Top 10 signs the USA is becomming a police state

[Ferre]

Yeah, wasn't that a president's main priority?

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Zap

I'm not necessarily saying that Bush was behind the attacks. What I am saying is that his version of events is not 100% iron clad.

There are experts that say that planes brought the WTC buildings down. There are also experts that say that it is physically impossible that those same planes could have brought those buildings down.

There is a mountain of evidence and tons of testimony that goes to prove both theories and it is very difficult (if you really look into it with an open mind) to come to any conclusion, including the conclusion that Bush came to.

When you add to that, the fact that Bush did not allow any independant investigation into the events of 9/11, the version of events that the media has given us is far from fact.

LOL... well of course it's not possible for those planes to have brought the buildings down. Were you watching the events that day? Every single minute of every hour of that day and the days that followed?

I was......... I had three family members die in the WTC attacks. You bet I was watching. I watched people jump from the buildings because the heat was so intense, the floors were falling in, steel beams were buckling, and there was pretty much little hope of rescue.
Did you listen to the interviews of construction workers for days afterwards, explaining in great detail how those massive structures could crumble like cinder blocks?

Probably not

Here is one of many articles, an interview with a structural engineer:
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id...ontinueArticle

and another:
http://architecture.about.com/librar...c-collapse.htm

and another:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

MY question is........ why would there have been a need for an "independent investigation"? What was there left to investigate? There were dozens or more structural engineers in NYC giving detailed conclusions to both the president, and councils, as to why the towers likely collapsed. These are professionals. So what's the big deal now?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

... Here is one of many articles, an interview with a structural engineer:
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id...ontinueArticle

This is the message that I got when I clicked on your link:

[Ferre]

That url only tells the pancake story Atom, which doesn't match with the laws of gravity and has been proven to be impossible by various scientists all over the world. It's noy backed up by any science and way beyond reality

It contradicts with the actual time it took for those buildings to come down. The pancake effect, if that was what really happened, would have slowed the falling of the building because every floor would have met resistance from the floors under it and that would have slowed the process of falling, but the building went down as if there was no resistance at all, which is against all nature and gravity laws. The pancake theory tells you that on 9/11 mother nature desided to take a break for the day and let miracles happen.

Btw, I have a science degree and no one can tell me that gravity laws took a day off.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Atom

This is the message that I got when I clicked on your link:

funny... I have read that site over and over... and I just clicked on the link again and it took me right to it.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Ferre

It contradicts with the actual time it took for those buildings to come down. The pancake effect, if that was what really happened, would have slowed the falling of the building because every floor would have met resistance from the floors under it and that would have slowed the process of falling, but the building went down as if there was no resistance at all, which is against all nature and gravity laws. The pancake theory tells you that on 9/11 mother nature desided to take a break for the day and let miracles happen.

Btw, I have a science degree and no one can tell me that gravity laws took a day off.

hmmmm... can't say I understand what you even said there...

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

LOL... well of course it's not possible for those planes to have brought the buildings down. Were you watching the events that day? Every single minute of every hour of that day and the days that followed?

I was......... I had three family members die in the WTC attacks. You bet I was watching. I watched people jump from the buildings because the heat was so intense, the floors were falling in, steel beams were buckling, and there was pretty much little hope of rescue.
Did you listen to the interviews of construction workers for days afterwards, explaining in great detail how those massive structures could crumble like cinder blocks?

Probably not

You shouldn't jump to conclusions, Ohio. If you're going to be as sensitive as you have been over the past day or two, it isn't nice of you to be making assumptions like that. For all you know, I had family in there too.

I saw the whole thing go down live on TV. I remember thinking, after the first plane struck the WTC, that it was not an accident. After seeing the second plane hit, it did NOT surprise me. Of course, I didn't know it was going to happen, but, once it DID happen, it didn't surprise me at all. Planes don't just crash into buildings in New York. (At least, not in a very long time)

So, yes, I watched the whole thing. What I saw was planes hitting 2 buildings at the WTC. But, as I stated earlier, if you really want to look at all the evidence with an OPEN mind, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that the facts just do NOT support GWB's (and the media's) theory of events that day.

It's difficult for me to explain away how steel beams melted, when the fire inside was not even half hot enough to accomplish that. I would like to see you or someone else try to explain that. It has not been explained satisfactorily. Or, how a building that wasn't even hit, collapsed. How would you explain that? What about the witnesses who report hearing a series of explosions? Credible expert professionals and witnesses report these things. I can't just ignore that evidence.

You may not want to question these things. I can understand that. But I can't just blindly accept the version of events that GWB has put forth. There is too much evidence that contradicts the official version. That makes me think that maybe something else happened that day. It's unfortunate that an independant investigation was not allowed. We might have more answers today.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Zap

You shouldn't jump to conclusions, Ohio. If you're going to be as sensitive as you have been over the past day or two, it isn't nice of you to be making assumptions like that. For all you know, I had family in there too.

