9-11

[Command Prompt]

After listening to coast to coast last night, I had to wonder, why exactly does everyone put up with the completley inadequate explanation of what happened that day?

I mean no disrespect to anyone on this board that lost someone but theres some pretty glaring holes and I was wondering if anyone else has been wondering.

Here's my two main questions:

1. Most engineers agree that it was nearly impossible for the buildings to collapse the way they did.

2. Everyone kinda forgot about this and worried about the "war in iraq" (technically the third) really quickly and more or less added in the "war on terrorism" which then became the "fight for freedom and democracy" all of a sudden, even though terrorism and iraq arn't directly related. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to kill Iranians but that is niether here nor there since the current war is unrelated. Or is it? I thought the US involvement was to remove saddam and install a democracy so they can benifit from a trading partner (oil), not hunt down terrorists and agents of evil and so forth. Which is what it became all of a sudden when everyone started asking "hey what about bin laden? hows that going?"

I'm so fucking confused at this point, can anyone make sense of this mess?

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Command Prompt

After listening to coast to coast last night, I had to wonder, why exactly does everyone put up with the completley inadequate explanation of what happened that day?

Because there is a mountain of evidence to back it up?

1. Most engineers agree that it was nearly impossible for the buildings to collapse the way they did.

Thats more of a statement than a question. And an incorrect statement at that. The engineering department at my college all think its possible for that to happen. The engineering department at MIT agree that it could happen that way.

The main thing they disagree on is exactly how it happened. Whether the frame warped because of the heat or how the sequence of events played out.

I have yet to see one credable physivs or engineering professional completly disavow the official story.

2.

even though terrorism and iraq arn't directly related.

al Queda and Iraq weren't directly related. Its no secret Hussien offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Its no secret he had training camps and gave logistical support to terrorist factions. He just doesn't seemed to be linked to this one particual attack.

Bin Laden was trained by the CIA

No, he wasn't. He was involved with the mujhadeen, which was trained by the CIA, but he generally used his own family resources and stepped in to take over our communications and logistical network in AFGHANISTAN AFTER THE SOVIETS PULLED OUT.

to kill Iranians

No, we used Hussien to kill Iranians, bin Laden(indirectly) to kill Soviets.

but that is niether here nor there since the current war is unrelated.

If we had bin LAden in Irq to kill Iranians, how can you say he had nothing to do with Hussien?

I'm so fucking confused at this point,

Boy, is that an understatement.

can anyone make sense of this mess?

I'd try, but you'd have to show me where you are getting your "facts" first so I know how big I mountain I gotta climb.

[Ninjavenom]

1. Most engineers agree that it was nearly impossible for the buildings to collapse the way they did.

Most engineers don't test skyscrapers out by crashing planes into them, and there's only so much a computer simulation can tell you.

[Ant10708]

Thats true but, as Blanco stated, tons of engineers have stated they could of fell the way they did.

[The One and Only...]

There's a very good video on 9-11 that highlights some inconsistancies in the attacks. The ones that had the biggest impact on me were the testimonies in which those questioned reported hearing bombs going off, flashes occuring after the planes hit the towers (indicating explosives, as the fuelages haven't hit yet), and the fact that the video of the "plane" hitting the pentagon has the wrong date. There's a ton of info in it.

Of course, the attacks could always have been staged in an attempt to stir nationalism and justify the expansion of the police state, but I doubt you guys would buy that.

[Sethomas]

I would "buy" it, but I don't officially hold that stance. Mostly I feel that this was likely what Pearl Harbor likely was, an aggressive attack that would have happened, but could have been largely softened by intelligence we did factually have and deliberately ignored.

[Command Prompt]

I've been sifting through these 9-11 sites for most of the day and I'm having trouble finding the "mountain of evidence" that supports the terrorist hijacking. It seems the mountain of evidence is towards the holes in what happened that day. Most of the "debunking" of the "conspiracy theorists" can be comicly surmised to "well of course we are right, we aren't crazy" or "because I'm an expert thats why"

MOST of the sights are in fact a little too far into the extreme, I find it offensive, even as a Canadian, to believe that a government would be capable of murdering its own cititizens in order to fuel nationalism and support an upcoming war which seems to be the byproduct of a failed military coup in order to secure a unreplenishible rersource. That said, the sights do raise some interesting points.

