9/11 Truth Movement

[Rasta_Hibs]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

[JimBHibees]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

If there were bombs in the building why bother with planes?

[Beefster]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

Yes.

In general the 9/11 conspiracy theories, including 7 WTC, have been comprehensively debunked. I haven't looked at your videos but 'Loose Change', the Ben Hur of conspiracy films, has been trashed to such an extent that the director claimed to have put errors in so that viewers would notice and do their own research.

Bear in mind that a conspiracy theory depends on the hundreds/thousands of people involved to stay silent for the remainder of their lives yet Nixon and a couple of dozen people couldn't even keep a break-in at a relatively unimportant hotel quiet.

If you're a big believer of conspiracy theories, I'd recommend 'Voodoo Histories' by David Aaronovich.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Yes.

In general the 9/11 conspiracy theories, including 7 WTC, have been comprehensively debunked. I haven't looked at your videos but 'Loose Change', the Ben Hur of conspiracy films, has been trashed to such an extent that the director claimed to have put errors in so that viewers would notice and do their own research.

Bear in mind that a conspiracy theory depends on the hundreds/thousands of people involved to stay silent for the remainder of their lives yet Nixon and a couple of dozen people couldn't even keep a break-in at a relatively unimportant hotel quiet.

If you're a big believer of conspiracy theories, I'd recommend 'Voodoo Histories' by David Aaronovich.

I have watched the debunkers being debunked by the top engineers in their fields.

If you dont want to watch the video then please go away.

[Rasta_Hibs]

If there were bombs in the building why bother with planes?

Well the obvious answer would be to bring the buildings down. As the towers were built to stand planes hitting them.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Yes.

In general the 9/11 conspiracy theories, including 7 WTC, have been comprehensively debunked. I haven't looked at your videos but 'Loose Change', the Ben Hur of conspiracy films, has been trashed to such an extent that the director claimed to have put errors in so that viewers would notice and do their own research.

Bear in mind that a conspiracy theory depends on the hundreds/thousands of people involved to stay silent for the remainder of their lives yet Nixon and a couple of dozen people couldn't even keep a break-in at a relatively unimportant hotel quiet.

If you're a big believer of conspiracy theories, I'd recommend 'Voodoo Histories' by David Aaronovich.

Garbage!!!!!

[Beefster]

I have watched the debunkers being debunked by the top engineers in their fields.

If you dont want to watch the video then please go away.

I don't have to watch them to know that they're pish. If you post an opinion on here, prepare to have it challenged - that's how it works.

[Rasta_Hibs]

I don't have to watch them to know that they're pish. If you post an opinion on here, prepare to have it challenged - that's how it works.


You'r entrenched with your views. YOu have no idea what the video holds as your scared of the truth.

Up to you if you watch them or not but there are experts in there field calling for a independent investigation as what was told is actually impossible due to the law of physics.

But hey ho you believe what you want and dont look at the video.

[derekHFC]

If you dont want to watch the video then please go away.Bit harsh

[Rasta_Hibs]

Bit harsh

THe post was to watch the video and then give comments. If the man is not prepared to do that but will still shout me down then whats his contribution? Just his own views being shouted out without watching the video.

PLease is not a harsh word! lol

[Beefster]

You'r entrenched with your views. YOu have no idea what the video holds as your scared of the truth.

Up to you if you watch them or not but there are experts in there field calling for a independent investigation as what was told is actually impossible due to the law of physics.

But hey ho you believe what you want and dont look at the video.

Busted. I'm absolutely scared of the truth and like to walk about half-asleep and accept everything fed to me by the New World Order.

Thousands of journalists and academics all over the globe but someone had to post 'the truth' to YouTube. Feasible.

[Beefster]

THe post was to watch the video and then give comments. If the man is not prepared to do that but will still shout me down then whats his contribution? Just his own views being shouted out without watching the video.

PLease is not a harsh word! lol

The post asked if anyone believed the 'official line'. I answered that, told you, in general, why and then made a general point about conspiracy theories before recommending some further reading.

Aye, no contribution whatsoever...

[Rasta_Hibs]

The post asked if anyone believed the 'official line'. I answered that, told you, in general, why and then made a general point about conspiracy theories before recommending some further reading.

Aye, no contribution whatsoever...

I repeat there are the top engineers, architechts, scientists and psycologists (explaining why people like you wont look at facts) explaining why the building could not fall the way the did due to fire. If your no prepared to watch the video then fair enough. But its the smoking gun and you wont watch cos you say its pish! Yiv not watched to call it pish! So your views are pish!

Simple, watch the video then comment. Or are you scared? haha

[JimBHibees]

Well the obvious answer would be to bring the buildings down. As the towers were built to stand planes hitting them.

Again why bother putting the planes in then just blow the buildings up.

I dont think the towers had steel foundations in them hence the reason they came down so easily. I was at the site in October and that's what they seemed to be saying that the new towers were being built with much stronger foundations even to the extent that the largest tower has 7 levels built below the ground.

[Sylar]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

If you don't mind, I'll refrain from watching it - seeing what happened first hand was quite enough thanks and presents enough evidence for me in it's own right.

Furthermore, my degree in physics, Masters in engineering and PhD combining both fields provide me with enough intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of what happened and suggest the following:

These engineers, architects and family members who have done their own research into the matter (and I mean proper research) are to be commended. Utterly tragic and horrendous as the day was, the wide array of questions which arose afterwards did merit being addressed. Research of such black swan events is crucial and with the plethora of imagery (both moving and still) we have from that day, research is a healthy response.

In some instances I find it utterly tragic, particularly in the case of the family members, that they've been drawn into this Truth Movement propaganda. Having lost loved ones, being emotionally compromised and seeking a justification, some of the utterly wild theories postulated by these conspiracy groups tugs at the strings and claims to provide answers for that day which gives the family members (and others who were emotionally effected) something to cling to and a very real, living group of individuals who can be held to task.

If you're capable of understanding the science behind it (which is quite in-depth) there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers which have been published by leaders in their fields which outline precisely why the things which occurred that day occurred. Ones which immediately springs to mind is Usmani et al, 2003 in the Journal of Fire Safety Research or Quintiere et al, 2002 in the Journal of Structural Engineering.

[Rasta_Hibs]

If you don't mind, I'll refrain from watching it - seeing what happened first hand was quite enough thanks and presents enough evidence for me in it's own right.

Furthermore, my degree in physics, Masters in engineering and PhD combining both fields provide me with enough intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of what happened and suggest the following:

These engineers, architects and family members who have done their own research into the matter (and I mean proper research) are to be commended. Utterly tragic and horrendous as the day was, the wide array of questions which arose afterwards did merit being addressed. Research of such black swan events is crucial and with the plethora of imagery (both moving and still) we have from that day, research is a healthy response.

In some instances I find it utterly tragic, particularly in the case of the family members, that they've been drawn into this Truth Movement propaganda. Having lost loved ones, being emotionally compromised and seeking a justification, some of the utterly wild theories postulated by these conspiracy groups tugs at the strings and claims to provide answers for that day which gives the family members (and others who were emotionally effected) something to cling to and a very real, living group of individuals who can be held to task.

If you're capable of understanding the science behind it (which is quite in-depth) there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers which have been published by leaders in their fields which outline precisely why the things which occurred that day occurred. Ones which immediately springs to mind is Usmani et al, 2003 in the Journal of Fire Safety Research or Quintiere et al, 2002 in the Journal of Structural Engineering.

Look watch the video and comment please if not then i wont bother reading what you say. That seems to be the case round here.

If you watch it the come back and say its pish then fair enough, i will accept it. BUt not to watch it and dismiss it is a nonsense.

[Hibs Class]

Well the obvious answer would be to bring the buildings down. As the towers were built to stand planes hitting them.

The film that I saw indicated that the towers were built to withstand planes hitting them (from memory being modelled specifically on one particular Boeing model in service at the time they were designed) but that the modelling hadn't taken into account the impact of a fire from a full fuel load. The film (which I cannot find a link for) explained how that fire then caused the towers to collapse into themselves.

[Wembley67]

Look watch the video and comment please if not then i wont bother reading what you say. That seems to be the case round here.

If you watch it the come back and say its pish then fair enough, i will accept it. BUt not to watch it and dismiss it is a nonsense.

