Forums | MacLife

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Take a look at the picture, and note the distinctive lack of wing-induced damage to the building.

Pictures can be doctored, so I don't trust them as a credible source. However, having said that, there is more than enough information to prove your point. For example, the fuel used on the supposed plane that crashed is known to burn at a specific temperature, yet there were no such burn marks anywhere to be found at the site. Also, one of the engines found at the site was not from a commercial airliner, so how did it get there? Lots of good questions to be asked, but I wouldn't rely on just 'pictures' for any of them. A group of independent investigators and reporters (some of which have testified before Congress) have been researching this topic. You can find a lot of their documents and information by clicking here. There is also a book out written by Paul Thomson which documents a lot of the timeline information. For most people the best place to start is a video based on his book called "9/11 - Press for Truth". Chances are your library has a copy of it that you can watch for free.

All you have to do is connect the dots to raise questions. Following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center a security company called Securacom acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security. One week before 9/11 the FBI schedules a routine sweep of the building for explosives, however their request is suddenly turned down and the building is never checked. Guess who turned down the bomb sweep and was in charge of the security company Securacom? Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush. Uncharacteristically the FBI never investigates. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, one of the planes involved in 9/11 - American Airlines Flight 77 - took off from Dulles. Guess who was in charge of their security (maintaining the airfield access systems, the closed circuit television systems, and the electronic badging systems) - That's right, Securacom, run by bush's brother. You can learn more by googling. Here is one article that I found, but for the most detailed information it's best to use the link for the timeline above. It has incredible detail and you are able to cross reference with it.

And what, pray tell, did that engine go to? They should have been able to find a better excuse than someone identifying it whose only expertise was seeing a jet engine on an airplane they rode in once.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

All you have to do is connect the dots to raise questions. Following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center a security company called Securacom acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security. One week before 9/11 the FBI schedules a routine sweep of the building for explosives, however their request is suddenly turned down and the building is never checked. Guess who turned down the bomb sweep and was in charge of the security company Securacom? Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush. Uncharacteristically the FBI never investigates. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, one of the planes involved in 9/11 - American Airlines Flight 77 - took off from Dulles. Guess who was in charge of their security (maintaining the airfield access systems, the closed circuit television systems, and the electronic badging systems) - That's right, Securacom, run by bush's brother. You can learn more by googling. Here is one article that I found, but for the most detailed information it's best to use the link for the timeline above. It has incredible detail and you are able to cross reference with it.

Marvin Bush was no longer with Stratesec / Securacom. He ended his relationship with the company in June 2000.

Edit:
No longer on Board of Directors as of June 2000, sold shares around same time.
Ended relationship in full before 9-11.

Last edited by iSeamas (2007-10-23 2:01 pm)

Not J.K. Rowling, or the Magical Kingdom Mouse...

"Some Americans will think I'm crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think. They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be," she said in an interview published Sunday.

"Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government; it killed several people while a Conservative congress was being held and in which the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was [attending]. People forget," she said.

...

"Many of us hated Tony Blair, I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years."

"As for Bush, he's a world calamity," added Lessing. "Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars."

Doris Lessing.

Did you know that engines used in commercial airliners have the same core as military engines, the big difference being that the commercial airliners have a much larger fan in front, which, conveniently enough, will get sheared off in a bad enough crash?

Don't you just love how the administration that leeks something horrible every week has yet to have someone leek inside knowledge about this 9/11 conspiracy? Despite the fact that it's insanely elaborate and would require the collaboration of a smurf load of people.

Especially when they were pressed for results, or wanted to talk before they fully examined their findings.

Large jet engines for military and civilian use are nearly identical. If we are talking about 747, 737, etc. there is a corresponding airplane used by the Air Force, or a plane that uses the same or nearly same engine. Because of that ubiquitousness, you can't make a declaration like your experts are MyMac8MyPC. It fails Occams test.

Aqua OS X wrote:

has yet to have someone leek inside knowledge about this 9/11 conspiracy?

Oh, you mean like Richard Clarke? Check out the timeline for more.

it's insanely elaborate and would require the collaboration of a smurf load of people.

...or a smurf load of money. Let's see now, the saudis and the oil companies aren't exactly poor, are they? And this administration just happens to be directly tied to both. Weird.

Chickenhawk wrote:

I've heard "experts" say outrageously false statements before...

Doesn't mean they're all wrong either

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

I'm guessing that since the aircraft experts make their living at this that they understood such fundamentals before they released their results...

Ahh the "experts"
I'm sorry, but the Pentagon conspiracy theories are the shakiest of all of this BS.

Tear down of the 757 engine:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/co … 0265.shtml

How easy was to slam a plane into a low building:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/co … 0274.shtml

Even the conspiracy nuts have been shying away from this theory recently.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ … sode_1.htm

Video too!— http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ … npilot.wmv

Last edited by StaticAge (2007-10-23 3:47 pm)

I dont believe in the conspiracy but I find it rather suspicious that a new Bi Laden tape shows up just when Bushie demand yet more money for the war.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

And in fairness to the conspiro-dudes, the Wiki link Dan provided says:

At 6:35 pm local time, the Boeing 747, in nearly a ninety-degree bank with its right wing pointing at the ground, plowed into two high-rise apartment complexes in the Bijlmermeer neighborhood, at the corner of a building where the Groeneveen complex met the Klein-Kruitberg complex.

In other words the wings didn't mark the building to the sides of the fuselage entry point because the wings weren't horizontal, they were vertical. So it's not very useful to compare it to the Pentagon crash.

No, but the idea that an airplane crashing into a building would make a Bugs-Bunny jagged outline where it went through the wall is ludicrous.

Have any of you guys seen the cover of the Coup album that was supposed to come out on September 11th, 2001?



Extremely unfortunate coincidence?