Political Crossfire Forums

[BigOMG]

I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.

I as I watched these specials, I realize there wasn't a Grand Conspiracy, just terror.

As for these grand Conspiracy theories, they keep changing theories and I feel I have fallen behind.

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe the conspiracy was all planned as an attack on the USA from forces that just hated the USA and it's way of life. Because anyone with common sense would see this to be true.

[psholtz]

BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.

[Akage]

psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.


the new spin is that the government failed to prevent the attacks. this conveniently falls short of assigning the government any complicity in the attacks.

[BigOMG]

psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.

What type of "psy-ops" are you talking about?

And whats is the current theory on 9/11 and the WTC? Because I have asked one question several times and never got an answer from anyone, on this forum and many others and I got that answer from one of those specials.

What affect did the impact of a 130+ ton airliner, traveling in excess of 500 MPH have on the building? I got my answer, and it made sense from a technical point of view. The real miracle was the fact that the buildings stay up for so long.

[lucidnightmare]

They knew the planes were going to hit the towers,but that wasn't dramatic enough,they ran into burning buildings and placed explosives to bring them down.

Of yea,no plane hit the Pentagon,it was a missile or UFO.All the missing passengers are living in Cancun.

It sounds stupid when you say it out loud doesn't it? :lol:

[rye]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg

I had not a read a timeline of events for at least a year, but took the time to read this, which was suggested in a couple other threads. My personal view hasn't changed and, while there were many peculiarities about the WTC collapse and Pentagon stuff, I think they are dead ends.

I stick with the basics.

1. There were many direct, specific warnings from other countries in the month before the attack. There were warnings from within the U.S. as well. It almost seems like it was an open secret.
2. Nothing was done on the day of the attacks to stop them while they were in progress.
3. The lies, lies and lies.

My new theory, I guess, is forget all the missle theories and planned detonation stuff and stick with the basics. They're compelling enough.

[Claudia Schiffer]

psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.

Actually, it's always like that now, ever since the lateral integration of the media, meaning that the corporations own the movie buseness, the tv, the journal, magazines, etc, you will always have old Super Man movie running the same week and the week before the New Super man release come out. You will also have Christoffer Reeves Bio and stuff like that. And of course all these tv shows will be filled with publicity about the new release. There's no escaping it now...

But,..that doesn't mean nothing is going to happened. I still think we're due for a big event, something like chemicals, now that's scary. I think they'll keep the nuke for last resort, or the next president election...he! maybe will see more 60 year old women's arrest for disturbing the peace in an air plane, a United Airline, AGAIN! :wink: Cause there's nothing more dangerous than an angry 60 year old women in an air planeright?

[Claudia Schiffer]

rye wrote: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg

I had not a read a timeline of events for at least a year, but took the time to read this, which was suggested in a couple other threads. My personal view hasn't changed and, while there were many peculiarities about the WTC collapse and Pentagon stuff, I think they are dead ends.

I stick with the basics.

1. There were many direct, specific warnings from other countries in the month before the attack. There were warnings from within the U.S. as well. It almost seems like it was an open secret.
2. Nothing was done on the day of the attacks to stop them while they were in progress.
3. The lies, lies and lies.

My new theory, I guess, is forget all the missle theories and planned detonation stuff and stick with the basics. They're compelling enough.

basic like this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=label%3Azionism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

will you look at that, they erased the word ''collapse'' from Giuliani confession. Ho well! guess what he said then. :lol:

Or like this?

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

Sorry, i couldn't help it...I had high speed internet only 2 months ago. :wink:

[Wizard From Oz]

Dont forget the thermite charges in the towers, part of the controled demolishon theory.

And last I checked it was a cruise missle into the Pentagon.

[psholtz]

Akage wrote: psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.


the new spin is that the government failed to prevent the attacks. this conveniently falls short of assigning the government any complicity in the attacks.
Yes, that is the spin, and it greatly concerns me.

It means the government is gearing up to carry out an even more horrific attack.

All these "fake" terror busts (more esp last week's "liquid bomb" plot, but also the fake terror busts like the ones at the Sears Tower, Miami, Tortonto, etc) are designed to "prove" to the public just how "effective" the government is at catching the "terrorists" using the Patriotic Act, etc. The government is trying to put on public record just how good they are at "stopping" terror attacks, so the public can't go back and say they that things like the Patriot Act are useless (even though the Patriot Act *is* useless from a "catching terrorists" point of view).

Once they've convinced the public at how "good" they are at "catching" terrorists, the USG is going to launch an even bigger, more horrific attack and claim that it just "got through" the net.. *sigh* .. oh well.

I'd be bracing for a nuclear strike right now.. a false flag nuclear strike against America carried out by America, and blamed on "Iran"..

[psholtz]

BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: I haven't spent much time here lately and wanted to see if some of you could tell me the current theory concerning 9/11 and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I ask this because I have been watching all the specials that have been on TV of late.
I've noticed all the TV specials as of late as well..

In general, I don't have a TV, but I was traveling last week, and ALL that was on TV last week were 9/11 "specials"..

