promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 1 decade ago

Tin-foil hats? What could some architects, engineers, and Ph.Ds possibly know about building demolitions?

http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/4

Looks like the ENTIRE world is starting to wear tin-foil hats, these days.

Update:

ak: lol . . . Aliens!

Is that the new theory?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I guess none of the people answering this question know that Bin Laden's brother gave $1 million to Bush Jr. to help him get started in his first foray into the oil business in the late 1980's.

    Pay attention people!!!

    If you'll read the following timeline, you'll come to one of 2 conclusions... unless you're an idiot.

    #1 The government was behind 911.

    #2 The government had plenty of warnings, did nothing, and then acted like they had no warnings.

    Either way, another investigation performed by OUTSIDE SOURCES must be done.

    The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."

    On January 26, 1998, in the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

    Further information: Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq

    The goal of regime change remained their consistent position throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis. They followed that up with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.

    The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.

    In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.

    Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "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". ***

    In his appearance on Democracy Now!, theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, explains the allusion to "the New Pearl Harbor" from the PNAC report in the title of his book, which argues that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.[

    FACTS:

    1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]

    1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]

    1996: The Saudi Arabian government is financially supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. After 9/11, the Bush Administration chooses not to confront the Saudi leadership over its support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. [New Yorker, 10/22/01, more]

    1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]

    1996-2001: Federal authorities have known for years that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, more]

    1996-Sept 11, 2001: Taliban envoys repeatedly discuss turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden directly, and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up till 9/11, all fruitless. [Washington Post, 10/29/01]

    America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]

    1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]

    1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]

    1996: The Saudi Arabian government is financially supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. After 9/11, the Bush Administration chooses not to confront the Saudi leadership over its support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. [New Yorker, 10/22/01, more]

    1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]

    1996-2001: Federal authorities have known for years that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, more]

    1996-Sept 11, 2001: Taliban envoys repeatedly discuss turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden directly, and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up till 9/11, all fruitless. [Washington Post, 10/29/01]

    1997: Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski publishes a book portraying Eurasia as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any adversary from controlling that region. He notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious strategy can’t be implemented "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives]

    1998: An Oklahoma City FBI agent sends a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" are getting flight training and could be planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] A separate CIA intelligence report asserts that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC (World Trade Center). [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, more]

    Dec 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama," reports that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet - a strike on Washington or possibly New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]

    Sept 1999: A US intelligence report states bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists could crash an aircraft into the Pentagon. The Bush administration claims not to have heard of this report until May 2002, though it was widely shared within the government. [CNN, 5/18/02, AP, 5/18/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

    Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush’s chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01]

    Summer 2000: A secret military operation named Able Danger identifies four future 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, as a potential threat and members of Al Qaeda. Yet none of this is mentioned later in the 9/11 Commissions' final report. When questioned, the 9/11 commission's chief spokesman initially says that staff members briefed about Able Danger did not remember hearing anything about Atta. Days later, however, after provided detailed information, he says the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members had indeed mentioned Atta. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

    The rest... (Yes, there's even more.)

    http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cov

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Folks, if you believe the conspiracy theory that 19 magical muslims got NORAD to stand down and suspended all the laws of physics, you are drinking some bad kool-aid.

    I've got some questions of my own.

    1. How do you explain away the molten steel again? And why was the temperature at the core of the pile nearly 5000 F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses?

    2. What's your explanation for NORAD not responding? The planes weren't intercepted for what reason again? There's an airforce base in DC, literally 5 minutes away. Ask the FAA, on any other day, jets are scrambled if a plane so much as flies of course. It happened over 60 times in 2001. Why not on 9-11?

    3. How about building 7? How did it collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed? Can you cite even one other example of a burning steel structure doing that? What about the firefighters, on video, telling people to stand back because they were about to "pull" the building? "Pull" is a demolition term. I've got Silverstein and Giuliani saying the same thing, on camera! They misspoke?

    4. How about the passport that magically survived the collapse of the towers?

    5. How about the 7 hijackers that are still alive? Mistaken identity? Then why didn't the FBI update their list accordingly, upon realising their mistake?

