What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Too Exclusive]

now before i show u guys this, i would like to note that i'm not a liberal, im not a conservative, i do not favor kerry's ideals over bush's ideals (they both serve the same people, doesnt matter who won that staged election because they'd both send the country down the shitter, they're both skull & bones members etc.). now i will prolly step on a lot of toes with this post. ive played in mob server a long while back, and ive made sort of friends here(remember Little_Dude, or TheGreatEqualizer?). i respect you all, but there is something that needs to get out. you guys will ferociously deny what i post here, but if u do the research, ull find out that what i m about to tell u is true. ive devoted the last 6 months of my life to the 9/11 Truth movement and ive spent countless days analyzing the events of 9/11, photos, footage, etc. I'm really good in physics, and i am a very smart person, most of all, i always keep an open mind. now after seeing fahrenheit 9/11, i did not cheer. michael moore is a fat liberal piece of shit out to try to get money from the liberals by taking small territory from the truth movement. f911 was liberal propaganda, nothing more, and i know that as well as u know that, and it probably did more to hurt the movement than help it. the truth goes beyond fahrenheit 9/11's anti-bush propaganda about bush and bin laden being friends. now that's not a lie that they were friends, and about the oil pipeline and all that, but f911 was bullshit propaganda because it focused more on bashing bush than the truth. please, keep an open mind when reading this, your first reaction will be undoubtedly that im a conspiracy nutjob who believes whatever the media tells me. i do not. i do not hear this from the mainstream media. the mainstream media is controlled, and i do not believe a word of it, whether it's what u guys call liberal or conservative. i take no part in it. now, i present to you, the truth of 9/11.

one more note, please look up anything and everything i say. dont believe it from my mouth, look it up urself. research everything i say so that u know it's fact and that im not just making it up.

before i present the truth, i'd like to try to open ur minds a little bit with some historical examples of governments attacking their people for political gain. on february 27th, 1933, hitler burned down his own reichstag building and blamed the communists. he was able to obtain full dictatorial powers, and just like from 9/11, the people were more than willing to give up their rights for security from the internal threat of the communists, which were eliminated shortly after the reichstag fire. after this, the people were enslaved. you all know how the rest of WW II played out.

on another post someone mentioned pearl harbor being roosevelt's fault. not necessarily, but popular to contrary belief, even the history channel has no admitted that roosevelt knew of pearl harbor ahead of time. the american navy cracked the japanese naval codes and intercepted messages months ahead of time stating details about the attack.

possibly the most incriminating piece of historical evidence is a document called Operation Northwoods. It was thought up in 1962 and it detailed hijacking/blowing up American aircraft, killing marines at guantanomo bay, even a "Remember the Maine" incident on american ships, all as a pretext to go to war with cuba. if u do not believe this document exists, u can look it up in the government archives by the following steps:
1. go to http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/
2. click on the yellow "Search" button torwards the upper left side
3. search for "Northwoods" and hit go
4. click on the first hit, "Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"
5. click on all images
6. jump to page 23
7. read pages 138-142 of the document

next, bill clinton was a douchebag as stated in a previous thread, because WTC bombing in 1993 and OKC bombing in 95 were both inside jobs as well. OKC bombing was more clear cut than 9/11. there were local news reports and eye witness reports of 2 unexploded devices inside the building that were removed by the ATF. not to mention an analysis of the damage shows it was blown OUTWARDS and not INWARDS, and amonium nitrate is NOT a powerful explosive, not powerful enough to do that much damage from across the street. you can look this one up too, you'll find tons of info about this.

one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens. i wonder y. the man who blew the whistle on this, John O'neil resigned from the CIA after going public. unfortunately, he was hired a few weeks after that to work in the twin towers, and he died on his first day on the job, september 11th, 2001. look this one up because this sounds something to strange to be true, but it is.

now, onto 9/11.

