Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11

333 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

333 Comments
Login to comment

That is what "they" want us to believe. You have to be naive to think that it was that they did all that with no inside help. Pleeeeeease!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All the "inside" help they needed was the Al Qaida members inside the planes.

Puh-leeeeze!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who are "they" ? This attack was several years in the planning, slowly infiltrating the terrorists, training some to fly, getting everything coordinated. Are we to belive Clinton and Bush were both in on it ?

Sorry, but this attack was classic al-Qaida from start to finish. It didn't need any help from "them".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, how come there still is no video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. It's the most securitzed building in the US. You would think there would be some sort of video feed from one of the security cameras. The only one that I have seen shows a black streak shooting across the lawn. We have footage of the Trade Center from muliple sources (tourists, etc)...and there's nothing from the Pentgon? Strange....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I saw a great Conspiracy movie called "Loose Change" about 9/11 indicating that the Bush regime was behind Al-Quaida's attack in order to secure power without question. Before the war, everyone thought Bush was the dumbest president on record for his lack of English ability.

After 9/11, no one was allowed to question anything he put into effect, such as the patriot act... Even now, there are still Posters in Texas trying to bring him back. Now that's scary.

I always take Conspiracy flicks with a grain of salt, but there were some interesting points. Such as :

What happened to all that gold that was stored under the WTC? More than Fort Knox, and from international sources, but it suddenly disappeared and no one reported finding much left after ground zero was cleared out.

What happened to the Pentagon? Supposedly hit by a plane, but photos from the scene show only a round hole and no debris... no titanium engines, nothing. not even scorched grass. My sister works on planes for a living in the Navy... She confirmed that there should have been engines, wings, bodies, etc. But the photos show only a round hole... like what is made when a missile hits...

The airline that crashed in PA, but didn't have any engines, or parts bigger than what comes out of a scrapyard, and no bodies. That from the Pittsburgh coroner who went to the scene. And the clear as day cellular phone calls from the flight back before airplanes had boosters for using electronics... Magic calls?

Well, again they are just theories, and good conspiracy theories are believable but without the evidence that makes them facts... like UFO's. But my point is that I can believe that it takes more than just a couple of guys and some airplanes to make 9/11 work out so smoothly and take us to two wars that have killed far more than the original attack, and not benefited us one bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no such thing as "al Qaeda", there is no one on earth who calls himself a member of "al Qaeda". "al Qaeda" is a term made up by the U.S. government to be applied to anyone killed during in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no formal organization. There is no secret terrorist network. What there is a is a phantom enemy, a boogyman that was easily sold to the American people for the benefit of the Bush Administration and their friends at PNAC.

BBC: al Qaeda Does Not Exist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 by the American government. If you go to his most wanted page there is not a single word about 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

New NEWS - BBC Video - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

On 9/11, there were 2 airplanes hitting WTC1 and WTC2, but there was an another building WTC7 which also collapsed like a stack of cards and that building was not even hit by an airplane. BBC reported 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC7 that the building had collapsed. How could BBC have had prior knowledge that a new building had collapsed 20 minutes before the collapse itself?

Also, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11. On 9/11 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Governments (of any country) can barely coordinate simple day-to-day tasks. What makes you think they could pull this off?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Osama bin laden admitted himself after it happened...why is this question even being asked so many years later?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people saying "no" are just stupid and have watched too many X-Files episodes. There was no "inside job". Everyone like a good conspiracy theory, but the 9/11 ones aren't "good".

All the theories have been debunked.

Grow up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, how come there still is no video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon...

But, how about the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the Flight 77 jetliner crash into the building?

Sheesh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I do. I think the conspiracy theorists are misguided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, how about the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the Flight 77 jetliner crash into the building?

What about the eyewitnesses? There's got to be some footage. Pictures are worth a thousand words. As for a conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not. I don't really care. I just find it weird that there is no pictures or videos that show anything that resembles a plane hitting the penatgon. If this theory is debunked, please give me a site with an actual plane headed toward the building.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoever did this, I don't think the government is telling us the whole story. Some questions are still not answered.

FBI said: "There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene,” I later discovered he had never even been indicted by the D.O.J.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001.

3.In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents.

Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.

5.An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.

In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”

Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.

However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.

According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter.

8.In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.

9.Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.

On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of “state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.

few days after the attack, several newspapers as well as the FBI reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC. In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.

Finally: The put options volume on Boeing and United Airlines were 4 to 5 times above the daily put volume data prior in the year. The data on record shows no similar trade volume was placed on any other airline stock symbol during the same period of time.

It was also documented that 1,535 puts of American Airlines were purchased a day before the attacks. A Chicago trader, Jon Najarian, noted that the owner of that particular put had the right to sell 153,500 shares at $30, ultimately netting $1.7 million. "Somebody knew about it, whether it was a broker or somebody who knew these guys, or it's one of these terrorist cells," said Jon Najarian, founder of options specialist Mercury Trading in Chicago” (Robert and Allison).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Osama bin laden admitted himself after it happened...why is this question even being asked so many years later?

This is wrong! Osama bin Laden never admitted anything, he praised the attack but that does not mean he was the master mind behind the attack. That is why the American government does not mention 9/11 on his most wanted page.

Al Qaeda is a name created by the US government. That is the conspiracy theory, not a very good one I am afraid.

There were explosives in the buildings which brought down the buildings on 9/11. I think WTC7 is a give away as that building which was not hit by anything and where there were no raging fires collapsed just like a stack of cards. Why is it that this building collapsed straight down and not side ways? You do not need to be an engineer to figure this out.It's not very complicated. The reason why WTC7 was a controlled demolishion is because it looks like one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

If it was not a controlled demolishion then why would BBC have prior knowledge of a building collapsing like a stack of cards?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh God. Is someone going to start hading out tinfoil hats next?

FBI said: "There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene,”

er, yeah, because he wasn't AT the crime scene.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001.

Yeah, that's usually done to stop people panicing. Aslo, her work would have been very sinsitive and telling people whould be a breach of security, that's probably why she was fired. Or that she was bad at her job and just wanted revenge so she made that stuff up. Oooh, conspiracy!

3.In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents.

and I thought the NYFD cared about their "brothers", only needs the FBI to shut them up.

Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse. 5.An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.

In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”

Everyone was panicing then, information gets mixed up, mistakes are made.

Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story. However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.

According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

So, what, he was lying to make a buck. Oh and cell phones have been able to connect from that altitude even before 2004.

The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter.

You've watched Loose Change too many times.

At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.

Yeah, airline passengers information isn't stored and neither is any identification for people working IN THE PENTAGON.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just find it weird that there is no pictures or videos that show anything that resembles a plane hitting the penatgon. *

Do you also find it wierd that cameras and even cell phones with cameras are not allowed in or near one of the most security conscious buildings on the planet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Have never seen Loose Change but I am shocked to think people in this day and age still take the Bush official version with face value. Nothing whatever came out of his mouth turned out to be true so why should people buy Bush's 9/11?

er, yeah, because he wasn't AT the crime scene.

@Mr. Dog. To this day, Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the terror attacks in New York on 9/11. If you are so sure Osama bin Laden is the master mind then why is it that the US government does not share your view? To say that he is not wanted because is was not AT the crime scene is too easy. Asahara was not on the Tokyo Metro during the event either but he was responsible for the sarin gas.

According to the American government.

The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dude!!! It was Bin Laden man. Bush and Rumsfeld said so and they have been proved to never lie. The bad guys did it all without question. Anyone who don`t agree is against the free world and a nut job, totally!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

'Nuff said!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Way too may inconsistencies to believe this was not an inside (CIA/Mossad) job.

GW Bush remaining in the classroom after the 2nd plane hit the WTC. How did they know he was not also targeted? If it was truly Al Qaeda, he would have been whisked outta there immediately.

Hundreds of cameras must have captured the "plane" hitting the Pentagon (one day after Rumsfeld announced Trillions of dollars missing), but they only release a few images that show nothing.

PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was based on the Israel Clean Break paper written by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, mentioned the need for a new Pearl Harbor like attack. Those who prepared these documents also wrote a paper called the Afghan Vortex before 911.

The way the 2 WTC towers and building 7 fell; they were clearly controlled demolitions. Also consider the thermate found at the site.

A day or a few days before 911, the alleged hijackers were seen getting very drunk (Muslims???) at bars/strip clubs and going out of there way to get noticed and they left a Quran and business cards behind (I don't remember the details too well, but it was something outrageous like this). Oh, and lets not forget the dancing Israelis. Clearly, someone was trying to frame the Muslims for this terrorist act.

Those who told us Al Qaeda was behind 911 are the same ones who lied about Saddam's WMDs and they have the power to cover this thing up.

Several of the alleged hijackers are still alive today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"inconsistencies", maybe, "proof", no.

Several of the alleged hijackers are still alive today.

Proof please.

Those who told us Al Qaeda was behind 911 are the same ones who lied about Saddam's WMDs and they have the power to cover this thing up.

Really? The EXACT same individuals?

The way the 2 WTC towers and building 7 fell; they were clearly controlled demolitions. Also consider the thermate found at the site.

Thank you for your opinion as an expert in demolition. Shame it's been debunket to hell and back by REAL experts.

PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was based on the Israel Clean Break paper written by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, mentioned the need for a new Pearl Harbor like attack. Those who prepared these documents also wrote a paper called the Afghan Vortex before 911.

Another Loose Change lover.

There is really no point in rational debate with you guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I found that BBC live report quite interesting. A journalist is describing the collapse of building 7, while you can very clearly see in the background that building 7 was still standing. What I found quite interesting is how that report suddenly ran into "technical difficulties". Someone must have noticed something fishy and called them up: "WTF, not yet!!!".

Its also quite interesting how we don't seem to have any images of the alleged hijackers boarding the planes or going through security. All we have are a few images of Atta at another airport. Funny that! Contrast that with the Mossad hit in Dubai, where we have video images of the killers at all stages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you for your opinion as an expert in demolition. Shame it's been debunket to hell and back by REAL experts.

Yeah, I heard it was "debunketted" by Chertoff's cousin in Popular Mechanics. You do not need to be an expert to see that all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions, anyone with a functional brain cell can see that. But if you want an expert opinion, please see Archetects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/).

Another Loose Change lover.

No, actually, I'm not a big fan of Loose Change. I prefer Ry Dawson and Chris Bollyn; check them out!

Several of the alleged hijackers are still alive today.

Proof please.

That is not being debated. If you do not know about it, you might want to try reading a little.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the conspiracy theory points are debunked well enough by Popular Mechanic: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Al-Qaida is real enough, and there are other groups like them who would love to have carried out these attacks. That much is documented well enough. Whether an alert and empowered government agency could have prevented the attack, I don't know...the group was certainly seen as a threat prior to the event in question, but I don't doubt that Al-Qaida, and not Bush or any government agency, secret or not, was responsible for the attack itself.

Being suspicious is fine. Questioning the facts is fine. Gobbling up ridiculous stories instead of embracing reality is interesting as a form of entertainment, but it gets old after a while. JMO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you also find it wierd that cameras and even cell phones with cameras are not allowed in or near one of the most security conscious buildings on the planet?

Nope. But for the the most protected building in the US, there has to be cameras all over that buiding pointed in all directions.....hmmmmm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its also quite interesting how we don't seem to have any images of the alleged hijackers boarding the planes or going through security.

Yes, there are images of the hijackers going through security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is an interesting debate here, with scientists/engineers representing both sides. Quite revealing to hear how little is needed to consider something "debunked".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was it not Cheney's nephew who was in charge of Popular Mechanics? Someone related to Dick Cheney. Correct me if I am wrong by coming with a link or a source.

FACTS IGNORED BY POPULAR MECHANICS.

* The building collapsed in a precisely vertical fashion. * The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall. * The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

There is no such thing as Al Qaeda. People who believe this, I urge them to watch the BBC documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

Can someone answer why Osama bin Laden is not wanted by the US government for 9/11? Ron Paul seem to be the only sensible American politician who also does not believe in the Al Qaeda lie created by the Bush government, neither does BBC.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/139652

Believing the same old lies which have been reported as truths is what brain washed people do. I urge people to wake up from the coma. It's about time, better late than never.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope. But for the the most protected building in the US, there has to be cameras all over that buiding pointed in all directions.....hmmmmm

Yep and two of them caught shot of the impact. These are security cameras that produce a series of stills and not high speeed video cameras.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, there are images of the hijackers going through security.

Yeah, they show Atta and his friend at a different airport, on his way onto a previous connecting flight. So we have proof that these two guys boarded a another plane earlier that morning. So what? Why don't they show us similar images of him boarding THE plane?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was it not Cheney's nephew who was in charge of Popular Mechanics?

I believe it was Chertoff's cousin or nephew.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was it not Cheney's nephew who was in charge of Popular Mechanics?

That, I believe, is the wrong conspiracy theory. The correct conspiracy, also wrong, is mentioned here under "disputed family background."

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aside from the fact that no steel-frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to or since Sept. 11, the manner in which the buildings came down is itself a substantial cause for reinvestigation. A collapse due to fire would likely proceed gradually with large deformations visible in the building’s perimeter, with the building tipping over slowly in the direction of the steadily weakening structural members – to the path of least resistance.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

WTC7 came down at free fall speed. And so did WTC 1 & 2.

The other thing which I find to be highly puzzling is that Osama bin Laden is still not officially wanted for the terrorist attack on 9/11 by the USA government. 9,10 years after this horrible event, and hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is still no charge against Osama Bin Laden.

This is an interesting article about CNN and the BBC’s premature announcement of the WTC7’s collapse.

http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/42/CNN-BBC-premature-announcement-of-WTC7s-collap.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How did Al Qaeda create the tons of molten iron, which could still be found weeks after 911?

WTC7 came down at free fall speed. And so did WTC 1 & 2.

Actually WTC7 came down in free fall speed for the first 100ft or so, while WTC 1 and 2 came down at slightly slower speeds. But still, all 3 were clearly controlled demolitions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al-Qaeda admitted to the attack. This question borders on conspiracy theories such as did man really land on the moon? What a simple-minded question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The other thing which I find to be highly puzzling is that Osama bin Laden is still not officially wanted for the terrorist attack on 9/11 by the USA government

Your info is incorrect. He's wanted by the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Where do you come up with this stuff?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your info is incorrect. He's wanted by the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Where do you come up with this stuff?

From your link.

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Why does not the US government mention 9/11?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I normally don't agree with you, sabiwabi, but after that utter slaying of Mr. Dog... ouch! That guy could not refute a single thing you said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I haven't been slayed, because you conspiracy nuts are wrong, so slay-fail.

And for all you who say that they were "clearly controlled demolitions" please state your professional or academic credentials to prove that you're not just talking crap.

I also like the way you guys cherry-pick the information you chose to believe. You believe that the pictures of Atta were from a different flight, but if they said it was from THE flight you'd all be saying it was a lie. So there'S really no point in showing you sense, because you won't listen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I firmly believe the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to have an excuse to wage diabolical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i firmly believe it was al-qaida and that anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. i mean, why would they not? and why would the us gov't orchestrate it? the most logical argument is usually the most plausible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I firmly believe the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to have an excuse to wage diabolical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is one of the few times you made sense, sarcasm as side. A person who believed Saddam and Iraq was connected with 9/11 at one stage, you seem to have enlightened. Keep up the good work, you are a beacon of light for humanity, American no doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just find it weird that there is no pictures or videos that show anything that resembles a plane hitting the penatgon. If this theory is debunked, please give me a site with an actual plane headed toward the building.

Here's one for you: Find any pictures or videos of Barbara Olsen or any of the other passengers or crew on Flight 77 after 9/11. Where did they all go? Where did the plane go?

That big gash in the side of the Pentagon starting to make more sense?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do any of you think its beyond our government to kill a few for its agenda. If not ask the American Indians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and a few others how well the government cherishes life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did Al-Kaida really land on the moon?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who believes 9/11 was the result of a man in a cave, then you're a complete nitwit! The evidence is 100% clear that it was an inside job! And why would the FBI and CIA hide the tapes of the Pentagon strike? And why were there no aircraft parts found at either the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania, and spare me the "the impact was so great the plane disintegrated" crap please...the Lockerbie jet fell from a higher altitude after it was blown up, and there were still plenty of recognisable pieces!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes, and also believe that Osama is alive!!! duh

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And for all you who say that they were "clearly controlled demolitions" please state your professional or academic credentials to prove that you're not just talking crap.

Oh really? So now we all have to be demolition experts to believe the video evidence shown several years ago, by..umm..demolition experts, including the one interview with a US Army Explosives expert, who clearly stated that the explosive material found at the WT sites, could ONLY have come from a specialized unit of the armed forces? Gee...and there we all were thinking qualifications weren't necessary! HA! Honestly dude...if you choose to be blinded by the truth, that's your prerogative, but the rest of us prefer to live in the real world!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who believes 9/11 was the result of a man in a cave, then you're a complete nitwit!

Not a man in a cave but a number of men in the cockpits of hijacked aircraft.

including the one interview with a US Army Explosives expert,

LOL!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And why were there no aircraft parts found at either the Pentagon...

