Guest:
Login
|
Register
|
Search
|
FAQ
Chinadaily BBS
»
News Talk
»
China & the World
» $1,000,000 offered for anyone who can explain 9/11
Last Thread
Next Thread
30
1/2
1
2
>
Subject: $1,000,000 offered for anyone who can explain 9/11
Visited forums ...
Free Talk
China Today
eric_v
(eric_v)
Newcomer
UID 13959
Digest Posts 0
Credits 16
Posts 19
Registered 2003-10-13
Status Offline
$1,000,000 offered for anyone who can explain 9/11
US Millionare Jimmy Walter is offering a reward of One Million Dollars to anyone who gather a panel of architects and scientists who can explain exactly how World Trade Center Towers One and Two, along with Wtc Building number 7 collapsed WITHOUT the use of 1000's of strategically placed explosives.
http://www.reopen911.org.cn/
http://www.reopen911.org
I am a Canadian living in China who doubts the offically story that 9/11 was a plan by a bunch of Arabs and Osama Bin Laden. Anyone who spends anytime researching the truth of what happened that day, will come to the same conclusion as mine. It was an act orchestrated by the Bush Administration for a reason to initiate war in the middle east, in order to secure energy resources.
I would like to interview a Chinese Architect and get his or her opinion on this matter. Also maybe talk with them a bit about Beijings economic growth. If anyone knows anyone who would be interested in this interview, please let me know. my email is:
Dannidiamond@yahoo.com
anyone wishing to debate 9/11, please replay with a post here. I would love to answer your qestions and hear your opinions.
2006-3-7 08:59 PM
#1
theshepherd
(theshepherd)
Primary Member
UID 25423
Digest Posts 0
Credits 499
Posts 491
Registered 2004-3-24
Status Offline
Wow, 1million bucks. That's too much and too heavy to carry.
Why the WTC buildings collapsed?
God knows.
2006-3-7 09:15 PM
#2
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
Unusually successful religious fanatics, yes?
QUOTE:
9/11 was a plan by a bunch of Arabs and Osama Bin Laden
I believe that there was a plan and there were 19 hijackers and the passengers in the four jets died without having a chance to say their goodbyes to the loved ones.
But I also think the terrorists on 9/11 had some help from people within the government. I believe bin Laden operated a terrorist organization that existed with the knowledge and blessing of the USA government. The United States permitted al Qaeda to attack it so that it would become the pre-eminent Muslim terror organization. The idea was to attract terrorists into al Qaeda, an organization that the USA controlled, instead of allowing the terrorists to create thousands of small, uncontrollable cells. So when bin Laden warned that his followers were planning attacks on embassies and battle ships, the USA took no action. A terrorist who gives you warning before striking is infinitely more valuable than one who does not, and there may have been some silent successes against al Qaeda that we dont' know about too.
When EgyptAir 990 crashed on Oct. 31, 1999 and the airlines didn't strengthen the cockpit doors, that sent a clear green light to the terrorists that hijacking jets and using them as missiles would be permitted. You may recall that EgyptAir 990 crashed when the pilot left the cockpit for some reason and then the co-pilot uttered a prayer of exclamation and began power-diving the jet. The offical version is that it was suicide, but the co-pilot's familiy rejects that claim to this day. The power dives were similar to a hijacking disruption technique, i.e., the sudden diving of the jet will knock hijackers to the floor. When steps were not taken to lock cockpit doors and strengthen them too, then al Qaeda knew a 9/11 style attack could succeed.
So on 9/11, many people knew of an impending attack. Some people knew the attack involved multiple jets. Some believed it was a hijacking/ hostage exchange plot to free an imprisoned Muslim cleric. Few knew the plan was to crash the jets into the WTC and Pentagon. Fewer yet knew that the WTC buildings would collapse. And WTC 7 was destroyed by demolition at the request of the owner, Larry Silverman, later that afternoon. No one died when WTC 7 fell to the ground.
I don't know how to explain the sounds of explosions at the base of the WTC towers, which were reported by several news organizations. I don't know what caused the camera shake just before the first tower collapsed. I don't know why the two brothers' film documentary that captured the scene inside WTC 2 showed the effect of explosions in the lobby and basement before the main collapse occured.
