This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

New 9/11 Documentary

OP

Mad Vlad

Had a look at that specific section.
It's hardly groundbreaking. The only indictment I can form of the US government is poor communication between agencies (The FAA won't have been aware of any of this intelligence about Bin Laden and won't have been looking out for planes going AWOL, flying into buildings and neither would the relatively low ranking officers at NORAD who were co-ordinating the response)

Hardly indicative of a Governmental plot to commit genocide, really. They were merely caught (disasterously) unawares.

That's sounds like quite the fool's paradise you live in...

Standard procedure meant that as soon as either :

1) A plane lost contact
2) A plane went off course
3) The transponder stopped working

The FAA were supposed to immediately contact the military, however all three of these major problems happened on the morning of 9/11. The pattern for each alleged hijacking was nearly identical, as in the case of flight 11, which lost contact at 8:13, it took a staggering 24 minutes to phone NORAD.

In the case of flight 77, it lost contact at 8:50 and then went drastically off course at 8:55, yet supposedly nobody contacted NORAD until 9:25. This is way beyond mere incompetence, as the planes were given free reign for nearly two hours, in a country where they are known to have the most most advanced airforce in the World.

If there was any country where something like 9/11 couldn't happen without inside help, then it would be the US...

Reply 41

liverpool05

OP

caw123

If, as you say, the planes and fires were not enough to bring the towers down, wouldn't the conspirators just use bigger planes that would, ie, a 747's or Airbus A340's? It would be far, far simpler than rigging up 2 of the biggest skyscrapers in the world with explosives, in secret.

The problem with that is crashing planes into massive skyscrapers won't make them totally collapse in a matter of seconds. Here is what an expert said, when asked for his honest opinion in the days just after 9/11.

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,
NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

NOTE: A FEW DAYS AFTER MAKING THIS STATEMENT, ROMERO
RETRACTED IT. PERHAPS HE SUDDENLY FELT THAT HE HIMSELF
MAY VERY SOON EITHER HAVE A FIERY ACCIDENT OR EXPLODE.
WELL, BY RETRACTING IT, ROMERO MAY LIVE, AND BY MAKING IT IN
THE FIRST PLACE, WE MAY HAVE FOUND THE CORRECT ANALYSIS.

Reply 42

FyreFight

14

Bismarck

If someone from your family was killed by a serial killer, how would you feel if someone started telling everyone that this family member was murdered by your government?

So what you're saying is that because the government says it wasn't them, any throrough and completely independant investigation into the cause of 9/11 is only an insult to those who died that day? You don't think that the families of those victims would want an thorough investigation too? In my opinion, simply taking the government's account for what it is without even considering any alternative theories is far more disrespectful to the deceased than suggesting that maybe it's not the whole truth.

As an afternote, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's just that your argument is weak.

Reply 43

FyreFight

14

liverpool05

The problem with that is crashing planes into massive skyscrapers won't make them totally collapse in a matter of seconds. Here is what an expert said, when asked for his honest opinion in the days just after 9/11.

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,
NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

NOTE: A FEW DAYS AFTER MAKING THIS STATEMENT, ROMERO
RETRACTED IT. PERHAPS HE SUDDENLY FELT THAT HE HIMSELF
MAY VERY SOON EITHER HAVE A FIERY ACCIDENT OR EXPLODE.
WELL, BY RETRACTING IT, ROMERO MAY LIVE, AND BY MAKING IT IN
THE FIRST PLACE, WE MAY HAVE FOUND THE CORRECT ANALYSIS.

That theory of a "diversionary attack" to draw victims to the site of a second bomb, thus killing the croud, is utter crap. The planes caused people to evacuate the tower, leaving less victims for the imaginary "secondary device." I think the reason he retracted it was because he realised it was crap.

Reply 44

liverpool05

OP

NSiky

That theory of a "diversionary attack" to draw victims to the site of a second bomb, thus killing the croud, is utter crap. The planes caused people to evacuate the tower, leaving less victims for the imaginary "secondary device."

The diversion was the planes hitting the towers, the theory being that it would have been very hard to explain how Al-Qaeda managed to get access and plant explosives in the buildings.

I think the reason he retracted it was because he realised it was crap.

I think the real reason he retracted it, was because he realised how dangerous his explosive statement was. Whatever his reasons were he has reaped the rewards of retracting his initial statement.

http://911review.com/coverup/romero.html

Reply 45

Sexy_fish

1

i watched a programme on channel 4 about it the other day, it was interesting indeed

Reply 46

Mad Vlad

19

liverpool05

The problem with that is crashing planes into massive skyscrapers won't make them totally collapse in a matter of seconds. Here is what an expert said, when asked for his honest opinion in the days just after 9/11.