    6. How do you account for how these jets were flown by supposedly unskilled pilots with no radar or tower assistance, straight into relatively small targets? 2 for 2 in NYC? They couldn't even land, according to the official story, but they could pick out a skyscraper halfway across the continent? Just lucky?

    7. Do you have an explanation for why NORAD was conducting an exercise, on that very day, in which the employees were told that there would be a simulation of planes being flown into buildings? Just a coincidence I suppose?

    8. And these amateur terrorist pilots... how did they manage a top gun maneuver in a 757, flying at 500 miles per hour 5 feet off the ground into the pentagon, leaving a 13 foot hole and no wreckage? What's your explanation for that?

    9. And Cossiga, he is a liar I suppose?

    10. And the Pentagon security cameras... why was only 1 video released, from a low-res, 8 fps camera at an angle that does not show so much as 1 frame of a 757? Is that the only camera they have at the Pentagon? If they have nothing to hide, why don't they release the other videos? National security? Why did the FBI confiscate the security footage from the surrounding (privately owned) buildings?

    Honestly, if you believe in the official story, you might as well tell me that Aliens did it, because it's more plausible. Have you ever noticed that people who defend the official story are rarely capable of formulating a complete sentence, and resort to insults almost immediately? All I have is factual questions, but people put words in my mouth and say I have theories. No theories, just perfectly legitimate questions. Let's get a real investigation, ok? If the official story is so rock solid, you should have nothing to fear from an international independent investigation, right? So why can't the family members, first responders, foreign parlaiment members and architects and engineers who've been clamoring for a real investigation get one? If we're so crazy there should be no problem putting our doubts to rest with a real investigation.

    The 9-11 myth has become a faith-based religion feeding off of denial. Dick Cheney could go on CNN tomorrow and say 9-11 was an inside job, and there'd still be a debate about it. The problem is not a lack of factual evidence, but an overwhelming unwillingness to believe it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Alan S
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    please note that the article cites that the engineer is a mechanical engineer who deals mostly with HVAC, plumbing and fire protection not a structural engineer. Although I would put more stock in an engineer's opinion than a lay person I also know that not all engineers are created equal. Also, the NIST did a computer model of the towers and concluded that the collapse was consistent with the model.

    If any investigation should be revisited it's in regard to the pentagon attack. While these buildings were completely different in construction, the planes were very much the same and their demise and resulting forces from their destruction should have been similar but were not. The planes that hit the towers had their fuselage disintegrate as they plowed through structural columns, office furniture and 4" thick floor slabs while the prop shafts shot straight through; yet at the pentagon the same type of fuselage punched through 5 solid masonry walls, which had just been reinforced (the contractor's trailer was destroyed by the impact), while the prop shafts seemingly bounced off without leaving a mark.

    The bottom line is that I believe the towers fell from the planes but the pentagon was "different".

    Source(s): 30 years experience as a mechanical engineer for a full service A/E.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • iceman
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Thank you for your posting. One of the best evidence I've seen so far. I also believe that the 9/11 should be fully

    re-investigated.

    And what could Engineers, PH D's etc. know about building demolitions? Much more than you can imagine, but I could be a little biased on that issue. lol

    Regards.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • celvin
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    not to mention a former Italian president too who might have been seeing more intel than the average Fox, CNN, etc viewer would. But Pfo is right - much better to listen anyone on the street instead.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Have you ever noticed that people who defend the official story are ... resort to insults almost immediately?

    If I may, I think you may have made a mistake in your first sentence.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Popular Mechanics has been debunked. Check out this audio interview with a Popular Mechanics spokesperson. He got so completely shut down that he stopped giving interviews. So much for Popular Mechanics.

    THERE IS NO WAY THAT FIRE WILL PULVERIZE STEEL AND CONCRETE INTO DUST AND MICRO-PARTICULATES. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

    http://www.archive.org/download/NeoconservativePro...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Samm
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Entire World? LOL

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You only think that because you and your friends on the internet think that. Go outside, walk around your town, find out what they think. Then come back and tell us the whole world believes that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • The folks at Popular Mechanics who researched all the evidence and firmly killed all the 911 mythbuilders.

    Source(s): Anyone who still says 911 was an inside job, should be locked away in the nearest nuthouse.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • ak6702
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    We all know it was aliens.....Art Bell said so.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.