911 planned by the US Government?

[Barbarian]

It's a fairly long video. Appears to be well documented and raises a lot of questions.
Watch it with an open mind and it sort of makes ya wonder

http://www.policestateplanning.com/loose_change_ii.htm

[big brother]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
(Some good answers to the physical evidence)

If we assume that the government did plan this, it raises strategic questions. The scope of the attacks leaves more room for error (as more people would have to be in on it, leading to a greater chance of information leaks) and creates many logistical problems. Also, if the government were trying to make it look like a terrorist attack, they wouldn't have made it seem like a coordinated effort (as there has never been a terrorist attack this organized before).

It's especially insensitive that these conspiracy theorists would go to ground zero and try to convince mourners face to face. Many people lost loved ones and family members, and it saddens me to see salt rubbed in their emotional wounds.  No respect.

[MrColossal]

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=25445.0  we already had this thread I believe.

Also, when did "having an open mind" mean "disregarding all other evidence".

[Barbarian]

MrC:  Oops. Me sorry. Forgot about that old thread. 

Anyways, here's another link to an interesting radio interview that was done with Charlie Sheen regarding the 911 stuff:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/200306sheen.htm

BigBro:  I wasn't trying to make a feeling of "no respect". Contrary, I was trying to simply share a documentary about the events that perhaps had a rather interesting or different perspective on the whole thing compared with how perhaps the majority of the US media portrayed the events and aftermath as.

[big brother]

Hey Barbarian, sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that the people on ground zero spreading the theory showed no respect for the losses of New Yorkers.

Thanks for sharing the documentary.

[Barbarian]

BigBro: No problem.Ã,  I guess just reading plain text on the internet, sometimes it might be easy to misunderstand some comments.

Myself, I don't quite fully believe all the points raised in that documentary, however I can certainly agree with many of the questions they raise or perhaps more leads me to think that there's probably more of a "cover up" to certain events than people are generally aware of.

[MrColossal]

The thing is, with many huge events people can't accept the simple answer.

We never went to the moon. There was a government conspiracy to kill JFK. There was a Royal conspiracy to kill Lady Di.

We went to the moon. Lee Harvey shot JFK on his own. Lady Di got into a car crash. Hijackers crashed planes into the world trade center, the pentagon and almost the white house.

Having an open mind should mean you take in all evidence that is actually evidence. People using Adobe Premier to zoom in on a jpegy image of a plane and trying to say that 2 pixels is a missle, in my opinion, is not evidence. The same way that the face on mars is not evidence of life on mars because if you only look at 1 image where the shadows were just right it does resemble a face, but if you look at the countless other images, it's just a mountain.

As I believe I said in the last thread, a terrorist strike of this size and complexity against the US is huge and scary. Why do we have to try and make it even more awesome [not in the AWESOME! sense] when it's already a very huge deal?

Eric

[Radiant]

Given their track record of competency at just about anything else, it is amazing that people actually believe the government capable of keeping such massive conspiracies succesfully covered-up.

(which I believe is paraphrased from a Pratchett quote, but I couldn't locate the original)

[Nacho]

I wish I could translate all what I've read about 11-M in Madrid to start a thread like this about what happened in my country...  :'(

[Gregjazz]

I don't have any doubt about the twin towers, but the whole pentagon thing is very strange...

Though this topic has been discussed in the past.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=17371.0

[Raggit]

The issue here is that there are more questions than answers for 9/11.  Of course the government isn't talking.  All they can do is point fingers at Osama bin Laden, who, by the way, hasn't been caught yet.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact from
jetliner(s), such as those that hit the buildings that day. 

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them.  I could accept it if just the upper portions of the building gave way, but for both of them to fall straight down like that... too incredible. 

The controlled demolition idea makes sense to me, and is evidenced by what eye witnesses, firefighters, video footage, and experts repeatedly described.  And seeing that Trade Center 7 WAS destroyed with demolition, and given the fact that it fell in the exact same manner as the twin towers, it seems to make sense.  Oh yes, and the massive insurance benifit that Larry Silverstein stood to gain.

I can't say that the government fully orchestrated the events of 9/11, because there just isn't enough evidence yet.  But 9/11 was, at very least, ALLOWED to happen by the government. 

[Nikolas]

Don't know really...

Interesting documentary no doubt Barbarian, and thank you for posting it. Of course it has been discussed before (and probably more than one times).

