9/11

Well, not to cheapen what happened and insult the ones who died any way, but too many odd things happened around the hyjackings to simply say "Islamic extremists did it." I'm not interested in debunking the generally accepted story.

To date, only the towers fell do to fire. There have been buildings that were almost completely gutted by fire and still stand today. I find that odd. Not objectionable. Just odd.

The big hole in the Pentagon wasn't shaped like an airliner. FBI agents confiscated security tapes from nearby businesses shortly after the "attack." Oddly enough, everything looks like a traditional missile attack. But maybe I'm being a bit overly critical of the status quo.

Throughout history, it hasn't been rare for the leader of a nation to attack a small number of the nation's population to galvanize the public opinion towards a cause. Neo supposedly did this to rid Rome of Christians. Hitler had a military platoon attack a German village in order to justify invading Poland to the german people.
 
Dart said:
Well, not to cheapen what happened and insult the ones who died any way, but too many odd things happened around the hyjackings to simply say "Islamic extremists did it." I'm not interested in debunking the generally accepted story.

To date, only the towers fell do to fire. There have been buildings that were almost completely gutted by fire and still stand today. I find that odd. Not objectionable. Just odd.

The big hole in the Pentagon wasn't shaped like an airliner. FBI agents confiscated security tapes from nearby businesses shortly after the "attack." Oddly enough, everything looks like a traditional missile attack. But maybe I'm being a bit overly critical of the status quo.

Throughout history, it hasn't been rare for the leader of a nation to attack a small number of the nation's population to galvanize the public opinion towards a cause. Neo supposedly did this to rid Rome of Christians. Hitler had a military platoon attack a German village in order to justify invading Poland to the german people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I think these are just little things people point out or find to try and make a point. I think it's all a load of bull if you ask me.
 
Strubes said:
Yeah, but I think these are just little things people point out or find to try and make a point. I think it's all a load of bull if you ask me.
Click to expand...

To each his own, I guess. I have always been the one to pick something apart and not settle for the "prefab" explaination. I don't do it to anger anyone, and for the most part I consider myself aploitical. Just my nature speaking...
 
To date, only the towers fell do to fire. There have been buildings that were almost completely gutted by fire and still stand today. I find that odd. Not objectionable. Just odd.
Click to expand...

I took engineering courses in High School, and one movie showed why. The Twin Towers weren't built conventionally like most other buildings. IIRC, All the beams were on the edge and towards the center. Also, most buildings have a heat resistant foam to help keep the steel from being weakened. Because of the raw force of the plane crashing into the building, much of the foam was blasted away as well, and the heat from the flames evenmtually weakened the steel enough. Eventually, one floor fell, and it pancaked from there.

The big hole in the Pentagon wasn't shaped like an airliner. FBI agents confiscated security tapes from nearby businesses shortly after the "attack." Oddly enough, everything looks like a traditional missile attack. But maybe I'm being a bit overly critical of the status quo.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a reasonable explanation for this somewhere, but I forgot where. I really can't argue with or against it though. I doubt a standard missile would a leave a small hole though.

There's also quite a bit of info based on the plane that crashed into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Seems like too much information to be fabricated by the government if you ask me.

Throughout history, it hasn't been rare for the leader of a nation to attack a small number of the nation's population to galvanize the public opinion towards a cause. Neo supposedly did this to rid Rome of Christians. Hitler had a military platoon attack a German village in order to justify invading Poland to the german people.
Click to expand...

True, but I don't believe those leaders attacked major population centers that could cause a semi-major effect on their economy, and try to blow up 1/5th of their main government defense. risking to kill major people.
 
Dart, many of the points you bring up are wroth considering, but, I seriously doubt Bush orchestrated the whole thing. Firstly, if Bush wanted to galvanize the population against an enemy, there are far less harmful, and equally as effective call to arms, than attacking your economic center, basically halting the economy for months at least, then crippling one of the main centers of your national defense.

Not only that, but the number of lose ends to tie up to keep something like that secret would be huge. There's no way some evidence would have turned up, after this length of time.

