My 9/11 Theory (NOT a timeline)

[smoogatz]

1.Planes hijacked pretty much per the official story, despite all warnings to clueless, incompetent Bushco.

2.Flights 11 & 175 hit the north and south WTC towers, respectively, triggering coverup #1.

3.Flight 77 hits the Pentagon (not a missile, as some have theorized--the missile theory provides no plausible explanation for what happened to flight 97 and its passengers/crew).

4.Flight 93 is shot down over Pennsylvania, triggering coverup #2. The official "Let's Roll" story of a heroic passenger uprising reeks of Bushco propaganda: see Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, et al.

5.WTC 1, 2 and later 7 are imploded by Giuliani and the Port Authority when they've been as fully evacuated as possible, to prevent them from collapsing laterally and destroying multiple blocks of lower Manhattan, triggering coverup #3. Why are 1,2 and 7 wired with explosives? Because of the failed attacks in 1993; the Port Authority knew the WTC was a prime target, and they knew that a lateral collapse could kill tens of thousands of people.

That's it--what do you think?

[sabbat hunter]

1. step 5 problem

if they were wired, why hasnt anyone stepped forward and said this. a project of this magnitude would require a lot of man hours/power and many would be in the know.

why would they implode them with firefighters and policemen inside
why would WTC 7 be wired when it wasnt a target.

explosives also degrade over time, the basements also arent perfectly dry, moisture would ruin them too

finally Guiliani had nothing to do with the WTC. the PA is a bi-state agency not a city one.

[pauldp]

3. CIA commits 100,000 crimes every year

and we hardly ever hear about any of them. Even though they risk catastrophic embarrasment to the US.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/ciacrimes.htm
Who says people can't keep a secret if they have the right motivation?

did I mention it is AT LEAST 100,000 crimes.

[sabbat hunter]

4. i see nothing

on the initial page about any real crimes committed, just a very broad accusation.

the documents on a link from the initial page is very long (congressional report) but i highly doubt it mentions 100,000 crimes.

what are these crimes?

[pauldp]

5. Here's the full paragraph from section IX. Clandestine Service

The following are a few of the arguments for the most direct
and proximate DCI control possible.

1) Most of the operations of the CS are, by all accounts, the
most tricky, politically sensitive, and troublesome of those in the
IC and frequently require the DCI's close personal attention. The
CS is the only part of the IC, indeed of the government, where
hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break
extremely serious laws in counties around the world in the face of
frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch
them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day
(easily 100,000 times a year) DO officers engage in highly illegal
activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political
embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives
of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally,
of the clandestine officer himself. In other words, a typical 28
year old, GS-11 case officer has numerous opportunities every week,
by poor tradecraft or inattention, to embarrass his country and
President and to get agents imprisoned or executed. Considering
these facts and recent history, which has shown that the DCI,
whether he wants to or not, is held accountable for overseeing the
CS, the DCI must work closely with the Director of the CS and hold
him fully and directly responsible to him.

[HamdenRice]

12. To be fair, some of those crimes would be "good" or innocuous ...

I've seen this in person overseas. For example, in the 1980s, if a consular official in South Africa put a human rights group in touch with the international council of churches, then technically that official was breaking the law.

The intelligence community does a lot of really awful stuff, but it's not hard to break the law in most countries even if you are trying to do the right thing.

This paragraph is just an estimate of the total quantitative amount of law breaking -- not a qualitative analysis.

[pauldp]

13. Sure, but the point is many of those crimes are heinous

and more importantly - nobody knows about this. This fact
flies in the face of the "somebody always talks" meme.

[smoogatz]

8. Most likely the work would've been done by a private contractor

All current and former employess could have been made to sign confidentiality agreements. The threat of legal action is usually enough to silence people. They might have imploded them when they did because parts of the facade had already started to fall off, raising the possibility that the towers were no longer structurally stable. Either you implode them with a few hundred people inside, or wait and take a chance that a lateral collapse could kill tens of thousands. What would you do?

Does thermite degrade over time? I have no idea. I'd be happy to look at whatever info you have on the subject.

Fine--cross out Giuliani. Who gives the order? Pataki?

