Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

[Klash]

I've seen the evidence that points to the controlled demolition theory that brought down the buildings on 9/11. It can't be rationally justified away but what I have always had a problem with is the motivation and the fact that the demolition has always made the use of the planes irrelevant. It has never added up.

So I started thinking. Trying to eliminate the benefit of hindsight. Who would have foreseen a benefit of the American giant becoming enraged at Islamic terrorists? Israel. Who has been rumored to have one of the most extensive spy networks in the world? Israel. The speculative question is would an Israeli spy agency (with or without the endorsement of their government) that became aware of 9/11 in advance (which according to our own government wouldn't have been that hard) and after reporting it to the American authorities or not, decide to make the Jihad mission a success if it were not averted by the U.S. government.

It doesn't make the planes irrelevant; it makes them essential. It's not one man risking the electric chair for an insurance scam. It's not an administration risking everything to go to war with a 3rd world country. It's an entity that could have been disassociated from the Israeli government if caught and if not caught, help align their suicidal, everyday enemy as the Americans everyday enemy - helping to ensure their countries survival.


Thoughts?

[daved150]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

dude...i wouldnt put anything past the musad. if there was to be evidence that current or x-agents were behind some of that, i'd buy into it. i cannot argue with you at all. although....i kinda liked the insurance scam thing...that coulda been worked into a great movie!

[solidground]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Israel is a big player in the nwo, im with you in their part in it just dont think thats the entire motivation, although it may be part..Israel is our home in the middle east and is all for friendly nation building and expansion of the nwo around it in the middle east..Why would the planes make it irrelavant, if there were just bombs it would be a bit too obvious,sensationalism was important.

[horsepwr]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

The Jihad mission was a success wheather the buildings came down or not.

I was at home the morning of 9/11 with the guy that ran meters for me. We were waiting on the Fed-Ex truck to bring my new laptop so we could get to work in the field because my previous penbased computer had cooked the day before. We sat there and watched the whole thing live. The close-up helicopter shots of the people jumping holding hands and all. The whole 9. Right when the first building fell, I said, "damn, the steel framing couldn't handle the heat." Then they release the investigation report and people scoff like it's far fetched or something.

[mandarb11]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Not sure about the intense heat theory as first off Jet fuel (any fuel for that matter) does not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt metal, also there were people that were still alive on the floors that were directly hit by the planes how can that be if the heat was so high to melt metal? Also building 7 I believe also fell that was not directly affected by the twin towers, I still have yet to hear an even close to rational idea behind that.

Now who is behind it well that is hard to know for certain, I guess we would have to find out who stood to benefit from it. There are so many things that occurred that are too fishy, vice president taking control of the air/radar system (whatever it is called) on that particular date, funny phone calls and reports that flight 93 landed at some major airport and the report was there was a bomb on it, relatives getting funny phone calls from people on the flight saying things like, " Hi mom it is me John, I am on a plane that is being hijacked....". The hole in the pentagon with little to no debris, the crash site of flight 93, little to no debris and have not seen one picture of any bodies (where did all the bodies go?), and on and on.

As a historian I know that many countries have used many different "incidents" to start wars. Germany used the burning of their parliment (the Reichstag) which the did and blamed on the Jews to ramp up their persecutions. They also used a post that they killed Polish soldiers then dressed them up as Germans and that gave them an excuse to invade Poland and hence the second WW began. In 1941 there is so much evidence that the US was warned of a huge Japanese fleet about to attack Pearl harbor, yet the trops there were totally unprepared the "day that will live in infamy" outrages the public and the US entered the war, WW1 the sinking of the Lusitania with some American passengers on it driven into water that were known to have German U-boats in it, and America joined WW1, there are too many to list. Is it then inconcievable that a country would stage an incident in order to start a war (by which there is huge profit to be made!), no history tells us this is usually the way it goes.

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

The Jihad mission was a success wheather the buildings came down or not.

I was at home the morning of 9/11 with the guy that ran meters for me. We were waiting on the Fed-Ex truck to bring my new laptop so we could get to work in the field because my previous penbased computer had cooked the day before. We sat there and watched the whole thing live. The close-up helicopter shots of the people jumping holding hands and all. The whole 9. Right when the first building fell, I said, "damn, the steel framing couldn't handle the heat." Then they release the investigation report and people scoff like it's far fetched or something.

Because it is far fetched! Those beams were built to take much more heat than that. If only you watched the vid in my sig, you would have a better understanding of our argument. I'm not saying you'll flip your thoughts, I'm saying you'll understand the mindset.

Klash I agree with you but I don't see the plane thing as being far fetched. The plane was necessary in order to make the buildings falling believable. Look at how many people refuse to believe there were bombs in those buildings....

yet those same people say they feel fireman and police of 9/11 were heroes. If they were heroes then what would they gain by lying? Why did the fireman and policeman of 9/11 come right out and say bombs went off in the basement and then later from floor to floor? Why did bombs blow people across the room in the basement according to the fireman? I think they would know better than any of us if that is usual from just the heat of a fire.

With the plane hitting the towers it now makes it much easier to scapegoat it on that, rather than look at the truth.

