Part of US government and Congress lied about 9/11

[jakeXT]

Run time: 04:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9d2XUWzus   Posted on YouTube: September 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 11, 2009 By DU Member: jakeXT Views on DU: 3033

 
There is a war in Afghanistan going on, and if what I believe in is true, has been created artificially, like the war in Iraq: as consequences of the lie , says Giulietto Chiesa, an EU MP, 2004-2009.

[Pharaoh]

1. Yes the europeans

want to talk about this too.

Because there are too many questions

And this is affecting the whole world.

K&R

[ScottLand]

22. My question is -

if there's no complicity on the part of the U.S. government, then why did Bush and company only agree to give testimony in secret with no record of that testimony?

Why hide it if there's nothing to hide?

[Grassy Knoll]

2. Isn't he a waiter from Olive Garden....

..I'll take the all you can eat pasta and ravioli combo please .
And don't forget the sour dough ...

[RoccoR5955]

3. 9/11 was an inside job n/t

[DearAbby]

32. we have no idea what happened that day

seriously. We have not had a full unbiased investigation into the event. Until then, I have no clue what happened that day, except what my eyes showed me, three targets, horror and thousands killed in an instant.

Until people stop ridiculing others for simply asking questions, and answer those questions honestly. I don't see any reasons why the American people cant be told the truth.

Why would we just sweep this under the rug and move on...sooner or later someone is going to have to come back throw back the rug and clean it up.

[truedelphi]

4. Thank you for posting.

I am not sure that I would agree with everything that he is saying, but the underlying premise of his remarks is one that I understand and would offer him support for.

[ro1942]

5. RT

like their work, they listen to all sides, thanks for posting.

[windoe]

6. Just like JFKs murder, the real story on these big crimes

seem to be suppressed until an appropriate amount of time has passed. On the average, about 30 years. I don't expect a trial, investigation, or any kind of real discussion until then.

[sulphurdunn]

7. There are two competing

conspiracy theories about 911: The official government conspiracy theory declares that a gang of thugs who couldn't fly planes well hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into buildings while traveling hundreds of miles per hour and that those building collapsed from those impacts even though they were specifically designed to survive just such an event. (There is also the untidy matter of the third collapsed building that was not struck by an aircraft). Th unofficial theory states that the official theory is nonsense and backs that statement with a considerable body of physical and circumstantial evidence that refutes the official theory. Upon objective consideration, little if anything commends the official theory other than a fallacious appeal to authority that should commend itself to no rational person.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Falsifiable claim: The buildings were specifically designed to withstand it.

They weren't. By all means, provide the design specs from Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson co. that allow for a 757 fully loaded, and full of fuel, to hit at approximately 500mph.


7.7 MILLION FOOT TONS OF TORQUE. It's a good thing the towers were overbuilt. They were required to withstand only 7.4 million foot tons of wind load. We're lucky the buildings didn't collapse on impact, killing tens of thousands of people.

We're LUCKY they stood as long as they did.

[FluxRostrum]

9. yep

with all those explosives set to detonate it is surprising that the impact and initial fire ball didn't trigger the demolition immediately.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. A pretty good clue

That there were no explosives.


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Why Syzygy]

10. The Commission didn't even look at the specs.

They decided they weren't important to their *investigation*. They could also *not find* ANY of the witnesses who reported hearing explosions that morning. Not even the multiple on air news hosts who were reporting the blasts in real time.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Tell me.

What do you think a 100lb chunk of concrete falling 60 stories would sound like when it hit the concrete ground?
If you just heard it, out of the blue, you might say it sounded like... a bomb, right?

Funny what a lack of a frame of reference can do.

Analysis of the audio revealed no explosive concussions. Audio so detailed, you could hear hundreds of PAS alarms on the firefighters that stopped moving going off.

Incidentally, watch a video that couples audio, so you can hear the collapse. All those car alarms after the collapse is finished? Those aren't car alarms.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Explosions reported BEFORE the collapse.

Go back to your fantasy world and leave me alone.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. So

You think it would be unreasonable for debris to fall inside or outside the building prior to the actual collapse, after getting cornholed with a 767? Because ground level video clearly showed VERY HEAVY SHIT falling from above, well prior to the collapse. Pieces of metal, and concrete.

