[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

All I meant was that everyone reads way too much into these videos made by people who have zero access to any kind of government files..

That is quite possible. I for one have not even watched the video link in this thread. But I feel no need as I have worked on numerous, not-for-profit videos in the past. But the questions still remain. For one, why did the FBI give two different stories regarding the hotel videos?

Originally Posted by Randy

....All they know is what you have seen yourself on TV, radio and the internet...

And THAT is the smoking gun. My main focus has always been the three towers that collapsed in NY.

Originally Posted by Randy

....They exclude major facts about the investigation and the incident itself and only include the facts that point toward a government scandal. I mean they completely leave out whole facts and points of the incident just to still be able to prove their point. You guys don't see that. You just listen to what they say and start questioning the government.

The government leaves out much more than I do. For example, the occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses.

They completely ignore WTC 7 and its complete collapse, even though it was never hit by any aircraft. What of The South Tower? Observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior?

Remarkable, amazing and demanding scrutiny since the US government funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” Now whos the one with the "conspiracy theory"?

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation.

Others have said this better than I can. So I call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its neglect in studies funded by the US government. The truth is right there in front of your eyes...there is no need for "official" documents since the evidence is plainly public domain since it is on numerous videos, DVD's and newscast archives.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Randy]

I was talking to a friend about this thread. He made a good point. I never once noticed anyone on here questioning the credibility of the makers of these videos. Does anyone know anything about the makers. Stuff like; What are this guy’s political beliefs and history? What is his education? What is his credibility founded on? Do you even know the maker of the film? I mean you guys are so quick to question the government and the president (whom the majority of the country voted for...or are you questioning that there was a scandal involving President Bush's re-election as well? LOL) but you never question the education and such of the filmmaker. That doesn't make any sense.
Then you point to a document that is 40 years old. Mind you it holds no evidentiary relation to 9/11. Then you use that to say that the entire breadth government is corrupt. Just doesn't make any sense.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

I was talking to a friend about this thread. He made a good point. I never once noticed anyone on here questioning the credibility of the makers of these videos. Does anyone know anything about the makers. Stuff like; What are this guy’s political beliefs and history? What is his education? What is his credibility founded on? Do you even know the maker of the film? .

fail to see the connection. Physics cant be twisted to fit a political agenda.

Originally Posted by Randy

I mean you guys are so quick to question the government and the president (whom the majority of the country voted for...or are you questioning that there was a scandal involving President Bush's re-election as well? LOL) but you never question the education and such of the filmmaker. That doesn't make any sense.
Then you point to a document that is 40 years old. Mind you it holds no evidentiary relation to 9/11. Then you use that to say that the entire breadth government is corrupt. Just doesn't make any sense.

Well, it proves the government planned on killing its own people for political gain. Who is that NOT relevant?

I find it quite telling that you choose to ignore the questions and points I have brought up, instead falling back on name-calling.

[Randy]

Name calling? Where in that post was I name calling? If saying you guys are sheep being herded is name calling that offends you then I apologize. But it's the truth honestly. You see a video about 9/11 that's against the government. EVERYONE wants to believe that the government is corrupt or they want to catch the government in a lie. So you then believe every piece of info whether it be credible or not that is shown in that video just b/c it's something you want to believe. Like I said, sheep being herded.

[Randy]

I quoted the wrong document here. Link is to the Operation Northwoods document.

Link to this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

None of said suggestion involved killing innocent American civilians. Instead faking the death of "American students" in an unmanned drone. So tell me where it says the government planned to kill innocent Americans.
I'm the question dodger yet you also dodged my questions of the credibility of the film makers of these conspiracy theory films. Pot, kettle, black??

[Randy]

I'm in no way defending Operation Northwoods. So please don't think that. I'm just proving a point that a 40 year old document is not applicable to this day in age. Yes it was the government but it's not the same government. Just b/c our government officials are the government, doesn't mean they are the same government who proposed the Operation Northwoods. That was 40 years ago. Until you come up with documents validating "Operation 9/11" or some obsurd thing of the like, your idea is still simply a theory. You have no solid proof to this except for some film makers "facts" they've somehow come up with by watching the same exact footage we've all seen and personally come up with nothing of the like. On top of that, the film makers have absolutely no proof credibility toward the subject. Do you even know who made the films? There may be a name there but do you personally know them? Just some questions to ask yourselves.

[fcastle]

Originally Posted by Randy

I'm in no way defending Operation Northwoods. So please don't think that. I'm just proving a point that a 40 year old document is not applicable to this day in age. Yes it was the government but it's not the same government. Just b/c our government officials are the government, doesn't mean they are the same government who proposed the Operation Northwoods. That was 40 years ago. Until you come up with documents validating "Operation 9/11" or some obsurd thing of the like, your idea is still simply a theory. You have no solid proof to this except for some film makers "facts" they've somehow come up with by watching the same exact footage we've all seen and personally come up with nothing of the like. On top of that, the film makers have absolutely no proof credibility toward the subject. Do you even know who made the films? There may be a name there but do you personally know them? Just some questions to ask yourselves.

