Bitcoin Forum

It looks like US government actually kill their own people in 9/11.

http://youtu.be/oTZ3XXO7wNA

http://youtu.be/YsRm8M-qOjQ

It is all Bush's fault. Not Clinton's. Gitmo still open. Not obama's fault.

I'm sorry - I don't buy that for one second.

Did Bush turn it around so as to be able to use it as a legitimation to invade Iraq ?   Yes.

But did he/the US Govt. have anything to do with 9/11. Not for me - not in a million years.

Move on sir - there's nothing to see here.

Pretty much this, though I think there's a lot of unanswered questions but most of the conspiracy stuff is bullshit washed down with hogwash, but I haven't seen any evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with it either.

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdr_2IAJWU

There is a huge amount of total BS about what happened on 9/11, but the official story just happens to be in the top 5 of the bullshit stories.

I've looked at the this for years now, and there's alot of nonsense scientific theories attempting to explain the reason that WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapsed. The best you can say is that there is no conclusive evidence, most of the material that could be analysed as evidence was removed from the site within weeks of the event. Serious fires are highly unlikely to have caused 3 steel framed buildings to collapse all on the same day, considering there have been a whole catalogue of serious fires in similar constructions for many decades, and it's never happened before or since 9/11.

The events surrounding it are also inconclusive, lots of uncomfortable connections between various significant public figures, and also some curious circumstances relating to the airspace defense network on the day, but no red-handed unambiguous evidence of anyone having collaborated with any culprits. There is at least some room to attribute incompetence, but to the aggregation of all failings? I'm not too sure.


It doesn't stretch my credulity at all far to think that someone in the US government agencies or the corporate world knew in advance and kept quiet, but there isn't any actual direct evidence, just some very suspicious circumstances. Maybe some more evidence might emerge, but it becomes less likely every day that passes. It may well be consigned to history as a JFK type mystery, where the official explanation is lacking logical clarity, but there's also just not enough substance to the alternative claims made about the event.

I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I tend to think the JFK Assassination probably was one. The film JFK is worth a watch.

Gary Oldman is awesome in that. You probably couldn't tell his parts from the actual Lee Harvey Oswald footage.

The explanation for the buildings collapsing is up there with the magic bullet, and with the contradiction between "back, and to the left" and "violently forward, and to the right". More serious fires happened in buildings of roughly equivalent design both before and since September 11 2001, and the structure of those buildings remained. The engineering rationale for constructing buildings in that way is based around the structure being overly resistant to collapsing. There must be a very high margin of tolerance designed into the structural integrity of these vast buildings, they're basically multi-thousand ton man-made mountains. Thousands of tons of skyscraper falling down cannot be an acceptable event, so they're over-engineered to prevent it. That's why it's a little more than unlikely that three such buildings all succumbed to such a collapse, all in the same day.

So, "belief" doesn't really come into it. Something other than airplane collisions demolished the World Trade Center, but no-one has proved what that was. Either the official story was put together by incompetents, which is not totally impossible, or some faction of the USG was somehow aware, profited somehow, and sought to cover that up. Possibly both options simultaneously. Anything else just defies common sense. What happened in detail? No-one knows anything, at least not any of the people actively investigating it.

Yeah, but those other fire-damaged buildings didn't have planes fly into them or were heavily damaged by falling debris etc. It's a unique situation and just because a building was designed not to do something doesn't mean it can't happen. Humans and buildings aren’t perfect, plus those towers wern't in great condition to start with.

Official story states that the fires caused the collapse, not the impacts. So your observations are OK, but the official story is incorrect. Besides, the planes are incredibly light-weight compared to the buildings, dramatic pictures don't make dramatic outcomes magically possible.

The official story as what's in The 9/11 Commission Report, which I've read, is laughable on several accounts. The collapse was surely a mixture of impact + exploding/burning jet fuel + fires.

That's not a credible cause for how the buildings collapsed. But there's no solid evidence for any other cause either. JFK mystery, that's how it'll end up.