[Why Syzygy]

21. We are not talking about

debris. Explosions in the basement, 1/4 mile away from the crash site won't make "debris" fall as the sound of explosions. I'm not buying your bluff. Give it up.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. So given the 10,000 plus evacuees who had to pass out through the ground and sub levels

where are the plethora of witnesses to back up your 'explosives in the basement' argument?

There should be THOUSANDS of them, that can prove they were there that day, right?

[RoccoR5955]

33. The reason why you don't see this "plethora of witnesses,"

is because the explosions happened shortly BEFORE the planes hit. They didn't start evacuating until several minutes AFTER the planes hit, and therefore after the explosions in the sub-basements.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Can't have it both ways.

If they went off in the sub-basements prior to the planes hitting, then a good number of the ten thousand or more people who drove and parked below, and all the people coming in through the subway station in the sub levels would have seen/heard the explosions.

The building's sub-level is populated, and was part of the transit system. Most of the building's inhabitants entered from this area.

Plus, the building didn't collapse from below. The base, and sub-levels were the last piece to collapse, crushed by debris from above. Seriously, what purpose would it even serve to set explosives there? Let me think, set some piddly explosives, or drop a quarter million tons of flaming debris on it?

[wildbilln864]

11. it wasn't fully loaded!

it wasn't fully fueled!
it didn't go 500 mph!
and it wasn't much bigger than the plane they designed the building to withstand!
Do you have the specs that verify your false numbers?
I thought not.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Hahaha oh please.

According to the FAA's ground radar, American Airlines Flight 11 hit WTC1 at 8:46:30 local time, at between 490 and 510 MPH. The speed is not known exactly, because their radar is not designed to pick out an aircraft with the transponder turned off, so low and fast against so much ground clutter. It may have been moving much closer to 600mph.

AA11 had only 81 passengers, but was loaded with about 20,000 gallons of JP8 or Jet-A, for flight from Logan INTL to LA International. 2605 miles as the crow flies. Approximately 90% of the maximum range for that particular outfitted aircraft. The Transpacific ER can go almost twice as far. Anyway. AA11, tail number N334AA, was a 767 200 ER. (apologies for calling it a 757, that hit the Pentagon.) 159 feet long. 156 foot wingspan. At 35,000 feet it can comfortably do 570mph, but not near sea level. The plane was at or beyond design tolerance. It weighed approximately 290,000, to 310,000lbs. FAA/NTSB reports estimated it differently.

The building designers took into account the possibility of a 707 at CRUISE SPEED hitting ONE tower. The fattest, heaviest 707 model 420 had a maximum takeoff weight of 336,000lbs. However, this plane didn't exist at the time. The 707-020 max gross takeoff weight 220,000lbs wingspan 136, length 130f. HALF the fuel load, HALF the range, and a cruise speed of about 600mph, but only at cruising altitude. No one would have considered full military thrust at sea level.

So, about 30 feet longer, 25 feet wider, about 1/3 heavier, double the fuel, at a speed no one would have considered 40 years ago.

Yeah, not much bigger. Also, no one tested it. It was an estimate. About a potential ACCIDENT, not a deliberate kamakazi attack at full thrust.


Planes hit the buildings, the buildings collapsed. All mechanically possible. Get the fuck over it. You're distracting any possible credibility from investigating the COLLOSSAL FUCKING INTEPTITUDE OF REPUIBLICAN LEADERS WHEN FACED WITH A TERRORIST ATTACK. You want a conspiracy theory? Here's one for you. The crazy fucking conspiracy theories are to distract, and keep people rolling their eyes, every time a SERIOUS attempt to investigate and hold people accountable for intelligence and leadership failures the morning of 9/11/01. We could have had NO LEADERS AT ALL and it would have unfolded the same way. Fucking embarrassing. 77 and 93 should have been shot down. Period.

