Did the United States of America attack itself? 911

[lostinidlewonder]

It seems like the tragic events in New York September 11th 2001 happened so long ago, certainly here in Australia it seems that way.

Now that the smoke has very much cleared I find believing in the official story is become clearly a matter of blind faith.

I am interested in your opinion on a few questions but feel free to discuss other issues that you think are important.


1) Did the Bush Administration (or powers that controlled it) attack their own people in New York and the Pentagon 9/11/2001 to propel their campaign for a "War on Terror"?

2) Do you think that this "War on Terror" is really a war on terror?


One other question I'd like to ask Americans

3) Do you feel more safe and secure in your country or does it overall feel no different, like Springfield's Bear Patrol or Lisa Simpson's Tiger-Repellant Rock?


THE SIMPSONS: Lisa's Tiger-Repellant Rock
After a single bear wandering into town caused an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”
Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.
Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”



Also, apparently there are operatives who hijack threads like this, I would love to see that happen here if we discuss this in more detail with links to other 911 research sites

[birba]

Interesting topic, especially for an ex-patriot like me.  I mean, i'm american and would never give up my citizenship, but i live in italy and have italian citizenship as well.
I've never thought about it that drastically, but things certainly didn't go the way the govt explains it.  I was there that day,  by the way, having  arrived the day before.  We hear all sorts of tales after a disaster of that magnitude.  One of them was that no jewish personel came to work that day.  Another was that the americans shot down the airplane over pennsylvania.  And THAT i believe, which is why i don't think your conjecture is true. On the other hand, i do feel that the so-called war on terrorists benefits lots of already rich and powerful people.
I already imagine this thread getting out of hand, but at least i got my 2 cents worth in.

[lostinidlewonder]

It could certainly be that the government allowed the attack to happen. For example look at the Pentagon, they say it was an aircraft, it was probably a missile, but nevertheless why didn't the Pentagon deploy their anti-missile, anti-aircraft defense that they have protecting the complex? They chose not to do anything about it. This is only one issue, there are so many more pointing to how the US allowed the attack to happen.

You are right in saying this "War on Terror" has left certain groups extremely rich yet leaving the entire US economy crippled (Look at the Silverstein groups profit from the Twin Tower collapse). The US occupation in Afghanistan for instance, if we look at the mineral resource in this country it is substantial to put it extremely mildly. The War there should be known as the "War on Resource" not Terror.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769

[lostinidlewonder]

Here are some historical proven false flags with emphasis on the USA's practice. They seem well learned in attacking themselves.

https://www.infowars.com/a-brief-history-of-false-flag-attacks-or-why-government-loves-state-sponsored-terror/

[birba]

Ugh!  Why did you bring this up?  What's so depressing is that no one is strong enough to beat the system.  It's here to stay.  Or until it implodes.  Taking all of us with it...

[lostinidlewonder]

You are right Birba that one person is not enough. But with the Internet information is spread and those that want truth can be informed. The US authorities are infuriated that this happens, look at their activities blocking donations to wikileaks and their persecution of my fellow Aussie founder Julian Assange.

I am bring it up because the information now is as clear as ever. The misinformation spread is being revealed and the truths are standing stronger and stronger. The amount of high profile people who disagree with the 911 commission is very disturbing. The smoke has cleared, the bullshit is losing its power very fast thanks to the Internet.

[p2u_]

Did the United States of America attack itself? 911

As an outsider, who will NOT participate in this topic under any circumstance, I would like to ask you a question before the *excrement* hits the *air-conditioning*.

Could you, please, explain in more detail why exactly you would want an answer to (or an opinion on) this more than controversial topic? I'm afraid that all it does is hurt lots of kind and good-willing proud Americans, who don't have the power to change the system anyway. Please, direct your reply at the target group of your survey, not at me.

Thanks.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Not everything in life is easy to talk about, it is worse however to live in ignorance. I am not chastising those who believe the official story but would like to hear why they believe such things. If they don't want to research into the facts, fair enough they do not need to defend that right. But with the USA proven to have attack itself in the past why would one think that they would never do it again?

