(Rather long but interesting)
_______________________

By WILLIAM BUNCH

NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today.

Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news.

So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day?

No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys.

Who put deadly anthrax in the mail? Where were the jet fighters that were supposed to protect America's skies that morning? And what was the role of our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

There are dozens of unanswered questions about the 2001 attacks, but we've narrowed them down to 20 - or 9 plus 11.

1. What did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on Aug. 6, 2001?

Rice has suggested in vague terms that the president's brief - prepared daily by the CIA - included information that morning about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation - including hijacking. But when the congressional committee probing Sept. 11 asked to see the report, Bush claimed executive privilege and refused to release it.

2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?

On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?

3. Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?

On Sept. 10, 2001, the trading ratio on United Airlines was 25 times greater than normal at the Pacific Exchange, where traders could buy "puts," high-risk bets that the price of a company's stock will fall sharply. The next day, two hijacked United jetliners crashed, causing the company's shares to plummet and ultimately leading the airline into bankruptcy. CBS News later reported that at intelligence agencies, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market" on the day before the attacks.

The unusual stock trading suggests that someone with a sophisticated knowledge of finance also had advance information about the impending attack. But two years later, no one has been charged in this matter, and officials have not indicated even if the probe is still open.

4. Are all 19 people identified by the government as participants in the Sept. 11 attacks really the hijackers?

Probably not. Just 10 days after the attacks, a report by the British Broadcasting Corp. said that some of the supposed hijackers identified by the FBI appeared to be alive and well. The BBC story said Abdelaziz al-Omari, named as the pilot who crashed the jet into the World Trade Center's North Tower, was reported by Saudi authorities to be working as an electrical engineer. He reported his passport had been stolen in Denver in 1995. Saudi officials said it was possible that another three people whose names appear on the FBI list also are alive.

The article, which can be read at Unanswered Questions, makes a persuasive case that another man was posing as Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of hijacked Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pa. So why did this story line vanish into thin air?

5. Did any of the hijackers smuggle guns on board as reported in calls from both Flight 11 and Flight 93?

Quite possibly. An internal Federal Aviation Administration memo written at 5:30 p.m. on the day of the attacks said that a passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 11 - Israeli-American Daniel Lewin - had been shot to death by a single bullet before the jet slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The FAA insists the memo was a mistaken "first draft," even though the

alleged shooting is described in great detail.

Aboard Flight 93, passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, Deena, in a 9:27 a.m. cell-phone call: "The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, and they are telling us there is a bomb on board."

Why has this angle of Sept. 11 not been investigated in more detail?

6. Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?

During the depths of the Cold War, Americans went to bed with the somewhat reassuring belief that jet fighters would intercept anyone launching a first strike against the United States. That myth was shattered on 9/11, when four hijacked-jetliners-turned-into-deadly-missiles cruised the American skies with impunity for nearly two hours.

Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command seem unaware of literally dozens of warnings that hijacked jetliners could be used as weapons? Why does NORAD claim it did not learn that Flight 11 - the first jet to strike the World Trade Center about 8:45 a.m. - had been hijacked until 8:40 a.m., some 25 minutes after the transponder was shut off and an astounding 15 minutes after flight controllers heard a hijacker say, "We have some planes..."?

Why didn't the fighters that were finally scrambled at Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia fly at top, supersonic speeds? Why didn't fighters immediately take off from Andrews Air Force Base, just

outside Washington, D.C.? Why was nothing done to intercept American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, when officials knew it had been had been hijacked some 47 minutes earlier?

And why has no one been disciplined for the worst breakdown in national defense since Pearl Harbor?

7. Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?

In arguably the greatest understatement in U.S. history, Bush told a questioner at a California town-hall meeting in January 2002 that 9/11 "was an interesting day." Interesting, indeed. In the two years since the attacks, questions have only grown about the president's bizarre behavior that morning, when he was informed in a Sarasota classroom that America was under attack.

"I couldn't stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second-graders, while my husband was burning in a building," World Trade Center widow Lorie van Auken, a leader of relatives of Sept. 11 victims who have raised questions about the attacks, told Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.

Why did Bush read a children's story about a pet goat and stay in the classroom for more than a half-hour after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and roughly 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him that it had been a deliberate attack? Why didn't he take more decisive action, and why wasn't he hustled to a secure area while the attacks were clearly still under way?

Conspiracy advocates have cited these strange lapses as evidence that Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time, but why would anyone with advance knowledge appear so clueless?

For a fascinating read on the subject, go to: www.unansweredquestions.org /timeline/main/essayaninteresting day.html.

8. How did Flight 93 crash in western Pennsylvania?

The most popular version - that heroic passengers who fought with the hijackers successfully stormed the cockpit - has become so widely accepted that people were jarred last month when an Associated Press report seemed to contradict it. The AP story took one line out of a congressional report and wrote that the FBI now believes the hijackers crashed the plane on purpose.

Many were dismayed that the FBI would change its story, but the government had never put out an official story. Some unidentified government officials had first floated the hijackers-crashed-the-plane-on-purpose theory in late 2001.

Based solely on circumstantial evidence from several cell-phone calls made by passengers, most of the public and the mainstream media have come to believe that the plane crashed because of a struggle between the passengers and the hijackers.

Meanwhile, the FBI reportedly has enough hard information about what really happened on Flight 93 to have worked up a flight-simulation video. But that video, the cockpit audio recording and the hard data from the other "black box," the flight data recorder, is still top secret.

The issue symbolizes the government's continuing refusal to release information about what really happened on Sept. 11. Even some relatives of Flight 93 victims are growing unhappy that more information has not been publicized.

9. Was Zacarias Moussaoui really "the 20th hijacker"?

Almost certainly not, even though the allegation has been repeated hundreds of times in the media. The Moroccan native, who has been in custody since his August 2001 arrest on immigration charges after he attended a flight-training school in Minneapolis, has admitted that he is a member of al Qaeda and wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. But he arrived here much later than the Sept. 11 hijackers and reportedly had no contacts with them.

The issue is important because some family members of Sept. 11 victims who are seeking information about what happened that day have been turned down because of the ongoing Moussaoui case.

10. Where are the planes' "black boxes"?

Nothing is more critical to learning about air disasters than the so-called "black boxes." They are the 30-minute audio recordings of cockpit chatter and the fight-data inputs which show the speed, direction and operational condition of the plane, and which are encased in material designed to withstand a high-speed crash. Yet the government has continued to keep a lid of secrecy on the black boxes from Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and from Flight 93.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. Why not? Why not release the information to the public? Why has a docile mainstream media not demanded this information?

And how come none of the four "indestructible" black boxes was recovered from the World Trade Center, even as investigators said that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers had been found in the rubble, undamaged, a week after the towers's collapse?

11. Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?

CBS News reported that the defense secretary was making notes about invading Iraq even before the fires from Flight 77 had been extinguished on the other side of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H." - Saddam Hussein - "at the same time. Not only UBL" - Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Rumsfeld and a number of other Bush administration officials have ties to a once-obscure policy group called the Project for a New American Century. In a 2000 white paper, PNAC - which had long urged an American invasion of Iraq - said that for the United States to assert itself properly as the world's lone superpower, "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" - would be required.

That new Pearl Harbor came - two years ago today.

12.Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?

7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, was not struck by an aircraft on Sept. 11, yet the building mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that afternoon. Apparently debris from the jetliner attacks on the adjacent twin towers started a fire at No. 7. But as the New York Times noted: "No building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." Investigators have speculated that excess diesel

fuel for emergency generators fanned the flames, but the full story may never be known.

Some questions also have lingered about why the two 110-story towers collapsed. But investigators think the burning jet fuel - compounded by paper-and-electronics-laden cubicles and possibly insulation matter - burned long enough, at temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees, to weaken the structural steel.

13. Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?

Because apparently some White House officials felt that the health of the American economy and Wall Street was more important than the health of New York City residents who lived nearby. For example, on Sept. 16, 2001, a draft press release from the Environmental Protection Agency said: "Recent samples of dust gathered by OSHA on Water Street showed higher levels of asbestos in EPA tests." That was deleted and replaced with this: "The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

A key figure in the changes was the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who - you can't make this stuff up - is a lawyer who formerly represented the asbestos industry.

In fact, the EPA told workers and residents that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan at a time when some test results had not been analyzed and other key tests had not even been performed. The outcome? Key medical professionals say thousands of New Yorkers have developed respiratory illnesses associated with exposure to the dust. Symptoms include periodic gasping for air, a choking sensation and unusual sensitivity to airborne irritants, apparently from a type of "occupational asthma" called Reactive Airways Disease Syndrome.

14. Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

We'll never know, but a widely reported rumor was that it was right here in the Keystone State. The speculation is the vice president spent the days after the attack at Site R, a secretive Cold War-era site, also known as Alternate Joint Communications Center, deep inside Raven Rock Mountain. The mountain is in western Pennsylvania, near Waynesboro.

15. What happened to the more than $1 billion that Americans donated after the attack?

The largest recipient, the American Red Cross, says it already has used $741 million from its Liberty Fund to help more than 55,000 families cope with the death of loved ones, serious injuries, physical and mental health concerns, financial loss, homelessness and other effects of the attacks.

Of that, $596 million was in the form of direct financial assistance to families of those killed or seriously injured, as well as to displaced workers, residents and emergency personnel who were seriously affected. Depending on individual needs, this financial assistance included up to a full year's living expenses, estate and special-circumstances cash grants, and more.

16. What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?

The idea that Pakistan is considered a leading American ally in the war on terror is both ironic and a bit disturbing when one considers that there are proven links between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the notorious ISI, and the Taliban, as well as likely ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Wall Street Journal and many reputable news organizations in South Asia reported that the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was fired after being linked to a $100,000 payment that had been wired to al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta in America to pay for the Sept. 11 attacks. The New York Times said the intelligence service even used al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India.

In recent weeks, two troubling reports have emerged. The highly regarded French journalist Bernard-Henri Levy has written that Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl had been murdered by elements of the ISI because he'd learned that al Qaeda "is largely controlled by the Pakistani secret service" and that Islamic extremists control the nation's nuclear weapons. And investigative reporter Gerald Posner writes that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah not only revealed a link to top Saudis but also to high-ranking Pakistani air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir. Mir, who is said to have cut protection deals in secret meetings with bin Laden, died earlier this year in a plane crash that also killed his wife and closest confidants.

17. Who killed five Americans with anthrax?

Actually, it's not clear whether this question should even be on this list. Two years later, it's not known whether the anthrax-laden letters that killed five Americans from Connecticut to Florida, and targeted some leading Democratic pols and TV news anchors, had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, the list of potential suspects - al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam, crackpot U.S. scientists - hasn't been narrowed down. Our government's utter cluelessness about a reign of terror that rattled the nation and dominated the headlines in fall 2001 is an investigative failure of epic proportions.

One man, a former Army biomedical researcher named Steven J. Hatfill, has been labeled "a person of interest" by the FBI, but nothing definitive has linked Hatfill to the crime. Just this summer, federal investigators drained a Frederick, Md., pond where they speculated the anthrax letters might have been assembled, but tests of soil samples taken after the draining yielded no evidence of biological weapons. And now Hatfill has sued the government for invading his privacy - in a case that may never be solved.

18. What happened to the probe into C-4 explosives found in a Philadelphia bus terminal in fall 2001?

Do you remember this front-page headline from Oct. 20, 2001: "In Phila. locker, a lethal find; Explosive 'would probably have leveled' bus depot." You can be forgiven if you don't. There's been no mention in local media since late 2001 of the alarming discovery of one-third of a pound of lethal C-4 and 1,000 feet of military detonation cord in a locker at the Greyhound bus terminal in Center City, even though it's possibly the most direct link between Philadelphia and domestic terrorism.

Investigators conceded a couple of months into their probe that the trail had gone stone-cold. They speculated that the material had been stolen from an Army base and that the culprit, who rented the locker on Sept. 29, 2001, decided that the material was too hot to handle after the Sept. 11 attacks. The truth may never be known.

19. What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?

It's not a total mystery. Everyone has acknowledged that the pages contain highly embarrassing information about links between the Sept. 11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the Middle East and home to the world's largest oil reserves. One of those officials is said to be Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, whose wife, Princess Haifa, indirectly funded at least two of the Sept. 11 terrorists during their time in San Diego. The prince is so close to the Bush family that he's known, incredibly, as "Bandar Bush." This week, Time reports that just after the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. commercial airspace was still closed to our citizens, Bush allowed a jet to stop at 10 U.S. cities to pick up and fly home 140 prominent Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden.

A new must-read book by investigative reporter Posner - "Why America Slept" - takes the conspiracy to the highest of levels of the Saudi government. He says a top bin Laden lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002, stunned investigators when - allegedly given the "truth serum" sodium pentothal - fingered three top Saudis. They were Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the Westernized owner of 2002 Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem; Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir.

The most incredible part of the story is what happened next. In an eight-day period in late July 2002, Prince Ahmed died at age 43 from a heart attack, Prince Turki died in a car crash and Prince Fahd "died of thirst." Coincidence? What do you think?

20. Where is Osama bin Laden?

Remember how President Bush vowed on Sept. 17, 2001, that he was determined to catch bin Laden "dead or alive"? Well, the good news is that if he wants bin Laden "alive," there's still a chance that could happen. Intelligence experts now agree that bin Laden successfully escaped his Tora Bora hideout in Afghanistan back in December 2001 - when the U.S. failed to commit ample manpower to the chase - and that the al Qaeda leader is alive and well, and plotting new attacks.

"We don't know where he is," Army Col. Rodney Davis, spokesman for America's forces in Afghanistan, said recently. But Newsweek seems to know where to find bin Laden: in the remote, mountainous - and lawless - Kunar province of Afghanistan. The magazine chillingly reported that just five short months ago, bin Laden convened the biggest terror summit since Sept. 11 at a mountain stronghold there. The participants reportedly included three top-ranking representatives from the Taliban, several senior al Qaeda operatives and leaders from radical Islamic groups in Chechnya and Uzbekistan. The topic was carrying out attacks against U.S. interests inside Iraq.

The most chilling aspect of the Newsweek report is that bin Laden has access to biological weapons and is determined to find a way to use them against the United States. A source from the Taliban told the magazine: "Osama's next step will be unbelievable."

But this week, ABC News reported that the hunt for bin Laden has been narrowed to a different area - a 40-square-mile section of the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The report said that local residents suspected of trying to inform Americans about bin Laden's whereabouts were executed in broad daylight.