I think you should maybe read what he actually posted as you are coming over a bit of an arse with your agressive posts.

[reidy]

I find stuff like this interesting and especially with a topic like this people will always have different opinions. Throughout history there has always been conspiracy theories and nothing will ever change that

[lapsedhibee]

I find stuff like this interesting and especially with a topic like this people will always have different opinions. Throughout history there has always been conspiracy theories and nothing will ever change that

But what if the history books, and the records they are based on, have all been doctored to make you think that?

[Beefster]

But what if the history books, and the records they are based on, have all been doctored to make you think that?

What group would coordinate the doctoring of written history and for what aim?

[lyonhibs]

George Bush loved oil that much that he killed 3,000+ innocent civilians to justify the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions? Is that the one we're talking about here?

Or is it that The Moon People from the Planet Zork took over the whole US senate via telepathy and ordered the attacks?

I only ask because both are equally as plausible, which is to say not at all.

Load. of. pish.

[lapsedhibee]

What group would coordinate the doctoring of written history and for what aim?

Only members of the conspiracy could answer those questions - but then they wouldn't, would they?

Look at how much Jimmy Savile managed to keep from the public for 40-50 years. With so many more resources, imagine what the FBI, CIA, BBC, BBKing, Doris Day, Matt Busby, etc, could do.

[Rasta_Hibs]

George Bush loved oil that much that he killed 3,000+ innocent civilians to justify the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions? Is that the one we're talking about here?

Or is it that The Moon People from the Planet Zork took over the whole US senate via telepathy and ordered the attacks?

I only ask because both are equally as plausible, which is to say not at all.

Load. of. pish.

THat will be the same George Bush who killed a million or two by sending troops of to an illegal war, or the same goverment that refers to innocents dead by drone strikes as collateral damage! Jees i must be bonkers lol

It goes a little deeper than the american government im afriad.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Only members of the conspiracy could answer those questions - but then they wouldn't, would they?

Look at how much Jimmy Savile managed to keep from the public for 40-50 years. With so many more resources, imagine what the FBI, CIA, BBC, BBKing, Doris Day, Matt Busby, etc, could do.

Talking sense!

[Hibrandenburg]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt_Qpy0mXg8Y

While we're on the subject of conspiracies, have a look at this. Whilst Bill Warner's motives may be dubious, he still puts forward a coherent argument as to why the towers were attacked.

Thoughts?

[Future17]

George Bush loved oil that much that he killed 3,000+ innocent civilians to justify the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions? Is that the one we're talking about here?

Or is it that The Moon People from the Planet Zork took over the whole US senate via telepathy and ordered the attacks?

I only ask because both are equally as plausible, which is to say not at all.

Load. of. pish.

A slight aside from the OP, but your opening line is far from implausible. Former US Presidents/administrations have done similarly morally repugnant things in the past and it has taken many decades for the truth of those acts to emerge.

Out of interest, why do you consider it to be implausible?

[oldbutdim]

Look watch the video and comment please if not then i wont bother reading what you say. That seems to be the case round here.

If you watch it the come back and say its pish then fair enough, i will accept it. BUt not to watch it and dismiss it is a nonsense.

Oh dear.

Maybe you SHOULD have read his post.
Then you wouldn't be looking quite as daft as you are at present.


Actually maybe you would.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Oh dear.

Maybe you SHOULD have read his post.
Then you wouldn't be looking quite as daft as you are at present.


Actually maybe you would.

Well i did read it actually but the video puts to bed everything he said!

[StevesFamau5]

I'm not sure if this is trolling of the highest order... or genuine???

I tend to keep out of this minefield subject... lets be honest how much do we really know about any global event? how much do we choose to ignore? manipulate in our own way? and how much is thrust in our face asking no other question except, choose a side?

It seems like the obvious thing not mentioned here IMO is the emotional and physical scars felt by families around the world who have lost loved ones in this tragedy.

Just saying :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Rasta_Hibs]

I'm not sure if this is trolling of the highest order... or genuine???

I tend to keep out of this minefield subject... lets be honest how much do we really know about any global event? how much do we choose to ignore? manipulate in our own way? and how much is thrust in our face asking no other question except, choose a side?

It seems like the obvious thing not mentioned here IMO is the emotional and physical scars felt by families around the world who have lost loved ones in this tragedy.

Just saying :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

It is genuine.

PLease someone watch the video then come back with some comments, thats all i am asking.

[Captain Trips]

I have read, watched and debated the whole events on 9/11 for many years.

Firstly by and large I think the whole day was pretty much as described offically, believe it or not the whole event offically has a flow from start to finish that I find by far the most plausible. We have bombs in buildings or not no plane hit the Pentagon, too many other accounts dip in and out of the offical story for me to accept any of it.

How do skyscrapers fall that planes full of fuel have hit? How were the towers constructed? These are 2 questions that I bet 99.9% of people hadnt even thought about before 9/11 I know I hadnt. If asked before the event what I would expect to happen I would have said I thought the part above plane strike would topple off right away I had no idea.

Since 9/11 we have saw shows and read books by people who know more than us and we get told various things, on balance I think the the inital damage and resulting fire is a totally acceptable scenario for collopse of WTC. All our information comes from people we accept are in the know/experts in their field, I have no idea how a building of that construction reacts after plane hit as I said on balance I think I do now and go with explanation above.

It being bombs it being fake planes or missle at Pentagon is a far more interesting story than the offical line so it has legs, if I had only been told these versions some are acceptable but put next to the offical line they do not make sense to me.

[marinello59]

Well i did read it actually but the video puts to bed everything he said!

Looks like you are the one with the closed mind here.

[reidy]

It is genuine.

PLease someone watch the video then come back with some comments, thats all i am asking.
I watched it and it was good its hard to argue against the scientific evidence that was in it. But just goes to show even if there is hard evidence people still won't believe it. It's all to do with opinions everyone's is different.

[Rasta_Hibs]

I watched it and it was good its hard to argue against the scientific evidence that was in it. But just goes to show even if there is hard evidence people still won't believe it.

THats it the people on this thread will not watch it. They have their reasons but when science is stating facts, eye witnees accounts, dead bodies on the ground floor reception due to a blast.

But hey lets leave all the facts out and dismiss the video without watching it.

Thank you for at least taking the time to watch with an open mind and commenting.

Thats all i want, i am looking for other people opinions on the video.

[Sylar]

I watched it and it's no more credible than some of the other conspiracy theories out there.

"Experts in their fields"? None of those interviewed (with the exception of the psychologists and 2 scientists who don't actually address the physics/engineering integrity of the research) have anything beyond a degree or in some cases, Masters degrees. These aren't experts - they may be respectable practitioners but "experts" they are not.

They use impressive terminology, theoretical experimentation and eye-witness reports and make mostly vague assertions based on evidence which does not suggest causality. Much of the work which has been published in peer reviewed journals expresses the absence of causality and highlights that owing to the unprecedented nature of the incident, that a lot of supposition is all we have in some instances. It's true that no high rise building has ever been brought down by fire before - we know this from evidence. But how much of that evidence also includes the impact of a jetliner loaded with aviation fuel which can systematically atomize and reignite at any point? These buildings were engineered and modelled to withstand such impacts but the parameters of such a model took into account a very specific airliner size and fuel capacity and aviation technology has come a long way since then.

There's no scientific process going on here - they have a pre-established theory behind their hypothesis already and they're attempting to condition the facts (which themselves are interesting) to confirm their theory. That's not a scientific method - the honus in academic research is on a rejection principle and what's going on here is a group of people who are trying to jam square shapes through circular holes.

Healthy skepticism has morphed into downright paranoia and this video *******ises many aspects of science and engineering to try and facilitate a completely unsubstantial claim.

Now, seeing as we're looking for "balance" here, I trust you will seek out some of the papers/journals I suggested which elucidate the science behind what happened?

[Captain Trips]

THats it the people on this thread will not watch it. They have their reasons but when science is stating facts, eye witnees accounts, dead bodies on the ground floor reception due to a blast.

But hey lets leave all the facts out and dismiss the video without watching it.

Thank you for at least taking the time to watch with an open mind and commenting.

Thats all i want, i am looking for other people opinions on the video.