Fair enough. if you go back to my post, explain how we murdered those American Citizens? Let's not also forget that the President at publicly apologized for at least one genocidal incident. How do you so blindly assert that it just couldn't be possible that there is something a little funny going on? I'm not saying jump to the conclusion that the video wants, but I think the official line requires a little skepticism at least and definitely a little further investigation. The government lies to the people, that is a basic fact.

As to the position that people who disagree should just leave, that is strange to me as you would be living in a dictatorship if there weren't people who questioned the "official story."

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

.....None of said suggestion involved killing innocent American civilians. Instead faking the death of "American students" in an unmanned drone. So tell me where it says the government planned to kill innocent Americans....

Did you even read what you posted? Well, I did, and here it is:

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. "

"The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed"

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

I'm in no way defending Operation Northwoods. So please don't think that. I'm just proving a point that a 40 year old document is not applicable to this day in age. Yes it was the government but it's not the same government. Just b/c our government officials are the government, doesn't mean they are the same government who proposed the Operation Northwoods. That was 40 years ago..

Does not apply? Are you serious?

Well, the "official" version of events has less plausable theories than my take on the collapse of the Towers in NY. This is because I can back up my theroy with fact, with real life data.

[heathenbrewing]

As far as the black pots and kettles go, lets drop this and get to the meat and potatoes.

Are you up for a challange?

[yellow_sub]

whoa guys let not let this tun into the thread on the other site. please stick to the subject and let not let this get personal okay and out of hand.

Randy. although you may question the credibility of these videos and their makers i beg of you watch it and not have doubts about the attacks of 9/11. yes i agree that some of the points in the video may be a strech but for the most part it is very good solid irrefutable(sp?) facts. i posted the link to loose change 2 on the first page. please watch it and then let us know how you feel on the subject. i just about a year ago started finding out about these fact myself. i sat in the dark for nearly 4 years just believing what the media fed me about that day and though that these "theories" were absurd. then i started do research on it and my opinion totaly changed.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

whoa guys let not let this tun into the thread on the other site. please stick to the subject and let not let this get personal okay and out of hand....

Good call.

Lets try to keep this about the events of 9/11.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by fcastle

Fair enough. if you go back to my post, explain how we murdered those American Citizens? Let's not also forget that the President at publicly apologized for at least one genocidal incident. How do you so blindly assert that it just couldn't be possible that there is something a little funny going on? I'm not saying jump to the conclusion that the video wants, but I think the official line requires a little skepticism at least and definitely a little further investigation. The government lies to the people, that is a basic fact.

As to the position that people who disagree should just leave, that is strange to me as you would be living in a dictatorship if there weren't people who questioned the "official story."

People being skeptical and people all out claiming government scandal are two different things. Everyone is skeptical about almost everything. But some on here are flat out saying it's all the government's fault and they had everything to do with it. That's just obsurd.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by heathenbrewing

Did you even read what you posted? Well, I did, and here it is:

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. "

"The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed"

Please read the actual Operations Northwoods and not quotes from James Bamford, Body of Secrets. You quoted the James Bamford book. Not the document. Those are his beliefs on how that operation was going to be executed. Please read the actual government document and then re-think your post.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

whoa guys let not let this tun into the thread on the other site. please stick to the subject and let not let this get personal okay and out of hand.

Randy. although you may question the credibility of these videos and their makers i beg of you watch it and not have doubts about the attacks of 9/11. yes i agree that some of the points in the video may be a strech but for the most part it is very good solid irrefutable(sp?) facts. i posted the link to loose change 2 on the first page. please watch it and then let us know how you feel on the subject. i just about a year ago started finding out about these fact myself. i sat in the dark for nearly 4 years just believing what the media fed me about that day and though that these "theories" were absurd. then i started do research on it and my opinion totaly changed.

I agree with keeping it on topic but once he compared this situation to a 40 year old document, I had to state the obvious.
In my opinion, if just one thing any of these film makers point out in their video is that far fetched to believe as you say, then I wouldn't believe a word they say. if they are that willing to stretch a fact to help them, then they are credible. That's my opinion. They are complete theories. They have to stretch "facts" of these videos to support their theory. If you can present me total facts w/o having to stretch anything, then I'll think about it. But if you have to start stretching then it's done for me.

[yellow_sub]

Originally Posted by Randy

I agree with keeping it on topic but once he compared this situation to a 40 year old document, I had to state the obvious.
In my opinion, if just one thing any of these film makers point out in their video is that far fetched to believe as you say, then I wouldn't believe a word they say. if they are that willing to stretch a fact to help them, then they are credible. That's my opinion. They are complete theories. They have to stretch "facts" of these videos to support their theory. If you can present me total facts w/o having to stretch anything, then I'll think about it. But if you have to start stretching then it's done for me.

not that they are streched but that they aren't 100% relivent. it like i'm sitting there and i'll be like "what did that have to do with it". i should have phrased it differently. and, if you would, tell me how the gov. isn't streaching the facts. they told us that fires brought down the 2 biggest steel structures in the world yet the found a passport of a terrorist in the rubble. or that the fire at the pentagon was so intense that it disinergrated the plane yet they were still able to identify nearly all of the victims onboard. those are some pretty big strechs to me........