Sorry if you've done this subject before, but you've got to admit, there's a lot 'not right' with the events of 9-11.

Check out John Kaminski on it:

http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/thedayamericadied.htm

Why what happened on 9th November?

If we let their smelly story of that sad day prevail, we face certain slavery and continued unaccountability of those who steal elections, kill innocent people, and fleece everyone in not only America but the world with their dictatorial financial schemes, maneuvers that profit only the wealthy few and radically increase the numbers of the suddenly- and soon-to-be poor.

If this 6 dollar booklet had a shred of truth you would think they would have got someone who could write. Not someone who wants to sell his 'smelly' dissertation for an extortionate fee. If he had any conviction he would want this information to widely available. He wouldn't be trying to flog a grubby and exploitative conspiricy theory that only legitamises G Bush by tainting more credible theories with the same retarded brush.
If I was G Bush and I was guilty of something, I would want someone like this to put out an ill-thought-through theory like this, to deflect scrutny from the truth. If he's not legit I would offer another consiricy theory. That this guy is sponsered by G Bush to make the arguments against him look totally absurd - IMO. Don't be stupid :mad:

9/11!
Is that a commemoration of the US inspired military coup in Chile and the subsequent terror?

'If we let their smelly story of that sad day prevail, we face certain slavery and continued unaccountability of those who steal elections, kill innocent people, and fleece everyone in not only America but the world with their dictatorial financial schemes, maneuvers that profit only the wealthy few and radically increase the numbers of the suddenly- and soon-to-be poor.' - miniminch

Totally agree with you. But I think we disagree on who was really behind it all.

The REAL enemy for those who rule us is not the 'terrorists' - its US! Ordinary western people. The terrorist/AQ fictions are what they're distracting us with, so we won't notice the barbed wire laws they're wrapping us all in.

A quantum enemy thats in all places at all times, that you not only created (via CIA) but that they constantly CONTROL.

Handy, no?

9-11 was planned and executed by Bush and his cronies, they needed another Pearl Harbour, to drag us all into WWIII.

And why shouldn't Kaminski earn a few quid? It takes a lot of time and personal effort to put pieces like this together

You should stop taking the brainwashing news bulletins so seriously and start asking the same questions Kaminski did.

Along with a growing number of other writers, he speaks the truth.

*Wedges tin foil helmet firmly onto head*

So you don't even wanna look at it, HxTim??

You'd take the word of proven lying western g/ments as a given and not even check out what respected writers/researchers are saying?

Well thats up to you.

But if anybody else wants to check it out, here's a little notebook site I'm getting together with a few choice copied articles to give a quick recount:

http://www.geocities.com/queencaz2002/9-11PAGE.html

Also checkout the Vaccinations and Aids pages. Where some doctors are breaking away from the pharmaceutical companies hold and letting us know just what our 'masters' have in store for us.

It ain't nice.

I suppose the Americans didnt land on the moon either?
When will people realise,that when anything happens,the conspiacy theorists are sharpening the knives before the dust has settled.
We all saw the footage,the subsequent pics of the hijackers boarding the plane,the recordings of the people who were phoning home.
get a grip on reality,do you really think that the US government would kill 3000 people?And did the Australian government kill all those in Bali?The same for the Spanish in Madrid?

I realise Bush is complete fruitcake,but would he really resort to murder?

Hehe.. the world is full of cranks - most of them Americans. Here is the list of Recent Articles by John Kaminski

Devils From Heaven
Uncle Sam Wants You ... Dead!
The Race To The Rainbow Bridge
What Do We Do?
'Power Hour' Blocks Kaminski at Last Minute
The Understanding
911 Coverup Falling Apart
They Got The Wrong Guy
The Other Shoe
Zionists Threats On John Kaminski Intensify
American Satyricon: Part I & II
The Cost Of The Cul De Sac
Why You Should Not Vote
Arrest The President Now!
Enemies Of Everyone
When The Big Lie Prevails,
Crime Pays
Winking Out
The Unbridgeable Chasm Of Doubt
The Perfect Enemy
Trapped In A Poison Fog
FOX Cancels Kaminski Appearance


Now of course, the Americans don't have a total monopoly on nutters, we have our very own David Icke (http://www.davidicke.com/) :thumbsup: . Mind you, he does spend most of his time in America ;)

Originally posted by CaroleK

a. 9-11 was planned and executed by Bush and his cronies, they needed another Pearl Harbour, to drag us all into WWIII.

b. And why shouldn't Kaminski earn a few quid? It takes a lot of time and personal effort to put pieces like this together

c. You should stop taking the brainwashing news bulletins so seriously and start asking the same questions Kaminski did.

d. Along with a growing number of other writers, he speaks the truth.

This is how all conspiricy theories work by making out that the people that don't buy it are the blindfolded puppet masses.
But here is my response.

a. If you know that to be true don't tell us on the sheffield forum. Go to the Washington post. This is another Watergate. but I suspect your evidence has come from a fellow student theorist who has spent too long in his bedroom making up stuff.

b. why Shouldnt he earn a few quid? because what he write is garbage and he's exploiting people who don't know any better; the way Oliver Stone did in JFK. If you can't see both sides to a arguament it invalidates the case no matter how compelling it is. O Stone account of the assassination of JFK is as fictional as it gets ignoring the crushing fact is that Oswald probably was acting alone. Horrible I know because we were all wanting CIA involvement. And anyway if they were involved which we suspect they were; again the conspiricy theorist went overboard and made the case against the conspiricy seem more plausible than the conspiricy itself.

C. We have a healthy tradition of vigorous journalism in this country. Remember the recent difficulties the BBC got in to over a report on the Today Programme on radio 4. It nearly brought the government down. The outcome may have been disappointing but the fact that that process occured at all should hint at a fairly free press. Ok if you are talking about the low quality newspapers may be you have a point.

d. You can't make the judgement that he speaks the truth. Surely that is impossible to know. The truth is subjective to the point that anything can be said about anything. Ergo the truth does not exist and I'm afraid to say that it's not 'out there.'
He speaks the truth for you because you believe it but that does not make it right. He has a type of low quality phraseology that you might expect from a first year uni student who has half heard this form someones website. Sorry I don't mean to do down uni students but it has a quality of someone who hasn't really got to grips with the type of linguistic rigours expected in years 2 and 3.
The whole think smacks of a unabomber manefesto for the 21st century. if you don't remember;
[URL=http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/[/URL]
There will always be these people who try to sell these lies to us and in some ways are no better than the governments who also peddal fear to its docile consumers. But conspiricy theories keep people afraid and as a result spellbound. You only have to look in any of Murdocks papers to read these exact same theories. All of which, you could argue, are designed to keep people in fear of the panoptic gaze of an all seeing power. Research shows that frightened people consume more - buy more papers - coinsidence?
Anyway, I don't want to rubbish your theory by setting up another one of my own. My point is; there are bad bad people out there - this I think we are in agreement on. But all you can do is be as honest as you possibly can to the people that you love and who matter to you. Don't worry about this **** because you don't know and you sure can't get to the bottom of it. May be there isn't a bottom. Learn to love the things you can reach and stop projecting your anger on to the darkness of the unfathomerable other.

Well, best of luck to you mate. :thumbsup:

Well, I can see we're neither of us gonna budge on this.

I certainly am not. :)

But if anyone wants to look at this in a bit more depth - rather than rubbishing it all as 'conspiracy bollax' which just SO plays into the hands of those who would mis-lead us - then e-mail, message or ask me on this forum.

I've collected quite a few sites that give a very DIFFERENT perspective on what really happened on 9-11.

Nothing you'd ever see in the 'do as you're told' mainstream media. :) (As evidenced by the Gillingham/Today case.)

'Learn to love the things you can reach and stop projecting your anger on to the darkness of the unfathomerable other.' - miniminch

That may explain your own psychological take on all this, m, and your seeming acceptance of the desperate inevitability of it all, but my anger is newly created.

It was created when a bunch of neo-con (and British) elites decided to take it upon themselves to MURDER thousands of US citizens and 350+
noble and brave firemen, in order to a) frighten the western people into giving up their freedoms b) create a reason to go to war er, I mean slaughter, with the Iraqis in order to keep their oil funds flowing.

This is the spirit on the planet that we're dealing with,m.

But hey, don't bother to take a deep look at it all, you just keep meditating on that 'unfathomable other'.

Some of us have already 'fathomed' it. :)

'We all saw the footage,the subsequent pics of the hijackers boarding the plane,the recordings of the people who were phoning home.' - uncleheed

Footage? Pics? Recordings? All quite easily doctored. We got to see and hear what they WANTED us to see and hear.

'And did the Australian government kill all those in Bali?The same for the Spanish in Madrid?' - uncleheed

Dunno about Bali, but def the Madrid bombing was done by the same people. Europe was dragging its heels on T.W.A.T. and needed a kick in the ass to get them on board. From their pov, that is. But the Spanish people resisted the provocation and told them to f**k off.

And, of course, anyone even remotely challenging the 'official' version will be slated as a 'conspiracy theorist', 'nutter', 'tin foil hatter'- you KNOW this right? Yet still you kick at anyone who questions it and accept them as such ... ???!

Nothing like doing the job for them, is there.

Step out of the box, uncleheed.

But yeah, Bush IS a complete fruitcake. He thinks he'll get away with it.:)

The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that people just don't know how to keep their mouth shut. They have consciences.

Anyone care to remind us of a proven conspiracy theory? I cant think of one.

The sheer number of people required for a government to pull off 9/11 simply makes it impossible.

Are you really telling us that the government rigged the planes electronics and remotely controlled them all the way into the buildings? To top it all they then killed all the people involved?

It's the most ridiculous think I've heard and it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Next you will be telling us that Bilderberg organised it all.

Originally posted by CaroleK
Well, I can see we're neither of us gonna budge on this.

I certainly am not. :)

But if anyone wants to look at this in a bit more depth - rather than rubbishing it all as 'conspiracy bollax'

if you'd even read miniminch's lucid post you would see that that is precisely what he isn't doing.

I suggest you look at it in "a bit more depth".

Originally posted by CaroleK
Sorry if you've done this subject before, but you've got to admit, there's a lot 'not right' with the events of 9-11.

Check out John Kaminski on it:

http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/thedayamericadied.htm

Oh my goodness, what a load of B"%%£$&T.

I wonder what the victims families think of this?

They didn't know and they didn't let it happen.
Maybe they did see it as an opportunity (after the event) to sort out a few issues such as the fact they knew they were losing Saudi's oil.

I bet the guy that wrote that was on the paylist for Roswell too !

I haven't looked at that link, but people interested in 9/11 should have a gander at a book called, 'The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11' by David Griffin.
I've just finished it. It looks at all of the available evidence and draws some horrifying conclusions.

Here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844370364/qid=1093162582/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-2695031-4720650) is the link to the book on Amazon.co.uk

Well worth a read.

Originally posted by Tony
Next you will be telling us that Bilderberg organised it all.

Peter Mandelson has been seen attending one of their meetings.... :P

Hehe, maybe he needs a new house?

Actually I find the Bilderberg concept quite an interesting one. It was actually established by Dennis Healey (some cousin or other by marriage of my wife ISTR ;)) as a way of putting together world leaders in varied fields with wide experience to discuss world issues.

The practice rather a comforting one rather than the 'secret conspiratorial cabal' that the cranks see it as. If a board of directors didn't meet up you would be worried, it's just the same on a world level.

It's finally put paid to the huge world wars that we lived through and under threat of, and now we can get on with other, more useful, things.

People who live on conspiracy theories need to have a good hard think about themselves before blaming everything else.

A step at a time, the world is becoming a better place for more people.

Some of us have already 'fathomed' it.


Well then your theory is wrong because if there was a huge conspiricy against humanity by the powers that be. Don't you think that you and your fellow whistleblowers would have been 'rubbed out.' The fact that your on here 'going on' about it suggests that the CIA

rent bothered by your pubescent musing.

It is weird that my PC crashed mid post and when I rebooted it had posted half the post. Perhaps thats the CIA equipment interfering.

Anyway, I was going to say that this is no watergate. We shall from now on refer to it as your Arundellgate! Woodward! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony

A step at a time, the world is becoming a better place for more people.


Well there are certainly going to be more people, whether the world will be a better place for them is debatable...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1285277,00.html

Originally posted by Tony
The Cost Of The Cul De Sac


So Bush is responsible for Sheffield house prices too... I knew it!

:rolleyes:

Reading around the subject of 9/11 is somewhat akin to the experience of plunging your hand into a steaming pile of refuse. The further you go in the more disgusting it gets as you brush past things that seem dangerous and awful, but you have to keep going and hold your nose to find what you're after.

No matter what folks say, the US government has failed to answer the most disturbing of the questions posed by the incident and the answers they have offered are flawed on a fundamental level.

Here's one: Why has Osama Bin Laden or one of his followers never claimed responsibility for the attack? More so, why did he go on the record as denying that he had anything to do with the attacks?

'The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11' by David Griffin.

Just read this quote by a reviewer

"he doesn't for even a minute assume that he's the owner of the truth, for he questions his own assumptions. Graciously, he states that further *independent* investigation is necessary."

so have decided to order the book and find out myself. Don't usually believe in all these conspiracy theories, however in this case a lot of things just don't seem to ring true.

The labelling of every question raised on such subjects as a "conspiracy theory" tends to be another highly effective and equally insidious way in which the right wing of the US government poo poos any inquiry into their dubious actions.

In the case of 9/11, most of the questions that people are asking are just that...questions.

The US government seems to be insistant that the public accept their version of events even when the events they suggest are both nonsensical and unsupported by the facts freely available on the subject.

In most cases I have found that the conservative right objects not only to the liberal and leftist take on events, but also to anything amounting to an unbiased assessment of the facts. Failure to follow their version of events is in their eyes tantamount to a declaration of solidarity with the "enemy."

Stories of federal agents removing evidence and intimidating wittnesses after the event might bring visions of the X-Files, btu that's exactly what happened in this case.

Originally posted by Carmine
Stories of federal agents removing evidence and intimidating wittnesses after the event might bring visions of the X-Files, btu that's exactly what happened in this case.

Care to post some real evidence?

It makes me laugh when people come up with these conspiracy theories babbling on about evidence that proves this and evidence that proves that but the fact is its all heresay. Who's to say the evidence that backs up the conspiracy theory isn't as fabricated as what the theory is trying to expose??..if that makes any sense :confused:
So then you have conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories!!!

