40 replies to this topic

[Mark London]

Jazzy

You're absolutely correct to suggest that.

The weekend before that day, the two towers were having some re-wiring/cabling replaced in the lower floors. Therefore they had to cut the power to enable to do this.

Dis-gruntled office workers pleaded with maintenance and security not to cut the power because of computer systems, servers needed the power. But it still went ahead. And of course no power, no CCTV,,,,, go figure !


A perfect window to start all this off I wonder ??? hmm....

Edited by Mark London, 07 June 2008 - 02:24 PM.

[spiritdoc]

I think it's natural to want to derive some sense of justice and comfort from a disturbing experience by cracking the mystery and finding the match that started the fire. But...

I always find comfort in reminding myself that darkness exists so that we can see light. Things like 9/11 are part of a grander, greater, panoramic picture. There are deeper reasons for it occurring and for all those souls making a choice to cast themselves in that particular role than we may ever grasp while still here on this plane.

Perhaps, it's not for us to dig up the "how" with a fine tooth comb, but, rather, to try to understand the "why" in a bigger sense... which, possibly, may have been to give us a little shake up and redirect us back into feeling a little more compassion for and connection to each other in the larger picture of our existence together.
That just may be our "Aha!" moment, ultimately.

When I think of it that way, I find a lot of solace in knowing that we have definately come a long way since 9/11, and that the light side has grown a lot stronger in one unified cry of compassion and gratitude to the souls who helped to shift something in us.

[Shawn333]

Good post spiritdoc.

[Yosei]

I find it weird that a plane hit the Empire State building and it re-opened the following Monday, yet a plane hitting the Twin Towers leveled the whole thing, but I always interpreted that as evidence of "They sure don't make 'em like they used to" rather than evidence of government involvement.

[Shawn333]

You know, I was thinking of that too Yosei. I believe a couple of planes have hit the Empire State building. Seems like I heard one did little but bounce off of the side of the building. A B-52 bomber crashed into it once though. It might be interesting to compare a B-52's size, weight, and fuel capacity to the type of commercial airliners that hit the WTC buildings. And also to look into the similarities and differences in the construction of the Empire State building and the WTC.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories personally, but I keep an open mind and I feel it's a good idea to do so. You have to weigh the realistic reasons and motives for them vs. reasons someone would come up with the theory and then look at the "evidence." When they involve a political party or figure, there's always motivation for political enemies to come up with stuff, and people who already hate the figure to believe it. I've heard everything from how the Clinton's were serial killers, to how Bush is an alien to Obama is a terrorist in disguise. Even the most "out there" ones such as the theory that the first U.S. moon landing was a fraud, can sound convincing if you start following all of the supposed evidence people come up with. I don't think you need to have explosives planted in the WTC for a conspiracy though. IF there's a conspiracy there, my humble personal opinion is it would be that the government knew something was going to happen and then allowed it for political reasons. There's a similar theory about Pearl Harbor. Now, I'm not saying that I believe those theories at all, I'm just saying that they seem more likely to me than the government actually causing the buildings to fall or another group doing it...there are a lot of theories floating around out there. The most likely scenario is that the terrorists did it alone and that there was massive incompetence and intelligence failure on the part of the U.S. Al Quaeda was around long before 911 and attacked U.S. targets 5 times during the Clinton presidency. They tried to blow up the WTC once before....the only conspiracy I smell is the failure to foresee and prevent something from happening. BUT....you really never know about these things so it IS interesting to think about the what ifs and to consider how your government may be fooling you...

[Kira]

I know this is going to sound waaaay out there, but I have always thought that 9/11 was part of a grand plan by our own government to give us an excuse to go to war on Terror. What they didn't figure out is that the Americans would eventually wake up and realize there was never (at that time) a connection between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden. Remember Bush mentioned "The Evil Axis" long before the attack on 9/11. It seems to me they are now priming us to go to war with Iran. There never were Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.

We've also left out what occurred at The Pentagon. Some say that was not a plane but a missile that hit it. The hole had no outline of wings. But then again, maybe the wings would not have been strong enough to make an impression. I don't know, but I feel strongly that we were lied to then and are being lied to still today.

I can't wait to read Scott McClellan's book about the Bush Administration. I think it may shed some light. It is interesting to note that all the criticism against the book has been directed at McClellan and not the contents of the expose. Kinda makes one go hmmmmmm?