I'm trying to think of what to write so that this post won't seem useless, so here goes:

It does seem really really big, for anyone to believe that it just sliped and happened, but on the other hand it is simply too big fro the goverment to just let it happen.

I will give my 2 cents on the simmilar events of London next year (from 911 that is).

THere were 2 bombings. The 1st killed something like 50 people in the centre of London in Tube stations. That was terroriests act, no doubt for me.

The 2nd was a fiasko. Nobody was even hurt and they really started terrorizing everybody. To me this 2nd blow (something like 2 weeks after the 1st), was a scheme to alert the civilians even more. No casualties and the official announcment was that all the bombs were made, not to be triggered (something along these lines anyway). I mean come on... Who would go into all the trouble, after killing so many people, only to warn them and do no harm?

But 911 is just too big to be ignored, and too big to be the goverments plan, and too big to just admit that CIA, FBI and everybody else are stupid.

[rharpe]

1) Even if the conspiracies are true, the evidence is not there. (And if it is, no one is going to do anything about it.)

2) People with money and power do atrocities to us, the little people, all the time. (Read your history books.)

3) We live in their world, they sway us the way they like. (It's called propaganda.) If you don't like it...too bad!

4) The media is controlled by those with money and power. They help sway the masses.

5) So who has all the money? Where do they get all this money? What does a rich (wo)man do with all this money? It's really quite simple... 

[Radiant]

The towers were designed to withstand the impact from
jetliner(s), such as those that hit the buildings that day. 

Which, rather obviously, had never been tested in practice. Field conditions never match the design lab.

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them. 

Not the flames, but the massive impact. Given that you can collapse a bridge by marching a group of soldiers over it, it is entirely plausible that being hit by a high-velocity airplane can cause an entire building to collapse.

Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared. Cruise speed for an airplane is about 1000 km/h (280 m/s) and it weighs at least 300 tons loaded. Do the math and you end up with a blast of about 11.6 GIGAjoules of energy. That's the equivalent of eight lightning bolts, three tonnes of TNT, or an hour's worth of five hundred horsepower. And that's not accounting for the fuel that the planes were carrying.

[Nacho]

I don't know has spread the ridiculous idea that the buildings were preppaired to support the crash , therefore, the cause was not the crash, ergo, Bush bombed them.

I've heard one of the living designers saying it was not designed for planes of that size... I was with an architect the day of the crash and he told they were going to collapse. I did not believe him...

Were do you get the idea that a building with the collums severelly damaged is not going to fall the way it did? Do you know how many tons do weight 20 floors of a scrycrapper? Do you really think it's going to fall to one side, like the Chrisley bulding in "Armaggedon"? Do you think a bulding falls in the same way as a feather? These ideas are so ridiculous that seems difficult to discuss...

Do you know how many kilos of c2, c3, semtex or any other explosive is needed to make the WTC collapse? How do you think they put it there during the night or what? Did someone made the explosives appear suddenly?

Is David Copperfield involved in the 911?

And when did they made the charges explode? During the moment of the crash? That's the only possible moment, no? There were no more explossions after that. So... do you really think, guys, that someone is able to hijack two planes, make them crash against two buildings, and detonate 2 charges of explosives in that exact moment, and calculate the way to make the towers collapse, not in that moment, but 40 mins. and 1 hour after the crash? That guy must have been a genious.

Bush is an ass, ok. But when you go with no senses like this to make him look even worse, what you are really archiving is people to think "If people who dislike Bush is so crazy for believing this crap, maybe Bush is not that bad..." 

So, guys, look for the thruth, even if it is boring. Bush is stupid enough to make the republican party lose the next 20 presidentials without this crap.

[MrColossal]

However, the collapse thing is just rediculous.Ã,  There is no way that those ENTIRE towers collapsed JUST because of the fires inside them.Ã,  I could accept it if just the upper portions of the building gave way, but for both of them to fall straight down like that... too incredible.Ã, 

And yet it happened, and millions and millions and millions of people saw it all live in front of their eyes. Which leads into the second bit:

The controlled demolition idea makes sense to me, and is evidenced by what eye witnesses, firefighters, video footage, and experts repeatedly described.Ã, 

First off, can you supply sources for the experts that are repeatedly describing controlled demolition? Also, the eye witnesses and fire fighters who were inside the building as it began to collapse. Have they ever been inside a sky scraper as it was crumbling down around them? If no then how does that become evidence?