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,
NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

NOTE: A FEW DAYS AFTER MAKING THIS STATEMENT, ROMERO
RETRACTED IT. PERHAPS HE SUDDENLY FELT THAT HE HIMSELF
MAY VERY SOON EITHER HAVE A FIERY ACCIDENT OR EXPLODE.
WELL, BY RETRACTING IT, ROMERO MAY LIVE, AND BY MAKING IT IN
THE FIRST PLACE, WE MAY HAVE FOUND THE CORRECT ANALYSIS.

Explosives? :rolleyes:

You're exactly the sort of cretinous idiot I've been talking about. Clearly unable to comprehend that explosives had nothing to do with it.
Romero retracted that statement, realising he was WRONG. Not because the Gestapo was coming after him ^o)

There were serious failures in communication between the FAA and NORAD. That's clear from the abysmal response times. Procedures weren't followed properly. They were having a hell of a morning, not to mention the fact they were delayed by trying to figure out what planes were hijacked, had crashed or had just lost their transponder.
But come on, what you're suggesting is that someone in the loop delayed the instruction to inform NORAD. Bit farfetched to say the least.

Reply 47

liverpool05

OP

Mad Vlad

Explosives? :rolleyes:

That is what the demolition expert said, when asked for his honest opinion.

You're exactly the sort of cretinous idiot I've been talking about. Clearly unable to comprehend that explosives had nothing to do with it.

You have seriously weakened any arguement you may have had, by resorting to childish insults.

Romero retracted that statement, realising he was WRONG.

You are speculating, as only he himself knows the reason for the retraction of his explosive statement. Is this shouting your way of emphasizing how certain you think you are?

Not because the Gestapo was coming after him ^o)

Again you are speculating, while I prefer to stick to the facts.

There were serious failures in communication between the FAA and NORAD. That's clear from the abysmal response times. Procedures weren't followed properly.

You never wondered why procedures weren't followed?

There must have been a very good reason, yet this has never been explained.

They were having a hell of a morning

Which is what they do all the hours of training for, so they can respond to the best of their ability, which they managed admirably when landing more than 4,000 planes in the air at the time, without incident.

But come on, what you're suggesting is that someone in the loop delayed the instruction to inform NORAD. Bit farfetched to say the least.

I'm not suggesting it, the official story states that there was at least a 24 minute delay between flight 11 losing contact and NORAD being contacted. Even worse with flight 77 there was supposedly a 35 minute delay.

Reply 48

filastini

14

Bismarck

I have no intention of wasting my time providing evidence to people like that.

LOL

Reply 49

ryan750

2

Bismarck

Anyone who is willing to attack the memory of the victims of the 9/11 attacks is not human as far as I'm concerned. They do not deserve my respect.

Thats laughable - don't you realise what this thread is actually about??? Its about a new documentary - 9/11 press for truth - that FOLLOWS WIDOWS OF 9/11 and their mission to get an investigation of 9/11. There are many victims of 9/11 that have serious questions - they demand answers.

Bill Clinton lied to the world publicly by denying his affair (politicians can easily bare face lie to people so don't be so surprised) - then a $100 million investigation was made into this affair.

After 2 years of lobbying government - the 9/11 investigation was initially granted $3 million to carry it out. This was obviously an unacceptable level of funding - but yet the amount never rose above $15 million.

The difference in funding between an investigation into one mans sexual affairs and the deaths of 3000 people and the worst 'attack' in history is shocking. The investigation never answered most of the questions of the widows anyway. Watch the documentary on google video before you quickly make your mind up.

Reply 50

ryan750

2

Mad Vlad

I completely agree. The reason why there's not much in the way of hard evidence about 7 WTC is because nobody could give a toss about it, seeing as there was a pile of 1 million tons of rubble with people trapped inside it.

Conspiracy theorists have just jumped on this lack of strong evidence and are just shouting CONSPIRACY, with little evidence to back it up, other than a convenient photo that is hardly conclusive, and very little grey matter either.

Molten metal is found under all the towers days and weeks after their collapse. Explain that and i will forget about the whole thing. Someone trying to explain this by the fact that it is either aluminium or the reaction of steam and steel allowed the high temperatures to reach can be easily refuted.

Aluminium = high emissitivity ie. loses heat very fast
Steel and steam only react explosively when the steel is in a wire or powder so the surface area to volume ratio is high.

Reply 51

ryan750

2

caw123

Can you think of a credible motive for demolishing WTC7? If so, please present it here.

Caw - Why don't you provide a credible explanation for the molten metal beneath the 3 collapsed buildings? Before you demand all the answers, why don't you start providing some.

Reply 52

ryan750

2

caw123

This one has been debunked. He spent it all building the new WTC7, that cost $700 million to build. And he lost 5 years of office rent from the old building, which amounts to approx $200 million. Pretty pointless to demolish a perfectly good building(it was only 14 years old) if you're just going to build a new one straight away, wouldn't you agree?

By the way, he did not admit demolition. 'Pull' is not used to describe explosive demolition, it is a firefighting term. If he admitted it - why aren't the insurance companies prosecuting him for massive fraud?