But science stats facts on building collapse of both WTC, there are experts in the field whom know more than all of us on here saying it is as described offically, there are experts who know more than all of us on here saying it is bombs, this is where a choice is made I choose the experts on offical line it is far more likely for me.

[VickMackie]

You'r entrenched with your views. YOu have no idea what the video holds as your scared of the truth.

Up to you if you watch them or not but there are experts in there field calling for a independent investigation as what was told is actually impossible due to the law of physics.

But hey ho you believe what you want and dont look at the video.

My understanding is the buildings weren't designed to cope with the heat a burning jet would generate and it triggered the collapse.

I quite like the debate on this but I'm about 6 posts into this thread and can tell the next 30 won't involve debate because you're only concerned with your thoughts on the matter.

[PeeJay]

Well, I took the time to watch this, but I'm not impressed with it - not in the slightest: I didn't think it was particularly well produced. It didn't make any revealing points IMO (scientific or not) that convince me that there was a conspiracy and that the WTCs were part of a controlled demolition exercise. I appreciate that anyone open to a good consipracy theory could be enticed by this video, but common sense rules me out.

A few years back an extremely good tv documentary was produced, clearly "proving" that the US and Neil Armstrong did not really land on the moon, but it was in fact all enacted in a studio somewhere out West. Many "experts" appeared in the documentary, famous people too like Donald Rumsfeld and so forth, all of whom admitted that it had all been an elaborate "hoax". The point behind the documentary was to show just how easy it is (when done properly) to present something as "true" by manipulating people into believing something did not actually happen or it did not happen as people thought it did. The manipulation being referred to in the documentary was that the US never visited the moon, BUT (of course!) the real manipulation was the documentary itself, claiming there had been no moon landing: that was pure fabrication, masquerading as truth. Naturally, conspiracists everywhere still exclaimed "I knew it!" But of course they were wrong: we landed on the moon. I believe that the official story regarding 911 is as near the "truth" as possible, although I fully accept that some discrepencies may exist, but then, is that really so surprising?

As to the so-called experts presented in link 1, one of the many claimed: "We witnessed the death of almost 3000 fellow Americans" Excuse me? They weren't ALL fellow Americans, were they, there were, e.g. at least 11 Germans, 67 UK nationals and other nationalities? So much for TRUTH. If you claim the facts as presented are wrong and you are going to get the facts right, then get the facts right, otherwise people will not listen!

[The Green Goblin]

I have watched it.


Do I believe that there was some advance knowledge of the attacks, or that there might be an attack of some kind, of some kind amongst some (small number) of people within intelligence agencies in the US? Yes.

Were there people in the US capable of allowing such an attack to go ahead because they would profit personally or politically from the resulting inevitable wars that would follow? Yes

Was there a failure of the intelligence agencies which contributed to that day being possible? Yes

Was there something suspicious about the official accounts of what happened at the Pentagon and how Flight 93 crashed? Yes. Imho, Flight 93 was shot down.

Were the towers deliberately blown up whilst still full of civilians and firefighters? No, that's a ridiculous theory.

Does all of this constitute or prove the existence of a wide-spread government conspiracy which engineered and executed the attacks? No, it doesn't. They might not have been entirely truthful about all of the details, but would have had their reasons for doing so. E.g for the sake of argument, if you had had to make the impossible call to shoot down a civilian airliner to prevent more deaths when it hit a city, would you see any benefits in admitting it?

Does your refusal to discuss anything other than that particular video in relation to this complex topic constitute an extreme narrow-minded approach? Yes.

Does your refusal to engage in reasoned debate with other posters on this thread in a basically respectful manner undermine your opinions? Yes

Now let me ask you if you also believe the video on youtube which claims the Connecticut shootings were a hoax, designed to give the government cause to restrict gun ownership rights? Because that's the latest one which has massive support in the US. That's right, there are tens of thousands of people who are so concerned about losing their right to own a gun or certain types of gun, that they are even prepared to deny that a massacre of school children took place.

It does make you think, doesn't it?

[Rasta_Hibs]

I watched it and it's no more credible than some of the other conspiracy theories out there.

"Experts in their fields"? None of those interviewed (with the exception of the psychologists and 2 scientists who don't actually address the physics/engineering integrity of the research) have anything beyond a degree or in some cases, Masters degrees. These aren't experts - they may be respectable practitioners but "experts" they are not.

They use impressive terminology, theoretical experimentation and eye-witness reports and make mostly vague assertions based on evidence which does not suggest causality. Much of the work which has been published in peer reviewed journals expresses the absence of causality and highlights that owing to the unprecedented nature of the incident, that a lot of supposition is all we have in some instances. It's true that no high rise building has ever been brought down by fire before - we know this from evidence. But how much of that evidence also includes the impact of a jetliner loaded with aviation fuel which can systematically atomize and reignite at any point? These buildings were engineered and modelled to withstand such impacts but the parameters of such a model took into account a very specific airliner size and fuel capacity and aviation technology has come a long way since then.

There's no scientific process going on here - they have a pre-established theory behind their hypothesis already and they're attempting to condition the facts (which themselves are interesting) to confirm their theory. That's not a scientific method - the honus in academic research is on a rejection principle and what's going on here is a group of people who are trying to jam square shapes through circular holes.

Healthy skepticism has morphed into downright paranoia and this video *******ises many aspects of science and engineering to try and facilitate a completely unsubstantial claim.

Now, seeing as we're looking for "balance" here, I trust you will seek out some of the papers/journals I suggested which elucidate the science behind what happened?

Thanks for watching! I will definatly look and read at what you suggest i read. I give you my word.

Im not looking for a conspircy in everything, espcially ones that involve deaths of innocents. Just after watching that video and others, other more circumstancial evidence points to some inside knowladge and possible explosions within all three building.

Just out of interest how would you explain building number 7 collapsing like it did?

[Rasta_Hibs]

I have watched it.


Do I believe that there was some advance knowledge of the attacks, or that there might be an attack of some kind, of some kind amongst some (small number) of people within intelligence agencies in the US? Yes.

Were there people in the US capable of allowing such an attack to go ahead because they would profit personally or politically from the resulting inevitable wars that would follow? Yes

Was there a failure of the intelligence agencies which contributed to that day being possible? Yes

Was there something suspicious about the official accounts of what happened at the Pentagon and how Flight 93 crashed? Yes. Imho, Flight 93 was shot down.

Were the towers deliberately blown up whilst still full of civilians and firefighters? No, that's a ridiculous theory.

Does all of this constitute or prove the existence of a wide-spread government conspiracy which engineered and executed the attacks? No, it doesn't. They might not have been entirely truthful about all of the details, but would have had their reasons for doing so. E.g for the sake of argument, if you had had to make the impossible call to shoot down a civilian airliner to prevent more deaths when it hit a city, would you see any benefits in admitting it?

Does your refusal to discuss anything other than that particular video in relation to this complex topic constitute an extreme narrow-minded approach? Yes.

Does your refusal to engage in reasoned debate with other posters on this thread in a basically respectful manner undermine your opinions? Yes

Now let me ask you if you also believe the video on youtube which claims the Connecticut shootings were a hoax, designed to give the government cause to restrict gun ownership rights? Because that's the latest one which has massive support in the US. That's right, there are tens of thousands of people who are so concerned about losing their right to own a gun or certain types of gun, that they are even prepared to deny that a massacre of school children took place.

It does make you think, doesn't it?

Fair points and i agree my stance was / is a bit blinkered. There are alot of un answered questions, all of which need explained and answered. Ill keep researching more, thanks for the input!

[Captain Trips]

The docu in isolation like a lot of them can be seen as acceptable and plausable, for me its all about fitting in with the rest of the days events and it just doesnt for me, I cannot see how you can have this WT7 docu and the rest of the day is offical line.

I have yet to here a complelling story from the hi jackers boarding plane until last plane down that is even close to fully being explained. The easiest thing to do if the goverment did it is do it as happened, bombs in buildings missiles instead of a plane just isnt making sense to me.

IMO the worst thing in all the conspiracy is claiming the phone calls from planes were faked, I find that sick to be honest. Why even bother doing that? It would have made no difference to the day if no calls were made, why take stupid risks by doing such a thing? The more fake things you add to event increases risks therefore there was and is no need at have people pretend to call loved ones it is ridiculous.Why say its a plane but its actually a missile? why bother? why not just use the plane with its passengers on board? Where is plane? where are passengers? all far more hassel than just the plane actually crashing into pentagon.

