9/11 Conspiracy

Miscellaneous History
81

But this is my point: The fed is documented, the swindle is out in the open in plain view for anyone with an interest in the facts and the details to scrutinize. But instead of the newspapers and magazines, and the TV commentators, and the universities, and the prominent think-tanks, all pointing out the fraudulent nature of our monetary system, and the collusion between the state and private bankers for the purpose of cartelizing the banking industry to allow for inflation in unison for the purpose of bilking the public to the benefit of the lenders and the early borrowers on Wall Street, not to mention the state, people instead conclude that the swindle, rather than being a swindle, is actually beneficial to them.

Similarly, the WTC7 tower’s collapse is well documented via video. It is well established that no plane hit it, that it fell in the way that imploded buildings implode. That the 9/11 commission did not explain how it managed to do this. And yet, surprise surprise, the masses do not suspect that building was imploded. Why? Because the same Establishment propaganda institutions that they look to to warn them about a fraudulent banking system, that fails to warn them, also fails to point out to them the strangeness of the collapse of WTC7 and in fact the other two towers as well. It’s very parallel.

82

I am unaware that this is the explanation of WTC7’s collapse. Is this from the 9/11 commission’s report? Could you provide the quotes and the location you obtain it from. If this is truly the case, i’m staying out of modern steel frame structures.

83

Before this became such a popular topic online I could easily find quotes on google. I gotta dig into some architecture site or something but now if you type in stuff about “designed to implode” or something it comes up with 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

The gist of it is that you are safe going into modern buildings unless they have been hit by planes or have thousands of gallons of diesel burning inside them.

84

No worries mate. I don’t expect you to look for this or find it. I was just being rhetorical. Any engineer that designs a building to collapse on itself rather than stay vertical under any and all conditions is someone qualified only for government work. I’d put him to work ASAP as head of the drug war.

85

Ages ago ..like in 2002 I e-mailed Gerald May about the structures when a majority of the conspiracy theory focused on the twin towers instead of wtc 7. He was quoted out of context in this article and he was the one who told me about the structural design of steel structures in a way an idiot like me could understand. So I since switched service providers and lost the e-mail…So to be fair I am talking as someone who recieved “Structural Design For Dummies” in “Cliff Notes” format six years ago…I may have forgotten the gist.

But this is the article that he was initially misquoted in at the start of this revision (started by people who were far away from it I might add)

http://web.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_structur.shtml

86

For those of you who missed my previous post or would like an excellent summary of the content in this series of posts, I suggest following this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

This ought to get you up to speed rather quickly.

87

And this ought to put into perspective Steven Jones’ wild goose chase after thermite as the agent behind CD. I feel bad for the man, he seems like an ok guy. It’s unfortunate that he’s become completely convinced of this funny tale; before this he did valuable things such as teaching students, etc. Now he panders to those taking clozapine.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

88

I must admit, I’ve really never given much pause of thought to this whole issue one way or the other. Seeing the video of the planes flying into the twin towers, etc. etc. OK for me not a whole lot there to go another route but I am willing and will look at what others have to say. You can’t deny the falsehood of the Gulf of Tonkin admitted by McNamara himself and also LBJ in recent document releases from that era and it’s hard to deny IMO that the Japanese were goarded into Pearl Harbor by US earlier actions of oil embargo so there is a bit of history of the US gov’t playing the sides of the Hegelian Dialectic for it’s own ends.

Of what I’ve seen so far, the video of WTC 7 seems the most compelling. Now one might argue that fire internally caused the damge to such an extent that bringing down the building was the best thing as far as public safety is concerned would be to do. I’d buy that pretty quickly. And here in lay IMO the perfect cover for such an action. That said, why did they not use that cover story to begin with.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve determinded that WTC 7 is so damaged it is beyond salvage and poses a current greater risk. We’ve decided to imploded the building as best we can to stop the spread of fire and to insure public safety so at this time those arrangements are being made and the area is being pulled back for public safety prior to implosion. There will be another public announcement when everything is ready and within 30 minutes of implosion. Thank You.”

Where would conspiracy theories go then? The perfect cover is in hand but to my knowledge they never took advantage of it. Why not? Instead they sat silent and engaged in acts suggesting something is afoot via actions of later media concerns.

I think it is safe to say that our gov’t knew something was afoot and I’m of a mind to believe Israeli and Pakistani Intel was aware of the finer details of the plot. On that point I find it very hard that certain elements of the Pro-Israel Neo-Conservative cabal that is parasitically attached to Washington was ignorant of the events about to unfold.

