9/11 - 12 years later

I am scum of the earth and moron though. It has nothing to do with this topic

so you have no problem with the fact that the building fell at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, which is physically impossible to do with office fires? To fall at free fall speed all of the inner supporting columns have to fail at exactly the same time. Again, physically impossible unless something cut or severed the core columns all at the same time to give it the ability to give absolutely no resistance when collapsing.

There has never, ever been a collapse like this in history. Sky-scrapers much older than this building have suffered much more severe damage, burned for several more hours, had much less structural integrity than this modern highly advanced building with a built in bomb bunker in it, and yet this building is the only one to collapse in such a manner.




This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. The building was in freefall for a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.
-----
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measu... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I am scum of the earth and moron though. It has nothing to do with this topic

agreed. Derogatory hateful terms like that have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this topic. It's unfortunate they found their way into this thread.

You're not so bad though bbc

yep... real "fucking Moron"

Glad to see you still posting here Oggy.

So Oggy who flew those planes in the those buildings? Who was the one that planned those attacks? What about the reports of people fighting back on the planes, is that a fake? Was this not a planned attack with those planes being strategically crashed by terrorist pilots trained on where to hit those buildings? If this was not an act of terrorism then how many people were in involved in this conspiracy? How many people are keeping this secret?

freakzilla wrote:

Glad to see you still posting here Oggy.

rethought it. Not gonna let the trolls win. I post on!

I'm not kidding dude. I honestly do think the wind, shaking, and fire brought down wtc7. It wasn't a natural occurrence and all those experts have no way of telling me how or what caused it to fall. I like my idea because I saw it on the history channel a.d or seems logical enough for me. Remember two building fell creating winds of up to 200mph and the shaking and falling debris had to have done damage. That and the fire, and possible gas leaks were too much for the building to handle. Also, how old was that building?

OU, one of the guys flying the plane was Muhammad Atta. I can't remember the other guy's names. I remember his name because he looked like the Muslim version of my dad. I'm sure the other guy's were part of bin ladens posse. I'm doing pretty good here today.

My facts and sarcasm are on point today!

Oggy is studying hurricanes and earthquakes as i type this, lol

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

I'm not kidding dude. I honestly do think the wind, shaking, and fire brought down wtc7. It wasn't a natural occurrence and all those experts have no way of telling me how or what caused it to fall. I like my idea because I saw it on the history channel a.d or seems logical enough for me. Remember two building fell creating winds of up to 200mph and the shaking and falling debris had to have done damage. That and the fire, and possible gas leaks were too much for the building to handle. Also, how old was that building?

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.

4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.

5) 2,000+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7, specifying that it should include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.

6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building’s owner.

7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.


Im not quite sure how you so easily dismiss the opinion of over 2,000 professionally licensed architects, engineers, demolotion experts,
and say "all those experts have no way of telling me how or what caused it to fall". Well. actually, yes they do. See they do this for a living. They are experts on physics, engineering, demolition, and other areas that are clearly related to determining how a building came down. They all put their professions and reputations on the line to come out and question this collapse. There needs to be a new investigation because the first one was a sham. That is clear. The fact that they didn't test a building for explosives that had a perfectly symmetrical collapse into it's own footprint at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance is a serious red flag, smoking gun, and alarms should be ringing right there. That is a dead giveaway that this was covered up, not investigated.

oggy420 wrote:

freakzilla wrote:

Glad to see you still posting here Oggy.

rethought it. Not gonna let the trolls win. I post on!

Good man!

You never mentioned the other factors. I saw and heard experts say these things. Sounds like someone's experts are wrong. My experts have hurricane winds, two earthquakes, and hell fire

Pretty sure I won this right cheer

Oh and my experts have two cargo planes full of fuel and proof of Al Queda committing the crimes

OU wrote:

So Oggy who flew those planes in the those buildings? Who was the one that planned those attacks? What about the reports of people fighting back on the planes, is that a fake? Was this not a planned attack with those planes being strategically crashed by terrorist pilots trained on where to hit those buildings? If this was not an act of terrorism then how many people were in involved in this conspiracy? How many people are keeping this secret?

I never said I had all the answers.

Let me answer these questions by asking more questions that actually go with the official story, yet still make absolutely no sense. Maybe you know everything...