I saw the whole thing go down live on TV. I remember thinking, after the first plane struck the WTC, that it was not an accident. After seeing the second plane hit, it did NOT surprise me. Of course, I didn't know it was going to happen, but, once it DID happen, it didn't surprise me at all. Planes don't just crash into buildings in New York. (At least, not in a very long time)

So, yes, I watched the whole thing. What I saw was planes hitting 2 buildings at the WTC. But, as I stated earlier, if you really want to look at all the evidence with an OPEN mind, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that the facts just do NOT support GWB's (and the media's) theory of events that day.

It's difficult for me to explain away how steel beams melted, when the fire inside was not even half hot enough to accomplish that. I would like to see you or someone else try to explain that. It has not been explained satisfactorily. Or, how a building that wasn't even hit, collapsed. How would you explain that? What about the witnesses who report hearing a series of explosions? Credible expert professionals and witnesses report these things. I can't just ignore that evidence.

You may not want to question these things. I can understand that. But I can't just blindly accept the version of events that GWB has put forth. There is too much evidence that contradicts the official version. That makes me think that maybe something else happened that day. It's unfortunate that an independant investigation was not allowed. We might have more answers today.

Zap I'm not saying that anything here is conclusive. I don't believe I've said that at all. I'm still searching for answers myself... as I've said, I lost family members in there. If you read those articles, I believe that one of them mentioned explosions, and theorized that they were caused by the massive amounts of jet fuel spilled in the crash.

As for my being sensitive, darlin I've been no more sensitive than anyone else in these threads. At least I haven't resorted to name-calling until about 3 minutes ago, lol.

Sorry if I have seemed sensitive tho........... this has all been very interesting. I guess I just don't like my country and leaders brought under such blatant attack, whether I agree with them or not. But I think that none of us does. I've seen others here get ticked when Canada and the UK and the Netherlands were mentioned. So it's definitely not just me.

Why one of you (not you) has singled me out for ridicule and demeaning, I'm still trying to figure out. Definitely doesn't say much for him as a mature man

[Zap]

@Ohio: I know that there are evidence and witnesses that backup what GWB says. I also know that there are evidence and witnesses that contradict what GWB says. As a rational human being, I can only conclude that we do not know what happened on 9/11. That is why an independant and thorough investigation was necessary. Maybe there wouldn't be so many questions if a proper investigation had been allowed in the first place.

Initially, I bought the official version. I saw the planes with my own eyes.
I have seen enough since then to realize that the whole truth will probably never be known.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Zap

....I have seen enough since then to realize that the whole truth will probably never be known.

Unfortunately, you're probably absolutely correct.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Ferre

That url only tells the pancake story Atom, ...

Oh, ok. Yeah, I've already figured out by math and physics that it was three controlled demolitions that occurred that day, so I'd hardly be swayed by a couple of government propaganda articles to the contrary. LOL.

But what I want to know is, who allowed the workers in for a minimum of a week, the time it would have taken to complete the job, to set the charges? If this ever does come to trial, it will be one of the most exciting trials in history I presume. Heads will roll, and not just two or three I suspect, before the whole truth is exposed. The laws of physics do not lie because they cannot lie, now I want the truth. The "official version" is hogwash, and everyone knows it. I don't think we'll ever get the truth short of it going to trial, and maybe not even then.





∑

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

funny... I have read that site over and over... and I just clicked on the link again and it took me right to it.

Well, it's working now for me, sorry for the confusion. I probably should have tried it several times but I only clicked it the once.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

hmmmm... can't say I understand what you even said there...

Read this: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

It's written by Judy D. Wood
Assistant Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Clemson University

I could have given you a whole lot more links with the same explaination by different scientists, but this is just as accurate. Fact is that the pancake theory is bogus and totally not in agreement with nature's laws but the fact that the avarage person doesn't know a thing about Static Mechanics makes it easy for the Bush administration to get away with bullshit like the "pancake" story. No scientist on earth falls for that crap though.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Atom

Oh, ok. Yeah, I've already figured out by math and physics that it was three controlled demolitions that occurred that day, so I'd hardly be swayed by a couple of government propaganda articles to the contrary. LOL.

But what I want to know is, who allowed the workers in for a min of a week, the time it would have taken to complete the job, to set the charges? If this ever does come to trial, it will be one of the most exciting trials in history I presume. Heads will roll, and not just two or three I suspect, before the whole truth is exposed. The laws of physics do not lie because they cannot lie, now I want the truth. The "official version" is hogwash, and everyone knows it. I don't think we'll ever get the truth short of it going to trial, and maybe not even then.





∑

Well, there is an eyewitness report from a dude who worked in one of the towers who told that prior to the attacks the buiding was getting "maintenance" and floors were 'locked' at night and because he worked over time a lot he heard drilling and working for weeks, all during the night.

I'm sure you can find it when you google it, I'm going to bed now, it's nite here too and I'm getting tired.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Read this: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

It's written by Judy D. Wood
Assistant Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Clemson University

I could have given you a whole lot more links with the same explaination by different scientists, but this is just as accurate. Fact is that the pancake theory is bogus and totally not in agreement with nature's laws but the fact that the avarage person doesn't know a thing about Static Mechanics makes it easy for the Bush administration to get away with bullshit like the "pancake" story. No scientist on earth falls for that crap though.

but... that's not just a Bush administration theory. Many structural engineers came to the same conclusions, gave the same explanations. Are they all to be discounted? Just wondering...