Another nutter proven wrong. Plenty of parts were found at the Pentagon.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see that 26% here believe al-Qaida was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Over 1 in 4. Incredible...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Muslim Brotherhood Leader Sheikh Mahdi 'Akef: We Are Ready to Send 10,000 Men to Palestine, But Egyptian Government Should Arm Them; There's No Such Thing as Al-Qaeda – The Americans Made It Up

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2480.htm

So you have BBC, Muslim Brotherhood among others who openly state that Al Qaeda is a fictional creation by USA, and even the American government has not charged Osama Bin Laden for the attack on 9/11.

If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0111-31.htm

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911

0 ( +0 / -0 )

May I ask, are any of you folks opposed to a well funded, open, public, non partizan, examination of the new evidence?

Are you opposed to a renewed examination of the old evidence? I say: "To identify the perpetrator, first know the crime." I know the crime. I want to identify the true perpetrators. The crimes of 9/11 exceed the capacity of the accused. I want the truth. I can handle it. Thank You.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I watched 9/11 massacres live on TV. There's no way it was demolition. I believe it was Al-Qaida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was a traumatic and humiliating experience to see so much devastation wreaked at the hands of 19 men armed with box cutter knives. Many simply can't handle it, and look for other explanations. But the US level of preparedness against such an attack was almost nil. Are the posters in here forgetting the testimony of the Hispanic female security guard at Boston's Logan Airport, who around 6:00 a.m. on 9/11 had a vehement argument with the Arab men who insisted they needed to carry their box cutters on the plane? There is a huge convergence of evidence that cannot lead to any other possible conclusion. The only missing link is why, after Condi Rice and the CIA had swapped intel a few weeks earlier, no action was taken to notify the FAA about raising the level of airport security. My conclusion: criminal incompetence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beelzebub, there is a huge convergence of evidence that leads to CIA and Mossad. There are no missing links; we know who, what, how, and why.

BTW, speaking of security at Boston's Logan Airport, which company is in charge of security at that airport?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Threads like this are always interesting. Just like conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, Roswell, etc, they always bring the loony conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork where we can all see them.

As for my own views on 9/11, there is no doubt in my mind that Al-Qaida agents were responsible, even though some readers above absurdly claim there is no Al-Qaida.

Here is why I find it difficult to believe in a conspiracy.

What motive would U.S. government operatives have for orchestrating 9/11? Certainly not to attack Iraq two years later. They had their motive for that already prepared, that he had WMDs. What other motive was there? Just to attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban? That is not enough motive for a 9/11 plot. Might it have been to introduce draconian security laws? To what end?

If it was a conspiracy, how could such an intricate plot stay secret? How come no one has come forward to say they were part of the cover-up? I don't mean on blogs or conspiracy websites, but I mean going public. There must have been hundreds of people involved if it was a conspiracy and I find it hard to believe that they all had no conscience and didn't mind one bit that they would be part of a plan to kill 2,000 of their fellow citizens.

If it wasn't Al-Qaida operatives, who piloted the planes that hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was it part of the "plot" that passengers would battle the hijackers on United Flight 93 and crash it into a field in Pennsylvania instead of the Capitol building, which was presumably the target?

What about the calls from passengers on board the planes describing the hijackings? Were they part of the plot?

Anyway, truth and logic never work with conspiracy theorists, so this argument can go back and forth like a tennis ball.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi, I've been reading your posts in JT for quite some time and it's amply apparent that you are so rabid in your hatred of Jews and Israel, you're intent on blaming them for everything wrong in the world. I don't feel obliged to respond to your follow-up question because I realise it is futile to debate an irrational person. To claim the CIA/Mossad was responsible is to suggest that 300 million Americans are so stupid, even after 9 years they could not come up with the evidence. The reason they couldn't produce such evidence was that US authorities found the smoking gun 9 years ago. Your attempt to mold reality to suit your own hateful fantasies is not the least bit persuasive.

Moderator: Readers, we understand this is an emotional topic, but you all need to keep the discussion civil when you exchange views.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What motive would U.S. government operatives have for orchestrating 9/11? Certainly not to attack Iraq two years later. They had their motive for that already prepared, that he had WMDs. What other motive was there? Just to attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban? That is not enough motive for a 9/11 plot. Might it have been to introduce draconian security laws? To what end?

It's obvious. By carrying out a false flag operation they got public support to go to war in middle east.

If it was a conspiracy, how could such an intricate plot stay secret? How come no one has come forward to say they were part of the cover-up? I don't mean on blogs or conspiracy websites, but I mean going public. There must have been hundreds of people involved if it was a conspiracy and I find it hard to believe that they all had no conscience and didn't mind one bit that they would be part of a plan to kill 2,000 of their fellow citizens.

Well, it's not secret. As a matter of fact, only 50% of people here believe the government theory. And a lot of people come out and say that they were part of the plot. Too bad nobody listens to them.

If it wasn't Al-Qaida operatives, who piloted the planes that hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was it part of the "plot" that passengers would battle the hijackers on United Flight 93 and crash it into a field in Pennsylvania instead of the Capitol building, which was presumably the target?

The passengers revolted and too control of the plane. It was then shut down by the air-force to wipe out any evidence

What about the calls from passengers on board the planes describing the hijackings? Were they part of the plot?

The calls never happened. Not on the cell phones as claims were made. Technology supporting such calls wasn't there yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is always good to have doubts, and I see nothing wrong with mistrusting the government, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of "Why People Believe Weird Things" has some very astute things to say about the flawed arguments of conspiracy nuts and others. His latest book is "Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown" (2010).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And for all you who say that they were "clearly controlled demolitions" please state your professional or academic credentials to prove that you're not just talking crap.

I don't have to have academic credentials, I can just believe the ones who has. http://www.ae911truth.org/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who believes 9/11 was the result of a man in a cave, then you're a complete nitwit! The evidence is 100% clear that it was an inside job!

I couldn't have said it better. Evidence is 100% clear. Never in the past, steal structure has been failed. Never. and I know it will never happen again. Unless of course if there's a need for another war. Or US army wants to pick a fight. And they won't mind killing some 3000 of their own people, if they believe it's for greater good. I know, for some, it's very hard to believe that powers within their government can execute a plan like this. But the sad fact is, they have. They did brought those buildings down in front of the whole world, because they know that there are more ignorant people out there,who will believe the official story, no matter how stupid it sounds. They won't investigate further, they won't care enough to search the truth. Like Morpheus said about people in matrix, "they are so hopelessly depended on the system that they will fight to protect it".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The passengers revolted and too control of the plane. It was then shut down by the air-force to wipe out any evidence

I don't believe those planes had passengers on them. They were not even comercial planes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I watched 9/11 massacres live on TV. There's no way it was demolition. I believe it was Al-Qaida.

I also watched it live on TV. At that time, from the shock and surprise, I didn't think it was staged. But after the shock was gone, watching it time and time again, seeing the top tower is falling in an angle, there were no other explanation but controlled demolution. I saw the construction pictures of WTC twin towers. There are huge central columns that could not be just destroyed by some heat in upper floors. Both buildings came down under 10 seconds. Like they did not receive any resistance from lower floors. It's insane to believe in a pancake theory. It's insane to believe in official story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.ae911truth.org/

These people, licenced architects and engineers, have no reason to lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see that 26% here believe al-Qaida was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Over 1 in 4. Incredible...

What's incredible to me is that 3 in every 4 believes the official story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the first steps in preparing the 911 attacks was to secure the complete control of the WTC, to allow the setting of explosive charges in place to bring the towers down. The 4 key people involved in this privatization are:

Larry Silverstein obtained a 99 year lease on the entire world trade center complex on 24 July, 2001!!!. The trade towers were nearly worthless, since they filled with asbestos that needed removal. Incidentally, Silverstein had breakfast in "Windows on the World" restaurant (North Tower 107th Floor) every single morning since he signed the lease, but he was absent on 911, so were his two offsprings who also worked in the WTC. Silverstein scored more than $4.5 Billion in insurance money. He was personal friends with Rupert Murdoch, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Frank Lowy, the owner of one of the biggest shopping mall conglomerates in the world, leased the shopping concourse area called the Mall at the World Trade Center (427,000 square feet of retail floor space). Lowy was once a member of the Golani Brigade, and fought in the Israeli war of independence. Before this he was a member of the Hagganah terrorist organization. Lowy funded and launched the Israeli Institute for National Strategy and Policy, and is close friends with Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak. He was also implicated in an Israeli Bank Scandal with Olmert.

Lewis Eisenberg was the head of the Port Authority of New York and authorized the lease transfer to Silverstein and Lowy.

Ronald Lauder was the chairman of NY Governor George Pataki's commission on privatization. He lobbied for the privatization of the WTC and also got the former Stewart Air Force Base to become privatized. Oddly, the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged directly over this airport. Lauder founded a school for the Mossad in Herzliya, Israel called the Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy.

I don't believe those planes had passengers on them...

Maybe they were taken to Stewart Air Force Base, and who knows what happened to them after that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just like conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination ... they always bring the loony conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork where we can all see them.

I take it you believe it was Oswald and his magic bullet...

What motive would U.S. government operatives have for orchestrating 9/11?

We have a bunch of neocons writing reports for the Israeli and US governments about invading Afghanistan and Iraq (Clean Break, PNAC, Afghan Vortex,...), and in one of them they state very clearly that reaching their objective would be very difficult without a Pearl Harbor-type event. These are the same people who were pushing for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately after they got their new Pearl Harbor.

So their motive has been very clearly reported by the very people behind the attacks. Its so obvious.

To claim the CIA/Mossad was responsible is to suggest that 300 million Americans are so stupid...

Many Americans are aware of what is going on. Unfortunately, most have yet to realize that MSM is controlled by individuals who are also board members of important military industries. That is why they lie to us about 911 and the resulting wars, its in their financial interest to have wars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi, I've been reading your posts in JT for quite some time and it's amply apparent that you are so rabid in your hatred of Jews and Israel,

Hatred of Israel? Obviously, they have been killing way too many innocent civilians. Hatred of Jews? No!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CIA/Mossad was responsible is to suggest that 300 million Americans are so stupid, even after 9 years they could not come up with the evidence. The reason they couldn't produce such evidence was that US authorities found the smoking gun 9 years ago.

While I do not want to blame anyone for it, I just find the official version which we have been told by the American government to be ridiculous. As many people are shocked to hear. There is no such thing as Al Qaida. This is a fictional creation by the USA government. BBC among others have echoed the same thing. Namely that Al Qaida does not exist. Never has. Then right after 9/11, Bush wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive and we were told he was the master mind behind these attacks. 9 years later to this day. The American government have yet to charge Osama bin Laden for 9/11. There is no global network of terrorists like the US government want us to believe. It's all BS. By putting a name to something which does not exist makes it easier for the American government to get support for their genocidal wars.

This begs the question. Why is NATO in Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden is not charged with 9/11 and when BBC among others have openly said that there is no such thing as Al Qaida? Years of gross prisoner abuse in Gutanamo and US still have failed to provide any form of evidence that there is such a thing called Al Qaida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These conspiracy theories always involve some number of elaborate high-level cover-ups by the government as part of some grand plot to accomplish some nefarious objective. And there are so many of them!

I'm curious, for those who believe 9/11 was some sort of grand plot, have any of you ever actually worked with or for the US governement?

It's like herding cats.

It's almost impossible to keep a secret in a room between 7 people much less orchestrate a complex, coordinated, multi-agency cover-up with hundreds of people across a large geographic area with so many eyes looking at the event and studying it after the fact. The complexity of an operation and the possibility for failure increase geometrically with the number of people involved. I think you all are giving US gov't bureaucracy too much credit...

I'm not saying a consipracy isn't possible, I'm just saying it's very, very unlikely it could have been pulled off without some major whistleblowing going on at some pretty high levels.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Norman Cohn described it best when he wrote, 'It is perhaps hard to accept that scholarly study, and all the time and energy which that implies, can appropriately be lavished on a ludicrous fantasy'. He was writing on another topic, but it fits the 9/11 conspiracy nuts to a proverbial 'T'. Look: virtually any scenario can be produced by means of reverse reconstruction of events; some may even appear plausible; but -- I hate to have to spoil your fun by invoking reality here -- that is simply not the way things happened. The only obvious truth I can see is a huge effort by US security officials, beginning with Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet, to cover their collective butts for having utterly failed at protecting the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's almost impossible to keep a secret in a room between 7 people much less orchestrate a complex, coordinated, multi-agency cover-up with hundreds of people across a large geographic area with so many eyes looking at the event and studying it after the fact.

Yeah, you mean like Iran-Contra and other conspiracies that were eventually exposed. Conspiracies do happen. Come to think of it, practically every war the US has been involved in started with a false flag, why would this war be any different.

Also, haven't you noticed that 9/11, just like the 7/7 attack and the recent sinking of a Korean military ship, all happened during special training drills.

Only a few key members of government were aware or participated in 9/11. When I say that it was mainly a CIA/Mossad operation does not mean that all members of the CIA were involved or were aware of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

My point is, the more complicated the conspiracy, the more likely it is to fail. Iran/Contra and the recent attack sinking a Korean military ship are small potatoes, simple, compared to the kind of coordination required to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When I say that it was mainly a CIA/Mossad operation does not mean that all members of the CIA were involved or were aware of it.

Erm, actually, nor does it mean that any members of the CIA (or Mossad) were involved or aware of it for that matter!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Erm, actually, nor does it mean that any members of the CIA (or Mossad) were involved or aware of it for that matter!

The dancing Israelis in New jersey openly admitted that they went to USA to film an event. They obviously had forehand knowledge about 9/11. They were detained by the American government and later released only to brag on national TV in their home country that they were able to pin point the event in NY. What great friends Israel is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To read such a litany of conspiracy theories is to doubt the wisdom of democracy itself. How can one let the people rule when so many of them are off in la-la land?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The dancing Israelis in New jersey openly admitted that they went to USA to film an event. They obviously had forehand knowledge about 9/11.

Wheeee -- this is classic dissembling. You guys are wasting it in JT -- it belongs in a textbook that instructs students on how revisionists attempt to chip away at logic and rational thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

compared to the kind of coordination required to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy.

You mean like:

the military exercises on 911

Cheney ordering the fighter jets to stand down (as stated on a video of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission)

four individuals with very close ties to the Israeli government and the Mossad involved in getting control of the WTC complex less than 2 months before the attacks. One of these individuals was also involved in the privatization of the former Stewart Air Force Base where the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged, maybe at least two of the planes involved in the attack left from here.

the elevators were being renovated, an ideal chance to set up all the explosives and thermite needed to bring down the towers.

Airport security at Logan and Newark were handled by an Israeli company.

Plus, many people ARE aware of who is behind the attacks, it is not a secret. Just because the controlled media don't report it does not mean we don't know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then there are veterans who worked for the American military. There are many people questioning the official 9/11 story.

From 1995 till 2002 I was a Sergeant in the United States Army. Not only this, but I was stationed at United States Central Command, which is located at MacDill AFB in Tampa Florida. I was on active duty when 9-11 happened. In the days prior to the tragedies, we were involved in many exercises. Some of these exercises included the scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into, our building the world trade center, the White House, Sears Tower, and the Pentagon. These drills or exercises as we called them, where classified Top Secret. Having a Top Secret rated clearance I was dumbfounded that they would ever push a training exercise above the level of Secret. Over my 8 years in the Army, I had participated in many exercises around the world, none of which were ever classified over the Secret level.

Ill start by saying a few months prior it was announced by President Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading up operations over NORAD our North American Aerospace Defense Command. Along with many of my peers, we were shocked. Over the years, if you research NORAD, it has always been under the command of a Military officer. It was done this way because the defense of this country has always been in the hands of such. Prior to the months before 9-11 this was all of the sudden changed.

http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php

I also found it hillarious that Bush was in some class room reating My Pet Goat when the attacks occured but not only was he too busy readin My Pet Goat but he even said that sitting in the corridor before entering the class room he saw the first plane hit WTC. There was no televised coverage of the first plane to crash into the WTC.

Obama promised to have as transparent government as possible, to put and end to all these questions, it is long over due to have a new independent investigation. If people are so sure that the so-called conspiracy theorist are wrong then there should be no problem in having a new independent investigations.

People say pools of molten steel have been found at Ground Zero. Where did that come from? Witnesses heard explosions in the basement of WTC before the collapse itself. I would like to get some answers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

Are you trying to make my point or yours?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To read such a litany of conspiracy theories is to doubt the wisdom of democracy itself.

For democracy to work, the people must be well informed. When you have essentially all the MSM controlled by individuals who are also on the board of major military industries, you are bound to have a misinformed population that is easily lead to war.

As for the dancing Israelis, why would they be celebrating while disguised as Arabs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how revisionists attempt to chip away at logic and rational thinking.

I don't think you can believe the official story and talk about logic and rational thinking. Anyone that knows about simple physics can understand that buildings don't fall like they did in the event of 911. Sabiwabi's post about silversteen and others are true. They could pull something like this off simply because they know, most people are ignorant fools that believe anything they hear on TV.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neogreenjapan,

indeed, and there is also Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, who says that the military brass now know that Israel and those traitors within the US committed the 911 attack.

You might want to look him up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They could pull something like this off simply because they know, most people are ignorant fools that believe anything they hear on TV.

Right --- or believe anything they read about it on Internet blogs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

See Beelzebub's comments on reverse reconstruction above.

