IMO, this is worth 14 minutes of your time.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=182276495959906...c+demolition&pl=true

A related video from the same meeting...

Why did WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapse?: Were there explosives planted?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5848378758602000405&q=wtc&pl=true

Not to be rude but.
Who cares.
The result is the same.

The result is not the same at all. Controlled demolition means that there had to be more people involved than just the 19 hijackers. It means that security at the trade center buildings was comprimised-and remember bldg. 7 housed CIA & FBI offices, I'm sure security would be pretty tight there. It also means that there was intentional cover up of the evidence of controlled demolition afterwards. I beleive this is the best evidence we have that the 911 Comission report is a whitewash.

Also see Steven Jones' report.

The "result" is the same...the meaning behind it changes completely.

Nice avatar, Cop.

If by 'result' you mean the destruction of the towers, yes. But if you take 'result' to include our actions in response to 911, the results would have been much different.

By result I meant the meaningless loss of lives.
But you got a point there coplinger, a more rapid evacuation could have saved lives.

I think he meant...and wouldn't have gone to war...and we wouldn't have passed the Patriot Act...and we wouldn't have reelected Bush...and we may have impeached him...and thousands MORE UN soldiers wouldn't have died. And thousands and thousands of Iraqis would still be alive. It was frankly a horrible call, IMO, even if this were a true terrorist attack.

Nothing to do with immediate response. I mean, I'm pretty confident they were getting people out as fast as they could.

this has grassy knoll written all over it.

I think he is trying to explain a new catastropic phenomenon in old terms. The type of failures seen in the buildings of 9/11 had never occured before for good reason - no one had crashed fuel laden commercial planes into skyscrapers before.
I think the 'squib' effect he speaks of is just air pressure pushing dust out ahead of the collapse, not timed explosives.
The other factors he mentions have already been adequately explained by numerous, and more credible experts.
Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy, with no other hidden explanations other than the obvious one.
I dont even want to imagine whom he thinks could have planted controlled and timed explosives, then co ordinated detonations with the hijacked airliners.

Martians did it...

That's as plausible as any other explanation being offered...why won't people accept the fact we were attacked in an act of war?

"sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy" wellsir, this was done on purpose either way. It was a terrorist act and I don't really give a shit if it was some blokes halfway across the world, our own guys, or a combination of both (none would be any more surprising than the other IMHO).


I saw some other video showing how easily the pentagon "crash" may have been staged as well. Interesting.


Wireline, I won't accept it until the facts are in--that may be never. One thing is clear--the US elite sure benefitted from it. Everyone rich got richer and the poiticians got more powerful. If they US didn't have a hand in it, they sure as hell jumped up quick to capitalize off of it.

Also, a few thousand dead on US soil is a joke compared to the untold numbers of people slaughtered in acts of terror carried out by or backed the US over the years. It sure as hell is more than a few thousand token Americans. This IS a well documented fact.

Who knows. Thanks for the link Dot--I haven't watched this video yet--my broswer is being a fucker. I'll try again later.


It IS true, though, that the results are in and what's done is done. That's all I plan to say in this thread.


EDIT: ok I viewd both videos. Interesting. The second video seemed to cut off at less than 5 mins so I didn't get much out of it. The first video was more interesting. Of course, I can't say it's any more factual than the government and big media's version of the propaganda for the simple reason that I'm not a sturctural engineer nor am I a world politics insider...nor was I, or apparently much of anyone else, able to investigate the forensic evidence on or off site.

My own opion lies in that I definitely do not believe the rather weak propaganda that the US media have reported "on behalf" of the government so to speak. That said, I'm not sure what I else I can believe. I think some issues have of course been covered up. What those issues are, I do not know.

Robemmet-
How would you explain the collapse of building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane?
How do you explain the fact that the towers collapsed almost at freefall speed?
If the towers collapsed because of weakened steel, why were there no big steel beams sticking up like toothpicks afterwards? Did all 47 (or however many) steel beams just melt away entirely because of burning jet fuel? I could understand the beams weakening enough in one spot for the buildings to topple over, but you would expect the building above the weak part to fall over on its side, while the part of the building beneath the weak spot to remain standing-at least the steel core.
All 3 buildings imploded into their own footprint, left more dust than rubble, and burned for weeks afterwards. I realize there are experts arguing both sides of this issue, but for me, common sense clearly tells me which theory most closely resembles what happened.

Another thing-typically, after a plane crash, all the debris is carefully collected, taken to a hangar somewhere & pieced back together to reconstruct what happened. After 911, the steel that was left was immediately shipped to China to be destroyed.

I didn't want to imagine who could have pulled this off either, but I think it would be best for the future of our country if we all start asking this question instead of blindly accepting what the government & media are telling us.

