100 Million Americans Question Official 911 Story

by sammielee24 217 Replies latest members politics

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  We all know what happened physically before our eyes but we know nothing of what really happened up to that point and why it happened after. A real lingering question in my own mind is why the Saudi family was flown out right after - every other plane was grounded but one was cleared for take off and that was the Bin Laden family. That sort of question should be answered truthfully and it never has been. Nor have we ever been told why when Bin Laden was in sight and could be captured, the military was denied the right to do so. Why?

  Sammieswife, those are good questions. They don't point to a conspiracy about how or who destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon. The WTC was destroyed because of jets hitting them after they were hijacked by terrorists.

  Now, are there backstories? Yes, and that is probably amongst the most classified of information that the US intelligence community has. It isn't going to come out.

  Let me clarify something: Typical 9/11 conspiracy theories say that because there are certain unexplained phenomenon at the WTC that day (such as observed smoke and explosions from certain floors seconds before the collapse) that this justifies a view that the jets didn't collapse the towers, but planted explosives, possibly planted by the US government who wanted to start a war (or some other reason, doesn't matter) was the real cause of the collapsing towers.

  The theories typically ignore very sound explanations, such as floors collapsing on each other, the resulting pressure creating explosions as the inside was falling down on itself. It ignores the fact that both towers, esp the 2nd one hit, were actually leaning because the structural integrity was compromised thanks to the jets crashing into them.

  Sammieswife, I don't know for certain where you stand on that, but I totally disagree with anyone who suggests that the jets were designed to distract from the planted bombs inside the WTC.

  I question everything, but one of my conspiracies is that conspiracy theories help the government pick out who they don't have to worry about. It's not the loud ones they care about, its the quiet ones. Revolutions start in homes and in the minds, not by fixating on certain events as evidence of problems with the government.
• 

  sammielee24

  I've seen all the clips of all the 'bomb's' and so on and I am always skeptical of things that can be altered, so although I find them interesting, I don't base any theories on them. I'm not saying they aren't real and might have good base for questioning, but I do not base my opinion on them. Having said that I also don't believe the government ins't just as capable of altering photo's either.

  What I do look for in explanations, are facts from experienced, professional people. When I hear that 1000 engineers and architects, people who design structures for a living and who have done their own research, do not agree with the 10 that the commission sought help from, then I find myself questioning more. When I read of political or financial ties between those professionals and the government in the investigation, I no longer believe in the investigation because it's a conflict of interest.

  I listen to all the personnel working there and those inside the building - what they heard and orders they are given.

  I read the reports to find the answers and then find out from those who wrote it that there's enough evidence to warrant possible criminal charges of lying under oath and that leads me to finally accept, that the only reason factions of the government would lie, is to hide something. So now, I want to know what that is because as far as I'm concerned, this leaves the investigation wide open. I don't care if it's sloppy operations or lack of communication, I just want to hear the truth about it and then hear what measures are in place so it can't happen again. Until the truth is revealed, there are no answers.

  There are other issues that are still open ended as well but they are in no way conspiracies - to me, they are issues of security. It is obvious to all that the government had deep ties to the Bin Laden family - they were THE only plane allowed to leave the country and quickly, right after the attack. Why? That's a security issue especially right after an attack by a family member. The FBI does have Bin Laden on their wanted list - but it's for the 1998 bombings. Why not for the 2001 attack? The military gave a report telling us they were in position to take Bin Laden in the earliest days of the war - and yet, they were told to back off. As a result, Bin Laden got away and the war has continued for another 7 years - why? If the reasons for capture are weak and sloppy - then where does that place the deaths of the thousands of our men and women around the world who still fought to find him? Where does that put security and finance, when we are on the verge of bankruptcy now when the money could have been spent inside the USA instead of a non war?

  Those are the questions I have and they all start with 9/11. One rolls into another and to me, it isn't a conspiracy - it's a matter of security in every way. If we don't clear up this one - we aren't about to believe anything we hear in the next one. sammieswife.
• 

  DaCheech

  those planes were full of freshly filled jet fuel
• 

  cyberjesus

  So the fact that in over 100 years of buildings with a steel structure only 3 have collapsed by fire on the same day, in an almost perfect free fall. Buildings that were designed to sustain an airplane accident and to support the whole weight of the building collapsed within hours. That is a sound explanation? So the fuel inside the airplanes was enough to melt the steel? Of which floors did it melted the steel exactly? the whole structure melted because of the fire? by the way the temperature of the fire couldnt melt no steel. you can find in 5 minutes what kind of heat it takes and the red flames are not hot enough to do that. The airplanes exploded along with the fuel. So what exactly was burning so hot for that short period of time that melted the structure?

  I thought that a pragmatic doesnt accept things only if it can be proven with satisfaction.

  Two airplanes crashing on the ground and leaving almost no remains? oh but two of the passports of the hijackers did survive. Thats enough evidence to be satisfied?

  Or how about the fact that government only released two videos of the attack on the pentagon.. only two videos where you cant see no any airplane. I mean any target store has more cameras inside and outside than the pentagon? Really?