In the months leading up to 9/11, intelligence agencies were receiving several non-specific threat indicators pointing to the increased potential for a terrorist attack. Maybe your TS exercise was based on information being received by an intelligence agency, hence the elevation in classification level that would not have occured in the previous 8 years. As you point out in your post, terrorists hijacking aircraft was one of many scenarios discussed at the time. It would not have been unusual to exercise for each likely scenario.

NIST and the engineering community in general have already acknowledged that the official version of events is plausible. They don't want to refute conspiracy theories to prevent giving these theories any undue attention. Now I can see why.

@sabiwabi:

As for the dancing Israelis, why would they be celebrating while disguised as Arabs?

So I guess the FBI is in on it, too? You see, the further you take your theory, the more people get involved in the conspiracy. The more people get involved in the conspiracy, the less likely it is to be a conspiracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wheeee -- this is classic dissembling. You guys are wasting it in JT -- it belongs in a textbook that instructs students on how revisionists attempt to chip away at logic and rational thinking.

Regarding the dancing Israelis. You can just do a quick google search. This has been in the main stream media. There have been both news papers as well as television reports about this incident.

*A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

@jamal2609

So I guess the FBI is in on it, too? You see, the further you take your theory, the more people get involved in the conspiracy. The more people get involved in the conspiracy, the less likely it is to be a conspiracy.

According to FBI it most certainly was not Osama bin Laden. He had nothing to do with 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There was no WMD, no Bin Laden, no Al Qaida, it's all fabrication. Why should we take the American explanation for face value. They have 0 credibility. Everything they have said have been proved to be false. Not true.

BBC documentary. Al Qaida is fantasy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA

Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist (Documentary) - 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7ZHenQnu4&feature=related

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sad fact is, and I reiterate, 9/11 was a huge emotional trauma for Americans. The ones unwilling to accept what transpired are in denial because they simply can't handle the humiliation of having their iconic structures successfully attacked by 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. The blame must lie elsewhere. Um, let's see, we've got the CIA, Department of Defence, FBI, National Intelligence Agency, and who else? Of course, those insidious, conspiratorial Jews had to have been in on it right? Take it from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- he's even set up a web site to disseminate the 'truth'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was it only me that saw the footage of Al-Qaida taking responsibility for the attack? Next you:ll be trying to tell me that aliens shot JFK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So I guess the FBI is in on it, too? You see, the further you take your theory, the more people get involved in the conspiracy.

Well, some members of the FBI are definitely behind it. Why won't they release images showing us what hit the Pentagon? They immediately went around confiscating all the videos that could have captured the alleged plane, but they only release a few images that show us absolutely nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was it only me that saw the footage of Al-Qaida taking responsibility for the attack?

Indeed, the CIA certified the video as being authentic. They wouldn't lie about that, would they?

Of course, those insidious, conspiratorial Jews had to have been in on it right?

Beelzebub, why do you always feel the need to bring up the Jews? BTW, didn't you recently write "Americans have been lied to for more like 110 years... and that's a conservative estimate. Even the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbour ..."?

What makes you think that the lying suddenly stopped when Bush came to power?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just see this video, if you're bit interested in the subject. There are no opinions being presented. Just collection of videos.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3916770-911-revisited-were-explosives-used-v-2

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beelzebub, why do you always feel the need to bring up the Jews?

Gosh, sabiwabi, you just took the same words right out of my mouth!

BTW, didn't you recently write "Americans have been lied to for more like 110 years...

Ah, I see you're been doing your research. All right: here's my response: just because I read historical materials responsibly researched by scholars without an ulterior motive, that the US government has used disinformation to create pretexts for going to war (c.f. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), it doesn't necessarily mean I'm in agreement with certain posters' hallucinatory fantasies of what occurred on 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ones unwilling to accept what transpired are in denial because they simply can't handle the humiliation of having their iconic structures successfully attacked by 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. The blame must lie elsewhere. Um, let's see, we've got the CIA, Department of Defence, FBI, National Intelligence Agency, and who else?

Instead of blaming on this and that, I find it easier to point out the lies the US government has been telling. Namely that a global network of Islam extremists called Al Qaida with Osama bin Laden as the head of this global network was behind 9/11. This is false.

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread. There is no global terrorist network called Al Qaida. This name was created by the US government. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11 by the US government. To this day, the US government has failed to provide any shred of evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

Why is it that people have such a hard time believing Mossad had prior knowledge of 9/11? What more is it that people need to be convinced? The dancing Israelis have in public stated that they were in USA to film an event.

While it may very well be a bunch of crazed Arabs with box cutter knives who hijacked airplanes. I do not think 2 airplanes alone could bring down 3 buildings. If it was fire which made the steel soft, the most likely scenario would be that the buildings would tilt and not collapse onto itself.

The Arabs who hijacked the airplanes were not in a global terrorist network called Al Qaida. This is false. If it were them who hijacked the airplanes they did this completely independently with no funds or training or supervision from Osama Bin Laden. They were neither in a terrorist organization called Al Qaida. This is pure American fabrication.

What is likely is that the towers were brought down by controlled demolishion while framing it as if it were the airplanes which brought down the towers. This would explain the molten metal which was found on Ground Zero. You would not find molten steel from jet fuel fire. Also, I do not think if the towers collapsed due to fire the towers would not collapse at almost free fall speed. I just find that hard to believe.

Speaking of false flag operations. US has declassified Operation Northwood. This was an operation where the American government would bomb their own country and blame it on Cuba in order for US to invade Cuba. This was never put in motion but the US government had detailed plans of it.

In Italy, the Italian government bombed a train station in Bologna resulting in a massacre. The government blamed it on leftist extremist but it turned out that the Italian government was responsible for this. They did this in order to make people scared and vote for them in the coming elections.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

edited.The last sentence should have been.

They did this in order to make people scared for communists and vote for them ( conservatives) in the coming elections.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Disillusioned

What does any video of someone "claiming" to have done a terrorist attack proove anything?

How many terrorist attacks were there already where multiple parties claimed responsibility. Any Yahoo with a Video-cam or even a cel-phone can create a Video nowadays.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it doesn't necessarily mean I'm in agreement with certain posters' hallucinatory fantasies of what occurred on 9/11.

What hallucinatory fantasies? Instead of criticizing the messenger, can you point out anything false in what I have written.

Is it false that Silverstein signed the lease for the WTC less than 2 months before the attacks? ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What hallucinatory fantasies? Instead of criticizing the messenger, can you point out anything false in what I have written.

What you refer to as 'criticising the messenger', I call inductive reasoning. To take a cue from Bertrand Russell, if I recall correctly, proof of something's non-existence is a virtual impossibility. This is why Russell conceded he was unable to prove there was no tiny green leprechaun seated atop his writing table. You are trying to point out the illogic in my refusal to believe in little green leprechauns. Oh, pity to he who refuses to deny himself the pleasures of convoluted scenarios and fantastic tales!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi. I am an agreement with you on most parts, but I do not know who was behind 9/11. I try rather to focus on the lies been brought by the Bush administration. I think many people are scared to even think of the consequences of the Bush administration covering facts as that would devistate many people which is understandable so they buy the propaganda.

I used to think of these conspiracy people as freaks. Strange people. But after some research online and watching documentaries and youtube, I tend to believe that there were other elements than just jet fuel fire which brought down 3 buildings on 9/11.

One person who has been saying this for some time is Richard Gage. I see he is now getting air time on main stream media in US. He seems to be perfectly sane and rational. He is an architect and has done lots of work and research on steel framed buildings. I do not see why he is not as credible as Bush. Quite frankly, I'll take his word over Bush and Cheney any day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i2Iha76XMY

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, the conspiracy nuts are having a field day. Of course, with the planned ground zero mosque they will soon have a veritable conspiracy nut fountain right next to the site. Bizarre.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Beelzebub:

The sad fact is, and I reiterate, 9/11 was a huge emotional trauma for Americans. The ones unwilling to accept what transpired are in denial because they simply can't handle the humiliation of having their iconic structures successfully attacked by 19 Arabs armed with box cutters.

I think I know what you mean, but I'll see you and raise you. Every fantastic event like this is met with even more fantastic conspiracy theories. What's more romantic, exciting, and comforting than to think there's this vast conspiracy that can explain all of this? A dark room filled with a cabal of old, angry white guys conspiring secretly to rule the world, enrich themselves, and/or enslave the rest of the world's population. It's lot easier to believe this than to believe that life is so much more complicated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it's all said and done, people will believe what they want. There are still people out there convinced it wasn't really the Titanic that sank in 1912.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We may answer "yes" to this question, while submitting another question: do we really know Al-Qaeda? or Who is really hiding behind Al-Qaeda?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I started reading this thread, but why bother? You conspiracy theorists are all a pack of loons. File it right up there with the faked moon landings and Elvis sightings. It's quite easy to create something out of nothing.

What happened to the Pentagon? Supposedly hit by a plane, but photos from the scene show only a round hole and no debris... no titanium engines, nothing. not even scorched grass. My sister works on planes for a living in the Navy... She confirmed that there should have been engines, wings, bodies, etc. But the photos show only a round hole... like what is made when a missile hits...

One of my best friends lived a few miles from the Pentagon and his wife saw the plane going in (well, out of view but clearly angled to crash). I recall seeing aircraft wreckage as well, but of course your mind blanks all that out because the evil government just HAD to be behind all this. Those stupid Ay-rabs couldn't have planned and carried out such a thing, no sir. Building can't collapse because of impact and vibration either, right? Just had a three or four story one fall down near to where I work last week due to construction going on next door. Some idiot can't figure out the time differences and claims the BBC reported it before it happens. Why is the truth so difficult for people to understand? Elvis is dead; croaked on the toilet or whatever a long time ago. Same with Marlyn Monroe and Jim Morrison. Michael Jackson isn't alive in someone's basement. A man with a really crappy Italian WW2 model rifle could conceivably kill JFK (although I will admit there are some odd ones there) and a decent terror network could do what was done on 9/11. Move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What hallucinatory fantasies? Instead of criticizing the messenger, can you point out anything false in what I have written.

What you refer to as 'criticising the messenger', I call inductive reasoning.

I guess that means you can't find anything untrue in my posts. At least I pointed out exactly the many reasons why I do not believe in the official version.

Simply calling the other side loony, nutty, ... is a very weak argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan,

Indeed, the thing most of us know for sure (100%) is that the official version is not possible. I agree that Gage and his large group of architects and engineers do a great job at proving it. As to the who and why, many people are providing good information and many more are providing disinformation. At the moment, I tend to trust Ry Dawson and Chris Bollyn most. Please check them out if you haven't already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My thoughts are that the conspiracy theory movies you see around the place are about as reliable as what the US Government tells it's people. They tend to hang their cloaks on some pretty flimsy hooks, and then fluff their theories out with other poorly substantiated rumor and innuendo to build their case. The gullible swallow the lure, and the story takes life. Kind of how the US Government explains some of it's international actions over the last 30-40 years. What we do know is that the US meddling in the affairs and politics of the Middle East for many years has greatly upset many people. I went there long before 9/11 and it was painfully clear from many average citizens on the street that they really didn't like the US meddling in their region at all. They were very outspoken about it, with absolutely no prompting. It really surprised me. So when I watched the events of that day unfold on the TV in 2001, I was absolutely shocked - but I could totally see how it was possible for extremists from that region to be focused and motivated enough to attempt it. It was clear that US foreign policy's chickens were coming home to roost in a spectacularly tragic way. I think that is ultimately is responsible for 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did 9/11 happen? Sure. Was Al-Qaida responsible? Ummm... depends how you define, "responsible".

U.S. Government agencies have admitted that they had sufficient information before the attack to prevent it, but that a lack of communication and miscommunications prevented corrective action being taken. Budgets for the CIA and similar units have been progressively cut year on year since the cold war ended and it has been argued that it was simply a matter of time until the under-funded and under-resourced departments dropped the ball. In that case a lot of responsibility belongs with the U.S. Senate, who kept cutting until these departments weren't capable of doing their jobs.

On the other hand it has also been proposed that it would have been very simple for an analyst who's job was under threat to just deliberately drop the ball, knowing that in the coming months and years his expertise would be too valuable to fire him.

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't take a massive conspiracy theory to spread a lot of blame around.

Was it Al-Qaida? Well that's a trickier one. The interrogations were all conducted behind closed doors and involved torture. Sure Al-Qaida claimed responsibility publicly, but frankly they're all nuts, face it, normal people don't blow up buildings and kill themselves in the process. People confessing to stuff they didn't do simply to cash in on the fame associated with the misdeed is fairly common, and it's worked out fairly well for Al-Qaida. Pre-9/11 they were just another tiny group of extremists with a few small cells. Now they're famous and are attracting plenty of attention (good and bad). Yeah, so I really don't put much stock in the just confessions, I'd like to see some evidence before I make up my mind, but it's all "classified" and we're expected to take the word of the U.S. intelligence services... the same guys who claimed masses of WMDs in Iraq, and then years later produced a handful of expired mustard gas bombs as evidence (they would have found more WMDs if they raided the London Museum of Science).

So yeah, I'm still sceptical about pinning responsibility squarely on any one person or organisation. It smacks of an overly simplistic allocation of responsibility, one that stinks of scapegoating. There's plenty of responsibility to go around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keep it simple people. Apply Occam's razor if you will. The lunatics who think an incompetent administration like the Bush administration could pull it off, generally believe in things like the moon landings were faked, the world is being run by an illuminati made up of reptilian hybrids and the list goes on. They just want to think every major event is a conspiracy. Let them live in the bizarre fantasy land and be done with it. It's hard, if not impossible to argue with irrational people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no way that steal structures fall like they did in 911.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing that puzzles me.

The Hijackers that piloted those planes were novices yet they managed to aim those planes at high-speed into the towers.

Heck, even trained pilots(both civilian and military) rely on guidance systems, etc to hit a runway square on to land the thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the key to understanding 9/11 was that apparently the US had training exercises scheduled for that day simulating something at least somewhat similar to the actual event. This stills begs the question - Did outsiders figure this out on their own - perhaps by knowing there would be such an exercise in the fall, and then somehow finding out the date, or did they have some help finding out the details of the exercise or exercises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no way that steal structures fall like they did in 911

Well how about "steel structures" then? Is that how they spelled it at your quaint little conspiracy club meeting?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Below is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Global Guardian annual training exercise, which was held at least in part on 9/11. Makes reference to the various (at least de-classified) exercises going on at the time.

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is one thing for sure, NO ONE is going to come out stating that s/he was a perpetrator directly responsible to this crime and will probably take it to their graves.

I am somewhat miffed to why this kind of question is coming out after so many years. After watching "Loose Change" I felt there was more to it then the official report issued and felt very discomforting that it was the major catalyst that drove congress into accepting the Patriot Act into law.

The biggest question you need to ask first is, do you think the collapse of the twin tower and building 7 break the law of nature?

If yes then you'll have to dig further for the truth of what happened that day, if not you can go your marry way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am rapidly tiring of this debate, but would like to point out that those who suggest a conspiracy in here keep raising a stream of questions but have yet to produce anything remotely resembling solid evidence that contradicts the orthodox explanation. And they've had nine years since 9/11 to do so. I think it's safe to predict that in 2051 people will still be passionately arguing these things -- and no new revelations will have been forthcoming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@beelzebub-I agree that this back and forth comments are getting tiring. However, for me, putting all conspiracy theories aside, I still want a clear picture or video footage of an airplane striking the Pentagon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still want a clear picture or video footage of an airplane striking the Pentagon.

I suggest you read this: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pentagon:

There is a movie of a F4 hitting a reinforced concrete wall for a test.

Here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

A passenger plane being vaporized hitting the Pentagon? I choose to believe.

Crash in Pennsylvania:

I think they shot it down but US gov will never admit it.

WTC:

About WTC collapse, you can watch all videos you want, there is so much smoke that you can't spot when the last piece of the building it the ground. It didn't fall vertically straight down.

For a conspiracy on the scale, there is way too many people to be involved and the whole planning is a nightmare.

Gov inside job: not guilty! Gov mismanagement: guilty!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Believing that this was the work of Al Qaida with supervision from Bin Laden from some remote cave in Afghanistan is like believing in fairy tales. Actually, the US government does not believe in this any more, so people who still do should wake up.

It's easier just to stick to facts. There have been over 100 fires in high rise buildings and not 1 has ever collapsed due to fire. On 9/11, 3 collapsed. 1 was not hit by an airplane.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that "*molten steel was found at 7 WTC."

Molten steel was found and recorded on video by the fire department. This has been completely ignored by the official version of the incomplete 9/11 reports.

To get rid of the suspicion, USA needs to answer these very basic questions. Why was there molten steel in WTC7?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

Bin Laden was not in a cave on 9/11, he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and flying his falcons. He wasn't pushed into a cave until the Taliban was overthrown.

Buildings collapse beacuse of fires all the time.

There was molten steel at WTC7 beacuse steel melted in the fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@techall

Bin Laden was not in a cave on 9/11, he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and flying his falcons. He wasn't pushed into a cave until the Taliban was overthrown.

Neither Bin Laden or Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Bin Laden knows it the Taliban knows it and the American government knows it. This is why neither Bin Laden or Taliban is charged with 9/11 by the American government.

