What do you think happened on 9/11?

On 9/12 bin-Laden's brother and his 150-strong entourage including his 10 limos was allowed to leave the country (USA); this is the next day of the attacks when ALL airports in the country are shut down and NO international flights are coming in. Then, the US will have to go to war in Afghanistan to capture Osama while we could've had his brother from the very beginning. Of course this doesn't prove the complicity of the US goverment in the attacks. But it is an indication of the special "relationship" between the Bush and bin-Laden families that has been solidified over years of  doing bussiness together in the Cargayle Group. The fact that our own President, the leader of the "war on terror" is closely connected to the wanted culprit, is, well, dubious at best. It is f....d up sh*t like this that give rise to conspiracy theories and breed distrust in the actions of the goverment.   

Edited by konstantinius - 01-Jan-2007 at 17:18

bg_turk, please sit down; you're contributing to global warming. All of your conspiracy theories are disproved by Snopes.

Originally posted by King John In previous posts you have noted the implausability of the "pancake effect" and reported what the NIST found. But the NIST actually doesn't support your statements (see my above post). As a matter of curiousity what makes you so adamant about the gov'ts involvement?

The pancake theory was the original explanation, now they have changed it to a "global progressive failure" . It is utter nonsense. There is no way for the whole building to fail globally. The floors below and above were never subjected to high temperatures and they should have remained intact and arrested or at least slowed down the collapse. The building collapsed as if there was no resistance from the floors below. There was no resistance because the columns were artificially severed probably through the use of thermate. It was controlled demolition.

What makes me so adamant about the gov't involvement? The collapse of WTC7 is what got me into this. And even if you are unsure about the twin towers, there should be no doubt that WTC7 collapsed as a result of controlled demolition but unfortunately many people do not even know that building existed. People still think it was only 2 buildings that collapsed on 9/11.
 



Edited by bg_turk - 02-Jan-2007 at 00:22

Bg_turk what are you qualifications to make these statements? Again I ask do you hold an advanced degree in any of these fields; Architecture, Physics, or Engineering? I have asked this in a previous post and you have not answered. In order for me to except your word over the 200 or so "technical experts" consulted in preparing the report I and other readers need to know your qualifications and any scientific studies (if there are any) concerning the collapse of the WTC.

The report in summary says in regards to the collapse, "The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, 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 weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001." What this means is that this was no regular high-rise fire nor was it any regular damage. What happened to the WTC was highly unusual.

In the videos that you provided in previous posts there are a number of issues that do not support your theory of a controlled demolition. 1.) There is no explosion which is always a result of any sort of explosive detonation. 2.) The video is shot with obstructions in the way i.e. a building. How then do you rule out severe structural damage to a section of WTC 7 causing it to collapse?

If you are going to continue to spew this nonsense you should at least choose sources that support your theory and cite them. The odd thing is that you cite propaganda pieces. Example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buf6waQn09c this is a piece done by fox news where they are dealing with Bush's popularity and its effects on policy (fighting a war on terrorism) that's the first thing. The second thing is that Neil Cavuto and fox news does not relate the question that was asked in the poll (which makes a difference in the answer obtained) nor does he provide who administered the poll. This second problem I would say is of more import than the first. It begs the question was this truly a scientifically accurate poll? As well it does not state how many people the poll was administered to. How do you reconcile all these problems? Now I am no fan of the Bush administration and did he handle the whole thing poorly, I don't know. However there is no cover-up here.

I really hope you respond to this in full I believe it would give all a better idea of where your argument is coming from.

Andrew aka King John

PS. Timotheus there is no need to brandish about ideas of hatred. Just because bg_turk's idea is absurd doesn't mean that he "hates America." It means that he has issues with the administration, and one could argue that he is doing the most American thing possible by wanting what he sees as better answers to his questions. This is to be lauded not belittled with accusations of hatred. To add belittling an opponent in a debate in such a way does nothing to further the discourse rather it diminishes the argument of the belittling side, our side - those opposing Bg_turk.
    
    

Edited by King John - 02-Jan-2007 at 01:13

Pay Timotheus no mind bg_turk he belittles every argument that opposes yours by accusing you of Hatred towards America. His comment was merely the ramblings of a little mind.

Andrew

Originally posted by bg_turk That means that a 100 million people in America are conspiracy nuts.

yep

really, "100 million people agree with me" is really a bad argument. Especially since there are 200 people in America who don't.

In order for there to have been a cover-up there needed to be some sort of governmental complicity. It's odd that you would say that opinions (of the "truth movement") are not expressed in the media. Indeed they are if they weren't how would you find out about them? Little birdies? Although they might not be expressed in the mainstream media they are however expressed in alternative media. When googling "WTC 7 collapse" I was bombarded with hits however on the first page was this site from popularmechanics.com that seems to indicate a different position than the one that you are espousing is not only plausible but rather probable. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5).

McKinney is a bad example she merely wanted to buck every mainstream trend. She lost her election not because of he stance on 9/11 - which most people don't know about in my opinion - by rather for playing the race card, hitting a police officer, and the public blasting of an aide. It's no wonder she lost, these were things that happened in the last year. Her last discussion of 9/11 or the 9/11 report was in 2005.

The NIST does not imply that all columns were dislodged. It says that the fire engulfed the steel supports causing the floor to sag. What it says is that we need better designs. The WTC was not built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 737 it was built to withstand the impact of a 707 this is a significantly smaller plane. Therefore the impact will not be the same and the effects of said impact will differ greatly.
    

Edited by King John - 02-Jan-2007 at 10:44

The "Debunking 9/11 Lies" cover of popular mechanics was headed by Benjamin Chertoff. Do you know who he is the cousin of? He is the cousin of another Chertoff, Michael Chertoff, who heads homeland security for the White House. I sense a conflict of interest here.

Jimm Hoffman responds to popular mechanics:

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


Edited by bg_turk - 02-Jan-2007 at 11:28

Originally posted by King John Family relationships don't equal complicity! Is Benjamin Chertoff the same person as Michael Chertoff? Do they share a brain? Do they think the same way? Does Benjamin Chertoff have his own mind?

Of course not, but that was not the crux of the argument. If you followed the link I provided, you would have seen the proper arguments against the article in Popular Mechanics.

Here is a CNN interview with rep. Curt Weldon who makes a very strong case for a cover-up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPWF8JW7jJw

Another  report by CNN on the "government deception" on 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXxrmwZ7bo




Edited by bg_turk - 02-Jan-2007 at 13:24

Apparently I'm just showing my ignorance. What was I thinking? Thinking people would use common sense.