As exciting all the other things things are the boring facts are 19 men hijacked planes and crashed them that unfortunatly is it, succesful as it was as simple as something like that could be.

[Sylar]

Thanks for watching! I will definatly look and read at what you suggest i read. I give you my word.

Im not looking for a conspircy in everything, espcially ones that involve deaths of innocents. Just after watching that video and others, other more circumstancial evidence points to some inside knowladge and possible explosions within all three building.

Just out of interest how would you explain building number 7 collapsing like it did?

Firstly, I'm no structural engineer, so this is pure supposition on my part.

WTC 7 suffered from extensive fires burning for a prolonged period of time which weren't tackled by firefighters. That in itself is obviously not enough to bring down a building on its own. The impact of falling debris, though more extensive than some would have you believe, is once again not enough to bring down a building on its own.

Part of the reason I suspect (and I repeat, structures aren't my specialist area) it collapsed is to do with the design and architecture of the building itself. The supporting columns of the building itself were designed to hold extremely large loads with each floor covering roughly just under 2000 square feet of space, all loaded onto diagonal supporting columns with large open space being present beneath the 10th floor (it was a large mezzanine structure). There were additional supporting trusses above these supporting columns which allowed the transfer of weight from one column to another (partly as disaster management, similar to how some of the buildings in San Francisco are seismically proofed). If either of these supporting trusses, or indeed one of the loading columns were removed from the structure, the building would fall in a progressive diagonal pattern, which was the case from the footage as it falls from west to east.

Now combine the untreated fires, impact of falling debris and unusual construction of the building and you have a recipe for potential disaster...

[Captain Trips]

Firstly, I'm no structural engineer, so this is pure supposition on my part.

WTC 7 suffered from extensive fires burning for a prolonged period of time which weren't tackled by firefighters. That in itself is obviously not enough to bring down a building on its own. The impact of falling debris, though more extensive than some would have you believe, is once again not enough to bring down a building on its own.

Part of the reason I suspect (and I repeat, structures aren't my specialist area) it collapsed is to do with the design and architecture of the building itself. The supporting columns of the building itself were designed to hold extremely large loads with each floor covering roughly just under 2000 square feet of space, all loaded onto diagonal supporting columns with large open space being present beneath the 10th floor (it was a large mezzanine structure). There were additional supporting trusses above these supporting columns which allowed the transfer of weight from one column to another (partly as disaster management, similar to how some of the buildings in San Francisco are seismically proofed). If either of these supporting trusses, or indeed one of the loading columns were removed from the structure, the building would fall in a progressive diagonal pattern, which was the case from the footage as it falls from west to east.

Now combine the untreated fires, impact of falling debris and unusual construction of the building and you have a recipe for potential disaster...

Indeed

Add to that 2 110 storey buildings have collapsed in a very close proximity will have caused all sorts of structural movement as well, the vibrations alone may have caused the structure to start to fail even before fires took hold.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Indeed

Add to that 2 110 storey buildings have collapsed in a very close proximity will have caused all sorts of structural movement as well, the vibrations alone may have caused the structure to start to fail even before fires took hold.

And the large explosion recorded coming from Building 7 Just before it fell?

[Captain Trips]

And the large explosion recorded coming from Building 7 Just before it fell?

Lots of fires in various locations all over not just WT7 but at WTC 1/2 I am sure there was lots of noise all afternoon, that doesnt mean that caused WT7 to fall, I am sure the chances of explosions was there all day.

[Beefster]

Only members of the conspiracy could answer those questions - but then they wouldn't, would they?

Look at how much Jimmy Savile managed to keep from the public for 40-50 years. With so many more resources, imagine what the FBI, CIA, BBC, BBKing, Doris Day, Matt Busby, etc, could do.

It's easy keeping a secret when one or only a few people know about it. Not so much when you scale that up to a government and military, the BBC or NASA (for the folk that think the moon landings were fake).


And the large explosion recorded coming from Building 7 Just before it fell?

"Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

[Rasta_Hibs]

It's easy keeping a secret when one or only a few people know about it. Not so much when you scale that up to a government and military, the BBC or NASA (for the folk that think the moon landings were fake).



"Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Building Number 7 falls in complete symmetry due to randoms fires and loose foundations. Its quite hard to believe. It also falls exactly in its own foot print in under 7 seconds. As an early post said that it could be the design of the building that explains that or not.

But all this caused by fires and random bits falling on it. compared to the other building the damage was minimal but they all stood to some degree.

WHat about the Firefighters who stated that there were explosions inside the building before the planes hit?

[Pretty Boy]

And the large explosion recorded coming from Building 7 Just before it fell?

Major structural damage to a building that contained gas pipes, electrical wires etc in close proximity to a raging fire fuelled by kerosene?

[Beefster]

WHat about the Firefighters who stated that there were explosions inside the building before the planes hit?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you mean that there were explosions in either tower or 7 WTC before either plane struck the towers, I think it's utter nonsense. There were thousands of workers across all three buildings before the planes struck and I've never heard of 'pre-attack' explosions before.

If you mean that there were explosions in 7 WTC before it collapsed, there are countless explanations - canisters, fuel, gas, firearms etc - of which demolition explosives is just one (and a very unlikely one IMHO given that no trace of explosive residue was ever found and none of the explosions were loud enough).

[Rasta_Hibs]

Major structural damage to a building that contained gas pipes, electrical wires etc in close proximity to a raging fire fuelled by kerosene?

Any pictures and videos i have seen does not indicate major structural damage. Granted there must be some damage but when you look at the other buildings in the world trade centre site that did have obvious major structural damage and did have massive fires in them, they all manage to stay partially upright.

BUt Building 7 falls in its own foot print in 7 seconds in perfect symmetry caused by random fires and hit from falling debris. Surely you can see where the doubt comes from?

[Beefster]

Do I believe that there was some advance knowledge of the attacks, or that there might be an attack of some kind, of some kind amongst some (small number) of people within intelligence agencies in the US? Yes.

Were there people in the US capable of allowing such an attack to go ahead because they would profit personally or politically from the resulting inevitable wars that would follow? Yes

Was there a failure of the intelligence agencies which contributed to that day being possible? Yes

Was there something suspicious about the official accounts of what happened at the Pentagon and how Flight 93 crashed? Yes. Imho, Flight 93 was shot down.

Absolutely. As far as I know, there were lots of reports and intelligence about the likelihood of an attack and I'm fairly sure that 'planes as missiles' was known to be a possible method. The CIA and others messed up bigtime pre-9/11.

It's possible that Flight 93 was shot down (IIRC the initial reports stated just that) but the recordings of the phone calls from the passengers seem to suggest otherwise.

[Sylar]

Any pictures and videos i have seen does not indicate major structural damage. Granted there must be some damage but when you look at the other buildings in the world trade centre site that did have obvious major structural damage and did have massive fires in them, they all manage to stay partially upright.

BUt Building 7 falls in its own foot print in 7 seconds in perfect symmetry caused by random fires and hit from falling debris. Surely you can see where the doubt comes from?

Considering the unique design of WTC 7, damage didn't need to be comprehensive throughout the structure.

Damage to one of the 2 major diagonal load bearing columns or the supporting trusses which redistribute the weight could have easily resulted in a progressive collapse.

The footage shows the building angling from right to left as it falls, not straight down, which is consistent with the support of one side of a building yielding.

"Structural damage" is not necessarily visible on the exterior of a building and it's almost certainly damage to the internal support structures which cause the catastrophic failure.

Some of the chemical residue found does appear to support some of the components of thermite but this is created using very basic elements which are easily attainable and widely sourced in an array of materials and not solely found in the presence of thermitic reactions.

[calumhibee1]

The majority of folk in these videos are far from "experts" in there field. Qualified, aye, experts, naw. There's plenty 'facts' in these videos that get disproven by 'facts' in other videos. End of the day, I believe it was exactly as the official report tells it. No conspiracy theory, no illuminati, no new world order. Just a tragic terrorist attack.

[Haymaker]

I havent heard a good Government conspiracy for a while now. I reckon the Government is to blame.