Steel does not melt that it becomes liquid from jet fuel fire. It is impossible. I can buy buy that steel could get softer but not to the point that the steel gets so hot that it becomes liquid like lava which was filmed by the fire department and others who cleaned up WTC7. This has been ignored by the official incomplete 9/11 report.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am rapidly tiring of this debate, but would like to point out that those who suggest a conspiracy in here keep raising a stream of questions but have yet to produce anything remotely resembling solid evidence that contradicts the orthodox explanation.

Where have you been? Not that I enjoy repeating myself, but:

We have a large number of architects and engineers (around 2000), lead by Richard Gage, who have clearly demonstrated that the two WTC towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions. Tons of molten steel were found at the site, even several days after 911, and the dust that blanketed Manhattan was loaded with nanothermate particles.

The above two points prove that it was not Al-qaeda, that whoever was behind this attack must have had control of the demolished buildings to set the explosive charges and the high-tech nanothermate.

So who had control of the WTC? I clearly described how a small group of individuals with close ties to the Israeli government and the Mossad succeeded in acquiring the WTC complex less than two months prior to the attack. And there was a massive elevator renovation going on, ideal circumstance to set the explosives and thermate on the core columns.

I also described how a group of neocons authored reports for the Israeli and US governments about invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and in one report they mention that achieving their goals would be difficult without a Pearl Harbor-like event. Immediately after 911 (the Pearl Harbor-like event), they were calling for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Iran) and providing false evidence.

I don’t know what more you want. A signed statement admitting guilt? Those who believe the official version only call the other side nutters or loonies, or liken us to those who believe the moon landings are fake or that Elvis is alive; very convincing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too much evidence makes it more believable that the US government or Zionists did it than Al Qaida did.

For the sake of a building that was 1/3 full (and with no jews present) getting destroyed, the yanks got access to the fuel wealth of the middle east and pipelines of afganistan, hmmm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sigh. Sabiwabi, you have really got a major fixation over Israelis, Mossad, Zionists, etc. These, to anyone who needs further explanation, are all euphemistic substitutions for the you-know-whats -- those people whom you keep insisting you have nothing against. You yourself admitted your hatred of Israel a few screens back, and it's pretty obvious that you hate them so much, you are determined to blame them for anything -- 9/11, the death of Princess Diana, SARS, AIDS, the Tiananmen Incident and the Boxing Day Tsunami. You might be a bit more convincing if you'd put down your dogeared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and adopt some other tack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

Steel does not melt that it becomes liquid from jet fuel fire. It is impossible. I can buy buy that steel could get softer but not to the point that the steel gets so hot that it becomes liquid like lava which was filmed by the fire department and others who cleaned up WTC7.

That is so wrong. I, personally, myself, with my own eyes, inspected a ship after a fire and 3/4 inch mild steel bulkheads were melted and puddled on the deck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the sake of a building that was 1/3 full (and with no jews present) getting destroyed,...

You have to be careful with that. It is believed that there were no Israelis (not Jews) present that morning, they were apparently advised to stay home (Odigo).

MSM occasionally bring this up. I remember CNN misrepresenting this and saying the "conspiracy theorists" say no Jews died that day, and then they mention a Jew that died to show how wrong we are. The Israelis were told to stay home, not the Jews.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So 29% of the JT readership are completely nuts.

Why would JT even have a poll like this? That's the most ridiculous part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is so wrong. I, personally, myself, with my own eyes, inspected a ship after a fire and 3/4 inch mild steel bulkheads were melted and puddled on the deck.

Assuming you are telling the truth, I hope you made an effort to find out what was burning. Was there any thermite or thermate in there? Of all the experts I have heard, even from the side of the official version, nobody has come out and said that jet fuel burns hot enough to produce molten steal or molten iron. I think you're the first "expert" to do so, are you really qualified to inspect ships?

If you are correct, I better not use my kerosene heater this winter, it might melt on me!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought Saddam Hussein was responsible....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the yanks got access to the fuel wealth of the middle east and pipelines of afganistan, hmmm.

Really? Show me the fuel we are taking. If the government had any brains, we would just take the oil and gas. But we're not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So 29% of the JT readership are completely nuts"

Omigosh, it's gone up to 29% from 25% the other day! It's no wonder I'm often at odds with other JT readers...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am qualified to inspect ships, that's why the Coast Guard called me in. The fire started in an on deck container, the cause is believed to have been batteries that were in the container. The heat from that fire ingited flammable liquids stored in a deck house forward of the container. The flammable liquids included cleaning materials, thinners and deisel fuel. The bulkhead of this space was melted and pooled on the deck outside the space. The hatch cover that the container was sitting on melted (but not to liquid state) and fell into the hatch. The side plates buckled outward. All of these were 3/4 inch mild steel. The ship was owned by Lykes Bros. and the shipyard where I did the inspection was Mitsui, Tamano. The year was around 1980.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Techall,

Again, assuming you're telling the truth, I wonder why none of the experts I have heard, even from the side of the official version, have come out and said that jet fuel burns hot enough to produce molten steal or molten iron. Strange...

BTW, what do you mean by "melted (but not to liquid state)"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is so wrong. I, personally, myself, with my own eyes, inspected a ship after a fire and 3/4 inch mild steel bulkheads were melted and puddled on the deck.

I think that you probably know a great deal about ships and steel as you seem to be qualified so I would like to ask you.

21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running at Ground Zero. How could steel still be melting 3 weeks after 9/11?

1,340° F. was recorded at Ground Zero. Regular fires reach 800° F. Why did it get this hot from jet fuel fire? From the samples of molten metal. They found the chemical evidence of thermate. This has been ignored by the official 9/11 report.

Please read this report. I am interested in hearing your views.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/24

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As you stated before, it was softened enough to give way and fell into the hold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it very interesting that all the conspiracy theorists on this site are also Holocaust deniers. Tells you a lot about their mindset. As I said before, they deal with truth and logic. There is even one guy above who claims there were no passengers on United Flight 93.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neogreenjapan - posting links to truther websites... hardly a beacon of credibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

9/11 conspiracies are analogous to a powerful drug, and it's clear that addicts become anxiety ridden whenever anyone dashes the cold water of reality on their delusions. In the end, it's a harmless indulgence I suppose. Have fun, guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neogreenjapan - posting links to truther websites... hardly a beacon of credibility.

There are hundreds of architects and engineers who want a new investigation because the fact is that there are crucial details missed out in the official 9/11 report. It is still incomplete.

NIST to this day have denied there was molten steel despite the fact that fire fighters and others who cleaned up at ground zero filmed it. It's documented, so why does not NIST admit this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

People have already found explosives in the rubbles of WTC. This is not made up. It's just that the official 9/11 report has left these things out. Scientists, engineers, have made samples from Ground Zero and found things which the officail 9/11 report has left out.

A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@conspiracy theorists:

With regards to the molten steel, I guess Cheney's minions over at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in response to a question asking why the reports of molten steel in the wreckage of the WTC were not considered in their investigation, have this to say:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

And they had this to say about the thermite theory:

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

So, option #1, George Bush blew up the twin towers in a vast conspiracy involving just about every government agency to go to war in Iraq or option #2, the "thermite dust" was nothing more than traces of construction material from the already completely destroyed buildings, and the molten steel formed from the long exposure in the high temperatures that existed in the pile of rubble after the collapse.

Now I'm not a structural engineer, but the people over at NIST are. I'm going with NIST and Option #2.

Quotes from NIST were taken from the following site: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now I'm not a structural engineer, but the people over at NIST are. I'm going with NIST and Option #2.

Jamal, you just made my day! Thank you! :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now I'm not a structural engineer, but the people over at NIST are.

Actually, the people at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/) are .... architects and engineers, over a thousand of them.

So basically NIST is saying that over time, the temperature could conceivably under certain conditions increase high enough to melt steal. And this heat comes from what exactly, what is fueling it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@conspiracy theorists:

The link I gave you doesn't work (the underscores surrounding the 8 were stripped after I posted). However, you can access the fact sheet I quoted from the URL http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/.

More fun facts from NIST about Thermite:

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

I guess that easily could have been done by ... THE STRUCTURUAL ENGINEERS AT NIST!!!!!! I've discovered another conspiracy!

@manfromamerica: Cheers ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the sake of a building that was 1/3 full (and with no jews present) getting destroyed,...

The source of the rumors that there were no Jews at the World Trade Center was most likely one of the various foreign and/or racist folks whose cause would benefit by such a belief. It is disputed here:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp

You can also just look at the names of the dead, and find many family names generally associated with Jews, you can see death notices mentioning services at synagogues, etc. On hearing the theory refuted from various reliable sources, the rumor morphed into it being Israelis who were absent...4000 of them. That number is never explained, and it is not clear why 4000 Israelis would be working for the World Trade Center in any case. (We'll probably hear some lame explanation after a while.)

If we're going to explore conspiracies here, why not consider that some of the "investigators" or "seekers of truth" have an ax to grind? Neo-Nazi, Anti-Jewish or Israeli, anti-Bush, anti-USA, anti-Western, anti-government, etc. I'm not saying that all these people fall into that category, but it would benefit certain groups for distrust to mount, so why is the truthseeking so one-sided and trusting among its own ranks?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW you can download the peer-reviewed paper regarding the thermite at the WTC ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"):

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

I'll make you a deal, you read the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and I'll read the conspiracy theorist link you sent me. If you read the NIST report, you'll see that it actually answers your questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So basically NIST is saying that over time, the temperature could conceivably under certain conditions increase high enough to melt steal. And this heat comes from what exactly, what is fueling it?

@sabiwabi:

If you read the fact sheet you'll see there are several reasons NIST ruled out demolitions.

NIST doesn't speculate as to where exactly the heat is coming from, because unlike conspiracy theory promoters they don't waste their time selling consipracies to a gullible readership. Once the demolition theory was ruled out they use evidence and inductive reasoning to get at the truth. If you read the report you'll see that's what they did.

NIST's objective was to determine what caused the WTC collapse, and their fact sheet does just that. They were not commissioned to go out there and disprove every nutcase conspiracy theorist that comes along deconstructing the facts to suit their delusions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NIST factsheets about the collapse are below (one of the links mentioned above doesn't work) http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Farmboy:

Thanks for the assist. If you take a look, you'll see that the underscores were stripped from the URL. That's why the link didn't work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh I see....none of the links work. Well, if you click on the link and then select "Fact Sheets," you can get there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you read the NIST report, you'll see that it actually answers your questions.

They make excuses for inconsistencies, but they do not answer my questions adequately (at least not from the above quotes), or more importantly the questions for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

I recently listened to this long debate between Richard Gage and a physics professor defending (poorly) NIST. NIST and their followers make excuses, but their statements don't stack up.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want to read the fact sheet, you can get to it from this url:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The source of the rumors that there were no Jews at the World Trade Center was most likely one of the various foreign and/or racist folks whose cause would benefit by such a belief.

No, I believe it started from an Israeli paper. Chris Bollyn explains it well.

On hearing the theory refuted from various reliable sources, the rumor morphed into it being Israelis who were absent...4000 of them.

No, it started with Israelis, the deceptive hoaxers distorted it to Jews so that it could be refuted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

Ah, I see. So in order for NIST to be credible, every Physics Professor in the country that defends NIST must be able to beat Richard Gage in a debate?

Is this the only evidence you need to completely dismiss NIST's findings? I can see now why some are so ready to buy into conspiracy theories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is this the only evidence you need to completely dismiss NIST's findings?

Well we have a physics professor that goes around defending NIST and comes up with pathetic excuses, providing nothing convincing to me or to Gage.

And we have you providing equally pathetic NIST quotes that are void of evidence.

For many, the NIST report is sufficient to debunk the "conspiracy theorists". Its is not sufficient for me however. I refuse to disregard basic laws of physics and common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well we have a physics professor that goes around defending NIST and comes up with pathetic excuses, providing nothing convincing to me or to Gage.

sabiwabi, apparently you and Gage don't want convincing, you have an agenda and are not looking for answers. Also, NIST's goal was not to convince you and Gage (or maybe it was and I missed it in the intro to the report), their goal was to investigate and provide factual findings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me see if I got the conspiracy right:

George W. Bush, Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld planned the events to get a reason to invade Iraq.

They had volunteers fly an airliner into the second tower but not the first (beacuse there are no pictures of the first impact).

They then had the building imploded so they would fall real pretty for the television.

Then the pulled down WTC7 because...........well I can't think of a reason for that.

Then they fired a missle into the pentagon so the military would be really pissed of and go rushing off to .... whereever.

No plane crashed in Pennsylvania because no bodies were shown on T.V.

The Israelis were in on the whole plot so they could get their citizens out but leave other Jews there.

And while this elaborate plan was playing out, the "quarterback" of the whole operation didn't care to see it on T.V. so he was in a school reading to children.

Is that about it??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, no, no techall, you got it completely wrong. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were merely stooges of the Mossad. Who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Rothschild family. The purpose of the Iraq war was to boost CNN's ratings so it could sell more advertising to El Al airlines, to fly tourists to Israel. The revenues will be used to build a ski resort on the Golan Heights, to be built by Haliburton. The World Trade Center was about to be condemned anyway due to a bedbug infestation. Mohammad Atta won the bid for demolition, but they forgot to notify the tenants and, as Paul Harvey used to say, now you know the rest of the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, lets pull all the intelligent analysis together. There should be a conspiracy for everyone.

So we all know that the World Trade Center Attacks were engineered to justify the War on Terror™ / mask an elaborate gold heist / destroy incriminating evidence against MCI/Enron / justify a military attack to secure a lasting Middle-East oil supply / create profits for Haliburton / steal oil from Iraq / create the necessary environment for trampling Americans’ civil rights.

We also all know that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes piloted by A) CIA Black-Ops agents, B) missiles fired from offshore U.S. fighter planes, and/or C) explosives strategically planted in the foundation of the Towers to finish off the job in the event A) and/or B) failed.

It’s also common knowledge that the attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. Government against its own people / the Iraqi Government / the Israeli Government / the Mossad and/or the governments of U.S. allies angered by American economic and military dominance in a post-Cold War world.

Furthermore, it’s no secret to anyone that Elvis is alive and well, Paul McCartney is an imposter, McDonald’s hamburgers are made from soybean and horsemeat, and a New World Order Shadow Government is slowly usurping our free will via thought control waves broadcast over our TVs, radios, and cell phones.

So, lets put on our tin foil hats and feel clever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forgot to add: Anything but another jihadist attacks, following thousand of jihadists strikes before that. Nope, can´t have that one. It is just too, err, plain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

And we have you providing equally pathetic NIST quotes that are void of evidence.

Tsk, tsk. You didn't read any of the NIST stuff I sent you, did you?

That's OK, I'll post it here to make it easier for you:

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Now, if you think the 200 technical experts are also part of the conspiracy than please speak up. If so, I think techall, Beelzebub, and WilliB above will have to update their posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What there is an agreement on though is that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did the Taliban. So when Bush and others blamed Osama Bin Laden for the attacks before the invasion of Afghanistan they did this without backing up this claim with evidence. Bush as we also know later claimed Saddam had WMD, this also has been proven to be false. Al Qaida was also a term coined by the American government. There was no such thing called AL Qaida before9/11. There was no one on this planet who called him or herself an AL Qaida member. This term was fabricated by USA.

The controversy is if the Twin Towers and WTC7 came down due fires from the 2 airplanes or if it was more than just jet fuel which brought down 3 buildings on 9/11.

From NIST

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

SO NIST concludes that the motlen metal was from the aircraft then? Which was also found in Ground Zero 3 weeks after 9/11?

On one end people think it is a crazy idea that someone put explosives on the others hand people say there was nano-thermite in the WTC dust which proves that there wwere explosives and the heat on Ground Zero could not have come just by open fire jet fuel fire but had to have a chemical reaction.

I have no doctor degree in physics, or chemistry so for me it comes down to believing in experts. I want to see a debate between someone at NIST and a skeptic of NIST.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I saw an in-depth program about the unfolding of the events on the History channel last May in US. It seemed very believable that these events were carried out over a long period of time, and planned well enough by Al-Q and Osama Hasbin (I hope) Laden. There are so many fine details that are simply not covered on these entries. I for one of the 55% who think AQ was responsible still feel that way. But the nay sayers have chips on their shoulders and blocks on their heads and hell freeze over before they'll budge from any other view. Its similar to the way the J-people see WWII. They think their gov't was merrily building the Asian Peace Foundation one country at a time, and big ol USA came in and atrociously dropped A-bombs on not one but two J-cities, making they victims. We all know there are umpteen counter arguments concerning the bombs dropping, and so with the 9-11 events.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The American Government was behind the sad events of 9/11. FOR SURE! Please watch: http://bit.ly/9jA6JN WaaaaaY better than the History Channel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe 736 people really think the US government had nothing to with 9/11.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe 394 people here really think al-Qaida had nothing to do with 9/11, and 207 don't know...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe people still think Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11 when even the American government doesn't.

9/11 was probably an accident. The pilots did not mean to hit WTC. I now believe George Bush, who saw the first plane crashing into Twin Towers on TV when he was in the corridor and he said to himself. There is one terrible pilot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

May 23, 2006 - Osama: "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers..."

He must have been talking about 19 different guys, eh, neo?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The World Trade Center was about to be condemned anyway due to a bedbug infestation."

Good one, Beelzebub.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Osama: "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers..."

source please. Here is mine.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For some reason my underbars won't appear here. Try:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama( underbar )bin( underbar )laden

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wikipedia.org/wiki/Osamabinladen

checked this link. all it said was.