  The reason I got to this forum is because I question the official version I had of my life and its future, It was not a conspiracy. it was real. My dad told me otherwise he said that it was a conspiracy. it didnt sounded real. But I went against the popular belief of my peers. So questioning doesnt make me a conspiracy theorist. Just someone who questions things that dont make sense
• 

  bohm

  CJ:

  It is simply not true steel buildings has never collapsed because of fire. do some research. Start with the fire in the McCormick Place exhibition hall in 1967. But even that have no bearing on the WTC because you got to compare buildings of the same design to buildings of the same design (ie. the 2-tube system used in WTC1 and WTC2, and you got to factor in the major structural damage from the airplanes - those things packed some SERIOUS kinetic energy).

  The fire did not melt the steel. But steel weakens significantly at low temperatures and worse, it expand and buckles. Again demanding the steel should meld is a red herring.

  Have you ever read a paper on progressive collapse? I have. It is impossible for the buildings NOT to fall quickly when you take in account their dimensions (notice though they did fall at below free-fall speed). Show me one single calculation or simulation that show otherwise. Not a quote by an 'expert', the actual calculation.

  And dont be redicilous, the planes did leave remains, but i want to focus on one argument at the time - speaking of which, you have backed down on those pictures where you can 'clearly' see explosions?

  Do you feel your accusations of murder and treason has been proven to your satisfaction?
• 

  sammielee24

  There are a number of sites floating around that contain a lot of questions that have been asked, some of these groups I believe have been involved with the commission for 9/11 truth. Families offered up their own questions but many of those were never answered. Here are a few of those - I haven't read all the links but these are some of the reasons for people not believing all they've been told. It's not just about pictures - the whole thing has led to so many events afterward - from the patriot act, wire tapping and war - sammieswife.

  Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
  From the November, 2004, complaint and petition filed with AG Spitzer on the possible ISI role in providing funding to the plotters:
  
  Allegations of bribes to 9/11 Commission
  S Sheikh, the ISI and wire transfers

  How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants and flight schools they were known to frequent?
  An overwhelming collection of information about the alleged hijackers from the Complete 9/11 Timeline
  How the FBI protected Al Qaeda's 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
  Hijacker had post-9/11 flights scheduled, files say

  How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
  Mineta's testimony about what the Vice President knew of Flight 77
• 

  read good books

  bohm- the Mcormick building fire in Chicago in 67 is a bad comparison, a four story wearhouse with a cheap tar roof compared to the world trade towers? The Mcormick building did not even collapse entirely, it was full of flamable artwork and had no sprinker system, unlike the grid structures of 47 vast steel -reinforced pillars of the Trade Towers. Does anyone know of any steel fires in buildings causing collapse in skycrapers or buildings closer to the Trade Towers? edited
• 

  bohm

  RGB: I agree completely that i am comparing apples to oranges, however CJ asked for an example and i gave him one.

  The problem is that buildings are build differently (doh!) which is why a collapse like the one i mentioned, or a fire in another building which did not collapse, have little to do with how stable we expect WT1 and WT2 to be during a fire. It is also important to keep in mind they collapsed because of the fire AND the structural damage suffered in the crash. That combination is quite unique.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  So the fact that in over 100 years of buildings with a steel structure only 3 have collapsed by fire on the same day, in an almost perfect free fall. Buildings that were designed to sustain an airplane accident and to support the whole weight of the building collapsed within hours. That is a sound explanation? So the fuel inside the airplanes was enough to melt the steel? Of which floors did it melted the steel exactly? the whole structure melted because of the fire? by the way the temperature of the fire couldnt melt no steel. you can find in 5 minutes what kind of heat it takes and the red flames are not hot enough to do that. The airplanes exploded along with the fuel. So what exactly was burning so hot for that short period of time that melted the structure?

  Please re-read that. I will take you as seriously as I can, but you your questions are not justified. You act as if the buildings were supposed to survive. Clearly, whatever expectations the engineers had in it (who in the 1960's designed buildings with the acts of 9/11 in mind?) were not true.

  You aren't using similar examples. What other skyscrapers had jets full of fuel fly into them and explode? And yes, the steel did melt. In addition, the force of the impact totally blew out the fireproofing of the inards. What was burning was the fueselage of the jets, coupled with whatever was left of the 3-5 floor primary impact zone for each building. What, do you think this was a fire that could have been snuffed out with a match?

  Ok, I am not arguing that point anymore. Jesus! It was a freaking jet airliner that flew into a building and you ask what was burning?????

  There is nothing wrong with questioning, its just that you make no sense.

  I thought that a pragmatic doesnt accept things only if it can be proven with satisfaction.

  Actually, pragmatics do a much better job at accepting reality then others. What I accept isn't the "official" story, I accept that as someone who is most certainly out of the intelligence community loop, I am satisfied that the basic reasons the towers fell were the jets flying into them.
• 

  read good books

  What other skyscrapers had jets full of fuel fly into them and explode?... (who in the 1960's designed buildings with the acts of 9/11 in mind?)

  All Time Jeff, the building construction manager of the Trade Towers said the buildings were built to withstand several jets flying into them.

  Sorry Sammie's wife I didn't mean to blow past the excellent points you made, these debates on 911 building engineering can go on forever, I think you can prove the point of unanswered questions on 911 quicker when you just look at what the government did during that time.

  edited rechecked facts it was building construction manager who said this