The 9/11 Attacks and Views on the WTC 7 Collapse and the Pentagon Impact Zone

Discussion in 'Present & Current Events' started by Thomas R. Morrison, Sep 11, 2018.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,163
    The 9/11 attacks sparked a new era of sweeping military conflicts all across the Mideast that began with two major invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these nations had any significant involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the attack were from Saudi Arabia, but no military attack on that nation was ever even considered. And since then, the US has increased its military operations all across the Mideast, including the complete destruction of Libya which is now an Islamic State stronghold, and the on-going conflict in Syria where the US is supporting al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups in furtherance of ousting Assad. All of these conflicts have made the defense industry trillions of dollars, and spawned a global terrorism epidemic and the largest immigration crisis since WWII.

    So the question of what really happened on 9/11/2001 is still very much relevant – a key factor in today’s vast military interventionism and dramatically increased global instability.

    Frankly I haven’t looked into that question as closely as I should have, because it’s an emotionally agonizing subject. But I’d like to compare and contrast the various arguments about the origin and the nature of the 9/11 attacks, to see if we can clarify the questions surrounding that day.

    Apparently The shadow has researched the collapse of WTC building 7, and I'd like to see what he found:

    Let’s try to keep it as factual as possible, rather than debating the hot-button issue of “could our own government have allowed this to happen, or been involved in it.” Because that question is purely an emotional and ideological one, rather than an empirical one. Personally I think that any government willing to destroy an entire nation like Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD’s, which involved the wholesale slaughter of 100,000’s of innocent civilians, is capable of anything. But that’s beside the point – the real question is what happened and why.

    While I haven’t yet reached any firm conclusions, I do find the following facts to make a persuasive case that the official story is incomplete at best, and a cover-up at worst:

    * No large steel building has ever collapsed by fire, anywhere in the world, either before or since. This makes a strong case that the fall of WTC 7, which collapsed within hours and at essentially free-fall acceleration, was a controlled demolition event.

    * Both of the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a direct impact from a passenger jet airliner. While that fact may leave some wiggle room for the size of the jets that impacted the two buildings, the rate of collapse of both buildings, and the brief time before their collapses, and their collapse directly upon their building footprints, appears to indicate controlled demolition to my untrained eye.

    * A large group of professional engineers, architects, and demolitions experts agree that the collapses of these buildings appear to be controlled demolition rather than structural failure, and they made this 1-hour video to support their conclusions which I found to be very compelling:



    * The Pentagon attack seems bizarre and suspicious not only because the alleged plane that hit the building just happened to strike a section of the Pentagon which was closed for renovations at the time, but also because the impact area doesn’t look anything like a typical airliner crash site, which is usually littered with a lot of wreckage. Here's a photo of the 2016 jet airliner crash into the side of a mountain near Le Bourget, France, which shows the scale of some of the wreckage they found at the site:

    [​IMG]

    * At least seven CIA veterans have publicly rejected the findings of the 9/11 Commission report:

    Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

    * The debris from the WTC buildings was whisked off to buyers in China and India before a forensic examination was conducted, which is bizarre and suspicious considering the importance of the event and its historic level of criminality. A scientific analysis would've answered key questions about the nature of the collapse and given building designers insight on how to prevent such a collapse again in the future. It would've also exposed the use of any demolition agents such as thermite.

    Destruction of Evidence from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center - SourceWatch

    * General Wesley Clark told this story about a brief meeting that he had at the Pentagon about 10 days after the 9/11 attacks where he was told that at that point we already had plans to destroy 7 countries over the next 5 years – and none of these countries were linked to the 9/11 attacks. This seems like strong circumstantial evidence to me that the Pentagon had these plans before the 9/11 attacks, and now intended to use the attacks to justify these broad new military operations. In intelligence circles, covert operations are often conducted to provide “diplomatic cover” for military interventions. Listen to what he has to say in this 2-minute clip:



    Altogether, these factors remind me of the duck test: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

    So the 9/11 attacks were either the perfect and yet totally serendipitous rationale for the Pentagon to suddenly and dramatically expand US military operations abroad, or they were some kind of neocon operation conducted expressly for that purpose.