*couldn't resist*

[Pretty Boy]

The majority of folk in these videos are far from "experts" in there field. Qualified, aye, experts, naw. There's plenty 'facts' in these videos that get disproven by 'facts' in other videos. End of the day, I believe it was exactly as the official report tells it. No conspiracy theory, no illuminati, no new world order. Just a tragic terrorist attack.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

That's not to say I don't believe the administration of the time found the attacks very convenient to push on with the foreign policy they wanted. The wave of patriotism that followed 9/11 meant that maybe the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and bills such ad the Patriot Act weren't as opposed as they may have been.

Way I see it is the sheer number of people needed to pull off such a conspiracy is huge, we really are talking thousands at least. How do you keep that many people quiet? Whilst the acts themselves were undoubtedly evil, it would take an unimaginable evil to wilfully kill thousands of your own people in such a fashion for political gain.

I think the Truth Movement has gained such a following, including from families of victims, because when something so traumatic happens people really struggle to comprehend it and look for alternative answers. I have a friend who has a child with autism and she can't accept that this has happened. She still actively believes the disproven link to MMR and believes all kinds of weird things about food being doctored and cures for diseases being covered up and such like. I think there are some simlarities.

[hibby rae]

What group would coordinate the doctoring of written history and for what aim?

I'd say the Glasgow biased media.

[TheReg!]

Having seen your link, I honestly believe that suggesting the 9/11 attacks as an inside job is a non-starter.
Far too many moving parts for this to be kept a secret. The scale of such an operation is not only complex but almost impossible for the sequence of events to unfold in the way it did.

Sorry Rasta but I think you need to analyse the situation again.

[hibby rae]

Did anybody see the conspiracy theory series Andrew Maxwell made? The thing that struck me from it was that many if these theorists had invested so much of their life in the theory that they now had to believe. It was all they had.

[Scouse Hibee]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

Yes after watching the video and watching and reading various other items/coverage theories. The only conspiracy is the one you are peddling IMO of course.

[Dinkydoo]

I don't understand the logic being used here that somehow dismisses the fact that a ****ing plane full of fuel being flown directly into a building would not cause significant structural damage - significant enough for it to collapse anyway.

[The Green Goblin]

Fair points and i agree my stance was / is a bit blinkered. There are alot of un answered questions, all of which need explained and answered. Ill keep researching more, thanks for the input!

Cheers Rasta. :aok: There's an interesting debate to be had here, I think. As I said, I just think that any number of combination of things are possible, rather than the idea of there just being one singular view versus another. But thanks for the reply.

[The Green Goblin]

Absolutely. As far as I know, there were lots of reports and intelligence about the likelihood of an attack and I'm fairly sure that 'planes as missiles' was known to be a possible method. The CIA and others messed up bigtime pre-9/11.

It's possible that Flight 93 was shot down (IIRC the initial reports stated just that) but the recordings of the phone calls from the passengers seem to suggest otherwise.


It does, but both are also possible. The powers that be might have learned of a challenge to the hijackers on the plane but couldn't take the risk of it failing and still had to make the call. Again, it's all conjecture and best guessing, isn't it? And I include all of my own ideas in that, any of which could be way off.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I think that the attack on the twin towers was nothing more than a terrorist attack , BUT what happened with flight 93 and especially the Pentagon does not really come together . Still inconclusive for me . Does anyone else who has doubts think that anything will ever come out ?

[hibsbollah]

I have watched it.


Do I believe that there was some advance knowledge of the attacks, or that there might be an attack of some kind, of some kind amongst some (small number) of people within intelligence agencies in the US? Yes.

Were there people in the US capable of allowing such an attack to go ahead because they would profit personally or politically from the resulting inevitable wars that would follow? Yes

Was there a failure of the intelligence agencies which contributed to that day being possible? Yes

Was there something suspicious about the official accounts of what happened at the Pentagon and how Flight 93 crashed? Yes. Imho, Flight 93 was shot down.

Were the towers deliberately blown up whilst still full of civilians and firefighters? No, that's a ridiculous theory.

Does all of this constitute or prove the existence of a wide-spread government conspiracy which engineered and executed the attacks? No, it doesn't. They might not have been entirely truthful about all of the details, but would have had their reasons for doing so. E.g for the sake of argument, if you had had to make the impossible call to shoot down a civilian airliner to prevent more deaths when it hit a city, would you see any benefits in admitting it?

Does your refusal to discuss anything other than that particular video in relation to this complex topic constitute an extreme narrow-minded approach? Yes.

Does your refusal to engage in reasoned debate with other posters on this thread in a basically respectful manner undermine your opinions? Yes

Now let me ask you if you also believe the video on youtube which claims the Connecticut shootings were a hoax, designed to give the government cause to restrict gun ownership rights? Because that's the latest one which has massive support in the US. That's right, there are tens of thousands of people who are so concerned about losing their right to own a gun or certain types of gun, that they are even prepared to deny that a massacre of school children took place.

It does make you think, doesn't it?

Great post :agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

Any pictures and videos i have seen does not indicate major structural damage. Granted there must be some damage but when you look at the other buildings in the world trade centre site that did have obvious major structural damage and did have massive fires in them, they all manage to stay partially upright.

BUt Building 7 falls in its own foot print in 7 seconds in perfect symmetry caused by random fires and hit from falling debris. Surely you can see where the doubt comes from?

You may be interested in this: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

As for your more general points about "experts", the vast, vast majority of experts hold that the official explanation for the attack in general and WTC7 in participial is pretty much as it happened.

If you apply skepticism to your stance of "questioning the truth", then you need also to ask why you give greater credence to a tiny number of alleged experts, usually presenting only supposition rather than genuine evidence, than huge numbers of engineers, scientists, analysts etc who say - "this is how it happened".

You made a point about buildings collapsing solely due to fire - again, from the same site as earlier: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[Betty Boop]

Does anyone else believe the official line that the twin towers & Building number 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by fire?

Personally i dont, i believe that explosives were planted in both the tower and also building number 7 and it was this that caused the buildings to collapse. I know many people will shout me down saying conspiricy theorist etc But there is hard facts, loads and i mean loads of evidence to say that explosions from within the building caused them to fall.

So lets cut to the chase, please watch this video made by the truth movement. Its very credible made my engineers, architects, family members of loved ones who were lost that day.

So please watch the video and give me your comments on it, because we need truth on this one way or the other. If this was a plot then we need justice!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBODaz6ywg&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

No I don't belive the official version of events, the Americans have a long history of conducting false flag operations. Next they'll be claiming they shot Osama Bin Laden at Abbotobad, and making a propoganda film about it. Oh hang on !

[Sylar]

No I don't belive the official version of events, the Americans have a long history of conducting false flag operations. Next they'll be claiming they shot Osama Bin Laden at Abbotobad, and making a propoganda film about it. Oh hang on !

:paranoid:

What a scary world you live in.

[hibsbollah]

No I don't belive the official version of events, the Americans have a long history of conducting false flag operations. Next they'll be claiming they shot Osama Bin Laden at Abbotobad, and making a propoganda film about it. Oh hang on !

Out of interest, where doyou think Osama was shot? And what benefit would have been gained by hiding the truth about his death?

I'm not a knee jerk denier of 'conspiracy theories'; I think some people dismiss alternative theories as 'conspiracies' in a slightly snooty superior way, usually because the version of events doesn't fit with their political views. Secrecy is a part of how Governments necessarily operate, and it's naive to imagine every story we are fed by the media or government agencies is the complete or whole truth. It depends on a)whether the evidence stacks up and b)whether somebody in the world is in a position to make a stack of money out of covering it up. In the case of 9/11, I think b) applies but I'm not sure a) does.

[Barman Stanton]

I have watched a few docs on this and it does raise some doubts. Especially the initial reports of the planes not being passenger planes. There is also footage where it appears that the fire a rocket right before hitting the towers. The pentagon crash also raises many questions.

Having said that, it would have to be some conspiracy to keep something so big quiet so I'm just not sure. I'm
Not convinced either way.

[Beefster]

I have watched a few docs on this and it does raise some doubts. Especially the initial reports of the planes not being passenger planes. There is also footage where it appears that the fire a rocket right before hitting the towers. The pentagon crash also raises many questions.

Having said that, it would have to be some conspiracy to keep something so big quiet so I'm just not sure. I'm
Not convinced either way.