When a crime is committed, any TRUE investigator will look at who has the motive. now on 9/11, we were TOLD the criminals who committed the crime were arab terrorists. when you search arab/muslim terrorists, you find no real motive. you find the bs motive that the media fed us of "they're jealous of our freedom... they dont like america...". well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government. why the hell would they attack people that founded them, funded, and trained them? answer: they wouldnt. bin laden was a CIA asset. he's not gonna attack his long time business partner and friend. that notion is absurd. now let's look at possible motives for the government: to get more profits from war, to further the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and Wolfowitz Doctrine (you can look them both up online) policies that clearly state we need a war in iraq and afghanistan and this would be sped up by a "pearl harbor" event... to get MORE control over us (PATRIOT ACT![1 and 2]), to further the police state, bring us one step closer to a dictatorship... the motives for an attack by the government are endless.

now let's focus on the actual events of that day. to be successful without the government's help, the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate. what we have here on 9/11 is 2 planes simultaneously wandering off course, and yet, no fighters. the first plane was off course (COMPLETELY) for 40 minutes, the next one was off course for 70 minutes, then the pentagon plane was off course for about 40 mins as well. no fighters sent for these 3 planes. now we have examples such as payne stewart (remember, the golfer guy whose plane got off course a few years ago?) whose plane was off course for only about 15-20 mins when fighters arrived. that's a small cessna plane. these are huge boeing 757/767 jet passenger liners off course for 40-70 minutes. no fighters. those terrorists must've been something to defeat the american airspace, eh?

next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th. coincidence? i think not. what we have here is the clear LIE stating that fire burning for only 56 minutes at 3/4 the way up the tower was enough to weaken the steel enough. jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt! in other words, those towers would not have collapsed had they not had the help of something: DEMOLITION CHARGES.

your first reaction is "how the hell can they put demolition charges into the tower without anyone noticing?" answer: easily. on the weekend of september 8-9, there was a powerdown in the WTC and engineers were seen walking in and out of the towers all weekend long. what better time to put demolition charges in? there is none. if you watch different videos of the towers collapsing, you can SEE the demolition charges. you can see... just watch the towers collapse it looks like they explode outward, and u can see in certain places the buildings popping out floor by floor, along with testimony from firefighters saying that they saw the towers start poppin out floor by floor. ill link up to a webpage with good video clearly showing the demo charges

the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon, leaving barely any wreckage at all, because most of the ALUMINUM wreckage "burnt up". gimme a freakin break. burnt up? metal doesnt "burn up". metal melts (not to mention that jet fuel doesnt even reach a temperature high enough to melt aluminum) but it doesnt burn up. yet if u look at pictures of the pentagon... you see no wreckage... and the way it collapsed (that section), if u look at the adjacent section, it looks like a CROSS-SECTION, perfectly cut like a hot knife through butter. now to disect the lie about flying inches above the cars: if you flew a boeing 757 inches above a highway, it would rip all the cars off the highway and throw them like a leaf in wind. and even with all of that, the "plane" still managed to puch neatly through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and 3 rings of the pentagon going in a complete straight line... without the wings being found anywhere (there was only a 12x14 foot hole made by the plane that struck the pentagon, where are the wings?). the only thing that can punch that neatly throught that much steel reinforced concrete is depleted uranium, or in english, a missile.

the next event was the plane crashing in shanksville pennsylvania. remember that todd beamer story about "let's roll!" and how they heroically wrestled the terrorists and brought the plane down? well, quoth donald rumsfeld while talking to the soldiers in Iraq on december 25th, 2004: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, -> SHOT DOWN THE PLANE OVER PENNSYLVANIA <- and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." mis-spoke/slipped my ass. he wouldn't have said that if it didnt happen. now y the cover up? who knows. but that's a clear lie.