If you want to see what religious fanatics usually accomplish, take a look at Jim Jones and the 1979 Jonestown mass suicide, the David Koresh 1993 Waco shoot-out and siege, or the 1985 Move cult siege and firestorm in Philadelphia. These are all examples of what usually happens when religious fanatics in America become violent. They usually kill themselves and their own followers.
2006-3-7 10:47 PM
#3
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
plots and conspiracy theories
The WTC 1&2 fell when the steel melted from the jet fuel. There are many articles available on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
It is absurd to believe Bush funded 9/11, or that Bin Laden is on the US payroll. Did the CIA help create him when he wanted kill Russians, of course. Just like they helped Sadaam when he was fighting Iran.
There are people who want to believe the government is behind every plot. Bush& Cheney could not even keep the wiretaps secret. Reagan could not hide Iran-Contra. Nixon could not stop Watergate. You can not keep anything secret in the US for long.
The real Bush conspiracy in the US is one of arrogant self delusion. The Bush crowd believes that reality is not important because they can make their own reality based on what they believe should be true. If you want to worry about conspiracies, worry about that one. It is a plot to ignore the average person who just wants a decent job, a safe place to live, and food that will not give him some disease.
2006-3-9 03:11 AM
#4
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
What caused the towers to collapse is a tough one for me.
The points against the standard belief of what caused the towers to collapse are difficult ones for me. My belief that the 9/11 plot was a counter-terrorism investigation that spun out of control cannot explain some indications that explosions occured in the towers before they fell. The film documentary from the two French brothers which was aired on CBS in America shows that there was blast damage in the lobby of WTC 2 well before it collapsed. How this happened is unresolved to me.
Those who point out that most of the jet fuel from the second jet spewed out the side of the tower make a good point. There's also a question of how much fuel there was in the jets at that time. Each had flown about 1/3 of its route before turning toward New York, so by the time they hit the buildings, they had each used 2/3rds of the fuel to complete their morning runs. How much was left in the jets, 1/3rd of the amount to get to California or 1/3rd plus enough to complete a later scheduled flights? No one has answered this question that I have seen.
Those who say that George W. Bush was personally responsible for 9/11 or that no passegers died on the hijacked jets are very irresponsible. Bush couldn't have stopped 9/11 by himself even if he had known about it before hand. You may remember that at that time in his presidency, all his statements to the public were taped before being released. So he did not have the authority to take to the airwaves on his own even if he had known what was going to happen, which I doubt that he did. Those who say no one died on those jets are being very insensitive to the families of those killed. It's possible to say insensitive things in America, but being insensitive to the families of those who died just makes regular people reject everything that's said.
[
Last edited by matt605 at 2006-3-9 06:44 AM
]
2006-3-9 04:41 AM
#5
cestmoi
(cestmoi)
Senior Member
UID 35458
Digest Posts
1
Credits 3179
Posts 2958
Registered 2004-8-15
Status Offline
Some possible explanations
2006-3-9 08:13 AM
#6
iluv2fish
(iluv2fish)
Super Member
UID 40653
Digest Posts
1
Credits 7205
Posts 6846
Registered 2004-10-6
Status Offline
Show me the money
The jet fuel went down the elevator shafts to the foundation.....this caused the collapse.
2006-3-9 08:15 AM
#7
eric_v
(eric_v)
Newcomer
UID 13959
Digest Posts 0
Credits 16
Posts 19
Registered 2003-10-13
Status Offline
Jet fuel can not melt steal
The Idea that jet fuel went down the elevator shafts is as ridiculous as the 'magic bullet' theory that killed JFK. First of all, the WTC was 110 floors. You could not just take one elevator all the way to the top. That would mean that the jet fuel would have to stop half way, cross the hallway and wait for another elevator.
Secondly, Jet fuel is Kerosene. Kerosene is a hydro-carbon. The maximum heat of a hydro-carbon fire is 980 Degrees Celsius. This can only be reached where there is a perfect mixture of fuel, and oxygen. Fires this hot make a blue coloured flame like the ones you would see in a furnace or a stove, not orange and yellow flames like the ones we saw in the towers. In order to have a fire hot enough to forge, or melt steel, that fire must be able to reach around 1600 Degrees Celsius. Basic laws of chemistry make this impossible.
