9/11 - The Third Tower

[Atilla]

9/11 - The Third Tower

This third skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. There is little photographic evidence of extensive damage. Yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, this 47-storey building collapsed in a few seconds.

Afterwards the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East. The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Nearly seven years on the final official report on the building has still not been published. The report is now promised this month.

 

[£10kLoser]

Did your 2,512 other posts have anything to do with trading?

 

[westernforce]

10kloser, have a look and you will see this is the lounge, news and current affairs, not the trading area.

 

[Crap Buddist]

yeah theres a stack of posts in one of jt's threads about those faulty towers... i dont get how the central column can rise then implode into its own footprint. unless under demolotion conditions.

follow the evidence CSI SAYS. looks like it was blown up then, and the other 2.

 

[dick_dastardly]

yeah theres a stack of posts in one of jt's threads about those faulty towers... i dont get how the central column can rise then implode into its own footprint. unless under demolotion conditions.

follow the evidence CSI SAYS. looks like it was blown up then, and the other 2.

You know, I have a conspiracy theory about 911

It was just a bunch or religious nutters who believed they had a God given right ( an obligation even ) to impose their version of the truth on others and to use any means they saw fit in order to acheive that objective.


but then, I always was a bit of an oddball in an anorak, so don't take any notice me.

dd

 

[rawrschach]

Just like the religious nutters and democracry deifists that killed a few million women and children over yonder.

 

[£10kLoser]

10kloser, have a look and you will see this is the lounge, news and current affairs, not the trading area.

My apologies - too much to drink last night...

 

[TheBramble]

You can never have too much to drink.

9/11. Bad gig - whatever and whoever.

 

[chilltrader]

9/11 - The Third Tower

This third skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. There is little photographic evidence of extensive damage. Yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, this 47-storey building collapsed in a few seconds.

Afterwards the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East. The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Nearly seven years on the final official report on the building has still not been published. The report is now promised this month.

Reminds me of their "first moon landing snaps"

 

[north5]

I find this very interesting(and worrying). I also wonder about the 'plane' that hit the pentagon. Has anybody ever actually seen any plane wreckage from that?

 

[TWI]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

 

[trendie]

the constant focus on the towers, and the theories about their fall, whether by demolition or not, shifts focus away from a bunch of people flying planes into buildings.

whether the towers fell or not. whether they just burned and didnt fall.
it distracts from the simpler reality that planes were flown into buildings.

whatever the outcome of the towers, (fall or not fall), a war, which was prepared for, would have started anyway.
A pretext was needed to justify a war. They got it. Falling towers are a distraction.

the weird, complex ideas about the towers falling by demolition, brand all 9/11 ideas as kooky, and deflect away from the simpler sequence.

Focus should be on fighter planes grounded on the day.
And huge short-options being placed on airlines.
And the huge rebuilding projects that were given to friends of the administration.
(rumours that some companies told their staff to stay away/towers less than normal daily occupancy are, currently, unverified rumours)

It was unnecessary for the towers to fall. if they were gutted by fire, they would have been demolished anyway, for safety reasons.

the only interesting aspect to this, is the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the fuselage diameter of the plane supposedly that hit it. and remnants of some engines were much smaller than the turbofans used by modern airliners. (although the larger fan-blades could have disintegrated leaving a smaller looking engine)

the simpler conspiracy is that a bunch of SAUDI-nationals were allowed to train as pilots, and left their courses early (? is this true?).
then, having flown the aircraft into buildings, a war was started with IRAQ, not SAUDI.

the simpler conspiracy is knowing an attack is imminent, and deliberately not doing anything about it, to justify a war.

I am sure that our intelligence services keep tabs, as best they can, on undesirables, and their intentions. It would not be necessary to construct a diabolical plan to hurt anyone. It would be simpler to ALLOW the undesirables do the dirty work, and then feed off the horrors, for whatever purpose.

 

[chilltrader]

Not sure who really wanted the war. That tw@t Bush certainly did.. and he pulled his puppy Blair into it as well.

Looks like it was worth it - what with those multi-billion dollar oil and recon. contracts!

the constant focus on the towers, and the theories about their fall, whether by demolition or not, shifts focus away from a bunch of people flying planes into buildings.

whether the towers fell or not. whether they just burned and didnt fall.
it distracts from the simpler reality that planes were flown into buildings.

whatever the outcome of the towers, (fall or not fall), a war, which was prepared for, would have started anyway.
A pretext was needed to justify a war. They got it. Falling towers are a distraction.

the weird, complex ideas about the towers falling by demolition, brand all 9/11 ideas as kooky, and deflect away from the simpler sequence.