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Osamabinladen in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Please provide a link and please explain why Osama Bin Laden is not charged for 9/11 by the American government? Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If we make the assumption that the "official" story is more or less what happened - by that I mean that "Al-Qaida" was planning this for a long time, that the US had intelligence info but "didn't connect the dots" that there were exercises going on that day,etc. I would still expect to see this mass of back and forth, overwhelming information, for several reasons.

The basic reason is that after the incident, both sides (and other sides) would want to further their various agendas. In the US, this would certainly include an effort to confuse the enemy as to what you do and don't know. There would also be multiple "CYA" stories, trying to blame other people, and similar stories explaining how various people and organizations did everything right.

The enemy side would certainly want to take credit and establish fear in the US population and other populations. Other US enemies would potentially play the information to weaken the US. Other enemies of the Al-Qaida cause, for example Israel, would want to try to influence the story to get their long-term goals. I consider the Anthrax attacks to be tied into the airplane attacks - I don't think we have any idea what happened there.

As they used to say in the X-Files, The Truth is Out There, but there is so much planted misinformation and honest misinformation that the facts will never be known. I think that in ten or twenty years a big part of an analysis will include the fact that the US was very successful in Afghanistan right after 9/11, to the credit of the US military. Also, the whole anthrax situation will have been studied further.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So............who's on first?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Talking about The X-Files, what about the pilot of The Lone Gunmen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384CCzUKHtA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's the official story on one side and conspiracy theories on the other.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sen. Mark Dayton on the floor of the Senate proved many things false in the official 9/11 investigation. The video is on YouTube.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neo - Try doing a search for "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers" - you'll find it all over the place, including wiki.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read or heard somewhere that the Mafia was in cahoots with the CIA to bring down the WTC. The construction industry was at an all time low then and the Mafia needed funds. They were blackmailing the CIA over JFK's murder. CIA thought it a good idea to bring down the WTC in order to remove the gold without anyone suspecting anything. Also gave the ol' Cosa Nostra to remove Jimmy Hoffa's body. Mafia made an absolute fortune for the clean-up of the site.

Don't ask me where I read/heard this story - I forget. All I know is that I believe it to be true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I were an American, I would be deeply disturbed that so many of my fellow citizens could follow such absurd conspiracy theories. Sarge and co, you have my sympathy.

So Sabiwabi and co think that Osama was lying, that Clinton, Bush, and Obama and who knows how many government employees and all the media are in on this.

Be careful sabiwabi, you are no doubt on a CIA hitlist. Maybe you should change addresses every few weeks. With you blowing their cover, I'm amazed Mossad hasn't been able to shut you down.

I used to think it funny when I'd hear people deny the moon landings, but this is sick. You'll know doubt find that many of the more extreme 9/11 conspiracy guys also deny the holocaust. Sick and sad.

The scary thing is that some of these people probably have kids and brainwash them too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Three world trade center buildings collapsed through themselves at speeds approaching that with which they would have achieved had they fallen through air. Their concrete turned to dust.

The few times that reinforced concrete structures have collapsed due to accident, they have left far bigger bits (even in the very rare pancaking accidents, clearly distinguishable layers of flooring).

The towers fell in reverse order of being hit. The tower that was hit second fell first, in spite of the fact that (or because) the fire in the second hit tower was going out more rapidly. There was a woman waving from the hole where the plane hit the second tower to be hit, as can be seen clearly from photographs.

When the Empire State Building was hit by a B25 bomber, a 10 ton plane, it did not affect the integrity of that tower at all. The Boeings (B767 about 150 metric tons) that hit the twin towers were about 15 times heavier. Though the towers were designed to survive the impact of very similar sized planes (B707 about 140 tons), one might expect some damage, perhaps even a top, or chunk of a building top to fall off. But to collapse, with their concrete turning to dust?

Concrete buildings collapse and turn to dust quite regularly when they are demolished using explosive charges. There are lots of videos on the Internet.

No planes hit the 47 storey World Trade Center Building 7, but the video of it falling needs to be seen to be believed. 47 stories is a tall building. Whatch the video of its collapse (google, or youtube). Compare the collapse with some pictures of concrete buildings that have been on fire, and with videos of some concrete buildings that have been demolished.

Immediatelly prior to the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings new wiring was put into the ducts throughout the two main towers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

SO NIST concludes that the motlen metal was from the aircraft then? Which was also found in Ground Zero 3 weeks after 9/11?

If you read the report carefully, you'll see that NIST did not conclude the molten metal on the ground around WTC 7 was from the aircraft. I'll include the quote again for your reference, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Specifically:

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion.

MOLTEN STEEL

Not MOLTEN ALUMINUM

I see why you didn't site the exact source of your quote. What you've done is take, out of context, a section of the report that discussed the sitings of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC 2 prior to its collapse, then try to use that to show that NIST concluded the molten metal found around the site 3 weeeks later was aluminum.

Tsk, tsk, neogreenjapan. Please read the fact sheet more carefully. When you misquote like this it makes you appear disingenuous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yasukuni said: I used to think it funny when I'd hear people deny the moon landings, but this is sick. You'll know doubt find that many of the more extreme 9/11 conspiracy guys also deny the holocaust. Sick and sad.

What I find sick and sad is you characterization of the questioning of details as being abject denial. Denial would be saying the WTC never fell because it never existed. Denial would be saying the holocaust never happened. Not many people are doing either. Most speaking against the official stories merely question details, and people like you come along throwing words like "denial" around without merit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@timtak:

I think you should check out NIST's site. WTC 1 and 2 collapsed the way they did for very specific reasons related to their construction, and in the order they did because of the location of the aircraft impacts, among other things. The collapse is not hard to imagine with knowledge of the construction of the towers in mind.

NIST explains why WTC 7 collapsed. It's not a mystery, really. Check it out at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/. There's a fact sheet about the WTC 7 collapse release on 12/18/08 that's worth reading and explains much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion.

This still defies laws of nature since no matter how much long a substance is exposed, if the temperature does not exceed melting point then a substance will not melt.

Take water(pure) for example it freezes at 0 degree, now if you place that ice in a room where the ambient temperature is -5 degrees, no matter how long that it sits there it will not melt since the room is below melting point.

Steel needs 1500 degrees to turn into liquid state, when and how did the fire reach that state?

Until that question is answered the molten steel problem will not be solved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

NIST is not implying that the molten steel defied the laws of nature. All they are saying is that it's more likely the steel melted due to something that occured in the pile of rubble on the ground than from some thermite conspiracy theory.

They didn't bother to investigate because it didn't matter: they had already ruled out demolition based on many other factors, and based on the evidence. As was mentioned previously, NIST wasn't there to disprove all of the conspiracy theories, they were there to investigate the cause of the collapse, which they did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609 Stop deflecting my question, what caused the fire to burn to the point of melting point of steel?

Until that is solved it is a conspiracy or more blunt, gross negligence by NIST not being able to determine source of fire that burned so hot which is one of the first things a fire inspection agency needs to examine and specify.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This still defies laws of nature since no matter how much long a substance is exposed, if the temperature does not exceed melting point then a substance will not melt.

Yeah, no matter how long fuel is burning in a stove, it won't melt.

And I am curious as what they mean by "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable". Somehow, those certain circumstances were present in all three buildings.

The collapse is not hard to imagine with knowledge of the construction of the towers in mind.

Funny that you would bring that up. One thing that helped to convince me that it must have been a controlled demolition was seeing pictures taken during the construction of the towers, where you can see how massive the core columns are. These core columns were not included in the computer simulation demonstrating the pancaking effect. Its impossible for the towers to have come down the way they did, at almost free-fall speed, without some powerful explosives do destroy these columns.

NIST explains why WTC 7 collapsed.

They initially ignored it, and now they come up with some silly excuse. It does not explain how the top 100 feet suddenly collapse straight down at free-fall speed for the first several seconds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jamal, your argument is very weak: "All they are saying is that it's more likely the steel melted due to something [they have NO idea what] that occured in the pile of rubble on the ground than from some thermite conspiracy theory [how do they know it was NOT thermite or thermate].

They didn't bother to investigate because it didn't matter [!!!]: they had already ruled out demolition based on many other factors, and based on the evidence [!!!???]...."

BTW, does NIST say anything about the molten metal seen flowing out of the towers before its collapse?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

Stop deflecting my question, what caused the fire to burn to the point of melting point of steel?

If you look at my response, you'll see that I addressed your question. I'm telling you that NIST didn't care enough about it to investigate because it didn't matter, they already ruled out demolition using thermite/thermate or any other method.

Keep in mind one of the working hypotheses NIST had was in fact demolition using thermite/thermate as the conspiracy theorists suggest. However, after examining the evidence the 200 engineers, scientists and subject matter experts working on the investigation were able to determine that's not how it happened. I suggest you read the NIST report.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

Molten metal is not the same thing as molten steel. Witnesses reported seeing molten metal. There is a big difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still want to know from timtak of the other truthers what the collapse of WTC7 has to do with anything? How is the collapse of an empty building part of Cheney's grand scheme?

I love hearing you guys pretend to know something about the event and postulate about what exactly happened every moment of the event when you didn't even see it in person.

I hope all your business colleagues can see the ridiculous ideas you post, so they can then decide if anything you do is credible or should be trusted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. *

If you believe that MOSSAD agents would be so stupid you really are nuts.

four individuals with very close ties to the Israeli government and the Mossad involved in getting control of the WTC complex less than 2 months before the attacks. One of these individuals was also involved in the privatization of the former Stewart Air Force Base where the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged, maybe at least two of the planes involved in the attack left from here.

Yeah, maybe they did, but they didn't. And so what if the flight paths converged there? What significance does that have?

Well we have a physics professor that goes around defending NIST and comes up with pathetic excuses, providing nothing convincing to me or to Gage.

I really want to know your physics background and why you consider yourself an expert.

You say you're "not a big fan of Loose Change" but you quote the hell out of it.

I also think it's sad how all the conspiracy nuts love the term "free-fall speed".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a question that has never been answered. There was a plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon. However, the only photographs available show a hole in a building with no plane to be seen (and planes have wings that would make it impossible to make a nice round hole in a building). So where did the plane go?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So where did the plane go?

All over the place.

It CRASHED into highly reinforced building at high speed.

There is tons of evidence debunking this conspiracy myth. If your question hasn't been answered, you either don't like the answer you get or you haven't been looking properly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@StevoBevo:

Your "nice round hole" is in the "C" ring, that's the third one in and was made by one of the engines. The wings snapped back against the fuselage. Plenty of debris.

Be careful...VERY GRAFIC

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really want to know your physics background and why you consider yourself an expert.

Since you really want to know, I took a few physics courses (and passed) in college, but I do not consider myself an expert.

I listened to the debate between a physics professor supporting the official version and Richard Gage, representing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/). In the debate (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs), the physics professor does very poorly, basically saying things like experts looked at it and found it perfectly normal. Jamal's quotes from NIST are basically the same: something must have caused the molten steel, but we don't know what. The "truthers" explain clearly their reasoning, they don't just say we are experts, believe us. They even publish their findings on thermite in a peer-reviewed journal:

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"what the collapse of WTC7 has to do with anything?"

You are right, WT7 is largely irrelevant.

Or rather its relevance is psychological.

I met a guy that studies the psychology of conspiracy theorists. He said that when there is a catastrophic event, such as the assisantion of a President, or death of a princess etc, people find it difficult to believe that the cause could have been small, one man, a mere accident, so they invent conspiracies so that the magnitude of the cause matches the magnitude of the catastrophy. In fact the reality is often more mundane. One man can blow someones head off. It happens every day. Drunk drivers have car crashes. It happens everyday.

I like this theory, but perhaps at the same time, it cuts both ways.

When we saw the World Trade Centre buildings collapse, straight down, symmetrically, very rapidly (at almost free fall speed), very few people suspected a bigger conspiracy.

I think that the main reason for this is that we had all seen massive 150 ton aircraft fly into the buildings.

In other words, we had witnessed a compelling cause, that in its magnitude and rarity seemed to match the magnitude and rarity of the events.

Huge planes laden with fuel had come into catastrophic collision with the towers, so we were prepared to believe that reinforced concrete towers would come down in the catastrophic manner that they did.

In controlled demolition buildigns are felled like the towers, or in similarly symmetrically and speedy ways all the time. Buildings falling symmetrically at free fall speed is a common event. It happens every day.

However, in all the world and all the history of accidental damage to concrete buildings, with its millions of tower blocks, tower block fires, explosions, earthquakes and shoddy building techniques (e.g. Ronan Point), never has their been anything, anything like WTC1 and WTC2.

But, few watching on television did not assume the everyday cause, because they had just seen something equally weird - passenger flying into the towers.

This to me is the first psychological aspect of the day. "The Boeings did it." "Large planes and fanatical terrorists were to blame."

The second psychological moment for me was watching WT7. This was many years later.

There were No boeings. But there was free fall and symmetry. What is the cause? A mere accident? If a mere accident, then why aren't there other similar accidents? Why doesn't it happen every day? But it does, in controlled demolition. Why don't I assume it was controlled demolition, rather than a wildly rare (unique) event?

Am I seeking a fictional 'catastropic cause' for a catastrophic event, when I should simply believe that the building was on fire? Or should I look for the common cause, the everyday answer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@jamal2609

You haven't answered anything and merely deflecting the question. As a fire inspector in order to right anything off irrelevant they first need to know what was the cause of the anomaly they found, how much of it was there, and where, specially when they say the start of destruction was caused by structural failure due to excessive heat exposure to the main columns when evidence suggests that maximum temperature reached within the fire exceeded melting point of steel since jet fuel does not burn that hot.

This must be established in order to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again advising future projects in not using whatever the source of heat that exceeded melting point of steel as construction material.

THAT IS/WAS THE MAIN OBJECT OF NIST INVESTIGATION and they failed miserably in those accounts. With that point alone it demands another investigation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabi

Taking/passing a few physics courses in college is nothing, whatever proof in terms of physics will more than likely pass over your head- that's not saying you're stupid or anything, just that taking a few courses doesn't mean you can stand toe-to-toe with people with PHD's or whatever in it.

Any debate I've ever seen between "official" version people and "truth" (what a joke that is) people has always ended up with the "truth" people getting all rabid and destroying the debate, and saying stuff like "I can't believe you think it's not an inside job, free-fall speed, free-fall speed, lol!" even though the exact same things can be turned around and said about what they are claming. Whenever they are shown facts, they scream "lies" or "propaganda", but their "facts" are "truths suppressed by a sinister government New World Order (TM)".

There is no conspiracy. The real world just isn't as interesting as you want it to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay...I have found another everyday answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what the collapse of WTC7 has to do with anything?

More so than the two towers, WTC7 has been easily proven to be a controlled demolition. If one building was brought down by controlled demolition, they all were.

Also, some have claimed that WTC7 contained some important (and damaging documents) regarding (stockmarket or Enron perhaps ???). Some also say similar things about the Pentagon, on the previous day, Rumsfeld had just announced that trillions of dollars could not be accounted for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

techall, that is an interesting site to gave the link to. There I found a few good comments:

"At a time when most convenience stores across the country had security cameras, Logan, a major international airport, supposedly had no security cameras in its departure lounges. According to Michael Taylor, president of American International Security Corp, the Newark airport does have video cameras in its departure lounges. So does Dulles International Airport. However, the FBI has refused to release any video from these airports that might prove that the alleged hijackers boarded the flights."

.

"Events that would damage the recorders sufficiently to make them unreadable are extremely rare. NTSB spokesperson Ted Lopatkiewicz said that he couldn't recall a domestic case before 9/11/01 in which the recorders were not recovered. The recorders are designed to survive the kinds of impacts that happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WTC7 has been easily proven to be a controlled demolition"

Sure, just make up stuff and post it, sabi. Sheesh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timtak - that was a well-detailed post, thank you for taking the time to write that. Of course I disagree strongly with your conclusion, but thanks for actually explaining your thought process instead of blindly posting links to truther websites.

That said, I think the fall of WTC7 is irrelevant. There has never been anything like 9/11 before, so it makes sense there is not an exact casematching it. It also making sense that these few so-called experts (conspiracy theorists) who live halfway around the world, scientists or not, don't have a clue at all about what the actual conditions were like, and are merely basing their hypotheses on some video shots. They were not at the site, didn't see the event, have never experienced the conditions (weather and physical) at the WTC, have never been inside the WTC before the crash, and frankly know nothing about the event. Then when thew NIST offers a complete explanation, they somehow assume they know better and offer silly hooks like WTC7, or "the privatization of the former Stewart Air Force Base where the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged, ".

I can appreciate good conspiracy theories, then at least make it good. This one is just clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molten metal is not the same thing as molten steel. Witnesses reported seeing molten metal.

LOL! I thought it was molten cocaine that Bush and Cheney had hid there and were trying to destroy before the Mossad got to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, us "truthers" have gone on and on about why we think the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and who was behind it.

