy-a lie by Bush to get us into Iraq.
Those are real conspiracies. And so is the WTC on 9-11.

forget that the first part of your argument don't make sense and ignores important things, the above is pure spin.

Many people nearby did not see that.
So big deal that two people saw it. They told what they were told to tell.
Or what they thought.
As nobody would think it wasn't a plane, the mind plays tricks and says it is a plane.
So much for that disavowal of a missle theory.

Another thing that seems weird to me about the collapse was that I would assume that the structural integrity of the buildings would be threatened in a non symmetric manner. In other words, there would be at least some tendency to topple to one side. In fact, the impact of the airplanes on one side only would seem to make this even more likely. Yet they both went straight down -- and I mean REALLY straight down. Right into the building's footprint.

In addition, the steel from the buildings was immediately shipped off to Asia as scrap, before anyone could try to figure out the dynamics of the collapse, which would have been a tremendous boon to the structural engineers. Why did that happen? It's like cleaning up a crime scene before the investigators can get there. It's like having JFK's limo immediately cleaned and stripped of all parts with bullet holes before anyone could look at it.

Where are the screams about the "loony right"?

Rush Limbaugh feeds conspiracy crap to the masses every day. Unfortunately I can't stomach him even for one minute, but I occasionally catch his ridiculous statements when Al Frankin replays them.

The building was plenty strong enough to sustain the collapse of several floors of the building without the entire structure collapsing.
The Empire state building was hit a long time ago and it's still standing.
The recent Blaze that lasted two days i believe (in Spain ) of a big tall building was only gutted and never collapsed.
No sky scraper in history has ever fell as a result of Fire.
The firefighters who were there did not make up their story and were not mistaken by what they personally whitnessed.
The Janitors in the sub level have no reason to lie about the explosions in the basement areas of the towers prior to the Pancaking of the towers.
They fell in their tracks !
Just like Controlled Demolition !

I saw the National Geographic Special also. It was a comprehensive lead up to 9/11 except it stinted on the political realities by leaving out Richard Clarkes' and his closest friend John O'Niells' (FBI man who resigned in protest under Louis Freeh, and died in the WTC) stories.

They also left out all references to Building #7. That was strange. I agree that the buildings were shown to collapse at the point of impact and burning. They even stopped the video so it was clear.

They did point out that Bush and the Airlines were warned repeatedly of imminent hijackings and did NOTHING.

They showed that Clinton had set up several "hits" on OBL but had to scrub each time due to concern about massive or unacceptable collateral damage.

Sure, put an ILS (instrument landing system) transmitter in the office you want to hit and set the ils system on the plane to land at that spot.

The empire state bldg was struck by a prop bomber plane without much fuel going 200 MPH.

The WTC was struck by a fully fueled, modern jetliner going over 500 MPH.

Did you see the size of the fireballl that happened when the WTC was hit? MASSIVE

The WTC impact caused fire retardent materials to get knocked off structures and beams, and they later melted at high temps that were ignited by the initial fireball. A simple house kitchen fire can rise to several thousand degrees.

No skyscraper fire has ever been caused by something so disastrous as the 911 impacts.

Flaming jet fuel (i.e. the fireball) was forced down the stairways thru the entire length of the building down to the lobby and maybe the sublevels

You are wrong to say no skyscraper ever fell like this. The WTC towers fell like this!!!

There haven't been many skyscraper disasters, so you can't claim one incident will fully enable us to predict how later incidents will play out--especially when later incidents occur under differing circumstances. I've already laid out major differences.

The sublevel fires and incidents happened at the same time as the jets struck--not hours later when the tower collapsed. This means they did not experience explosions set to topple the towers but instead experienced the impact side effects of the jets hitting the towers.

Anyone who thought bombs were going off were mistaken--I didn't say they were lying. The floors crashing into one another must have sounded like explosions.

Again, answer this: If you drop a 30 story building onto another building, what happens to the bldg below?

There were other witnesses to the Pentagon jet. Just because they only showed one witness on this show, does NOT mean there weren't other witnesses. I saw a Navy officer on TV talk about being overwhelmed by burning jet fuel and the fumes in the Pentagon. There was another witness in the nearby Pentagon City apartments. They found a jet engine, wheel hubs and landing gear in the Pentagon. I have shown links to scrap metal pieces on the Penatgon lawn. I have explained in past threads how a jetliner going over 500 MPH and hitting a military reinforced wall can literally disintegrate as it buries itself in a tiny hole in the wall and the Earth below the hole. I have shown pics here how something very WIDE (unlike a missile) hit the walls of the Pentagon and broke buttresses and forced them towards the central impact hole. A missile wouldn't cause that.