This is extremely, extremely disturbing.

It means that an NWO psy-op is underway, whereby they are trying to re-terrorize the American public and prep them for even larger, more terrifying attack.

The type to act is now.

What type of "psy-ops" are you talking about?
Everything you see on a TV is a psy-op..

Quote: What affect did the impact of a 130+ ton airliner, traveling in excess of 500 MPH have on the building? I got my answer, and it made sense from a technical point of view. The real miracle was the fact that the buildings stay up for so long.
The buildings buckled a little, and remained standing.

The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.

[BigOMG]

psholtz wrote:
The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.


Actually, no the buildings were designed to withstand being hit by a smaller and lighter airplane going at much slower speeds. What is surprising is how long they stood when an additional 130 tons(75 after burning) were added to the overall weight of the building, after being damaged. Tower 2 wasn't hit squarely, it was hit closer to the corner which didn't allow for the outer skin to redistribute the weight appropriately. Never mind those floors didn't collapse until the trusses were heated from the resulting fires(not from the fuel and not the main superstructure).

[psholtz]

BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote:
The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.


Actually, no the buildings were designed to withstand being hit by a smaller and lighter airplane going at much slower speeds. What is surprising is how long they stood when an additional 130 tons(75 after burning) were added to the overall weight of the building, after being damaged. Tower 2 wasn't hit squarely, it was hit closer to the corner which didn't allow for the outer skin to redistribute the weight appropriately. Never mind those floors didn't collapse until the trusses were heated from the resulting fires(not from the fuel and not the main superstructure).
How do you figure the hijackers managed knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it? :think:

[BigOMG]

psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote:
The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.


Actually, no the buildings were designed to withstand being hit by a smaller and lighter airplane going at much slower speeds. What is surprising is how long they stood when an additional 130 tons(75 after burning) were added to the overall weight of the building, after being damaged. Tower 2 wasn't hit squarely, it was hit closer to the corner which didn't allow for the outer skin to redistribute the weight appropriately. Never mind those floors didn't collapse until the trusses were heated from the resulting fires(not from the fuel and not the main superstructure).
How do you figure the hijackers managed knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it? :think:

Nice tap dance, why the subject change?

Was evacuated around 10:30 due to fires burning on upper floors, is reported to have contained fuels and there hasn't been any report that addresses the amount of damage it received from falling debris. Did something fall into it when either of the towers collapsed? But as far as WTC 7 is concerned I would like to see more research into why it fell. But I know it wasn't done with demo, that would take months to set up, not 2 weeks.

[psholtz]

BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote:
The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.


Actually, no the buildings were designed to withstand being hit by a smaller and lighter airplane going at much slower speeds. What is surprising is how long they stood when an additional 130 tons(75 after burning) were added to the overall weight of the building, after being damaged. Tower 2 wasn't hit squarely, it was hit closer to the corner which didn't allow for the outer skin to redistribute the weight appropriately. Never mind those floors didn't collapse until the trusses were heated from the resulting fires(not from the fuel and not the main superstructure).
How do you figure the hijackers managed knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it? :think:

Nice tap dance, why the subject change?

Was evacuated around 10:30 due to fires burning on upper floors, is reported to have contained fuels and there hasn't been any report that addresses the amount of damage it received from falling debris. Did something fall into it when either of the towers collapsed? But as far as WTC 7 is concerned I would like to see more research into why it fell. But I know it wasn't done with demo, that would take months to set up, not 2 weeks.
I believe the two big towers were knocked down w/ explosives (specifically, thermate), but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and the planes alone knocked down those towers.

How then did the hijackers knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it?

Nothing "fell into" or even "touched" WTC7 .. on the other hand, the South Tower collapsed INTO the Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero, and tore a 17-story gash into the Deutsche Bank building. The Deutsche Bank building never collapsed, and in fact it's still standing today at Ground Zero:



You know that Marvin Bush, the president's brother, was in charge of security at WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport just before 9/11?

[BigOMG]

psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote: BigOMG wrote: psholtz wrote:
The buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from such jets, and remain standing, which is precisely what happened. The buildings collapsed only b/c of thermite (or actually, thermate) charges inside.


Actually, no the buildings were designed to withstand being hit by a smaller and lighter airplane going at much slower speeds. What is surprising is how long they stood when an additional 130 tons(75 after burning) were added to the overall weight of the building, after being damaged. Tower 2 wasn't hit squarely, it was hit closer to the corner which didn't allow for the outer skin to redistribute the weight appropriately. Never mind those floors didn't collapse until the trusses were heated from the resulting fires(not from the fuel and not the main superstructure).
How do you figure the hijackers managed knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it? :think:

Nice tap dance, why the subject change?

Was evacuated around 10:30 due to fires burning on upper floors, is reported to have contained fuels and there hasn't been any report that addresses the amount of damage it received from falling debris. Did something fall into it when either of the towers collapsed? But as far as WTC 7 is concerned I would like to see more research into why it fell. But I know it wasn't done with demo, that would take months to set up, not 2 weeks.
I believe the two big towers were knocked down w/ explosives (specifically, thermate), but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and the planes alone knocked down those towers.

