September 11

[butter1]

I was watching a very interesting documentary last night about Sept 11 and it really got me thinking.  Was it a conspiracy planned by Bush?  I was just wondering what anyone else's thought's were on the subject?

[jno]

No it wasn't. Bush may be seven kinds of clot and unable to string a sentence together, but he's not a traitor. In fact given the American admiration of industry, wealth and power, it's hard to imagine any American planning to fly planes into skyscrapers on US soil; it's precisely because this was an attack on great American symbols that it was so shocking.

[butter1]

I just found this documentary very interesting as it pointed out many facts that cannot be answered?  Like Hillary Clinton says Ashcroft told her not to fly a few days before the event.  Why did the twin towers collapse as they were made out of steel and they were designed not to melt under extreme pressure.  Where they pulled?  You just don't know, but watching this doc really made me think.

[Aquariel]

Do a search on the net for the documentaries "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change" - they will show you far more than mainstream TV dare broadcast, especially as the evidence in them has yet to be refuted convincingly.

E.g. GWB said (several times, so it wasn't a slip) that he saw on TV the FIRST plane hit the tower and thought it was "pilot error" - odd because the first plane footage was never shown live, or indeed until well after it had happened, by which time GWB was in the school classroom and couldn't have seen it.

[Loosehead]

Steel get's hot and melts when tons of aviation fuel is burning around it. The force of floors collapsing overwelmed the structure.

No it wasn't Bush and it was the titanic and men did go to the moon, now can we stop all this conspiracy cobblers!

[butter1]

Loosehead, can i just say everyone has a right to ask a question and so if you don't like what i'm asking....simple.... don't reply!!  I cannot stand people that just jump down other people's throats and be rude and sarcastic when they don't agree with what they are saying. 

[Aquariel]

Loosehead - the steel in the 2 towers was designed to withstand way more than burning jet fuel temperatures - that's why no other buildings have ever collapsed from planes hitting them ...

And how about building 7?  The owner said in an interview that they decided to pull it down on the day due to extensive "smoke" damage.  You need weeks of planning to wire a building for demolition ...

I suppose we will never know for certain, but there's certainly a lot of intriguing inconsistencies and cover-ups.  The debate will rage for years no doubt - just like JFK, etc.

[Loosehead]

Sorry Butter I didn't mean to offend, it's just that all the conspiracy theories have been "Done to death" on here and it can some times be exasperating! You're right about not replying, it's just that sometimes I feel an overwelming urge to try and enlighten.

[butter1]

That's ok Loosehead, it's just I watched the doc last night and was really taken in by it...and just wanted to see what other people thought.  I suppose its the same as other people keep asking the same questions over again, but isn't that what this site is for?

[Loosehead]

Aquariel,Steel melts, ie becomes liquid at around 1400 degrees C. It is very soft way before that, think black smiths, they only get metal to red hot and it's workable. Are you saying that the steel wasn't steel?? Some other material perhaps? Do a google the collaps process is described very thouroughly in several places.

 What is Building 7?  Do you mean the building that was badly damaged as a result of the 2 towers collapsing?

[Loosehead]

Your question is valid and not a repeat, I was just referring to the fairly regular occurences of "conspiracy theories" You see there is a whole industry selling books, DVD's etc relying on people believing what these peddlars put out, so I feel sad when I see they've hooked another victim and try and help. 

[butter1]

I understand what you are saying Loosehead, but I does make you think when you hear all the facts and hear what witnesses have to say who were there at the time, i.e. police and firefights.  Also, hearing that at least 10 important people were told not to fly on the day of 9/11.  When listening to all this and more it makes you think, what is for power and to take away people's freedom...it just something that no one will truly ever know.  Building 7 collapsed when it wasn't even damaged by the fire...it collapsed in the same form as if it was pulled (pulled meaning wire for demolition)...this building contand govenment papers.  How did this building catch fire when other buildings next door to the twin towers were fine.  The twin towers and building 7 were bought by Silverstein 2 months before 9/11.  It just seems strange.

[Aquariel]

Loosehead - steel doesnt melt until about 3000 degrees Fahrenheit, and the steel in the towers was fireproofed as well - it just doesn't add up!  If the steel did indeed "melt" then it certainly wasn't due to jet fuel, which doesn't produce enough heat to do that  Firefighters at the scene have all described explosives going off in both towers prior to them falling.

Have a look at this site:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I'm not saying they're right, or wrong, but at least they put the questions and evidence out there to let us decide for ourselves.

It's also interesting that Marvin Bush (yes, Dubya's bro) was head of the company providing security for the towers.

[Loosehead]

Most of the "anomolies" are explained here.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/28/104931/652

Google for "911 conspiracy theory" and there are countless sites that debunk.

[Loosehead]

Ok Aquareil so you agree with me I was quoting Centigrade for steel so where about equivalent there. It would have to melt anyway just get soft enough. See my answer to butter above.

[Loosehead]

....It wouldn't have to melt.....

[butter1]

i think we will agree to disagree on this one folks!

[Loosehead]

Ok ref!

[butter1]

he he... ref indeed!!! lol

[brachiopod]

These programmes set out with the aim to produce an apparent conspiracy by highlighting certain facts and omitting others. Not having seen the programme in question, (nor knowing detailed facts about the construction of nearby buildings, their contents nor the spread pattern of debris/aviation fuel after impact, or of rubble after the tower' collapse etc), I shall have to rely on a fictional scenario to illustrate.

Consider the following 'facts';

Bulidings A, B, C & D are all next to the WTC Towers.

Buildings A, C & D are made of concrete and steel. Building B is made of cardboard.
All buildings contain Government papers except for building D.
Buildings C & D changed ownership 9 days ago, Building B changed ownership exactly one month ago.
Buldings A,C & D stand on minor roads 60m from the towers, Building B stands on a main access thoroughfare 25m from the towers.

Now, when I make my 'documentary' I include the following lines;

"Building B, which contained top secret Government papers, (and which just so happened to be bought by XYZ inc. exactly a month before), was the only building out of those next to the tower to catch fire. In the aftermath of the event, Building B was immediately demolished even before any attempt by rescue services to gain access to the actual site of the towers."

Nothing in the above statement can be said to be factually incorrect.

(cont.)

[brachiopod]

(Cont)

But with a little -

embellishment ( 'top secret', '..just so happened...')
emphasis ('...exactly one month...'),
omission (the fact that other buildings contained Government papers too; Building B was the only one made of cardboard)
and a lack of explanation (Building B would have been in a dangerous state as it was the closest to the towers, and would be overhanging the main route rescue services would have to take - hence it would be demolished before any rescue operation could start.)

- I can turn a number of carefully selected facts into something that sounds distinctly dodgy, and thus add weight to my 'conspiracy' argument.

This populist way of creating and perpetuating conspiracy theories applies whether it's 11/9, The Moon Landings, JFK or Who Killed Bambi.

Armed with the full facts, most conspiracy arguments could be shot down very easily, but most of us, as laymen, would not have the time and inclination to do all the necessary research. If we did, we'd probably want to recoup our time and expense by writing a book about it - and what sells? Err... conspiracy theories.