You guys sound like whackos! You ignore common sense and facts.

What happened to bldg #7 is a mystery. It could be an insurance scam. IT could be due to the fires that were evident within as well as damage from rubble from the WTC collapse or even from debris from the impacts.

The show did show enough to suggest Bush was remiss in his duties to protect the USA on 911. It did not show any evidence to suggest he plotted 911.

The show was also remiss in suggesting Cheney ordered all flights to be grounded. In reality, it was Norm Mineta, A Democrat, who made that reaction call and grounded all flights at a time when Cheney and Bush were probably panicking or frozen with indecision.

Would the FAA instantly know this happened if it had occurred?

Or must you specifically look for the beacon at a certain freq to know it is there?

Whether or not this happened, it does not in anyway suggest Bush plotted 911, but rather, that the terrorists were very sophisticated and thorough, which they appearred to have been.

Leadership inaction.
http://www.bushflash.com/nothing.html

It was sponsored by Ameriquest a life insurance company. It left out the most damning evidence of Bushs' derelection (Richard Clarke..etc) but it did show enough as you suggest. I do not believe at this point that BushCo. plotted 9/11. Though I don't put anything past them.

I would need radical amounts of evidence to accept that. However I believe he and his administration were criminally negligent, and should have been impeached for that alone!

BuchCo, et al is a lying, stealing, murdering gang of international criminals. If there is any international justice left in the world, he and his minions would be in a prison and Gitmo would be just fine.

I just remembered the show also included an interview of one of the fire chiefs who was in the 2nd tower when it fell. He described hearing the first tower fall and not knowing what it was until they told him on the radio. Later, he heard the same sounds in his tower and he knew the tower was falling upon him. He and his team were on the 6th level when the collapse overtook them. By some miracle the last 6 floors of that stairway alone survived the collapse, and hence, so did he and some of his men. Never once in that interview did he say he heard bombs going off.

Pentagon could also have had a radio beacon.

And rightly so. There was a fire in a building of similar construction that burned for 14 hours. It did not collapse.



Howcum it collapsed STRAIGHT DOWN??? Why didn't it fall toward the weakest side???

Righto


Correctamundo


Actually, a simple NDB or VOR signal would suffice.



Do you have ANY IDEA how hard it is to hit a 300 foot wide target with a civilian jet (whose normal approach speed is 180 mph) at 500 mph???

The frequency would have been in the 108 - 112 MHz band. It would have had a range of 10 miles. I doubt that ANYONE would have noticed its presence.

Don't forget, one of the 19 terrorists is suppose to be alive and living and saying someone took his name

Bush is a liar
a liar lies
Therefore everything he says could be a lie
Everything "they" tell you is a lie
Believe nothing.
Use common sense.
Common sense don't lie
It did not happen the way they told us.

It would make more sense to say these 19 bumblers were aiming for the Statue of Liberty and mistakenly hit the WTC
Ask any lifetime pilot of those planes- it could not happen by 19 bumblers. Impossible.

what if you had gps cordnates set it on auto pilot

With all due respect to you, and the others purporting governmental complicity in 9/11, didn't we go through this all before (before you joined jimiray). Why not look back at the archives, I don't want to go through all this again.

There have also been several outstanding documentaries dealing (read that as dismisses) with all the issues jimiray raises here, as well as the Pentagon missile theory.

I'm not opposed to this thread spinning this way, as long as something NEW can be brought to the discussion instead of rehashing all the old conspiracies.

Thank you Sunshine.

The weakest side? That would have been the side facing DOWN.

The jets severed the center of the towers--not the corners. When the upper half finally fell, each floor below the impact levels tried to hold up the all the debris above. The accordion action actually absorbed any side to side forces and helped guarentee it would fall straight down. Do you believe in Physics or Creationism? To believe the tower would fall sideways would entail that you don't believe in the law "every action has an opposite and equal reaction". Unless there was a force that pushed the tower to the side, it would instead fall according to gravity. The jets DID NOT push the tower to the side (yes the towers swayed and absorbed all that sideways force). The upper half of the tower did not fall down sideways and slide off the tower--instead it fell straight down when the suppport beams finallly gave way due to melting and/or overload.