Try this:


http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/timeline_after911.html

"A report suggests: “Federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon. A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon.

otel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the attack.

The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring.”

In a later report, an employee at a gas station across the street from the Pentagon that services only military personnel says the gas station's security cameras should have recorded the moment of impact. However, he says, “I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” [ Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/01 ]

A later release of five tiny and grainy images of the crash from a Pentagon security camera shows the government's claim that no security cameras captured the crash was untrue..."

What could the film possibly show that would suggest a conspiracy?


I will give you a much, much simpler answer... Respect and embarrassment.

Would YOU want the video of the death crash of YOUR relatives splashed all over the world?

New York was different because the Worlds press had cameras running. Washington was much more controllable. I personally would have done the same with any CCTV.

What gives YOU the right to see that video? Preventing prurient voyeurism doesn't equal a conspiracy.

A heavy use of the words 'may' and 'suggests'. Not evidence or proof of anything.

The mays and ifs in the quote relate to whatever might be on the tapes confiscated. But that's not the question I was asking, the point was that the tapes were confiscated in the first place and the content never divulged either way. If they were useless then why not return them, if they had footage of the crash then why not relaese it?

The statement that the footage was not released for the sake of the relatives of those killed does not stand up. The Pentagon was prefectly willing to release stills of the impact, footage of the impact holes left by the airliner and film of the wreckage scattered across the lawn, surely these would be almost as harowing as the actual footage itself?

Again I am in no way suggesting a conspiracy, just asking a question that has never been answered.

Personally, if a relative of mine died in a horrific disaster such as 9/11, I'd want the footage show in technicolour and to be seen by as many people as possible in the hope that the brutality and injustice of the event was evident to all who watched it.

Read up a couple of posts for all the answers.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the video might show the tail end of a US anti aircraft missile sticking out of the airliner. :roll:

The simple answer is usually the truth. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. QED, end of conspiracy discussion.

The Pentagon didn't release any images. They were readily available for all to see. You just had to tune into Sky News as they were broadcasted live..or were they??
:D :D
Who's to say why the tapes were confiscated??
Its just as plausible to suggest they were confiscated out of respect for the dead as opposed to something more sinister.
If someone had this sort of TV footage then it could easily be touted around the world to make this person millions!!

If the conspiracy discussion is over then I suppose we can get back to the facts surrounding 9/11?

Such as the fact that seven of the nineteen supposed highjackers are still alive today.

If it's plausible to suggest that the tapes were confiscated in respect for the dead, then why is that not standard practice in the West?

By the same rationale it would be logical to confiscate the professional footage shot by the media as well, which shows the same kind of death and carbage on qulaity film with a steady hand.

You can't confiscate LIVE footage????

Originally posted by Carmine
If it's plausible to suggest that the tapes were confiscated in respect for the dead, then why is that not standard practice in the West?
Since when did we have standard practice in such circumstances?

Originally posted by Carmine
By the same rationale it would be logical to confiscate the professional footage shot by the media as well, which shows the same kind of death and carbage on qulaity film with a steady hand. How do you do that with a live broadcast across the entire planets networks?

It's just an impression I have, but the US intelligence agencies always seem to have been the rat in the compost heap. Was it not the CIA who funded and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan in the struggle to dislodge the USSR ? And didn't the US give material and moral support to Saddam Hussein in his stupid war on Iran ?

The US have little compunction in using extremists to further their international political agenda when it suits them. And the Bush family's affiliations with the Bin Laden family seem particularly odourous in this context.

I knew there was a rat living under our garden shed because I could smell it. Rats are very intelligent and can be quite clever at concealing themselves. But they can't hide their smell.

There was certainly an unoffical Saudi involvement in the 9/11 disaster...but I also smell a rat. Perhaps it's just a dead rat ?

Originally posted by Greybeard
It's just an impression I have, but the US intelligence agencies always seem to have been the rat in the compost heap. Was it not the CIA who funded and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan in the struggle to dislodge the USSR ? And didn't the US give material and moral support to Saddam Hussein in his stupid war on Iran ?

The US have little compunction in using extremists to further their international political agenda when it suits them. And the Bush family's affiliations with the Bin Laden family seem particularly odourous in this context.

I knew there was a rat living under our garden shed because I could smell it. Rats are very intelligent and can be quite clever at concealing themselves. But they can't hide their smell.

There was certainly an unoffical Saudi involvement in the 9/11 disaster...but I also smell a rat. Perhaps it's just a dead rat ?

Maybe you actually have a rat living in your pc?? When was the last time you had it checked???

Originally posted by wibbles
Maybe you actually have a rat living in your pc?? When was the last time you had it checked???

Checked it myself about ten days ago cos the northbridge fan was making a racket. Only signs of life were a spider skin and a mummified woodlouse.

BTW I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I just believe it wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't been so ready to create monsters it couldn't ultimately control.

It's intruiging that Bush was hob-nobbing with close relatives of Bin Laden, the top of the CIA's wanted list....perhaps he was working 'under cover' for the CIA :thumbsup:

Anyway we now have the CIA and the administration bashing each other with a slowly unfolding series of revelations about the incompetence of both sides. In the end it will probably boil down to just a matter of political stupidity with nobody willing to accept the blame.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Anyway we now have the CIA and the administration bashing each other with a slowly unfolding series of revelations about the incompetence of both sides. In the end it will probably boil down to just a matter of political stupidity with nobody willing to accept the blame.
Heh, I feel much more comfortable with cock up theory than conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Tony
Heh, I feel much more comfortable with cock up theory than conspiracy theory.

Well the look on GW's face when he was told about it betrayed his complete surprise.

Actually he looked like a man desperately trying to overcome an involuntary evacuation of his bowel :D

Poss I am a little quick to the defensive.

But you tend to get your arse kicked on these forums for daring to suggest g.ments and intel agencies are instrumental in the more questionable deeds out here.

So, my apols for that.

Here's a simple, 'notebook' site I'm collecting that has examples of the more relevant bits.

http://www.geocities.com/queencaz2002/9-11PAGE.html

Also check out the 'Health' section.

And look at this:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Coincidence my arse!

I though the point of a conspiracy, if that is what we are talking about, was to make all motives and actions ulterior in some way so as to avoid detection and resistance.

But when the alleged perpetrators publicly announce that their aim is global domination, you start to wonder what they really are up to? I mean, what is worse than that? And a quick glance at the PNAC website will quickly reveal these maniacs are quite upfront about their agenda.

As for the 9/11 incident: Even if it was a deliberately self inflicted blow to harden public support for a few more overseas wars, it pales into insignifcance with the loss of life caused previously and since by US overseas intervention (mass murder in guatemala for example).

It's iconic imagery is unmistakeable, but to take an arbitrary scale of tragedy, it is far higher up the list than it 'should' be on account of it being such a telegenic and televised event.

Railing against the powers that be for secretly plotting to kill 4000 people in order to further foreign expansion is admirable.But not protesting the far more frightening, far more extreme and totally explicit aims of the christian fundamentalist regime currently occupying the White House seems to be missing the point somewhat.

The object of your fear and disgust (the Bush administration) is shared by many, but your reasons for it are needlessly convoluted in comparison to simply acknowledging what the Bush administration is driven by and makes no secret of - the Americanisation of the globe by all and any means possible.

As for the facts about 9/11 - I doubt they will ever emerge, because too many interested parties have invested in their own picture of events, each of them different and mutually incompatible.

Originally posted by CaroleK
But you tend to get your arse kicked on these forums for daring to suggest g.ments and intel agencies are instrumental in the more questionable deeds out here.

I don't think you would get much argument with that point of view - if the government and secret services were entirely benign to all people and tool of global peace and understanding there would be little need for them to be covert!

My personal oppinion is that the events of 9/11 were more of a DOH!!! event than a cleverly orchestrated plot. Though I most certainly don't in any way think the CIA / US govenment - or to be honest pretty much any large organisation political, security, economic or religious- is entirely benign or above a bit of devious manipulation and dirty dealing!

'Even if it was a deliberately self inflicted blow to harden public support for a few more overseas wars, it pales into insignifcance with the loss of life caused previously and since by US overseas intervention (mass murder in guatemala for example).' - phanerothyme

Totally agree with you. But these overseas interventions (outrageous in their own right, as you say, tho they were) weren't rammed into the public's eye as a reason for waging war on the rest of the planet. They were causing enough merry hell - British too - as it was.

But by bringing in the US public, in such a shocking and intimate way, they're obv planning to do .... something bigger.

And I DO appreciate the aims and goals of the current administration, the 9-11 event was just a warm-up.

And the 'christian fundamentalism' is just their chosen preferred brainwashing method. Likewise Islam, Catholicism, Judaism etc. I doubt they have a spiritual bone in their body.

You shouldn't trivialise the 9-11 event This IS the 'core' event. Reveal 9-11 for what it was - a TOTAL set-up - and their 'totally explicit aims' will come apart at the seams.



(OK, so maybe I'm a dreamer. ;) )

Well, I think the problem you have to face is that you cannot actually provide a more truthful picture of events than anyone else can; all viewpoints on the multiple events are so polarised so as to put any objectivity out of reach;

who was the responsible for the first attempted bombing of the WTC?

Why was OBL already on the most wanted list?

Who perpetrated USS Cole?

You have to fit a lot more historical information in to provide a compelling antithesis to the nebulous but widely accepted version of events. (which varies enormously depending on a)where you are in the world and b)who you are listening to.)

And also the sources you have quoted are mostly web based resources, and their credibility is heavily undermined by the childish and ranting nature of the authors.

If you believe you have a truth that needs to be heard, you must also understand that people do not respond well to having their current pictures of reality dug out from beneath them without warning.

Ideas that require a complete rejection of an accepted set of truths are revolutionary ideas, and will not be picked up by the population at large, even if they seem to be self-evidently true to you.

Perhaps, as Joe suggests, it is sublimated anger.

'And also the sources you have quoted are mostly web based resources' - Phanerothyme

And you'd sooner accept the word of the newspapers? ... the servant media? ... western governments? ... Bush???!!!

'If you believe you have a truth that needs to be heard, you must also understand that people do not respond well to having their current pictures of reality dug out from beneath them without warning. ' - P

Oh believe me I KNOW they don't! Still, I'll keep pushing it. This truth WILL be heard. :)

The lives of our youth are dependent on it. Our ******* leaders will throw them to the dogs on a whim.

And I've found that 'the population at large' are more intuitive than you seem to think. They already don't trust govs and press. To envisage them performing more deadly deeds for their own ends is not as difficult an idea as it seems to be for you.

And why are YOU so angry that people like myself aren't easily accepting the bull**** given out by the press? What the hell do YOU stand to lose here?

Originally posted by CaroleK
And why are YOU so angry that people like myself aren't easily accepting the bull**** given out by the press? What the hell do YOU stand to lose here?
So the press are in on it as well eh? :loopy:
And Phan, because he doesn't agree! :loopy: :loopy:

All irrefutable proof of a controlling cabal. :loopy: :loopy::loopy:

I've come across some interesting stuff about 9-11 on the net,especially about the attack on the pentagon.
Conspiracy theory (http://freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf) << Will take a couple of mins to load (56k = go make some coffee)

But a lot of the question that throws up are pretty much answered here (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)

I myself think talk of a conspiracy theory is just total rubbish - flame away if you like. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by CaroleK
And I've found that 'the population at large' are more intuitive than you seem to think. They already don't trust govs and press. To envisage them performing more deadly deeds for their own ends is not as difficult an idea as it seems to be for you.

And why are YOU so angry that people like myself aren't easily accepting the bull**** given out by the press? What the hell do YOU stand to lose here?

I am not angry. I have nothing to lose but my ignorance. I am just waiting for the day you overcome your 'conversion fever'. I have seen it before in born again christians, doom cultists, scientologists and David Icke-ists.

Implicit in your postings is the message that You are 'in the know' and all us deperate marks out here are the unwilling dupes of the evil empire.

When you talk in terms like that you are not actually inviting critical opionion of your views (which is surely what you want), you are inviting violent disagreement - in order that you can dazzle us with your maverick and saviour credentials.

One of the favourite latin phrases that occurs with monotonous regularity on '9/11 the truth' websites is "cui bono?"

Since you are clearly a conneisseur of these sites, I was wondering whether it had occurred to you to ask the same question of these publishers?

And if it did occur to you, what was your conclusion?

Hoping you will actually read and comprehend this post.

'in order that you can dazzle us with your maverick and saviour credentials.' - Phanerothyme

Implicit in your postings is the message that You are 'in the know' and all us deperate marks out here are the unwilling dupes of the evil empire. - Phanerothyme


I think you're just seeing your own reflection in me, P. I'm just one of the crowd, a 45 year old single parent struggling along in poverty and wondering what the f**k is going on out here. I have neither the time, energy or headspace to take on a saviour role as well.

I'm just saying: there's a LOT wrong with the events of 9-11.

Can't understand why you're not questioning it all yourself. There's enough of a stench to it all.

Are you dead?

And the handful of sites and authors writing on this, and similar, subjects are earning nothing in comparison with the oil revenue the US elite will pick up.

And 9-11 info is all over the net - and free.



(This Monday, 9.00pm, Sky One, 'Conspiracies', first programme looking at the inconsistancies of 9-11.)

Also see:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

http://911review.org/Wget/www.lightscion.com/9-11_evidence.htm

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/engt.htm

Hmmm let me just get this right - your telling us were being duped and that we should ignore everything we see on the news about 9/11 but take what we see on the net about it at face value???

Perhaps it's you who should be being a bit more sceptical in your outlook...

Originally posted by CaroleK
[B]Can't understand why you're not questioning it all yourself. There's enough of a stench to it all.

Are you dead?

And the handful of sites and authors writing on this, and similar, subjects are earning nothing in comparison with the oil revenue the US elite will pick up.


OK, too much trouble for you to read my post. No problem.

Unfortunately without any concrete evidence it will stay a conspiracy theory for evermore.

Bring some hard evidence and perhaps you will turn people round to your way of thinking.

Personally I'd love it to be true but like I say without any proof its hard to even comprehend.

A bit like God.

BTW nice to see another thread turning personal just because people have different views. Isnt that the whole point of a forum? How boring it would be if everyone shared the same views.

There is a French writer whose name escapes me that has published a number of books on the subject, claiming that it was not a plane which hit the Pentagon.

However, a few problems with his account are:

(1) He has never actually been to the USA to do some fact finding on the ground.

(2) There are several eye witness accounts of a plane heading towards the Pentagon.