[lloyd_cdb]

Illustrating a motive doesn't give truth to it. If my boss died in a car accident, I would benefit from the subsequent promotion. Does that mean I caused the accident? I'm invested in Coca-cola. If Pepsi goes bankrupt, did I cause it? Plenty of situations like this happen on a daily basis, the major difference is that they don't get media attention. Once something's in the news, everyone has an opinion on "what really happened". The government misrepresents plenty of things in the news, and I take everything with a grain of salt. But exactly that, a grain. We don't live in north korea where the internet doesn't exist.  I'm capable of accessing plenty of different reputable news sources as well as conspiracy blogs. Just because something ends with .org doesn't make it any more truthful than FOX news.

As a US citizen I'm definitely not ignorant to some ridiculous US foreign policy and how it's misrepresented in the news, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy. Just as an FYI though, there are much better countries to invade for financial profit than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The first link listed in the tvnewslies article is about financial gain and put options. It mentions the amount of put activity in UAL, AA, MS, etc. as being extremely high. Which in all actuality, it was (if you take their numbers at face value). That being said, the total financial profit would have been ~$15m if you count every single put option as being an insider trade. For the people who don't work in finance, you should know that financial firms sh*t $15m. There are much better ways to make more money from insider trading than attacking your country.

In regards to:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The building wasn't demolished, so how could he admit to it? His statement is blatantly misrepresented. He was discussing with the fire chief as to whether or not to fight the fire that was burning the building down. It wasn't a play-by-play. "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" is not a real-time statement. He's saying the firefighters stopped fighting it since it would burn down anyway, and it eventually collapsed. "Pull" means 'pull the firefighters out' if you actually take it in context.  You know, that whole "loss of life" comment in the exact same sentence?

Lastly, Silverstein fascinatingly had an insurance policy on a building he leased. Kind of similar to EVERY real estate investor. The insurance policy covered acts of terror like many large real estate investments. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to have a terrorism clause on an insurance policy for a major building? Oh, and not to even mention that the WTC ITSELF had already been the victim of a terror attempt? He is being 'paid' $4.55b in insurance while rebuilding a site that is costing him $6.3b. Wow, that sure worked out for him.

The problem with these sources is that they often show coincidences without showing big picture aspects, and then claim the coincidences as proof.  Please refer to my lectures in the arthritis thread about data mining.

[lloyd_cdb]

But with the Internet information is spread and those that want truth can be informed. The US authorities are infuriated that this happens, look at their activities blocking donations to wikileaks and their persecution of my fellow Aussie founder Julian Assange.

Those that want truth can also be misinformed.

Of course the US authorities are infuriated when their classified documents are released. Umm, I bet if I went and posted your porn history and all that awkward sh*t you did during puberty on the internet, wouldn't you be pissed? Clearly it would make you look bad. Or, someone could post that time Charles Manson gave some kid an ice cream cone and fail to mention the rest of the crap he did.

[lostinidlewonder]

Illustrating a motive doesn't give truth to it.

Can you refer this to something specific.

As a US citizen I'm definitely not ignorant to some ridiculous US foreign policy and how it's misrepresented in the news, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Conspiracy is a very misrepresented word which tries to make the questioners look like kookie madmen. Wy do you think they misrepresent it? Do you think that controlling the masses with misinformation is a democratic thing to do?

. Just as an FYI though, there are much better countries to invade for financial profit than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tell me which other candidates are there to exploit under the guise of war on terror?

There are much better ways to make more money from insider trading than attacking your country.

For example? War is in the trillions of dollars.

In regards to:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The building wasn't demolished, so how could he admit to it? His statement is blatantly misrepresented.

Would the word "evacuate" be appropriate? Pull is a term used in demolition. I have never heard someone say "pull it" to mean evacuate, they may say "pull out". Larry is a high class eloquent businessman.

He was discussing with the fire chief as to whether or not to fight the fire that was burning the building down.

I have never heard of buildings burning down to the ground and would love to see evidence of other high rise buildings collapsing perfectly onto themselves because of fire, I have not seen any evidence except from the three collapses on 911. How does one explain the super fine dust which scientists measured as being very strange for a building collapse.

Lastly, Silverstein fascinatingly had an insurance policy on a building he leased. Kind of similar to EVERY real estate investor. The insurance policy covered acts of terror like many large real estate investments. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to have a terrorism clause on an insurance policy for a major building? Oh, and not to even mention that the WTC ITSELF had already been the victim of a terror attempt? He is being 'paid' $4.55b in insurance while rebuilding a site that is costing him $6.3b. Wow, that sure worked out for him.

It did work out very well for him, instead of renovating he is rebuilding, the value of what he builds is much greater than the old towers. The old towers had a lot of empty floors.