To what lenghts there is a conspiracy or a conspiracy at all, I’m no expert or even novice at for that fact but there is something amiss when one begins to really look a bit further. The WTC 7 video sure makes one sit back and take long pause in thought. I know it has me now that I’ve watched it!

89

Larry Silverstein owned the WTC buildings and had taken out a big insurance policy on them just before 9/11. He is on tape admitting that Building 7 was ‘pulled’ (demolition term for bringing down a building). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 Perhaps this too has been debunked, Edward?

His economics are insane, but Webster Tarpley is the premiere thinker on the 9/11 story. Check out this series of lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfvmt4HONbU

Or better yet, read his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.

Pull the loose 9/11 threads and you’ll end up at the people running the Federal Reserve. If you Austrians are serious about change, this is your ticket.

90

I’m convinced that many powerful people the government had the motivation and resources to pull off such a hoax.

I am equally convinced that they lack anything close to the competence that would have been needed to do so.

91

I’m torn. On the one hand, I believe wholeheartedly that the U.S. foreign policy is the major instigator of blowback terrorism by Islamic extremists. On the other hand, I believe the U.S. government is none too saddened by all the power it has accrued since 9/11/2001. Added to this, the fact that the government’s official story about the events of 9/11 leaves more questions than answers; the fact that most of the scientists corroborating the government story are funded by the government, while many of the scientists who claim the government story is too full of holes are not funded by the government; the fact that hydrocarbon jet fuel burning at 1800°F cannot melt steel beams that have a melting point of 2800°F, even without the protection of asbestos; the evidence of buildings falling straight down into their own footprints, steel beams cut at 45° angles in the wreckage, molten steel smoking with the color of burning thermite, video evidence of explosions in the collapsing towers at abour every 6th floor heading downward; the testimony of firefighters and policemen that they heard explosions in the two towers and in Tower 7; Dick Cheney’s commandeering of NORAD on 9/11 and his dispersal of our Air Force fighter jets to places far away from NY, DC, and PA, for the purpose of engaging in simulated excercises against mock terrorist attacks fo planes flying into buildings; Cheney’s 1999 PNAC (Progress for a New American Century) in which he expresses his desire for America to become the global leader in all aspects of life, and his claim that we have the mightiest military in ther world, yet all we need is “another Pearl Harbor” to put the ball in motion; and the media’s coining of the term “another Pearl Harbor” as a description of the 9/11 attack; all this and much more leaves me more confused than satisfied about this issue. 9/11 would seem like an opportunistic pretext to move forth with the actions necessary to bring Cheney’s wish of global domination to fruition through perpetual war (since 9/11 is a good reason to go after “those people”) . I could indeed reconcile my suspicions of 9/11 with the fact that our foreign policy is indeed the cause of the blowback, yet might the government have enough guile and cunning to “help along” those people who hate us because of our empire-building, regime-changing, terror-funding ways? I look at it this way–if a regular Joe Shmoe like me can conceive it, then chances are pretty darn good that people in positions of power with a global agenda could not only conceive it but also achieve it.

92

@ FriendsOfLliberty

Totally agree. Blowback explains how a rogue network can easily recruit patsies to take the fall. But the execution had to involve high-level elements within government (whose strings are pulled by efficient, ruthless handlers, not beaurocratic bumblers). Bush was also not likely involved in the planning of the event, rather told afterwards ‘get on board or you’re dead’. The spookiest part of the attacks is where ‘Angel is next’ and other coded messages were received by Bush’s security team. It was later denied, as well you’d expect, because that is the crucial moment where the rogue network showed their hand, made themselves visible.

I used to be sceptical of the 9/11 truther’s claims, largely because the movement comes across as juvenile. I was also bamboozled by the Popular Mechanics debunking. Check out Webster Tarpley’s videos on YouTube. Like I said, forget about his economic policies (or his worship of FDR and Lincoln)- the guy is a brilliant political analyst (and he wants to get rid of the fed, so he can’t be all that crazy). Also check out David Ray Griffin, his talks are what got me reconsidering the official version.

93

I’m new to this forum, but I would consider myself an expert on 9/11. I started researching 9/11 in 2005, that lead me to watch films like America: Freedom to Fascism and learning about the Federal Reserve. Then when Ron Paul started his run for President, I started listening to all of Paul’s speeches and that lead me here. I don’t really talk about 9/11 much anymore because I feel that the economy is a much more important issue and I‘ve been spending my time learning about Austrian Economics these days.