(3) We know that three other planes were hijacked on the same day, with the intention of crashing them into high-profile buildings. Two attempts were successful, while the third crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

The main point in favour of the theory that it wasn't a plane, is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of damage caused by the plane's wings. As I am not an engineered in this field, I do not know why this is, but it could be because they sheared off on impact, and were not able to penetrate the Pentagon walls in the way the fusillage did.

Originally posted by Lickszz

The main point in favour of the theory that it wasn't a plane, is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of damage caused by the plane's wings. As I am not an engineered in this field, I do not know why this is, but it could be because they sheared off on impact, and were not able to penetrate the Pentagon walls in the way the fusillage did.

So where are they then? :confused:

maybe lee harvey oswalds grandson nicked them,"jesus christ" got 2 go my fav record just come on paranoid android.

Originally posted by spook
So where are they then? :confused:

How should I know. It's the French writer who you should perhaps be directing your questions to.

I read that as the plane hit the Pentagon the wings folded back into the body of the plane,thats why there was no damage to the building from them. Theres a program on Sky One Mix at the mo (2100-2200) all about the 9/11 conspiacys. Its pretty interesting and there is some of the evidence that point the finger straight at th U.S Government, but i really cant buy the idea that they planned it all.

just got a phone call from jack rubys great grandson,"hes the one who shot lee harvey oswald". according 2 him the whole 9 11 story is a big illussion, he told me david copperfield was brought in and duped everyone . come on folks i no its hard 2 trust the yanks but really.

Originally posted by Lickszz
How should I know. It's the French writer who you should perhaps be directing your questions to.

easy fella! it was only a rhetorical question!

Bump Up ;)

Wake up World :rolleyes:

all very similar to a film i saw the other week.

the only thing that we can know for certain, is that we will never know for certain!

on it bush is talking about 9/11 a few days later and he is laughing and joking. Strange man

Bush laughing and joking ?? just listen to yourselves !

Goeff, you should be writing for a RAG magazine.

Not going to engage with any of the evidence then, poppins?

There are definitely still a lot of unanswered questions re 9/11.

Well, if you think that sucks, whatever you do don't check (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html) out (http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm) The (http://www.spectrezine.org/global/carlyle.htm) Carlyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group) Group (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/carlyle.htm)

Originally posted by poppins
Goeff, you should be writing for a RAG magazine.
Poppins, you should remember that I hardly have enough time to visit this site, let alone write something that long. It's a copy and paste (which I don't even remember doing!) and this thread was started almost 2 years ago...

...and as the 2nd line suggests, it's by 'William Bunch'...

There are a lot of unanswered questions but we will never, ever find out the truth. Governments have been covering things up since ..... well since governments began. 9/11 has been used as an excuse to make wars, raise taxes, fingerprint innocent tourists etc, etc. The USA has a very uncomfortable feel about it but I want to stress it has nothing to do with general population of North American who are as confused as the rest of us. You can theorize and question all you like but it's a waste of your energy to do so. They are still going on about who shot JFK and that happened over 40 years ago - we still don't know the truth. Princess Diana's death will also be brought up an re-examined over and over again long after we are all six feet under. Worry about those things you can change and not the ones you can do nothing about.

xxx

'"The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC.'


http://www.rense.com/general67/huge.htm

Originally posted by CaroleK
Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings. Well that and expert opinion from the buildings design engineer and the teensy fact that we all saw two planes crash into the towers. :roll:

Try reading a few truly independent papers, instead of single issue conspiracy websites...

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf

http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it came downexactly the same way!

But then it was later confirmed that demolition explosives had been placed on it after the two towers had fell. They tried to deny it for a while till the owner of the towers said he heard them say:'pull it' at the time. Meaning to use demo explosives as someone deemed it to be unsafe.

The similarity of the way all three towers fell indicates that explosives were also used to take the first two down.

The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control.

Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first.

Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along.

As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down.

We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd.

Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. :)

Originally posted by CaroleK



The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control.

Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first.

Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along.

As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down.


I dont know where you get this stuff from. If i thought like you i'd be on the first plane out of here!

Pilots cant make that manouvre? How the hell do they get it on a runway then? How have pilots flew a large plane with no fuel over 300 mile.

Another load of tosh! BTW i admire your quest! :D

WTC 7 fell because of the impact of thousands of tonnes of rubble from the twin towers that had taken out the foundations!

Regarding the towers, the explosives would have to be extremely resilient to fire as the towers both started to collapse at the point the planes made impact!

Originally posted by CaroleK


We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd.

Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. :)

I raised this issue in a reply to the last conspiracy thread you started.

It is entirely possible that 'demolition charges', if in fact they existed, could have been placed in WTC 1&2 by terrorists and the purpose of the suppression of the firefighter's evidence was to hide the failure of the security system and whoever was responsible for it, - in the final analysis the US govt. and it's agencies.

More likely to have been a cover-up than a convoluted conspiracy.

Originally posted by CaroleK
WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it came downexactly the same way!

But then it was later confirmed that demolition explosives had been placed on it after the two towers had fell. They tried to deny it for a while till the owner of the towers said he heard them say:'pull it' at the time. Meaning to use demo explosives as someone deemed it to be unsafe.

The similarity of the way all three towers fell indicates that explosives were also used to take the first two down.

The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control.

Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first.

Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along.

As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down.

We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd.

Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. :)


After reading this I think Bush is my new Hero. Thanks for turning me from a card carrying socialist into a 'hardliner' with your crackpot theories. :rolleyes: Vote Bush!

This is an adaptaion from another post adressed to you. I feel it may be relevant here..

This is how all conspiricy theories work by making out that the people that don't buy it are the blindfolded puppet masses.
But here is my response.

a. If you know that to be true don't tell us on the sheffield forum. Go to the Washington post. This is another Watergate. but I suspect your evidence has come from a fellow student theorist who has spent too long in his bedroom making up stuff.

b. why Shouldnt he earn a few quid? because what he write is garbage and he's exploiting people who don't know any better; the way Oliver Stone did in JFK. If you can't see both sides to a arguament it invalidates the case no matter how compelling it is. Oliver Stone's account of the assassination of JFK is as fictional as it gets, ignoring the crushing fact is that Oswald probably was acting alone. Horrible I know because we were all wanting CIA involvement. And anyway, if they were involved which we suspect they were; again the conspiricy theorist went overboard and made the case against the conspiricy seem more plausible than the conspiricy itself. This is what you are doing.

C. We have a healthy tradition of vigorous journalism in this country. Remember the recent difficulties the BBC got in to over a report on the Today Programme on radio 4. It nearly brought the government down. The outcome may have been disappointing but the fact that that process occured at all should hint at a fairly free press.

Ok if you are talking about the low quality newspapers may be you have a point.

d. You can't make the judgement that he speaks the truth. Surely that is impossible to know. The truth is subjective to the point that anything can be said about anything. Ergo the truth does not exist (in a sense) and I'm afraid to say that it's not 'out there.' we can only rely on rigours evidence none of which you produce. (where is your evidence -and don't just say 'they found this....etc (proof, proof,proof) Otherwise what you say is invalid and not woth mentioning.


He speaks the truth for you because you believe it but that does not make it right.

He has a type of low quality phraseology that you might expect from a first year uni student who has half heard this form someones website.

Sorry, I don't mean to do down uni students but it has a quality of someone who hasn't really got to grips with the type of linguistic rigours expected in years 2 and 3.


The whole thing smacks of a unabomber manefesto for the 21st century. if you don't remember;
unabomber manifesto (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm)
There will always be these people who try to sell these lies to us and in some ways they are no better than the governments who also peddle fear to its docile consumers.

However, conspiricy theories keep people afraid and as a result spellbound. You only have to look in any of Murdocks papers to read these exact same theories. All of which, you could argue, are designed to keep people in fear of the panoptic gaze of an all seeing power. Research shows that frightened people consume more - buy more papers - coinsidence?

Anyway, I don't want to rubbish your theory by setting up another one of my own. My point is; there are bad, bad people out there - this I think we are in agreement on. But all you can do is be as honest as you possibly can to the people that you love and who matter to you.

Don't worry about this **** because you don't know and you sure can't get to the bottom of it. May be there isn't a bottom. Learn to love the things you can reach and stop projecting your anger on to the darkness of the unfathomerable other. Investigate: yes. Question: sure. But don't present us with your truth because that is all it is your truth. And that can be as off putting as that Born again christian telling me it is not good enough to believ in god I must convert to his religion. (BTW I only told him I was a believer in the hope he would leave me alone)

Well, best of luck to you mate.

Another Pearl Harbour perhaps?

Easier to pay some hothead terrorist outfit to execute the events of 9/11 than to try and fake it after all. Occams Razor.

The 'dumbass' conspiracy is just the outer layer on the onion.

There's no truth, just more layers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Another Pearl Harbour perhaps?

Easier to pay some hothead terrorist outfit to execute the events of 9/11 than to try and fake it after all. Occams Razor.

The 'dumbass' conspiracy is just the outer layer on the onion.

There's no truth, just more layers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm

I recognize the references in this post :) But who is it that always uses the "onion" analogy for conspiracy? Chomsky?

I don't subscribe to this hypothesis (lets get the terminology right conspiracy theory would mean it's testable, it really should be conspiracy hypothesis), however there are some weird things, which will keep this running for a while.

The big ones are as follows...

1) PNAC (Project for a new American century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/) is the web site for the neo-cons. Wolferwitz, Rumsfeld etc. As per polys comment, one of their comments is that it would require an event the size of Pearl Harbor to get the public support for a war in the Middle East. People link that to..... well.. an event the size of perl harbor which did give the justification for war.
2) The video of the pentigon is odd. It does not look like a plane, and there are no wings in the after shots. This is pretty weird, but I am sure there is a valid reason for it. There are quiet a few eye witnesses who say it was more like a missile than a plane.
3) A guy who worked in the basement of one tower, save 14 lives. One of the guys he saved was burnt, and he came from the basement. The man who saved him says he saw, felt and heard an explosion under the towers, just after the planes hit (he felt that too). Again I tend to think that there is a valid explanation, maybe a gas rupture caused by the impact.

While many countries including America (cuba) have run covert terrorist missions, that are made to look like they are being attacked, to swing public support. One president even considered a huge attack on American soil (all in declassified records look it up, before you challenge these facts), i just don't see this being the case.

I reckon that if a government is prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians on the other side of the globe in order to secure its interests, it may be prepared to sacrifice a few thousand of its own :suspect:

I've noticed that Carole continually posts threads of this nature. I've not checked to see if she says anything else in the forum. It seems that she/he(?) has an agenda. On that note, I agree with miniminch to a degree...

On the other hand, I can sympathise with Carole somewhat. I imagine that she's frustrated by the fact that - at the very least - there are many, many things about 9/11 that simply do not add up. So - she tries to spark debate or awareness on this topic, but gets shouted down for being a conspiracy nut. She might be - but that doesn't mean that we ought to discount some of the info that these 'nuts' have.

We SHOULD absolutely question these things since they have had such a big affect on the world and its people - directly leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Innocent people. There is no denying that the US government played on 9/11 to push forward with their plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Aside from the WMDs in Iraq (that didn't exist), what other reason did they have? (Granted Saddam was an evil man and needed 'removing', but there are other rogue leaders around the world and we're not doing much about them are we?) We're now at a crucial stage where Iran is the next great enemy through their nuclear program and we have a potential for another conflict that could escalate to nuclear war (imagine the fun if North Korea jumped in on this too).

Why don't the majority of the mainstream media report on the 9/11 irregularities? I would venture that they do not want to appear foolish and go against what is perceived to be the majority of opinion - that Islamic terrorists were wholly responsible for what happened. And so it's down to those on the fringe...the loonies, the crackpots and the conspiracy theorists to make some noise about something that has - to all intents and purposes - been swept under the carpet.

There's a good summary of the 9/11 oddities here http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm. !!WARNING - THIS IS A LOONEY CONSPIRACY THEORIST SITE!! :P ;)

Whatever way you look at it - it bears further thought and discussion.

One small point: IF the conspiracy theory is correct - quite skillfully planned and executed it was. Then, why was/is the war on Iraq such a mess and chaotic shambles? Surely they would have thought through right until the end ... or is the shambles and continued loss of American & allies lives what they planned too?

Originally posted by Hels
One small point: IF the conspiracy theory is correct - quite it was skillfully planned and executed. Then, why was/is the war on Iraq such a mess and chaotic shambles? Surely they would have thought through right until the end ... or is the shambles and continued loss of American & allies lives what they planned too?

While I don't agree with this conspiracy theory, it IS in the realm of possibility. It has been often said by the media that the US is very good at quick well-coordinated offensives but is poor at drawn out conflicts. (e.g. Vietnam) No matter which way it occurred, it certainly worked out well for the current administration and the big oil companies for whom they appear to have a vested interest.

Social conservatism appears to be spreading like a disease throughout the US and is quite alarming. Cronies of the current right wing agenda appear to be so hell bent on controlling the actions of others (e.g. reversing Roe vs. Wade) that they would be willing to indulge any shortcoming by GWB and company.

It probably would be wise not to say more...I don't want a knock at the door... :(

Originally posted by Hels
One small point: IF the conspiracy theory is correct - quite skillfully planned and executed it was. Then, why was/is the war on Iraq such a mess and chaotic shambles? Surely they would have thought through right until the end ... or is the shambles and continued loss of American & allies lives what they planned too?

Carolek might have some extreme ideas, but what is wrong with asking questions?

Some people don't bother.

I believe that the conspiracy theory is correct, done more research than most, so if you have any questions, I will try and get back to you.

Iraq a shambles, oh yes, and now roughly 60% of the US population think that Osama was linked to Iraq, lol.

Well thinking it through to the end might involve setting up a local government that will be destined for failure, and then deciding that it is unstable, so they will keep a military presence.

Fairly handy if they want airbases in the East, ready for their next fabricated war founded from lies and deceit from the bottom up.

Oh and the idea of killing a few of your own people, is that so different to killing other peoples? It's all life

Originally posted by Chicago
While I don't agree with this conspiracy theory, it IS in the realm of possibility. It has been often said by the media that the US is very good at quick well-coordinated offensives but is poor at drawn out conflicts. (e.g. Vietnam) No matter which way it occurred, it certainly worked out well for the current administration and the big oil companies for whom they appear to have a vested interest.

Social conservatism appears to be spreading like a disease throughout the US and is quite alarming. Cronies of the current right wing agenda appear to be so hell bent on controlling the actions of others (e.g. reversing Roe vs. Wade) that they would be willing to indulge any shortcoming by GWB and company.