From a website that critically questions the official version of 9/11...

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/pentagon.html

[Twa Cairpets]

No I don't belive the official version of events, the Americans have a long history of conducting false flag operations. Next they'll be claiming they shot Osama Bin Laden at Abbotobad, and making a propoganda film about it. Oh hang on !

I'm not sure if I'm having a whoosh moment here, but assuming this isn't a sarcastic post, even if governments do undertake cover-ups and deliberately deceive their citizens (which they all undoubtedly do and have always done), it doesn't mean that every bad thing that happens or every thing they say is false or a conspiracy.

I'm by default a skeptic, but with 9/11 everything points to the official line being pretty much what happened. If you look at the conspiracy sites and videos, and then look at the number of debunking ones that (generally) dispassionately dismantle the claims it's hard to come to a conclusion other than the "truthers" are either pursuing a political agenda, are emotionally linked in a very sad way, or are, basically, a bit unhinged. A good example of patient, rational exploration of the issues (which I watched just last week oddly enough) is a series by a YouTube guy called powerm1985 - just go onto YouTube and search him and you'll see the series - very rational, calm and sensible, and actually respectful of the conspiracy theorists (certainly more respectful of them than I could have been I suspect).

Bad stuff happens. It's not always a conspiracy.

[Killiehibbie]

I'm not sure if I'm having a whoosh moment here, but assuming this isn't a sarcastic post, even if governments do undertake cover-ups and deliberately deceive their citizens (which they all undoubtedly do and have always done), it doesn't mean that every bad thing that happens or every thing they say is false or a conspiracy.

I'm by default a skeptic, but with 9/11 everything points to the official line being pretty much what happened. If you look at the conspiracy sites and videos, and then look at the number of debunking ones that (generally) dispassionately dismantle the claims it's hard to come to a conclusion other than the "truthers" are either pursuing a political agenda, are emotionally linked in a very sad way, or are, basically, a bit unhinged. A good example of patient, rational exploration of the issues (which I watched just last week oddly enough) is a series by a YouTube guy called powerm1985 - just go onto YouTube and search him and you'll see the series - very rational, calm and sensible, and actually respectful of the conspiracy theorists (certainly more respectful of them than I could have been I suspect).

Bad stuff happens. It's not always a conspiracy.Certain politicians and government departments would let things happen if it suits their agenda.

[Sylar]

Certain politicians and government departments would let things happen if it suits their agenda.

An example based in fact and not supposition to support that?

[Twa Cairpets]

Certain politicians and government departments would let things happen if it suits their agenda.

You're probably right, but the amount of blind eyes that would have been needed to allow/encourage/help the events of 9/11 are beyond belief. If you look at Iraq, the WMD issue shows that you don't have to use domestic mass murder to justify a war on dubious grounds.

[SHODAN]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[Barman Stanton]

From a website that critically questions the official version of 9/11...

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/pentagon.html

Yeah iv seen these before, still leaves questions however.

The fact that a commission concluded that the JFK shooting was a conspiracy shows that its not impossible this was as well. But I am still left unsure.

[Captain Trips]

2 short videos I find compelling in sense of being credible 100x more than a missle. I have no doubts flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[Barman Stanton]

2 short videos I find compelling in sense of being credible 100x more than a missle. I have no doubts flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

You would think the Pentagon would have more than just that camera though. I would expect that place to have camera's everywhere. Why only this footage. Not saying its not a plane, just find that odd.

[Captain Trips]

You would think the Pentagon would have more than just that camera though. I would expect that place to have camera's everywhere. Why only this footage. Not saying its not a plane, just find that odd.

Indeed it is odd but doesnt make me think any less of the offical line on this part of the events that day. Flight 77 is the only thing that makes sense, I do not see why they would say was a plane if was a missle. I have never understood this conspiracy if they are able to pretend a plane hit building when was a missle you would have to do a lot of other things wiith the supposed flight etc etc, even if was an inside job you would still fly the plane in.

[Betty Boop]

Out of interest, where doyou think Osama was shot? And what benefit would have been gained by hiding the truth about his death?

I'm not a knee jerk denier of 'conspiracy theories'; I think some people dismiss alternative theories as 'conspiracies' in a slightly snooty superior way, usually because the version of events doesn't fit with their political views. Secrecy is a part of how Governments necessarily operate, and it's naive to imagine every story we are fed by the media or government agencies is the complete or whole truth. It depends on a)whether the evidence stacks up and b)whether somebody in the world is in a position to make a stack of money out of covering it up. In the case of 9/11, I think b) applies but I'm not sure a) does.


Well according to Benazir Bhutto he died in 2007.
If the Americans killed Bin Laden they would be showing the whole world photos of the body. After all they never had a problem broadcasting the capture of Saddam Hussein, or the grotesque bodies of his two sons.

[hibsbollah]

Well according to Benazir Bhutto he died in 2007.
If the Americans killed Bin Laden they would be showing the whole world photos of the body. After all they never had a problem broadcasting the capture of Saddam Hussein, or the grotesque bodies of his two sons.

Im surprised not to have seen photos of a dead Bin Laden; thats a long way from having credible doubts about his killing, surely :dunno: If he is alive, whats HIS motivation for going along with the charade? Hes not going to be happy sitting in a cave waiting for paradise while earthly jihad is being carried out by others. And having Bin Laden still at large wasnt wholly a bad thing for the US, it gave them justification for continuing a profitable war. A better (leftist) conspiracy would be that the Americans HAD killed him, but they hushed it up to justify permanent war in Afghanistan :greengrin

Obviously Bin Ladens killing was good news for Obama, (and arguably contributed to his domestic appeal and hence got him reelected by those who might otherwise have thought him soft on security issues) but the notion of THOSE two cooking up a conspiracy to fake his death is surely the preserve of RIGHT wing nutty conspiracy theorists (Obama is a militant muslim etc etc).

Sorry,
I just dont buy any of it.

[Betty Boop]

Im surprised not to have seen photos of a dead Bin Laden; thats a long way from having credible doubts about his killing, surely :dunno: If he is alive, whats HIS motivation for going along with the charade? Hes not going to be happy sitting in a cave waiting for paradise while earthly jihad is being carried out by others. And having Bin Laden still at large wasnt wholly a bad thing for the US, it gave them justification for continuing a profitable war. A better (leftist) conspiracy would be that the Americans HAD killed him, but they hushed it up to justify permanent war in Afghanistan :greengrin

Obviously Bin Ladens killing was good news for Obama, (and arguably contributed to his domestic appeal and hence got him reelected by those who might otherwise have thought him soft on security issues) but the notion of THOSE two cooking up a conspiracy to fake his death is surely the preserve of RIGHT wing nutty conspiracy theorists (Obama is a militant muslim etc etc).

Sorry,
I just dont buy any of it.

I didn't say he was alive, I think he died years ago. You can watch Bhutto's interview with David Frost on Youtube, where she quite clearly states he died in 2007.
Any way I'm off to watch Trevor McDonald in Death Row.

[Sylar]

I didn't say he was alive, I think he died years ago. You can watch Bhutto's interview with David Frost on Youtube, where she quite clearly states he died in 2007.
Any way I'm off to watch Trevor McDonald in Death Row.

Funnily, in the Wikipedia entry (far from a reputable source, I know) which covers conspiracy theories surrounding his death, Bhutto's "claim" isn't even given credence...

There are actually plenty of people who think he was dead prior to the event in 2011 (including one wackjob who suggests his body was being stored in liquid nitrogen as a publicity tool which they could pull out when the need arises) but Al Qaeda themselves confirm the US version of events. Are they in bed with the US government too?

[jonty]

Even if the OBL killing was made public, then I'm sure there are plenty who would claim it was staged. Or it was him. Or find some other way to dispute it.

People will go to extremes to try to justify the implausible.

I've not heard one yet about the tsunami being created by a nuclear blast under the ocean by Germany, to halt its nuclear power plant programe.

[Jones28]

In the first video do they not answer their own questions with regards to steel melting? They say that NIST said that's the reason for the collapse, jet fuel melting steel, but then say jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough. But later on they say NIST denied the molten steel pools/steams etc.

[Beefster]

In the first video do they not answer their own questions with regards to steel melting? They say that NIST said that's the reason for the collapse, jet fuel melting steel, but then say jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough. But later on they say NIST denied the molten steel pools/steams etc.