Plus, there was no big motivation to Bush blaming the entire thing on Al-Quada. Afghanistan isn't exactly resource rich, and there really wasn't much to be gained (other than scattering/destroying the Taliban and Al-Quada of course) from invading.
 
GamingMaiden said:
I was only in 1st grade and my teachers turned on the tv. It was so upsetting seeing my mom cry after school. I strangely understood what happened and was in shock. My dad was deployed to war a week later. We were so scared and shocked.....
Click to expand...
i was i first grade too i didnt understand it really, but know i do and its really sad :'(
 
My boss didn't remember about it. He was like "Joy you look so sad, what's wrong?" When I told him it was September 11th he said "How soon we forget." I see a lot of that - so many people who didn't seem to even have stopped to think about it.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Dart, many of the points you bring up are wroth considering, but, I seriously doubt Bush orchestrated the whole thing. Firstly, if Bush wanted to galvanize the population against an enemy, there are far less harmful, and equally as effective call to arms, than attacking your economic center, basically halting the economy for months at least, then crippling one of the main centers of your national defense.

Not only that, but the number of lose ends to tie up to keep something like that secret would be huge. There's no way some evidence would have turned up, after this length of time.

Plus, there was no big motivation to Bush blaming the entire thing on Al-Quada. Afghanistan isn't exactly resource rich, and there really wasn't much to be gained (other than scattering/destroying the Taliban and Al-Quada of course) from invading.
Click to expand...

I am sure you're right. I didn't intend to turn this into a debate either. My whole reasoning is the event was so big, and too well orchistrated for me. I am a critic by nature. I always ask why. And since this is our generation's JFK assassination, it will always be an event that simply does not rest easy with me. Of course there also is the point that something of this magnitude rarely happens outside of arena of warfare. And the fact that the United States is considered the sole superpower, and this event caught us by surprise.
 
Strubes said:
But we actually know who did September 11th...we don't know all the facts about the JFK assassination.
Click to expand...
We know that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the window of the Dallas Book Depository, just like we know that Al-Quada organized 15 hijackers to suicide bomb planes into the pentagon, and WTC (two each). Those are the "facts" presented, in both situations, but both have some loose ends that don't tie together. I'd say the situations are pretty similar.
 
Al Qaida admitted to 9/11. There's loose ends to practically anything that's ever happened.

This thread has gotten way out of hand. I was actually figuring we wouldn't be able to be adults and see 9/11 for what it was. A tragedy. A massive loss of innocent life. Not some alleged "conspiracy".
 
Strubes said:
But we actually know who did September 11th...we don't know all the facts about the JFK assassination.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say we know all the facts, and the facts we do know don't support our actions since then. Like, for example, the fact that 75% of the people who hijacked the planes on Sept. 11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If you look at how long it took the investigators to point the finger at Al-Qaeda, and subsequently Iraq, it's a wonder any murder anywhere ever goes unsolved. Before we solved the problem of getting the rubble out of the center of New York we'd already solved the problem of who we would blame for the rubble being there. Too fast, too much misinformation, too much disinformation, too many unanswered questions.

Afghanistan isn't exactly resource rich, and there really wasn't much to be gained (other than scattering/destroying the Taliban and Al-Quada of course) from invading.
Click to expand...

We were already in Afghanistan, as a result of 9/11 we are now in Iraq, which is incredibly resource rich. America now has an army in the heart of the Middle East. Not much to be gained? How about a military stronghold in one of the most oil rich regions in the entire world?
There's no way some evidence would have turned up, after this length of time.
Click to expand...

With that attitude, yes, it is very unlikely any evidence at the time, or now, would be considered.

I don't personally believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration, but I have seen some major pieces of evidence that have led me to question that belief (eyewitness accounts of people who were there, including firemen and policemen, engineers commenting on the towers themselves, how the structural impacts and damage just didn't add up, etc.). I do however believe that through the ignorance and perhaps arrogance of the Bush administration such an attack could have been prevented, and I also believe that nearly every action the administration has taken since then has been a step in the wrong direction. We'll never know the truth, I don't think, as there's too much riding on the fact that we believe the "truth" that has already been presented to us.