But lets put the laws of physics aside for a moment, and ignore all the PNAC papers, Clean Break, Afghan Vortex, as well as who purchased the buildings immediately before 911, and Cheney's order for the jets to stand-down; I would like to know why do the others think it was Al Qaeda. What is the evidence that it was Al Qaeda that did this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi - do you believe muslim hijackers were involved?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ manfromamerica

Isn't that hard to establish when 7 of the said to be perpetrators were found alive in their home states by BBC?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

samuraiblue - so you don't believe the hijackers were Muslim. Then do you think they were they government employees, CIA, or Mossad?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi - what did Bush personally gain by taking down the towers? Is he hoarding oil barrels on his Texas ranch?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, I guess the thousands of people who survived the WTC collapse that actually saw the towers warp and bend before the collapse were all paid government conspirators?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I recommend the Vérinage link I posted above. I think that I have ceased to be a "truther," now that I am aware that non explosive, symmetrical, fast and power producing collapse is very possible, and frequent in the world of verinage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then why did the christian US govt think it was ok to sacrifice their own in order to profit (profit from what, I don't know), but the Mossad allegedly evacuated all Israelis? Wouldn't Israelis being killed help justify retaliatory actions against anti-West Islamofascists?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, you have to disregard all confessions from Al Qaeda themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

A fire inspector's job is determine the cause of a fire, not systematically rule out every piece of evidence he finds.

Let's go with the fire inspector analogy, though. If an overwhelming majority of all of the available evidence, including eyewitness accounts, point of origin, the presence of accelerants, and material artifacts found at the scene point at arson, for example, he or she focuses time and energy on the arson investigation.

During the investigation, the investigator is told that the coffee pot had faulty wiring. Yes, the coffee pot could have caused the house to burn down, but an overwhelming majority of evidence points to arson with the use of accelerants. Later, the suspect is caught and confesses. Case closed.

Just because NIST didn't explain everything that was found at the site doesn't mean they didn't figure out what caused the towers to collapse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real world just isn't as interesting as you want it to be.

The world is plenty interesting. Just the "truthers" don't like or agree with the reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because NIST didn't explain everything that was found at the site doesn't mean they didn't figure out what caused the towers to collapse.

But jamal, what about the 56th floor of WTC1? They found the 55th and 57th floor in the rubble, but no sign at all of the 56th. How do you explain that!?!?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@manfromamerica:

That's easy: Dick Cheney evaporated the 56th floor using thermite/thermate during the collapse. That explains the molten steel found at the site. It must be true because you can check it out for yourself at the following link:

http://www.anynu-twithaco-mputerca-ncreateawebpage.com/dontbelieve/everythingyouread/ontheweb.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I forgot about the thermite...

but the truck route that delivered the thermite on I-10 crossed the truck route that delivered the thermate on I-59. That is STILL unexplained by the government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the dust that blanketed Manhattan was loaded with nanothermate particles

They also found pixie dust sprinkled around greenwich village. darn that liz cheney!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe the conspiracy theories and that it was actually ET and friends letting off steam during a gallactical romp through time and space.

But seriously, Al-Qaida had an ax to grind with the U.S. and GW Bush had an ax to grind with Iraq. The actions of these two nuts played off one another for the perfect storm, and Saddam was merely an unfortunate, yet intended, bystander who happened to be standing too close to the action. When you think about it, it's hard to believe the planet is still in one piece judging by all of the nut jobs who have been and continue to run our lives throughout the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ manfromamerica

At the moment I am clueless since many of the perpetrators initially identified by the US authorities were found alive meaning their identity were stolen by someone and we have NO IDEA who the real perpetrators were. I have not drawn any conclusions since there are no clues to substantiate them. I believe to narrow down the suspect we first need to know all the facts on how the WTC came down.

@ jamal2609 If a fire burned at higher temperature then the accelerants said to be the cause then fire investigators are required to identify the source before writing it for all professional peers to reach a consensus of the accident so the insurance company can write down the cause and deduct amount of liability. Even if it was structural damage that was the main cause they still need to identify if there was anything else that would have promoted the collapse whether it be in design, construction material, and or any other foreign substance within the building. A case is not closed until all anomalies that may link to promote of destruction is solved in which this case it is the unexplained source of extreme heat reaching the melting point of steel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WTC7 must have been built in a special way as it crumbled into dust in just 6.5 seconds due to fire, when no steel frame building has collapsed like a stack of cards due to fire before or after 9/11. I am no specialist but it looked exactly like a controlled demolition. And the building wasn't even hit by anything.

I have asked many Bush supporting Americans, and normal Americans why the American government has never charged Osama Bin Laden for 9/11? I have yet failed to get an answer. What this means is that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did Taliban. EVen the American government admits this. AL Qaida is a conspiracy made up by the US government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mistwizard, as I said," You'll know doubt find that many of the more extreme 9/11 conspiracy guys also deny the holocaust."

I am talking about the extreme ones, and I have met them. There are websites out there that want to blame everything on either the US or "the Zionists".

Given your usual comments re the US, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you thought Bush was behind 9/11.

The big question is why do some Americans hate their own country so much. Loads of people would swap citizenships in a heartbeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the moment I am clueless since many of the perpetrators initially identified by the US authorities were found alive meaning their identity were stolen by someone and we have NO IDEA who the real perpetrators were.

suuuure...

neogreen - you really WANT to believe a conspiracy. I just wish it was a realistic one. Or one that was even slightly plausible. The JFK assassination, Iran-Contra, Clinton and CIA smuggling drugs through Mena Arkansas... but the one you picked is just plain stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@manfromamerica.

Instead of ridiculing what I say, please answer why Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11?

Here I will give you the link for you, from your own government's web page.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

If the American government believes that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 why do you believe Bin Laden had something to do with 9/11 manfromamerica? Maybe you know something the American government doesn't?

The logical explanation is that the reason why Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11 by the American government is because he had nothing to do with 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

A case is not closed until all anomalies that may link to promote of destruction is solved in which this case it is the unexplained source of extreme heat reaching the melting point of steel.

You would have a point if you assumed that this particular anomaly was actually linked to the destruction of the buildings. Conspiracy theorists believed there was a link, NIST evaluated the argument and didn't.

The reason they didn't pursue the demolition hypothesis is because there was a large amount of actual evidence recovered from the scene that didn't support the theory. They didn't just rule out demolition by thermite/thermate, they ruled out ANY kind of demolition.

Many actual investigations work this way, too. Investigators of all stripes are faced with limited resources and are trained to quickly rule out alternative explanations if they can't be corroborated. The quicker you can rule out bad hypotheses, the more efficiently you can apply your resources to the viable ones.

The quality, diversity, and applicability of the evidence presented by NIST and the voracity of their findings are far superior to any of the speculation, innuendo, hyperbole, and half-truths I've seen on conspiracy theory sites. NIST had a large team of qualified investigators and subject matter experts with full access to the evidence at Ground Zero. They considered the demolition hypothesis, along with several other hypotheses, and rejected it.

I'm certain their investigation was not perfect, but no investigation is. However, there is so much to support the current explanation and very, very little to support the thermite demolition conspiracy theory. In this case, in spite of the after-the-fact criticism of their methods, I think NIST got it right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi - do you believe muslim hijackers were involved?

I do not know if hijackers were even involved. Since we know that at least two planes flew over Stewart Air Force Base. It is certainly possible that the planes landed there and the passengers transferred to remote controlled planes (they have that technology), which then crashed into the towers.

Or maybe the original planes could be remotely controlled. There really is no need to have hijackers.

If it was Al Qaeda, then they would need to hijack the planes, but I still don't see :

how they managed to get the 3 buildings to crumble the way they did, how they managed to produce tons of molten steel why they asked a group of five Israelis to dress up as Arabs and celebrate how they managed to get Cheney to order some jets to stand down inform Bush's security service that the president was completely safe in that classroom why they would take along a stolen copy of their own passport and protect it so that it would survive the crash how 7 or so of them managed to survive. why prior to the 911 they went to bars and strip clubs and got completely drunk a grabbed lots of attention, leaving behind business cards and the Quran. why they choose to do this immediately after a group of Israeli government- and Mossad-linked zionists managed to get complete control of the worthless (required costly removal of asbestos) WTC complex.

....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reason they didn't pursue the demolition hypothesis is because there was a large amount of actual evidence recovered from the scene that didn't support the theory.

Such as? You keep on saying they have tons of evidence, without saying what it is. You are simply going with there qualifications and assuming they are honest. You are doing the same thing the physics professor did when debating Gage: "NIST experts looked at it and it was fine..."

How can you make tons of molten steel without even getting close to its melting temperature? Oh, NIST experts say that under certain conditions (which ones?) it is conceivable...

Real and honest experts can do better than that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

The reason the FBI doesn't list Bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11 specifically is because they don't have evidence that he was directly involved. That makes a difference when you are trying to get someone to hold him in custody and they say something like 'you don't have any evidence he was involved in 9/11.'

If they can't put him in one of the planes and don't have him giving direct material support to the people that actually pulled it off, then they have to charge him with some sort of conspiracy. However, if you are aware of how his little entrepreneurial organization works, you are also aware that it would be difficult if not impossible to do this without getting some witness with knowledge of his involvement to testify against him at a trial.

This is different from saying the FBI thinks he is innocent.

Oh, and by the way, I just followed the link you posted. You might want to check the bottom of the page. Under the section that says CAUTION it reads:

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Emphasizing the last line:

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Replace 'OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS' with 'THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK' and replace 'THROUGHOUT THE WORLD' with 'IN THE UNITED STATES' and you get:

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timtak,

Yeah, your video is quite interesting. But I wonder if those buildings had comparable structures to the WTC ones, I suspect not.

Also, as Gage mentions regarding WTC7, you would need to break all the core columns AT THE SAME TIME. That is certainly not possible if the cause was the reported damage and fire.

Also, it still does not explain the molten steel and high temperatures observed several days after 911.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi,

Just wanted to thank you for the great information you provide to this discussion. And keeping you cool with idiots who believe otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

I am not going to waste anyone's time by copy/pasting their conclusions here. If you are not familiar with the findings of NIST or the 9/11 Commission Report, then I strongly suggest reading them prior to spreading conspiracy theories.

And before you say my unwillingness to copy/paste the findings from their report proves that everything NIST says is wrong, there is a nice summary here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets

And for further reading, you are welcome to examine the 9/11 Commission Report located here:

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

These documents are available for free as a public service. If you look at the supporting appendices, you will see there are thousands of exhibits that support their conclusions.

Enjoy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And keeping you cool with idiots who believe otherwise.

I think the general consensus around the whole world is that your lot are the "idiots".

Get your tinfoil hat out and don't drink that tap water, it's got flouride in from chemtrails!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@jamal2609

You copy and pasted and then changed the words on the FBI page. Why do you do that?? Why does not FBI put your words there? FBI could have put a suspect of 9/11 like how you did in capital letters but according to FBI he is not even a suspect of 9/11. USA does not have a single shred of evidence linking 9/11 to Bin Laden. 0.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And this from Chris Bollyn (http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12131):

"When Sharon assumed power in March 2001, Barak came to America. He supposedly came to the United States to work as a special advisor for Electronic Data Systems and as a partner with SCP Partners, a Mossad-run private equity company focused on "security-related" work - but this was merely his cover. His real assignment was to oversee the terror attacks of 9-11...

In 2001, SCP Partners happened to have a suitable company in their portfolio, a private company called Metallurg Holdings, Inc., which has its office in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Today, SCP has another company called Advanced Metallurgical Group, N.V. (AMG) in its portfolio. AMG and Metallurg actually share the same phone number and address at 435 Devon Park Drive in Wayne. SCP Private Equity Partners L.P. and its management company named Safeguard International, which controls the metallurgical subsidiaries, are also both based at this address. AMG/Safeguard International have several subsidiaries, including one that specializes in the production of atomized aluminum (a crucial component of super-thermite) and others which manufacture specialized coatings of nano-composites.

SCP Partners, where Ehud Barak worked from 2001 until 2007, clearly had the capability in 2001 to produce nano-composite explosives like the super-thermite used to pulverize the World Trade Center on 9-11. There are very few companies or countries in the world that had the capability to manufacture super-thermite in 2001, but Ehud Barak and his SCP Partners did. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, on the other hand, did not and could not have had anything to do with the super-thermite found in the dust of the pulverized Twin Towers. The government version is a pack of lies designed to start a pre-planned war of aggression against Afghanistan. Ehud Barak was actually the first person to call for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan, something he did only hours after the attacks."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Former CIA official Milt Bearden talks about Bin Ladens non-existent involvement in 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn61PJQGCUo

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."

—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@neogreenjapan:

You copy and pasted and then changed the words on the FBI page. Why do you do that?? Why does not FBI put your words there?

If you don't know I don't think I will be able to explain it to you. Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All planned by the U.S. itself. Unlimited military build-up for the next 50 years and reason (as if they needed one) to control the oil producing areas. Why not? What is a few thousand lives compared to the money invovled?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi, Let's assume you are correct.

How many people do you think were in on this? Did Clinton have a part? Does Obama know the truth? Why doesn't he say anything? Why doesn't Hillary Clinton? They are all part of this scam?

What has the US gained by this? A booming economy with floods or free oil?

And Mossad has gained what? Those dancing Mossad Israelis weren't very good spied were they? You'd think one of them would have said, Hey guys, be careful nobody sees us being too happy about this, or they'll know we did it!

In one of your posts, you add the possibility of passengers getting off the planes and getting into remote controlled planes.... In all of this, how many hundreds, thousands of staff would have to be in on this?

If what you are saying is right and Israel, the US govt, the US military, and all the media, know the truth and are covering it up, what good are you going to do by talking about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all of you out there that think that this was not a terrorist attack let me clue you in on something that you are overlooking. THe US Government cannont keep a secret with something that large. Someone would have leaked it to the media. You would not be able to keep 3 plane loads of civilians quit. I know that it is impossible to debate with the conspiracy theorist but then again I am sure you are the same people that think ELvis is still alive and that the CIA murdered Kennedy. Read the reports and get someone to explain the scientific explanations of the towers, the results are sound.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ yasukuni

There are many government kept secrets that does not catch the public eye for decades eventhough thousands o people are involved. For example British Government Communications Headquarters fondly know as Bletchley Park was not widely know up until the 80's. Only a hand full of people needs to know the entire plan and others are only given specific orders to complete their task not really knowing how they fit in. Generally speaking the ones who did the most dirty work would mostly be black ops. who will not expose their mission through oath.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like all the tinfoil hat team members who think the massive, incompetently bureaucratic US government is SO all powerful they could orchestrate such a massive conspiracy. That's true fear of government I hope I never feel.

I think those who think the US government is capable of such subterfuge on this vast of a scale hasn't had much dealings with said government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even Noam Chomsky, uber-critic of U.S. policy, has said that blaming the U.S. government for 9/11 is nonsense. Enough said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since we know that at least two planes flew over Stewart Air Force Base. It is certainly possible that the planes landed there and the passengers transferred to remote controlled planes (they have that technology), which then crashed into the towers.

LOL!! They also flew over Connecticut. I bet the whole state is involved in this coverup.

Unlimited military build-up for the next 50 years and reason (as if they needed one) to control the oil producing areas

Then why aren't we taking the oil? oops... you didn't really think that one out, did you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ manfromamerica

US doesn't need to take any oil as long as the transaction currency of oil is pegged to US dollars. This ensures cash flow into US economy since US banks can utilize that money to gain profit through constant flow of currency they divert that flow and invest it and place back the money with dividends as profit into their own pockets. This can only be done only when flow is constant without interruptions. That is why the US is so hung up on stability in the middle east and not tolerate any threats like Iraq's past move to include Euro as alternative transaction currency or Iran's recent opening of oil future market that also allows Euro and Yen as transaction currency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US doesn't need to take any oil as long as the transaction currency of oil is pegged to US dollars. This ensures cash flow into US economy since US banks can utilize that money to gain profit through constant flow of currency they divert that flow and invest it and place back the money with dividends as profit into their own pockets. This can only be done only when flow is constant without interruptions.

So now the bankers did 9-11. Great.

I noticed how well the US Dollar is doing thanks to 9-11 - oh wait, it's in the toilet? Dang.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I don't believe Al-Qaida was responsible for what happened on 9/11. I think some men were used as pawns by Bush and Cheney to knock down the Towers to have a reason to go to war in Iraq. And just about everyone in America was dumb enough to fall for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Um remember oil is traded in petrodollars/ usd, there was talk of petro euros IIRC. Iraq as well as Iran were trying to build support for it just before the attacks. I know you all want me to dig up sources and proof.

Also IIRC that questioning your government was part of being a patriot. The day we as people stop we no longer have government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Um remember oil is traded in petrodollars/ usd, there was talk of petro euros IIRC. Iraq as well as Iran were trying to build support for it just before the attacks.

Your timeline is wrong. The US dollar got so weak 2-3 years ago that there was talk of OPEC switching to a euro based pricing scheme. Well after 9-11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Pestronika

Wrong here is a brief timeline in correlation with oil transaction changes.

In Oct.2000, President of Iraq Saddam Hussein began the sale of his country's oil denominated in euros rather than dollars since the majority of Iraqi oil trade was with the EU, India and China rather than the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International(underbar)status(underbar)and(underbar)usage(underbar)of(underbar)the(underbar)euro#Trading(underbar)currency

September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center

Iran announces to establish International Oil Bourse in February 2005 which will trade oil with Euro.

In UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of December 26, 2006, the Council imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.