The problem with these sources is that they often show coincidences without showing big picture aspects, and then claim the coincidences as proof.  Please refer to my lectures in the arthritis thread about data mining.

Many small pieces create this big picture however. What coincidences are you referring to?

[lostinidlewonder]

Those that want truth can also be misinformed.

Of course the US authorities are infuriated when their classified documents are released. Umm, I bet if I went and posted your porn history and all that awkward sh*t you did during puberty on the internet, wouldn't you be pissed? Clearly it would make you look bad. Or, someone could post that time Charles Manson gave some kid an ice cream cone and fail to mention the rest of the crap he did.

Democracy is supposed to be honest and just, the leaks show that it is not and is a sham.

Misinformation of 911 has had over a decade to percolate, a lot of misinfo has already been identified and also shows how it was encouraged by the government itself with their Internet schemes.

[oxy60]

Excellent comments,  Lloyd. Remember "no wise man can dispel  what a fool believes." Coincidences occur all the time. Major religions exploit those occasions.

Conspiracy theories abound. What about JFK?

The foreign policy of the US is a disaster from the word go. We seem to do the wrong thing, support the wrong side and when it goes wrong make excuses. Remember we changed sides during WW2. We got in bed with the Russians to beat the Nazis then switched to oppose the Russians in the aftermath.

In the present moment are we against radical Islam or for it. Whose side are we on in Syria? Egypt?

[lloyd_cdb]

Democracy is supposed to be honest and just, the leaks show that it is not and is a sham.

Misinformation of 911 has had over a decade to percolate, a lot of misinfo has already been identified and also shows how it was encouraged by the government itself with their Internet schemes.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is nothing special. It's a flawed system like anything else that tries to govern the masses. You would be ignorant to have ever believed it is honest and just. The people are stupid and need ruling. This is a simple case of human nature. The leaks just choose to point out negative aspects. If not, even at bare minimum, the only ones you'll ever mention are the ones that are focused on by the evil media mis-informants you speak of. Congrats, you've just joined the masses.

Misinformation over a decade has allowed every person that's heard of the disaster, even those born after it, to form their own opinions on "what really happened". I'm not sure about you, but when I leave my house I meet more stupid people than intelligent ones. Call me an elitist /shrug. Stupid people can have beliefs, but the problem is that dumber people believe their 'misinformed' beliefs and 'logical' conclusions without actual questioning them, thus propagating even more stupidity. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the mass of stupid people will kill us long before the evil government corporation that enslaves us.

There is plenty of misinformation that exists in every corner of the globe. However, I've clearly pointed out the first two points that the argument rests on are simply fallacious arguments. Do I really need to continue down the list? The article you cited doesn't even understand how insurance works. THAT'S the source you want to agree with? If I started spouting my mouth about conspiracies in astrophysics and how the speed of light doesn't really exist, I'd better be sure I even knew what the speed of light actually is before claiming it doesn't exist.

Just because information is manipulated, it doesn't exempt you from using your brain to form actual logical arguments for yourself. Find some sources, do your own research and try your hardest to DISPROVE your beliefs to give them actual merit. Hell, at bare minimum understand the basic terms that your argument is based on.

Lastly, I never answered one of your questions. In regards to whether or not I feel safer, yes I do. I had flown several times pre-9/11 and now fly fairly regularly. It is definitely safer, although I believe the TSA people should be required to have more than just a GED considering their importance. I am more than happy to have the government hack into my inactive webcam to constantly watch me than have my office building bombed, or have them read all of my emails to prevent one person from getting their hands on explosives. But again, call me crazy.

[lostinidlewonder]

Nice points Lloyd good food for thought.

[lloyd_cdb]

Can you refer this to something specific.

Umm, the sentences following my statement did exactly that.

Conspiracy is a very misrepresented word which tries to make the questioners look like kookie madmen. Wy do you think they misrepresent it? Do you think that controlling the masses with misinformation is a democratic thing to do?

Questioning is different that showing proof of alternatives. This again can be shown in my comments in the arthritis thread. I question my beliefs on a regular basis. Questioning your beliefs took all of 5 minutes to show gaping holes in your proposed answer to those questions. I don't know what EXACTLY happened, but proposing an extremely complicated explanation that indicts anyone who could possibly benefit it isn't the most logical conclusion. It's exactly what a conspiracy theory is. This is Occams razor at it's finest.