There is also science concepts knows as kinetic/dynamic and static energy. A building is indeed designed to bear static loads of all floors abve a given level. But they are not designed to hold up dynamic loads.

AGAIN, IF YOU DROP A 30 STORY BUILDING ON ANOTHER BUILDING, IS THE LOWER BUILDING DESIGNED TO SUPPORT SUCH A DYNAMIC FORCE?

NO

And if bombs took down the towers, why didn't that fire chief who survived the collapse die and why didn't he say he heard bombs going off and why didn't his stairway get destroyed by the bombs and why didn't the infernos cause the bombs to go off much earlier?

#7: Fires were evident. Is it possible that major debris struck #7 right after the impact and therefore destroyed structural integrity? (unlike normal skyscraper fires)

You guys want to ask questions but you aint listening to answers. You just want to find reasons to hate Bush even if you make them up.

My posts here have almost completely debunked all of your accusations--all you have to do is go out and search objectively for the truth and validate what I have told you.

I don't have EVERY answer. But neither does science, and not having every answer does noot mean you revert to Creationism. You guys are reverting to Creationism despite an abundance of evidence to suggest that what happened on 911 is exactly what so many experts have told us.

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

I found this article here http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...02755-6408r.htm

Check out the CNN video footage here
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn...-plane-hit.html

All the Bushies are mercenaries seeking big bucks.

Did you notice he failed to provide one iota of evidence to support that claim?

Did you notice he claims there were faulty engineering analysis without providing any technical arguments or engineers who side with him?

I have seen reports of engineering firms who have analyzed all this and they claim the WTC collapse is perfectly consistent with jetliner impacts.

Here's a few question for you non-techies to consider: If you stood on the top of the WTC and threw a stone as far as you could to th side, how far would it go? Now if the WTC fell down and gravity was the only force affecting the direction it took, how far maximum would any debris fall from the side of the tower? Anyone but me getting this yet?

one has the right if they don't like the thread to pass it on by and leave those that do like it to continue it.

In time everybody will speak out and the truth will be known.
one person after another will rush to get the story out and they won't be able to keep it all quiet

>>> In this picture, which is worth even more than a thousand words, MediaLab has merged a map of the 9/11 planes' flightpaths with a map of military bases in those areas. The flights went through some of the most heavily militarized parts of the country, yet nothing could be done to stop them?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-flightpaths-bases.htm

Take a look , interesting no?

Complete Firefighters Tapes here
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Also AirDisaster.com has some good crash photos in their files. Even a few of planes hitting buildings that didn't collapse.

If you see a pattern between the flightpaths and military installations, you then must do very well on Rorshak tests.

In fact, the yellow path is incorrect. According to the NG show, that plane followed the Hudson river out of the North, yet that graphic of yours shows it veering far west of the Hudson.

Thank you very much Graham.

And i Agree ! if you don't like the subject why look at it to begin with ? Noonan
I could care less how many times it's been debated here because it obviously has not quite sunk in for some . Go stick your head back in the sand and drink your kool aid.

Said while gobs of sand fall from mouth.

You all refuse to believe anything but what you want to believe.

I will say this. I find that the disappearance of the investigations into the Airline Stock "Put-Options" before 9/11 is highly suspicious! Why would such a possible lead into foreknowledge be stopped?

Thats not my graphic sweetie !

Oh and the possibility of a plane flying over a military base or even several ???
Show me your flight path and where you get your info,, I'm curious now

Fitzgerald has this covered ! Hence the George Tenet subpeona.

If you posted it, it's yours!

And where did I get my info? I told you, hon'

The NG show said Flight 11 followed the Hudson very closely. That graphic diverges from that. Can I prove NG was correct? No. But given that I just happen to know of other info that seems to contradict your graphic, does that mean I have a right to question the graphic? Yes.

Last year I saw a grahpic of the 4 hurricnaes that cmae over Florida. The paths were mapped over a map of FL counties and the result showed that all GOP counties had been hit by the hurricane whereas all Dem counties had not been hit. When I checked the actual hurricane paths, I found that the graphic was a lie and that in reality the hurricanes equally hit Republican and Dem counties. The lesson here is that you can't trust everything you get on the Internet.