Also, if you take a look into the history, a steel framed structure has never, in the history of the world, collapsed due to fire. Sept. 11th was the first and last. But in Feb 2005 The Windsor Building in Madrid Spain burned at much hotter tempatures for a much longer time, but still did not collapse.
The most obvious use of explosives was in Building 7. no plane hit it. there was no jet fuel. yet it collapsed all the same. And no, Larry Silvertien did not "order" the demolishion of it. He had no authority to do that, and there is no way that on the morning of Sept. 11th, among all the chaos, the NY fire fighters stratigiclly placed enough explosives to take the building down by 5:20pm. That is a job that would take a lot of trained engineers atleast a week to set up.
The only one who could believe this story is someone with way too much respect for authority, and not enough respect for logic.
2006-3-9 10:50 AM
#8
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
Okay it was an evil conspiracy.
QUOTE:
Larry Silvertien did not "order" the demolishion of it. He had no authority to do that
It was an actor who looked just like Larry Silverstein and he was hired by the government to say on television that he had "told them to pull" WTC 7. Only, the interview where the actor said this was broadcast only to my television set by the cable TV company, which wrongly used its technology that delivers pay-per view movies to my television specifically. Instead of delivering a movie at my request and billing me, the government delivered a fake news interview to my TV set for free.
Think about it. If the government was so evil as to concoct such a conspiracy, then given their experience with the JFK assassination, wouldn't they have also concocted the anti-government backlash response? If so, then the demand for alternatives in the marketplace of ideas would be met with the explanations that can eventually be shot down and explained away.
So we see people who deny that victims were killed on jets by saying a missile hit the Pentagon and that the WTC jets were military aircraft. And we see people who deny that WTC 7 was harmlessly demolished by its owner on that afternoon because it was structurally damaged. And we see people who encourage people to research the history of large building fires, which few people have the time or interest to do.
Now one point that isn't made about the elevator shafts is that every elevator shaft was clogged -- with elevator cars.
Think about terrorism generally for a moment. Isn't terrorism the simplist and most effective way to tear at the fabric of civil order by embarassing those in charge of a society? If so, shouldn't it be the first choice of enemy nations? And since it should be the first choice of enemy nations, then shouldn't the control of terror organizations be the first and foremost task of any government? Given this logic, and given what we can read in Orwell's 1984, then shouldn't we assume that all terror organization that haven't been destroyed silently exist only for the purpose of running counter-terrorism investigations? Why would our government give publicity to a terror organization that it didn't already control?
So just as the alternatives to the government's 9/11 story exist to control the 9/11 debate, doesn't al Qaeda itself exist simply to control terrorism?
2006-3-9 11:49 AM
#9
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
believe what you want
The design of the WTC aided the failure of the steel as 35 tons of fuel ignited. The steel did not have the same design as older buildings like the Empire State Building.
Some people can not accept that a handful of people can do this much damge, or that one guy can shoot a president. It is better for them to see a plot, or a great force at work. They want to see Bin laden and Bush and Sadaam as part of a grand plan by a cynical government. The truth however is that they are each self-deluded bumblers. Bush really believed, and still does, that invading Iraq fights terrorism. Sadaam believed the US would not invade Iraq, and now believes he will be president again. Bin Laden believed 9/11 attacks would start a religious war between the US and Islam, and now he thinks his global terror network can start his war of religions. They are each wrong.
Go ahead, believe 9/11 was a Bush plot. Or that Bin Laden is CIA. It is better than worrying about bird flu, global warming, arms control, poverty, and religious/racial intolerance.
2006-3-10 12:09 AM
#10
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
Can't agree with all of this.
QUOTE:
Go ahead, believe 9/11 was a Bush plot. Or that Bin Laden is CIA. It is better than worrying about bird flu, global warming, arms control, poverty, and religious/racial intolerance.