Focus should be on fighter planes grounded on the day.
And huge short-options being placed on airlines.
And the huge rebuilding projects that were given to friends of the administration.
(rumours that some companies told their staff to stay away/towers less than normal daily occupancy are, currently, unverified rumours)

It was unnecessary for the towers to fall. if they were gutted by fire, they would have been demolished anyway, for safety reasons.

the only interesting aspect to this, is the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the fuselage diameter of the plane supposedly that hit it. and remnants of some engines were much smaller than the turbofans used by modern airliners. (although the larger fan-blades could have disintegrated leaving a smaller looking engine)

the simpler conspiracy is that a bunch of SAUDI-nationals were allowed to train as pilots, and left their courses early (? is this true?).
then, having flown the aircraft into buildings, a war was started with IRAQ, not SAUDI.

the simpler conspiracy is knowing an attack is imminent, and deliberately not doing anything about it, to justify a war.

I am sure that our intelligence services keep tabs, as best they can, on undesirables, and their intentions. It would not be necessary to construct a diabolical plan to hurt anyone. It would be simpler to ALLOW the undesirables do the dirty work, and then feed off the horrors, for whatever purpose.

 

[TWI]

It is interesting to note that bankers do very well in times of war. After all somebody has to finance things. Just as well really or the credit crunch could have been even worse.

 

[Atilla]

CI Al-Qaida

the constant focus on the towers, and the theories about their fall, whether by demolition or not, shifts focus away from a bunch of people flying planes into buildings.

whether the towers fell or not. whether they just burned and didnt fall.
it distracts from the simpler reality that planes were flown into buildings.

whatever the outcome of the towers, (fall or not fall), a war, which was prepared for, would have started anyway.
A pretext was needed to justify a war. They got it. Falling towers are a distraction.

the weird, complex ideas about the towers falling by demolition, brand all 9/11 ideas as kooky, and deflect away from the simpler sequence.

Focus should be on fighter planes grounded on the day.
And huge short-options being placed on airlines.
And the huge rebuilding projects that were given to friends of the administration.
(rumours that some companies told their staff to stay away/towers less than normal daily occupancy are, currently, unverified rumours)

It was unnecessary for the towers to fall. if they were gutted by fire, they would have been demolished anyway, for safety reasons.

the only interesting aspect to this, is the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the fuselage diameter of the plane supposedly that hit it. and remnants of some engines were much smaller than the turbofans used by modern airliners. (although the larger fan-blades could have disintegrated leaving a smaller looking engine)

the simpler conspiracy is that a bunch of SAUDI-nationals were allowed to train as pilots, and left their courses early (? is this true?).
then, having flown the aircraft into buildings, a war was started with IRAQ, not SAUDI.

the simpler conspiracy is knowing an attack is imminent, and deliberately not doing anything about it, to justify a war.

I am sure that our intelligence services keep tabs, as best they can, on undesirables, and their intentions. It would not be necessary to construct a diabolical plan to hurt anyone. It would be simpler to ALLOW the undesirables do the dirty work, and then feed off the horrors, for whatever purpose.

First paragraph very poignant but truth still remains to be discovered.

With all the CSI techno they have what do they do. Clear up and melt the evidence as fast as possilbe and let all the Saudis fly back home when rest of world can't catch a flight...

Terrorist seldom know who their controllers are. They have handlers they never see. They receive instructions from whom they do not know. Once you infiltrate at higher levels you can control these terrorist cells anyway you like. How is it that the US still has not captured this guy??? Just doesn't add up. Even when they had him in Afghanistan.

You only have to look at who benefits from these attacks to know where the motive lies.

In the muslim world Al-Qaida is often referred to as CI-A-l-Qaida.

Iraq is fighting a war to kick CI Al-Qaida out.

I really think the real US citizens should wake up from this daft patriotic slumber that is going to screw their future pensions and health into building metal war machinary to kill innocent civilians women and children. Their greed for oil is also likely to cause mass devestation or their homes from climate change.

Enemy of the State is within... :clover:

 

[rols]

First paragraph very poignant but truth still remains to be discovered.

With all the CSI techno they have what do they do. Clear up and melt the evidence as fast as possilbe and let all the Saudis fly back home when rest of world can't catch a flight...

Terrorist seldom know who their controllers are. They have handlers they never see. They receive instructions from whom they do not know. Once you infiltrate at higher levels you can control these terrorist cells anyway you like. How is it that the US still has not captured this guy??? Just doesn't add up. Even when they had him in Afghanistan.