I don't think controlling the masses with misinformation is democratic. That's why I've pointed out your blatant misinformation and reckless disregard for its subsequent spread. How is this any more democratic?

The 'research' supporting many of the accusations have broken links to 'studies' and cite other articles that say the exact same thing that cite other articles that cite the original page. Misinformation.

Tell me which other candidates are there to exploit under the guise of war on terror?
For example? War is in the trillions of dollars.
Would the word "evacuate" be appropriate? Pull is a term used in demolition. I have never heard someone say "pull it" to mean evacuate, they may say "pull out". Larry is a high class eloquent businessman.

War costs a ton, I wouldn't argue that. That doesn't mean people who benefit from war actually start it. Many of the people that are mentioned don't even financially benefit. CIA salaries don't change. Presidential salary doesn't change. Sure, it's entirely possible they push contracts towards family members. This, again, doesn't mean they started it. Just that they benefit from it. I benefited a lot during the flash crash financial issue. One more time... this doesn't mean I started it. It isn't conclusive evidence, it's coincidental and controversial but not definitive fact.

'Pull' isn't a term commonly used in demolition in regards to blowing up a building. It's a term used in demolition as to which direction to bring buildings down so they don't damage nearby structures. It is, however, a term used in firefighting. "pull" means to pull the firehose to inform the firefighters in the building that they should egress. Even if it were a commonly used demolition term, who are you to decide which definition he then meant by it? It's called context. In the same sentence he mentions loss of life discussing it with a fireman. As you mentioned, he's an intelligent person. Would he be that stupid to incriminate himself by using a specific word? One more time... simple logic is better logic.

I have never heard of buildings burning down to the ground and would love to see evidence of other high rise buildings collapsing perfectly onto themselves because of fire, I have not seen any evidence except from the three collapses on 911. How does one explain the super fine dust which scientists measured as being very strange for a building collapse.
It did work out very well for him, instead of renovating he is rebuilding, the value of what he builds is much greater than the old towers. The old towers had a lot of empty floors.
Many small pieces create this big picture however. What coincidences are you referring to?

No building has ever collapsed from that height. Of course aspects will be unique.

Fine dust theory - Try again. Small excerpt, not taken out of context:

"So how did we form the nanoparticles? A process called "anaerobic combustion" or combustion under oxygen poor conditions. It happens all the time."

They also didn't collapse perfectly onto themselves. Basic physics and watching a video illustrates this. It tilted to the side, but there isn't enough horizontal momentum to carry it further. It isn't a tree. It collapsed from 80% up the building, not from the base being chopped at an angle.

There are many aspects that go into the building profit. The comment is in regards to COST, not value. Buildings are typically valued lower than their cost. The value includes potential rental income. If you can't fill the building, why buy/build it? (see housing bubble and pop-up towns) The value is definitely greater because it's modern, but he loses close to $2b on it from simple purchase price and cost to rebuild, not to mention 11.5 years of income ($200m/year = $2.3b). In 1998, NY expected to lease it at $1.5b, 3 years later it went for $3.22b. If it was losing money, why would it sell for DOUBLE in a 3 year span. There were many empty floors... In 1997. It was an after-effect from the bombing in 1993. In 1997, it had an 80% occupancy (and magically still profitable). By mid 1998, this was 90%+. In 2000, it had it's highest occupancy ever. Typical normal occupancy based on rent turnover is 95%. If at 95% they are profit negative, who in the hell would ever buy a building.

All said and done, he's losing $4b+, or more than he even paid for it in the first place. Renovations were expected to be a bit over $200m, or 1 years worth of rent vs losing 11.5 years (so far). He currently has managed to rent out to 50% occupancy for the new building.

Let me say it again with some sarcasm. It sure worked out wonderfully for him.

[j_menz]

I'm not contributing, just popped in to shout out a big "hello" to all our new CIA readers. 

[dcstudio]

I'm not contributing, just popped in to shout out a big "hello" to all our new CIA readers. 

me too. 

[lloyd_cdb]

They are already watching you on your webcam. 

[j_menz]

They are already watching you on your webcam. 

It's at home, in a draw, not plugged in to a computer which is, in any case turned off. I'm at work, where our IT department does not believe in such frivolities.

Evidently "they" are much much cleverer than I have given them credit.

Oh, and G'Day to you new ASIS people, too.