How then did the hijackers knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it?

Nothing "fell into" or even "touched" WTC7 .. on the other hand, the South Tower collapsed INTO the Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero, and tore a 17-story gash into the Deutsche Bank building. The Deutsche Bank building never collapsed, and in fact it's still standing today at Ground Zero:



You know that Marvin Bush, the president's brother, was in charge of security at WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport just before 9/11?

And you know this how? I seem to remember the whole area for 10 or 20 blocks being damaged in some manner. Whether it was falling debris, dust or whatever, how can anyone be sure nothing fell on the building? And that building is coming down sometime in the near future. It was to damaged to be repaired.

WTC7 was also one of the few buildings in that area that housed fuels and oils for heating. I'm not saying that's why it fell, but no one has addressed that either. It was also built over an electrical substation, which might have caused a power surge which ignited the fire. It also fell in a manner that might suggest demo but more than likely supports the claims that it caught fire from the inside and collapsed on it's self from internal fire damage. Loss of electricity most likely caused the backup generators to kick in, which pumped fuel through the damaged fuels lines, which where ignited by the electrical surge. Just a theory with no conspiracy.

I don't subscribe tot he Marvin Bush theory, it is just a coincidence.

And why hasn't or wasn't any reports of Thermate residue in the air following the fall of these buildings. NYC started air testing before WTC fell. And I'm sure there are New Yorkers who still have debris from that day, why hasn't it been tested? It would confirm that theory in seconds.

[psholtz]

BigOMG wrote: And you know this how?
How do I know what?

Quote: WTC7 was also one of the few buildings in that area that housed fuels and oils for heating.
But WTC7 didn't explode in a fiery ball of flames..

It just kinda flopped over, 8 hours after the fact.

How did the hijackers pull that off, w/o even crashing a plane into the building?

Quote: I don't subscribe tot he Marvin Bush theory, it is just a coincidence.
Oh, OK.

Lots of "coincidences", aren't there?

[BigOMG]

Sorry, not that good at quoting,

How do you know that nothing fell on WTC 7 when the other towers fell? The area was covered with smoke and dust for an hour at least.

No it didn't explode, I don't know why, maybe it was heating oil and burning slow?

A slow burning fire, underground or deep inside the building, burning for hours, internally , eventually wore it down. The 7th floor held the day tank for the OEM generators and had no windows. So the flow of oxygen would be reduced.

Have you looked at the FEMA pictures taken prior to it falling? They show damage to the building, high enough to say it came from the falling towers.

[url=http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf]
www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf[/url]

I now it's a gov website and your going to call it garbage, but the pictures don't lie.

[NAB]

BigOMG wrote: Sorry, not that good at quoting,

How do you know that nothing fell on WTC 7 when the other towers fell? The area was covered with smoke and dust for an hour at least.

No it didn't explode, I don't know why, maybe it was heating oil and burning slow?

A slow burning fire, underground or deep inside the building, burning for hours, internally , eventually wore it down. The 7th floor held the day tank for the OEM generators and had no windows. So the flow of oxygen would be reduced.

Have you looked at the FEMA pictures taken prior to it falling? They show damage to the building, high enough to say it came from the falling towers.

[url=http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf]
www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf[/url]

I now it's a gov website and your going to call it garbage, but the pictures don't lie.

Just for reference, here's a link showing some other images of WTC7. These seem to show significant damage to the building prior to collapse.
WTC7 Fires

From that link check out this video clip. wtc7 burning

[Free Thinkr]

psholtz wrote: I believe the two big towers were knocked down w/ explosives (specifically, thermate), but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and the planes alone knocked down those towers.
I had to comment on this: thermate is not an explosive, it's an incendiary.

Quote: How then did the hijackers knock down WTC7 w/o even crashing a plane into it?
They didn't: the other towers knocked it down.

Quote: Nothing "fell into" or even "touched" WTC7 ..
Oh yeah? I wonder what you believe caused this:

That hole starts at the 18th floor, which means its a good bet that the bottom 18 floors suffered massive amounts of damage.

Or just take a gander at the

aftermath. Seeing that picture, it's abundantly clear that WTC7 was hit hard by falling debris, and that makes perfect sense, considering its proximity, and the fact that, despite conspiracy theorists' claims to the contrary, the buildings did not implode.

Quote: on the other hand, the South Tower collapsed INTO the Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero, and tore a 17-story gash into the Deutsche Bank building. The Deutsche Bank building never collapsed, and in fact it's still standing today at Ground Zero:


Indeed. The Deutsche Bank building suffered similar damage to WT7, and for similar reasons. Not all buildings react the same way to that type of damage. Had it collapsed, you'd be here today telling everyone who would listen that the government "demolished" it.

Quote: You know that Marvin Bush, the president's brother, was in charge of security at WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport just before 9/11?
Define "just before."