It probably would be wise not to say more...I don't want a knock at the door... :(

Fair comments, Fox News are quite good at shifting audiences opinions I believe ?

As for not agreeing with the conspiracy theory, dig a bit deeper and you will find.

Originally posted by venger
Carolek might have some extreme ideas, but what is wrong with asking questions?

Some people don't bother.

I believe that the conspiracy theory is correct, done more research than most, so if you have any questions, I will try and get back to you.

Iraq a shambles, oh yes, and now roughly 60% of the US population think that Osama was linked to Iraq, lol.

Well thinking it through to the end might involve setting up a local government that will be destined for failure, and then deciding that it is unstable, so they will keep a military presence.

Fairly handy if they want airbases in the East, ready for their next fabricated war founded from lies and deceit from the bottom up.

Oh and the idea of killing a few of your own people, is that so different to killing other peoples? It's all life There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions but there are people who could be very upset by these 'theories' There are unstable people out there that could be triggered into harming themselves or others because of stress caused by these type of scenario's and 'THE END IS NIGH' type stuff. There are enough 'real' bad things going on in the world to upset people without inventing new ones. I think teenager who haven't had time to properly form their own opinions about this world are particularly vunerable.

It is ok for people who take it with a massive container full of salt but not everybody does:| I think people should be careful and think how it affects others.

Originally posted by tulip
...there are people who could be very upset by these 'theories' There are unstable people out there that could be triggered into harming themselves or others because of stress caused by these type of scenario's and 'THE END IS NIGH' type stuff

Tulip,

That's why we have institutions with padded walls for just such individuals. In fact, some of the end is near people would benefit from such places. I actually saw a guy carrying an "End is Near" sign last week and I asked him where he got this information. He replied, "the panthers in the sewer told me!" I broke out laughing... :P

Originally posted by Chicago
Tulip,

That's why we have institutions with padded walls for just such individuals. In fact, some of the end is near people would benefit from such places. I actually saw a guy carrying an "End is Near" sign last week and I asked him where he got this information. He replied, "the panthers in the sewer told me!" I broke out laughing... :P You are just too sympathetic for words! Lock everyone up in padded cells for being distressed by conspiracy theories? I mensioned impressionable teenagers - lock them up aswell? Nice to know you laugh in the face of someone who is disturbed & mentally ill? Very nice:thumbsup:

It sounded like you were agreeing a little with a possible US conspiracy a while ago:confused:

Originally posted by tulip
You are just too sympathetic for words! Lock everyone up in padded cells for being distressed by conspiracy theories? I mensioned impressionable teenagers - lock them up aswell? Nice to know you laugh in the face of someone who is disturbed & mentally ill? Very nice:thumbsup:

It sounded like you were agreeing a little with a possible US conspiracy a while ago:confused:


Stating "we have institutions with padded walls for just such individuals" is a euphemism for recommending that they seek professional help to overcome their problems. Covert shadow operations exist and are very real. Banning conspiracy theories would be like banning gossip...it ain't gonna happen!

Originally posted by tulip
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions but there are people who could be very upset by these 'theories' There are unstable people out there that could be triggered into harming themselves or others because of stress caused by these type of scenario's and 'THE END IS NIGH' type stuff. There are enough 'real' bad things going on in the world to upset people without inventing new ones. I think teenager who haven't had time to properly form their own opinions about this world are particularly vunerable.

It is ok for people who take it with a massive container full of salt but not everybody does:| I think people should be careful and think how it affects others.

I think people should be careful also tulip, but I mean in the sense of what they believe.

Anyone over the age of 19 has been an impressionable teenager.

"There are enough real bad things going on in the World" you bet there are tulip.

You have clearly made your mind up about these theories, they tie in very well with popular media. Well tulip that is quite deliberate.

I don't think you know much more than what you have been exposed to by tv or radio and newspapers.

It is beyond me how people can actually believe some of these lies, it really is.

Originally posted by Hels
One small point: IF the conspiracy theory is correct - quite skillfully planned and executed it was. Then, why was/is the war on Iraq such a mess and chaotic shambles? Surely they would have thought through right until the end ... or is the shambles and continued loss of American & allies lives what they planned too?

I imagine that it's easier for a small, highly coordinated group to launch a devastating attack on an unprepared target than it is for a very large armed force (with a huge number of variables, communication channels etc.,) to deal with 'insurgents' with no patterns or static base of operations.

As pointed out, Vietnam is a good example of a seemingly unstoppable force being turned back by a seemingly weaker force.

what ever has happen you are going to get a
conspiracy theory

you just have to hear both sides and make our own minds up on what we believe

Originally posted by venger
I think people should be careful also tulip, but I mean in the sense of what they believe.

Anyone over the age of 19 has been an impressionable teenager.

"There are enough real bad things going on in the World" you bet there are tulip.

You have clearly made your mind up about these theories, they tie in very well with popular media. Well tulip that is quite deliberate.

I don't think you know much more than what you have been exposed to by tv or radio and newspapers.

It is beyond me how people can actually believe some of these lies, it really is. Venger, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you have clearly made your mind up" I don't have a closed mind. I haven't been given any evidence to support any of these conspiracy theories.

The TV news channels are about all I have to go on and I don't believe everything I hear or see on there either. I don't read tabloids full stop, they send me into rant mode with their sensationalist nonsense. I'm not privy to any official secrets, if I where I take them to the Washington Post - they did a really good job with 'Watergate' :)

Originally posted by headup
I imagine that it's easier for a small, highly coordinated group to launch a devastating attack on an unprepared target than it is for a very large armed force (with a huge number of variables, communication channels etc.,) to deal with 'insurgents' with no patterns or static base of operations.

As pointed out, Vietnam is a good example of a seemingly unstoppable force being turned back by a seemingly weaker force. Yes, that is very true. With terrorist operating in small groups everywhere, it is hard to keep track of whats going on. It was the same with the IRA.

If England and America could pull off a huge conspiracy like the ones mentioned on here then the IRA would have been relatively simple to get rid of.

A 'freak tornado, hurricane or earthquake could have been conjured up to deal with all sorts of problems!:)

Originally posted by tulip
If England and America could pull off a huge conspiracy like the ones mentioned on here then the IRA would have been relatively simple to get rid of.

A 'freak tornado, hurricane or earthquake could have been conjured up to deal with all sorts of problems!:)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that if the US and UK governments had the expertise to pull off a large scale conspiracy (like 9/11 - assuming that it was the result of a conspiracy), that the IRA would have been dealt with and there would have been peace in NI years ago?

Originally posted by headup
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that if the US and UK governments had the expertise to pull off a large scale conspiracy (like 9/11 - assuming that it was the result of a conspiracy), that the IRA would have been dealt with and there would have been peace in NI years ago? Something along those lines! If all the Afghanistan, Iraq business was a huge cover up, it makes the IRA look pretty small scale doesn't it?

I don't think any of the conspiracy web sites offer any evidence what so ever. They seem to offer plenty of stuff you could use in a novel though!

Originally posted by tulip
Something along those lines! If all the Afghanistan, Iraq business was a huge cover up, it makes the IRA look pretty small scale doesn't it?

I don't think any of the conspiracy web sites offer any evidence what so ever. They seem to offer plenty of stuff you could use in a novel though!

I think you've missed the point that it's probably much easier to attack an unprepared/undefended target than it is to wipe out a force of resistance that has no base and no 'head' to cut off.

The US government has already planned/been involved in many nefarious acts. It is not impossible for a government to carry out acts against its own people to secure political gain.

The occupation of Afghanistan/Iraq is not a conspiracy in itself, but rather is one of the results of a possible conspiracy.

I have an open mind; this is why I question what actually happened. There are too many things that are odd and don't add up. There are too many political and financial gains to be had by occupying key areas of the middle east.

Originally posted by headup
I think you've missed the point that it's probably much easier to attack an unprepared/undefended target than it is to wipe out a force of resistance that has no base and no 'head' to cut off.

The US government has already planned/been involved in many nefarious acts. It is not impossible for a government to carry out acts against its own people to secure political gain.

The occupation of Afghanistan/Iraq is not a conspiracy in itself, but rather is one of the results of a possible conspiracy.

I have an open mind; this is why I question what actually happened. There are too many things that are odd and don't add up. There are too many political and financial gains to be had by occupying key areas of the middle east. No, I got your point.

If our governments did this to it's own people is there evidence to prove this?

I was trying to say the IRA were small scale compared to Al Queida. But if the conspiracies stories are true then they don't exist as we know it and our governments are wasting millions trying to catch them. It doesn't make sense at all.

MODs why did Carol get banned?

Originally posted by venger

Iraq a shambles, oh yes, and now roughly 60% of the US population think that Osama was linked to Iraq, lol.



It's less than 40% now. It was 60% quiet some time ago.

Chicago where about in Chicago do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

Also live in Chicago, downtown and West Chicago.

Originally posted by back2basics
MODs why did Carol get banned?

Gah! the Neocons have struck again.....Dick Cheney has been reading the forum again. Poor Carole...off to Gitmo. :(

Originally posted by headup
Gah! the Neocons have struck again.....Dick Cheney has been reading the forum again. Poor Carole...off to Gitmo. :(

Actually it doesn't appear she has been banned. Does not say that in her profile (mind you not sure if i would if she was?). Somebody PMed me that she had.

Originally posted by tulip


If our governments did this to it's own people is there evidence to prove this?


I will send you a link of downloadable files.

Originally posted by tulip
No, I got your point.

If our governments did this to it's own people is there evidence to prove this?

I was trying to say the IRA were small scale compared to Al Queida. But if the conspiracies stories are true then they don't exist as we know it and our governments are wasting millions trying to catch them. It doesn't make sense at all.

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that is in the public domain that explicity links Bush and members of his government with 9/11. However, there's a wealth of information that strongly suggests that there is something very 'odd' about what happened. These oddities suggest that those in power were complicit (to whatever degree) in the attack.

Multiple architects have stated that the towers should not have collapsed the way that they did (the towers were actually built to withstand just such an impact). Witnesses at the scene reported explosions and fire at the base of the towers. The fireball that supposedly caused one of the huge towers to collapse (by melting steel supports) somehow allowed one of the bombers' passports to survive unharmed. There's more and it just does not add up to the accepted chain of events.

I really cannot prove that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy - if anyone could, it'd be a world-changing event to say the least! All I will say is that there's too much out there to ignore the possibility that this was not the 'simple' act of terror that we are lead to believe in.

In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told.

Originally posted by headup
Multiple architects have stated that the towers should not have collapsed the way that they did (the towers were actually built to withstand just such an impact). Witnesses at the scene reported explosions and fire at the base of the towers. The fireball that supposedly caused one of the huge towers to collapse (by melting steel supports) somehow allowed one of the bombers' passports to survive unharmed. There's more and it just does not add up to the accepted chain of events.

I think you'll find they did withstand the impact of a plane hitting them - as they were designed to. It's what happened after the impact that caused the collapseNobody has said that the steel melted, they actually said that it failed due to it weakening - to weaken it only needs to reach half the temperature that it does to melt. There were 244 supports on the inside perimeter of each floor thus giving redundant support in the event of some failing - the planes did a good job of taking many of these out but the remaining supports held until weakened by the burning aviation fuel which explains the delay in the towers falling. As for it falling straight down as people keep mentioning - it weighed 500,000 t, was 95% air and had no lateral load - the only place it was ever gonna fall was straight down. A buidling of that weight generally will.

If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing?

Originally posted by fnkysknky

If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing? [/B]

A good point, and also if you look at the footage they collapse from the top. The momentum builds from the top and forces the rest of the building down. It does not start form the bottom as a demolition would. We didn't see any secondary explosions at the top of the towers directly prior to them falling. Some of tyhe videos show a secondary flash, just after the planes hit.. but that was quiet some time before they fell.

Besides i just do not buy it, why would they select the Twin towers for this conspiracy? Terrorist clearly selected them for maxiumum damage to the economy and people.

If they were looking for some justification for a war, why not just bomb a power plant or military target. The effect would have been the same without displacing 10,000 highly paid workers and reducing office space in NY by a large percent.

Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics.

You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA.

The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible.

And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS.

They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans.

And headup, I think that what you wrote: "In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told."

Isn't a bad way to be at all. Just, you know. We shouldn't let ourselves get carried away. Some of Carole's "conspiracy theories" were so wild and out there, that the truth really did make more sense.

*Off Topic*

And just for the heck of it, I'm not usually a "conspiracy theory' person, but when I heard that Princess Diana had been killed, it immediately crossed my mind that this would make things so much easier for Prince Charles and the Royal Family. I mean, she'd been behaving like a Palm Beach floozie, what with the flaunting of the boyfriend and all, and become a major embarrassment to them.

However, in spite of that, I still believe that what happened to her was an accident...they say she would likely have survived the crash if she'd been wearing a seatbelt. Something that was entirely under HER control.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by fnkysknky
I think you'll find they did withstand the impact of a plane hitting them - as they were designed to. It's what happened after the impact that caused the collapseNobody has said that the steel melted, they actually said that it failed due to it weakening - to weaken it only needs to reach half the temperature that it does to melt. There were 244 supports on the inside perimeter of each floor thus giving redundant support in the event of some failing - the planes did a good job of taking many of these out but the remaining supports held until weakened by the burning aviation fuel which explains the delay in the towers falling. As for it falling straight down as people keep mentioning - it weighed 500,000 t, was 95% air and had no lateral load - the only place it was ever gonna fall was straight down. A buidling of that weight generally will.

If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing?

That's really cool info - thanks for posting that..adds a little more to the debate. :)

AFAIK - all reports say that the steel supports did in fact melt. I'd be happy if you could point out where this was proven untrue.

Additionally, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this - an excellent read: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

Here's a quick excerpt:

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

Originally posted by Sierra
Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics.

You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA.

The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible.

And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS.

They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans.

:) Sierra


Erm wern't you the one i called out for calling people anti-american who disagree with Bush's policies? I think your were. Slightly hypocritical of you don't you think?

Originally posted by back2basics
Chicago where about in Chicago do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

Also live in Chicago, downtown and West Chicago.

Forest Glen Area

Originally posted by Chicago
Forest Glen Area

Dam i was hoping you were district 14. Never mind.

You an ex-pat? Sorry for the 100 questions just interested.

Originally posted by back2basics
Erm wern't you the one i called out for calling people anti-american who disagree with Bush's policies? I think your were. Slightly hypocritical of you don't you think?