the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum? answer: demolition charges. we KNOW this for a fact. the main reason is because of Larry Silverstein's (landlord of the WTC) admission that the firefighters said they couldn't contain the fires so they had to "pull it", controlled demolition terms for "pulling" the thing that starts the demolition. demo charges need to be put in place ahead of time, days ahead of time. controlled demolitions take WEEKS of planning, so those charges had to be in place prior to that day. now also, the building falls as if it's not even hitting the ground... it falls only .2 of a second slower than a FREE-FALLING OBJECT IN A VACUM, that is, without air resistance. now think, when this thing comes down it has a lot of resistance. all of those steel beams... air resistance. .2 slower. you cannot have a collapse of that speed without demolition charges.

there's plenty of evidence right there. here are some
sites:
www.prisonplanet.com/911.html <-- best archival source
www.infowars.com
www.propagandamatrix.com
www.letsroll911.org
www.reopen911.org (go to the bottom and get ur free 4
hour DVD about 9/11)
www.911busters.com

dont forget guys, PLEASE LOOK THIS STUFF UP. i hope you are all open-minded people, and i hope you will all look this up before telling me it's completely ridiculous and that im just a conspiracy nut. the truth is out there... look it up. i dont want to here anyone saying it is completely ridiculous if they havent looked up everything ive said with the sources ive given. thanx for all being open-minded!

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/14/05 8:26pm

[ScarFace]

I knew about the Pentagon cover up but I didn't realize this also involved the WTC.

[Benny Hinn]

Conspiracy theories abound....

I skimmed briefly over much of your post but from what I could gather there was mention of demo charges placed in the WTC and NORAD missing (or ignoring) planes in the sky.

There are several different theories as to what happened to the WTC, the Pentagon, and the flight that was overtaken in Pennsylvania (can't remember the number). Most or all of which have been debunked by a recent article in the latest issue of Popular Mechanics.

I had seen a website about the Pentagon attack in particular that struck my interest and had me questioning what happened, but this also was addressed in that article. If you're interested in truth I suggest you read it.

[Too Exclusive]

ahhh to hell with that article... we people at letsroll911.org proved that article a farce. if u wanna know more, go to the forums at www.letsroll911.org, there are TONS of posts out the PM article, ive read it, it brings up some good points to the untrained mind, but we at letsroll basically countered that article and put it flat. that PM article basically makes a "straw man" of lies and attacks it. ive already sent this e-mail to them, because 3 of the things it states in that article are 100% proven false. here's the email:

I'm sure you get a lot of conspiracy theorists
e-mailing you about your 9/11 article (btw we hate
that term).

My name is Eric Idelson and I'm 15 years old and
really involved with 9/11 Truth. Now, if it wasn't
11:40 PM on a teusday night, i would write a rebuttle
article. But for now, i will point out 3 critical
pieces of evidence that you have quite wrong in your
article. these things are indisputable.

1. Larry Silverstein (Landlord to the WTC at the time
of the attacks) admitted that the firefighters told
him they couldn't contain the fires, so they had to
"pull it" (which means take it down using controlled
demolition)... look up "Larry Silverstein "Pull it""
on google and watch the video. irrefutable.

2. on December 25th, 2004, Donald Rumsfeld while
giving a speech in Iraq, mentioned that the plane was
shot down over pennsylvania. it was later said it was
a "slip"... but why would that be on his mind if it
didn't happen? Do conspiracy theorists really concern
the government that much? if we're just theories, we
wouldn't. (look up Donald Rumsfeld "plane shot down"
on google)

3. you're article claims that there was a 75 foot
whole in the pentagon made my the plane crash. this is
false. there was a 65 ft. hole in the pentagon only
AFTER the section collapsed. here is a site i found
(first good result that demonstrates my point) that
clearly shows there is no 75 foot hole in the pentagon
before the section collapsed... if there was... the
whole would be bigger than the collapsed section
(interesting):
http://pentagonpictures.brad.com/ <-- do you see a 75
foot hole? i dont.

please revise your article and double check it.
thank you,
Eric Idelson

like i said, we at letsroll911.org have ripped apart that article for the farce that is. trust me, i know all about it.
there are just 3 100% lies in there, and since there's three, most likely there's more. i dont remember eveything that was in the article, but a lot of the things it states aren't even claims of us from the truth movement, although i dont have the article on me right now.

