US airports had warnings of 9/11

[editor]

There was no inferno in the South Tower
There was no inferno in WTC7

yet, both collapsed. Quite impossibly.

Not according to the structural engineer who designed it.

Why do you think you know more than him?

Have you written to tell him?

Perhaps you could tell him about your qualifications and vast experience in the field of structural engineering and explain why you know more about the WTC than he does.

I'm sure he'll be humbled.

 

[editor]

I shall henceforth stay out of this thread though, so editor doesn't target me and make that his excuse to cowardly bin the thread.

Yes. That way you won't have to answer any of those tricky questions, eh?

 

[Dandred]

Anyway whats changed since 9/11 in terms of stopping it happening again? Nothing if you wanted to hijack a plane you could still do it really easily just use some of your duty free bottles you bought on the plane, smash the ends off and you've got a far more dangerus wepon than and 3"knife.

But anyway back to the same tin-foil shit.

 

[editor]

But anyway back to the same tin-foil shit.

No. Let's not!

 

[fela fan]

Within the context of the thread, i'd like to remind posters that not long before the events of 911 (earlier that year according to my memory), the al gore commission that looked into security for domestic flights in the US came out with its findings. The main one was that security was desperately lax. However, the bush government declined to act on the commission's recommendations, and in fact compleley ignored the commission.

Either coz of political partisanship.

Or coz the airlines had too much influence and didn't want passengers being inconvenienced by longer waiting times.

Or coz 911 would be that much easier to carry out if security for domestic flights remained lax and insufficient.

Take your pick posters.

 

[pk]

Or coz 911 would be that much easier to carry out if security for domestic flights remained lax and insufficient.

Rrrright, so the FAA and the Bush administration and the Security Services were all in on ignoring the security recommendations - because they actually wanted to see what happened if you fly a fully fuel laden plane into several key buildings?

Jesus Christ on crutches, this horseshit gets even more far fetched every time it gets dribbled out of the collective conspiranoid arse.

 

[neilh]

Rrrright, so the FAA and the Bush administration and the Security Services were all in on ignoring the security recommendations - because they actually wanted to see what happened if you fly a fully fuel laden plane into several key buildings?

Jesus Christ on crutches, this horseshit gets even more far fetched every time it gets dribbled out of the collective conspiranoid arse.

to be fair, although i in no way think that this is any sort of proof there was american involvement in 9/11, it's easy to see a lot more advantages to the bush administration coming out of the event than them gettin to see what happens when planes are flown into key buildings. what with the rise in patriotism, excuse for increasing govt powers with the "patriot" act, getting more support from their wars, etc, i'd even say that the bush administration was in a stronger position because of 9/11 than it would have been. as i said, i'm not trying to say this suggests they did somehow orchestrate it, but i don't think it's an argument against them having involvement to suggest, as imo that post did, that they would have no reason or advantage in it.

 

[pk]

i'd even say that the bush administration was in a stronger position because of 9/11 than it would have been.

I would agree.

But to have undertaken such a terrible series of events for political gain - no way.

The risks would have been unbelieveable.

If the public had found out - they'd have torn the Whitehouse down brick by brick, and torn everyone they found in there limb from limb.

The fallout would have made the Salem witchunt look like a game of hide and seek.

And for what? To secure some domestic security laws and have an excuse to invade Afghanistan?

I don't buy it. The US have failed to secure Afghanistan, and Iraq is a joke.
They never invaded Saudi Arabia (although geographically the Saudis provided most of the people and the funds needed to carry out 9/11) - if they really wanted to control the global oil markets, Saudi would be near the top of the list of deserts to storm, after Iraq.

The Bush admin, had they been responsible for 9/11, would have capitalised on any percieved advantage long before now - as for long term strategy, they have none.

It was a terrorist attack.

The simple answer is often the most likely.

The bullshit conspiranoid crap you hear about missiles and holograms just serves to cloud the picture - it's ALL been proven bullshit, only the desperate cling on to the outlandish notions, with a smug sense of power thinking that they, and only they, have figured it all out from a bedsit in Stoke Newington.

US airports had warnings? - this is old news mixed with crap speculation perpetrated by the usual suspects.

 

[almeria]

A terrorist attack? Really? By whom? Now you really are joking... I mean what terrorist organisation could pull that off?

 

[bigfish]

A terrorist attack? Really? By whom? Now you really are joking... I mean what terrorist organisation could pull that off?

Al-CIAda?

 

[editor]

Al-CIAda?

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

Super-pretend-holographic Planes that Evade all Cameras except Those on Really Extra-bonkers-conspiraloon sites.

 

[almeria]

Oh.. are those like the planes that don't show up on Pentagon film footage? Must be.

 

[bigfish]

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

Super-pretend-holographic Planes that Evade all Cameras except Those on Really Extra-bonkers-conspiraloon sites.

In that case, shouldn't it be:

S.P.H.P.T.E.A.C.E.T.O.R.E.B.C.S.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think there are some fairly reasonable grounds, as indicated at the start of this thread, to suppose that the Bush administration knowingly or through incompetence allowed the attacks to proceed. I don't find any of the theories suggesting that they actually arranged the attacks at all convincing though.