Here's another often looked over fact. If they just used bombs and not the planes people would be in arms on how bombs were installed floor by floor without being discovered by security, or the bomb sniffing dogs that have been in the building since the '93 attempt on the towers. With the planes hitting theres no questioning why the weekend before the bomb sniffing dogs and security guards were evacuated as well as security cameras shut down for so called "internet ugrades". According to the tenants and employees that worked there, that hasn't happened before and was odd. What would the dogs have found? Why did security need to be evacuated?

So again this all leads to the fact that the planes were necessary so the majority of americans could be swayed to a more easilly and less diabolical plan than what they have already been spoon fed. Imagine how much more diabolical and worse it was if our own government committed those acts against it's own people. It would be a spitting image of the movie 'V for Vendeatta' Chapter 24 in the DVD.

[Klash]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

The Jihad mission was a success wheather the buildings came down or not.

I would agree with that. So it would have been redundant for the terrorists to hijack planes and plant explosives; they would have done one or the other. I am just trying to understand any kind of motivation for anyone that would want to enhance or fullfill the jihadists plans.

Not sure about the intense heat theory as first off Jet fuel (any fuel for that matter) does not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt metal, also there were people that were still alive on the floors that were directly hit by the planes how can that be if the heat was so high to melt metal? Also building 7 I believe also fell that was not directly affected by the twin towers, I still have yet to hear an even close to rational idea behind that.

Right and wasn't there several independent reports that stated the jet fuel would have burned up within 5 minutes; so if it was the jet fuel that caused the collapse, the twin towers would have collapsed within 5 minutes - not after the structural metal began cooling.

Klash I agree with you but I don't see the plane thing as being far fetched. The plane was necessary in order to make the buildings falling believable. Look at how many people refuse to believe there were bombs in those buildings....

Why complicate an assault making it two seperate attacks, when it could have been accomplished with one. What is the motivation? That's what makes me think another entity, agency, government, etc. was exploiting the terrorists plan for their own benefit, without the terrorists knowledge.

[Klash]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Israel is a big player in the nwo, im with you in their part in it just dont think thats the entire motivation, although it may be part..Israel is our home in the middle east and is all for friendly nation building and expansion of the nwo around it in the middle east..Why would the planes make it irrelavant, if there were just bombs it would be a bit too obvious,sensationalism was important.

I guess I need more information on your perspective. I don't see why bombs collapsing the buildings with no warning, killing 2 to 3 times more people isn't sensational (in a demented way).

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Why complicate an assault making it two seperate attacks, when it could have been accomplished with one. What is the motivation? That's what makes me think another entity, agency, government, etc. was exploiting the terrorists plan for their own benefit, without the terrorists knowledge.

It's not complicating it. It's making it believable to the american public. Look at what this government has gained in power by 9/11 happening. They use it to violate every one of our constitutional rights in the books. It's their excuse for everything.

The connection between bombing a pipeline in Afghanistan & Dick cheney with Halliburton. They sure had alot to gain. The fact they have stocks in defense contractors gave them alot of reason. Giving us an excuse to set up a major military installation in the middle east (Iraq) and take their oil ie the food for oil program.

People always compare todays oil crisis with the oil crisis with Iran in the early 80's. The difference is we didn't take over Iran. We took over Iraq which is an oil rich country, run a program like food for oil, yet our prices are at their highest ever in history?! Now pair that with the knowledge that both Bush and Cheney have direct connections with the oil industry and it makes you scratch your head that during their term in office is when oil companies make the most profits while americans are getting raped at the pump! Makes you scratch your head a little.

Now they are adding cameras all over NYC for so called safety. Before 9/11 this type of control over the public would not have been tolerated. Now again the whole 9/11 things is the excuse.

Now the connection with the bombs and our government. Did you know that bush's brother is the head of Securacom (Spelling?) which headed security for the WTC towers. Don't you find it odd that the weekend before 9/11 they evacuated the towers for "Internet cable upgrading"? Especially odd is the fact they ordered the bomb sniffing dogs out. There is no reason for that. They obviously were hiding something.

Again the plane was needed to enrage the american public that it was in fact jihadists. This gave our government the power to do as they please. They didn't just use the bombs because again the question would remain how did the bombs get past survelliance, bomb sniffing dogs, and security guards to wire the whole building? They couldn't if they were just random terrorists. They wouldn't have made it past the front door with explosives. So the american public would've seen right through that story. But they did know that the american public would be to naive to see past the plane story. And it worked, hence the reason anyone that thinks on the contrary is considered either unpatriotic or a conspiracy theorist. I like to think of it as being free minded......

[Klash]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Again the plane was needed to enrage the american public that it was in fact jihadists. This gave our government the power to do as they please. They didn't just use the bombs because again the question would remain how did the bombs get past survelliance, bomb sniffing dogs, and security guards to wire the whole building? They couldn't if they were just random terrorists. They wouldn't have made it past the front door with explosives. So the american public would've seen right through that story. But they did know that the american public would be to naive to see past the plane story. And it worked, hence the reason anyone that thinks on the contrary is considered either unpatriotic or a conspiracy theorist. I like to think of it as being free minded......