[DemInDistress]

11. MOLTEN METAL DRIPPING FROM THE 80TH FLOOR

of World Trade 2.
DemInDistress (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-16-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #123
157. I did see molten metal dripping from above the crash floors
in wt2..













more 911.wtc.2.demolition.north.01.wmv and more 911.wtc.2.demolition.north.02.wmv

If you hadn't seen these clips they are courtesy of Make-7
I watched in disbelief. What could that be? Molten dripping steel? sure looks like.

good site here,.. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem2/

[smoogatz]

18. Honestly, I couldn't draw any conclusions from that pic.

But thermite will melt steel, apparently.

[DemInDistress]

28. watch these videos...please

Beam Me Up (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-17-06 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. MUCH higher quality videos of this phenomena available here:
1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29912547401458...

2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-85647721032374...

And don't miss this:

http://www.yikers.com/video_thermite_destroys_all.html

[Jose Diablo]

2. Well number 5 is interesting

If that were true, are there other buildings pre-wired to come down?

And why not evacuate both towers 1/2 when they are first hit, instead of sending people back in? It would have been an easy thing to tell people to go to the east and have a beer while we sort this thing out, before the towers came down killing hundreds of fireman and police, to say nothing of the workers in the towers.

I don't know about Giuliani, but I would find it very difficult to believe the Port Authority would agree to pre-wired the towers to come down with the buildings occupied. Just be too many people would say, 'Are you nuts!!?? We aren't gonna pre-wire anything that has people in it'.

[smoogatz]

9. Good question. Who knows?

The Sears? The Hancock Bldg? The Empire State? It makes sense, in a big-picture public safety way, to wire the big, obvious, dangerous targets--even if it means sacrificing the lives of those who can't be evacuated on time. As for the confusion on the ground during the WTC evac--whoever was giving the orders to go back/stay at your desks was clearly out of the loop, if I'm right--and partly responsible for many hundreds of deaths.

[DemInDistress]

6. I'll go # 1 but that's it..and #2 but

#3..flight 77, not a chance. The more puzzling question is "where is flight 77?" certainly didn't hit the pentagon. Where are the pieces? Where are the body parts? Why little to no trace of plane debris? Why circle around to hit that particular wing? I read that section of the pentagon house billing & records that indicated massive thefts of tax payer dollars (Killtown).How did a jet 157 ft. long and almost as wide fit into a 16 ft. hole (Reopen911.org)? Other puzzling facts.
1.On Sept.11 1991 Poppy Cheney and Dumsey (some others in govt) float a 240 billion dollar loan using as collateral counterfeit gold bonds (brady bonds).Those bonds had a due date of Sept.11 2001 (h'm) those bonds were housed in Cantor Fitzgerald located on the 100th floors in World Trade 1 (h'm).Cantor Fitzgerald was destroyed when flight 11 crashed into the 90th (or so) floor.
Secondly. The S.E.C. was conducting a criminal probe into Halliburton and Cheney. The S.E.C. offices were located on the 12th floor in World Trade 7 (h'm). The CIA also known for nefarious operations and may have had connections with the SEC probe had offices on the 7th or 8th floor in World Trade 7 (h'm).
Larry Silverstein upon closing the 99 yr lease for the WTC in July 2001 then doubles or triples the insurance on the complex (h'm). Was he expecting an attack or just dumb luck?
Other money oddities, large amounts of put options far beyond the norm.
Bush/Cheney overloads National banks with extra cash during the summer of threat. Were they expecting a "run" on the banks? (h'm).
No doubt in my mind., 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
All 3 buildings were wired all that was needed was "good cover" and flights 11 & 175 conveniently crashed into them providing that cover. World Trade 7 is a nasty loose end, it can't be explained away. The spinners could try but even Tom "ludicrous" Kean NIST and FEMA can touch it...more later

[smoogatz]

7. Flight 77

Lots of debris was recovered, including engine parts clearly identified as belonging to the appropriate commercial airliner. Flight 77's fuselage was, IIRC, somewhat smaller than the 16' diameter hole. The wings would've been torn to confetti, most likely, and would not have punched through the brick and concrete wall. The hijackers reasons for circling around are unknown. Perhaps that wall had a clearer approach angle. Perhaps a lot of things. But there's absolutely no persuasive evidence, IMO, that a missile or anything other than an airliner hit the Pentagon.

WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris, apparently--enough to make it unstable. My theory is that they detonated it just to be on the safe side.

On edit: as for the SEC, Poppy and the rest--it's all just speculation. If Cheney wanted to fuck up the SEC investigation of Halliburton, why would he wait 'til WTC 7 was evacuated to destroy the building? Why not take out the agents in charge when he had the chance? Halliburton is clearly entirely above the law as long as Cheney's running the country--I doubt they were worried about the toothless SEC.

[DemInDistress]

10. SEC..counterfeit brady bonds...GET REAL

9.11 investigation

Documents point to 911 attack on America by White House crime families
author: Tom Flocco
Sioux City, Iowa -- September 4, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com -- According to leaked documents from an intelligence file obtained through a military source in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), on or about September 12, 1991 non-performing and unauthorized gold-backed debt instruments were used to purchase ten-year "Brady" bonds. The bonds in turn were illegally employed as collateral to borrow $240 billion--120 in Japanese Yen and 120 in Deutsch Marks--exchanged for U.S. currency under false pretenses; or counterfeit and unlawful conversion of collateral against which an unlimited amount of money could be created in derivatives and debt instruments.
The $240 billion in stolen currency was obtained resulting from George H. W. Bush's presidential abuse of power, when he authorized former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady and former Secretary of State James Baker III to make fraudulent use of the Durham Family Trust collateral without her permission. There is evidence that Colonel Hermann's and V. K. Durham's signatures were forged on a Goldman-Sachs bank account certification requesting the conversions to U.S. currency.

The money was never repaid since the ten-year Brady bonds--purchased before September 13, 1991 using the fraudulent collateral and gold bullion as security came due on September 12, 2001--the day after the 9.11 attacks, having allegedly been underwritten and held by the trustee, Cantor-Fitzgerald bond brokerage firm .

Read the whole story: http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FinancialTerrorism.htm

[hack89]

14. Tom Flocco - now there's a reputable source

Independent substantiation of his positions has not been abundant and his website is now listed on bogus 9/11 truth sites. Flocco's story on Barbara Olsen being arrested in Europe was quickly debunked and derided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flocco

[DemInDistress]

16. guess if you don't hear news from faux..its all lies !!

This intelligence file, one that has been suppressed by our government as they have suppressed all other matters relating to 9-11-2001, has names, banks, account numbers, wire transfer instructions, security codes, and more information to clearly show who was involved in a $120 billion debt due and that debt was definitely due in September of 2001. It did not get paid, and had it been paid, our information shows that a ring of robber barons would have been exposed to be misusing fake gold collateral certificates to borrow money under false pretenses (very large sums of money at that) and then never repay it. In short, had it been paid, they were caught red-handed.

That the "legitimacy" of such bogus instruments directly involves some in our government is something that we citizens of the Untied States need to address and purge them from the government once and for all, and even purge them from the markets that drive such greed based on deception and false documentation that has the appearance of legitimacy and color of law.

They are on the public payroll to serve the public
http://www.bushstole04.com/9-11-01_article_16C.htm

DO SOME RESEARCH OR DO YOU WORK FOR THE GOP?

[smoogatz]

19. Flocco's been caught with his rhetorical pants down too many times

to be taken seriously. He's one of the people, IMO, who irresponsibly discredits those who are serious about deconstructing the bogus government account of what happened on 9/11. The fact that I think that does not make me a Republican operative. We can disagree about Flocco and still be on the same side, my friend.

[hack89]

26. Any person who writes for the American Free Press

is highly questionable. Why do you trust people who write for sites that are banned on DU for their neo-Nazi views?

[jmb597]

21. Why do you come here?

I don't understand why the people who REFUSE to be open minded about what really happen on 9/11 spend a lot of time here. Why waste your time and energy posting arguments? It's either you are working for the GOP to stear us away from the truth, or you believe it just a tiny bit that you keep coming back to check what else has come up. I believe you guys have some kind of motivation to keep coming here...now what is it?

[mirandapriestly]

22. what's weird is they post NO WHERE ELSE on DU..

hmmmmm...