    The case for US involvement is substantially magnified by a document called “Rebuilding America's Defenses” published by the neocon foreign-policy think tank Project for the New American Century, which was comprised of rapacious war criminals like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The document, which was published one year before the 9/11 attacks, states:

    "A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century 51 policy goals and would trouble American allies.

    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    I’d like to hear everyone’s views, and to examine the best evidence that advocates of the various positions have to offer. And let’s try to keep the discussion civil.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    wtc7-side-damage1.jpg
    The loss of WTC 7 is really no mystery.
    when tower one collapsed mountains of debris were sent in all directions WTC 5 and were destroyed in the collapse.
    A areal view shows each building's location.
    WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg

    As one can see only the location of WTC 7 saved it from being destroyed in the collapse. The buildings flanking 7 also received serious damage from the collapse. here we see WTC 7 receiving the blow from the collapse of tower 1
    911WorldTradeCenter7.jpg
    WTC 7 was severely damaged the structural integrity of the structure was comprised
    here we see clearly the damage to WTC 7 was NOT minor!
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    nist-wtc-7-technical-briefing-082608-25-728.jpg wtc7-side-damage1.jpg

    so here clearly we see the corner of the building is gutted out. but there is more much more.

    nist-wtc-7-technical-briefing-082608-25-728.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  4. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    Now I have shown the damage to WTC 7 was severe.
    Here I show a different view
    WTC-7_sw_corner_2.jpg
    As one can see the damage to the lower sections of the building is fairly substantial.
    now look at this!


    case closed
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  5. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    Notification_Center-20130605-142747.jpg

    The destruction caused by the collapse of tower one is clear! and to the point the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by two factors.
    1. structural damage caused by the collapse of tower one.
    2. the fires that further weakened the structure.
    Finally I say this had WTC 7 survived that dark day the damage was such that it would have been torn down.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Castle-Yankee54

    Castle-Yankee54 Celestial

    Messages:
    4,576
    Well said....and excellent pictures. That is what happens when a 1300 foot plus building collapses less than four hundred feet from another one. No aircraft needed.....and the fire just finished it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,163
    Awesome - thanks for the excellent summary on the building failures Bob. I've had friends show me bits and pieces of the arguments on the conspiracy side, but nobody I know has really done the digging to get to the bottom of the structural analysis of the collapses. It looks convincing to me.

    What do you make of the political side of it?

    Because these factors add up to a suspicious confluence of circumstances in my mind:

    * Exactly one year after GW Bush's neocon foreign policy cabinet publishes a document noting that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” would be required to accelerate their aggressive military agenda, and about 9 months after those people take power, they get exactly that, and within 10 days of 9/11 they've got a list of seven countries that they want to destroy in the next five years (and Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the attack, isn't one of them).

    * National air defenses failed to respond or intercept any of the four planes involved in the attack, even though they all turned off their transponders and dramatically deviated from their flight paths.

    * GW Bush focuses our national ire on Iraq, of all places, which had no involvement in the attacks. It appears that destroying Iraq was a foregone conclusion, and these attacks were a convenient catalyst to get it done.

    * All of the subsequent military operations from Libya to Syria conform to the agenda revealed to Gen. Wesley Clark in September 2001, and they're all as shady as hell. Particularly troubling is the series of false flag chemical attacks in Syria, which have all been instantly touted by the corporate news media as Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, then subsequent analyses indicate that they more likely involved the jihadist mercenaries that we've been covertly supporting via the CIA in concert with the Saudis - and the latest "chlorine attack" turned out to be attributable to dusty conditions rather than any variety of chemical agent. If we're conducting covert false flag operations with the Saudi's now, it seems possible if not probable that they would've been willing to do the same thing on 9/11.

    * The 9/11 attacks were not only the perfect justification for dramatically expanding US military operations all across the Mideast, but they were also the perfect catalyst for dramatically expanding the national surveillance state and for increasing the funding and the power of all of the intelligence agencies as well as the DoD, and eroding our Constitutional protections in the process. In every respect, 9/11 has been a boon for the neocon agenda. By the "follow the money" rule of thumb for criminal investigations, the people who benefited the most from these attacks were precisely the people most capable of orchestrating them in concert with Saudi Arabia.