Soon after the September 11th attacks, the US government actively tried to minimize and oppress information relating to a possible role in the attacks by Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the 9-11 Commission cleared Saudi Arabia of any role in the terrorist attacks despite many anomalies including the fact that 15 of the 19 high jackers were actually from Saudi Arabia.

So OU, if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why did we attack Iraq and become allies with Saudi Arabia?



In December 2002 Congress released its’ Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the 9-11 terrorist attacks. When released, this document contained 28 pages of redacted information that allegedly pointed to foreign state-sponsorship of the attacks, specifically Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to ascertain the contents of the censored 28-pages of the report.

So OU, why did the 911 commission report blank out 28 pages from their report which indicates the state of Saudi Arabia had some part in sponsoring the attacks?





Years earlier, in August 2002, victim family members publically announced a $1 trillion lawsuit against alleged Saudi bank rollers of Osama Bin Laden. This lawsuit has been stalled and defeated at every turn. In November 2002, the lawsuit became even bigger and costlier at $15 trillion dollars as more than three-dozen new defendants were added, including members of the Saudi Royal Family. Interestingly, three members of the Saudi royal family have since been given legal immunity from prosecution. Attorneys for the victims' families told the Staten Island Advance in 2006, that it could be "another several years before the lawsuit goes to trial. "


Why were 3 members of the Saudi Royal family given immunity from prosecution? Why is the role of Saudi Arabis in the 9/11 attacks clearly being covered up?





In July of 2003 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland was interviewed by Frank Sesno of PBS. In that interview, he stated: "You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section."

The 2008 book “The Commission”, by New York Times reporter Philip Shennon revealed that 9/11 Commission Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow blocked other 9/11 commissioners who were working on the Saudi connections from accessing the 28-page redacted section.

In August 2003, an anonymous official told New Republic magazine that the 28-page redacted section outlines “connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family.”

Again I pose the same questions. If Saudi Arabia represents 15 of the 19 hijackers and bankrolled Osama bin laden... than why such an effort to clear them of all wrong doing?

Think about it man. Saudi Arabians attacked us and we go to war with Iraq? I know even you are smart enough to know that doesn't add up.





In September of 2004, a month after the official close of the 9/11 Commission, Senator Bob Graham accused the White House of covering-up the involvement of Saudi government officials in the 9/11 plot.

Despite attempts by family members to get this information made public and promises from the Obama administration to do so, the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9-11 remain secret and are likely to remain so. In May of 2010, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan refused to give the victims' families’ lawsuit a hearing. Her argument was that US foreign policy would be interfered with if the lawsuit was allowed to go ahead.

Secrecy continues to cloud the possible role of Saudi Arabia in the events of September 11th. Despite calls from members of Congress, victims family members, and even one of the 9-11 Commissioners to dig deeper into the role of Saudi Arabia, no such inquiry has yet to take place. Why would the US government and the 9-11 Commission protect Saudi Arabia?

how did the media report the collapse of building 7 20 minutes before it actually happened?

Dude I'm gonna wait until I go to Louisville to knock off the ex, visit, the kids, and use my laptop to show you my awesomeness. This touchscreen and my hangover agent gonna do.


I'll leave you with this, Saddam used poison gas on Iran and his people. The facts and dead bodies don't lie. Saddam also said he would use gas on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US before and after 9-11

The above photograph shows fires in World Trade Center 7 at roughly 3 p.m

If the FEMA and NIST collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.

bigbeastcardinal12 wrote:

Dude I'm gonna wait until I go to Louisville to knock off the ex, visit, the kids, and use my laptop to show you my awesomeness. This touchscreen and my hangover agent gonna do.


I'll leave you with this, Saddam used poison gas on Iran and his people. The facts and dead bodies don't lie. Saddam also said he would use gas on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US before and after 9-11

Poison gas that we have him. We told him to invade Kuwait, he was a western puppet, we said jump, he said how high. Then we bombed him for it and declared the 1st gulf war. Then 911 happened.


The Bush administration’s primary justification for launching the Iraq War is thought, probably correctly, to be an alleged WMD program that did not exist. The coterie of delusional neoconservatives surrounding Bush and Cheney contributed to a systematic process of cherry-picking dubious intelligence and outright manipulation of evidence in order to satisfy a political decision that had already been made to change the regime in Iraq through a war of aggression.