[hack89]

25. But this is where the fun stuff is. nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

54. If you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid name-calling.

Just a suggestion.

[DemInDistress]

70. I admit..some DEBUNKERS cause me to lose it...but I asked

for genuine 911 hunters not DEBUNKERS.. Which are you trotsky? be honest please.

[trotsky]

71. The way you use the terms, I am neither.

Though I'm sure most on here think I'm a "debunker."

[hack89]

24. Because I enjoy it here ..

it's not like I expend a lot of time or effort here.

Why the hysterics? I think you are taking yourself a little too seriously.

[jmb597]

37. ummmm

but you do spend a lot of time here...I see a post or 10 from you everyday. If you are talking about me taking myself too seriously...um yeah, this topic is pretty serious. Thousands of people have died and we are in two wars because of 9/11. I don't come here for playtime, I come here to read what others have found so I can have a better understanding of ALL evidence out there. IF the government really did this...GOD FORBID THEY GET AWAY WITH IT.

[hack89]

39. Look closer ..

ten posts take less then an hour of effort. I post mainly in the evenings after work (today is an exception - took the day off) - this is a good place to unwind and think about things other than my job.

The topic may be serious but the holier than thou attitude wears thin - why don't you take off the hair shirt? And the personal attacks on people who dare to disagree with you are not the necessarily the best way to impress everyone with your maturity and intellect.

If you want justice then stop muddying the waters with all these CTs that simply distract from Bush's real crimes - crimes that most people would accept if the facts were known.

[jmb597]

45. first...

You come here everyday and have over 1000 posts...I think that speaks for itelf. Does 9/11 really relieve your stress from your job? I would think a site with happy thoughts would do just that. I think this forum would only add to your frustration because most don't see eye to eye with you.

What personal attacks? I don't have a problem with people not agreeing with me. Some are scared to. I would never personally attack someone who doesn't want to believe their own government was in on it. That is a lot to take (especially if you lost someone that day). Those people who think we are ridiculous for thinking this could be an inside job wouldn't even waste their time here. I have no problem with that.

I am only questioning your motivation and why you seem so deadset on refuting every single plausible evidence that comes out that opposes the official story. You seem like you want to change everyones mind here about 9/11 and I don't know what you get out of that. Especially because this forum is for all of us who think it was an inside job...that is why all 9/11 posts that oppose the official story, gets moved here. So, here we have a place for our views and you have the audacity to come here knowing what we all think, and yet, you are wasting your time to refute anything we come up with. I have a problem with that.

This forum is definitely not distracting from Bush's other crimes...this forum is not on the front page of newspapers or magazines. I don't see the media reporting on this...I actually see this being ignored...of course with the help of yourself. Besides, if we think this is also a Bush Crime and can bring up valid questions that have not been answered...well then, I think we have the right to discuss it...don't you?

[hack89]

47. Please keep the personalties out of it ...

if the "proper" emotions and people's motivations are more important to you then facts then perhaps you simply need to ignore me.

I will continue to come here and post as I have done in the past - what you make of it is of no concern to me.

[jmb597]

52. haha...you are funny.

Facts are important to me...they aren't important to you. You don't consider facts...that is why we are not on the same side as far as 9/11 goes. I don't want this to be true...why would I? What benefit do I get out of thinking my Government has betrayed me? huh? I don't feel safe...what do I get out of that?

I think it is strange that you come here...and I am calling you out on it. If Bush Crimes were important to you as you say they are...then why aren't you focusing your energy on that instead of focusing it here?

[hack89]

57. It's important that you get the last word, isn't it ? n/t

[jmb597]

60. Always.

[hack89]

61. Here's another opportunity nt

[jmb597]

62. Looks like you suffer from the same thing.

[hack89]

64. Did Pavlov have a dog named jmb597? nt

[jmb597]

66. wow...you are pretty mean.

I hope you feel better.

[hack89]

68. Look - you stepped into this forum and started swinging your elbows ..

what have you done to make me want to be nice to you? I do feel better - now get over it.

I am leaving for the weekend - have a good weekend.