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/14/05 10:21pm

[Druid]

oh goody a debate.
unfortunately I've not the time to reply right now but be sure to check back in a few days.
I can't wait to get into part 2 & 3

[Benny Hinn]

The quote from Rumsfeld proves absolutely nothing, not to mention there is no evidence the plane was shot down.

By your own logic since the PM article had an error or two in it and that made it a "straw man of lies", wouldn't that make these all these theories the same thing for selectively leaving in/out evidence or other information?

BTW I'm not posting out of political motivations or an unwavering love for the Bush administration and gov't in general, just skepticism.

This post has been edited by Benny Hinn: 02/15/05 6:02am

[Too Exclusive]

well those arent the only things... being as i guess u can call me an "expert" on the events of 9/11, many things that article attacks arethings that a lot of ppl in the movement dont even support... that's what i mean by a strawman. and it has the same mind controlling statements like calling it ridiculous conspiracy theories and what not... if u do the research you'll find that the conspiracy theories are more likely to have happened than the official story... and yes the rumsfeld quote does prove something, because he wouldnt be THAT concerned with the plane being shot down if it didnt happen... just my 2 cents. thnx for the feedback guys.

btw, if you'd like, go to www.letsroll911.org and on many of the forums there (including the WTC ones) youll find threads about the PM article... we've all ripped it apart already =)

[Benny Hinn]

I still don't agree that Rumsfeld's quote means anything without any evidence.

I never once thought the article in PM was an "attack" at all. How did you all come to that conclusion?

[Silver]

wow... i have never read such BS in my life. the heat from the fuel would have "weakened" structure in its self. remember when you seen the plane hit the towers the plane tore apart the intregerty of the towers, the fire ball was the vapor the fuel gives off fuel itsself dont burn vapor does. second, no fireman would use controled demolitions to bring a structure under control. anyone not in a specialized turnout gear would not be able to deal with the effects the jet fuel unleashed. normal firemans gear is able to with stand avg heat of 1500 degrees. with that said in mind at 400 deg mostly everything becomes combustible. from personal experience at at those temps the helmet starts to burn up the face shield melts and the reflectors melt off, the nomex hood starts to burn your face and your sweat vaporizes and gives you a steam burn. thats when you know its time to haul ass. now the suits the airport FD uses are a much higher rated and reflect much more heat. up to i believe 2500-3000 degrees. more then enough to melt the steel. the men and women that died in the fire (firemen) knew they were in for a bad battle and probally knew they were not leaving in any sortof good condition. seeing there gear was only able to with stand the lower heat temp. i know i would have. besides it took them at least 10 min to get to the floors which took 10 min off their bottle and left them with 20 min of air. so they had 10 min of air to save life in. they knew their fate. i dont like people shitting on my brothers that died...it really pisses me off.

edit....do i believe the gov hides shit...yes....anything about 911...no

This post has been edited by D. Silver: 02/15/05 9:39am

[Too Exclusive]

alright first of all, the evidence we have for flight 93 being shot down is many eyewitness reports saying they saw a fireball in the sky before the plane went down, and u have the wreckage that was strewn over many square miles, not consistent with just a crash. not to mention todd beamer, the "let's roll!" hero spent the last few minutes of his life on the phone with an operator from i believe AT&T, not his pregnant wife (what a douchebag :/)... that's what i heard... yet from what i also hear the idea of being able to call ppl on a cell phone from an airplane at 5,000 or so feet is traveling that speed is impossible... that's little evidence yes, but rumsfeld's admission clears that up.

now as for the towers, just look in the news. look at the madrid fire. that fire was 100x worse than that of the twin towers, and 100x worse than that of building 7. if u do not believe there was any coverup at all, do some research, look at building 7 of the WTC, look at its collapse, and look at it right before the collapse. there are barely any fires, compare that to the madrid skyscaper that was nearly completely engulfed in flames hotter than those at the WTC for twice as long as the fire in building 7, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE. dont forget, building 7 was not hit by any plane and was 200 yards away from the towers, yet it collapsed. BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7. BUILDING SEVEN HAD A FEW SCATTERED SMALL FIRES, YET THE WHOLE BUILDING COLLAPSED WHEN THE BUILDING IN MADRID, OLDER AND LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM A FIRE THAT ENGULFED THE WHOLE BUILDING FOR DAYS. think about that. that by itself, not to mention larry silverstein's admission is more than proof that there was some type of cover up on 9/11.