There are about half a dozen tangents that can cause people to immediately close their minds on the topic of 9/11. Blaming G W Bush or the CIA specifically are two. Saying people didn't die on the jets or that a missile hit the Pentagon are two others. So I like to avoid all these traps, which is what they are.
The causes and details of 9/11 are very important. Not in many, many years has the political agenda of the USA been changed in a matter of hours by a terror event. The last time might have been the killing of Abraham Lincoln, who wanted a fast reconciliation with the defeated confederate states following the American Civil War. Many others wanted a harsher response, and after Lincoln was killed, they got their way. Pearl Harbor which is sometimes compared to 9/11 didn't really change the direction, it just accellerated the pace at which America entered WW2.
Knowing whether or not 9/11 was sponsored by some rogue element in Washington or simply permitted to occur by some rogue element can help us understand where the USA is going in the future. Issues like bird flu, global warming, arms control, poverty, and religious/ racial intolerance are very important, but I promise you that they will each one take a back seat if someone allows another terror attack on America, if that is in fact what happened.
2006-3-10 01:30 PM
#11
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
change of direction?
9/11 did not make a change of direction for Bush. He and neocon wanted to oust Taliban and Sadaam from the moment he took office. Bush has no interest in the environment, poverty, or racism. He believes God is handling those problems, and needs him to get his enemies. Which in some ways, makes his outlook resemble the "tarerists" he attacks. If the US had a real two party government, we would have a through investigation of 9/11 that would have cleared any doubts. Instead, the neocons jumped at the chance to go to war in Iraq. The "rogue element" in the US leadership is in plain view, it does not have to hide or have secret plots. They will not have inquires, because they know they are right. They believe repeating lies makes them true.
2006-3-10 09:10 PM
#12
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
9/11 changed the country's political direction
I believe that the Bush administration did have its sights on Iraq well before he was sworn in as president, however I also believe that the country wasn't necessarily going along with the idea. For example, the biggest presidential event prior to 9/11 was a taped White House speech Bush gave on stem cell research. And of course, everyone remembers that on 9/11 the president was promoting his educational reform agenda by reading with a class of elementary school children.
I don't necessarily see Bush as a participant in a rogue element that permitted 9/11. We've all seen the memo he was presented with that was titled, "bin Laden determined to strike within U.S." However, no one knows how competent Bush would have been to change things around if he had sought to increase security as a result. We've also never seen the attachments to that memo.
George Bush isn't a smart man. He received a briefing on Katrina 24 hours before the storm made landfall and did not ask a single question.
2006-3-10 11:46 PM
#13
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
directions and rogue elements
When Bush was first elected, the country was in a recession, so most americans were focused on economics. Bush had a neocon mindset that he needed to get rid of the Taliban and Sadaam. That is why 9/11 did not start a change in direction within his leadership group. If there had been no 9/11, he would have used other reasons to build his case for both actions. I do not believe there is a rogue element that allowed 9/11, but I do think we should have had a real investigation and inquiry by congress. I believe that Bush & company fought this because they did not want average americans to blame them for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden, and not because they allowed 9/11 to happen. Another reason for the resistance to an inquiry was the funding of Bin Laden by our allies, they feared an american backlash against their oil buddies in the middle east.
I also think Bush's lack of intelligence has been over-stated. I think what is much worse is the Bush belief in putting only friends and sycophants into all government job openings, regardless of qualifications. He does not ask questions because he thinks his buddies will take care of it, and do "a heck of a good job." Bush has said many times that he does not read anything, newspapers or reports. His buddies tell him what he needs to know, which is not much in detail. Besides, Bush and his inner circle believe that if they believe it then it is true. As one of his aides stated in a NY Times article, they make their own reality. So, there is not need to waste time on facts.
2006-3-11 07:10 PM
#14
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
9/11 was too easy.
QUOTE:
I believe that Bush & company fought this because they did not want average americans to blame them for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden, and not because they allowed 9/11 to happen.