    * Rather than damaging our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the home of 15 of the 19 terrorists who committed this atrocity, our diplomatic relations with them have only grown stronger. All of our politicians who visit them very publicly "kiss the ring" of their brutal Wahhabi theocrats - who donate huge sums to their political campaigns. So it appears more like the neocon political establishment (people like Hillary Clinton) views them as allies, rather than the draconian tyranny and terrorist breeding ground that they are.

    * The cost of the "war on terror" following 9/11 is now at least $5.6 trillion. That's an awful lot of money, aka an awful lot of motive. And the expenditure of all that money has actually made us less safe, not more safe. The rise of the Islamic State is directly linked to our violent destruction of Iraq which was based on false pretenses about WMDs, and the similar destruction of Libya (which was also based on false pretenses imo - in fact the entire "Arab Spring" appears to be a CIA/Saudi covert operation). Certainly the results are perfectly clear: Iraq and Libya and Syria are now overrun with Islamic State terrorists. And the terrorist attacks on Europe are directly attributable to our military operations all across the Mideast, and the Syrian immigration crisis that we've created. And yet despite the absolute failure of the "war on terror," its funding and policy objectives remain completely unquestioned in Washington. It's as if creating a safer, more stable world, has nothing to do with the real agenda.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  8. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    I will get to the politics but 1st.
    what hit the pentagon?
    lets ask witnesses.


    next up is wreckage.
    Plane-debris-comp.png
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    the victims.
    Out of respect for those who died I will not post photos. Google 9/11 pentagon victims to see horrific images.
    verdict. this is easy to bust. The witness, the wreckage, and the victims.
    VEDICT : aircraft not missile.
    Never forget.
    1920px-Arlington_National_Cemetery_-_9-11_Memorial_to_Pentagon_Victims_-_SW_side_closeup_-_2011.jpg
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    Tale of two men named Bush .
    H.W Bush. he felt betrayed by Iraq. he wanted to kick Russia out of Afghanistan. Armed Bin Laden.
    The invasion of Kuwait gave him an excuse to teach his former pal Saddam Hussein a lesson. using false flag testimony Bush got his war.
    enter G.W. Bush
    he also wanted Saddam on a platter. And felt Bin Laden was just a nucence.
    got a report "Bin Laden Determined to strike America. " that report was not acted on. Did we know? hell yes. we knew. only the king of fools did not know. Bush let it happen. He wanted his excuse. He wanted his pound of flesh. And so we slept. And 3000 died.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,329
    i think its obvious what happened, bush wanted a excuse to attack the middle east, so he gave some money to the bin laden family so they could do a attack on american territory and the rest is history
     
  12. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,329
    the political side is the smoking gun, no anomalies in the event itself are needed to make it obvious
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    The Iraq war began two years after 9/11, the main focus has been Afghanistan until Bin Laden was allegedly killed and shockingly buried at sea, still baffled by that stunt...In my opinion Bush went to Iraq to finish what his Dad could not do and wanted to do in the Persian Gulf war and that is to storm Baghdad and take out Saddam...GW used the 9/11 situation to push his agenda for the Iraq war, I think he was looking for a good reason to go there then suddenly 9/11 happened, the situation suddenly favoured his desire to invade Iraq...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    19,448
    While I understand there seems to be some compelling circumstantial evidence of this being more than a terrorist attack in the way the buildings collapsed, I really have a hard time with anyone other than foreign terrorists being involved in the destruction of the towers...Don't get me wrong though, I am not one of those who thinks the government isn't above selling out its own people to achieve its goals, its happened before, even in small ways, but this is quite an event to orchestrate with serious implications and sets extremely dangerous precedents...One is linking this event to the mass migration into Europe as the cause of it all, but we also have to keep in mind that there's a huge number of those migrants who do not come from war torn areas of the middle east, these cannot be seen as migrants or refugees but as invaders...The so-called Arab spring that the Obamanation cherished and supported so much, reasons of which is another topic all together, could also be linked and blamed upon actions of our government in its involvement in 9/11 if we were to lay blame upon them...There are many suspicious things about the events on 9/11 and how the US government handled it and responded to it, handled evidence and so forth, but it seems to be always that way when it comes to dealing with the government in general...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    so far I busted 2 9/11 myths. keep in mind I am not a professional at this. all info is from public sources. this info can be gathered quickly.
    was there a stand down order?
    NO! the 1st indication anything was wrong was transponders being shut off.
    As each was hijacked the transponders were shut off at different times. Ground control tried to communicate with the planes.
    loss of communication and transponder signal,told those on the ground the planes were in trouble.
    NORAD was notified of the 1st plane 8 min before it reached its target.
    it was notified of the 2nd and 3rd. with out transponders it was difficult to find the planes. At this point 3 out of 4 had reached the targets. the Vice president issued a "shoot down order. " later that day the president confirmed it.
    so was there a stand down order? NO!
    and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
    I addressed the 1st 3 planes.
    now I move to flight 93...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. AD1184