[lostinidlewonder]

I am approaching this thread in a different manner. Lloyd please excuse me if I do not address your comments with quotes, I'd rather not argue and just share our stances. I have debated the issue on 911 research forums enough and don't need to argue points here too, I just like to see peoples opinions.


One very interesting link I read was about high profile people who disagree with the 911 commission.
www.patriotsquestion911.com

Did you know America has a lot of proven government conspiracies throughout its history?
What is even more disturbing is that the US government knows how to confuse things even more by perpetuating conspiracy theories of their own to mix it all up. Sneaky but not sneaky enough.
https://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/02/owl-33-conspiracy-theories-proven-true-many-with-government-betrayal-of-public-trust-as-central-feature/

Some specifics on 911
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=961


I like these forum, full of very intelligent members who spend a lot of their life researching trying to unearth the truth (not that everything they discuss is true). It is amazing how screwed up and controlled media is in the US.

https://www.drjudywood.com/
www.letsrollforums.com/
https://cluesforum.info


On the issue of the dust created by the towers
https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/

I'm not contributing, just popped in to shout out a big "hello" to all our new CIA readers.  

ahhha

[lloyd_cdb]

I am approaching this thread in a different manner. Lloyd please excuse me if I do not address your comments with quotes, I'd rather not argue and just share our stances. I have debated the issue on 911 research forums enough and don't need to argue points here too, I just like to see peoples opinions.

No problem at all. Sorry if I get aggressive, I really do enjoy debates on researchable topics. I'm too tired to read through the links so I'll leave point-counterpoint for tomorrow 

[lostinidlewonder]

I look forward to your perspectives on any of the issues lloyd, it is a whole lot of content to get through! The issue of 911 is an extremely emotional one and I can understand people can feel very passionate about it.

Consider this link:
www.patriotsquestion911.com

    220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
 1,500+ Engineers and Architects
    250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
    400+ Professors Question 9/11
    300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
    200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
    400+ Medical Professionals

All put question to the 911 commission report. These individuals are not all merely conspiracy theorists which I think is the very important point but many are highly respected professionals many of which have insider knowledge of how the US government works and there are those with 1st hand witnesses of the 911 events.  

What is quite interesting that it is not necessary important to focus in on what in the report is wrong but rather what details are purposefully missing from the report. Absence of information is just as bad as misinformation.

[oxy60]

So where does everybody get their information on which to base their questions and doubts?

Is anyone on the inside?

Do you believe that what you hear or read is accurate?

[p2u_]

So where does everybody get their information on which to base their questions and doubts?

Is anyone on the inside?

Do you believe that what you hear or read is accurate?

Although I promised not to participate in this topic, this is something I'd like to react to.

On the one hand, it's good to know several languages. On the other hand, it's not even funny how one and the same news clip is commented in different countries, each for their own purposes.

I have a feeling that my senses are lying to me ALL THE TIME and my critical reasoning capabilities are insufficient to make sense of it all, not only of this controversial topic, but of virtually ALL info we get pushed down our throats as "facts". It's just so depressing...

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. (c)

Paul

[unholeee]

 :'(Without a doubt, I believe their own government did it. I think the best summerization was problem -> reaction -> solution by Alan Watt? maybe

As I recall

They opposed for years and blocked the commission from doing a proper job and report of 911.
The materials from the site were shipped away before any one was able to analyze them.
The building was insured against terrorist attacks how many weeks before?..6? not one insurance policy, but two..
The building which was 'pulled' admitted to by the owner of the building. And refused to elaborate. How did they even rig the building up to be pulled in this time frame...
And then the invasion of iraq, iran, libya, syria, installing puppet governments and corporations to own the natural resources.
And the constant barrage of propaganda from the tv networks.

Who else would it have benefited? Muslims? please..

[rachmaninoff_forever]

You know, they did a news report about the bombs planted on the George Washington bridge.

Four people were arrested during the attack,

And then it dissapeared from the news permanently.


They thought that nobody noticed!

[iansinclair]

Dear me.  Haven't we had enough of this nonsense?  First, on the questions...

1) Did the Bush Administration (or powers that controlled it) attack their own people in New York and the Pentagon 9/11/2001 to propel their campaign for a "War on Terror"?

2) Do you think that this "War on Terror" is really a war on terror?


One other question I'd like to ask Americans

3) Do you feel more safe and secure in your country or does it overall feel no different, like Springfield's Bear Patrol or Lisa Simpson's Tiger-Repellant Rock?

