9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

More here:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Good find, LoA. States exactly why it (911 Truth) is the premiere issue for libertarians and their greatest recruiting opportunity. MV911T should have some news on local educational efforts soon.

[jaqeboy]

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

More here:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Good find, LoA. States exactly why it (911 Truth) is the premiere issue for libertarians and their greatest recruiting opportunity. MV911T should have some news on local educational efforts soon.

OK, Merrimack Valley 911 Truth announces a video showing of Architect Richard Gage's video: 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. Actually, that's tonight at the Great Buffet in Manchester at 6:30PM.

details are at the MV911T website.

It has come up on this thread that some who question the standard Bush line on what really happened on 9/11 are not credible for one reason or another. Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth give a professional view and analysis. See it tonight and you may want to join the group at ae911truth.org.

Also, this evening could serve as a preview, since Richard Gage is coming to Keene on 13 December and you could ask follow-up questions of him then.

[Raineyrocks]

Here I go again posting on this subject, it usually doesn't turn out well but here goes.

If this has already been posted, sorry.

Let's say that there were no bombs in the World Trade Center, no implosion, whatever, okay?  There is still the undeniable fact that the U.S. fighter jets were told to stand down, right?  Why?

Okay, that's all I have to write for now.

[jaqeboy]

The ostensible reason is that you have up to 22 different military and preparedness exercises in progress on 9/11 or just before, and resources were already committed elsewhere or they were confused by the exercises (couldn't tell if "it's real or exercise").

These exercises are listed in several places, including these 2 books: Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror; Made in USA and in Michael Ruppert, Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline Of The American Empire At The End Of The Age of Oil.

The exercises even included "inserts" or false blips on the Air Traffic Control radar (no actual planes). In the confusion of the real hijackings and the military exercises, it can easily be speculated that some could be convinced to standown, since "it's only an exercise."

Another book: Zarembka, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, p. 135 lays out the scenario (quoting both Tarpley and Ruppert) of Dick Cheney's involvement.

Cheney was apparently in charge of exercises (at a high level) and the puzzling evidence we have before us is Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission that he heard Cheney bark out that "the orders still stand", to a serviceman who advised him a plane was inbound towards Washington. The commission didn't attempt to ascertain who the serviceman was or what those orders were. One guess is that Cheney was referring to an order to not shoot down that plane, so that indicts Cheney in the Pentagon attacks.

In other words, though,  it appears to all be speculation as of yet, hence the need to re-open the investigation. And, if it were incompetence, rather than sabotage, it shows how poorly the people are protected.

[Nick Danger]

I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.

Where's the plane?  I checked on an air disaster site:  http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it.  Where's the plane from flight 93? 

Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp

So from this article I gather:
1) Flight 93 was definitely hijacked.
2) People actually saw it coming down.
3) It left a big crater in the ground.

Sounds just like the official story to me!

[Nick Danger]

I read Devvy's article when it came out and thought about how some in this movement and on this forum seem to be behind the general public on this one  - how'd that happen in a movement based on skeptical inquiry into the govt's motivation and behaviour in other areas?

Because there's also some skeptical inquiry into nutty conspiracy theories?

[Nick Danger]

http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html

A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.

The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.

Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.

Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of "controlled demolition" were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

"I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles," he said. "After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.

"They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts."

Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.

He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or "pan-caking" of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.

This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down - just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.

"The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began," he said.

"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."

Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.

[Nick Danger]

I just finally got around to watching the History Channel's debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, "9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction."
...
... IMO, the producers picked some of the most outlandish "conspiracy theorist" claims and disproved them to discredit the movement.  Also, the film seemed to be lacking facts and just going on the assumption that "the experts" know best. 

This seems to be a favored tactic. Penn & Teller use this in their de-bunking vid. Does that mean that they believe everything the Bush/Cheney cabal will dish out and attack then any questioning of this one official story? It almost seems so. There seems to be a psychological barrier to some believing someone would kill their own countrymen to further the imperial agenda - a barrier so high that some ban themselves from surmounting it to peek over to view the truth. Note that some on these forums won't even view some of the videos, interviews, etc. offered and instead engage themselves in the faux battle of credentialling the presenter to death rather than considering the material presented. There must be a name for this logical fallacy, eh? Would that be the ad hominem attack?

1) This new group ("Architects and Engineers") is all about credentials, so if their credentials suck, that's a valid criticism.
2) An ad hominem attack would be to say, "He sleeps with minors, therefore let's ignore him," not, "He has no knowledge of or experience on buildings like WTC although he's faking that he does; therefore, let's ignore him."

[alohamonkey]

Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.

Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7).  If you can, I won't put you on ignore.

[grasshopper]

   I saw what happened, I watched it.  I have herd the fire fighters.  I have herd Silverstien say he gave the order to (Pfft) pull the building (building 7).  I herd the announcers announce bombs in the building going off in the basement sections of the buildings.  I saw what I saw.  I know what happened.  The Feds on this forum have a vested interest in the statous quo'.
   "Beware of the weeping widows" if it ever comes out proof positive that the Feds took down the buildings.  I pray to God it never comes out.  They'd have no choice but to  kill American citizens even more to protect their petty kingdoms, and they'd do it in the name of National Security.
   All we can do is give our anger and rage to Jesus.  Let God deal with these people.  He will in his own time.  They are going to kill more of us for their NWO, but the war has already been won.  God will prevail.

[jaqeboy]

I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.

Where's the plane?  I checked on an air disaster site:  http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it.  Where's the plane from flight 93? 

Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp

So from this article I gather:
1) Flight 93 was definitely hijacked.
2) People actually saw it coming down.
3) It left a big crater in the ground.

Sounds just like the official story to me!

I have heard that there are new (satellite) photos of the gash before and after the "crash", which btw, wasn't a "big" crater. I'll post when I get them.

[Nick Danger]

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

And about half of Americans think the earth is only 6000 years old!

[Nick Danger]

Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.

Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7).  If you can, I won't put you on ignore.

Hey, isn't that what Creationists do with fossil evidence -- put it on ignore?

In any case, the official NIST report did not assign the primary cause to fire damage, but to structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, which took out a good bit of the south face of the building.

[Nick Danger]

   I saw what happened, I watched it. 

And I can assure you the Earth does not move -- just look at it! Standing still as plain as day.

[Nick Danger]

Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.

Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7).  If you can, I won't put you on ignore.

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

So this kind of thing happens "a lot"!