[jmb597]

76. Yeah...

You are the one that comes in swinging your elbows everyday to counter what other people are saying here. I wasn't swinging elbows, I was merely getting to the bottom of why you bother posting. Because to me, you come on these boards just to disagree and I feel it isn't productive...I want to know why you post here and nowhere else on DU if you are really that concerned with Bush Crimes. I am not asking for you to be nice to me, I just thought calling me a dog was a bit over the top because no where did I treat you like that.

Thank you, I will have a good weekend.

[DemInDistress]

72. bravo...great retort to a ???

I couldn't have said that better. Your post expresses my feeling but I can't get that far without losing it and have been lectured because of it..not just insults but deliberate goading by others who refute every claim by 911 hunters and offer nothing in its place..thanks jmb ^5

[DemInDistress]

27. jmb..thanks for the support,,I often ask these supposed dems

LARED hack,greyl Kevin why always do you debunk every possible point of evidence pointing the finger towards the bush crime family..their always critical of (imo) excellent evidence. Yet they put forward nothing to support their claims..

and btw,..WELCOME TO DU !!!:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[hack89]

31. Perhaps because your "evidence" is for the most case junk

that depends more on emotion and hatred of Bush than logic. You are blind to any evidence that doesn't support you pet CT yet accuse us of being closed minded. If you want an echo chamber go somewhere else.

[DemInDistress]

32. HACK NICE TRY....

GIVE ME A PLAUSIBE EXPLANATION...BTW DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEOS POSTED BY BEAM ME UP? DID YOU VOTE TWICE FOR BUSH? LOL BUSTED....YOUR BUSTED, YOU LARED GREYL AND KEVIN

[hack89]

33. Sophomoric reasoning and grade school insults...

are without a doubt the best way to impress everyone with your maturity and intellect. Bye bye - I am done with you so please put me on your ignore list.

[DemInDistress]

34. DONE....

[jmb597]

38. Actually...

YOU are blind to any evidence that doesn't support the official story. YOU are close minded. If you can't see that there is something beyond the official story, then I suggest YOU go somewhere else. Go kick it with other people who don't believe the "conspiracy", I am sure you find people to agree with you somewhere...right?

[hack89]

40. I like it here - I think I'll stay ..

if nothing else, spinning you up is worth a giggle or two.

:popcorn:

[jmb597]

46. it's a lot of effort....

for a giggle or two.

[hack89]

48. But definitely worth it.

besides, perhaps reason and logic doesn't strain everyone's brain like it appears to do to yours.

[jmb597]

53. Now who is doing personal attacks?

Hypocrite.

[hack89]

56. It was too easy - I couldn't resist! nt

[jmb597]

59. Then you should understand...

how easy it was for everyone else to make a personal attack on you. If you can't resist, why should we?

[hack89]

63. The difference is ...

is that you really believe what you wrote - I'm just having fun.

[jmb597]

67. Not true at all

I haven't called you names, or attacked your character. I was questioning your motivation. YOu are doing the attacking and now following it up with "...Im just having fun" to make you look like the good guy. Show me where I attacked your character or called you a name.

[hack89]

69. OK n/t

[DemInDistress]

74. when you find people that say,"your hatred of bush" well that

says it all to me...yes I HATE FUCKING BUSH THE M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R- WHO ALLOWED 3,000 INNOCENT AMERICAN CITIZENS TO DIE A HORRIFIC DEATH. jmb,,when I see freepers like that I want to puke..not dem in their right mind should or would DEFEND BUSH..

You found one..he no longer posts to me and thankfully so...imagine a democrat telling you,"YOUR HATRED OF BUSH" DOESN'T TAKE LONG FOR THEM TO SHOW THEIR COLORS..HEAR ME FRAUD !!

JMB..A HEARTY WELCOME TO DU..THAT PARTISAN YOU TRY'S TO GET THE LAST WORD IN HAS BEEN EXPOSED..'YOUR HATRED OF BUSH....YOUR HATRED OF BUSH IT RESONATES IN MY HEAD.

FREEPERS WILL ALWAYS TIP THEIR HAND..

JMB

[jmb597]

36. Thanks!

I have been coming to DU for a long time as a lurker, but never knew about this section...I have been skeptical of the official story for a really long time...especially after reading the Commissions report. I kept coming here and seeing no posts about 9/11 ever, so I dug through DU and found this forum finally

To me, this forum wasn't very easy to find...so people who come here to dispute our findings, I find it rather suspect. They came here looking for 9/11 talk for a reason...because if they truly believe the official story as most Americans do...why bother?