On question 1.  No.  Just plain no.  And I might add that I have always -- always -- found in studying conspiracy theories of all stripes that they say a good deal more about the people who espouse the theories than they do about reality.

On question 2.  I think "war on terror" is probably a rather poor slogan, but I didn't invent it.  What the fundamental situation is, however, is a very interesting study in a highly assymetric conflict between, on the one hand, a rather small group of dedicated (I could say fanatical, but that's a loaded term) individuals trying to impose their vision on as many people as possible and, on the other hand, a very large group of people who don't really want that to happen but who, not being as dedicated, find it very difficult to oppose effectively.

On question 3.  No.  And to this extent the 9/11 attack, and subsequent attacks elsewhere (e.g. London, 7/7), have succeeded.  Most of the european style world has sacrificed a very large measure of freedom for a negligible gain in safety.

As to many of the other comments... the engineering analysis of the failure of the twin towers, which I have read and which I am qualified to read and understand, is perhaps the most thorough analysis of a structural failure as I have ever seen.  There was nothing found to suggest that the collapse was the result of anything other than fuel fed fires of large intensity affecting the structural strength of columns in their vicinity.  Period.  I strongly recommend that you read the original report -- it is very long and very technical -- rather than depending on somewhat dubious internet and media sources.

Semper Fi, y'all

[lostinidlewonder]

I read this about that van Rach, pretty wierd.
https://911blogger.com/news/2007-09-21/corroborating-orwell-van-full-explosives-gw-bridge

[lostinidlewonder]

Dear me.  Haven't we had enough of this nonsense?  First, on the questions...

On question 1.  No.  Just plain no.  And I might add that I have always -- always -- found in studying conspiracy theories of all stripes that they say a good deal more about the people who espouse the theories than they do about reality.

On question 2.  I think "war on terror" is probably a rather poor slogan, but I didn't invent it.  What the fundamental situation is, however, is a very interesting study in a highly assymetric conflict between, on the one hand, a rather small group of dedicated (I could say fanatical, but that's a loaded term) individuals trying to impose their vision on as many people as possible and, on the other hand, a very large group of people who don't really want that to happen but who, not being as dedicated, find it very difficult to oppose effectively.

On question 3.  No.  And to this extent the 9/11 attack, and subsequent attacks elsewhere (e.g. London, 7/7), have succeeded.  Most of the european style world has sacrificed a very large measure of freedom for a negligible gain in safety.

As to many of the other comments... the engineering analysis of the failure of the twin towers, which I have read and which I am qualified to read and understand, is perhaps the most thorough analysis of a structural failure as I have ever seen.  There was nothing found to suggest that the collapse was the result of anything other than fuel fed fires of large intensity affecting the structural strength of columns in their vicinity.  Period.  I strongly recommend that you read the original report -- it is very long and very technical -- rather than depending on somewhat dubious internet and media sources.

Semper Fi, y'all

Thanks for your opinion ian much appreciated.

[lostinidlewonder]

On the matter of WTC 7

https://letsrollforums.com/wtc-7-pull-according-t21675.html

[oxy60]

Well said Ian, and thank you for your service.

The reason no one has read the engineering report is that it is longer than 10 words. The concept though is known to all of us who played with blocks as little children. Today there are a lot of people who have never played with basic toys. To make something work and be fun you had to create it.

As far as reporters and news sources are concerned they can't get anything right, not even the deliberations of a local public school board!

[lloyd_cdb]

So where does everybody get their information on which to base their questions and doubts?

Is anyone on the inside?

Do you believe that what you hear or read is accurate?

I believe the articles I read that look accurate are accurate (huh?). What I mean is that I know how good articles are properly supported, written and organized. If they don't meet my criteria, I'll read them but look for other sources to confirm it. Often times I'll follow the link "read the whole story here" until it leads me to the actual study that's being misinterpreted.

When doing research for debates such as these I try to find scholarly articles that deal with one aspect or another, not everything as a conglomerate (which is why my posts end up being so long). Even the most intelligent people don't know the ins and outs of every aspect of an event. As Ian mentioned, he's much more qualified than any of us to respond to the engineering aspects of the event. I believe I'm qualified to respond to the financial aspects without needing scholarly research. No one person can know every aspect, but putting things together from credible sources gives a reliable big picture.