You only have to look at who benefits from these attacks to know where the motive lies.

In the muslim world Al-Qaida is often referred to as CI-A-l-Qaida.

Iraq is fighting a war to kick CI Al-Qaida out.

I really think the real US citizens should wake up from this daft patriotic slumber that is going to screw their future pensions and health into building metal war machinary to kill innocent civilians women and children. Their greed for oil is also likely to cause mass devestation or their homes from climate change.

Enemy of the State is within... :clover:

Looks like the conspiracy theorists are becoming a majority - a sad indictment of the relationship between people and state.

To say this issue is mainly about oil is naive and shortsighted. It is far more - a combination of economic and religious fundamentalism and most of all, Imperial hubris.

 

[Splitlink]

A good non-fiction read is Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us". Part of his argument is that mankind is an aggressive animal that fights amongst itself. There will never be peace on Earth while we are here so we might as well stop looking for excuses, because it is in our genes.

It doesn't matter whether it was oil, Muslim fundamentalism, or not. Now that we can't find an enemy in Communism we are looking for something else.

 

[dcraig1]

Does it ever occur to the purveyors of various conspiracy theories, that the "powers that be" would much rather see pointless and abundant noise generated in this debate than a host of voices saying "No war on Iran!". It is a complete distraction and US centric as well. Above all, it is politically ineffective or even counter productive.

The crime that is the war on Iraq has killed, injured or displaced 25% of the population of an entire nation. On a scale of sheer suffering, 9/11 simply does not compare - whoever is responsible. However, we do know very well who is responsible for the situation in Iraq. It is quite possible that these same people will start a war with Iran (using similiar excuses - or more accurately lies - as were used in the case of Iraq). This is the main game and all the conspiracy stuff a side show.

 

[SirFrancis]

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the earlier suggestion that the US might have gone to war against the Saudi's rather than against Saddam. Here in the UK we have a very great many militant adhearents to this sicko religion. History would need to be very little different for it to have been one of them piloting one of those planes.

My experience with the average man in a Saudi street is that he is little more religions than us, that his primary concern to to earn money - and he'll leave any religious scruples at the door to achieve that goal.

The real enemy, in my opinion was, and still is, the Taleban. We need to resolve that problem and keep it resolved. As for Iraq, remember it was Saddam who was responsible for wars against his neighbours and fellow citizens that cost millions of lives over the decades. Removing him was the right thing to do then as now. The mistake was not getting rid of him in Gulf 1. It is lazy to blame the ongoing insurgency on Bush or Blair, the primary focus of the insurgency is not to rid Iraq of foreign forces, but it's about who will be in control when those forces leave - as they will given time.

The US and UK are bystanders in an ungodly struggle between two denominations of the same religion that have been killing each other longer that America has been known by the west. It's not them against us, it's them against them, with our forces stuck in the middle of a fight between peoples who agree on one thing - if you can't convert an infidel you can kill him.

 

[BSD]

Split, good point, although I, as the eternal optimist, do believe that change for the better is possible if we rise above ourselves.

Now I know that the EU is a bit of an anatheme amongst quite a few Brits, but if one looks back at the founding reason, coming up with a way to end the eternal wars that had to date been an endemic part of Europes history, then that single main founding objective has been achieved with resounding success so far.

Or look at the way you Brits solved the problems you had with Northern Ireland, in the end all the mutual violence solved nothing apart from begetting yet further suffering on both sides, peace only came about once both sides layed down their weapons and negotiated a mutually acceptable solution.

There are positive examples where we've managed to overcome the atavistic, barbarian instincts no doubt lurking somewhere in us.

That's actually our history, isn't it, real progress was never achieved through violence or war, all the great European wars over the millenia never actually changed the fundamental status quo in any significant way did they, their sole legacy is having unleashed absolutely pointless suffering on a massive scale.

Craig, I quite agree.

The sad joke is that while the Iraq war was based on nothing but perfectly obvious lies and deceit, the US regime actually managed to fearmonger their population into believing that ""a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power -- which aren't even allies -- pose a greater danger than Hitler's panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren't so serious.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was -- an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary -- the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.""

Of course, Iraq never had anything to do with 9-11, nor did it pose any other kind of an actionable threat being perfectly contained as even Powell and Rice assured the public of prior to 9-11, which turns the mass graves of Iraq into an even greater war atrocity:

YouTube - Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11
""Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.""