    AD1184 Honorable

    Messages:
    453
    There are too many mutually-contradictory conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 to debunk all of them at once. Each individual conspiracy theorist picks and chooses which aspect of each they subscribe to (i.e. the government planned it, the government had foreknowledge, they did not intervene, they actively partook, the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition with explosives, controlled demolition with thermite, the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, there were no planes in the Manhattan attacks, ad nauseum).

    Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, no. The war on Iraq did, however, have everything to do with 9/11. The US, bruised by 9/11, needed a weak target against which to flex its muscles. But not so weak as Afghanistan, which had already been conquered, and had no significant conventional military.

    There was much bloviating about never giving into terror, and not letting it alter our western societies, although both of these things have been proven false by subsequent action: the latter by the profound way that society has changed since, it greatly affecting the way we travel, the way we attend public gatherings, the way we interact with our elected representatives and many other areas of our lives. The former in the changes to US foreign policy after 9/11. The 9/11 hijackers had two major political quarrels with the United States: its support for Israel and its significant military presence in Saudi Arabia at that time, which had begun in the build-up to the first Gulf War. It did not take long for the bulk of the US's forces to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia, and then the rest have been gradually removed, a complete military withdrawal effectively taking place last year. Shortly after 9/11, the Bush administration took the unprecedented step of acknowledging Palestine as a state, going against bipartisan foreign policy up until that point.

    Assuming the collapse of WTC Building 7 is a mystery (it is not), the conspiracy theory surrounding its collapse is ridiculous. It has not received the same level of mainstream media attention not because of a cover-up, but for one simple and obvious reason: nobody was killed by the collapse of WTC 7. Against the scale of the destruction that occurred earlier that day, the collapse of Building 7 is a mere footnote.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  17. The shadow

    The shadow The shadow knows!

    Messages:
    3,988
    was flight 93 shot down?
    of all the stories that emerged from that dark day we know well what happened to 93 well
    the phone calls.
    the cockpit recorder tell a tale..
    a tale of heroism.
    of ordinary citizens rising up. Freedom is not free. those who died on 93 paid the price of freedom.
    to think otherwise would dimish what really happened.
    was it shot down?
    in a sense yes by those who sacrificed their lives to save others.
    freedom is not free.
    case closed.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,479
    Modern Western interest in the Middle East dates back far longer than the past couple of decades. The slow death of the Ottoman Empire, strategic military interest, corporate greed. Money and desire resources are at the root of it. Mix in religious factors and you have all the makings for a century + of turmoil. Nothing new, just repackaged for succeeding generations.

    Shooting from the hip, as I remember it Saddam’s entry into Kuwait may have been avoided by forgiving certain debt Iraq had run up while fighting with Iran for what, seven years? Since the region is awash in money and they were theoretically keeping a common enemy at bay it’s hard to understand how some arrangement was avoided. Don’t think they took him seriously enough. One thing that Gulf 1 demonstrated was a strategic weakness in the US military; heavy lift capacity. Takes time to get that much stuff over there and get it ready. After the 100 hour ‘good war’ I believe large corporations like Halliburton were working with the Saudis to build huge bases filled with hardware we sold them in order to preposition equipment. Lots of cash flowing. It didn’t take a psychic to see additional conflict in the region regardless of the root cause and it did serve a strategic purpose, nefarious or otherwise. I don't know how much, if any of it, came into play for Gulf 2.