The Iranian Oil Bourse inaugurated in February 17, 2008

On February 26, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said that the United States "will seek to end Iran's ambition to acquire an illicit nuclear capability and its support for terrorism".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@conspiracy theorists:

Also, as Gage mentions regarding WTC7, you would need to break all the core columns AT THE SAME TIME. That is certainly not possible if the cause was the reported damage and fire.

In response to the question "How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?" NIST states:

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

No evidence has been presented to disprove NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As to why WTC 7's collapse was unusual, NIST states:

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

So according to NIST, WTC 7's collapse was a result of factors related to its design, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In response to the question "Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?"

NIST has this to say:

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In response to the question "Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?", NIST had this to say:

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

and that's because:

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

This is why NIST ruled out the use of thermite/thermate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Damien15:

These people, licenced architects and engineers, have no reason to lie.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

"These people" are really just one person. The other "people" you are referring to are individuals who have gone to the website and signed the guestbook. That's it.

And Mr. Gage has the luxury of not having to actually prove any of his assertions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609

According to your description on how NIST may have conducted investigation coming in with a hypothesis before actually starting investigation then omitting any anomalies that doesn't fit to their hypothesis really is not going to persuade the general public. Same with their explanation on how they rule out thermite/thermate merely saying it is impossible because the seer amount is too much for the perpetrators to bring in without causing suspicion.

That was NOT NIST's JOB. That area belongs to the agency handling the criminal investigation, NIST was only required to ascertain if or not there were any residue/anomalies that may linked to usage of thermite/thermate which they completely neglected from the start based on their starting hypothesis.

Investigators are REQUIRED to come with an open mind to a crime/accident scene and build up their hypothesis based on what they find at the scene NOT BEFORE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

According to your description on how NIST may have conducted investigation coming in with a hypothesis before actually starting investigation then omitting any anomalies that doesn't fit to their hypothesis really is not going to persuade the general public.

That was a hypothetical discussion concerning a fire investigator. I wasn't suggesting that is the way NIST approached the investigation at all.

In fact, NIST states exactly how they approached their investigation, it's scope, and what their goals were in their report. If people would just read NIST's findings they would know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

Investigators are REQUIRED to come with an open mind to a crime/accident scene and build up their hypothesis based on what they find at the scene NOT BEFORE.

NIST did go into the investigation with an open mind. They investigated several hypotheses, including the demolition hypothesis, and ruled out the ones that didn't match the preponderance of evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@conspiracy theorists:

Look, if you're not going to read NIST's findings or reports, at least read the stuff I've copied into this post.

Or are you afraid by reading what NIST found in their investigation you might realize their conclusions are supported by evidence after a lengthy and thorough investigation, and might debunk your conspiracy theories?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh dear. The verinage system had me off "truth" but I think that it may not work on steel framed buildings (only on concrete buildings without a steel frame).

And I think that (as in all the videos) it stands to reason or Newtons third law, that the collapse must be initiated in the centre, since the top will be destroyed at the same rate as it destroys the bottom.

All in all the verinage (it self a form of controlled demolition) videos show what would be required for progessive total collapse. No, or weak steel frame and verticle symmetry.

A strange thing about WT1/2 is the collapse started near the top, so I think the top should have destroyed itself before it destroyed the bottom, even if it were not true that the beams were thicker at the bottom, which I am sure they were. Since there was verticle assymetry, one would expect a large piece of the bottom of the tower to be left. But strangely the buildings were raised almost to the ground, with virtually no structural integrity in the ruins.

With regard to the NISTs claim that large amounts of thermite could not have been taken into WT7. I am not sure how they can make this claim. WT7 was home to "Secret Service" (wikipedia) offices and it is not called the Secret Service for nothing. If persons related to or posing as the Secret Service wanted to bring a lot of packages into the building they could say that their contents were a "secret". NIST does not seem even to gloss this possibility.

With regard to the World Trade Center towers one and two they just had finished being rewired, meaning that tons of fibre optic cable had just been transported into the ducting throughout the building (I guestimated about 14 tons judging from the mileage given in a press release). If not 14 tons, but 40 tons of stuff had been put into the ducts, would the security guards have become suspicious? "Hey that is a bit too heavy isn't it? You shouldn't need that much fibre optic cable." And even if the security guards were really good at estimating the amount of fibre optic cable required, there are no end of excuses... "Its the sheathing, it needs to be moisture proof." "The extra weight is the equipment we need for testing the cable" etc, etc.

And then there are those that doubt the security of the WTC security, . From a "debunking" site http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/marvin-bush-mystery.html we can learn that part of the security was provided by a company in which the presidents brother was a director until June the previous year.

With regard to jamal's faith in the NIST, fair enough, but according to wikipedia's 7 World Trade Center article, the NIST report is quoted as saying, "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." That needs to be repeated slowly. The NIST's best hyphothesis has a low probability of occurence.

One of those hypotheses that the NIST rejected (as having an even lower propability of occurence) was that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. They appear to have rejected this hypothesis on the grounds that the explosives could not have been brought into the buildings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it was all a conspiracy to pin it on Al-Qaida and bin Laden, then why would the FBI not say bin Laden is wanted for 9/11? Isn't this evidence AGAINST the conspiracy theory?

It's my understanding that bin Laden's words alone aren't treated as "hard evidence." Also, in the strict sense, it's true that bin Laden himself didn't do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No evidence has been presented to disprove NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

One could also say that no evidence has been presented to PROVE NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

Seems you are very impressed with the "experts" at NIST. The quotes you're providing are similar to what that physics prof was saying in his debate with Gage (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs).

There remains some fundamental questions that need to be answered before we can accept the possibility that it was not a controlled demolition. BUt even if it was not a controlled demolition. How do we know it was Al Qaida? The only answer we get from our discussion is that some people claiming to be from Al Qaida have admitted to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it was all a conspiracy to pin it on Al-Qaida and bin Laden, then why would the FBI not say bin Laden is wanted for 9/11? Isn't this evidence AGAINST the conspiracy theory?

Maybe, for the FBI to conclude bin Laden was behind it would need clear documented proof. But to get a country to go to war on the bin Laden excuse only requires a controlled media with carefully crafted talking points.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hahaha - controlled demolition? Seriously - how gullible can you get?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe, for the FBI to conclude bin Laden was behind it would need clear documented proof. But to get a country to go to war on the bin Laden excuse only requires a controlled media with carefully crafted talking points.

Right after 9/11, Taliban was willing to hand over Bin Laden to a 3rd party and take this case to an Islamic court. US was never interested in negotiating with Taliban, they wanted an invasion, after the invsaion they were not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden and then invaded a new country. I find the logic of the former American government hard to follow. To this day, US has failed to provide evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

Cheney has said previously. 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi- If the FBI was in on the conspiracy, why would they wait for clear documented proof? They'd just make something up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What has the US gained by this?... And Mossad has gained what?

Read the PNAC papers, Clean Break, and Afghan Vortex. Neocons authored a number of documents for the US and Israeli governments about the need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need for a Pearl Harbor-type event to get the people to support these invasions.

Those dancing Mossad Israelis weren't very good spied were they? You'd think one of them would have said, Hey guys, be careful nobody sees us being too happy about this, or they'll know we did it!

You didn't get it. They were dressed up as Arabs. They WANTED to be seen, they want people to think that Arabs were celebrating this catastrophe. And I am sure that if they were not arrested, our controlled MSM would have made an infinitely bigger deal with these dancing "Arabs".

In one of your posts, you add the possibility of passengers getting off the planes and getting into remote controlled planes.... In all of this, how many hundreds, thousands of staff would have to be in on this?

The recently privatized (by the same Israel- and Mossad-linked individuals involved in the privatization of the WTC) Stewart Air Force Base, where at least two planes converged has a large hangar. The passengers could very easily be controlled by a few guys with guns. But you wouldn't need to, just tell the passengers that because of technical problems, they will be transferred to another plane, a remote controlled one... The possibilities are endless, but you do not need so many people to carry it out.

If what you are saying is right and Israel, the US govt, the US military, and all the media, know the truth and are covering it up, what good are you going to do by talking about it?

Relatively few are behind this attack, many have spoken about it on the net. The controlled media is covering it up, but many people have caught on, and are tuning out of the MSM.

What good are you going to do by trying to cover it up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

THe US Government cannont keep a secret with something that large.

Yes they can, they have already.

Someone would have leaked it to the media.

They probably have. And you think the media would have reported it? How naive!

You would not be able to keep 3 plane loads of civilians quit.

See above reply. They were probably either transferred to another plane and flown by remote control into the WTC or disposed of by other means.

I know that it is impossible to debate with the conspiracy theorist but then again I am sure you are the same people that think ELvis is still alive...

No!

... and that the CIA murdered Kennedy.

Yes!

Read the reports and get someone to explain the scientific explanations of the towers, the results are sound.

Yeah, as sound as the "Magic Bullet" theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi- If the FBI was in on the conspiracy, why would they wait for clear documented proof? They'd just make something up.

Not the entire FBI, just some members.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi- Okay, I'll rephrase. Why didn't just some members make something up to present as evidence?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Airion, as I stated above:

"Maybe, for the FBI to conclude bin Laden was behind it would need clear documented proof. But to get a country to go to war on the bin Laden excuse only requires a controlled media with carefully crafted talking points."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@timtak:

They appear to have rejected this hypothesis on the grounds that the explosives could not have been brought into the buildings.

NIST didn't say that large quantities of thermite couldn't be taken into the buildings, they merely said it was unlikely. Anyway, the inability to get thermite/thermate into the building is not why they rejected the hypothesis.

Here is what they did say:

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

In reference to your post:

"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." That needs to be repeated slowly. The NIST's best hyphothesis has a low probability of occurence.

That is just wrong.

If you had actually read the wikipedia article you referenced in your post you would have known that the "low probability of occurence" quote was in reference to the hypothesis put forward in the 2002 FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, not the 2008 NIST report.

That needs to be repeated slowly: the "low probability of occurence" quote was in reference to the hypothesis put forward in the 2002 FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, not the 2008 NIST report.

Consequently, NIST initiated their own investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, precisely because FEMA's explanation had a low probability of occurence. All you had to do was just read a couple of paragraphs beyond the "low probability of occurence" quote to see that this was the case!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi- So the government can pull of this huge conspiracy, but they either can't or don't bother to fabricate clear evidence pinning it on bin Laden, the entire point of the conspiracy. And this oversight is somehow evidence supporting the theory? This is what I don't understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course it was Al-Qaida, but their motives were more devious than most people realise.

(BTW, I also believe that Al-Qaida was set up by the USA, and that the invations of Iraq and Afghansistan were not only illegal, but stupid beyond all measure.)

The Islamic jihad, started by Mohammad in the 7thC, was put on ice, and Muslim military conquests in Europe (the Ottoman Empire, Spain etc) rolled back as the Muslim world fell behind the 'west' in technological and financial power. In the 1980s it was back with a vengence, as Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tapped into growing Islamic confidence caused in part by Britain's creation of Muslim states like Pakistan, and the rise of the self-loathing leftish elite in the west.

With US policies as justification, and the Koran as divine sanction, Al-Qaida perpetrated 9/11. But there was also a seconday consideration. After 9/11, Islam could now play the 'victim' card (don't tar us all with the same brush, it was 'extremists' wot dun it!) This ruse has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the leftish 'elite', who now seek to accommodate Ismamic barbarity (eg preaching death for homosexuality and apostacy) in mainstream western culture, and who kowtow to each Islamic demand (not request, but demand) for concessions to Islam in many walks of life. And now the jihad is gaining strength. Islamic slavery of Africans (stamped out by the British in the 19th) is booming in Sudan, unchallenged by the dhimmi west. Islamic "Barbary" piracy (appeased by the US eventually but stamped out by the British in the 19thC) is back in Somalia. Islamic law, with its inherent persecution of non-Muslims, homosexuals etc) is being established, fully or partially, in many places all over the globe (even in the UK.) But becuase Islam has played the victim card so brilliantly, with 9/11 being the masterstoke, all debate about jihad is stamped out by the leftish thought police.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

One could also say that no evidence has been presented to PROVE NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

Well, timtak misquoted the wikipedia article (check my post above). You should actually take a few minutes to read what NIST has to say regarding the collapse of WTC 7. The report was released in 2008. It is not just innuendo and speculation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as the pentagon is concerned, you have feet of reinforced concrete and an aluminum can traveling at 600 mph. Phsyics would tell you that the plane merely disintegrated upon impact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

So they reject the thermite/thermate theory simply because of the observed fires and the "demonstrated" structural response. Not very convincing.

Anyway, one this page, they have a nice short video that illustartes well the investigative abilities of NIST.

http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

So they reject the thermite/thermate theory simply because of the observed fires and the "demonstrated" structural response. Not very convincing.

I guess that's what it all boils down to, right? It's a matter of what you believe. Judging from the results of this survey there seem to be plenty who feel the same way you do. Cheers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wow, the more sabiwabi explains his hypothesis, the more ridiculous it sounds. Soon he'll talk the conspiracy theory out of existence. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Genuine skepticism is healthy. It's even amusing to read the passionate posts of people who are less believers than obviously intent on disseminating disinformation. None if it is going to change the world, and Americans will muddle on, wondering how they're going to avoid repossession of their home or car. (Unless they work for Goldman Sachs, in which case they'll worry about the barnacles adhering to the hull of their yacht.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi: Don't you have anything better to do with your time? You've been on this site for three days streight now defending the conspiracy theories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ bobbafett

Jet liners don't fly that fast and the engine made out of reinforced metal composite would not disintegrate.

The engine casing is designed to maintain integrity even if some of the rotor blades flung off at full throttle spinning at 5000rpm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks Jamal.

You are good at pointing out my errors.

But by the way, was there nothing in my post that was persuasive? No good bits?

You point out the following

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

I thought at first that this was an error of omission on my part, but I am not sure how this rejects the thermite hypothesis. Please can you explain?

It seems that they have a working model (computer simulation) for how the fires could have caused the structural damage. They then say that they do not believe thermite was the cause. They do not say why they do not believe it.

Perhaps they mean

1) Thermite is ridiculous, so if they have another working model, then that working model is going to be more plausible than thermite. I can really appreciate this arguement.

2) The structural damage occured slowly over the course of the day, and therefore this is inconsistent with thermite. Why? Could some thermite have been used to produce some structural damage over the course of the day? Or...

3) The structural damage moved with the fires? Even if so, why does this suggest that thermite was not used to bring about the collapse (but not the preceeding damage)? Or could there have been some structural damage caused by fire, and some by thermite?

4) The fires would have any thermite placed in the buildings? This sounds plausible. A controlled demolition sounds difficult to produce in a building that is subsequently subject to fire. How difficult?

With regard to the fire hypothesis, I don't know what to say. It just seems implausible to me. I have no proof. Er...I use a steel barbeque? No I admit that is not very persuasive.

How about...Recently a 43 story building caught fire catastrophically in Bejing. Please have a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

The 43 storey building burnt for a long time. There were no sprinklers. And it is still standing. One can see before and after images on google herebelow

http://tinyurl.com/tvccbuilding

Here is the wikipedia

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

Regarding the office fires in WTC7 "it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point." (wikipedia)

Jamal wrote

That needs to be repeated slowly: the "low probability of occurence" quote was in reference to the hypothesis put forward in the 2002 FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, not the 2008 NIST report. Consequently, NIST initiated their own investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, precisely because FEMA's explanation had a low probability of occurence. All you had to do was just read a couple of paragraphs beyond the "low probability of occurence" quote to see that this was the case!

Thank you for pointing my error out. I repeated it slowly. It was the FEMA report.

So the NIST report explains the collapse for you?

They primarily put it down to the fire, and particularly that the sprinkler system did not work. They say that WT7 was the first steel building in history to collapse due to fire. Just after another couple of steel buildings had collapsed downwards, symmetrically, speedily, on the same site on the same day.

And even though there have been a lot of other fires in a lot of tower blocks.

Everything is possible. Under the right sequence of chance events one could fell a skyscraper with an office fire. And one can produce a model to show how it can happen. But is it plausible to you? Here is that 43 storey building in Beijing again, likewise without sprinklers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg And it is still standing.

WTC7 got unluckly, very unlucky, and whammy, went straight down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi: Don't you have anything better to do with your time? You've been on this site for three days streight now defending the conspiracy theories

I've been here for 3 straight days killing productivity at work. But it has been worth it. There are many posters here with lots of knowledge on this topic. Both the people who trust NIST and others who do not.

Besides, it is too hot to go outside anyway. Better to stay inside in an ACd room in front of a computer all day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the biggest question concerning the Pentagon crash is why did the perpetrator with limited piloting skill chose to slow the plane down and level off at ground level and strike into the side of the building when it would have been more easier causing more destruction by simply nose diving the plane into the building like a Kamikaze attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@timtak:

You are good at pointing out my errors.

Sorry, mate. I would have had to point it out eventually as the other conspiracy theorists would have been all over the idea that NIST didn't even believe their own findings. That would have been a tough one to explain without mentioning the misquote.

It seems that they have a working model (computer simulation) for how the fires could have caused the structural damage. They then say that they do not believe thermite was the cause. They do not say why they do not believe it.

I admit I was not a member of the NIST team, so I do not know exactly what they meant by what they said, other than "NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7." However, if you read their findings, you might be able to speculate why they said what they said.

So the NIST report explains the collapse for you?