With the internet now, and everything else, 9/11 has a real chance to come out. And to me...that is their motivation. IF they really are for the truth, then any evidence that comes out that disputes the official story, should make them step back for a second and reevaluate the facts instead of immediately disregarding them. If anything, they should be on board with opening up another investigation just to say "I told you so". Seriously. If 66% of New Yorkers want the investigation reopened...we should open it. They were the ones mostly affected, they were the ones that were there that day. We owe them atleast that.

[DemInDistress]

44. your a breathe of fresh air !! I'm not saying their aren't others

with the same passion to learn the truth behind 911 because their are. Many even smarter than myself. This issue 911 should take "center stage" and not be relegated to the dungeon where "tin foilers" reside. There is
compelling evidence out there that seriously indicates 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. To accept the 911 report is just
LUDICROUS and should be dismissed due to lack of "truth" regarding a number of related questions not being answered.
I live in NYC. We were devastated and still suffer financially through 165.00 parking tickets and higher taxes. Nevertheless,your right to say,66% of NYC residents have doubts with the official story and want a new
investigation. If Americans allow this tragic episode to go unsolved then we are DOOMED to repeat it. I come to know a few good 911 hunters here they are,.
Killtown..Make 7...Beam me up..Me...IChing...and others you'll see are serious in learning WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
So, my new 911 friend I await any input and any new 911 finds you may come across and PM me if you like...

DEM

[smoogatz]

17. Tom Flocco isn't a credible source, IMO.

Got anything else?

[file83]

15. My only problem with #5 is this

If WTC 1 & 2 were pre wired for demolition to prevent them from falling down laterally, there is no way they could have had precise control over what floor to begin the demolition. If 1 & 2 were prewired for the purpose you mentioned, they would have collapsed like WTC 7 did, in a uniform collapse, not top-down. WTC7, which wasn't hit/wasn't going to be hit by a plane, was wired differently than 1 & 2 - we know that much. This demands that rogue elements in the USG were involved the 9/11 highjackings scenario.

No, the only way the core columns in 1 & 2 could have been cut by shape charges at what ever floor they desired it to begin at(depending on the floors the planes ended up impacting on - to complete the illusion of a natural collapse) they would have had to been wired for that type of scenario by people directly involved with the planned high jackings.

I do like your out-of-the-box thinking though. It's fresh and desperately needed.

:thumbsup:

[smoogatz]

20. What we saw was the facade of the building collapsing, apparently

from the top down. But that doesn't tell us much about what the internal steel structure of the building was doing. Rescue personnel reported hearing explosions on the higher floors above them as they evacuated. Clean-up workers found melted steel I-beams--still glowing--in the debris weeks after 9/11. I'm willing to take these eye-witness accounts seriously, just to see where it leads. Those "explosions" could have been the sound of the upper floors' joints and trusses giving way, I suppose, but you don't get melted steel from jet fuel, or from the physics of a tall building collapsing. Only thermite or a similar high explosive could generate the temperatures necessary to do that. That's pretty convincing evidence, IMO, that the buildings were wired. As to the particular method--again, not being experts in building demolition, we're all just speculating. But I haven't seen compelling evidence of government collusion with the hijackers. If the motive was to act out the PNAC agenda, as many have suggested, picking mostly Saudis to hijack the planes (as opposed to Iraqis, say) was a big mistake. Not that most Americans know or care about the distinction, I suppose.

On edit: a Bushco conspiracy also presupposes an almost prescient diabolical genius on the part of Cheney, presumably, et al. What I've seen of those people over the last years isn't that. Bushco is incredibly savvy and effective when it comes to manipulating the media and the congress (99% terrified of looking unpatriotic and losing their jobs), but in terms of formulating and carrying out actual operations, they're morons. Their disastrous conduct of the Iraq occupation and their utter disregard fro the victims of Katrina are overwhelming evidence of that fact. Total. Fucking. Morons. The people who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the big buildings weren't morons--they were actually quite clever, despite leaving a mile-wide trail that competent law-enforcement should have been able to detect, but didn't (also morons). That said, I think Bushco would've been fairly happy to have a minor domestic terror attack that they could exploit for propaganda purposes--but I don't think they were expecting the attack they got.

