9/11 - The Third Tower

[dcraig1]

The US and UK are bystanders in an ungodly struggle between two denominations of the same religion that have been killing each other longer that America has been known by the west. It's not them against us, it's them against them, with our forces stuck in the middle of a fight between peoples who agree on one thing - if you can't convert an infidel you can kill him.

What a lot of nonsense. The continued occupation of Iraq (and that is most certainly the intention with the construction of permanent military bases, not to mention the largest embassy in the world in Bagdad) could not continue without a disunited populace. It is the precondition for occupation - not the reason for it. And the oldest imperialist trick in the book.

It would be naieve to believe that various black operations have not been carried out as provocations to forment this situation. Who is to say that Israeli intelligence has not had its hand in this as well ?

In Lebenon, there is strong evidence that the US has been involved in supporting certain Sunni groups close to Al Qaida supposedly as a counter to Hezbollah. Divide and rule is written all over US policy and tactics in the middle east. Seymour Hersh is reporting that some $400M has been allocated to various operations inside Iran. The principle aim is obviously to promote ethnic divisions.

The US intends to stay in Iraq "forever". To stay there it needs factionalised and fragmented politics and no genuine nationalist Iraqi leader to emerge with the support of a majority of the population. Who gains most from sectarianism ?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
This third skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. There is little photographic evidence of extensive damage. Yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, this 47-storey building collapsed in a few seconds.

Conspiriloon argument "Building 7 only had a few small fires."
Rebuttal -
1) Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
2) Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
3) Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7

Conspiriloon argument "Building Building 7 had no or little structural damage"
Rebuttal -
1) The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
2) There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
3) Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7

. . . The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire . . .

Conspiriloon argument "It's the first time in history a steel frame high-rise collapsed"
Rebuttal -
1) It is not the first time a steel structure collapsed by fire
2) It's also the first time in history an airliner rammed into a steel hi-rise building built like the towers (Tube in a Tube design)
3) It's the first time in history a steel framed building built like Building 7 (Con Ed substation in the lower floors and a cantilever column core) was hit by another steel framed building.
4) unprotected steel collapsed within 2 1/2 hours in Madrid fire without being hit by anything


1/10 :whistling

 

[SirFrancis]

dcraig, you spend to much time reading the Sun and the National Enquirer. Amazing how Israel is dragged into these things, clearly they have nothing whatsoever to do with it - unless you don't like them in the first place!

As for Lebenon, if what you propose is true then it has again got nothing to do with promoting ethnic divisions, that is simply a side effect - the objective would be to weaken Hezbollah and even you must agree that that is in all our interests!

The reason we are still in Iraq has nothing to do with the populace being united or otherwise - two simple reasons, one is that we have a feeling that says we broke it so we must now fix it, the other is that we need to secure oil for western interests - it must not be used as an economic weapon.

America may be minded to stay in Iraq for a very long time, they are still in Germany and Japan. However the insurgency is not bout getting rid of them, it's about bigotry, 'if you don't think as I do I'll convert you or I'll kill you'. That battle is not new, not made by America, it's older than all of us.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . the only interesting aspect to this, is the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the fuselage diameter of the plane supposedly that hit it. and remnants of some engines were much smaller than the turbofans used by modern airliners. (although the larger fan-blades could have disintegrated leaving a smaller looking engine)
. . .

"FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

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."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. "

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Note that this popular mechanics paper WAS peer reviewed (unlike ANY conspitiloon artical I've been able to find)

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . And huge short-options being placed on airlines.
. . .

Apologies trendie, but even wiki debunks this one . . .

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

—9/11 Commission Report "

Hmmmmm . . . the same client went LONG stock :whistling

 

[A Dashing Blade]

The Internet is full to overflowing with bull****, lies and bonkers claims but seeing as most of it comes from loons with zero credibility (and probably even less cash), why should anyone waste their precious time and money giving them the oxygen of publicity?

Or you could swing the argument around and ask why none of the conspiraloons have sued the many, many debunkers who have publicly ridiculed their claims.

 

[dcraig1]

dcraig, you spend to much time reading the Sun and the National Enquirer. Amazing how Israel is dragged into these things, clearly they have nothing whatsoever to do with it - unless you don't like them in the first place!

As for Lebenon, if what you propose is true then it has again got nothing to do with promoting ethnic divisions, that is simply a side effect - the objective would be to weaken Hezbollah and even you must agree that that is in all our interests!

The reason we are still in Iraq has nothing to do with the populace being united or otherwise - two simple reasons, one is that we have a feeling that says we broke it so we must now fix it, the other is that we need to secure oil for western interests - it must not be used as an economic weapon.

America may be minded to stay in Iraq for a very long time, they are still in Germany and Japan. However the insurgency is not bout getting rid of them, it's about bigotry, 'if you don't think as I do I'll convert you or I'll kill you'. That battle is not new, not made by America, it's older than all of us.

Even when I lived in the UK the only Sun I ever read was one left on a train seat.

You think that the destruction of the state of Iraq was not perceived to be in the interests of the Israeli state by many of it's leading figures ? And you think their interest evaporated after the US invasion ? Welcome to the real world.

Why is weakening Hezbollah in our interests ? They have the support of a significant portion of the population and must be considered legitimate representives of those people. How about just leaving other countries to get on with the business of their own politics for a change.

You are dead wrong about most of the insurgency in Iraq being sectarian attacks. This is another lie spread by the US administration. During the occupation, the great majority of attacks have been on the occupying military force.

As for "they are all crazies" and we are the civilizing force argument - it's been used since the beginning to time to justify imperial wars.