Speaking of the Pentagon crash, Dirty, I have always wondered why we were allowed to see video footage of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC from every angle, but the video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon has never been released. There were many witnesses that saw the plane hit the pentagon, but this seems very curious to me. Possibly it was A plane, just not THE plane we were told it was.

Reminds me of when the Estonia sank.
All kind of mafia and KGB theories where televised a few years later. None of them did really hold water, so to speak :-/

All of the conspiracy theories just make me laugh. First of all, this guy from MIT (and I'm not trying to take away from his credibility) does not address all of the variables that could cause the effects, that he claims were definitively caused by controlled demolition. 1)He never makes mention of the adverse affects that extreme pressure can have on various materials. 2)He uses bulding specs to say that the structure should have been able to withstand the impact and that only controlled demo could bring that building down. The fact of the matter is that those buildings were not designed with a large plane crashing into them in mind. Being that that type of scenario was never anticipated ,relevent testing for the situation was never done. Until those tests are done, no one, not even the designer of the building, can accurately explain how the structure and its integrity will react to such an impact. I'm no engineer so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I do know that when you have out of the ordinary occurances, you can probably count on having some out of the ordinary results. I just find it problematic when people try to apply convintional wisdom to a unconvintional situation.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

Nor were WTC3,4,5, and 6, but those were heavily damaged if not destroyed. Also they point out in the phone call that the commissioner gave the call to "pull it" referring to WTC7, and then they make the arguement that the controlled demo would have taken weeks to set up. It takes weeks to setup the type of demo that we've all seen on TV where they bring down a building in such a precise way that it dosn't even scratch the building across the street but in my opinion, though I'm no expert, though WTC7 looked somewhat controlled but there is still debris and what not flying everywhere. The point is it doesn't take two weeks to bring down a building, it just takes two weeks to bring down a building in such a precise manner not to hurt neighboring buildings. I don't think that a little damage to neighboring buildings was the main concern in this situation.

BTW, if anyone thinks that there was prior planting of demolition and explosives in these buildings before 9/11, then why even fly the planes into the building. I mean think about it. If someone had enough access to plant explosives, and assuming that someone did in fact do this, why wouldn't they just flip the switch and blow the buildings up without the planes. Just seems like alot of extra work for the same end result. It's like if someone tried to murder someone by poisoning them and then shot them after they had taken the poison. Why shoot them when the poison would have already done the job. Not sure if that is a good analogy but it just seems that some of the arguements being made are going against common sense.

The reason for the planes may have been: 1. to cover up the controlled demolition & 2. to set up scapegoats for the attacks-the 19 hijackers.
I'm not understanding the point you made in the 1st paragraph. I'm not sure what phone call you are referring to & who the comissioner is who gave the call to pull it. I did see footage from PBS where Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, commented that there was a decision made to 'pull it'. Are you saying you agree that WTC7 was brought down on purpose?

The phone call is in the second vid that Dot posted and it was the fire dept. commander, not commisioner(sorry), who made the call to "pull it". Do I think WTC7 was brought down on purpose, yes. Do I think that it was set up to be demolished prior to the attack, no. I think it was way to take control of the situation since they couldn't get control of the fire. It's kind of like when firefighters intentionally start a controlled forest fire in able to combat an out of control forest fire.

As far as your reasoning for the planes, it's not really making sense to me. If the purpose of the planes were to cover up the controlled demo and be a scapegoat then who do you think was behind the demo part.

If it were another terrorist group, I would think that they would step up and claim their participation in the act, being that most terrorists groups have never before been shy about claiming the atrocities they commit. They seem to almost gloat about them since they think Allah favors their crimes.

If the US government were behind this in any way, shape, or form,(and I get the feeling that all of this conspiracy theory is pointing to US involvement) don't you think that the terrorists would have exposed this by now. If the demo was, in fact, set up prior to the attack, I have to believe that the hijacking group knew about it(it would just be too big of a coincidense for them not to). Being that they would have known of the prior demo setup by a US entity, Al Qaida would have exposed that involvement long ago simply because the leak of such a conspiracy would cripple the US government, and we all know how much they would love that to happen.

Good questions BuckShot. If you think WTC was 'pulled', then why would the 911 comission leave that out? If they left that out, what else might they have omitted?

As far as who was really behind it, I don't know. But we can look at who benifitted:
1. The Neocons & their ideology that we should be exporting democracy around the globe
2. Large corporations such as Halliburton, oil companies & weapons manufacturers
3. Global banking interests who lend us all this money we're spending
4. Radical Islam & Al Qaeda who were able to further their agenda
5. Israel who gets almost unconditional support from us in all middle east policy
6. Larry Silverstein who had a recently upped insurance policy on the buildings
7. Whoever made a fortune those stock market put options-unfortunately, the SEC won't let us know who that was

Al Qaeda in its origins was trained & funded by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Possibly, there is still a connection there and for Al Qaeda to expose 911 would be to expose themselves as well.