[DemInDistress]

42. do you believe that within our government,,the shadow

government we have people with the expertise to wire 3 buildings with well placed explosives and all that would be needed was "good cover" like let's say, 2 commercial jets crashing into them? Can I have an opinion?

Thanks DEM

[smoogatz]

49. You're making a couple of fallacious assumptions.

The big, obvious one is that in order for your conspiracy to work, all that's needed are a few people with the expertise to wire the WTC. In fact, you'd need hundreds or thousands of people to pull off a MIHOP-type scheme, all coordinating with one another--and for what? Some deal with fake bonds, according to Flocco? There's massive--and I mean MASSIVE--and completely open theft being conducted by the current administration, to the tune of ten trillion dollars transferred from the U.S. treasury into the bank accounts of rich investors--and something like half the country voted in favor of it--TWICE! I'm not saying it wasn't MIHOP--I'm just saying that what's more likely is a series of blunders and misjudgments, each followed by its own little coverup.

[DemInDistress]

50. do you deny there is no shadow government? does iran-contra

ring a bell..smooz I don't have all the answers but hundreds of thousands is your numbers..hundreds yes..
as for trillions of dollars in fake gold bonds..yes there real really fake and substituted for the real thing in sept.1991..housed in cantor/fitzgerald-- WORLD TRADE 1 around the 90-100 floor flight 11 crashed into CF KILLING 700 EMPLOYEES.I keep digging in hopes of uncovering the truth so ...

[rman]

82. Of course the president and vice-president don't

design the plans, let alone execute them. But that does not exclude that they authorized it.
For planning and execution they have the agencies; see Bay of Pigs, Northwoods, Iran-Contra.

You don't need hundreds of thousands of people "all coordinating with one another". You don't need that in a non-secret large coordinated operation (such as war), nor is it needed if the operation is secret.
For instance in Iran-Contra, the pilots who did the actual drug-runs on Nigaragua probably knew they were participating in a larger sceme, but they did not need to know what it was.
The pilots did not need to be coordinated with everyone else who was participating, they only needed to get their orders about when to be where and who to contact. The rewards they received (primarily lots of money) and the fact that they knew what they were doing was illegal, was more then enough reason for them not to talk.

[petgoat]

84. "you'd need hundreds or thousands... to pull off a MIHOP"

Are you sure?

Assuming Osama could institute the attacks, you need the al Qaeda team. That's maybe 40?

You'd need one person to tell al Qaeda when the war games are happening.

You need Cheney, Rummy, and Myers to stand down.

False-blip disruption of the air defense does all the rest.

If the WTC was wired for explosives, you need a team to install the explosives.

[MrSammo1]

23. The speed of

the collapses points to explosives being used.

Without the explosives......the potential energy below the impact points would have stopped the collapses.

[hack89]

29. How much energy did the explosives add to the collapse?

And how was that energy transmitted to increase the downward force of the collapse? You do also realize, don't you, that your theory is not reflected in actual controlled demolition where the only role explosive play is to remove the vertical supports so gravity alone brings down the building. Since you are saying that the WTC was not a standard demolition, how is obvious to the casual eye that it was in fact a controlled demolition?

[DemInDistress]

75. What do these 2 buildings have in common? squibs !!

[file83]

78. I didn't explain my self clearly - check this out

I still believe that explosives were used. That part I do not argue against.

The distinction I was making was that there is more than one way to "demolish" a building with planted charges. The parent poster believes that Towers 1 & 2 were brought down with a demolition of explosives placed in a conventional manner. I disagree because of the video evidence shows that they were demolished in an unconventional method.

In a conventional demolition, a building would come down quite like WTC7 did. But Towers 1 & 2 came down differently, more of a top-down ripple effect charge initiated at the floors of airplane impact. That means that whoever set up those explosives KNEW that the buildings would be impacted by planes and would need the option of chosing which floors to initiate the explosion chain because they wouldn't know exactly what floors to start it at until the planes hit.