 

[SirFrancis]

dcraig, I didn't say they are all crazy. Nor do I believe they are. I believe they are sincere, but sincerely wrong. Thank-you for welcoming me into the real world - that type of comment is so inane, so weak and patronising. Not worthy of a decent discussion.

I agree that Iraq's fate was in the interest of Israel, but that was not the driver behind it. It's merely a by-product. How do you know that the insurgency isn't about sectarianism despite what we are led to believe - where do you get your special knowledge denied to the majority?

As for a weakened Hezbollah, I am a non religious western man, a father of two daughters who enjoys the freedoms earned over the centuries by generations before mine. I like that, and I am happy to see any religious fundamentalism that would impose its rigours on my freedom but particularly on the freedom of my daughters - (which, for the time being, is mine to protect), weakened, I believe the world would be a better place without such militancy.

 

[JTrader]

I thought is was generally accepted common knowledge now that rogue sections of the US government carried out the 9/11 attacks, and that the controlled mainstream media, through yellow journalism, have been complicit in acting as gatekeepers in hiding the truth of what really happened.

Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com
911truth.org ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement
Pentagon Strike
9/11 Index of What Really Happened

 

[JTrader]

Apologies trendie, but even wiki debunks this one . . .

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

—9/11 Commission Report "

Hmmmmm . . . the same client went LONG stock :whistling

Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé

 

[JTrader]

Scholars For 9/11 Truth

 

[JTrader]

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[JTrader]

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[JTrader]

9/11 Inside Job

 

[dcraig1]

As for a weakened Hezbollah, I am a non religious western man, a father of two daughters who enjoys the freedoms earned over the centuries by generations before mine. I like that, and I am happy to see any religious fundamentalism that would impose its rigours on my freedom but particularly on the freedom of my daughters - (which, for the time being, is mine to protect), weakened, I believe the world would be a better place without such militancy.

Offer up any plausable mechanism of how Hezbollah intends to or would be in any position to affect any freedoms or undermine some of the secular aspects of any Western society and you would have the beginnings of a case. The truth is there is none. But this quite irrational fear is repeatedly and deliberately fostered as part of the ideological basis for constant war. A fearful population is easily manipulated.

And besides, the world will not be secularized at the point of an M16.

Which brings us to the next big lie - "They hate our freedoms". err ...... no, they hate our (the US) foreign policy of iterminable interventions and betrayal.

 

[SirFrancis]

Offer up any plausable mechanism of how Hezbollah intends to or would be in any position to affect any freedoms or undermine some of the secular aspects of any Western society and you would have the beginnings of a case. The truth is there is none. But this quite irrational fear is repeatedly and deliberately fostered as part of the ideological basis for constant war. A fearful population is easily manipulated.

And besides, the world will not be secularized at the point of an M16.

Which brings us to the next big lie - "They hate our freedoms". err ...... no, they hate our (the US) foreign policy of iterminable interventions and betrayal.

Interesting point of view - thank-you

 

[JTrader]

In all aspects of life, some people can't handle the truth well, and believe they are better off living in ignorance, and burying their heads in the sand.

For example, this can apply to -

Health - some people would rather not know that they have a disease that is going to kill them, they would rather just enjoy life until the time when they are nearly dead, despite the fact that if they are diagnosed early, there's a good chance treatment will bring about recovery. eg. a morbidly obese person who refuses to accept they have an unhealthy diet that is slowly killing them, and that they don't need the 8000 calories that they consume daily.

Finance - some people do not want to read their bank and credit card statments. They'd rather ignore this info and continue their current level of spending, despite knowing deep down, that they are in financial trouble, and if they do not address these issues, and modify their spending patterns, their financial situations will continue to go from bad to worse. So they continue, in denial.

Relationships - some suspect that their partner might be cheating on them, and this cannot be nice to live with. However, they choose to continue as normal, as if they found out that this is true, they believe this would be far more unpleasant for them. So they continue as per normal, in semi-unhapiness.

The same can be said for the mass media and government. Surely they wouldn't/couldn't lie to me?

 

[SirFrancis]

And in much the same way, there are those who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their views, though devoid of credible evidence, are correct.

 

[TheBramble]

That planes were flown into the towers is not in dispute. That something flew into the side of the Pentagon is not in dispute. Whether the facts are as currently officially claimed, or not, is largely irrelevant.

If any conspiracy theory (by definition, anything other than the currently official version) gains public consensus to the extent that the administration are forced to ‘admit’ to it – that then becomes the official version and all the other versions remain conspiracy theory.

But even in that (somewhat unlikely) event of the administration giving way to growing (which it isn’t any more) pressure, you couldn’t be certain that the new official version is the reality, or whether it was the lesser of two (or more) evils that the administration thought they’d better go for as the old official version had become far too discredited to hang onto any longer, and the new official version is not as bad as the actual truth.

The alternate versions of 9/11 cover everything form the technical aspects of the impact of the planes on the structure of the building, building 7’s unnecessary ‘collapse’, the lost footage of the first news coverage clearly showing a cargo plane (no passenger windows) hitting the first tower, the missing drone plane from the US military’s inventory, the lack of any jet engine noise on the Pentagon strike from a jet apparently doing around 400mph no more than a hundred feet off the deck right through to the business, geo-political, military and financial aspects of the aftermath.

The only people who know the Truth about this are those involved in the preparation and execution of the events themselves. For an exercise of this nature and size, regardless of its origin and subsequent clean up and quieten down efforts, you’d imagine you’d know someone who knew someone etc…

 

[JTrader]

Regardless of the strength of the supporting evidence used by either side, to prove that 9/11 was, or was not an inside job, sadly, for large sections of the spoon fed public, they will only believe that an event like 911 was an inside job, when they are told that it was an inside job on the BBC news. That will NEVER happen.