What are you talking about? I never said people were anti-american for disagreeing with Bush's policies. Hell, I disagree with Bush's policies most of the time.

And it would be pretty hard for someone WHO ISN'T EVEN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO BE CALLED ANTI-AMERICAN.

Now wouldn't it?

By the way, for those who don't know. back2basics is apparently still smarting because I disagreed with him here.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=531199#post531199

What I meant was, that seeing as how some folks were born and raised in Sheffield, their views and frame of reference are bound to differ from those of us who were born and raised in the US. No matter how much time said Sheffield born person spends in the states. They will always have their earlier experiences in another country.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the name calling, I don't think I am being hypocritical, nor do I feel I have to defend my views to YOU.

I did try to offer you an olive branch after you angrily accused me of all kinds of things. It was in the thread that was pulled by the Mods, so you either didn't see it, or are choosing to ignore it.

In either case, I am asking you to LAY OFF. I am not attacking YOU directly, and I don't intend to start. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, then you're in the wrong place.

:) Sierra

Calm down, i am not attacking you either. I have better things to do with my time. You must get lots of people attacking you to accuse me of that IMO.

You did call people anti-american for talking about the prisoner abuse. And i beleive i pointed out then the hypocracy of that statement, which it was. I pointed out in that thread, exactly whay you pointed out just now that America if diverse. It was in the thread that was removed, i am sure people remember it. Because in that thread you basically said that people should not talk about America, and as i said then people have a very real right as our troops are also fighting over there and these prison abuses endanger our troops as well.

I didn't see the responce to the thread that was pulled, i have been away from computers for a few days, by the time i returned it was gone and the girl was banned.

So in a way we agree. No olive branchneeded, i don't take things personally just like to stick to the facts, i suggest you do the same.

Hey guys - as the mighty Porkins once said "Stay on target!"

:)

Let's not have this fall into mud-slinging or the mods will be out with their big ban stick. :(

Originally posted by Sierra
Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics.

You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA.

The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible.

And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS.

They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans.

And headup, I think that what you wrote: "In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told."

Isn't a bad way to be at all. Just, you know. We shouldn't let ourselves get carried away. Some of Carole's "conspiracy theories" were so wild and out there, that the truth really did make more sense.

*Off Topic*

And just for the heck of it, I'm not usually a "conspiracy theory' person, but when I heard that Princess Diana had been killed, it immediately crossed my mind that this would make things so much easier for Prince Charles and the Royal Family. I mean, she'd been behaving like a Palm Beach floozie, what with the flaunting of the boyfriend and all, and become a major embarrassment to them.

However, in spite of that, I still believe that what happened to her was an accident...they say she would likely have survived the crash if she'd been wearing a seatbelt. Something that was entirely under HER control.

:) Sierra Well said! I don't know why a lot of people in England think U.S citizens don't think for themselves. Lots of people were obsessed by a Diana conspiracy too.

Originally posted by tulip
Well said! I don't know why a lot of people in England think U.S citizens don't think for themselves. Lots of people were obsessed by a Diana conspiracy too.

A percentage of the British population will always believe that to be true. Just in the same way that a good number of Americans think of bad teeth, warm beer and fog when they think of Britain.

A local asked my mum (when she was over here visiting) if she'd met the Queen. She had - and told this lady. Thanks mum - reinforce the perception that we all know the Queen. :(

Originally posted by headup
That's really cool info - thanks for posting that..adds a little more to the debate. :)

AFAIK - all reports say that the steel supports did in fact melt. I'd be happy if you could point out where this was proven untrue.

-snip-
[/i]

It wouldn't melt until approx 1500 deg - the fire in the WTC couldn't have reached that temp. - for a more thorough explanation and also as I'm off to bed so don't have time read through http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html :)

Explains just about everything including why it fell straight down etc...

Originally posted by back2basics
Calm down, i am not attacking you either. I have better things to do with my time. You must get lots of people attacking you to accuse me of that IMO.

You did call people anti-american for talking about the prisoner abuse. And i beleive i pointed out then the hypocracy of that statement, which it was. I pointed out in that thread, exactly whay you pointed out just now that America if diverse. It was in the thread that was removed, i am sure people remember it. Because in that thread you basically said that people should not talk about America, and as i said then people have a very real right as our troops are also fighting over there and these prison abuses endanger our troops as well.

I didn't see the responce to the thread that was pulled, i have been away from computers for a few days, by the time i returned it was gone and the girl was banned.

So in a way we agree. No olive branchneeded, i don't take things personally just like to stick to the facts, i suggest you do the same.

For all those folks waiting for a BIG NAS-TAY FIGHT...Ha!

back2basics and I have kissed and made up. He sent me a very nice pm, and I appreciate his arguments. He brought some facts to my attention of which I was previously unaware.

I still stand by what I said, but I misunderstood that what YOU meant was that the behavior of american troops put british troops at risk as well. Of course that's true. I honestly must have missed it. I'm sorry.

It certainly doesn't mean that I refuse to appreciate a differing point of view. It is after all, THE reason I joined this forum.

The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" now has particular significance for me.

I suppose it is my own personal quirk or pet peeve (maybe it's an american thing?) that I don't like others to speak for me. Which is why I take great umbrage at polls and surveys. There are just too many ways the results can be skewed to fit a certain point of view, and I don't trust them.

back2basics, I think we just misunderstood each other. We probably share more similarities than differences, witness the belief in the strength of our own convictions. I do appreciate you taking the time to pm me. Really, I do.

And now, since we never hear anything good about the US military, I saw this story last night...and was in awe at the courage of this extraordinary young girl.

http://www.grossmanmed.com/zubaida.htm

:) Sierra

Not to mention all the stuff that's never been disclosed about the Lockerbie Disaster.

It does make you wonder.

I actually read that the PNAC report about invading Iraq and "another Pearl Harbour" was written much earlier than 2000, in 1990 or 1991. I also watched a program which said that the moves made by the WTC jets were very advanced, in relation to the turns and descents they made. It claimed that they would be difficult moves for fighter pilots to make, and that no way would someone be able to do them after just a few weeks of flight training. The program also went on to suggest that the way the twin towers collapsed was suspicious. It claimed that if the structural steel members of the towers had been melted by the burning aircraft fuel and thus failed, it's unlikely that the two towers would have collapsed so "vertically". It suggested that a "tipping" of the building at a slight angle would have been more likely.

I've read loads of stuff in the States about how the buildings collapsed through the use of controlled detonations etc. Alot of it can be wrote off as conspiracy theories, however the fact that alot of the information isn't being released seems to keep some of the crazier theories going.

I've also read the PNAC report and the mention of how a 'Pearl Harbour' type event was needed to have the 'excuse' to carry out the plan.

Personally, I believe that America is basically run by Zionist lobbyists, they seem to have their claws in every part of the American government and the recent stories of the Super Lobbyist coming from the US seem to confirm this.

'A Minnesota senator said he was concerned that congressional trips to Israel could be cut under lobbying reform proposals'
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=1063
(Noel Coleman ? wasn't he the guy who got embarrassed by 'Gorgeous George' ?)

Its possible that the Israeli intellligence services and their cronies in the US knew about an impending attack and perhaps 'helped' it happen.

I imagine that Israel is not so much an Ally of the US, as it is of the prostitutes, sorry Congressmen.

Wasn't it said that Israel had the largest spy ring on US soil ?
How many times have AIPAC, JDL members been found guilty of spying ?

After watching the recent documentary about the Munich killings of 11 Israeli athletes, it appears that Israel has spies in nearly every country! Indeed the assassin used to kill the supposed Palestinian ring leader was British.

Found the following clip which is quite intresting.

In 2004, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer passed away. Moorer, a World War II hero and one of the country’s highest ranking officers, had long been an outspoken critic of Israel – particularly of Israel’s brutal attack on a U.S. Navy ship, which had killed 34 American servicemen and injured 172. Just months before his death, Moorer appeared on Capitol Hill heading an independent inquiry, which found that Israel had “committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States” – words he repeated in an op-ed in the military’s Stars and Stripes newspaper on Jan. 16, 2004

Someone mentioned the JFK story, again I'd be willing to bet money on a link to Israel. Especially when you consider that JFK wanted detailed inspections of the Israeli nuclear sites (which they concealed), and shortly after his assasination the 'special relationship' blossomed, and has continued to this day.

Events of such enormity are fertile breeding grounds for conspiracy theories of one kind or another. The 'unanswered questions', if thoroughly investigated, usually have rational explanations, or may be accounted for by missing or incomplete data. There is also a tendency to construct speculative links between people or events in order to weave a plausible alternative view of who might have been responsible. A classic modern example of this is the assassination of JFK - a whole industry of conspiracy theories have been built upon this event. In his excellent book 'Case Closed', Gerald Posner meticulously examined the supposed 'facts' underpinning these theories and found that most of them were not facts at all, but through constant repetition in book after book, they became accepted as literal truth. Posner proves without a doubt in miy mind that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he acted alone, not at the behest of Castro, the Mafia the CIA or some other party. These conspiracy theories tend to weave convoluted and often tedious arguments which most people don't have the time or the inclination to examine. This is why they tend to gain credence in some circles, because no one can be bothered to expend the time in exposing them for the nonsense they almost always are.

Events of such enormity are fertile breeding grounds for conspiracy theories of one kind or another. The 'unanswered questions', if thoroughly investigated, usually have rational explanations, or may be accounted for by missing or incomplete data. There is also a tendency to construct speculative links between people or events in order to weave a plausible alternative view of who might have been responsible. A classic modern example of this is the assassination of JFK - a whole industry of conspiracy theories have been built upon this event. In his excellent book 'Case Closed', Gerald Posner meticulously examined the supposed 'facts' underpinning these theories and found that most of them were not facts at all, but through constant repetition in book after book, they became accepted as literal truth. Posner proves without a doubt in miy mind that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he acted alone, not at the behest of Castro, the Mafia the CIA or some other party. These conspiracy theories tend to weave convoluted and often tedious arguments which most people don't have the time or the inclination to examine. This is why they tend to gain credence in some circles, because no one can be bothered to expend the time in exposing them for the nonsense they almost always are.

It's precisely because people dont have the time or inclination to examine situations such as the Lockerbie Disaster in sufficient depth that the powers that be are able to successfully bury whatever facts are available in a quagmire of inaccessible bureaucracy.

It's precisely because people dont have the time or inclination to examine situations such as the Lockerbie Disaster in sufficient depth that the powers that be are able to successfully bury whatever facts are available in a quagmire of inaccessible bureaucracy.


Ah 'the powers that be' - another favourite deus ex machina of conspiracy theorists everywhere. I meant to mention that in most conspiracy theories, there is usually reference to some mysterious and nefarious force, equipped with devilish cunning and far-reaching powers, capable of manipulating people and events with the guile of a magician. Being a rather simple soul, I prefer the cock up theory as being the most reliable guide to seemingly inexplicable events (but there again, perhaps the 'powers that be' have somehow insidiously lulled me into a state of false consciousness).

I prefer the cock up theory as being the most reliable guide to seemingly inexplicable events (but there again, perhaps the 'powers that be' have somehow insidiously lulled me into a state of false consciousness).

More likely you were abducted by aliens and taken to "area 51", where they (with the help of a top secret US government department) erased your memory and then turned you into a cyborg wire tapping device so they can listen-in on every conversation you have. You will probably find a self-destruct button where your navel should be.

That is much more likely.

The problem with all these conspiracies is that they assume competance and so any problems must be down to a conspiracy. In general most government organisations are incompetant, and the US were also extremely unprepared and complacent. You have to use that as the backdrop to assessing what happened. For example, the poster asks why Bush sat and read a story to children while this was going on. Simple, he is a complete prat.

In the section where we are asked why NORAD didn't shoot down the airliners, the information is full of holes. It mentions that the transponder had been "shut off" some 20 minutes before they knew it had been hijacked. A transponder is a device which sends a code to the radar base station (eg. 1234) to identify which aircraft you are. If it fails then they can still see you on primary radar but don't necessarily know who you are. In the event of a hijacking then it is set with a special code but this is well know to all pilots so the terrorists would probably have prevented this. Simply not having a transponder could be interpreted as anything but most likely a power failure. The idea that within 20 minutes or so of losing contact with an aircraft that the airforce could be scrambled to intercept and could then find out what is happening is ridiculous. The only way this could work is if there were fighters standing by underneath the path of the airliners and they expected something to happen.

I watched these two videos last night and there are just too many questions around the 9/11 attacks to be purely coincidental. Even if you have already heard stuff about conspiracies and not believed it, this stuff is worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=Loose+Change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Martial+Law

No it isn't....it's a load of old cobblers.

Similar stuff posted before....load of rubbish....blah blah blah:roll:

...or incredibly enough to some people, it might have been al Qaeda all the time.

I watched the first video, even though I'm sceptical, just to see another view point. Was interesting.

I'm not able to see them on my PC.

But jake..i hope you're not being brainwashed young fellow :D

I'm not able to see them on my PC.

But jake..i hope you're not being brainwashed young fellow :D

Not for a minute young man.... but I always like to keep an open mind and just sometimes something new comes to light to support a once discounted theory of events.... I enjoyed watching em. :D

::ppn passes Jake01 the tin foil hat:: ;) .

::ppn passes Jake01 the tin foil hat:: ;) .

*Jake accepts tin foil hat*...... "Mork calling Orson.. come in Orson." :hihi:

It's precisely because people dont have the time or inclination to examine situations such as the Lockerbie Disaster in sufficient depth that the powers that be are able to successfully bury whatever facts are available in a quagmire of inaccessible bureaucracy.
I'm not quite up to speek on the Lockerbie Disaster but in the US, they tend not to tell all the facts so that the American people are kept in the dark and the government can keep on fuelling their agenda.

The media then keeps reporting about murders, terrorism and other things so that the US people are "angry" and then support their government.

If you haven't already, check out "Farenheit 911" by Michael Moore. Whether you are on the left or the right, his film will spark some kind of emotion.

I watched these two videos last night and there are just too many questions around the 9/11 attacks to be purely coincidental. Even if you have already heard stuff about conspiracies and not believed it, this stuff is worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=Loose+Change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Martial+Law

Sure its good, adds further evidence to Painful Deceptions.

Check out 'The New Pearl Harbour' by David Ray Griffin.

You will love that!