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

Please read the actual Operations Northwoods and not quotes from James Bamford, Body of Secrets. You quoted the James Bamford book. Not the document. Those are his beliefs on how that operation was going to be executed. Please read the actual government document and then re-think your post.

Nice edit by the way.

I was simply quoting what you posted.

Now Im not going to waste a lot of time quoting the actual document like I did quoting your post, but heres what I found with a quick glance:

...(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

There you go.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

not that they are streched but that they aren't 100% relivent. it like i'm sitting there and i'll be like "what did that have to do with it". i should have phrased it differently. and, if you would, tell me how the gov. isn't streaching the facts. they told us that fires brought down the 2 biggest steel structures in the world yet the found a passport of a terrorist in the rubble. or that the fire at the pentagon was so intense that it disinergrated the plane yet they were still able to identify nearly all of the victims onboard. those are some pretty big strechs to me........

Some more food for thought:


No Previous Skyscrapers Collapse Due to Fires
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,� provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…
The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.� (Glover, 2002)

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion� or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated� steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official� 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
As you observed , WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling� of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper). The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official� theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings when due to random causes. L'Ambiance Plaza collapse (right) shows how pancaked concrete floor slabs are largely intact and clearly reveal stacking effects with minimal fine dust, as expected from random progressive collapse. By contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust -- as is common in controlled demolitions using explosives.

On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using cutter-charges/explosives is the complete and straight-down-symmetrical collapse of buildings. The reader may wish to review controlled-demolition examples at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm for examples of complete symmetrical collapses due to carefully pre-positioned explosives. (The videos of the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses are particularly instructive.)

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory�] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

That is precisely the point: further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

[Randy]

"Does not apply? Are you serious?"

It has absolutely no factual application to 9/11.
What you’re doing is passing ethical judgment on today’s government based on suggestions made by the US Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of over forty years ago. Is it then your practice to hold people accountable for the sins of their fathers? A fair question given that you’re willing to accuse an administration eleven elections and forty four years later of carrying out the misguided proposals of their predecessors.
If our purpose in this discussion was to prove that there were unethical propositions made during the 1960’s, who’s purpose would be to garner public support for military action against Cuba … then be correct in your suggestion that Operation Northwoods has relevance, but we’re not discussing Cuba and this isn’t the 1960’s.

I'm not going to argue structural integrity of the towers and why they collapsed. I'm not an engineer nor would I claim to be even close to knowledgeable of the subject. I've seen no one questioning anything about the structural dexterity of the towers and questioning why they collapsed given the situation. If I read a document explaining why the towers collapsed structuraly, I wouldn't understand it anyway. So I will not go into that argument. Everyone can say that they shouldn't have collapsed given the situation but honestly no one will know. But of course conspiracy theorists will use that to support their theory. Even if they know squat about construction or anything of the sorts.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by Randy

"Does not apply? Are you serious?"

It has absolutely no factual application to 9/11.
What you’re doing is passing ethical judgment on today’s government based on suggestions made by the US Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of over forty years ago. Is it then your practice to hold people accountable for the sins of their fathers? A fair question given that you’re willing to accuse an administration eleven elections and forty four years later of carrying out the misguided proposals of their predecessors.
If our purpose in this discussion was to prove that there were unethical propositions made during the 1960’s, who’s purpose would be to garner public support for military action against Cuba … then be correct in your suggestion that Operation Northwoods has relevance, but we’re not discussing Cuba and this isn’t the 1960’s...

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it�
George Santayana


There is a lesson to be learned from ON. That is to not trust blindly. You should be researching what the gov't is saying about most issues and news stories of the day. An easy way to do that is with the internet, as you have the ability to look at several news sources within minutes of each other, covering a lot of the same stories. But note what is not mentioned in the US press as compared to foreign news sources.

What I am saying is just because a story is propagated by the US gov't, it does not mean it is 100% correct. If I have to go into giving examples to someone, then Im afraid there is nothing more to be said.

Originally Posted by Randy

I'm not going to argue structural integrity of the towers and why they collapsed. I'm not an engineer nor would I claim to be even close to knowledgeable of the subject. I've seen no one questioning anything about the structural dexterity of the towers and questioning why they collapsed given the situation. If I read a document explaining why the towers collapsed structuraly, I wouldn't understand it anyway. So I will not go into that argument. Everyone can say that they shouldn't have collapsed given the situation but honestly no one will know. But of course conspiracy theorists will use that to support their theory. Even if they know squat about construction or anything of the sorts.

So you are admitting then that you do not understand the governments explaination of why the Towers collapsed. You simply accept it as fact.

I can sympasize with that, as I had little knowledge of the laws of physics or skyscraper construction 5 years ago. But I did my homework, learned as much as I could, and then applied my knowledge to the situation at hand. Unfortunatly, that knowledge I attained altered my life in such a way that that I could never go back to what I knew previously. Like many other people, I too lost a loved one on that tragic day. I feel that has been a driving force behind my resolve to see clearly, to find the truth. Eric deserves at least that.

I understand most people will not take the kind of time I have to research a particular topic, but this is different because it touches me on a personal level.