Inspectors who said they didn’t exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

Significant portions of Americans still believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and cooperated in the 9/11 attacks. The reason is simple: the administration told them this lie.

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.

Keeping this lie afloat took some work. The Bush administration, primarily Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, “applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime,” McClatchy reported in 2009.

According to Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Bush’s Secretary of State Powell, “the administration authorized harsh interrogation” in 2002, and “its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the detainee captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, eventually provided that smoking gun. He claimed knowledge of an Iraq-Qaeda connection because it was tortured out of him. The Bush administration cited it as evidence for the Iraq War’s greatest lie.

Other lies were told to this effect. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and, when asked by Tim Russert whether “Iraq was involved in September 11,” mentioned a “report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

In fact, the CIA had told Cheney this report was false a day before his Meet the Press appearance. In a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room, the CIA concluded that “11 September 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000.” Cheney cited it anyways.

Two years later, on September 14, 2003, Cheney appeared once again on Meet the Press. Russert asked him if he was “surprised” by the fact that “69 percent” of Americans believe Saddam “was involved in the September 11 attacks.”

“I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection,” Cheney said. “With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.” In reality, it had been conclusively discredited years earlier.

As Paul Pillar, former CIA analyst and National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, wrote in his recent book: “The supposed alliance between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’ida clearly did not drive the Bush administration’s decision to launch the war [in Iraq] because the administration was receiving no indications that any such alliance existed,” adding that “this fact did not stop the administration from nonetheless promoting publicly the notion of such an alliance.”


By August 2003, after another year that included the most intensive selling of the war, more than two-thirds of Americans thought Saddam had been involved in 9/11. Some of this belief was due to innuendo such as the vice president’s repeated references to a phantom meeting in Prague between an Iraqi and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. It was due mostly to the administration’s rhetorical drumbeat that repeatedly mentioned Iraq, 9/11, and “war on terror” in the same breath.


Pillar is right: the Saddam-Qaeda connection did not drive the Bush administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq. But it did drive the administration’s propaganda campaign to generate public support for the war.

This was absolutely critical to the blank check that the vast majority of Americans gave to Bush and Cheney to go to war. Alleged WMDs, I think, could never have achieved the level of popular support for war crimes against Iraq on its own. The pain and indignation Americans felt after being attacked on 9/11 needed to be exploited for a war of choice as brazen as Iraq to gain support. And the record is clear that the Bush administration fostered this deception, employing torture and citing false intelligence to do so.

The record is clear, but the CIA is still trying to cover it up, as Marcy Wheeler has recently noted.

Many lies were told to justify the Iraq War. But none were as baseless and vital as this one. At the risk of joining the parade of idiots predicting “the judgement of history” on Iraq, I would anticipate the Saddam-Qaeda connection lie as the most important, far surpassing the more popularized WMD claims.

Both towers , wtc 7 , and the Hilton across the street collapsed

Al Qaeda exists

1998 embassy bombings
2000 USS cole
9-11
Shoe bomber
Madrid bombings
7-7 London attacks
Mumbai attacks

These people exist , it isn't your government that did these attacks
It was your government , mainly condi rice who failed to prevent these attacks
They did not do this on purpose they simply did not understand the level of the threat that al Qaeda posed

Two Books that are based on unequivocal fact that I suggest you read
The Looming Tower
Black Banners

Bird

you seem to know everything that has ever happened in the middle east....

let me ask you some questions that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. This is all according to the official story.

Soon after the September 11th attacks, the US government actively tried to minimize and oppress information relating to a possible role in the attacks by Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the 9-11 Commission cleared Saudi Arabia of any role in the terrorist attacks despite many anomalies including the fact that 15 of the 19 high jackers were actually from Saudi Arabia.

So Bird, if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why did we attack Iraq and become allies with Saudi Arabia?



In December 2002 Congress released its’ Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the 9-11 terrorist attacks. When released, this document contained 28 pages of redacted information that allegedly pointed to foreign state-sponsorship of the attacks, specifically Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to ascertain the contents of the censored 28-pages of the report.

So Bird, why did the 911 commission report blank out 28 pages from their report which indicates the state of Saudi Arabia had some part in sponsoring the attacks?