You have too be careful of Alex Jones though, he does have his own agenda :suspect:

Wonder what people make of this i see nothing wrong with an independant enquiry should end all conspiracy theories.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

I think thats a load of crap to be perfectly honest! There is no-way that you can organise the deaths of that many people and bringing down of 2 of the tallest structures of the work without someone leaking something. Plus- talk aboutshooting yourself in the foot if something did come out.

It's a load of old rubbish concocted by people who have nothing better to do with their time than create totally incorrect rumours and spread them around.

It's doing nothing but causing more pain and suffering for those whose families and friends died.

It's a load of old rubbish concocted by people who have nothing better to do with their time than create totally incorrect rumours and spread them around.

It's doing nothing but causing more pain and suffering for those whose families and friends died.

Alot of the family members have said that the enquiry into the events of 11th of Sept 2001 were a joke and that they haven't been able to find closure.

I certainly dont know if there has been a cover up, but the fact that the Govt aren't being open to it will only perpetuate the theories.

Z

Look at the videos with detonated charges blowing. It makes you wonder, it did me at any rate, this is not say that it was the USA murdering their own people. It was probably people with inside info to make it even more spectactular than it was. Buildings like that are designed to withstand allsorts

Look at the videos with detonated charges blowing. It makes you wonder, it did me at any rate, this is not say that it was the USA murdering their own people. It was probably people with inside info to make it even more spectactular than it was. Buildings like that are designed to withstand allsorts

Remember the idea of the US killings its own in order to have a pretext to invade a nation is not a new idea. Papers released a couple of years ago show that they planned just that, in order to be able to invade Cuba.

Z

Actually, buildings like that do not withstand all sorts. There was a programme broadcast not long after the events which explained how the structure of the towers differed from that of normal skyskrapers, and the basic details of the investigation can be browsed on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Whilst I am not convinced that all of the official explanation of events of the day are honest, and do feel there is some element of cover up or manipluation of truth going on (how is it that 3 flights deviate from course over restricted, domestic airpspace for prolonged periods of time, yet no-one noticed?), the building collapse itself was a horrific tragedy, and could not be forseen.

Point taken. I am anti USA as anyone, I was a young man during the Vietnam War disaster. This does not mean all the evil is in the USA. Look at Al Zquari for instance

Buildings like that are designed to withstand allsorts

But not planes smashing into the side of them followed by fires that raged (in some parts) hotter than the surface of the sun!


The entire structure collapsed because of these 2 things and them alone- certainly not 'secret bombs' hidden all over the building- even the US government isn't that daft!

I do not mean the US government, I mean saborteurs

I think thats a load of crap to be perfectly honest! There is no-way that you can organise the deaths of that many people and bringing down of 2 of the tallest structures of the work without someone leaking something. Plus- talk aboutshooting yourself in the foot if something did come out.

My advice to you is 'give up thinking'


It's a load of old rubbish concocted by people who have nothing better to do with their time than create totally incorrect rumours and spread them around.

It's doing nothing but causing more pain and suffering for those whose families and friends died.

You clearly know nothing about this tragic event also.

Buildings like that are designed to withstand allsorts

When was the last time a steel structured building collapsed from a fire ?

Then 3 in one day come down.

I have done research on this subject and am willing to go head-to-head with anyone on the subject, but people would rather believe the real conspiracy theory that is called the official story.

I will be able to referance most of the information I use to support an argument, as facts are kinda useful on such an important issue.

Any takers ?

I wait in anticipation ?

Actually, buildings like that do not withstand all sorts. There was a programme broadcast not long after the events which explained how the structure of the towers differed from that of normal skyskrapers, and the basic details of the investigation ...

how is it that 3 flights deviate from course over restricted, domestic airpspace for prolonged periods of time, yet no-one noticed?)


That might be the pancake theory then, reported on Discovery channel ?

make that 4 fights, 3 hit their targets in close succesion, 1 was delayed by 41 minutes and was shot down by military aircraft once the passengers dicovered that they were going to be used as a weapon and tried retaking the plane, a pilot being one of the vigilantes.

US military most probably shot it down so there were no terrorists to interogate.

This does not mean all the evil is in the USA.

No but the US have the biggest guns !

My advice to you is 'give up thinking'



I would like to give some advice straight back to you but this is a family forum, so instead ill just tell you to shut up.

But not planes smashing into the side of them followed by fires that raged (in some parts) hotter than the surface of the sun!


The entire structure collapsed because of these 2 things and them alone- certainly not 'secret bombs' hidden all over the building- even the US government isn't that daft!

lol, hotter than the sun pmsl, the hottest an open fuelled fire by hydrocarbons would be 1600-1700'F, to melt steel, one needs a temoerature in the range of 2770'F

Where were these raging fires, most of the jet fuel burned up within moments of the impact.

But not planes smashing into the side of them followed by fires that raged (in some parts) hotter than the surface of the sun!


http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

The Sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths. The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F). This layer has a mottled appearance due to the turbulent eruptions of energy at the surface.

Solar energy is created deep within the core of the Sun. It is here that the temperature (15,000,000° C; 27,000,000° F) and pressure (340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level)

My advice to you is 'give up thinking'


and start using your imagination ?

the building collapse itself was a horrific tragedy, and could not be forseen.

The CIA, FBI and some US officials had been forewarned of this sort of attack happening months before it did.

They were told who, where and when but repeatedly declined the reports.

lol, hotter than the sun pmsl, the hottest an open fuelled fire by hydrocarbons would be 1600-1700'F, to melt steel, one needs a temoerature in the range of 2770'F


I can assure you that you do not need a temprature of 2770'f to melt steel my friend.

on average the melting point for your average alloy is around 1700-2000'f tops.

aluminium's melting point is only 1220'f!

and start using your imagination ?

....... or look for a few facts, hey I don't think I hold the popular opinion, I don't even like my own thoughts on the subject, it does not make them false!

I believed the official story for the first 3 years and was appalled, but there are undeniably so many irregularities, I decided to look for myself.

I have an imagination thanks, I can also think and conduct independant research.

What are you basing you knowledge on ?

The CIA, FBI and some US officials had been forewarned of this sort of attack happening months before it did.

They were told who, where and when but repeatedly declined the reports.

and that makes it a conspiricy???

I can assure you that you do not need a temprature of 2770'f to melt steel my friend.

on average the melting point for your average alloy is around 1700-2000'f tops.

aluminium's melting point is only 1220'f!

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html


What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Author:

I can assure you that you do not need a temprature of 2770'f to melt steel my friend.


Agreed, 1450 degrees the web site I just looked at said, and no-one is saying the steel "melted" into a molten state, it just softened enough to lose it's structural strength.

and that makes it a conspiricy???

No, it means that US offials had prior knowledge and refused to openly accept it.

your talking about PURE unrefined materials there- the materials that they will have made the structure of the twin towers from will have been very high grade material with lots of other metals thrown in to increase/decrease its properties!

do you just quote from other sites or do you have your own views?

Agreed, 1450 degrees the web site I just looked at said, and no-one is saying the steel "melted" into a molten state, it just softened enough to lose it's structural strength.


The fires lasted about 50 minutes each.

These buildings far exceeded there building tolerances .

When has a steel stuctured builoding ever collapsed trough fire? even after 10-20 hours of burning ?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

It was very convenient, that one of the hijackers' passports was found in the rubble of the WTC.

The planes exploded in a huge fireball, the towers came crashing down, thousands died... but the passport, that managed to survive...

No, it means that US offials had prior knowledge and refused to openly accept it.

So its there fault that some mad men flew some planes into the buildings??

Do you really thing that if they KNEW when and where this was going to happen they wouldn't have tried to stop it?? come on!

your talking about PURE unrefined materials there- the materials that they will have made the structure of the twin towers from will have been very high grade material with lots of other metals thrown in to increase/decrease its properties!


You know that how ? What was the most common type of steel used in 1966 for construction purposes ? Perhaps they used shoddy/cheap steel, no-one is going to admit to that are they ?

your talking about PURE unrefined materials there- the materials that they will have made the structure of the twin towers from will have been very high grade material with lots of other metals thrown in to increase/decrease its properties!

do you just quote from other sites or do you have your own views?

The Twin Towers were made from high grade steel, the architect reports staate this when they were built.

The builings were capable of carrying 5 times their own full weight.

These buildings far exceeded there building tolerances .

When has a steel stuctured builoding ever collapsed trough fire? even after 10-20 hours of burning ?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

All those buildings are totally different to the WTC, which was a unique one-off design.

It was very convenient, that one of the hijackers' passports was found in the rubble of the WTC.

The planes exploded in a huge fireball, the towers came crashing down, thousands died... but the passport, that managed to survive...

They fell at free fall speed, almost no resistance, concrete was blown to dust, steel was burnt, paper passport survived. :loopy:

Thanks Abdul, whether you agree or disagree with either theory, at least you are looking at evidence.

All those buildings are totally different to the WTC, which was a unique one-off design.

Building 7 ?

The Twin Towers were made from high grade steel, the architect reports staate this when they were built.

The builings were capable of carrying 5 times their own full weight.

There are lots of 'high-grade' materials- does it say what it was anywhere?

Building 7 ?

Wasn't building 7 still standing afterwards and needed to be demolished ?

It's almost impossible to find any unbiased "evidence" on the internet, almost every website is a conspiracy site of some description, i bet I could find a page claiming aliens did it.

IS it possible that they don't want a fully disclosed independant investigation because they don't want a lot of information in the public domain about the best way to bring a skyscraper down?

I can't really believe that this information isn't out there somewhere anyway though.

In my opinion anyone in authority who doesn't want an independant inquiry is someone who is scared of the truth.

I think like most disasters it was more cock-up than conspiracy, but when you remember that the right wing hawks in the US will probably use 9/11 as an excuse for every foreign invasion for the next 100 years minimum you do start to wonder.....

I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories, but there are enough things unexplained about 9/11 that makes me think an public enquiry would be a good idea. Althugh if it was such a conspiracy, do we really expect anything to come out in a public enquiry?

The passport surviving is nothing short of a miracle, and just look at the collapse of Building 7 - it wasn't even on fire!

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

There are lots of 'high-grade' materials- does it say what it was anywhere?


'Scientific American' quoted engineer Robert Mcnamara as saying 'nowadays, they just dont build them as tough as th Worl Trade Center'

'Investigations of some steel found, furthermore, that farfrom being defective, it met or even exceeded the standard requirements' In article headed 'Preliminary Tests show steel quality did not contribute to towers collapse(Associated Press, August 27,2003) Frank Gayle (NIST)National Institute of Standards and Technology

Wasn't building 7 still standing afterwards and needed to be demolished ?

It's almost impossible to find any unbiased "evidence" on the internet, almost every website is a conspiracy site of some description, i bet I could find a page claiming aliens did it.

Who said I was using the internet alone ?

Who said I was using the internet alone ?

So if your right, what then, you bring down the US government, get an episode of the X-files dedicated to you, bring people back from the dead, what ?

So if your right, what then, you bring down the US government, get an episode of the X-files dedicated to you, bring people back from the dead, what ?

Whats the point of knowing anything?

Whats the point of knowing anything?

There is no point if it changes nothing.

The CIA, FBI and some US officials had been forewarned of this sort of attack happening months before it did.

They were told who, where and when but repeatedly declined the reports.

Maybe they were warned of an attack on the towers...but the COLLAPSE could not be forseen as it was only in hindsight that they realised that the structure was not sound. Perhaps they expected a tragedy, and loss of some lives - not the collapse, and devastation that was delivered.

Wasn't building 7 still standing afterwards and needed to be demolished ?

It's almost impossible to find any unbiased "evidence" on the internet, almost every website is a conspiracy site of some description, i bet I could find a page claiming aliens did it.

Who said I was using the internet alone ?

Yes, it was 'Pulled' Larry Silverstein? building owner allowed controlled demolition. ((aka explosives)even the official report states that they do not know how that came down, but thought it not important to investigate.

'The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time' FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study CH.5, Sect 6.2

FEMA ~ (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Response & Recovery planning.)

Maybe they were warned of an attack on the towers...but the COLLAPSE could not be forseen as it was only in hindsight that they realised that the structure was not sound. Perhaps they expected a tragedy, and loss of some lives - not the collapse, and devastation that was delivered.


'Scientific American' quoted engineer Robert Mcnamara as saying 'nowadays, they just dont build them as tough as th Worl Trade Center'

'Investigations of some steel found, furthermore, that farfrom being defective, it met or even exceeded the standard requirements' In article headed 'Preliminary Tests show steel quality did not contribute to towers collapse(Associated Press, August 27,2003) Frank Gayle (NIST)National Institute of Standards and Technology

'The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time' FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study CH.5, Sect 6.2


So because the cause is "unknown" it instantly becomes something suspicious ?

So if your right, what then, you bring down the US government, get an episode of the X-files dedicated to you, bring people back from the dead, what ?

This is not about selfcongratulation, these people are running the World, does that not bother you ?

There is no point if it changes nothing.

That remark does not deserve a reply

This is not about selfcongratulation, these people are running the World, does that not bother you ?


Honestly, no, I don't lie awake at night worrying about it.

So because the cause is "unknown" it instantly becomes something suspicious ?

Yes, in a word.

That was the official explanation.

Also linked to so many implausable explanations.

if I was an insurance company, I would want to know if any other steel buildings were going to start collapsing through fire ?

I for sure would not go to sit and work in one!

Yes, in a word.

That was the official explanation.

Also linked to so many implausable explanations.

if I was an insurance company, I would want to know if any other steel buildings were going to start collapsing through fire ?

I for sure would not go to sit and work in one!

I just hope that the person who promised me the 'conspiracy theory' dvd doesn't forget!

Honestly, no, I don't lie awake at night worrying about it.


Nor me, but do you have a conscience ?

Nor me, but do you have a conscience ?

You think I'm involved ?

I just hope that the person who promised me the 'conspiracy theory' dvd doesn't forget!

Not on Ratties life !

You think I'm involved ?

Back on topic : Twin towers - do you support an independent enquiry?

Who mentioned steel quality? It was the design of the floor struts, not the actual materials which differed and made the structure unsound when exposed to the confined, combusted fule, intense heat and trauma, and loss of a few floors. Prior to the event every engineer said it was a marvel of engineering, afterwards I saw a few investigations, and researched addition, which pointed out that, in hindsight, it was not a perfect design.

Much in the same way that a certain Titanic was a marvel of engineering and unsinkable....

After all, hindsight is always 20/20

In addition, I thought it would be nice to provide an opportunity for others to read the FEMA report, so checked their website and found this http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

By all means people, research it, and question stuff. After all, who honestly trusts everything the governments of this world tell us?