I believe part of the al Qaeda strategy on 9/11 shifted. After EgyptAir 990, the USA should have acted publicly or quietly to secure cockpit doors and enforce safety procedures. When it didn't, the terrorists viewed this as a green light to attempt a larger attack with more "muscle" hijackers to control the passengers. Al Qaeda also shifted its operational plan. Instead of operating clandestinely, they would operate in the open. So instead of being attacked by a stealthy group of hijackers, America was attacked by Muslim extremists who had prepared for their terrorism in the open. This would communicate to those who would see it that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
All the 9/11 hijackers were in America legally. The pilots attended flight schools in America. Two of the hijackers lived in the home of a known FBI infromant. Some hijackers paid for their tickets in cash at the airport. They carried their box knives through security and set off alarms. Muhammad Atta was detained at the Portland, Maine airport because his name was on a terrorism watch list. And of course, Zacarias Mousaoui had been arrested but authorities did not search his computer.
Also during the summer of 2001, various people were warning of terrorist hijackings in America. Some people thought the plot was to exchange hostages for the Sheik who organized the 1993 WTC bombing. I was told that five planes would be hijacked, but the person who told me that did not elaborate further and I did not pay much attention to it.
People sometimes say that the government has to be right 100% of the time while the terrorists need to succeed only once. However, on 9/11, the terrorists succeeded many, many times before they ever stepped into an airport on that day.
2006-3-12 01:02 AM
#15
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
how is it?
how can Bush be both a bumbling idiot and a criminal mastermind?
The towers did collapse from the top down, not from an explosion at the base. The Bushes are an old moneyed family, you could find a connection between them and almost anything. But it does not mean GB did 9/11 as a part of a grand scheme.
I worked in Washington at the time. I know several people who saw the plane fly over them and into the side of the pentagon. I saw wreckage the next day still on the ground.
There are plenty of real issues concerning Bush has done. Iraq, the deficit, declining wages for workers, exporting of jobs, nuclear proliferation, New Orleans and the gulf, cronyism, the environment, etc.
2006-3-14 09:22 PM
#17
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
Criminality and intelligence are two different things.
People can be criminals without regard to their intellect or their wealth.
Zacarias Moussaoui knew he was part of al Qaeda and did not speak up. George W. Bush knew that bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S., which he learned from a memo on August 6, 2001. Neither man spoke up about the threat. George W. Bush was re-elected to the presidency. Moussaoui is on trial to be executed.
And the things that the government said it would have done if Moussaoui had spoken up, which include increasing security at airports and warning the public, are all things they could have done in Bush had spoken up too.
2006-3-14 11:38 PM
#18
pkirk2005
(kpk05)
Primary Member
UID 80832
Digest Posts 0
Credits 97
Posts 92
Registered 2005-9-28
Location US
Status Offline
Criminals with no intelligence always get caught!
I do not believe Bush reads memos, his people tell him what is in them and if it is important. Bush disregarded any intelligence from Clinton people; he believed he already knew what was important. The FBI handling of Moussaoui should have been the focus of a congressonal inquiry.
The neocon mantra was get rid of Sadaam and Taliban, and then the triumph of democracy would defeat Bin laden & terrorism. As they have shown in Iraq, the Bush neocons have little understanding of the real world. They have underestimated at every turn of events; the ability of terrorists to strike in the US, the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the possibility of civil war in a post-Sadaam Iraq, how a hurricane could destroy a city, etc etc.
[
Last edited by pkirk2005 at 2006-3-14 11:32 AM
]
2006-3-15 12:31 AM
#19
matt605
Senior Member
UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline
Here's where you're wrong.
QUOTE:
the Bush neocons have little understanding of the real world. They have underestimated at every turn of events; the ability of terrorists to strike in the US, the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the possibility of civil war in a post-Sadaam Iraq, how a hurricane could destroy a city, etc etc.
They know exactly what they're doing, where they're going, and how they're going to get there. America cannot leave Iraq today. Now that the country is sunk deep into the quagmire, Bush is proposing to withdrawl troops. That will never happen.
We need to get past this idea that the people in Washington are not aware of what they're doing.
2006-3-15 01:12 AM
#20
30
1/2
1
2
>
Printable Version
|
Email to Friend
|
Subscription
|
Favorites
Forum Rules
Feedback
Privacy
Copyright By chinadaily.com.cn. All rights reserved