[Too Exclusive]

i dont like people shitting on my brothers that died...it really pisses me off.

i am NOT shitting on your brothers who died. 9/11 bothers me more than almost any other event in history, along with the two wars that came of it. i admire our veterans, and i feel sorrow for everyone that died on 9/11. but me trying to get the truth out so that the REAL evildoers may some day be brought to justice is NOT shitting on your brothers. think about it, if someone had a stroke and died, so you thought, then someone told you he was poisoned by another person instead, how is that shitting on the person that died? it's not, he's merely telling you the truth. me and the rest of the 9/11 Truth commmunity are trying to tell you guys the truth. we respect the people that died more than your government does. your government doesnt care, we do.

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/15/05 4:47pm

[Silver]

now as for the towers, just look in the news. look at the madrid fire. that fire was 100x worse than that of the twin towers, and 100x worse than that of building 7. if u do not believe there was any coverup at all, do some research, look at building 7 of the WTC, look at its collapse, and look at it right before the collapse. there are barely any fires, compare that to the madrid skyscaper that was nearly completely engulfed in flames hotter than those at the WTC for twice as long as the fire in building 7, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE. dont forget, building 7 was not hit by any plane and was 200 yards away from the towers, yet it collapsed. BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7. BUILDING SEVEN HAD A FEW SCATTERED SMALL FIRES, YET THE WHOLE BUILDING COLLAPSED WHEN THE BUILDING IN MADRID, OLDER AND LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM A FIRE THAT ENGULFED THE WHOLE BUILDING FOR DAYS. think about that. that by itself, not to mention larry silverstein's admission is more than proof that there was some type of cover up on 9/11.

wow you really dont know shit. being a fireman for a few years i have seen solid concrete boil, the side walks bubble 10 feet away, bricks explode, steel melt like ice. im no hero, i left the FD 8 months ago. the steel used inall WTC was cheap steel but you know that. you also know the mere force of a 80 ton plane fully fueled carrying air cargo and tons of people going full speed into a building completely clearing 7 stories dead center of a building. but you know that. but wait you know better oh the madrid tower.... didnt have a plane ram the fucking thing at 500 miles an hour.... oh but ur talking about wtc 7 yeah i forgot the 2 towers that fell on it wouldnt have had shit to do with it right? i mean they only found pieces of hip bone on top of buildings blocks away.

[Too Exclusive]

ur comment about building 7 can prove itself wrong by simply watching video of the collapses. the towers did NOT fall on building 7. building 7 was about 200 yards away from the towers. just as close was the taller, thinner hilton hotel, yet that was not damaged, there was no fire in it. y not?

and if u were a fireman, you'd know that steal has to be 2800 degrees fahrenheit to melt, and you'd know that a fire burning a fuel that does not contain a source of oxygen inside it can not burn greater than 1800 degrees fahrenheit, because the fire needs to get the oxygen from the surrounding environment, which is y fires big enough can generate hurricane-force winds, because it's sucking so much oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere. more oxygen = hotter fire can go. at 1800 degrees fire is blue. no fires at the WTC were blue.

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/15/05 11:32pm

[futureman]

ask your questions here...
http://www.snopes.com/

[Too Exclusive]

how about not. according to snopes, aluminum can just burn up and turn into nothing. that's not true. it can melt, and at 4000 degrees fahrenheit it turns into a gas, but burn up? no.