Back on topic : Twin towers - do you support an independent enquiry?

yes, (still not sure where my conscience fits into this)

Would you accept the outcome of an independant investigation if it dissagreed with what you believe though, or would that become part of the conspiracy ?

Back on topic : Twin towers - do you support an independent enquiry?

Unfortunately, no. All that will happen is the inquiry will begin, and details will 'vanish' that the governments do not want disclosed. No inquiry is ever totally independant, and nothing will result from it.

Even if the inquiry does show that nothing was suspicious, the conspiracies will still be there with the "Ahh...but thats what they wanted you to find out!", and so on and so forth.

Nothing will change. The only way the 'truth' will come out is if a major revolution took place in the US and the new leaders decided to open up all the 'confidential' files.

yes, (still not sure where my conscience fits into this)

Would you accept the outcome of an independant investigation if it dissagreed with what you believe though, or would that become part of the conspiracy ?

What I suspect, and mostly believe are a series of questions made by independant investigators who press the story told and get stonewalled.

There will maybe never be a full independant investigation for the Bush Administration have already prevented that, what investigation was commisioned was run by an in-house member of the Bush house.

But to answer your question honestly, I am not a nutter, I just want the truth to be told.

So if it was independant and impartial, yes I would accept it.

Unfortunately, no. All that will happen is the inquiry will begin, and details will 'vanish' that the governments do not want disclosed. No inquiry is ever totally independant, and nothing will result from it.

Even if the inquiry does show that nothing was suspicious, the conspiracies will still be there with the "Ahh...but thats what they wanted you to find out!", and so on and so forth.

Nothing will change. The only way the 'truth' will come out is if a major revolution took place in the US and the new leaders decided to open up all the 'confidential' files.


Not strictly true, but the truth is largely hidden.

The US Governmant have made many mistakes on this but they just tell us what we think, see and believe.

There is loads of material backed by physical evidence that supports the thoery I present.

They are not my theories, I am just following the most likey chain of events.

yes, (still not sure where my conscience fits into this)



Because the War for oil in Iraq is in our, my your name !

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306landmarkimplosion.htm

interesting :huh:

Because the War for oil in Iraq is in our, my your name !

I thought we were talking about the WTC ?

I thought there was freedom of speech.:confused:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/220306mediablackout.htm

I thought we were talking about the WTC ?

Are you winding me up, or are you really so naive ?

Are you winding me up, or are you really so naive ?

I'm that naive I guess, good job you're here to disclose the truth behind everything.

Today in his speech in Cleveland:

Bush: "First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:

Bush: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

when will he make his mind up?:hihi:


The attacks on 9/11 are often referred to as the 'New Pearl Harbour', Bush even wrote that in his personal diary that evening.

Bush Administration had voiced, months before that a NPH would fast-track changes in civil rights and other controversial exploits that you won't hear on the BBC etc....

They used this attack to tighten security, civil liberties and go to War with 2 Countries to date, that posed no actual threat to the Western World.

Admittedly Saddam Hussein is a monster, but he was good enough to fund and sell arms too in recent history.

As for the Bin Laden family, they are great friends and business partners with the Bush family.

These details are just the tip of one big rotten iceberg.

I'm that naive I guess, good job you're here to disclose the truth behind everything.


Not at all, only the greatest crime in the Western World that I imagine I will ever live to see.

The attacks on 9/11 are often referred to as the 'New Pearl Harbour', Bush even wrote that in his personal diary that evening.


it's not that personal then if you and everyone else knows what he writes in it.

Do you actually have a point to make ?

...or are you trying to prove me wrong by asking further questions ?

...are you trying to prove me wrong by using no evidance or explanation ?

...or something else perhaps ?

I do have other things to occupy myself with, I am just generous with my time if people are willing to listen.

Would you rather I just accepted what you say is true, no matter how wild it sounds ?

Stuff like "he wrote it in his private diary" just make me think the whole thing is silly, how do "they" know what he wrote in his private diary, and what a co-incidence that what he wrote fits perfectly with the conspiracy.

Yes, you are very generaous with your time if people agree with you, but if they don't then they are obviouslt stupid or naive or being controlled by the government or part of the conspiracy.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I tend to just question everything people put foreward as "the real truth" about anything for the sake of it.

Stuff like "he wrote it in his private diary" just make me think the whole thing is silly

You could be right remember the upside nursery book incident.:hihi:

he's too :loopy: to write out.

Would you rather I just accepted what you say is true, no matter how wild it sounds ?

Yes, you are very generaous with your time if people agree with you, but if they don't then they are obviouslt stupid or naive or being controlled by the government or part of the conspiracy.



Firstly believe what you choose, but is there an element of doubt strong enough to question what you are told ?

Secondly, you don't agree with me, but the fact you are reading on and not mocking me (which I did suspect a couple of times) is motive enough to carry on in the thread.

Nothing about being stupid, nothing wrong with being naive.

As the thread was started, do you support an independant enquiry ?

Are there enough extreme irregularities with the official story ?

Wonder what people make of this.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/210306_b_FBI.htm

I find anything on that web site hard to take seriously. I mean, they even describe Charlie Sheen as a "highly credible public figure" source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm)

Charlie Sheen as a "highly credible public figure"

:hihi: Yeah the use of vocabulary is questionable :hihi: but story isn't.

I find anything on that web site hard to take seriously. I mean, they even describe Charlie Sheen as a "highly credible public figure" source (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm)



Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.


The site might have it's own agenda, but they don't make this stuff up you know.

C+P from another website

re: the controlled demolition theory -
woudn't there have needed to be a time when 'they' (the Bilderberg Kennedy UFO secret agents) painstakingly drilled several hundred plugs into the building, packed them with explosives, wired them all up (hiding the wires from windowcleaners and the like obnov), phoned up some arab friends who'd just finished flying school, explained the 'big idea', sat waiting for planes to hit from a hiding place nearby, and finally pressed the button shortly afterwards? I've heard of project management, but..

I have done research on this subject and am willing to go head-to-head with anyone on the subject, but people would rather believe the real conspiracy theory that is called the official story.

I will be able to referance most of the information I use to support an argument, as facts are kinda useful on such an important issue.

Any takers ?

I wait in anticipation ?
Yea, go on then. I seem to remember we did this before and I couldn't see a shred of real evidence to support a conspiracy. Away you go ;)



Yes, it was 'Pulled' Larry Silverstein? building owner allowed controlled demolition. ((aka explosives)even the official report states that they do not know how that came down, but thought it not important to investigate.


It would be nice if it were true. He asked them to "pull" the firefighters out, which they did. He's said that many many times.

Yea, go on then. I seem to remember we did this before and I couldn't see a shred of real evidence to support a conspiracy. Away you go ;)



It would be nice if it were true. He asked them to "pull" the firefighters out, which they did. He's said that many many times.

Firstly, you politely declined offers of evidence that I offered to pass on.

It happens to be on motion picture, so I think that means it is quite true.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050504davidraygriffin#now


There is a start for you :)

Please do not hesitate to forward more questions, thanks for showing an interest :)

C+P from another website

re: the controlled demolition theory -
woudn't there have needed to be a time when 'they' (the Bilderberg Kennedy UFO secret agents) painstakingly drilled several hundred plugs into the building, packed them with explosives, wired them all up (hiding the wires from windowcleaners and the like obnov), phoned up some arab friends who'd just finished flying school, explained the 'big idea', sat waiting for planes to hit from a hiding place nearby, and finally pressed the button shortly afterwards? I've heard of project management, but..

stranger things have happened like not winning the election and still getting into office.:hihi:

It happens to be on motion picture, so I think that means it is quite true.

That's not evidence - that's opinion :)

This might help. :thumbsup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Silverstein

That's not evidence - that's opinion :)

This might help. :thumbsup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Silverstein

Sure, that cannot be proven.

This can: 'The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time' FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study CH.5, Sect 6.2

FEMA ~ (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Response & Recovery planning.)

So did fire bring down building 7, because it certainly was not an aeroplane.

I dunno, but I do know that a lack of a proper conclusion for whatever reason doesn't mean that we should invent one ;)

Larry Silverstein seems to be quite clear about what he said and what he meant, and it makes perfect sense. I have no reason to disbelieve him and there's no reason to put words into his mouth.

The site might have it's own agenda, but they don't make this stuff up you know.

No, I don't know. Can you point me to somewhere on their website which shows they have any real credibility? Some proof they know what they are talking about?

New in...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/220306gossiprag.htm

You just lost all your points by mentioning an article with "Alex Jones" in it.

He makes David Icke look lucid on occasions. :D

I would have to say I'm more inclined to believe somebody like Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y)

"Alex Jones interviews Charlie Sheen" (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story.htm) :hihi:

Here's a big up to the conspiracy mob ! :D

Isn't Charlie Sheen's dad the President in The West Wing?

Think i need to clarify my post or my opinion.
Alex jones could be lying through his back teeth for all i care he is just a link to pose questions and start a debate on if an independant inquiry should be done. there must be some truth in what he says if not he would be libel.

Isn't Charlie Sheen's dad the President in The West Wing?

much better in apocalypse now though. :hihi:

I dunno, but I do know that a lack of a proper conclusion for whatever reason doesn't mean that we should invent one ;)


Nothing is being invented, it is a case of probability, the official story is that fires brought down WTC buildings 1 and 2 and they do not know why building 7 came down.

Is that not a little worrying that a huge 47 storey steel building just collapsed without explanation ?

At 8:21 AMflight attendants reported by telephone that American Airlines Flight 11 had definately been taken over by hijackers, who had already killed some people.

At 8:46 AM Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

32 minutes that it had been suspected and 25 minutes after it had been confirmed to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Had standard proceures been followed (as they are 100's of times per year) Flight 11 would have been intercepted within 10 minutes and forced to an airport or shot down.

This would have happened before 8:30 AM thus preventing a commercial airliner being shot down over the heart of New York.

FAA regulations instruct air traffic controllers:

Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when:...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any aircraft...If you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.'

It's all in here : http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/

Whenever Alex Jones is mentioned I always get a picture of a box of frogs in my head. Mad eh? ;)

That is just one of 4 planes, or 2 depending what you believe that should not even reached it's target let alone use as an excuse for dropping 3 steel buildings.

You just lost all your points by mentioning an article with "Alex Jones" in it.

He makes David Icke look lucid on occasions. :D

I agree, Alex Jones is an idiot bless him, but at least he questions both sides.

No, I don't know. Can you point me to somewhere on their website which shows they have any real credibility? Some proof they know what they are talking about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html

There is one for starters.

Nothing is being invented, it is a case of probability, the official story is that fires brought down WTC buildings 1 and 2 and they do not know why building 7 came down.

Is that not a little worrying that a huge 47 storey steel building just collapsed without explanation ?
It's you that doesn't accept the explanation. I do.

At 8:46 AM Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

32 minutes that it had been suspected and 25 minutes after it had been confirmed to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Had standard proceures been followed (as they are 100's of times per year) Flight 11 would have been intercepted within 10 minutes and forced to an airport or shot down.

This would have happened before 8:30 AM thus preventing a commercial airliner being shot down over the heart of New York.
But there is no such "standard procedure" and it doesn't happen hundreds of times a year. That's just not true.

You cannot force an aircraft to an airport, and to my knowledge no hijacked passenger aircraft has ever been shot down.

The Military have already accepted the blame for their general cock-up with handling the situation. It caught them on the hop because they simply weren't expecting it.

New in...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/220306gossiprag.htm

I am not knocking you here, but I would suggest more than just the one source.

Try this for startes:

http://http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/DR_Griffin_Madison.mov

people would rather believe the real conspiracy theory that is called the official story.



I have to agree - it all seems a bit odd to me.
I have just read the link posted at the start of the thread, and it made me think. I have no idea what happened, but it smacks of conspiracy. (sp?)

Think i need to clarify my post or my opinion.
Alex jones could be lying through his back teeth for all i care he is just a link to pose questions and start a debate on if an independant inquiry should be done. there must be some truth in what he says if not he would be libel.

Dont know if my quote was missed.
I'm just establishing that there are holes in the inquiry that was done.
What possible reason is there not to have an independent inquiry?
My biggest problem is that both towers came down the way they did in such a short space of time. and that dodgy passport.

You cannot force an aircraft to an airport, and to my knowledge no hijacked passenger aircraft has ever been shot down.

.
Not officially but many have crashed in strange circumstances though, Lockerbie, the one off New York and the one over Korea spring to mind. All explained away with strange stories.

It's you that doesn't accept the explanation. I do.


But there is no such "standard procedure" and it doesn't happen hundreds of times a year. That's just not true.

You cannot force an aircraft to an airport, and to my knowledge no hijacked passenger aircraft has ever been shot down.

The Military have already accepted the blame for their general cock-up with handling the situation. It caught them on the hop because they simply weren't expecting it.

There is no explantion to accept Tony = 'The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time' FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study CH.5, Sect 6.2

I will check my source on the second point :rolleyes:

US military aircraft are on 24 hour standby, caught them on the hop ? :hihi:

Sorry but that made me chuckle.

It takes a standard of 2.5 minutes for F-15's to be airbourne and be upto flight spaeed and on full blower they can cover 30 miles a minute at over1'875 nmph.

The nearest air base is McGuire in New Jersey 70 miles from NYC ?

My biggest problem is that both towers came down the way they did in such a short space of time.

At freefall speed and the wrong building came down first !

The Military have already accepted the blame for their general cock-up with handling the situation. It caught them on the hop because they simply weren't expecting it.

Do you have a source for that, and surely someone would be punished for gross misconduct which has not happened.

At freefall speed and the wrong building came down first !

In what way was it 'wrong'?

All this talk has made me wonder if I should cancel my holiday in the Bermuda triangle this year ?

The Military have already accepted the blame for their general cock-up with handling the situation. It caught them on the hop because they simply weren't expecting it.

No doubt the one that cocked it up was probably promoted under Dubya he encourages incompetance.:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

There is no explantion to accept Tony = 'The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time' FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study CH.5, Sect 6.2
?

Your quote confused me for a bit then. It is not from Sect 6.2 at all, but can be found in Chapter 5 section 7. Check the following link for the full report. There is much more to it than the quote, and there are some speculations, and recommendations for further investigations.

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

Not officially but many have crashed in strange circumstances though, Lockerbie, the one off New York and the one over Korea spring to mind. All explained away with strange stories.

Lockerbie blew up mid air with a bomb on board though