Years earlier, in August 2002, victim family members publically announced a $1 trillion lawsuit against alleged Saudi bank rollers of Osama Bin Laden. This lawsuit has been stalled and defeated at every turn. In November 2002, the lawsuit became even bigger and costlier at $15 trillion dollars as more than three-dozen new defendants were added, including members of the Saudi Royal Family. Interestingly, three members of the Saudi royal family have since been given legal immunity from prosecution. Attorneys for the victims' families told the Staten Island Advance in 2006, that it could be "another several years before the lawsuit goes to trial. "


Why were 3 members of the Saudi Royal family given immunity from prosecution? Why is the role of Saudi Arabis in the 9/11 attacks clearly being covered up?





In July of 2003 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland was interviewed by Frank Sesno of PBS. In that interview, he stated: "You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section."

The 2008 book “The Commission”, by New York Times reporter Philip Shennon revealed that 9/11 Commission Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow blocked other 9/11 commissioners who were working on the Saudi connections from accessing the 28-page redacted section.

In August 2003, an anonymous official told New Republic magazine that the 28-page redacted section outlines “connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family.”

Again I pose the same questions. If Saudi Arabia represents 15 of the 19 hijackers and bankrolled Osama bin laden... than why such an effort to clear them of all wrong doing?

Think about it man. Saudi Arabians attacked us and we go to war with Iraq? I know even you are smart enough to know that doesn't add up.





In September of 2004, a month after the official close of the 9/11 Commission, Senator Bob Graham accused the White House of covering-up the involvement of Saudi government officials in the 9/11 plot.

Despite attempts by family members to get this information made public and promises from the Obama administration to do so, the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9-11 remain secret and are likely to remain so. In May of 2010, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan refused to give the victims' families’ lawsuit a hearing. Her argument was that US foreign policy would be interfered with if the lawsuit was allowed to go ahead.

Secrecy continues to cloud the possible role of Saudi Arabia in the events of September 11th. Despite calls from members of Congress, victims family members, and even one of the 9-11 Commissioners to dig deeper into the role of Saudi Arabia, no such inquiry has yet to take place. Why would the US government and the 9-11 Commission protect Saudi Arabia?


Saudi Arabia is one of the most corrupt, oppressive countries in the world. And yet we consider them our ally? They obviously had a huge role in 911, and it was covered up. Why should I believe anything else from the official story when the writers of the 911 commission report admit it was a farce, that the truth has not come out, and that the pentagon and white house officials have fought them at every turn?

so far no one has touched this.

everyone is sooo eager to call me a conspiracy theorist and act outraged when I even bring this topic up.

If you really cared, you'd be asking these questions. Why has the role of Saudi Arabia in the 911 attacks been covered up?

Ok you posted a lot of questions so I'ma take em one by one

First the Saudi question and just clearing up on the 19 hijackers
Al Qaeda as a group is made up of mainly Saudi Arabians and Egyptians . It makes sense it's where Bin Laden was from and Zawahiri (now aq leader).
These are also countries that are on good relationship with America
In other words they are our ally , people from these countries gain entrance into America much easier than someone from Yemen , Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc.
Al Qaeda knew this and exploited it. We denied Ramzi bin al Shib and Al Kuwaiti entrance into the US several months before 9-11. We know muhammad Atta wanted a 20th hijacker but couldn't get the final man into the country. Think about they had 3 5 man teams an one 4 man team.
The 4 man team is the one that didn't hit their target.

Now al Qaedas  whole ideology is based on creating an Islamic caliphate with their interpretation of Islamic law
They had that in Afghanistan with the taliban

That's why we went to war with Afghanistan.
Iraq had nothing to do with it or al Qaeda. Bin laden and Hussein were enemies.
There is no logical defense of explabatiob for the Iraq war.
Not even oil money because Bush didn't take any of the damn oil.

The reason we didn't attack Saudi Arabia was because largely bin laden had been a greater enemy
To the Saudi royal family than he was considered to be a treat to USA.
He preached about overthrowing them and called them takfirs ( fake Muslims)
Does al Qaeda get a lot of funding from Saudis ?
You bet
But it not coming from the government
Also Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we largely outsourced our torture to them in the early years of black sites
Before we had gitmo .
Same goes for Egypt, zawahiris whole purpose in life was to overthrow Mubarak

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are our partners in fighting al Qaeda
That's why al Qaeda attacked in Riyadh and in Egypt