If one has no prior experience with what a building is like as it is destroyed, how does being an eyewitness help?

I can't say that the government fully orchestrated the events of 9/11, because there just isn't enough evidence yet.Ã,  But 9/11 was, at very least, ALLOWED to happen by the government.Ã, 

I asked this question in the old thread: Why?

Why was it allowed?

If you can believe that the US government somehow allowed a terrorist strike to hit the US [which would take a lot of covering up, a lot of people would have to be silenced. A lot. Please speak on this idea, that if it's a cover-up and was allowed to let happen. What happened to the [personal estimation] 200 people that would have to know about it and be in on it?] then do you believe that we went to the moon?

There are plenty of reasons why the US would fake a moon landing and each of them is about as stretched as "To invade Iraq" or "For geopolitical power".

[Raggit]

Radiant, my point was the bulk of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, and the fires did not burn hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse. Ã, The towers were over-engineered, and I believe the creators specified that even if two of the main support columns were entirely cut, the towers still would've stood.

The trade center buildings had well over 1000 times the mass of the aircrafts that hit them, and were built to withstand high wind loads of 30 times the aircraft's weight.
The buildings would've easily absorbed whatever energy and shock was produced by the initial impact. Ã, 

It is interesting to note that none of the steel from the wreckage of the towers was tested or studied to see what caused it to fail. Ã, The towers were allegedly built with very high-intregrity steel, which would've have easily survived the heat. Ã, If these two buildings were the first in history to entirely collapse due to melting steel, you'd think that'd be worth investigating.

Mr. Colossal:

I didn't say the towers DIDN'T collapse at all, I said I didn't think they collapsed for the reasons given in the official explanation. 

As for demolition:  Here are three sources for two experts, as well as one ABC news anchor (not as relevant) discussing the collapse of the towers, including their future retractions, which should raise some suspicion:
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

I would encourage you to look at any footage of the trade centers collapsing.  The towers just seem to slide into the earth, as if they were sitting on top of a massive hole in the ground, and somebody just pulled the foundation right out from under them.
This is characteristic of any controlled demolition.  It's very smooth, very quick.

Again, if the frame of the structure gave way because of melting steel, the whole building wouldn't have just fell in on itself, only the affected floors would fall away, and I would expect more of a crumbling effect.  I probably don't need to point out that Windsor tower in Madrid burned for nearly 24 hours, and lost only a piece of the upper floors where the fire was. 

The eyewitnesses and firefighters that survived described multiple explosions, some of which actually blew them against the wall, etc.  They all believed that there were bombs planted throughout the building.  Eye witnesses on the outside said they saw several bright, quick flashes, with audible explosions as the towers fell.  Some video footage contain these flashes. 

Finally, most of all, I'd suggest looking into what happened to building 7.  No airplane hit that one, and it fell straight down like the other two.  Larry Silverstein, who said he gave the command to "pull it."  Which means "demolish."  Look
here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

Now the big question of "WHY"

I think the quick answer is, of course, leverage.  But there's more to it than just creating a quick tragedy to create an enemy with.  If 9/11 was a strategy of our government, it was to gain control of the CITIZENS of this country. 
It wasn't intended to serve as an excuse to invade Iraq.  The Iraq plan existed long before Bush even took office.  (See New American Century letter to Bill Clinton.)

9/11 is considered the worst attack ever on American soil.  Because of the intense fear and trauma that gripped the nation after 9/11, the government was able to get the PATRIOT Act passed, which had previously been turned down by congress because it was too sweeping and unconstitutional. 

Even now, Bush and his gang are STILL using 9/11 to manipulate people and to justify their actions.  Look what happens whenever people question Bush about the war.  All he has to do is mention 9/11 and terrorism, and people shut up. 

So, in the eyes of the government, 9/11 was the ultimate pass key to everything they ever wanted to do, and they will continue to use it to get what they want. 

That's why they would've allowed it to happen. 

[Nacho]

I think that if the "main column" of your theory is all the fuel of a plane is consumed after a crash... We can change of topic.

[MrColossal]

So then, did we land on the moon?

[Raggit]

So then, did we land on the moon?

It's very likely, in my mind.  I've not studied the conspiracy theories behind the moon landing, and what motivations we would've had to fake it.

I don't have any doubts about it myself.