You might be interested to know that 95% of 9/11 Truthers support Ron Paul, they want to shut down the FED, and probably believe in Austrian Economics (though many I’m sure have never really studied it). If I didn’t learn the truth about 9/11, I probably also wouldn’t have learned the truth about economics and wouldn’t find myself reading and listening to all the great material here on the mises site.

So if you’re wondering what this whole “9/11 Conspiracy” stuff is all about… you really have to spend some time to look into some of the issues. You’re probably not going to be convinced by what someone types in a forum post. People can come up with all sorts of reason why they belive it impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job and they tend to be sweeping statements that attempt to discredit all conspiracy theories, rather than looking at the specific facts of this particular incident.

The easiest way to look at 9/11, is basically to look at it like a modern day Reichstag fire. Sure, it was far more complex, but the basic elements are the same. Hitler burnt down the Reichstag, just as Bush brought down the towers (not to say that Bush was the mastermind, but I’m sure there were several Neo-Cons who got their hands dirty, such as the ones in PNAC and of course, the CFR.)

The first video I recommend to people is a 15min video about the collapse of the third building, WTC 7. I haven’t met any intelligent person who has been able to watch the 15min video and not scratch their head a few times. So spend the 15min to watch the video when you get the chance.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739

Then, if you want to spend a bit of time to really see some of the strong evidence… you should watch Loose Change Final Cut… it’s about 2 hours long.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

These videos are really the best way to learn about this stuff because you really have to see it with your own two eyes. So if you watch those two videos and still think it was 19 guys with box cutters… well then, at least now you’re making a relatively informed opinion.

There’s all sorts of people who are willing to admit that the Bush Administration let the attacks happened on purpose, or failed to prevent them because of Government incompetence, or simply just use the attacks as a spring board…. And there are certainly strong arguments to be made for each of cases. But it really comes down to whether you believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 could have fallen like that from fire. And within the 9/11 movement, there is no longer any disagreement on the theory of controlled demolition.

I made this website a few years ago… I haven’t updated it much lately, but it’s still got some good information.

http://www.truth911.net

I’d be happy to answer questions you might have.

94

Plowking,

I’m sympathetic to “9/11 Truthers,” in that 9/11 was just what the neocons had been praying for. If they could have managed it, they wouldn’t have hesitated to stage 9/11. It’s easy to believe that they ignored early warnings for several reasons, and that one of the reasons was that a terrorist attack wouldn’t be unwelcome. So although I’m confident it wasn’t an inside job, it easily could have been. It’s just that it happens not to have been, as far as currently available evidence indicates.

Folks who mock the truthers are victims of a false dichotomy: either the government staged 9/11; or else the government is completely trustworthy and blameless. I view it more like a gangland murder. It’s possible that Frankie Bonano didn’t do it–but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have, or wouldn’t have, and it doesn’t mean he’s an innocent man. It just means that he happens not to have committed this crime.

On the other hand, I think the truthers hurt their own best interests by taking an extreme position without conclusive evidence. Bush didn’t plan 9/11, but it was still the answer to his prayers, and he still exploited it to commit high crimes and misdemeanors domestically, and war crimes internationally. Arguing about who did it distracts us from the critical point that government is exploiting it to construct a police state.

–Len.

95

When I talked to the 911 “truthers” about stuff other than 9/11 it was almost like two peas in a pod…except for the 9/11 stuff. Having witnessed it (as in being there and seeing it) it is impossible for me to think otherwise. Now the focus is in 7 WTC but in 2002 when the rumblings of this started it was on the twin towers as being brought down by demolitions…Which I saw and they were not demolitions. Didn’t see 7 WTC fall and not many people did either since the area was pretty cleared by then.

Anyway, the truthers are OK in my book. I would consider them to be allies in most other areas I just think they are mistaken on 9/11.

96

I also don’t buy the actual Twin Towers coming down by demo either. To me, it the impact of the planes, the resulting fire weakening the upper super structure and then failure and the pancake effect. However, I just watched the 15 minute video linked earlier to goggle on the WTC 7 Building and it does make one ask a number of questions IMO. I mean, it would seem to me that preparing that building for implosion would take longer than 7 hours so this would mean the prep was started before the Twin Towers were hit. That said, WHY? What was in that building that would require such measures? This just seems beyond logic and comprehension and therefore just to unbelievable. But going back to the video, there’s to much there to make one still question the potential of what would seem impossible.