Why would they need to arrange terrorist attacks when so many people in the world hate the US? All they'd need to do is give them a clear run, either on purpose or through the characteristic incompetence of crooked morons.

 

[shandy]

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

Super-pretend-holographic Planes that Evade all Cameras except Those on Really Extra-bonkers-conspiraloon sites.

Abuse our acronym at your own peril, Mr. Editor

 

[shandy]

Why would they need to arrange terrorist attacks when so many people in the world hate the US? All they'd need to do is give them a clear run, either on purpose or through the characteristic incompetence of crooked morons.

LIHOP?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

He's the one who knows the Mysterons' game

...oh, sorry, wrong show....

 

[laptop]

S.P.H.P.T.E.A.C.E.T.O.R.E.B.C.S.

Super-Pretend Holographic Illusions Not Connected To Empirical Reality

 

[Bernie Gunther]

LIHOP?

Well, although the oft-quoted PNAC paper gives them an obvious motive, I incline more to the "crooked morons" theory.

When anyone starts talking about this crew like they might be all-powerful masterminds, I think of G. Gordon Liddy to remind myself that this is unlikely.

 

[bigfish]

Super-Pretend Holographic Illusions Not Connected To Empirical Reality

Well, seeing as you have decided to mention empirical reality, maybe you could run it by me just how it was possible for WTC7 to collapse into its own footprint despite NOT being hit by any aircraft and suffering only small isolated fires?

I'm sure we all remember the recent Madrid tower block inferno, the steel skeleton of which is, I believe, still standing today.

 

[editor]

Well, seeing as you have decided to mention empirical reality, maybe you could run it by me just how it was possible for WTC7 to collapse into its own footprint despite NOT being hit by any aircraft and suffering only small isolated fires?

Ooh, I don't know. Maybe two of the world's largest skyscrapers crashing catastrophically into the ground and sending millions of tons of metal and concrete earthwards a few metres away earlier may have had the teeniest weensiest influence on things.

(please consult the bin for further riveting debate on this)

 

[pk]

I'm sure we all remember the recent Madrid tower block inferno, the steel skeleton of which is, I believe, still standing today.

I'm sure you can use your feeble brain to work out the difference between the load bearing difference between 32 storeys in Madrid and 110 storeys in New York. If the Madrid block had 1320 feet of concrete above it, then it would have imploded within hours of the fire breaking out.
Not forgetting the flexibility of the steel beam structure needed to counteract New York's Atlantic winds, that the Madrid structure would not have had.

Or no. You just seem desperate enough to grasp at straws to prove that the fucking lizards did it.

Get a life, Bigfish.

Do you need me to make you look stupid again?

 

[pk]

In fact, fuck all this.

If super-loon Bigfish is arguing the point, this thread should be in the fucking bin already.

What's the point in talking logic to a vegetable?

 

[nick1181]

Something I've noticed, Mr Ed, is that every single time there's a thread questioning stories, and rasing theories about the whole 9/11 business, you weigh in and try to crush it as quickly as possible. You've been doing it for years.

So why is that? Is it because you feel passionate about the veracity of the accepted and apparently logical 9/11 version of events? Is it because you deal with people in America quite a lot so need to say "yea, there's a lot of loonspuds on u75- but I disagree with them"?, because you're scared of winding up in some sort of airport checklist...

or for some other, more sinister reason?

Because to be fair dear boy, although we've never met, methinks you protesteth a whisker too much

 

[editor]

Because to be fair dear boy, although we've never met, methinks you protesteth a whisker too much

Yes. That's right. I'm in the employ of the CIA and have instructions to remove every thread that comes dangerously close to revealing 'the truth' about 9/11.

Or maybe it's because the topic has been discussed to death a trillion times already with the same handful of posters endlessly regurgiatating the same ridiculous nonsense from the same ridiculous websites.

And as I have patiently pointed out zillions of times, I did not set these boards up to become a one-stop resource for a tiny handful of obsessed, attention-desperate conspiraloons to repeat their bonkers fantasies from UFO-tastic, dodgy book flogging websites.

Take a look around a few conspiraloon websites and newsgroups and ask yourself: would urban75 be better for those people or worse?

 

[DexterTCN]

Ooh,... catastrophically...

Oh my. So early to use the ad hominems. Is there a bad review about the US version of 9/11 coming out that makes you angry

 

[editor]

or for some other, more sinister reason?

Oh go on. Why not give me some examples of these "sinister reasons" you have in mind....

 

[editor]

So early to use the ad hominems.

Eh?

I don't think you know what the phrase means, do you?

 

[nick1181]

Oh go on. Why not give me some examples of these "sinister reasons" you have in mind....

Oh I have very little in mind at all at this point, and the sentence above was purely for dramatic effect.

That said, there are certain subjects that are repeated endlessly that you ignore completely... there are others though...

UFOs is another one. You don't like people talking about UFOs.

A connection perhaps?

 

[laptop]

What's the point in talking logic to a vegetable?

That's an ad hominem.

They have their place, see