Actually, Twins must stay for the whole of a day before burned out, See how it happens: www.youtube.com: Windsor Tower fire and collapse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKvgD9NyIi4)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

Just try to imagine this CIA agents, who planted a Thermite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)... Can't you? Read about 22 September of 1999 in Ryazan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryazan), Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_Up_Russia:_Terror_from_Within


22 September 1999 -> 11 September 2001. Russia - is a field of experiments.

Plus it is so beautiful date - 911 (:

I'm actuly don't know what does it mean 22 1999, 922, 22 99, Who know?

The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?

Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.

Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing. Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions". The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.
Controlled demolition is nearly always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.

There's not much point in going over the theories or the NIST report. The theories could all be wrong (and some definitely are). The NIST report is also definitely wrong.

The part that's got the most clarity is the building 7 collapse. There's just no plausible way that building could collapse due to fire. The owner of the lease for building 7 said that it was demolished in a (pretty controlled) TV interview. The rescue workers were all informed to get back in advance of the collapse. Can a building be demolished that cleanly, with only a few hours preparation? It challenges my credulity to the limits.

So without knowing huge amounts about structural engineering and demolitions, it defies common sense that the building 7 collapse could have been achieved without extra planning. It's just not plausible that a quick demolition job was rigged up while perfect chaos was going on a hundred feet away, that's not an adequate explanation. The NIST explanation for building 7 collapse is also hilariously inadequate (and plainly contradicts the statement of the leaseholder).

Alot of speculation could be avoided by making a statement that building 7 was scheduled for demolition already, that it was already being prepared for it, and that's why that plan was so easily set in motion on September 11th. 12 years on, it's already way too late to start making that claim, though.

One thing that is funny... you read popular science "debunking 9/11" and in it they claim to debunk that the ejections that were seen as the building goes down were "squibs". So they come up with a theory that the building actually compressed down as floors collapsed on top of each other and it so happens that it looked just like squibs.  What is the problem with this though? The problem is that in science to debunk something is to prove it false. Proposing an alternate theory does not somehow invalidate another theory. It is therefore not scientific and to claim that it is... is either a serious blunder or simply propaganda.

Theory is useless. Stick to physics. There are mountains of data that conclusively demonstrate the official story is impossible. Theory just distracts from the rock solid evidence in the form of scientific fact and empirical data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Thanks for sharing this scientific fact.  :)

Have a look at this one. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)

http://youtu.be/dr4BJ89Df5Q

2012 (MUST SEE) Military Plane - Undeniable new 9-11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175)

http://youtu.be/dgM6hjNedE0

Sorry Kenshin, but that sort of stuff is getting into ghost story territory. It's a government cover-up, but there's very little solid evidence, especially not for any "operational details". Why? Because of the cover-up. Doh.

Yeah, you are right. That is why they had to get rid of the crime scene so quickly.  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac0_8TUJv-c

Moron.

"Investigate 9/11," he said. "9/11 was perpetrated by our own government."

I think he might be right.

"might" being the operative word.

It's a weird situation, the amount of circumstantial evidence that establishes several strong motives for the complicity of members of the US authorities is just huge.

But circumstantial evidence is still just that.

These suspects are influential enough that it's not worth pursuing, justice cannot be served for a crime so vast that has been so consummately covered up. It doesn't seem to matter how suspicious all that circumstantial evidence is, most people refuse to believe that a crime like that could be committed at the level of complicity required to have maintained the bogus official story.

"someone honest, somewhere would have said something"

"they did, Bush will not travel to Indonesia or Malaysia as there is a warrant out for his arrest. Several thousand US based structural engineers, that are willing to risk their careers, claim the official story is BS. There have been several governement whistleblowers on specific aspects, all have been subjected to mudslinging, all lost their careers"

"exactly, someone would have said something."


It'll take a long time to untangle this mess, people are unwilling to accept anything but the official story as long as all the current trusted media (including organisations like Wikileaks) continue to prop that story up. It's more likely that they'll become untrusted before they give the story up.

Thinking for yourself is so common as a plot device in mainstream culture, and is regarded as a virtuous trait, yet so few people consider that the narrative for the real world needs to be scrutinised with a bit of critical thought. And these free-thinking hero characters are celebrated. That's what I don't get. I guess people think "but it's only TV"

They need a reason to start a war....it would not be the first time that because of that they kill their own people