Bringing down a building gutted by fire in that scenario on the surface would seem logical from a public safety standpoint and I’d buy that wholeheartedly but can such prep be done in a few hours for what normally takes days? Watching the surprise on the Dutch demo expert’s face when told all this really did happen on 9/11 was a very telling moment for me. And then to hear Dan Rather report the building was demo’d as well as public responders on the street telling observers to get back as the building was about to be brought down, someone obviously of a official capacity had to have told that line for it to be so far spread at the scene itself.

9/11 is what it is and I agree with others that the root cause is US foreign policy blowback from 20th Century merchantilist economic agression and monopoly protection. But WTC 7 seems for some odd reason to be seperate cause from the other incidents of that day. I think 9/11 Truthers would be best served on focusing on that one incident alone because IMO what little I’ve seen so far and I mean little, the WTC 7 material far outweighs anything else by lightyears.

JMO.

97

I’m completely unqualified to answer your question. But I’m confident that, say, military demolition experts could bring down the average building in about the time it takes to set the charges. When they spend “days” planning a demolition, I’m sure that most of that time is spent reviewing blueprints, double-checking things, etc., to minimize the danger of an error. On 9/11, the area was evacuated, and they didn’t mind taking a chance on dropping the building onto neighboring structures.

–Len.

98

You might as well hang it up, my friend. What amazes me about this forum is the ego trip many are on. I won’t mention any names as to not inflate their egos, but their heads are so big that it is impossible to actually sit down and have a conversation about science. They just post links and criticize mindlessly, avoiding issues that deserve much more attention than they get. What amazes me even more is that they are so quick to mix their scientific analyses together, usually in a desparate attempt to use praxeology to explain the movement of physical objects.

Some even have the nerve to essentially call physicists “kooks” because their findings do not conform with the ego trippers’ pathetic “praxeological” assumptions.

It is absolutely absurd to sit here and talk about whether or not “the government did it.” The focus should be on how the buildings came down in the first place. And it is so easy to say that “the planes knocked them down,” plug the ears and hum something to the effect of “la la la, I can’t hear you. I’m right and you’re an idiot truther, blowback, blowback, blowback…” The same goes for the so-called “truthers” too.

If ANY progress is going to be made (IMHO absolutely NOTHING has been accomplished here), it will be necessary to step away from ALL assumptions and get to work on researching various theories as to why the buildings actually came down in the first place. Then do everything possible to find flaws in the theories. STICK WITH PHYSICS, FOLKS!!! ONLY after resolving the issue of how the buildings came down can the praxeological theories even begin to make any sense and I don’t need a lecture on apriori synthetic truths. Praxeology and physics are two different sciences!

99

If ANY progress is to be made in promoting liberty and freedom through out the world, you need to stop wasting your time with fantastical conspiracy theories claiming that a couple of government officials orchestrated 9/11. It not only wastes countless hours of valuable time which could be spent promoting real causes like libertarianism, it makes the cause of liberty look like something only a bunch of paranoid kooks adhere too. Listen, if you want to believe that a couple of all powerful government officials orchestrated 9/11 (which is implied when you assume that something besides 19 terrorists took it down), fine, obviously there’s no hope in changing your mind. The overwhelming number of physicists are not on your side.

But what’s REALLY important is that we promote the cause of freedom, and the only way to open the minds of others to its magnificence is to stop ranting about grand conspiracy theories. Many layman unfamiliar with Libertarianism and Austrian economics who are naturally opposed to authority have turned away from the ideas of Ron Paul and the unhampered free market because a bunch of “truthers” adhere to these same principles.

I’m not saying to stop believing what you believe. But seriously, STOP parading around like anything is going to result because of your “inquiries”. Nothing is going to happen other than you turning off many potential followers of freedom. It does far more harm than good.

100

What did you expect? This is an economics forum. I doubt we have many experts in physics here, much less build engineers, so of course people here will either give you pointers to documents that contradict your theories or will discuss the wonders and faillings of government planning. What baffles me is people that represent the event with such simplicity as, for instance, comparing it with controlled demolition and saying that it doesn’t feel right that they looked similar. Physics is a very different study field of that of economics – it rarely work as the common joe would predict. I’m sure you too get surprised by simple experiments like the ones from Myth Busters – hell, even the hosts at times do. Physics themselves build actual models to test these sort of things.