That's another argument that has been busted. Jet fuel burns hot enough to seriously weaken steel (i.e. enough so that it cannot bear its load). The conspiracy theorists seem to think that steel has to melt to collapse.

[--------]

Out of interest, where do you think Osama was shot? And what benefit would have been gained by hiding the truth about his death?

I'm not a knee jerk denier of 'conspiracy theories'; I think some people dismiss alternative theories as 'conspiracies' in a slightly snooty superior way, usually because the version of events doesn't fit with their political views. Secrecy is a part of how Governments necessarily operate, and it's naive to imagine every story we are fed by the media or government agencies is the complete or whole truth. It depends on a)whether the evidence stacks up and b)whether somebody in the world is in a position to make a stack of money out of covering it up. In the case of 9/11, I think b) applies but I'm not sure a) does.


Dealey Plaza by two men hidden behind the grassy knoll? :wink:

In regard to Building 7, I am absolutely no sort of engineer of any kind, but aren't high-rise buildings in metropolitan areas designed to collapse on their own footprint? Rather than toppling sideways and spreading themselves all over the landscape? Both towers of the WTC were very heavily damaged, and yet they went down more or less vertically.

[Twa Cairpets]

Dealey Plaza by two men hidden behind the grassy knoll? :wink:



A bit off topic, but I recently listened to the audiobook of Stephen Kings 11.22.69, his twist on the Kennedy assassination. One of those books that made me drive more slowly so I could listen to more of it before I got to wherever I was going. Highly recommended, and has quite a lot of historical background on Lee Harvey Oswald too.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Funnily, in the Wikipedia entry (far from a reputable source, I know) which covers conspiracy theories surrounding his death, Bhutto's "claim" isn't even given credence...

There are actually plenty of people who think he was dead prior to the event in 2011 (including one wackjob who suggests his body was being stored in liquid nitrogen as a publicity tool which they could pull out when the need arises) but Al Qaeda themselves confirm the US version of events. Are they in bed with the US government too?

They funded and armed Al Qaeda i believe.

[CropleyWasGod]

Funnily, in the Wikipedia entry (far from a reputable source, I know) which covers conspiracy theories surrounding his death, Bhutto's "claim" isn't even given credence...

There are actually plenty of people who think he was dead prior to the event in 2011 (including one wackjob who suggests his body was being stored in liquid nitrogen as a publicity tool which they could pull out when the need arises) but Al Qaeda themselves confirm the US version of events. Are they in bed with the US government too?

They funded and armed Al Qaeda i believe.

Slightly off there. Bin Laden fought for the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation. That rebellion was funded by the West, particularly the US.

As for overtly, consciously, funding Al Qaida.....nah.

[Beefster]

They funded and armed Al Qaeda i believe.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806

[Betty Boop]

Funnily, in the Wikipedia entry (far from a reputable source, I know) which covers conspiracy theories surrounding his death, Bhutto's "claim" isn't even given credence...

There are actually plenty of people who think he was dead prior to the event in 2011 (including one wackjob who suggests his body was being stored in liquid nitrogen as a publicity tool which they could pull out when the need arises) but Al Qaeda themselves confirm the US version of events. Are they in bed with the US government too?

They funded and armed Al Qaeda i believe.

Yes and are currently backing Al Quaeda linked rebels in several countries, whenever it suits their interests. You might want to watch this documentary about Sibil Edmonds FBI whistleblower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiOtBqKyDYg

[Jones28]

That's another argument that has been busted. Jet fuel burns hot enough to seriously weaken steel (i.e. enough so that it cannot bear its load). The conspiracy theorists seem to think that steel has to melt to collapse.

The steel argument is obviously *****, but what I am skeptical about is the WT7 collapse. It's strange that A) there was no obvious structural damage and (B) anything that could have been construed as evidence was carted up and taken away.

[hibsbollah]

Dealey Plaza by two men hidden behind the grassy knoll? :wink:

In regard to Building 7, I am absolutely no sort of engineer of any kind, but aren't high-rise buildings in metropolitan areas designed to collapse on their own footprint? Rather than toppling sideways and spreading themselves all over the landscape? Both towers of the WTC were very heavily damaged, and yet they went down more or less vertically.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole knoll :greengrin

[--------]

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole knoll :greengrin


Or possibly ein vountain out of ein vole-hole? :devil:

[Captain Trips]

The steel argument is obviously *****, but what I am skeptical about is the WT7 collapse. It's strange that A) there was no obvious structural damage and (B) anything that could have been construed as evidence was carted up and taken away.

I think at the end of the day it was a crime scene and that puts a very different slant on how things are dealt with as a pose to say if it had collapased in an earthquake. I fully understand all eveidence being removed and the scene being treated differently than to a natural disaster.

If all is disclosed it may well only assist in further attacks or sitautions in future I think we will never find out everything and as nosey as I am that is correct way to go about things.

[harpo]

Can anybody explain this one ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

[Twa Cairpets]

Can anybody explain this one ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

This is what the bbc say about it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

[The Green Goblin]

Can anybody explain this one ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

It's certainly enough to arouse reasonable suspicion, but remember what kind of day that was....the chaos, confusion, fear...they could simply have got it wrong (as the BBC are capable of doing on normal days, never mind days like that!)

[The Green Goblin]

This is what the bbc say about it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Cheers TC. I hadn't seen this post (on my phone) at the bottom of page 1 or read that article before I wrote my post above.

Edit: maybe it's just a big random coincidence that I guessed right? :greengrin

[Captain Trips]

The massacre at munich olympics is a prime example of an event so big there is confusion. The News on TV wrongly stated that all hostages had survived and all the terrorists had died, not long after they had to announce that in fact it was opposite.

On 9/11 I would fully expect genuine errors wrong information and reporting without full facts to get information out there. IMO people scrutinse all the actions people made on this day when they are being tested to their fullest and any misstep is seen as a cover up or conspiracy rather than the person simply being wrong or making geniune mistake or comment.

[--------]

Can anybody explain this one ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk


I really liked the credits.

It seems that we can take it as proven that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was a "Jew job"?

Along with the Reichstag fire and the Lindberg kidnap? Maybe Jews shot down Amelia Earhart's plane in 1937? Sank the Titanic?

[The Green Goblin]

I really liked the credits.

It seems that we can take it as proven that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was a "Jew job"?

Along with the Reichstag fire and the Lindberg kidnap? Maybe Jews shot down Amelia Earhart's plane in 1937? Sank the Titanic?

The Titanic was sunk by an "iceberg". Sounds Jewish to me. But seriously, yes, I agree with you - the video was nonsense.

[--------]

The Titanic was sunk by an "iceberg". Sounds Jewish to me. But seriously, yes, I agree with you - the video was nonsense.


Yup. I do not believe anything neo-Nazi anti-semitic hate-mongers say; that video reeks of deception and lies.

[harpo]

The Titanic was sunk by an "iceberg". Sounds Jewish to me. But seriously, yes, I agree with you - the video was nonsense.

Apart from the comments, how was the video nonsense?

The building is clearly standing in the background yet the reporter is saying it has collapsed. Very strange :hmmm:

Can understand wtc7 was badly damaged but the reporter should start doing the lottery with stories like that.

[Captain Trips]

Apart from the comments, how was the video nonsense?

The building is clearly standing in the background yet the reporter is saying it has collapsed. Very strange :hmmm:

Can understand wtc7 was badly damaged but the reporter should start doing the lottery with stories like that.

The reporter made a mistake regardless that it fell later, again looking at what folk say or do in certain situations and holding everyone to their word. Everyone on here has said something that is wrong and so did people on 9/11. People are calling it as they see it on scene and like football in a way people are seeing different things than the person next to them, nobody is lying but people will be making errors on what was going on and that is totally 100% acceptable.

I was 3000 miles away watching live and probably knew more on what was happening than many in towers.

[--------]

The reporter made a mistake regardless that it fell later, again looking at what folk say or do in certain situations and holding everyone to their word. Everyone on here has said something that is wrong and so did people on 9/11. People are calling it as they see it on scene and like football in a way people are seeing different things than the person next to them, nobody is lying but people will be making errors on what was going on and that is totally 100% acceptable.