In either case, my heart goes out to the people who were in the buildings that went down, regardless of the motives behind the attack. That includes the people on the planes, including the misled hijackers, and the emergency crews who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow man, and every person who stuck around for the weeks of clean-up afterwards. Which is why I become so frustrated at the current situation we are now in. After having experienced what it's like to lose loved ones in an attack, and to see the destruction not only of buildings but of people's lives, why would anyone ever wish that fate to come to someone else? I think of those poor souls in Iraq, who weren't even aware of the global politics they had been thrust into, witnessing the destruction of their homes and lives from our planes. It makes me sad.
 
Strubes said:
Al Qaida admitted to 9/11. There's loose ends to practically anything that's ever happened.
Click to expand...
Yes they did.

However, viewing the video of the WTC falling, there had to be some other factor that lead to their collapse, because simply the melting of the steel beams holding the tower together wouldn't cause the type of free fall that we saw in news videos of the tower's collapse. Its doesn't mean Al-Quada didn't orchestrate the attack, but there was clearly something missing in what exactly happened.

And we're discussing 9/11 here, and everything that goes along with it. Everyone who has posted here has already said its a tragedy, and I see nothing wrong with discussing other facets of it, other than simply repeating the statement "Its a tragedy..." across three pages.
w
stealth toilet said:
We were already in Afghanistan, as a result of 9/11 we are now in Iraq, which is incredibly resource rich. America now has an army in the heart of the Middle East. Not much to be gained? How about a military stronghold in one of the most oil rich regions in the entire world?
Click to expand...
Well the thing is, if Bush wanted to attack Iraq,(assuming he did carry out the attack..I don't believe it but go with it for the sake of argument...), why not pin it on some terrorist group from Iraq, so there would be a massive outcry to retaliate against them. A stable pro-American government in Iraq is clearly initiative for Bush to carry out the 9/11 attacks, but if that was his goal, I don't see why he would attempt to place the blame on a terrorist group from Afghanistan.
 
Strubes said:
This thread has gotten way out of hand. I was actually figuring we wouldn't be able to be adults and see 9/11 for what it was. A tragedy. A massive loss of innocent life. Not some alleged "conspiracy".
Click to expand...
 
This thread has gotten way out of hand. I was actually figuring we wouldn't be able to be adults and see 9/11 for what it was. A tragedy. A massive loss of innocent life. Not some alleged "conspiracy".
Click to expand...

Uh, what? I simply made a point about how many people go on about it being orchistrated for political purposes, because they apparently refuse to believe that a group of people who hate the fact that we exist would do anything to our country.

I wasn't attempting to steer this off-topic. Even those who don't believe that Al-Qaeda caused the attack, still send their hearts out to those who died from the collapsing towers.

I still remember the day it happened, during my freshman year in High-School. My English teacher was practically having a panic attack; her sister worked in the Pentagon.

because simply the melting of the steel beams holding the tower together wouldn't cause the type of free fall that we saw in news videos of the tower's collapse.
Click to expand...

The tower was built to free-fall like that. Can you imagine, in a dense city like that, what would happen if a building that tall fell on it's side? Of course, engineers would be surprised that the towers fell, it never happened before. But I suppose nobody ever flew a commercial jet plane into one before either.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Are you an architect?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

But the planes that hit the WTC hit near the top, so the fire was concentrated near the top. This would be the area where the steel would melt, for obvious reasons (the fire). If the first floor to give way was indeed near where the planes hit into the WTC, the fall of the structure would slow down, every time the structure hit into every subsequent floor, below it. When we saw the WTC fall, it was falling far too fast to be cause by those fires alone.

I believe Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack, but there is clearly some factor involved in the tower's collapse that was missed, something other than the fires in the upper parts of the towers. And that was my point, that we don't know everything about the WTC, that not everything fits together, and not all the facts were known. It all kind of stemmed from a discussion with Strubes, and maybe you didn't read my post in its entire context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top