    Don’t forget the ’93 WTC bombing. It wasn’t as if Islamist terrorists hadn’t considered it a target, along with bombing airliners. They were a mix of Saudis, Pakistanis, Yemenis. As I remember bin Laden was an engineer and had plenty of money of his own, along with experience fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Looking back at US involvement in Iran, the Philippines, support of Israel etc. it isn’t hard to see why we engendered so much hatred, a lot of it justifiable. You can’t refer to any specific government without realizing they aren’t monolithic entities; extremists exist on all sides and act according to their own beliefs even if they are at odds with the body they supposedly represent. Especially where money, power and religious beliefs are such powerful motivators.

    Bin Laden was already a targeted individual – Clinton tried to nail him with missile strikes in 1998. He was outraged at the presence of US troops on the soil of the Kingdom after Gulf 1 and I think that has much to do with his motivations toward planning what ultimately became 9/11. Afghanistan is one of, if not the poorest countries on the planet yet is rich in certain resources; manpower, belief and relative isolation. In the end this was a case of a power in the Middle East striking back effectively at the Great Satan. And it cost them dearly, and rightfully so IMO.

    As for Gulf 2 and Iraq – forgone conclusion. All counties wargame and have vaults full of plans for all sorts of circumstances. Nimitz even said in his biography that much of what happened in the Pacific, but obviously not all, had been already hashed out in advance by strategists. I don’t remember a vice president of secretary of defense having as much influence as Cheney (conveniently the CEO of Halliburton) and Rumsfeld. Striking Afghanistan I can almost understand. But I can readily see how those two old political lizards dusted off plans on hand that fit their Strategery and went to war and dragged GW Bush and the rest of us along for the ride in Gulf 2 for reasons that had nothing to do with national interest.

    The US military is fantastic at breaking things. That’s what it’s designed for and it’s the best in the world at doing so. Not so much for fixing things afterward. There was no post-invasion plan. After WW2 in Europe there were tens of millions of ‘displaced persons’ that had to be sorted out with political tensions running high and starvation imminent. Hard choices had to be made about keeping politically inconvenient people around. There was no Marshall Plan after Gulf 2 and those in charge didn’t have half the brains or saavy or even the inclination necessary to do the job. Hence civil war, almost but not quite quelled before another inexperienced political operator pulled the plug on US military involvement causing the vacuum that ISIS moved into. Iraq was no longer a cork in the bottle keeping Iran contained and in the end a combination of these factors allowed the conflict to take off like a wildfire that our poor foreign policy so aptly fueled, spilling into North Africa and precipitating the refugee crisis flooding Europe.

    So, yes 9/11 was Islamic terrorism displaying frightening capability not our own missiles or secret weapons or any of that foolishness. That stuff does a disservice to those who died.

    If anyone’s noticed this thread has 11 foot pole marks on it. I wasn’t going to touch it with a 10 foot one and didn’t join AE to debate politics. I prefer light and fluffy stuff. I'd also like to say that despite the root causes of these wars those that have volunteered to serve and sacrificed to do so have done so with honorable intent. Not a reflection on them and it would be a disservice to suggest otherwise.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  19. Jr35rain

    Jr35rain Adept

    Messages:
    72
    any mention of no planes theory?
     
  20. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet Truthiness

    Messages:
    3,757
    I'm here spectating. I almost never debate the logistics or who allowed it to happen. I feel that it did happen, no matter who did it or why, or the reasons we debate it, All those lives still ended unexpectedly that day, All those heroes still saved all those other lives.


    I feel to deeply debate the reasons, That Is for others to do, Someone should. But Not me, The end doesn't justify the means no matter who did it or what their reasons were. So, I'm just going to spectate on this one. That's not to say this isn't an interesting conversation, I mean I'm here watching. I just Have no real useful input on this.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018

Share This Page