9/11 what really happened?

[Razor]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

These folk know ^^^^^^^^^

What do you think?

[leshkin]

They do ask alot of questions, which are pretty straight forward and no one is interested in answering them.

I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true.

[Stingo]

Just finished watching it.... :shock: as they say - unanswered questions everywhere.


Little bit scarey. Suppose the big question has to be 'Why?'

[Spiderman]

I must say that Loose Change has to be one of the best documentaries about 9/11 ive seen so far.

The best parts for me are that its made by young american kids and that they dont pretend to have an answer at all, just lots of questions and many contradictory answers from those who are supposed to have been in charge at the time.

WHY? Simply put it gave them cart blanche to pass dictatoral new laws over their own citizens and spread their corrupt idea of "democracy" around the world.

Oil, money, power, militarty occupations of other countries. Its waht America has always aspired to being... in charge of the rest of the world.

For those of you who have not watched this, do so. Its over 1h20mins of the most interesting stuff you'll ever see. And it helps to shut up those people who say "Those who dont believe the official line are just stupid conspiracy theorists" Watch this and i'm sure you will look at the whole issue from a slighlty diffrent perspective than you did before.

[lynw]

What really happened?

2 planes flew into the WTC. One crashed into the Pentagon.

I fail to see how anyone could think otherwise since the second WTC plane was shown live on tv. :roll:

The problem with conspiracy theorists is they never want to believe anything that suggests there wasnt a conspiracy. No matter how many engineers state the steel frames couldnt take the heat from the fires or the impact, no, it has to be the government/missiles/bombs/pre planted TNT.

But one thing the conspiracy theorists dont realise is that by not believing what the rest of us do and think theres a conspiracy, theyre actually putting more faith in the capability of the Bush administration than I do.

Frankly, I dont think there is any conspiracy there other than Al Quaeda finished off what they tried to do with the bombs in the car park. I simply do not believe the Bush administration/CIA is actually THAT competent to implement something like this. :wink: :P

[Anonymous]

Oil, money, power, militarty occupations of other countries. Its waht America has always aspired to being... in charge of the rest of the world.


It's not fashionable to say so in Blair's Britain, but I so agree with you!

Any second year student of history will know that when the USA went into Grand Isolationism in the period 1920 to 1939, it was carefully designed to take their trade away and thus weaken it's enemies. Then, by carefully selecting the right time to join in World War Two, they got the Russians to expend most of their manpower in beating the Germans. Sure, it cost them a few ships and tanks, and a few kids from Kansas, but not that much.

If the Brits hadn't been so stupid as to let Churchill mortgage most of their lands and wealth to get food, oil and munitions from the Yanks - which will only be paid off this year - they could have allied first with Germany, or perhaps with Russia and then there would have been a united Europe ruling most of the world in a far more benign way. Of course, with the Germans or Russians, there would have been a few casualties - like Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, sick people, intellectuals - but that would have happened anyway. And we certainly don't know the truth of the American concentration camps.

[lynw]

Any second year student of history will know that when the USA went into Grand Isolationism in the period 1920 to 1939, it was carefully designed to take their trade away and thus weaken it's enemies. Then, by carefully selecting the right time to join in World War Two, they got the Russians to expend most of their manpower in beating the Germans. Sure, it cost them a few ships and tanks, and a few kids from Kansas, but not that much.

How convenient to forget the US was providing supplies and help to the UK before the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour drew them into the conflict. Nice to see you put that as the US "carefully selecting the right time to join in" :roll:

If the Brits hadn't been so stupid as to let Churchill mortgage most of their lands and wealth to get food, oil and munitions from the Yanks - which will only be paid off this year - they could have allied first with Germany, or perhaps with Russia and then there would have been a united Europe ruling most of the world in a far more benign way. Of course, with the Germans or Russians, there would have been a few casualties - like Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, sick people, intellectuals - but that would have happened anyway. And we certainly don't know the truth of the American concentration camps.

Are you seriously suggesting we should have allied with the Nazis?

And do you seriously consider the millions of Jews, Poles, Czechs and other people the Nazis murdered as "a few casualties"?

And if you have any idea about UK history you would know that one of our good features has been being a tolerant country. Not that we havent had our moments where we have shown some extreme intolerance to those fleeing persecution be it from the Catholic Church or the Nazis but one thing we have rarely done is murder people the way the Nazis did.

And if you are even remotely suggesting that the war would have killed as many people as the Nazis did in the concentration camps with the "it would have happened anyway" then I have to say thats not an absolute certainty or a given in any way shape or form.

[Anonymous]

Crikey Ma'am...no offence meant. I was just agreeing with Spiderman that the Americans have only ever wanted to rule the world; and suggesting that the Brits could have stopped it with an alliance with the Russians or someone. I mean, you weren't going to do it on your own were you? And the French had been invaded - even though Petain was lining the French nest, so to speak.

[tricky]

I wasn't going to post a reply to this as I don't want to part of somthing that will probably degrade into name calling and bad feeling, but hey here I am.

Lynw - Have you actually watched the film ? I was of a similar opinion to yourself about 9/11 until I watched this, now I'm not so sure.

Anyone who has not watched this I strongly urge you to do so. I'm not saying I believe all of it, but theres enough there to make me want to look a little bit closer.

Just for the record, the film states that it was a B52 that hit the Empire State building in 1945. This is incorrect it was a B25, a much smaller, slower, propeller aircraft.
(The B52 didn't make its first flight until 1952.)

[lynw]

Crikey Ma'am...no offence meant. I was just agreeing with Spiderman that the Americans have only ever wanted to rule the world; and suggesting that the Brits could have stopped it with an alliance with the Russians or someone. I mean, you weren't going to do it on your own were you? And the French had been invaded - even though Petain was lining the French nest, so to speak.

None taken. Was just kind of shocked to read a suggestion we should have allied with the Nazis.

Bad enough to find out at the end of the war the full scale of the atrocities in the concentration camp. Worse to have a weak alliance with Stalin who was as guilty for the murder of millions as the Nazis were.

The British dont have a particularly good record for our treatment of settled immigrants during the war, interning in camps people who were settled here for most of their lives and deporting them as "fifth columnists" based on nothing more than scare mongering with no actual evidence. But despite several instances of appalling and down right shocking treatment, we came nowhere close to the pogroms of old or the concentration camps.

I think had Japan not bombed the US then they wouldnt have been kicked into the world stage and not increased their desire to "police" the world. Fundamentally the problem with US foreign policy is the continual shifting viewpoints. We've gone from concilatory policy with Clinton to a more agressive policy with Bush. I truly believe had the democrats not lost with the Florida vote rigging scandal, 9/11 would never have happened.

Thats not to say Al Quaeda werent being pursued by the FBI or other US agencies under Clinton, but the reasons for their opposition were not as strong as they have become under the Bush administration.

Tricky, I have watched the film. Ive watched quite a few of them tbh. I really dont have time for the conspiracy theories which is why I probably wont change my viewpoint. Equally I appreciate those who want to believe them will accept any opinion, whether it has any basis in fact or not, that says otherwise.

End of May I was in Scotland and was watching a program on the Da Vinci code. 3 people went around Europe to do their own investigation into whether it was true or not with a psychologist predicting what they would do. As he said about the woman that went there with her mind made up it was true, no matter how much evidence was put before her to show it was a novel and had no basis in fact she would not see it. She only saw people putting forward "establishment lies" rather than accept its a story. The ultimate was a professor of history/english stating the "Sang Greal" or royal blood which has been linked to the Grail and used in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was a spelling mistake by a 13th Century English Knight. The words didnt exist in ancient French. Yet she still came back with "but the grail still could have been the descendants of Jesus". :roll:

I see conspiracy theorists as the same. They wont accept a simple fact Al Quaeda flew planes into a building because of an extreme opposition to US foreign policy. It has to be a conspiracy of government doing bad things to its own people despite the fact there really is no factual evidence to say otherwise.

That isnt to say I always believe what the press say or what the US governmentsay, we all know theres spin involved. But I simply do not believe the US administration is as competent to do all the things the conspiracy theorists suggest. :D

[snoopy]

The Pentagon explosion is questionable. What those student plonkers who made the video fail to mention (due to their crap research) is this:

1. The planes were nearly fully fuelled when they hit. Most the fuel drained down elevator shafts and evaporated. The reason they collapsed at near free fall speed was that the explosion was mostly internal - there was no structure support.

2. The steel shaft was certified to 3k celcius melting point, and it only got to 2.2k. Did the video makers not know metal becomes flexible when heated?

[Spiderman]

Crikey Ma'am...no offence meant. I was just agreeing with Spiderman that the Americans have only ever wanted to rule the world; and suggesting that the Brits could have stopped it with an alliance with the Russians or someone. I mean, you weren't going to do it on your own were you? And the French had been invaded - even though Petain was lining the French nest, so to speak.

None taken. Was just kind of shocked to read a suggestion we should have allied with the Nazis.



Lyn, were you not aware that the monarchy of this counrty has German roots and were actualy paid up members of the Nazi party?

As for the rest of the questions in your post. My biggest question is "Who had the most to gain from this?" Not Al Queda, thats for sure. Larry Silverstein certainly did well out of it, as did the american political machine. No not GWBush. Moneky boy was chosen to be Prez at this time exactly for all his flaws. Cos he's too ignornat to understand what the powers that be that pulls his strings are actually getting him to do, in the short and long term. Hes moronic enough to go on TV and say "God gives me guidance and tells me what to do" If someone said that t you in the street you'd look at them funny and back away slowly wouldnt you?
Al Queda as an organisation juts does not exist. As a mind set, yes, an organisation? No way. Too many power hungry nobodys who wanna be big players on the world stage for it to be an organisation with any clear head(s) or heirarchy.

Yes planes flew into the towers, no one denies that. The questions are what planes and flown by who. How does a fireball hot enough (apparently) to melt the steel of the structures also allow a passport belonging to one of the alleged hijckers to fly out of the plane, out the building and land on the floor without any burn damage?
Why have the black boxes at various times been reported to have been "never found" or "found but unusable" or "had certain parts played to family members but the rest is too disturbing to release to the public". Why the contradictions over a simple item that would almost prove beyond doubt and shut up all the sceptics?In no other plane crash in history has the situation been that the black boxes were unfound or unusable.
If everthing else was clear and this was the only issue at hand i'd still be sceptical. But this is just one of many, many questions that need to be answered before a sceptical public will let this one lay.

I watched a documentary a few years ago (cant remember the name now sadly) that had this situation happen. A group of middle eastern dissidents were assisted by the CIA to hijack a plane. This plane they were told was one of theirs and it was just a plot to make their defection to the US seem more plausable. "you'll be working for us, its all under control, dont worry" was what their CIA handlers told them.
When the crunch came and they radioed Air Traffic Control to say they had hijacked the plane and wanted to speak to Mr Whateverhisnameis of the CIA they were told their is no-one of that name, their codenames are not current and no-one has authorised their situation. Ends with plane being stormed and a number of hijackers and "innocents" on the plane being killed.
Turns out one of the passengers who was killed was a high ranking Plaestinian who Mossad had been after for many years without success. This whole episode was a joint Mossad/CIA assasination of that one guy. The hijackers were told a lie to get them to do their bit, once in the air they were ****ed. They had no idea of the outcome.
Now apply the same theory to the twin towers. Whos to say they were thinking they were on a certain mission but once in the air the technology behind Global Hawk wasnt switched on on these planes and all that the cockpit voice recorders have on them is proof of that? Voices saying "we have no control of this plane, what do we do? ATC this is the hijackers, this plane is not being controlled by us, we are attempting to land but nothing works in here"

Sorry for the essay of a post folks, but its not stuff you can put into short sentances realy is it? :oops:

Oh and dont even get me started on the fact that an Israeli mobile phone company admits to haveing sent a mass text message to all its employees in NYC telling them to stay away from work that day. Whats worse, that this terrible loss of life took place.... or that someone knew it was gonna take place and chose who should and shouldnt know about it and did nothing to stop it happening?

[The Basket]

A lot of what I saw in the film was Internet garbage that if you say it enough times, suddenly becomes fact.

There are some issues in the film which are striking but most are just the confusion of a large event you always get. The fact that so little remains of the aircraft were found is an odd one.

It said that Donanld Rumsfield was in the pentagon when it was struck. If he knew about it, he would be no where near it on this day.

The Internet is perfect for conspiracy theories.

[lynw]

Lyn, were you not aware that the monarchy of this counrty has German roots and were actualy paid up members of the Nazi party?

Yes I am fully aware of the origin of the monarchy of this country - of each house as it happens. And I am fully aware that the monarchy changed its name to Windsor because of anti-foreigner feeling during WWI.

As for them being "paid up members of the Nazi party", dont tar them ALL with the same brush. While its undeniable about Edward having Nazi sympathies, to suggest George VI, the Queen mother and the current Queen were has no basis in fact and is contrary to their behaviour during WWII where they supported this country in its fight against the Nazis. :wink: :P

[Anonymous]

Lyn, were you not aware that the monarchy of this counrty has German roots and were actualy paid up members of the Nazi party?

Spot on Spiderman! Membership forms for the Nazi party were freely available through the Moseleys and Mitfords and it's quite logical for the Monarchy to have paid their subs...Hitler was an avowed Monarchist and longed for King George to be made King of Germany - it's why he banned the bombing of Buckingham Palace and St Paul's. Churchill was desperate for him to leave but King George just stayed put to benefit.

As for the rest of the questions in your post. My biggest question is "Who had the most to gain from this?" Not Al Queda, thats for sure.

Well, given that New York was nearly bankrupt, OBVIOUSLY the City of New York and the American Airlines! I mean, what else could you do that would so massively increase tourism to both America and that City? People flocked there afterwards...you just have to look at how well the US Airlines did - even put their prices up to increase profits I expect.

Al Queda as an organisation juts does not exist. As a mind set, yes, an organisation? No way.

I agree with that too, Spiderman. It's a CIA invention and all those guys like Bin Laden who claim to run it are delusional.

Whats worse, that this terrible loss of life took place.... or that someone knew it was gonna take place and chose who should and shouldnt know about it and did nothing to stop it happening?

Totally logical. All they had to do was shut down all flights throughout the US that day. It would only have taken a couple of phone calls. They just chose not to.

It's only when you set it all down like that Spiderman that I realise how right you are. More power to you.

[Razor]

Some excellent point s made but for every theory debunking and supporting the loose change documantary you've really got to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29

Some interesting reading and all the links to the videos.

I liked this link the best http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html#Engine%20rotor%20mystery?

[Spiderman]

.......

It's only when you set it all down like that Spiderman that I realise how right you are. More power to you.

Thanks mate. Its not me being all wise and all knowing, its all simple facts tied together that make it hard for some people to take in. Sometimes its easier to swallow the tasty pill that is the "media version" of events rather than the bitter pill that is the truth staring them squarley in the face.

i dont pretent ot have any answers to all this, just plenty of questions that noone seems to be able to answer, or wants to.

[lynw]

Spot on Spiderman! Membership forms for the Nazi party were freely available through the Moseleys and Mitfords and it's quite logical for the Monarchy to have paid their subs...Hitler was an avowed Monarchist and longed for King George to be made King of Germany - it's why he banned the bombing of Buckingham Palace and St Paul's. Churchill was desperate for him to leave but King George just stayed put to benefit.

Buckingham Palace WAS bombed during the war, hence the Queen Mothers famous comment about being able to look the East end in the eye.

The order was not to preserve the monarchy but not to bomb the cities and have the English recipricate and bomb civilian targets.

As for the rest of the questions in your post. My biggest question is "Who had the most to gain from this?" Not Al Queda, thats for sure.

Well, given that New York was nearly bankrupt, OBVIOUSLY the City of New York and the American Airlines! I mean, what else could you do that would so massively increase tourism to both America and that City? People flocked there afterwards...you just have to look at how well the US Airlines did - even put their prices up to increase profits I expect.

You EXPECT? so you dont actually know this for definite?

For the record if NY was nearly bankrupt, the LAST thing they would want is the WTC destroyed - as thats where most of the Financial centre was. Yeah great idea, destroy the one thing that would be guaranteed to pull them out of the mess. If it was on a bankruptcy basis then it would have been more publicity and better sense to fly into the Empire state building NOT the WTC.

Al Queda as an organisation juts does not exist. As a mind set, yes, an organisation? No way.

I agree with that too, Spiderman. It's a CIA invention and all those guys like Bin Laden who claim to run it are delusional.


If all youre going to post is just twaddle then dont bother at all.

On this basis you may as well state the IRA didnt exist as it was only a "mindset" and their existence was told to us by our goverrnment. :roll:

Before anyone posts anymore conspiracy crap, could you actually put the links to the FACTUAL evidence that supports them. Because all this crap about Israel knowing is just that, unsubstantiated conspiracy twaddle.

[Spiderman]

Al Queda as an organisation juts does not exist. As a mind set, yes, an organisation? No way.

I agree with that too, Spiderman. It's a CIA invention and all those guys like Bin Laden who claim to run it are delusional.


If all youre going to post is just twaddle then dont bother at all.

On this basis you may as well state the IRA didnt exist as it was only a "mindset" and their existence was told to us by our goverrnment. :roll:

Before anyone posts anymore conspiracy crap, could you actually put the links to the FACTUAL evidence that supports them. Because all this crap about Israel knowing is just that, unsubstantiated conspiracy twaddle.

C'mon Lyn, please dont lower the tone of what so far has been a calm and sensible discussion. Why is the above "twaddle" to you?

The IRA have a history that dates back a very long time, some would say to 1916s Easter Rising and have always had one goal, an Independant Ireland free from colonial rule of the Brits. They also took responsibilty for their actions in statments under their name. And were deeply infiltrated by the brit intellegence services. they had a clear rank and file approach like that of an army. Quite a diffrent matter to what Al-Qaeda is, no?

Al-Qaead only really came about after 9/11 as an entity to blame. Hostility towards the west from the Arab countries has been there for a long time too, under various names but this "catch-all" name suited the purpose of the fanatics in the bush camp and allowed them to never have their focus on one target. Any target they wanted to add as being part of Al-Qaeda only made the organisation more credible to the media and the masses.

As for you conspiracy theory stuff, i dont wanna lead you in the wrong direction and get acused of one sidedness so do a search for Odigo and Amdocs. Some results will be to your liking as they attempt to knock the fact, others you wont like cos the rest of the page is full of anit Israeli stuff.
Fact remains that Odigo did send messages warning of the attacks hours before they happened. Nothing you can say or find will change that fact. Someone knew and told select people. Fact.

Also to this day Bin Laden has not taken responsibilty for the attacks. All he has ever said is he was pleased it happened and praised those that did it. And i'm sure if he or his crew had misterminded the entire operation they would be advertising that fact till they were blue in the face.

[Anonymous]

Also to this day Bin Laden has not taken responsibilty for the attacks. All he has ever said is he was pleased it happened and praised those that did it. And i'm sure if he or his crew had misterminded the entire operation they would be advertising that fact till they were blue in the face.

As indeed would all good Political Marketing men! And even when Bin Laden was obviously pressurised into taking some credit, as in this interview: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm , he justified his involvement because of seeing the Israelis and Americans invading Lebanon in 1982.

Imagine 19 years of anger. I mean, had the Brits or the Jews forgiven the Germans after 19 years, in 1964? Or the Japanese the Americans? After all, it took 17 years for the USA and Vitenam to establish a new bilateral trade agreement and look what the Yanks had done there!

[lynw]

C'mon Lyn, please dont lower the tone of what so far has been a calm and sensible discussion. Why is the above "twaddle" to you?

Because none of it has any factual basis that can be verified. And all of it springs from sources as equally biased against the governments as they accuse the media is for being biased for the governments. I've yet to see anything from a conspiracy theory website that has any actual factual basis.

To give you an example on theorist on visordown would not believe the many people who said it rained on July 7th last year. He got the weather from an internet site that said it was sunny and dry so decided that the government were covering something up and hosing down the pavements. No amount of pointing out from 50 people who said it rained could disuade him. :roll:

And dont get me started about his conspiracy of the number 30 bus bomb. He wouldnt accept that with Kings Cross closed all buses from Euston were diverted down Tavistock Rd. Oh no, despite people saying to the contrary it was only that bus and was sent that way by the government. You may also start to understand why I have little patience with most conspiracy theorists. Because no matter how much you point out the truth, which can be verified factually they would rather take the unfactual, anti government view.

The fact is the conspiracy theory "facts" are often no more than hearsay or rumour and very little can actually be proven. People happily cut an paste this stuff without stopping to question what theyre reading anywhere near as much as they question the government line.

My pov is that neither are correct. That the truth is often the first casualty or war or terrorism, but the government are neither the persecuted saints they portray, neither the persecuting evil devils the conspiracy theorists would believe.

The moment some actual hard evidence surfaces, Ill happily change my viewpoint. Until then, I will question the conspiracy theorist as much as I question everything else.

End of the day, you believe what you WANT to believe even if not one person can provide a shred of evidence. In 30 years time when the National Archive release the documents for the public record, even if all the FCO/Cabinet Office papers support the "official" version the conspiracy theorists will just accuse them of being edited.

The IRA have a history that dates back a very long time, some would say to 1916s Easter Rising and have always had one goal, an Independant Ireland free from colonial rule of the Brits. They also took responsibilty for their actions in statments under their name. And were deeply infiltrated by the brit intellegence services. they had a clear rank and file approach like that of an army. Quite a diffrent matter to what Al-Qaeda is, no?

Al-Qaead only really came about after 9/11 as an entity to blame. Hostility towards the west from the Arab countries has been there for a long time too, under various names but this "catch-all" name suited the purpose of the fanatics in the bush camp and allowed them to never have their focus on one target. Any target they wanted to add as being part of Al-Qaeda only made the organisation more credible to the media and the masses.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda for starters as a good summary. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm for further reading.
Just because Al Qaeda is a loose network and not a formal structure as the IRA is doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And you fundamentally have forgotten that Bin Ladens group which is generally accepted as being Al Qaeda have been on a bombing campaign since the late 80s. After all, the 9/11 attack on the WTC was their SECOND attack on the buildings following a bomb in 1993.


As for you conspiracy theory stuff, i dont wanna lead you in the wrong direction and get acused of one sidedness so do a search for Odigo and Amdocs. Some results will be to your liking as they attempt to knock the fact, others you wont like cos the rest of the page is full of anit Israeli stuff.
Fact remains that Odigo did send messages warning of the attacks hours before they happened. Nothing you can say or find will change that fact. Someone knew and told select people. Fact.

All the searches come back to conspiracy theory/anti US/Israel sites. Not exactly a source I would say is unbiased or factual.

You say its fact at the end. Go ahead and prove that without using any form of hearsay or rumour from a clearly biased site. :wink: :P

Even if I remotely conceed a possibility its true what exactly does it tell us?
To a conspiracy theorist it equals US involvement and knowledge.
To me, it just means some poor sod in the CIA fecked up and didnt take Mossad supplied intelligence seriously or act upon it or pass it on to the people who could act upon it. Seriously between the two which is more probable?

Also to this day Bin Laden has not taken responsibilty for the attacks. All he has ever said is he was pleased it happened and praised those that did it. And i'm sure if he or his crew had misterminded the entire operation they would be advertising that fact till they were blue in the face.

Not necessarily. Unless youre admitting to being a terrorist and truly understanding how their cells work. :wink: :P While I take the point a number of bombings have been attributed to them which may not have been their work, there has been plenty of info on Al jazeera to happily gloat on a number of bombings which is probably where the US government got the idea it was them.

[akbarhussain]

Haven't had time to watch the clip yet...... but there are alot of unanswered questions from 9/11.

[Spiderman]

Haven't had time to watch the clip yet...... but there are alot of unanswered questions from 9/11.
Its about 1hr 20mins so a little longer than a "clip" but i'm sure you'll find a lot of intrest in their.


Lyn....All the searches come back to conspiracy theory/anti US/Israel sites. Not exactly a source I would say is unbiased or factual.

You say its fact at the end. Go ahead and prove that without using any form of hearsay or rumour from a clearly biased site.

if you bothered to read any of these sites you came across you would have found this...Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover.

or

Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."

The Internet address of the sender was given to the FBI, and two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. There have been no media reports since.

So confirmation from CEOs or VPs of the company mean nothing to you?

As for your comment of While I take the point a number of bombings have been attributed to them which may not have been their work, there has been plenty of info on Al jazeera to happily gloat on a number of bombings which is probably where the US government got the idea it was them.
On the day this happened i remember many South American countries' peoples dancing and cheering in the streets. They waved banners and burned american flags. So by this definition it could have been them too, yeh?

I'm sorry Lyn, but i feel at this point that you dont want to look at anything other than what you "know" and anything that you dont agree with is from a "biased/ conspracy theory site". Mainstream media dont print or show the facts as others see or know them yet you want me to find a mainstream media source so that you'd believe it??? :?

Anyway, please dont waste your time posting on this one for my benefit anymore as i find this comment deeply offensive....Unless youre admitting to being a terrorist and truly understanding how their cells work.

[Jelster]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

[lynw]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

Your posts with akbar and GYKD have hardly been condusive to the forum or harmonious or constructive. You knew full well your replies would wind GYKD up yet you still made them. Tbh, I cant think of a bigger wedge recently than you and GYKD.

And how was the "you will do as I say" thread you put up in the Soho massive adding to the community? IIRC it pretty much got peoples backs up with your arbitary dictate of what we should or shouldnt do. I seem to recall that creating a bit of a wedge in the soho forum then.

End of the day, if you dont like whats discussed in IB, dont come in the forum. IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it. Besides, you arent aware of whats being said by PM so are hardly in a position to actually judge whether there really is a wedge.

End of the day, its the internet. Things get misinterpreted and misunderstood - it happens to us all. But to start on about unconstructive posts and driving wedges - youve not exactly done the opposite of your complaint recently either.

[Anonymous]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.


IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it.

=D> =D> Well said! I know a lot of guys in Combat 18 and The National Front and I've said that the free-ness of this site is a perfect place for them to air their views.

[fizzwheel]

I know a lot of guys in Combat 18 and The National Front and I've said that the free-ness of this site is a perfect place for them to air their views.

WTF

No its not. Any of that b*ll*cks on here and you'll get your thread / post deleted as quick as.

[Jelster]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

Your posts with akbar and GYKD have hardly been condusive to the forum or harmonious or constructive. You knew full well your replies would wind GYKD up yet you still made them. Tbh, I cant think of a bigger wedge recently than you and GYKD.

And how was the "you will do as I say" thread you put up in the Soho massive adding to the community? IIRC it pretty much got peoples backs up with your arbitary dictate of what we should or shouldnt do. I seem to recall that creating a bit of a wedge in the soho forum then.

End of the day, if you dont like whats discussed in IB, dont come in the forum. IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it. Besides, you arent aware of whats being said by PM so are hardly in a position to actually judge whether there really is a wedge.

End of the day, its the internet. Things get misinterpreted and misunderstood - it happens to us all. But to start on about unconstructive posts and driving wedges - youve not exactly done the opposite of your complaint recently either.

Actually Lynn, I was aked to read it by another forum member who said they felt that it was going down the same route. Funny that you mention 2 forum members, 1 who has been banned and the other who has had a stern talking to as well, so maybe I'm not the only one who feels this way but I'm just the type to tell you what I think (and don't worry about what others think either).

I stand by what I said: In my opinion this type of post has no place on this forum, but I don't make the rules.

M.Ockx, please remember that why there maybe a certain level of "freedom of speech" on this forum, sv650.org is not a democracy and those that have the power will turn off that "freedom" if they feel it goes to far.

Lyn, you have your views, I have mine. Please don't tell me what to read, and if I don't like what I read I'm free to comment, whether you like it or not. Sorry if that upsets you but that's life.

.

[SpankyHam]

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

[Anonymous]

I know a lot of guys in Combat 18 and The National Front and I've said that the free-ness of this site is a perfect place for them to air their views.

WTF

No its not. Any of that b*ll*cks on here and you'll get your thread / post deleted as quick as.


M.Ockx, please remember that why there maybe a certain level of "freedom of speech" on this forum, sv650.org is not a democracy and those that have the power will turn off that "freedom" if they feel it goes to far.

Oh, thanks for that guys....as the new boy here, when I was supporting Lynn's ideas of free speech I wasn't quite sure of the rules. So, if I have this right: you can get away with loads of anti-American, anti-Israeli stuff and pro-Arab stuff, but if it strays into the pro-British area, it gets wiped, right?

I'll probably stick to biking things, but just for my info, what's the official line on Anarchy - is that OK?

[Jelster]

Oh, thanks for that guys....as the new boy here, when I was supporting Lynn's ideas of free speech I wasn't quite sure of the rules. So, if I have this right: you can get away with loads of anti-American, anti-Israeli stuff and pro-Arab stuff, but if it strays into the pro-British area, it gets wiped, right?

I'll probably stick to biking things, but just for my info, what's the official line on Anarchy - is that OK?

No, it's about balance, and as pro british as I am, niether of those two groups show any resemblence to "balance". (I mean, how can you make a serious political statement when your organisation begins with the word "Combat" :smt102 )

.

[fizzwheel]

Oh, thanks for that guys....as the new boy here, when I was supporting Lynn's ideas of free speech I wasn't quite sure of the rules. So, if I have this right: you can get away with loads of anti-American, anti-Israeli stuff and pro-Arab stuff, but if it strays into the pro-British area, it gets wiped, right?

I'll probably stick to biking things, but just for my info, what's the official line on Anarchy - is that OK?

Nope I'll delete anything that I strongly disagree with or that looks like its being posted to provoke a strong reaction to wind up forum memeber or is what I think is "trolling"

Most of the people that have actively posted in this thread have been able to have an adult and well informed disucssion about it so I've left the thread alone. There is however a small minority that insist on trying to f*ck things up for everybody else and its begining to get on my nerves.

I dont want to have a forum thats so full of rules that nobody uses it anymore. Thats why there arent many rules and as moderators we use our own judgement about what is or is not acceptable.

[tricky]

Pro British is not the same as Neo-Nazi (just for anyone that wasn't sure)
Although I rather hope M.Ockx was being ironic.

[Anonymous]

No, it's about balance, and as pro british as I am, niether of those two groups show any resemblence to "balance". (I mean, how can you make a serious political statement when your organisation begins with the word "Combat" :smt102 )

.

I agree about the "Combat" thing - although I do wonder what you would do if someone came on from Al Fatah, which is a bona fide political organisation just like the National Front. ( source Wikipedia: "Fatah" means "conquest" or literally "opening", in the Arabic language. The acronym "FATAH" is created from the complete Arabic name: HArakat al-TAhrir al-Watani al-Filastini, becoming "HATAF", which, since it means "sudden death" in Arabic, was reversed to become "FATAH". This word (Fatah) is prominently used for the Islamic expansion in the 70s, and so has strongly positive connotations for Muslims.)

I mean, it's only YOUR opinion that the first two group show no resemblance to balance - and given Lynn's view is that people should be allowed to express opinions, why shouldn't they be allowed to get THEIR opinions across? (Actually, I don't like the NF much myself, but I would find it difficult to ban them)

[Viney]

This is a god damn bike forum. Yes IB isnt a bike rel;ated area, but come on, its not Visordown :shock: Its run on the cahirty of its members, and by a hard working team in the back gorund. Please dont waste thier time and our money by constantly posting up long dull political posts about this and that, it not productive, and personaly boring.

We have limited bandwidth so use it wisely.

Thank you

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This is a god damn bike forum. Yes IB isnt a bike rel;ated area, but come on, its not Visordown :shock: Its run on the cahirty of its members, and by a hard working team in the back gorund. Please dont waste thier time and our money by constantly posting up long dull political posts about this and that, it not productive, and personaly boring.

We have limited bandwidth so use it wisely.

Thank you

This is no less valid than the rubbish posted in the mega thread. Don't like it, don't read it.

[keithd]

the mega thread doesn't create arguments tho jordan. that may have been viney's point.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

the mega thread doesn't create arguments tho jordan. that may have been viney's point.

Perhaps, but in that case it's up to the mods if they wish to allow... 'debates' as they're the ones that have to police them, noone else.

[keithd]

the mega thread doesn't create arguments tho jordan. that may have been viney's point.

Perhaps, but in that case it's up to the mods if they wish to allow... 'debates' as they're the ones that have to police them, noone else.

indeed

(today i am being mostly amicable!)

[fizzwheel]

the mega thread doesn't create arguments tho jordan. that may have been viney's point.

Perhaps, but in that case it's up to the mods if they wish to allow... 'debates' as they're the ones that have to police them, noone else.

Personally I'm quite happy to allow people to debate or discuss pretty much any subject. As long as it stays U rated. It seems like most people to their credit that take part in these discussion can manage to keep the debate on track and dont resort to childish, pathetic insults.

Like I said earlier. There is a minority forum users who IMHO are trying to subvert the forum to their own needs, thus ruining it for the majority is begining to get on my nerves.

The point about staying out of the thread if you don't like the subject matter is a valid one. Just because is there doesnt mean you have to read or comment on it. Your computer like all electronic products does have an off button you know.

[SpankyHam]

Let it go. Done and dusted.

Someone explain this:

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

[lynw]

Lyn, you have your views, I have mine. Please don't tell me what to read, and if I don't like what I read I'm free to comment, whether you like it or not. Sorry if that upsets you but that's life.

Steve, it takes a lot to upset me and when something does its usually because Im going through a bad patch irl and forget not to take the internet seriously.

I wasnt "telling" you what to read and what not it was merely a suggestion which may make your time on here better for not reading threads which you dont think should be here. :wink:

But I was just pointing out that while you consider the two people concerned as trouble makers and so justify what you did, it still doesnt change the fact that your posts were not constructive or harmonious to the forum.

You can keep ignoring this if you wish but end of the day, you were not posting with forum harmony in mind when you made those posts. So I dont think youre in a position to really criticise others now.

While I adhere to people having the right to express an opinion, I also adhere to the fact people should have a right to challenge it if its questionable in their opinion or questionable factually, its what makes the place interesting.

I freely admit my sarcasm got the better of me yesterday and I came across wrong on the forum. I will endeavour to write with more clarity, simplicity and tact in future. :D

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Let it go. Done and dusted.

Someone explain this:

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

Because most Hi-jackings result in demands being made in exchange for hostages lives. I doubt it ever crossed the minds of the people on board the plane that they were about to plow into a sky scraper.

[Jelster]

[quote=Jelster] it still doesnt change the fact that your posts were not constructive or harmonious to the forum.

In your opinion. Like I said, I'm obiously not the only one who feels that way. Funny when I'm in company of users they tell me "well said" :?

Whatever......

.

[SpankyHam]

They played phone conversations passengers had with their families on american TV.
All of them stating "We are going to die"

[lynw]

Let it go. Done and dusted.

Someone explain this:

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

Because most Hi-jackings result in demands being made in exchange for hostages lives. I doubt it ever crossed the minds of the people on board the plane that they were about to plow into a sky scraper.

Back on topic :wink:

1. We simply will never know how many people were murdered on the planes before they flew into the buildings.

2. The fourth plane where people did fight back everyone died in the ensuing crash.

3. Because for all Phillip Macs "your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live" isnt actually true for everyone. Because a lot of people in fear quite simply do not fight back because of their fear or they freeze.

4. Because as Jordan said above, if they thought it was a hijacking and they would be used as hostages, it probably would not have occurred to them they were going to die until the planes approached the buildings by which time any action would simply have been too late.

[SpankyHam]

4. Because as Jordan said above, if they thought it was a hijacking and they would be used as hostages, it probably would not have occurred to them they were going to die until the planes approached the buildings by which time any action would simply have been too late.



They played phone conversations passengers had with their families on american TV.
All of them stating "We are going to die"

[Flamin_Squirrel]

4. Because as Jordan said above, if they thought it was a hijacking and they would be used as hostages, it probably would not have occurred to them they were going to die until the planes approached the buildings by which time any action would simply have been too late.



They played phone conversations passengers had with their families on american TV.
All of them stating "We are going to die"



On which plane?

[keithd]

if i were on a plane which was hijacked my thoughts would be i was going to die. regardless of the reason for the hijack

[Flamin_Squirrel]

if i were on a plane which was hijacked my thoughts would be i was going to die. regardless of the reason for the hijack

Yeah I'm sure that would be true for most people. But I think in the back of most peoples minds they'd be hoping to be released, and that would stop them from doing anything that might jepordise that i.e. taking on the hijackers.

[keithd]

if i were on a plane which was hijacked my thoughts would be i was going to die. regardless of the reason for the hijack

Yeah I'm sure that would be true for most people. But I think in the back of most peoples minds they'd be hoping to be released, and that would stop them from doing anything that might jepordise that i.e. taking on the hijackers.

absolutely

[SpankyHam]

@keithd

and you wouldn't do something about it ?

jeez.


I can't remember from which planes it was, but they played recorded 911 calls & calls they made to friends & family.

[keithd]

@keithd

and you wouldn't do something about it ?

jeez.


I can't remember from which planes it was, but they played recorded 911 calls & calls they made to friends & family.

no i didn't say i'd not do anything about it. i agreed with jordan in his statement that by tackling the hijackers it could jeopardise the entire plane and the people on board.

to be honest patrick i don't know what i'd do. i've no problem admitting that, after all we're all playing a hypothetical game here aren't we? i'd love to tell you i'd take them all on chuck norris style, but i just don't know.

if you do know exactly how you'd react then fair play to ya.

[Peter Henry]

oh yeah the famous last desperate phone calls to victims loved one's,now of course we are completely satisfied that they are indeed genuine. :?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

@keithd

and you wouldn't do something about it ?

jeez.


I can't remember from which planes it was, but they played recorded 911 calls & calls they made to friends & family.

Well it's kind of important which plane it was from, because if it was the 4th plane that never hit it's target then they DID take on the hijackers.

[SpankyHam]

totally agree - it's hypothetical

My view is just - they all knew that they're hijacked & going to die.

The hijackers where hugely outnumbered - at least on one of the planes that is confirmed.

So there is no need for chuck norris action.

@Peter Henry


Yes these calls where genuine as they played them straight after the 2nd plane hit the tower. it was on all news channels

[lynw]

@keithd

and you wouldn't do something about it ?

jeez.


I can't remember from which planes it was, but they played recorded 911 calls & calls they made to friends & family.

Well it's kind of important which plane it was from, because if it was the 4th plane that never hit it's target then they DID take on the hijackers.

I believe it was the fourth plane. Certainly its from these calls that have allowed film makers to reconstruct what they believe happened prior to its crash.

Would be interested to know if any did come from the other planes involved.

[akbarhussain]

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

Thats a very good point Patrick.

To answer this, first consider these points.

Firstly, in the 9/11 comission report, it is stated that (can't find the exact statement, be greateful if somebody is able to help me out with this?) the US administration could not be excpected to forsee the use of commercial airlines as missiles into buildings.

This is obviously not true if you are to believe these reports of intelligence as early as 1995:


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/

http://www.rense.com/general25/hij.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html


So if we are looking for a reason that their was no response from the passengers on the hijacked planes, maybe that was because there were no passengers? Technically this is very possible (although the people involved in 9/11 commission play down the advanced technology available) - Google search 'Global Hawk' for information or even 'Global Hawk 9/11' for conspiracy theory type related info.

Whooooooaaaa, that seems very far fetched though, ya great big left win loonie Akbar. Point taken..... but only about as far fetched as the idea that a group of guys with about 250 flying hours between them could fly three commercial airliners into pretty tiny targets.

But would the US government seriously risk their own reputation and the lives of thousnads of US citiznes just for a measly few barrells of oil? (ok, well a whole lot more oil than that + strategic positioning in the Middle East + oppurtunity to test their new doctrine on Preventative war + great boost towards their domination of world order)

Hmmm, theirs a poser..... maybe a look at these links or your own Google search on 'Operation Northwood' will help.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

[akbarhussain]

oh yeah the famous last desperate phone calls to victims loved one's,now of course we are completely satisfied that they are indeed genuine. :?

Completely satisfied. But only just one of the hundreds of gaping holes in the 9/11 commissions findings/official story.

[lynw]

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

But armed. Which changes things somewhat, as people tend to be less brave when up against someone with a gun. Hence the immense criticism following 9/11 for the very distinct lack of security applied to internal flights.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

But again youre presuming that peoples urge to live would overcome their immense fear. The point with the fourth plane indicates that attempting to overpower the terrorists was not successful. You are also forgetting theres not actually room on most planes for 20 people to actually go for one person. Its not really the same when only 3 or 4 can go up against someone armed.

but only about as far fetched as the idea that a group of guys with about 250 flying hours between them could fly three commercial airliners into pretty tiny targets.

But the point is they didnt need to learn take off and landing only how to fly the plane to a set of co-ordinates. I suspect its not that hard to learn in 250 hours between them how to steer a plane already in the air to a set of new co-ordinates.

End of the day we will never know the truth. I just see bureaucratic incompetence and a wish to cover that up coupled with a blame culture between the CIA/FBI and administration rather than a deliberate involvement that the conspiracy theorists see.

Though, imho, those who say the planes werent boarded are getting into the realms of science fiction. So the CIA kidnapped 3 planes worth of people at the airport, transported them to the WTC so they would die anyway and not remain alive to escape and speak out in the future?

Or they have murdered them all [kind of defeats the point since the likelihood of death from impact into the building was pretty high] somewhere else and there are hidden graves somewhere of over 500 people?

How do you "hide" these inconvenient passengers that boarded the planes? :?

[akbarhussain]

To say the planes werent boarded is getting into the realms of science fiction.So the CIA kidnapped 3 planes worth of people at the airport, transported them to the WTC so they would die anyway and not remain alive to escape and speak out in the future? Or they have murdered them all [kind of defeats the point since the likelihood of death from impact into the building was pretty high] somewhere else and there are hidden graves somewhere of over 500 people?

What, and thats any less likely than three steel cored sky scrapers collapsing within 3 hours of one another from fire damage (the only three in history I might add)? Or that the CIA would have been conducting a simulation into 'what to do in the event of hijacked planes' on the morning of 9/11? Or that all NORAD procedures were discounted that day, and no fighter jets were dispatched. Even to the plane flying towards the Pentagon more than an hour later? Or a plane hitting the most guarded and recorded buliding in the world without being recorded on any camera? Or it being a coincidence that there was alarmingly high share dealing on American Airlines stock (enough for it to be checked out on Wall Street) in the weeks leading upto 9/11? Or that the FBI were able to name all 15 hijackers within hours of the events (despite the fact that some have since turned up alive)? Or that a supposed hijackers passport survived the crashes and was 'found' in the wreckage of the towers?

I won't continue....

[akbarhussain]

But the point is they didnt need to learn take off and landing only how to fly the plane to a set of co-ordinates.

Weird, isn't that what the official explanation is? You'll be telling me next that burning jet oil melted a steel structure of a building :roll:

[DanDare]

But the point is they didnt need to learn take off and landing only how to fly the plane to a set of co-ordinates.

Weird, isn't that what the official explanation is? You'll be telling me next that burning jet oil melted a steel structure of a building :roll:

You've never been near aviation fuel then? :roll:

[keithd]

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.

[akbarhussain]

But the point is they didnt need to learn take off and landing only how to fly the plane to a set of co-ordinates.

Weird, isn't that what the official explanation is? You'll be telling me next that burning jet oil melted a steel structure of a building :roll:

You've never been near aviation fuel then? :roll:

No, but i'm sure you're gonna tell me that you have?

If so, i'd be intereste to know at what temperature aviation fuel burns? Then I can compare this with the temperature that the steel croe would melt (something like putting 2 and 2 togethor) to come up with 17.

So what about building 7?

[akbarhussain]

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.

Lol @ the 9/11 comission report.

Shame we'll never really know though, as the steel was disposed of as quick as possible.

[keithd]

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.

Lol @ the 9/11 comission report.

is that what it is? i got that from an architectural website

[keithd]

Shame we'll never really know though, as the steel was disposed of as quick as possible.

much of it has been recycled. i'm sure you can get hold of some and carry out your owns tests if required.

[akbarhussain]

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.

Lol @ the 9/11 comission report.

is that what it is? i got that from an architectural website

SO what about building 7?

[akbarhussain]

Shame we'll never really know though, as the steel was disposed of as quick as possible.

much of it has been recycled. i'm sure you can get hold of some and carry out your owns tests if required.

I wonder why this was never done then? Rather than letting people make up their own minds, surely it would have been more sensible to carry ou the test as you suggest?

[DanDare]

But the point is they didnt need to learn take off and landing only how to fly the plane to a set of co-ordinates.

Weird, isn't that what the official explanation is? You'll be telling me next that burning jet oil melted a steel structure of a building :roll:

You've never been near aviation fuel then? :roll:

No, but i'm sure you're gonna tell me that you have?

If so, i'd be intereste to know at what temperature aviation fuel burns? Then I can compare this with the temperature that the steel croe would melt (something like putting 2 and 2 togethor) to come up with 17.

So what about building 7?

Sorry couldn't get close enough to hold the thermometer there. :roll:

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Look no-one knows why things exactly happen, they put the clues together and
ascertian a likely solution.

[akbarhussain]

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

Sorry couldn't get close enough to hold the thermometer there.

ridiculous.

Look no-one knows why things exactly happen, they put the clues together and
ascertian a likely solution.

Exactly what I am doing, my old fruit :roll:

So what about Building 7?

[keithd]

fraid i can't answer your q's re WTC7. was it hit by any debris from 1 and 2? the collapse of 1 & 2 would have created huge shocks and vibrations, did it effect the integrity of 7? any foundation collapse due to 1 & 2 going?

dunno.

[DanDare]

[quote=DanDare]So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

[quote]quote]

In that case please for the rest of make your claim as to what you think happened.
I don't mean giving clues to suggest what might of happened....What do you believe happened on that day so as to lay this to rest! Then we understand where your coming form and leave it at that. Maybe lock the thread perhaps????

[akbarhussain]

fraid i can't answer your q's re WTC7. was it hit by any debris from 1 and 2? the collapse of 1 & 2 would have created huge shocks and vibrations, did it effect the integrity of 7? any foundation collapse due to 1 & 2 going?

dunno.

The official explanation is that fires were started in Building 7 due to the initial impacts on the Twin Towers - unfortunatley, the neo-cons have not had the luxury of 'aviation fuel' to fall back on here, so they never tried to explain it.

As with the Twin Towers, Building 7 fell in almost perfect free-fall. Almost like it was a controlled demolition.

[lynw]

What, and thats any less likely than three steel cored sky scrapers collapsing within 3 hours of one another from fire damage (the only three in history I might add)? Or that the CIA would have been conducting a simulation into 'what to do in the event of hijacked planes' on the morning of 9/11? Or that all NORAD procedures were discounted that day, and no fighter jets were dispatched. Even to the plane flying towards the Pentagon more than an hour later? Or a plane hitting the most guarded and recorded buliding in the world without being recorded on any camera? Or it being a coincidence that there was alarmingly high share dealing on American Airlines stock (enough for it to be checked out on Wall Street) in the weeks leading upto 9/11? Or that the FBI were able to name all 15 hijackers within hours of the events (despite the fact that some have since turned up alive)? Or that a supposed hijackers passport survived the crashes and was 'found' in the wreckage of the towers?

I won't continue....

No please continue. I still fail to see anything factual here that can be independantly verified and substantiated. By fact, I dont mean hearsay and rumour of "he said this" "they said that" "X is quoted as saying this" which is what seems to count as fact on conspiracy sites. I find it odd that everyone who questions the media and government spin which is perfectly reasonable, seemingly fails to question on an equal basis what is behind these theories.

Re the AA stock - some light reading for you to consider:

Not only does the relatively modest action belie some daring market conspiracy by those in touch with terror plans, but the pre-Sept. 11 market history is also consistent, more or less, with business as usual. Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a consulting company that does research on markets worldwide, has crunched the numbers and recently told Insight magazine:

"The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them.”

The downward trend in the airline stocks was backed up in the pre-Sept. 11 trading picture.

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).

With United and American stock transactions, and across the board, there is an automated system called the CBOE Market Surveillance System, which automatically records information trades. The existence of this sophisticated surveillance system, designed to ferret out inside-traders, would have given federal investigators a pretty quick look at what, if anything, was untoward in the market just prior to 9-11.

The fact is that prior to 9/11 it WASNT being checked out on Wall St. Since then it has and to date nothing has been found to substantiate anything more than the fact AA stock was dropping anyway given the economic circumstances.

Im still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Re the steel core skyscrapers - well as far as Im aware these are the only ones in history to be hit by jet planes. :roll:
Is it really outside the realms of probablity that many engineers have explained the collapse based on engineering and physics principles it has to be a government conspiracy?

Re the CIA exercise - source please.

I seem to recall video of the plane hitting the pentagon being released recently. As for cameras on the WTC, I hardly think they would survive.

Like I said earlier, I dont think its a government conspiracy. I think its a US government/intelligence **** up and thats what theyre trying to hide, but by doing so giving all the anti-government people ammuntion for some downright improbable theories.

[akbarhussain]

[quote="akbarhussain"][quote=DanDare]So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

[quote]

In that case please for the rest of make your claim as to what you think happened.
I don't mean giving clues to suggest what might of happened....What do you believe happened on that day so as to lay this to rest! Then we understand where your coming form and leave it at that. Maybe lock the thread perhaps????

Sorry Dan, but i'm afraid I am not Miss Marple in disguise. Lets just say that there are far too many gaping holes in the official story for me to beleive in it.... gaping holes that could have been closed in my eyes if proper procedure was follwed, as KeithD suggested with the Steel, tests carried out could have conclusively proved what happened that day. Wherever any kind of test/examination coul've been carried out...... it seems that they were not. To me that is not conspiracy theory, simply questions that could and should have been answered.

[Viney]

This is a god damn bike forum. Yes IB isnt a bike rel;ated area, but come on, its not Visordown :shock: Its run on the cahirty of its members, and by a hard working team in the back gorund. Please dont waste thier time and our money by constantly posting up long dull political posts about this and that, it not productive, and personaly boring.

We have limited bandwidth so use it wisely.

Thank you

This is no less valid than the rubbish posted in the mega thread. Don't like it, don't read it.

You know what you can do.

[akbarhussain]

No please continue.

Fine, I will come back to your post and answer your points one by one.

But to start with, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

[Viney]

Look, no one knows what the hell happened as most of the people inside are dead. Its all down the theorys and suchlike, so whats the god damn point of arguing over something that NONE of us know about. Blimey

[akbarhussain]

No please continue.

Why were normal NORAD operating procedure ignored that morning? WHay wree no fighter jets scrambled, even to Washington, more than an hour later than the Towers attacks?

[northwind]

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

it's a good question... I suppose a big part of it is that you just don't know what the others will do. Say 20 people rush a gunman, they can stop him... But what if only 5 do? Or just you? They probably couldn't communicate or make plans easily either. Even getting out of an airline seat normally slows folk up too, so realistically the people on the aisle seats held the cards. Imagine trying to get 20 people just to run off a plane simultaneously, it'd be chaos even without a hijacker on the scene...

I think I'd have gone for it... But honestly, who knows? You don't know what everyone knew- even if some were sure they were going to die, was everyone? And I'm not even that sure how I'd jump in a situation like that, never mind 20 strangers on a plane.

[DanDare]

Look, no one knows what the hell happened as most of the people inside are dead. Its all down the theorys and suchlike, so whats the god damn point of arguing over something that NONE of us know about. Blimey

Viney is spot on!

Some of believe it was terrorist act, plain and simple.

Others believe that theres more to meet the eye, so be it.

As a mark of respect to those that lost there lives, I don't think digging up dirt of this will bring them back or makes matters better.

Lets leave it at that, please. :)

[akbarhussain]

I seem to recall video of the plane hitting the pentagon being released recently. As for cameras on the WTC, I hardly think they would survive.

Lol at a video showing a commercial airliner hitting the pentagon. There was a video of 'something' hitting the pentagon, but not a commercial airliner.

I never mentioned cameras on WTC.

[akbarhussain]

Re the CIA exercise - source please.


John Fulton, CIA.

Oh, and this article released by A.P.

Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11
Associated Press
August 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

[lynw]

No please continue.

Fine, I will come back to your post and answer your points one by one.

But to start with, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Im no engineer but I wonder how much of it has to do with the force of the collapse of two skyscrapers nearby.

I know you'll say this is biased but I thought a Popular Mechanics site would be the closest engineering objective site to hand.

A picture of the scene (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468217&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFIRE+ STORM%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+WTC+7+stands+amid+the+rubble +of+the+recently+collapsed+Twin+Towers.+Damaged+by +falling+debris%2C+the+building+then+endures+a+fir e+that+rages+for+hours.+Experts+say+this+combinati on%2C+not+a+demolition-style+implosion%2C+led+to+the+roofline+%E2%80%9Cki nk%E2%80%9D+that+signals+WTC+7%E2%80%99s+progressi ve+collapse.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+NEW+YORK+OFFICE+OF+EMER GENCY+MANAGEMENT)

The summary: FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y should you wish to read further.

[akbarhussain]

m still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Ok, how about planes take off with passengers intact. Some kind of gas released to subdue passengers and crew. Pre-installed remote controll equipment takes over and planes are crasehed into pre-determined targets.

[akbarhussain]

No please continue.

Fine, I will come back to your post and answer your points one by one.

But to start with, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Im no engineer but I wonder how much of it has to do with the force of the collapse of two skyscrapers nearby.

I know you'll say this is biased but I thought a Popular Mechanics site would be the closest engineering objective site to hand.

A picture of the scene (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468217&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFIRE+ STORM%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+WTC+7+stands+amid+the+rubble +of+the+recently+collapsed+Twin+Towers.+Damaged+by +falling+debris%2C+the+building+then+endures+a+fir e+that+rages+for+hours.+Experts+say+this+combinati on%2C+not+a+demolition-style+implosion%2C+led+to+the+roofline+%E2%80%9Cki nk%E2%80%9D+that+signals+WTC+7%E2%80%99s+progressi ve+collapse.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+NEW+YORK+OFFICE+OF+EMER GENCY+MANAGEMENT)

The summary: FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y should you wish to read further.

So I wonder why the official explantion does not follow this?

[lynw]

m still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Ok, how about planes take off with passengers intact. Some kind of gas released to subdue passengers and crew. Pre-installed remote controll equipment takes over and planes are crasehed into pre-determined targets.

Do you really truly believe thats a probable action? In comparison to people board plane, fundamentalists hijack plane and fly it into two tall buildings which they could use GPS for exact co-ordinates?

I still the balance of probability lies with the simplest explanation which happens to be the "official" version.

[akbarhussain]

lynw, do you know who wrote that article for PM?

[lynw]

lynw, do you know who wrote that article for PM?

No but I will find out. I suspect that its more than likely going to be people with a bit more engineering knowledge than you or I have. :wink:

[akbarhussain]

It was a guy called Ben Chertoff. He may have more engineering knowledge than you are I, but he also happens to be the nephew of Micheal Chertoff. The secratery of US Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353

Not too sure about impartial.

[akbarhussain]

m still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Ok, how about planes take off with passengers intact. Some kind of gas released to subdue passengers and crew. Pre-installed remote controll equipment takes over and planes are crasehed into pre-determined targets.

Do you really truly believe thats a probable action? In comparison to people board plane, fundamentalists hijack plane and fly it into two tall buildings which they could use GPS for exact co-ordinates?

I still the balance of probability lies with the simplest explanation which happens to be the "official" version.

Possibly not more likely.

But like I have said, put togethor all the holes in the official story and couple that with the gains that the US have made since 9/11........... hmmmm.

[lynw]

It was a guy called Ben Chertoff. He may have more engineering knowledge than you are I, but he also happens to be the nephew of Micheal Chertoff. The secratery of US Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353

Not too sure about impartial.

Again you get selective over something. If you look at the end credits you will see he is only one of a number of people who wrote these articles. Given the bullet point nature of the Question and Reply I say he only wrote some of them.

REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.
PHOTOGRAPHY RESEARCH: Sarah Shatz.
SOURCES: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this article, click here.

But the crucial thing for me here is the last bit. Unlike most conspiracy sites they actually quote their sources meaning if you really wanted to you could contact each and everyone of the individuals to substantiate their comments.

[northwind]

As a mark of respect to those that lost there lives, I don't think digging up dirt of this will bring them back or makes matters better.


The response to that is, I suppose, that if they didn't die how we were told, they deserve justice. Personally I don't give that a lot of credability in this case, but IMO a lot of conspiracy theorists are driven by all the right motivations. Seems that they view it as much like catching a murderer- it doesn't bring back the victim, but it gives them justice.

People do these things for all sorts of reasons. Some people just like consipracies or knowing better than everyone else (the moon landing guys in particular... They seem to love the conspiracy theories since it makes them better than the ignorant masses :roll: )

What I hate is the suggestions of cowardice from the 3 planes that reached their target... Not from here, mind, but you see it quite often. It's just... I don't know. Sickening, is the word I think. We have no idea what they did or didn't do, or why, and treating victims and survivors like that, I can't abide it.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This is a god damn bike forum. Yes IB isnt a bike rel;ated area, but come on, its not Visordown :shock: Its run on the cahirty of its members, and by a hard working team in the back gorund. Please dont waste thier time and our money by constantly posting up long dull political posts about this and that, it not productive, and personaly boring.

We have limited bandwidth so use it wisely.

Thank you

This is no less valid than the rubbish posted in the mega thread. Don't like it, don't read it.

You know what you can do.

No?

[akbarhussain]

It was a guy called Ben Chertoff. He may have more engineering knowledge than you are I, but he also happens to be the nephew of Micheal Chertoff. The secratery of US Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4353

Not too sure about impartial.

Again you get selective over something. If you look at the end credits you will see he is only one of a number of people who wrote these articles. Given the bullet point nature of the Question and Reply I say he only wrote some of them.

REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.
PHOTOGRAPHY RESEARCH: Sarah Shatz.
SOURCES: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this article, click here.

But the crucial thing for me here is the last bit. Unlike most conspiracy sites they actually quote their sources meaning if you really wanted to you could contact each and everyone of the individuals to substantiate their comments.

Yep, I see what you're saying.


http://www.misfitting.com/pop1.jpg

http://www.misfitting.com/pm2.jpg

What, anyone can fly a plane you say????????? lol

http://www.misfitting.com/pm1.jpg

lol. Just.

[akbarhussain]

But the crucial thing for me here is the last bit. Unlike most conspiracy sites they actually quote their sources meaning if you really wanted to you could contact each and everyone of the individuals to substantiate their comments.


Fair point. But most of my info does not come from 'Conspiracy sites' as you say.

Have a look at a complete left wing nutter like Naom Chomsky (joking)...... he doesn't wirte about 9/11 but American Foreign Policy in general. Completely referenced, thousands in each book in fact. But he is still disputed, and called an 'American hating liberal loonie'.

[Razor]

http://www.misfitting.com/pop1.jpg

http://www.misfitting.com/pm2.jpg

http://www.misfitting.com/pm1.jpg



Popular Mechanics is cool 8)

[akbarhussain]

Popular Mechanics is cool 8)

I agree.

PROPAGANDA, wooooohooooooo!!!!