Thus, my analysis leads to the conclusion that this was a MIHOP - the USG knew of the highjacking plot which means they were part of the plan, otherwise why would they take all the time/risk of rigging towers 1 & 2 if they weren't guaranteed the highjacked planes would hit BOTH towers? The only way to guarantee it is to involve yourself in it in some manner.

Get what I'm saying? Tell me what you think.

[DemInDistress]

79. file, my friend I just come upon your reply..here's mine

WAY TO GO..^5 TO YOU..:yourock: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hi: < THANKS

Whether or not we have concrete proof at the moment we do have tons of lies,discrepancies,omissions and distortions put forward by the bushco. crime family via Tom 'ludicrous" Kean and company it defy's credulity
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB...WE HERE NEED TO SPARK A NEW 911 INVESTIGATION AND ANSWER ALL THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
I DON'T WANT TO WAIT 40 YEARS LIKE JFK,

DEM..

[MrSammo1]

30. All five.........

scenarios are incorrect.

1. No physical evidence of hijackers or passengers boarding any of the supposed jets.

2. The first two flights were drones. (as per Operation Northwoods)

3. The fake crash at the Pentagon was to cover what was really going on there. (silencing any opposition)

4. The Shanksville deception was to plant the idea that a hijacked jet had to be shot down.

5. The demolition of the four WTC buildings was for emotional purposes. And a great way of covering up the two fake passenger jets (Flights 11 and 175)

[smoogatz]

35. Spoken with great authority.

But you forgot to mention the holograms.

[MrSammo1]

55. I just go by what I see..........

and what I don't see.

[rman]

81. we don't do holograms

[sabbat hunter]

43. so then

mrsammo where are all the passengers? killed? alive and hiding?

[MrSammo1]

58. What are.......

names on a list, compared to the evidence of missing jets.

Not much of anything if you think about it.

The simple fact is.......if any of the jets, hijackers, and passenger existed as we've been told they did. The neocons would have went out of their way to prove this.

[trotsky]

65. Barbara Olson was a real person. A despicable person, but real.

Also real were Thomas Burnett, Mark Bingham, producers of the Frasier show and their baby, and the other hundreds of people on the planes that day.

Or are all their friends & family in on the conspiracy, too?

[MrSammo1]

73. Who said they weren't real.......

It's the missing evidence of jets that counts.

A few bags of money will buy whatever silence is needed.

[sabbat hunter]

77. so are you saying

that barbara olsen and the rest are still alive?

never existed?

[rman]

83. Either there were no passengers to begin with,

or they were killed - though most likely not in the crashes. (see Operation Northwoods)
If the govt is going to kill thousands by crashing planes into buildings and bringing the buildings down, why would they have a problem with killing a few hundred passengers?

[Kevin Fenton]

51. Mostly agree

Although I would add/alter the following:
(1)(a) The alleged hijacker pilots were not good enough to fly the planes, so they must have got extra training somewhere - Al Qaeda has hinted at this pretty strongly.
(b) If you ask me, the CIA (or other similar agency) was trying to do something with (some of) the hijackers, but I'm nost sure what. For example, it thought they would go back to Afghanistan and lead the US to Osama.
(2) The jet impacts probably triggered some of the explosives, for example, elevator cables were severed, the elevators plunged and the overpressures set off some of the explosives. Otherwise, I think they would have waited until everybody got out.
(3), (4) and (5) Agree.

Also, there's something wrong with the air defense reaction. It starts not particularly brilliantly and gets much worse.

[rman]

80. what's the reason for coverup #1?

"1.Planes hijacked pretty much per the official story, despite all warnings to clueless, incompetent Bushco.

2.Flights 11 & 175 hit the north and south WTC towers, respectively,"

Is all according to the official story, what's there to cover up?


Also why coverup #3?

"Because of the failed attacks in 1993; the Port Authority knew the WTC was a prime target, and they knew that a lateral collapse could kill tens of thousands of people."

If true, what reason is there to cover it up?

[petgoat]

85. I think coverup #1 is of the failure to heed warnings; #2 is the

coverup of the shooting down of flight 93.

[rman]

86. But according to the official story the were no warnings,

so there'd be no reason to cover up not heeding those.