No matter what my feelings on the Administration, 9/11 and the unnecessary war, I still grieve for all those who lost their lives on that fateful day and the over 4,000 soldiers who have lost their lives because we were sold a war that we didn't need to be in.

Kira's back.......................and opinionated as ever.

Edited by Kira, 10 June 2008 - 09:24 PM.

[Shawn333]

I missed you're opinionated posts, Kira!

You know, I look at it like this, either Bush was an evil genius who concocted nefarious plans and conspiracies, or he's just really incompetent. I choose to believe he's just really stupid. The Axis of Evil talk and even weapons of mass destruction talk predates Bush altogether. You can go back and hear Bill Clinton say the exact same things, some of which were said before he bombed Baghdad. So if there's a conspiracy it would run deep and across parties and administrations. Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger stole hundreds of documents from the national archives and had them destroyed. Some people think they had to do with Al Quaeda, and Osama Bin Laden. The thing that weakens the conspiracy theories for me is how the whole world talked of weapons of mass destruction. France and Russia said they were there too, and they were very much against going to war and tried to prevent Bush from doing so. Also it's a well known fact that there were some there because they were used and at one point counted and looked at by U.N. officials. The whole thing hinged on whether Saddam got rid of them like he said he did. There was a lot of proof that there were no longer WMD's in Iraq, but Bush either wanted to believe there was, was afraid there might be, or wanted to pretend there was, and so he emphasized the evidence that supported his claim. I personally think that Bush decided to attack Iraq because he wanted to institute a Cold War domino effect policy of democracy planting in the Middle East. He had the justification for Afghanistan, and then he figured the next logical target was Iraq. No one liked Saddam anyway and he WAS breaking previously held treaties. The thing that I wonder about is this: if there was a conspiracy, why not just plant WMD's yourself and then have American troops pretend to find them? Why not have the 911 plane hijackers be from Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia and from a terrorist group that has nothing to do with Iraq?

I guess what I'm getting at is if there's a conspiracy, I think the conspiracy people may have it all wrong and it may be something that no one has caught onto yet at all.

I don't like Bush or Clinton, so I read and listen to the conspiracy theories about them, but I'm just not 100% sold on any of those theories. I keep an open mind though, and no offense to anyone who does believe those things.


Kira, I plan to pick up Scott McClellan's book too! A friend told me it doesn't contain anything that he didn't already know, but I still think it's interesting and important because it comes from inside the Bush administration. If you get that book before I do, let me know what you think of it!

[~*Jazzy*~]

Kira, on Jun 10 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

I know this is going to sound waaaay out there, but I have always thought that 9/11 was part of a grand plan by our own government to give us an excuse to go to war on Terror. What they didn't figure out is that the Americans would eventually wake up and realize there was never (at that time) a connection between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden. Remember Bush mentioned "The Evil Axis" long before the attack on 9/11. It seems to me they are now priming us to go to war with Iran. There never were Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.

We've also left out what occurred at The Pentagon. Some say that was not a plane but a missile that hit it. The hole had no outline of wings. But then again, maybe the wings would not have been strong enough to make an impression. I don't know, but I feel strongly that we were lied to then and are being lied to still today.

I can't wait to read Scott McClellan's book about the Bush Administration. I think it may shed some light. It is interesting to note that all the criticism against the book has been directed at McClellan and not the contents of the expose. Kinda makes one go hmmmmmm?

No matter what my feelings on the Administration, 9/11 and the unnecessary war, I still grieve for all those who lost their lives on that fateful day and the over 4,000 soldiers who have lost their lives because we were sold a war that we didn't need to be in.

Kira's back.......................and opinionated as ever.

Hi there Miss Kira!! Long time no see! Great to see you back on the boards!!

I have to say that I agree 110% with you on this one Kira! I don't think it sounds too far fetched at all! Thanks for being the wonderfully opinionated woman that you are! I love and admire your spunk!

[Axman]

Mulling over conspiracies only tells me that hind sight is indeed 20/20! Don't dwell on the past and leave the what-if's behind. We can't change the past.

[R.L.crowley]

who knows whether it was an inside job or if the truth is whats been broadcasted on the news and what not...

either way, there has got to be something we dont know about 9/11, there is no doubt in my mind.

as others have said, it is almost impossible for the jet fuel to have weakened that building to collapse in such a demolition-like manner.

second of all, the towers were engineered to withstand terrorist attacks in the first place...

has anyone ever seen the documentary "Loose Change" ?? i dont know how true everything is in it, but if it is true..they pretty much proved it wasnt just a bunch of dudes with box cutters.