[jakeXT]

16. Why would this guy believe that multiple planes could hit it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

[AtheistCrusader]

19. It's actually not accurate to say 'it was designed to withstand'

because it wasn't. It was a question raised to the structural engineers AFTER the design was done, and they said 'oh yeah, it could withstand that'. Not the other way around. They didn't design the buildings 'with' this scenario in mind. Other way around.

[wildbilln864]

36. Watch this and maybe it will help you...

Building the World Trade Center
:hi:

[RC]

17. Learn how the building were designed and constructed.

Then explain how they both could collapse straight down the way the did, without help. The help being previously being setup for demolition. The central core was totally undamaged below the points of impact.

Then there is a little problem with WTC7. It was not a symmetrical building, even though it may have looked as if it was from the outside. Yet it too fell symmetrically, as in a demolition.
One side housed a substantial sub-station. That side was designed differently than the other side. Yet it came down evenly. How could that be without demolition?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Easy.

Each floor weighed approximately 3.2 million pounds. Lets say 25 floors at the top started moving 15 feet down as floor 75 collapsed. You now have 80 million pounds moving down, lets be generous and say half the speed of gravity. You now have an 80 ton wrecking ball, that only gets bigger as it adds each pulverized floor to it's mass on the way down.


WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The non-load bearing, non-structural exterior shell fell semi-symmetrically. WTC 7 was a cantilever frame type building. The exterior walls didn't bear the mass of the building, as WTC 1 and 2 did. The walls are 'hung' on the building like drapes. The best visual indicator is the roofline equipment falling in. At that point, the collapse is well under way, and is clearly not symmetrical, as one end of the equipment vanishes from view before the other. At some point enough of the structural core of the building had collapsed that there wasn't anything left to hold up the weight of the non-structural facade, the shell that looks like the building, and it fell too. The 'building' was long gone when the exterior walls fall. That's why they ripple and twist like a sheet of paper on it's side, on the way down. Because there's nothing to hold it up.

[wildbilln864]

28. You do know about the core columns, right?

"Each floor weighed approximately 3.2 million pounds. Lets say 25 floors at the top started moving 15 feet down as floor 75 collapsed. You now have 80 million pounds moving down, lets be generous and say half the speed of gravity. You now have an 80 ton wrecking ball, that only gets bigger as it adds each pulverized floor to it's mass on the way down."

If the floors collapsed and tore loose from the interior & exterior columns, then the core columns would be left standing.
NIST has already admitted that 7 fell at near free fall and for two and a half seconds at free fall speed so try again.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. A significant number of the core columns were deleted.

Cut in half. Removed.

WTC 7's exterior walls did fall at near free fall speed. So what. It's non-load-bearing, non-structural shit. The core of the building collapsed much slower than free-fall.

I don't need to 'try again'. The original post I responded to declared WTC 1 and 2 were DESIGNED to withstand impacts from similar sized aircraft. Poster has cited no such design specs. Why? Because it's not true. They did not engineer the buildings specifically to withstand a 707-020. Nor are the mass, fuel, and velocity of what they believed the buildings would withstand, comparable to what happened.

[RC]

31. Your 'wiggle' word here is "specifically"

The design wasn't for a particular plane, but around a mass and speed hitting the building. The named plane was a plane that existed at the time, so they used that. The buildings were over designed for such hits.
And as someone else mentioned, why did not the central core columns stay standing if the floors were pancaking? By rights the central core should have been sticking 40 to 60 stories in the air at the very least. If the core columns had buckled, the building could not have come straight down. At some point they would have toppled sideways. That did not happen.
Nice try though.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Couple reasons.

First off, the planes that hit massed about 30% more, and were travelling far faster than the 707 scenario. They didn't consider even a 707 flying far beyond maximum safe speed at that altitude.

The core collumns are sectional, and tied together at certain intervals by the floors. Without the floors intact, the columns lack the rigidity to remain standing, end to end. This wasn't someone sliding down a firepole, smooth and solid, there were crossbeams at periodic intervals, and the debris applied chaotic lateral forces.