I still find it hard to believe that the buildings would collapse the way they did, given all the circumstances involved. I also find it strange that a plane would be able to penetrate the most highly guarded airspace in the world and attack a promenant military intelligence building. I am also cynical that a mere group of 19 hijackers can completely catch the good ol' world police completely offguard.

I guess if they still haven't figured out who shot JFK yet, this will just get added to the pile and "Building Seven" will become this generation's "grassy knoll"

[Command Prompt]

By the way, this is Popular Mechanics "undisputable photographic evidence" that a plane hit the Pentagon, in its "Debunking 9-11" article. Most people have trouble believing that a plane hit the pentagon, the main concern being a complete lack of wreckage.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Command Prompt

I've been sifting through these 9-11 sites for most of the day and I'm having trouble finding the "mountain of evidence" that supports the terrorist hijacking.

Because the vast majority of the people who made those sites are either grieving for loved ones, so they really don't need to go through the events of the day in great detail, or they have their own theory that they are pushing.

It seems the mountain of evidence is towards the holes in what happened that day.

Of course there are holes. No one was inside taking notes while it was all going down so its impossible to know what exactly happened. Investigators are piecing it together to take an educated guess. That and the goverment people who fell asleep at the switch are covering their asses.

Most of the "debunking" of the "conspiracy theorists" can be comicly surmised to "well of course we are right, we aren't crazy" or "because I'm an expert thats why"

That and their analysis of what happened using their field of expertise.

MOST of the sights are in fact a little too far into the extreme, I find it offensive, even as a Canadian, to believe that a government would be capable of murdering its own cititizens in order to fuel nationalism and support an upcoming war which seems to be the byproduct of a failed military coup in order to secure a unreplenishible rersource. That said, the sights do raise some interesting points.

Interesting until you break them down.

I still find it hard to believe that the buildings would collapse the way they did, given all the circumstances involved.

Then ask an engineer or someone who has an education in some related field.

I also find it strange that a plane would be able to penetrate the most highly guarded airspace in the world and attack a promenant military intelligence building.

Like I said, asleep at the switch. That and there are three major airports in the immediate Washington DC area.

I am also cynical that a mere group of 19 hijackers can completely catch the good ol' world police completely offguard.

Why not? All they had done up until the hijacking was plan and train. 19 out of 6 billion.

I guess if they still haven't figured out who shot JFK yet, this will just get added to the pile and "Building Seven" will become this generation's "grassy knoll"

Ya, no matter how far fetched and rediculous it is, some people need to cling to something.

[Geggy]

Originally Posted by Command Prompt

I am also cynical that a mere group of 19 hijackers can completely catch the good ol' world police completely offguard.

i find it interesting that they had quickly identified the hijackers within a day or 2 of the attacks. i remember mug shots of the hijackers being released on television the day after 9-11 and thinking what a great job they're doing with the investigation.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I would "buy" it, but I don't officially hold that stance. Mostly I feel that this was likely what Pearl Harbor likely was, an aggressive attack that would have happened, but could have been largely softened by intelligence we did factually have and deliberately ignored.

There was an interesting special on the attack on Pearl Harbor the weekend before last on the History Channel. Basically, the majority of experts in the documentary charged that FDR pressed for the attack on Pearl Harbor in passive-aggressive sorts of maneuvers. Aggressive in some political maneuvering while ignoring (or denying?) a mountain of intelligence. Even some speculation that, since Japan was an ally to Germany, that this aggression by Japan would be a back-door entry into Germany declaring war on us. It was only a matter of days before Germany did just that. In both cases, we were made to look like the victim. Could this be the effect that the FDR administration wanted? Interesting. I never before heard quite that spin on the U.S. participation in WWII.

[The One and Only...]

Note that there is also a book written supporting the view that FDR staged Pearl Harbor to justify intervention in WWII. Haven't read it myself, but it's supposed to be excellent.

Personally, that single photograph doesn't prove much of anything to me. I would really suggest everyone buying/downloading that video I linked to.

[El Blanco]

There are also books that refute that theory.

And I'm not buying a damned thing that doesn't feature Samuel L JAckson.