Pull is a demolition term - in fact i've seen it used in the closest context to this scenario as is possible. WTC 6 was demolished and a man is heard relaying the fact that they are about to 'pull' the building to a colleague. Then we see it demolished with explosives. This footage is on many documentaries and is on a new documentary on google - so this shows that you haven't researched this at all or you are lying (which i know you do because of the last time we debated this topic).

Reply 53

ryan750

2

Mad Vlad

If this evidence is of the standard of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you might as well pack it in now. You'll just make a tit of yourself.

Molten metal under all 3 collapsed buildings anyone? Found days and weeks after anyone?

Reply 54

ryan750

2

Mad Vlad

No I didn't. I've seen umpteen conspiracy documentaries and none seem to be able to change the fact that the official version of events, backed up by the finest minds in the world and god knows how many other people, is the most likely sequence of events.

So... in other words, you're asking me to drop all the facts, coherent thought, scientific knowledge I have and all my common sense, so that I can have a conversation about a rediculous pipe dream, second only in terms of utter stupidity, to Religion.

I'll just not have the conversation, thanks.

You wanna pick up the fact about molten metal under the 3 collapsed towers? Are you applying scientific knowledge and common sense to explain why it was there?

Reply 55

Profesh

20

El Scotto

watch that movie above from 32mins in... theres nothing from conspiracy theorists in it. Its footage from interviews with the president and his aids.

Bismarck: and yet, this revelation was left unreported. Perhaps there is yet some substance to his argument after all?

Reply 56

ryan750

2

Mad Vlad

Had a look at that specific section.
It's hardly groundbreaking. The only indictment I can form of the US government is poor communication between agencies (The FAA won't have been aware of any of this intelligence about Bin Laden and won't have been looking out for planes going AWOL, flying into buildings and neither would the relatively low ranking officers at NORAD who were co-ordinating the response)

Hardly indicative of a Governmental plot to commit genocide, really. They were merely caught (disasterously) unawares.

Are you kidding me - did you actually have your eyes and ears open when you watched that section? The reason why NORAD and the FAA weren't able to detect the *real* attacks is because they were conducting simulations on their actual radar screens that involved putting false blips to indicate terrorist attacks happening at significant targets in the US. This operation was carried out by Rumsfeld on that day. This also involved sending the majority of jets across america to far away places to take part in simulations of different events.

A similar scenario was being simulated in the UK on 7/7 where they practised for bombings of the london undrground that very same day. All of this information has been confirmed and openly stated.

They seem like amazing coincidences (and of course coincidences do happen) - but one hypothesis is that if the false flag events were to fail and they were found out then they could just say that they were parts of the operation that just went wrong. These false flag events have occurred all throughout history and so are now refined enough to follow a template of one to apply in different circumstances.

Reply 57

rock_eleven

1

ryan750

Pull is a demolition term - in fact i've seen it used in the closest context to this scenario as is possible. WTC 6 was demolished and a man is heard relaying the fact that they are about to 'pull' the building to a colleague. Then we see it demolished with explosives. This footage is on many documentaries and is on a new documentary on google.

I already posted about this:

The way he says "pull" in his interview implies a connection between "pulling" and the collapse of the building. I believe it does mean to demolish.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

http://www.rense.com/general48/cof.htm highlights the fact that Silverstein did not explicitly say that they pulled it.

What he says is that they made the DECISION to "pull" (meaning demolish) WTC 7 and SHORTLY AFTER THEY MADE THAT DECISION, Larry Silverstein says "they watched the building COLLAPSE.

Regardless of what really happened, what this man said does NOT say that the building was demolished.

He clearly says "the decision was made to pull" and then he says,

"and we watched the building collapse"

The connotation is that they were going to demolish it anyway, but golly-gee-wiz the building collapsed right when they made that decision so they DID NOT actually go through with the demolition.

this is a valid point. Silverstein's comment can easily be interpretted to not mean that they demolished it.

Reply 58

Mad Vlad

19

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Bismarck, I can't be bothered spending any more time discussing this issue.
Ryan, you seriously have something stuck far up your arse going on about this molten metal finding. I have no idea how molten metal was found there. I'm not a chemist. How do you suggest it got there? Can you show me any UNBIASED sources to show me how it got there? (By unbiased, I'm taking a well respected journal article - not some 9/11 conspiracy site :rolleyes:

) My only theory off the top of my head would be that during the collapse, some of the steel support columns or the re-bars from the concrete pillars got ground up by the falling debris during the collapse. The pressure from all the weight above it then created a "melting pot" environment where pockets of fire and metal came together to create high temperatures.
I'm merely speculating about this though as I have no expertise on this.
If you want to believe that the US government deliberately killed thousands of their own citizens that day, so be it. I'm happy in the knowledge that you all need to stop dismissing widely held opinion because it supports your own political agenda to make Bush look like a war criminal.