Things I find suspicious are broken links that contain the 'facts' of the argument as well as circular citations leading to sites effectively quoting themselves.

I can assure you, I'm not on the inside

The building was insured against terrorist attacks how many weeks before?..6? not one insurance policy, but two..

The building was leased 2 months prior, so of course the policy was 2 months old. The previous insurance policy already covered terrorist attacks as I mentioned earlier. Common sense really for a building that had ALREADY been the victim of an act of terror. In fact, that insurance policy covered acts of terror even BEFORE the 1993 bombing, considering it paid out more than 500 million in '93. It was also only 1 insurance policy. The owner was trying to collect on it twice claiming each plane was a separate event. That doesn't mean it's two policies, that means he's trying not to take a $4b+ loss in a matter of two months.

Regardless, all of his 'profit' from the insurance is mandated to go into new construction... as I mentioned earlier.

The reason no one has read the engineering report is that it is longer than 10 words.

If you want to convey a point about how people are incapable of reading more than 10 words, don't make your sentence 16 

[thesixthsensemusic]

I'm quite sure it was no inside job, but it was to blame on the government. You see, the US has many intelligence agencies with overlapping responsibilities, and as anyone in any Western country (even well-governed ones like Denmark or Sweden for example) can tell, a mere 2 government agencies having to work together can easily mess things up.

I strongly believe they had enough info to prevent it, but bits and pieces of this info was in different hands of people of different competing agencies, who communicated badly. That would explain why the government is not telling the entire truth.

Also, the most commonly heard argument for the towers being blown up instead of collapsing due to the fire, that the steel girders do not melt at the temperature at which kerosene burns, is irrelevant. Rapidly changing temperatures due to fire and massive amounts of water from sprinkler systems and burst heating pipes etc. make steel become very brittle, similar to metal fatigue.

Add to that some disturbance in the structural integrity of the building (cracks in the concrete, broken construction elements at the point of impact etc.) and possibly damage from the previous WTC-bombing in '93, and you got a very unstable construction left. It is also imaginable that the buildings should not have been opened again after the '93 bombing due to damage, with this being ignored for financial reasons.

All in all a myriad of possible reasons why the government is lying, without it being an inside job.

Regarding the 'war on terror', I do believe it started as a genuine war on terrorists but it went way out of hand and this is likely due to the tendency of weak heads of state to try and prove they are among the big leaders in history.

[lostinidlewonder]

One interesting idea about the 911 is that there were many actors there on the day of the disaster who played it up for the cameras.

https://letsrollforums.com/9-11-wtc-actors-t24998.html

[oxy60]

I was at home on 911 getting ready to go to breakfast and then watch a soccer game at 2045 CET (1145 local). I remember that it was cancelled (at least our TV feed). Then all of the navy ships left the bay, the border was closed (both ways) and all of the check points were operating. Normally they are closed and you just drive through. Or when they are open they just wave you through. All of a sudden I got to talk to an officer and then I was waved through.

I had high hopes that finally things would tighten up. It was really too loose. One could drive into places that should be closed, as well as visit ships and submarines which were totally open.

As is the case with our government in all areas once the excitement wears off it goes back to business as usual, until the next crisis breaks out. Then they rush out and try to solve that.

 

[birba]

Where were you?  Were you on a navy base?  What's CET?  It was about 9 in the morning i remember.

[oxy60]

Where were you?  Were you on a navy base?  What's CET?  It was about 9 in the morning i remember.

Oh how I envy your sheltered life! If you are in Italy, CET Central (Continental) European Time is the time on your clock, otherwise known as Romance Standard Time.

Yes the attack occurred around 9AM Eastern Time which was while I was asleep. UEFA games always start at 2045 CET. Why? I don't know.

Where was I? If you look at a map/globe you can figure it out from what I have written. Hint, today our local law enforcement is looking for a very violent and dangerous man.

[p2u_]

UEFA games always start at 2045 CET. Why? I don't know.

Everyone tries to make it 19:45 UK time (= 20:45 CET). Can you imagine what that is like in Russia on a working day?
P.S.: I don't like soccer very much, so I don't suffer personally...

Paul

[oxy60]

Everyone tries to make it 19:45 UK time (= 20:45 CET). Can you imagine what that is like in Russia on a working day?
P.S.: I don't like soccer very much, so I don't suffer personally...

Paul

We've got a couple UK pubs in town so an early lunch at 1145 local time means I get to see the game on my lunch break. When the game is free to air I can see it at home.