So why use explosives at all? Like horsepower stated, the plane mission was a success without the collapse of the buildings and the same arguments of sacrificing liberty for security could have been made without the extra risk of being exposed by any of the great number of people that would have had to have been involved with such a plan not to mention the physical evidence.

That's what gives me the idea that two unaligned entities were involved. The two assaults by one entity (or aligned groups) doesn't make much sense. But I definitely don't have my mind made up one way or the other.

[Strateg0s]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

You don't necessarily have to buy into nefarious conspiracy theories to explain the towers collapsing straight on.

1. The WTC was attacked in 1993.

2. An analysis would determined that if the tower were ever attacked successfully that it would collapse in an uncontrolled fashion, killing thousands or tens of thousands more people than were it to collapse in a controlled fashion.

3. "The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing 250,000 people" [from Wikipedia]

4. To avoid this possibility, explosives were placed (concealed) within the towers' structure to allow for the possibility of choosing the lesser of two evils.

5. In 2001, the towers were struck again, and this time they were certainly going to collapse.

6. All efforts were made to evacuate both buildings.

7. The buildings would collapse in either a controlled fashion or an uncontrolled fashion.

8. Collapsing in a controlled fashion would save some large number of lives.

9. Some fewer number of lives would be lost by saving more lives.

10. The public could never accept the above calculations, or precautions, which would be seen as premeditated murder by the government of civilians.

11. The public could never be told of the above calculations, because it could not bear the burden.

12. How do you think the public would in fact have reacted had the above version been presented by the White House in September, 2001?

13. The public was never told the truth; the truth was covered up.

14. Suppose all of the above is The Truth. Is that bad or good?

15. What would you have done in light of #1-3?

----
I'm just putting this out as a plausible explanation of what might have happened. Competing accounts which I've read depend on an non-believable number of co-conspirators: the truth would have gotten out. What I've put forth could in fact have been engineered and carried out by a small number of individuals.

These few could have acted for benevolent and sound reasons, or they could have acted for malicious purposes, alone or with others.

Whatever your stance before reading what I had to say, give it some thought.

[Stout1]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

6. All efforts were made to evacuate both buildings.

Remember there was THREE buildings that fell that day and only two got hit by a plane

[Stout1]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

I'm just putting this out as a plausible explanation of what might have happened. Competing accounts which I've read depend on an non-believable number of co-conspirators: the truth would have gotten out. What I've put forth could in fact have been engineered and carried out by a small number of individuals.

These few could have acted for benevolent and sound reasons, or they could have acted for malicious purposes, alone or with others.

Whatever your stance before reading what I had to say, give it some thought.

Also this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

So why use explosives at all? Like horsepower stated, the plane mission was a success without the collapse of the buildings and the same arguments of sacrificing liberty for security could have been made without the extra risk of being exposed by any of the great number of people that would have had to have been involved with such a plan not to mention the physical evidence.

That's what gives me the idea that two unaligned entities were involved. The two assaults by one entity (or aligned groups) doesn't make much sense. But I definitely don't have my mind made up one way or the other.

No your missing what I'm saying.... The bombs ARE what blew up the building. The plane had nothing to do with it. Like others said people weren't burning alive on the floors that were hit, so obviously it wasn't hot enough to melt steel.

Let me elaborate on their point. Ever been to a campfire? Campfires get pretty hot. So hot sometimes that you need to actually back up from it. Now keeping that in mind, they are trying to say that the fires were so hot that they made the steel fail? You do realize that the melting temp for steel is 1500 degrees Celsius right? Furthermore structural steel begins to soften around 425 degrees celsius and loses 50% of it's strength at 650 degrees celsius. If the fire was hot enought to melt the steel, everyone on those floors would have been dead instantly from the heat alone.

Also keep in mind that the firemen said over the radio to fellow firemen that they fires were two pockets and could be controlled with two ladders. Hardly sounds like an inferno like they try to make it out as.

Now with that out of the way. Did you also know that the WTC was built to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707? It was designed like that because a B-25 Mitchell bomber struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945. So they built it with the ability to withstand a direct hit from a jetliner like the one that hit the WTC towers. The average american DOES NOT know that bit of information. If they did they would question why the towers feel from a plane hit, or from inadequate heat.

So knowing all of this you now know the necessity of the plane. People would question the bombs. Almost nobody questions the plane or heat.

That would make their plan a success.

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

Good points stout.

Stratego, I honestly can say this. If what your saying was the truth. Our government should have made that public information the second they installed them in the building, not after a catastrophe has taken place.

Hindsight is 20/20, and it's easy to make a cover story for why explosives were in the building. However if it was already public information, it wouldn't have been such a shock & there would be a lot more supporters of our government than there currently are.

Lying, stealing, cheating gets them nowhere. Honesty is the best and ONLY policy.

Don't you find it odd that our country has leaned towards a **** style regime since 9/11?

If your not with us your against us.

Patriot Act

Camera's all over NYC to monitor your everymove.

National ID cards

Point made?