[biada]

ryan005, on May 17 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

I don't think there were any explosives planted in the building. When the planes crashed, the jet fuel heated up the metal supports inside the building's infrastructure that the metal buckled, causing the towers to collapse. As for the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, the passengers supposedly fought the terrorists, but the plane was being followed by a couple of Air Force jets in case it got too close to Washington D.C. and they needed to shoot it down. That plane's target was the Capital Building. You're right there are lots of conspiracies concerning 9/11.

FALSE.. 3 building collapsed on 911. WTC7 didn't have any jet crash into it.. Yet it imploded. Explain that. Months and years leading to 9/11, the WTC were evacuated several times. During those times, the building could have been planted with bombs. Also, Larry Silverstien (sp) bought the building b4 911 and insured it against a terrorists attack.

Also, jet fuels don't get hot enough to melt steel.. Most of the fuel evaporated during the initial impact.. If the buildings were soo hot, why did you see people peeping out the broken windows?

The more you know.

Edited by biada, 21 August 2008 - 01:17 PM.

[chestnut]

I don't know if we'll ever know the full story behind how/why the Towers went down, but I can tell you this: I was watching it all from the street outside my apartment building, and the west wall of Tower 1 (the north tower, the 2nd one to fall) actually started to bend and buckle, as if the steel was indeed weakened and just gave out. And just after I noticed that, the building sort of "broke" at that floor and then it pancaked down. There was no explosion just prior to that. There was, however, an explosion prior to the collapse of Tower 2.

The towers were engineered to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the largest jet in service at the time the buildings were designed. The 707 is smaller than the 767 and 757 jets that hit the buildings, and had much lower fuel capacity.

The plane that hit the ESB was a B-25 bomber--a WWII-era twin-engine propeller plane that is tiny in compared to the speed and fuel capacity of a 757 or 767 jet. What I find interesting is that the concrete structure of the ESB absorbs impact very differently than a steel tube structure. There was a lot of talk after 9/11 about how the ESB may have actually been able to withstand the impact of a 767/757 because of the way it was built, although it obviously would have been severely damaged. And whether or not it ever got hot enough to melt the steel in the WTC, it wouldn't have been an issue in the ESB the same way.

My dad was an engineer who worked on the 73rd floor of Tower 1 from 1984 to 2000, and he told me that the 1993 bomb plot came fairly close to success. If it had been a slightly more powerful bomb, the structural integrity of the foundation may well have given out.

But it was very common to have drills in the WTC for evacuation procedures, etc--and between the first bombing in 1993 and 9/11, they had drills all the time. So to have one a few days before 9/11 in itself isn't suspicious.

However, I do think that there are other things that seem off kilter about the way the buildings came down and the way 7WTC came down, that I haven't heard satisfactory answers for. And I agree with SpiritDoc that no matter what/who was behind it, I do believe it happened for a reason. I had hoped at the time that it would start to make sense somehow, but it doesn't seem to have so far, at least for me.

[Ike]

Ohgod, this shouldn't have caught my eye.
The jet fuel wouldn't have had enough power to melt the metal.
The basement exploded. How much more proof of explosives do you need?
It was planned.
But not by terrorists.

[Oniix]

ugh... again.... the steel did not have to MELT, just weaken. It wasn't just jet fuel that was burning. The basement exploding.... is that why the upper portion just above where the plane struck began to fall over, then brought itself down on the rest of the weakened building, bringing the whole thing down?

Actually watch and study the video... the top falls down on the rest of the tower structure, causing the rest of the building to succumb and fall as well The floors pancaked, yes but due to the massive weight of the upper structure, which is way, way, way more that the aircraft hitting it.

It was a WWII slow flying bomber (B-25 or B-17) hitting the tower at probably slower than 140knots. yeah that would habe bounced off the Towers as well.

The Titanic wasn't supposed to sink either, but it did due to problems in construction and bad decision making. The same could probably be said of the Twin Towers.

The unbreakable, broken.

And really, does this truly belong on a paranormal board? Skeptics topics and all.... does it really?

Edited by Oniix, 11 September 2008 - 12:12 PM.

[RON3002]

well the metal from the wreckage was disposed of before a private company could study it,and determine if jet fuel was to blame for it's lose of integerity.and having watched many of demolitions,I would say the towers fell in a almost exact way that buildings being demolished fall.And Sadam Hussien was never a threat to the united states(he hated Bin Laden as much as we supposedly do)