[birba]

Well, in the us alone they're looking for dangerous men in washington, south dakota, alabama, new jersey, wisconsin...that's not much of a hint.  And if it was 20:45  cet(?) it was only 2:45 est in the states.  Give me another hint.  I know! Australia.  No. Wait.  11:45 would put you in the atlantic somewhere.  And anywho,  here it was in the afternoon.   No, don't get it.  And you're right.  Italy is never-never land...

[p2u_]

Give me another hint.

1) Without wanting to spoil the suspense, as far as I know, 20:45 (CET) is 11:45 am PT in California. But actually, you don't need that info or anything written on this page to find out for sure.

Hope that helps.

Paul

[stiefel]

lloyd you are my hero.   Lostinidlewonder, half of the "sources" you have put forth are nothing more than conspiracy blogs and forums.  no better than wikipedia.

[birba]

Got it.  It had already happened when you found out.  In fact, the buildings had already fallen.  And you get up late...

[p2u_]

Got it.  It had already happened when you found out.  In fact, the buildings had already fallen.  And you get up late...

Logical deduction is also an approach. You can also have a look in oxy60's profile. Even if we assume that the data there could be fake, a targeted Google search reveals that he left no doubt about his location (5 pages of results for this forum only). If that is all fake, then I propose him to run for president...

[Sorry for the off-topic, guys.]

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

lloyd you are my hero.   Lostinidlewonder, half of the "sources" you have put forth are nothing more than conspiracy blogs and forums.  no better than wikipedia.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. The point is that people read and come to their own conclusions and not just accept what is spoonfed to them.

[oxy60]

Logical deduction is also an approach. You can also have a look in oxy60's profile. Even if we assume that the data there could be fake, a targeted Google search reveals that he left no doubt about his location (5 pages of results for this forum only). If that is all fake, then I propose him to run for president...

[Sorry for the off-topic, guys.]

Paul

I thought that for sure the story about the check points would give it away. Both Mexico and the US have check points about 50 miles from the border. We jokingly call it the border zone. We also have them within the zone.

At this moment because of the manhunt the border is effectively closed because you will wait two or more hours to have you and your car inspected before you can cross into Mexico. It will always be 2-3 hours coming back.

Actually we're not off topic. All of this security was put in place because of 911.

And Birba, do you remember when Italy had its own time? And we would need to set our watches to "Rome Time" when we entered? It was like 5 minutes difference.

[birba]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "rome time".  But if you do make an appointment with someone, you might as well turn your watch BACK a half-hour.

[pianoplunker]

You are right Birba that one person is not enough. But with the Internet information is spread and those that want truth can be informed. The US authorities are infuriated that this happens, look at their activities blocking donations to wikileaks and their persecution of my fellow Aussie founder Julian Assange.

I am bring it up because the information now is as clear as ever. The misinformation spread is being revealed and the truths are standing stronger and stronger. The amount of high profile people who disagree with the 911 commission is very disturbing. The smoke has cleared, the bullshit is losing its power very fast thanks to the Internet.

Are you actually saying the Internet is not a haven of misinformation but actually is a haven of truth ?   Some of the stuff spread on the internet is blatantly false and stupid. For instance, if you search you will find that each flight had different flight numbers at different times - but that is false.  There are pictures of the planes as they were about to crash that are false. there is even a story of a person on the roof of one of the towers when it collapsed - and how he survived. Sorry but a soft fleshly creature is not going to fall 1000 feet in rubble and survive. As far as the internet, it is an immaculate tool to spread misinformation. Even pianists often find bad technique lessons that are just plain wrong.  If you are relying on the internet to give you the truth about anything, you'll have to wait .

[oxy60]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "rome time".  But if you do make an appointment with someone, you might as well turn your watch BACK a half-hour.

When I lived there only two appointments were possible; morning +/- 1100 and afternoon +/- 1600.

Now back to topic. 911 did usher in more security, with more checks and ID verification. Before your passport, drivers license and ticket didn't need to match perfectly. One had initials for first and last names. another had first and last with a middle initial and another had all three spelled out. Now my ticket has a bar code and my passport is machine readable so when I check in at the kiosk they both must match.

Our check points are now open and checking. It slows down your trip but catches a lot that slipped through before.

I don't feel that my freedoms are threatened but if it gets more tight it will become a real pain.