Yes.

They primarily put it down to the fire, and particularly that the sprinkler system did not work.

Well, no, I wouldn't say they primarily put it down to the fire, although they mention fire was definitely a factor. They also note that the fact the sprinkler system wasn't working was a factor. I quoted some parts of the NIST findings in previous posts. Take a look.

From the NIST WTC findings one can see that it was more than fire or the sprinkler system that brought the building down. The design and construction of the building were integral to WTC 7 collapsing the way it did. It's a very interesting, albeit tragic read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

One of the biggest question concerning the Pentagon crash is why did the perpetrator with limited piloting skill chose to slow the plane down and level off at ground level and strike into the side of the building when it would have been more easier causing more destruction by simply nose diving the plane into the building like a Kamikaze attack.

Perhaps because he had limited piloting skill?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609

I do not understand why you are so frantic in trying to defend the official report that you completely lose touch of common sense.

Doing a fly by at ground level without hitting the ground takes acrobatic skills even with a Cessna not to mention a jet airliner. The official report states that there were no skid marks on the lawn right up to the building meaning it did not skid into the building, it flown in. Try doing the same stunt with a flying simulator, fly a jet airliner into a runway without landing gears out at 0 altitude for 300 meters then try a nose dive into a building and tell me your success rate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

I do not understand why you are so frantic in trying to defend the official report that you completely lose touch of common sense.

Frantic? I guess that's one word you could use. I prefer the term persistent: that's the one my friends and co-workers use -- it's a useful quality for someone in my line of work. Frantic implies a kind of desperation that I just don't think is there. I'm more like a stubborn pain in the arse.

For what it's worth, it makes it easier that I don't feel I've lost touch with common sense. I suspect the posters espousing conspiracy theories feel the same way ;)

Common sense tells me I can't accurately predict what an adrenaline-pumped terrorist would have done or been able to do in the cockpit of a real jet aircraft in the middle of a hijacking. You have to admit, that's not exactly like flying a flight simulator on your home PC, right? Have you ever piloted a passenger airliner in the middle of a hijacking?

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to stop certain conspiracy theorists from speculating about just such a thing.

I'm just wondering, and mind you this is pure speculation on my part because I am definitely not a pilot, if I was a terrorist hijacking an airplane, and let's say I only had one chance of hitting a building, what maneuver would I choose, assuming I could choose a maneuver at all? Would it be a kamikaze maneuver with a 20% chance of success? Or would it be something more similar to a landing maneuver, which I'm happy to report, works quite a lot?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All of you COnspiracy theorists that are posting and truly believe all of this nonsense might want to watch out. Real conspiracies would require that the people trying to cover something up silence permantly they people trying to get the truth out. And if you think the US Government is capable of destroying it's own buildings and people believe me they can FIND YOU!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How come Cheney said Osama bin Laden is not a suspected for 9/11 and FBI doesn't mention 9/11 but still people think Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neo - Cheney's a war criminal, right? Why would you believe anything he said?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How come Cheney said Osama bin Laden is..."

Becasue the US gov, in general, decided years ago to stop advertising for this scum. Get with the program folks- learn about America before criticising America !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neo - Cheney's a war criminal, right? Why would you believe anything he said?

Does this make you think Cheney is a war criminal Sarge because he doesn't think Bin Laden is a suspect? You got that link I'm waiting for yet? Why is it that you believe Bin Laden has connection to 9/11 when your heroes don't think so?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We are mad they say; those of us who find it hard to believe. Well, I find the magic bullet difficult to comprehend. This has amazing contrast to the felling of 3 WTC buildings on the same day, with almost uncanny precision, straight to the ground just like a demolition site, when only 2 buildings were hit way up high. Nothing anywhere in this discussion has made what happened believable. You can give technical explanations through someone's reports, but in the end the probability of this happening 3 times on one day in almost identical fashion just is far to uncanny. Somebody provided info and photos on the Pentagon crash. I looked at it objectively, and I see no more need to question what happened. Someone answered my doubts. Nobody has convincingly done that for the WTC. That is all most of us want. A believable explanation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stevobevo- what do you want ? An explanation as to how two buildings, designed the same way, built from the same materials, having two fuel filled jetliners crash into them... would fall identically ? Really now- you still don't get it ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neogreenjapan- So Cheney, by denying that bin Laden was directly involved in the attacks, is refusing to tow the line of the official story. Essentially, Cheney isn't in on it. He's possibly on your side.

And yet, the conspiracy suggests that the government, per the wishes of neo-conservatives, made the attacks in order to justify going to war. Cheney pushed for these wars more than anyone. He's considered to be at least something of a neo-conservative. So according to your theory, Cheney greatly benefited politically from the conspiracy, despite not being in on it and speaking out to contradict the official story. And you present this unlikely contradiction as evidence SUPPORTING the conspiracy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting that after 301 posts, the only evidence brought up that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks is that a few alleged members admitted apparently confessed. Compare that with all the holes in the official version that I and others brought up and you'd have to question the intelligence or sincerity of those who still claim to believe the official version.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Airion

Despite the intense media campaign Cheney admitted that there was no link between Bin Laden and 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neogreenjapan- Right, that's not my question. How does a neo-con like Cheney contradicting the neo-con inspired conpiracy support the theory? Shouldn't someone like Cheney be completely in on it, saying it was bin Laden? He got the wars he wanted, didn't he? And yet, you present him as an ally?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Branded at 12:35 AM JST - 4th September stevobevo- what do you want ? An explanation as to how two buildings, designed the same way, built from the same materials, having two fuel filled jetliners crash into them... would fall identically ? Really now- you still don't get it ?

That works for you??. How about the rest of the equation. What was the air speed of each jet?, what floor did each jet hit?, what sides did the jets hit on?, Angles of impact. Sorry but nothing was Identical. Also notice how the jets never penetrated the towers but one miraculously made it threw how many fortified rings in the pentagon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is it people are so ready to believe in a conspiracy?

Sit back and think about what you are actually saying:

The government crashed two passenger planes into the WTC. Why? To wage a war - in order to make money. The government then got many building experts to say that the towers fell due to the aforementioned aircraft. The government has been able to keep this 'secret'. How many people would have to be involved?

Theories about that day - just a few...

The planes were being operated remotely. The planes were empty. Why so many grieving families? (perhaps they are in on the conspiracy) CIA operatives were seen coming out of the building minutes before the building were 'demolished'. Enough explosives were planted at key points to bring down the buildings. The government (mainly Cheney and Bush) wanted to make money by staging this attack. Some of the fire and police personnel were actually CIA operatives, there to make sure everything went smoothly.

Again, why are people so ready to see conspiracy wherever they go? Too many X-files and its ilk?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609

WoW just wow. You claim you are not a pilot and in the same breath you make an assumption that a Kamikaze attack only has a 20% success rate even though the maneuver only requires you to maintain the heading to the target without really needing to consider anything else then state that even though being a novice pilot you'll have 100% success rate ramming a jet flying more than 100 meters at height little more then 10 meter without touch the ground which requires constant adjusting the throttle, flaps, and so on.

That's where you're in loss of your common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I might have missed it in the 300 plus posts, but is there any sort of plausible explanation for the premature announcement of the building 7 collapse?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ lakechamplainer

BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks.Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.

This is the official statement by the one who made the announcement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI- Bin Laden is dead long long long time ago Both sides are using him to their own advantage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thinking about the question, I could see where one might think al-Quaida involved but not necessarily responsible. I could see where Atta was the real mastermind and just got some training from al-Quaida. Which would mean that a lot of people in Afghanistan were butchered for precious little. Of course, lots of people would have gotten butched in that crazy nation anyway, but as an American, I would rather my country's hands were clean instead of dripping with innocent blood as they are now. The whole thing has painted a target on the back of every American either way. We should have smashed al-Quaida and left, not occupied the country and maintained control with cowardice from the air.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue:

That's correct, I'm not a pilot. As I said, I was just speculating.

The 20% success rate of a kamikaze pilot maneuver refers to the success rate of kamikaze pilots during WWII. Most reports put that at about 20%. You don't have to be a pilot to get that information.

As I mentioned previously, I am speculating what kind of maneuver I would try if I only had one chance of getting it right.

I really don't know for sure what would be the best thing to do, do you?

Should I try a kamikaze maneuver, which has about a 20% success rate, and which I may have never trained on before so as not to raise the suspicion of my trainers?

Or, would I try something more akin to steady level flight, which I did train for, and which has a much higher success rate, especially in a high stress situation like a hijacking?

I think I would go for the steady, level fight. That way, I might even have a chance of coming around for a second pass If I missed the first time. Kamikaze maneuver, not so much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Incredibly, 47% either don't believe al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11 or don't know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi:

Interesting that after 301 posts, the only evidence brought up that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks is that a few alleged members admitted apparently confessed. Compare that with all the holes in the official version that I and others brought up and

What I find interesting is how you attempt obfuscate the truth by blurring the distinction between whether Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and whether the WTC was destroyed according to the official version of events.

You're attempting to tie the lack of evidence that Bin Laden was directly involved (ie: flying the airplanes himself vs. conspiring with others to do it), which by the way does not exclude Al Qaeda from committing the crime, to the accuracy of the findings of the 9/11 investigation into the collapse of the WTC, seemingly in hopes that somehow the lack of evidence in one will transfer to the other in an effort to bring down both.

The "holes" you refer to are a mishmash of speculation, opinion, observations, and misquotes that some conspiracy theorists have made in these posts, some of which were just completely wrong, as in factually incorrect, and others of which were either debunked or weren't significant enough to question the official version.

The official version of the events of 9/11, while not perfect, is still the best explanation for what happened.

you'd have to question the intelligence or sincerity of those who still claim to believe the official version.

So the people who don't agree with you are either lying or stupid?

I have only one thing to say to that, sabiwabi: sticks and stones may break my bones...

I think you know the rest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes sarge.... its seems a paltry 47% still have control of their senses and mind....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@susano:

I see. The people who disagree with you have lost control of their minds and their senses?

Or are we just plain stupid/liars as sabiwabi suggests?

Well, I guess the discussion is over, then.

Moderator, I suggest we rename this discussion topic. Instead of "Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11," maybe we should just call it "Do you believe you are a stupid liar, or that you've lost control of your mind and senses?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jamal2609

By any chance do you know how many were shot down by ANTI AIRCRAFT GUNS before they reached their target and while you are at it does the figure also tell you how many returned to base because they lost sight of their target and/or mechanical failure? How about success rate of pilots of these pilots when they were going under training?

Get rid of half ass meaningless numbers and answer with your own head, which makes more sense, a maneuver that only requires you to maintain heading without needing to consider anything else or ramming a jet flying more than 100 meters at height little more then 10 meter without touch the ground requiring constant adjusting of throttle, flaps, and so on.

One more thing, present days airfield have a lot of signal beacons and what nots to safely guide a jet if they are at the right altitude, speed and so on to insure the plane makes it to the runway but naturally they do have them installed to guide them to the Pentagon.

Really why do argue for the sake of arguing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't worry, there's a heavy self selection bias in the poll. Truthers are much more likely to respond to the poll, given their high level of interest in the subject. Your average person thinks it's a silly question and doesn't click.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You better asked Bush, this Question

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The 20% success rate of a kamikaze pilot maneuver refers to the success rate of kamikaze pilots during WWII. Most reports put that at about 20%. You don't have to be a pilot to get that information.

Trying to crash a small Japanese plane onto the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in a hail of bullets is probably rather different to trying to hit a massive modern plane into some of the world's biggest buildings when nobody expects it. The 20% comparison is meaningless and pointless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing for sure is that conspiracy theory is always far more interesting to read than actual reality.In the end people will believe what they want to believe,:-).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jamal2609,

The "holes" you refer to are a mishmash of speculation, opinion, observations,

No, the holes I am referring to are the inconsistencies of the official version with basic laws of physics. Just because NIST says that under certain unspecified conditions it is conceivable that steel could have melted does not convince me, and their excuses for not considering thermite / thermate are not very serious. I don't understand why you have so much faith in NIST.

A look at the video I linked to before should give a good idea of the lack of sincerity of NIST.

If you look at just the science, it is clear that controlled demotion was involved, no doubt.

If you look at other things surrounding the attacks, which I have explained several times (the privatization of WTC complex and Stewart Air Force Base by Israel and Mossad linked individuals, Cheney ordering fighter jets to stand down, PNAC papers and Clean Break, ....) it is clear that there was a conspiracy to bring the US into war, no doubt.

The "conspiracy" version of the events of 9/11 is the only explanation for what happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe that the US government created Al-Qaida for convenience reasons. Sure it rallied bad people but this was the intention. Nothing is better than creating an enemy that you can control. If you do your own research online, it is easy to realize that 9/11 events were orchestrated and faked. WTC7, weird debris in Pennsylvania, pancakes fall of WTC, little hole in wall of Pentagon, multiple explosions inside lower floors of the towers, impossibility for kerosene to melt steel, etc. On that day, the press were sent videos from supposedly amateurs but in reality the US government was feeding CNN, BBC with what it wanted people to believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The World Trade Center was attacked twice- 1993 & 2001 Al-Qaida wasn't responsible for the attack in 1993. A different terrorist organization attacked the building by driving a rental truck in an underground parking area. The plan was to knock the twin towers down by weaken support beams at the foundation. But the building survived the blast. 6 people died and 1000+ people were injured.

2001 I don't know for sure if it was Al-Qaida or another splinter cell terrorist group but they finished the job the first group started.

I believe the american government knew 9/11 was going to happen because a few years back. State,Federal and local governments in New York State were practicing for mass casuality drills. During 1998-2001.

After the destruction of the ship USS Cole. (clinton Era ) America recieved intelligence reports that a group of terrorists will highjack several planes.

Bush failed America* because he recieved intelligence briefing during his vacation in Texas in August 2001 about terrorist activity in America. He recieved an ample warning that an attack will come soon.

GW was moving around alot because they knew something was seriously going down in september. His vacations were to long and sporadic

I also believe the plane that was shot down by air to air missle from a US Warplane was heading to the white house or some key landmark in Washington !!!! I believe that the civilians inside the plane didn't overtake the terrorists and the plane was incinerated by an air to air missle or a couple of (cannon) rounds from a US warplane. (air to air missles can be launched 20 miles away to 120 km away from the target)

I believe the concocted a fake " soft story " to cover the fact that a US plane shot down and killed (terrorists) civilians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flight 93 was the last attempt by terrorists to inflict damage, I believe the plane was shot down. american government had enough time to intercept this plane in Penn.before reaching D.C.

Plus this plane was shot down in an (1) unpopulated area which further explains my theory is correct

It was the (last) plane !!!! Bush should have done more, instead of reading, " My pet Goat " to school children. What an idiot savant !!!!

I hope we learned from this mistake. With all the US Warplanes( owned by america) flying around. We should at least have better protection over american skies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you do your own research online, it is easy to realize that 9/11 events were orchestrated and faked.

Retype that as:

If you do your own research online, it is easy to realize that any rubbish will be believed by people if enough nutters make conspiracy sites about it.

That wouldn't fit in with the blinkered view of the whole event that the "truthers" want so hard to be real though, would it? Cherry-picking and completely ignoring facts because they don't fit your conspiracy theory. These people would be funny to watch if they weren't so annoying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/researchers-ana/ -a look at "Al Qaida" video editing. +Many different Bin Ladens out there it seems also.

It is much more difficult logically to construct a lie than to tell the truth. Even Bill Clinton was not smart enough to construct a good lie. =These people that are in charge of politics and the media are not smart enough to construct lies + the technology (cell phones, internet) used to look at the truth has gotten better and quicker.

Look at the Hillary Clinton lie that she was shot at in Bosnia. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2540811420080326 -but these people jet-set every day all over the place. -Memory does fade, but it seems the truth does not.

=it just isn't that easy or smart to lie anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi - The "conspiracy" version of the events of 9/11 is the only explanation for what happened.

Hahahaha.... The many "conspiracy" theorys even contradict each other. Popular Mechanics probably did the best job of discrediting the crackpots who are trying to make their versions of the "facts" fit their predetermined conclusions.

Eleven fantical islamic terrorist hijacked four airliners. They managed to hit three of their targets while the passengers and crew members of the fourth lost their lives in a struggle to regain control of the plane.

The Twin Towers collapsed because the structural integrity (walls and supporting columns) were compromised by the impact and the resulting fire and heat. Once one floor collapsed, the kinetic energy (weight times speed squared) of the upper floors slamming into the next lower floor exceeded its structures abilities causing it to collapse. And so on and so on down to the ground.

WTC 7 collapsed because internal fires burned for over 7 hours. There wasn't enough water pressure available to operate the buildings fire fighting system. Ask any fireman, everything will burn. You just have to apply enough heat for a long enough period of time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conspiracy theorists just want to be more intelligent then others. They can't do it in the real world so they created the conspiracy world where they are the smartest people in the world. 911 is the ultimate conspiracy theory because us dumb sheep believe what we saw with our own eyes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The majority of 9-11 troofer idiots are on the left. The conspiracies are just more proof, hardly needed, that most of these people do not believe in the existence of evil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A bare majority of 51% of JT readers believe al-Qaida was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Incredible...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The 35 percent who say "no" matches the percentage of registered Democrats in the US who hold the same beliefs. Crazy world we live in...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites