Do the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have...

[General Applewhite]

......any merit?

I have seen the video of WTC Building 7 (the one that fell that wasn't hit by a plane) and it does look fishy. The 3 WTC buildings that fell were the first steel framed skyscrapers ever to fall. I can understand the 2 that fell that were hit by planes loaded with fuel but there is no logic behind the collapse of Building 7.

One other weird thing was the fact that no military aircraft intercepted the hijacked planes. Remember when Payne Stewart's plane stopped responding? They had military planes up in minutes following his private jet. Then I see this article today in the Washington Post:

9-11 panel suspected deception
Some thought Pentagon tried to mislead after poor response

By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
Posted August 2 2006

WASHINGTON · Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said."We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.A Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday that the inspector general's office would soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released Tuesday.In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts Tuesday night.For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities purposely sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

[BeetDigger]

What does this have to do with Bomar getting kicked off the team?

[General Applewhite]

Are you trying to say Bomar controls NORAD?

[Penguin]

Are you saying that Bomar is Osama bin Laden?

[usmc-sooner]

is Bomar really General Applewhite?

[Rusher]

is Bomar a new terrorist?

[picasso]

it has merit if you're using your head as an a** plug.

[SoonerStud615]

is Bomar working for Al-Quaeda?

[soonerboomer93]

quick, someone loan me some tin foil, i need to make a new hat

[etouffee]

dude. applewhite. i just totally lost the tiny morsel of respect i had left for you, just for posting that garbage. seriously lame man.

[General Applewhite]

Look.....do I think there is proof of a conspiracy....no. There are some questions that need to be answered though. The 9/11 commission itself, not me, said it felt the Pentagon had deliberately misled it about the events of 9/11. Just Google up the collapse of Bldg 7 and remember that no steel frame building, before or after that day, has ever collapsed. Don't react without thinking...address the issues.

[Sooner_Bob]

What's the conspiracy theory involving Building 7?

[etouffee]

Just Google up the collapse of Bldg 7 and remember that no steel frame building, before or after that day, has ever collapsed.So, per your logic, Bush & Rove had 2 airliners fly into the 2 twin towers, which you're conceding brought them down, but they figured that wouldn't be quite dramatic enough, so they pre-planted explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down as well, just to make sure 9/11 looked really bad and not just kinda bad, huh? http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/crazy.gif Effing brilliant, that's what you are, man. Bet you've got your Democratic Underground t-shirt on today.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7017/wblogorv9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[crawfish]

Yeeesh. :rolleyes:

[OhU1]

I think WTC #7 was where the International Zionist Banking cartel secretly had their headquarters. They needed to clear out and cover their tail because too many people were catching on to them. They destroyed WTC #1 and #2 as a diversion to destoying WTC #7.

[KABOOKIE]

I heard a missle hit the Petagon too. :rolleyes:

[etouffee]

I heard a missle hit the Petagon too. :rolleyes:Yep. All those people on Flight 77 aren't really dead. Bush & Rove have them on a secret island. With mysterious underground hatches.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yep. All those people on Flight 77 aren't really dead. Bush & Rove have them on a secret island. With mysterious underground hatches.

Well, they are dead now my friend.

They were used by Bush and Halliburton to help blow the levees in occupied New Orleans.

[OklahomaTuba]

Looks like the nutzo libz are actually getting some people to believe them...


More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html

[etouffee]

right. no way in hell a third of the public believes that.

a sample of 1011 people is not sufficient to determine what the American public believes. further, what was the demographic makeup of this sample? what geographic locations where they from? what were their political leanings? what time of day was the survey conducted? most importantly, what specific questions were asked of the respondants?

all of these things would explain why such a ridiculous result was achieved.

[KABOOKIE]

Whatever it takes to make America look bad. Personally, I’d rather these lib-tards just pick up an AK and join Al-Queda than make this country look stupid.

[mdklatt]

Whatever it takes to make America look bad. Personally, I’d rather these lib-tards just pick up an AK and join Al-Queda than make this country look stupid.

Don't forget the pubtardz who think Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

[etouffee]

I’d rather these lib-tards just pick up an AK and join Al-Queda LOL! Like any of them have a spine that big.

[KABOOKIE]

Don't forget the pubtardz who think Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Oh yeah, I forgot that 1/10th of 1% ..... :rolleyes:

[etouffee]

even if some of them do think that, at least they're not out there actively campaigning against their own country like the tinfoil hat brigade

[picasso]

Look.....do I think there is proof of a conspiracy....no. There are some questions that need to be answered though. The 9/11 commission itself, not me, said it felt the Pentagon had deliberately misled it about the events of 9/11. Just Google up the collapse of Bldg 7 and remember that no steel frame building, before or after that day, has ever collapsed. Don't react without thinking...address the issues.
you can say that about a wide variety of topics concerning the Pentagon.
shall we start with WWII or Vietnam?

[mdklatt]

Oh yeah, I forgot that 1/10th of 1% ..... :rolleyes:

9/6/2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)


Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.


9/16/2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm)


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

[etouffee]

Ok, so why'd you say "pubtards"? Don't you read your own sources?


A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents

[Tear Down This Wall]

it has merit if you're using your head as an a** plug.

This is another Post of the Year candidate. Is someone keeping track of all of my Post of the Year nominees? I mean, I'll spring for a trophy or plaque or something in December if we can get this thing off the ground a little. Maybe we can have a post-season pow-wow in OKC for a chintzy awards ceremony and all.

[picasso]

Ok, so why'd you say "pubtards"? Don't you read your own sources?
kind of what I was thinking.

[KABOOKIE]

Ok, so why'd you say "pubtards"? Don't you read your own sources?


Exactly.

[mdklatt]

Ok, so why'd you say "pubtards"? Don't you read your own sources?

pubtards = Republicans

[etouffee]

Yeah, we got that part. Your source says "A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe...". So why'd you single out Republicans? Partisan hackery?

[mdklatt]

So why'd you single out Republicans?

KABOOKIE had already singled out the libz. I was just pointing out that there's more than enough stupidity to go around, lest the pubz start getting all uppity.

[BudSooner]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks13.jpg

[General Applewhite]

"So, per your logic, Bush & Rove had 2 airliners fly into the 2 twin towers, which you're conceding brought them down, but they figured that wouldn't be quite dramatic enough, so they pre-planted explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down as well, just to make sure 9/11 looked really bad and not just kinda bad, huh? Effing brilliant, that's what you are, man. Bet you've got your Democratic Underground t-shirt on today."

To me, this isn't a democrat/republican thing. I'm not saying Bush/Rove did anything. In fact, if there were some far reaching conspiracy, some high level Dems would just about have to be in on it.

For the guy who asked about the controversy around building 7.......WTC 7 was not one of the 2 towers but was a big office building about a football filed or two away that collapsed much later. There is extensive video & pictures of this building well after the collapse of the two towers and except for a few broken windows and a small fire, it looks fine. Hours later, out of the blue, it collapses staright down and it looks as if it was brought down intentionally. Fuel to the fire of speculation is that all kinds of governmental offices were in WTC 7. In the history of the world, before & after 9/11/01, no steel frame building has ever collapsed and there have been plenty that have been ravaged by big fires.......a bomber even flew into the Empire State building once. Just google up the video of WTC 7 and be objective - at the least it will make you curious.

[NormanPride]

………………..,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,………

[KABOOKIE]

KABOOKIE had already singled out the libz. I was just pointing out that there's more than enough stupidity to go around, lest the pubz start getting all uppity.


Yes, thinking the American government caused 9/11 to go to war vs. thinking Saddam likely had some role in 9/11 is a good comparison on the stupidity scale. ;)

[mdklatt]

In the history of the world, before & after 9/11/01, no steel frame building has ever collapsed

In the history of the world, before & after 9/11/2001 (didn't you learn anything from Y2K?) , no steel frame building has ever had a 767 full of jet fuel crash into it.

:rolleyes:


a bomber even flew into the Empire State building once

B-25 Mitchell

Max Gross Weight: 35,000 pounds
Cruise Speed: 230 MPH
Fuel Capacity: 974 gallons


Boeing 767-200

Max Gross Weight: 300,000 pounds
Cruise Speed: 550 MPH
Fuel Capacity: 11,500 gallons

[etouffee]

blah blah blah same stuff i posted before blah blah blah Again, I ask for you to explain your logic/theory. You concede that the airplanes took down the towers, yet you suggest that WTC 7 was intentionally and secretly demolished by planted explosives. On what level, exactly, does that make any sense whatsoever? Who the f*** comes up with a plan that goes: First, we'll have some known Islamic terrorists hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, since known Islamic terrorists are known to cooperate with Bush and Rove conspiracies, and THEN, just for effect, we'll have some explosives planted in a building nearby and bring it down several hours later, just for effect. :confused::confused::confused::confused:

"Patently absurd" doesn't even begin. Stop embarrassing yourself. Seriously.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hey, I still think there was a 3rd co-conspirator on the Murrah bldg and I think he was an Iraqi agent...

[General Applewhite]

"Again, I ask for you to explain your logic/theory. You concede that the airplanes took down the towers, yet you suggest that WTC 7 was intentionally and secretly demolished by planted explosives. On what level, exactly, does that make any sense whatsoever? Who the f*** comes up with a plan that goes: First, we'll have some known Islamic terrorists hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, since known Islamic terrorists are known to cooperate with Bush and Rove conspiracies, and THEN, just for effect, we'll have some explosives planted in a building nearby and bring it down several hours later, just for effect."

Planes flew into the two main towers which are WTC 1 and WTC 2 (there were many buildings at the WTC complex). WTC 7 was a seperate building. There were other building much closer to 1 & 2 that didn't collapse. In regards to the logic behind the plan....whatever scenario you come up with seems beyond absurd. If you have wired building with explosives, why even bother with the planes? I haven't heard or read a theory that is even remotely reasonable.......but if there are reasonable concerns, should those questions not be asked and addressed?

Again, the article from the Washington Post didn't reference some crackpot organization. There was a consistent belief on the part of the 9/11 commission, Republicans & Democrats alike, that were convicned that the Pentagon tried to mislead them for whatever reason.

If you haven't done it, google the collapse videos of WTC 7, the building the fell that was never hit by a plane, and see what you think.

[etouffee]

You needn't explain the WTC to me, I used to spend quite a bit of time working in those buildings and staying at the Marriott next door. I was in NY, though not near the WTC, on 9/11.

I've read all the hysterical nonsense about WTC 7. I've also read some pretty thorough debunkings of it. The best evidence you or anyone else has put forward is "there are no recorded instances of similar buildings collapsing from fires." So what? It's not as though burning buildings always behave identically. There are countless factors that could change the way things happen. Including, I should add, the 6000 gallons of diesel fuel inside the building and the 36,000 additional gallons of diesel fuel directly under the building. Also the considerable damage sustained by huge chunks of the towers that hit WTC 7 and set it ablaze. Also, the length of time the building burned, as compared to typical building fires, was considerably longer due to limited resources and the danger of being in the vicinity. Longer burn time could have weakened the steel structure in ways that haven't happened in recorded cases.

Was the Pentagon secretive or even deceptive about some aspects of 9/11? Maybe. Do I care? No. Militaries and intelligence services, by the very nature of what they do, must keep secrets and tell lies on occasion. Perhaps they had good reasons not to share all the details of what happened at the WTC. Maybe they didn't want to give other terrorists too much info. Maybe there was something top secret in that building. I don't know, and I don't care. But I'm quite confident that the building was not brought down by the US, as the moonbats continue to suggest.

[etouffee]

Also, can you please start using the quote feature, applewhite? It's hard to follow your posts without it.

[BeetDigger]

My firm at the time (I no longer work there) had offices in the area and we were receiving updates twice a day from the corporate HQ, which is nearby in Tribeca.

At the time, the information was the WTC 7 came down due to the foundation damage (piers) sustained by the collapse of the other towers. The Millenium Hotel, just a block to the north of the towers, was rumored to have a significant amount of foundation damage too and it was thought to be coming down. In the weeks afterward, they were able to assess the foundations of the hotel along with all of the other nearby buildings and determine that the foundations damaged but repairable. I believe that the hotel is in operation now (and has been for a couple of years). The Deutsche Bank building, part of the WTC "complex" is condemed and they are going through legal process with what to do with it at the moment.

The non-conspiricy theory is that two freaking huge buildings collapsed in an uncontrolled manner and the collateral damage to the surrounding area was not uniform. Thus, some buildings were damaged more than others.

Don't worry, Oliver Stone is on the case and I am more than sure he will bring clarity to the entire issue. After watching his movie, I am sure that the populace will have a complete understanding of the entire situation.

[BeetDigger]

Also, can you please start using the quote feature, applewhite? It's hard to follow your posts without it.


Yes it is.


:D

[toast]

There are countless factors that could change the way things happen. Including, I should add, the 6000 gallons of diesel fuel inside the building and the 36,000 additional gallons of diesel fuel directly under the building. Also the considerable damage sustained by huge chunks of the towers that hit WTC 7 and set it ablaze. Also, the length of time the building burned, as compared to typical building fires, was considerably longer due to limited resources and the danger of being in the vicinity. Longer burn time could have weakened the steel structure in ways that haven't happened in recorded cases.




Add to this the fact that Jimmy Hoffa was buried under WTC 7 and when his body decomposed that's all she wrote for WTC 7.

[mdklatt]

[Mel Gibson]The Jews did it. What are you looking at, sugar tits?[/Mel Gibson]

[BeetDigger]

Add to this the fact that Jimmy Hoffa was buried under WTC 7 and when his body decomposed that's all she wrote for WTC 7.



It is my understanding that there were reports of a man running from the building moments before the collapse that looked very similar to Elvis.

[BudSooner]

It is my understanding that there were reports of a man running from the building moments before the collapse that looked very similar to Howard ***************.



That's what I heard, he was drinking and ****ed on a plant inside the building..which started the blaze...alcohol fueled morons are always at fault.

[Harry Beanbag]

Haven't we covered this already?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63179