[RC]

40. Wrong. The core was a structure in itself.

All 47 uprights were braced and tied together into a single unit. They did not need the floors for support. There was no lack of rigidity in the central columns, with or without the floors attached to them.
For the building to "pancake" the way it seem to think it did, ten's of thousands of rivets holding each floor to the central core and to the outer walls, would have to all let go at the same time. To do this for each of the 80 some floors from the point of impact, all the way down to the 7th sub basement is an absurd impossibility. Then there is still the problem of the central core itself. It should have bee left standing. For if the core had buckled and twisted, the building would ceased to "pancake" at that point. It did not.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. The core beams were not monolithic beams that ran the entire height of the building.

They were assembled in sections. Without the core crossbeams and even the floors to keep them in position, the riveted together ends can rather easily break apart. You can clearly see them breaking apart in a couple of the stills of Tower 2 coming down, wherein some of the core box columns protrude for a few moments from the dust cloud. (Rather elegant proof the columns were not cut out from under the building with explosives)

And yes, those rivets did let go, as the floors above came down, the math is simple. 3.2 million pounds per floor. Assume 20 floors. That's 64 million pounds of debris. Now drop it 15 feet. The estimated live load weight of any given floor in the WTC was 3000 tons. Ignoring momentum, 20 floors worth of crap suddenly sitting on the floor below the collapse point (hypothetical collapse point for simplicity, in reality, there was a LOT more weight, because the collapse point was much lower) would weigh about 16,000 tons. Add in the energy of that 16,000 tons falling approximately 15 feet, and you BET the entire floor is going to be crushed and shear off. It's going to add the approximately 3.2 million pounds of pulverized crap from THAT floor, and fall another 15 feet.

[ScottLand]

23. Who in the US government benefited from 9/11?

This was a godsend for a president who wanted a war! All he has to do is talk tough and look like a hero. It should be obvious to anyone that he used this event to sell the war. Why is it far-fetched to believe that he was complicit? WTF was he doing down in Florida? How many other times did he travel to another state to read with schoolchildren?

[Why Syzygy]

24. Not just the wars he coveted.

The Patriot Act. The rewriting of the Constitution. The laid waste of our nation in every conceivable area. Our men/women, economy, freedoms, respectability, dreams, safety ... They took it all in the name of 911. What did OBL get? Nothing. The Saudis, business as usual. The supposed perpetrators, AQ, not a damn thing.

[ScottLand]

25. I don't think Bush really intended to

destroy our economy or lay waste to our nation. I just don't think he considered it important. All of those things he was willing to sacrifice if it got him what he wanted, kind of like collateral damage.

I still don't understand why he did what he did. Not sure why we went to Iraq since they changed the reason every five minutes and we knew he wasn't telling us the REAL reason anyway.

Certainly, his Saudi friends figure into this, since he whisked them all home before we even had a chance to figure out what was going on.

[Why Syzygy]

26. I think he intended

to do destruction. See Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine".

[RoccoR5955]

34. You forgot that Bush's approval rating was in the gutter before 9/11

After that it was around 95%. I was in the minority, because I didn't believe the story that the buildings collapsed due to fire, from the git go, nor did I believe that a plane put the hole in the Pentagon. No holes from engines.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. He's right about Zelikow. In the end, Zelikow added and omitted what ever he wanted

to from the Commission report.

On the "infamous" 9/11 petition that Van Jones signed, one of the questions concerned Zelikow's role on the Commission. When he was named, some of the 9/11 families were vehemently against him.

[PDJane]

35. The Europeans know what false flag terrorism is,

And they know what it looks like. Read Nato's Secret Armies; Operation Gladio by Daniel Ganser. Read Puppetmasters; the Political Use of False Flag Terrorism in Italy by Philip Willan. Read the War On Truth by Nafeez Ahmed. Read Dossier Secreto: Argentina's Desaparecidos and the Myth of the "Dirty War" by Martin Edwin Andersen. Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America by Peter Dale Scott. Or, one that's been recommended to me, but I haven't read yet, False Flag: The Soviet Spy Who Penetrated the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service by Zeev Avni.

The 9/11 fiasco had all the earmarks of a false flag attack, including the evidence of explosions in the basement and the lobby, and the removal of evidence from a crime scene directly to an out-of-country location for recycling. A communist country, at that.

[wildbilln864]

39. kick. nt