I know how I felt just sitting watching the story unfold on TV that day. It was just beyond belief that such a thing could happen, and when the towers fell, I literally couldn't believe what I was seeing. What it must have been like to be a reporter on site, having to stand in front of a camera telling the world what was going on, trying to make sense of the different, often incomplete, often conflicting reports that were coming in from other sources, I can't imagine.

The reporter has been told that WTC7 has fallen. In the confusion and fright of the moment - it must have been seriously scary being in any sort of high building in NY city centre that day - she failed to connect the name, Building 7, with the actual building behind her, or to realise that the report she had received was a mistake.

But this can't be down to a simple mistake; it's got to be the World Zionist Conspiracy at work. :rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

Apart from the comments, how was the video nonsense?

The building is clearly standing in the background yet the reporter is saying it has collapsed. Very strange :hmmm:

Can understand wtc7 was badly damaged but the reporter should start doing the lottery with stories like that.


If you scroll up a few comments, there's a few posts about how it was possible, including an interesting link by Twa Cairpets, besides my own guess at how that could happen. To recap - on an awful day where things were changing by the second and the entire city was engulfed in chaos and panic, besides the smoke from the WTC buildings, it was simply a mistake and they got it wrong. It's really not that far-fetched at all. It's even understandable under the circumstances. Others have posted on this thread about how during a disaster or crisis, misinformation can get out very easily. With everything that was going on, the reporter might even have been looking straight at it without realising it was the building he was talking about. It doesn't suggest anything more sinister at all imho.

[Captain Trips]

If you scroll up a few comments, there's a few posts about how it was possible, including an interesting link by Twa Cairpets, besides my own guess at how that could happen. To recap - on an awful day where things were changing by the second and the entire city was engulfed in chaos and panic, besides the smoke from the WTC buildings, it was simply a mistake and they got it wrong. It's really not that far-fetched at all. It's even understandable under the circumstances. Others have posted on this thread about how during a disaster or crisis, misinformation can get out very easily. With everything that was going on, the reporter might even have been looking straight at it without realising it was the building he was talking about. It doesn't suggest anything more sinister at all imho.

That is simply it, there is nothing more on it. Too many people take what politicans or reporters said on the spot as the gospel and do not make any allowance for any single person making a mistake.

[RyeSloan]

And what's the importance of WTC7? Considering the main towers were the centre piece of an attack, conspiracy or not, why would anyone want to go to the effort of brining down WTC7 as well....seems an extravagant risk considering the scale of the rest of the operation.

[fordie2]

And what's the importance of WTC7? Considering the main towers were the centre piece of an attack, conspiracy or not, why would anyone want to go to the effort of brining down WTC7 as well....seems an extravagant risk considering the scale of the rest of the operation.

WTC7 housed all sorts of government agencies like the CIA and FBI.

[HibsMax]

I love a good conspiracy theory and think that many of them contain more truth than they are credited with.

But this is different for the many reasons given before. People have big mouths. There are whistle-blowers everywhere, that's in part why we have so many political scandals.

I think you would need to swim against the tide and credit the government with an amazing job if they really were behind the events of 9/11, and from my position nobody ever gives the US government credit for anything. :) All it would take is ONE person with evidence to bring down this house of cards...although I do appreciate it would be (a) difficult for that person to be taken seriously, and (b) depending on who it was, that person could be quite easy to keep quiet. Permanently. But let's entertain the idea that this is a conspiracy, can you imagine the fallout if it was ever exposed? Such a revelation would, I think, destroy the USA. Who could escape that?

I do like watching the videos though (I haven't followed the links you posted yet but I will) because I find them interesting and people should absolutely be asking questions about everything. We're not sheep.

[Betty Boop]

Rasta Hibs something that may be of interest to you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm

[M6hibee]

I believe in a conspiracy. I believe these conspiracies about the 'truth' of these atrocities is perpetuated by apologists and flaming liberal do-gooders who would rather blame other forces or groups rather than face up tae the fact Islam fundamentalism is a big problem and that their will tae dominate and hatred of those they deem to be infidels drives them tae commit some of the most heinous acts ever seen. The blame fae this atrocity is with them, nae one else. However inconvenient to the apologists, liberals and pic brigade lobby that may be

[easty]

Rasta Hibs something that may be of interest to you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm

I don't like having to pay my TV licence either, but that's going to extreme lengths to get out of it! :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I believe in a conspiracy. I believe these conspiracies about the 'truth' of these atrocities is perpetuated by apologists and flaming liberal do-gooders who would rather blame other forces or groups rather than face up tae the fact Islam fundamentalism is a big problem and that their will tae dominate and hatred of those they deem to be infidels drives them tae commit some of the most heinous acts ever seen. The blame fae this atrocity is with them, nae one else. However inconvenient to the apologists, liberals and pic brigade lobby that may be

Have I picked this up right?
The conspiracy is actually a conspiracy by those who know it really is exactly how the official version is - i.e. Islamic fundamentalists - trying to cover it up by claiming its not them all along, but a secret government plot designed to deflect blame away from those the government has identified as the culprits?

Wow.

<Stepping away slowly and backwards smiley>

[M6hibee]

[QUOTE=Twa Cairpets;3509389]Have I picked this up right?
The conspiracy is actually a conspiracy by those who know it really is exactly how the official version is - i.e. Islamic fundamentalists - trying to cover it up by claiming its not them all along, but a secret government plot designed to deflect blame away from those the government has identified as the culprits?

Wow.

<Stepping away slowly and backwards smiley>[/QUOT


Obviously you haven't. I was being sarcastic and stating really its what it is on the tin, a heinous terrorist act perpetrated by Islamic nut jobs. Smacks to me that these conspiracy theories absolve them of responsibility and deflect from the real source of the outrage

[Twa Cairpets]

Obviously you haven't. I was being sarcastic and stating really its what it is on the tin, a heinous terrorist act perpetrated by Islamic nut jobs. Smacks to me that these conspiracy theories absolve them of responsibility and deflect from the real source of the outrage

But you think the conspiracies are perpetuated by the liberal side? Hard pushed to see any evidence of that, anywhere.

[M6hibee]

But you think the conspiracies are perpetuated by the liberal side? Hard pushed to see any evidence of that, anywhere.

Hard pushed to see any evidence fae the conspiracies outlined above.

[Twa Cairpets]

Hard pushed to see any evidence fae the conspiracies outlined above.

I agree, but my point is that those who do push conspiracies are by no means liberal in their outlook, which (I think) is what you are claiming.

[M6hibee]

In this discussion, they are

[Twa Cairpets]

In this discussion, they are

F'rinstance?

[M6hibee]

Read the posts

[Twa Cairpets]

Read the posts

I have, tell me where you think this liberal defence of Islam is?

[M6hibee]

If I need to spell it out tae you then it says it all. Listen pal, this is circles wie you and I get the feeling your either at the wind up or think I owe you chapter and verse.

I don't.

Made my point and if you dinnae like it, tough. If you need your i's dotted etc, your problem. End of story, nightie

[Twa Cairpets]

If I need to spell it out tae you then it says it all. Listen pal, this is circles wie you and I get the feeling your either at the wind up or think I owe you chapter and verse.

I don't.

Made my point and if you dinnae like it, tough. If you need your i's dotted etc, your problem. End of story, nightie

Or in other words you can't find anything, and flouncing off with a huftie-puftie air is the best response you can manage.

Just one sentence would do rather than chapter and verse.

[M6hibee]

Only one in a huff is you. Calm down lassie before you get yersel all teary.

[Twa Cairpets]

Only one in a huff is you. Calm down lassie before you get yersel all teary.

Not at all dear boy, I am entirely huff free.

I'd like to get this back on track though.

You claim that, in essence, on this thread, the liberal minded have been pushing the 9/11 truther conspiracies in order to deflect attention from the undeniable (in my eyes anyway) fact that Islamist terrorists did it. But you can't or won't point me to anything by way of a quote to back this up. If I'm wrong and I've missed something Ill hold my hand sup and say "you were right", but if there isn't anything, then, essentially, you're lying to make a point to back up your prejudice. Is that fair?

[M6hibee]

It's an interpretation and viewpoint pal. Just like an opinion on invalid and unproven conspiracy theories. If you can't get your head around it, tough. Look it up.