View Full Version : 9/11
livvy145
11-09-06, 02:08 AM
The bitter legacy of 9/11
Published: 11 September 2006
2,973 Total number of people killed (excluding the 19 hijackers) in the September 11, 2001 attacks
72,000 Estimated number of civilians killed worldwide since September 11, 2001 as a result of the war on terror
2 Number of years since US intelligence had any credible lead to Osama bin Laden's whereabouts
2,932 Total number of US servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001
1,248 Number of published books relating to the September 11 attacks
$119m Ticket sales for anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11
$40bn Airline industry losses since September 2001
2009 Date when the official memorial will open at the World Trade Centre site
0 Hours of intelligence training provided to new FBI agents before 9/11. Now they get 24.
91 per cent Terror cases from FBI and others that US Justice Dept declined to prosecute in first eight months of 2006
11 Weeks the 9/11 commission's final report was top of New York Times' non-fiction best-seller list
117 Number of UK service personnel killed in Iraq since invasion
40 Number of UK personnel killed in Afghanistan since invasion
7 per cent People in UK who think US-led war on terror is being won, according to YouGov
1 Those charged in US with a crime in connection with 9/11
455 Number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
77 per cent Percentage of people in the UK who believe Tony Blair's Middle East policy has made Britain a terrorist target (YouGov)
4,000 Number of UK troops left in Iraq after British-controlled provinceshanded back to Baghdad
18 The number of times that undercover investigators with fake IDs have breezed through US border checkpoints in a test by the Government Accountability Office
$8bn The amount the US will spend this year on hunting Bin Laden and other terrorists
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1466758.ece
What are your feelings of that day and the events that have followed?
My dad's 80th ... unforgettable day!
MrMichael
11-09-06, 02:34 AM
Oh boy, I don't know if I should start this one, but I have very good reason, having looked into it about as extensively I can, to believe that 9/11 was the greatest act of political mass deception and public manipulation since the Reichstag Fire.
And frankly the TV that is saturating UK airwaves at the moment, I noticed one tonight with Harvey Keitel in "a dramatisation based on the 9/11 Commission Reports" (ie fiction), leaves an extremelyy bad taste in my mouth. That several thousand innocent people lost their lives is appauling, as has been the total lack of media coverage of any of the enormously important unanswered questions of 9/11. If anyone is interested I can go into this later at considerable detail and recommend substantial quantities of contrasting material, but not now.
That people die anywhere, at any time, due to the attempted imposition of any ideology upon anyone, something I have seen at far too close hand in my own life, saddens me to the very core.
Go on Google.
Search for 'Loose Change'
Download and watch.
Without looking into all the conspiracy theories and unanswered questions from 9/11, and the continued effects of that day on our world, it's utterly amazing to think it was 5 years ago. 1,826 days! Crazy.
I remember that day well, was at my old place of work in Manchester, usual day really, everyday normal Tuesday, apart from the fact it was possibly only the 7th or 8th time I was going to Anfield, to watch the Boavista game in the Champions League.
It was just after lunch time, that a rumour was going around work that some explosion had occured at the WTC - trying to get onto a news website was incredibly difficult. Having finally managed to access the bbc website, I was shocked to see the static images of the flaming tower, then it became more and more surreal, as the page kept updating to reveal more information. I remembering thinking at the time it was something out of a movie.
Anyway, seem to remember leaving work early and watching a couple of hours on BBCnews24, before reluctantly leaving for Anfield (the only time for me that that has happened)
The game shouldn't have taken place, the crowd had a unified sense of being stunned, and the only thing I remember about the game is Owen's goal, and the journey home, listening to the news.
Sad day. :shake:
firstly let me say R.I.P to the innocents who lost their lives YNWA to their families.
As for what happened, terrible loss, tragic. And has changed the way our world operates forever.;
11 September 1973: a US-backed coup ousted Chile's democratically elected President Allende and installed Pinochet, leading to several years of murders and tortures inflicted by his 'security' forces. I am extremely sorry for those who died and lost loved ones on 11 September 2001, they had nothing to do with US foreign policy, but I am enraged that the media force us to focus on one "9/11" and not the other.
Howard_lfc
11-09-06, 09:43 AM
11 September 1973: a US-backed coup ousted Chile's democratically elected President Allende and installed Pinochet, leading to several years of murders and tortures inflicted by his 'security' forces. I am extremely sorry for those who died and lost loved ones on 11 September 2001, they had nothing to do with US foreign policy, but I am enraged that the media force us to focus on one "9/11" and not the other.
George Galloway was saying the same thing last night on his mother of all radio phone ins on talksport. I don't really like GG but give him credit - he knows his stuff.
I believe that the whole world has been deceived over 9/11. There are just too many unanswered questions. MrMichael - if you wanna do a long post about your thoughts etc - I'd be very interested to read them.
H
Without writing a long post, one of the 'strangest' things about 9/11 is WTC7 collapsing. Very strange, and I just cannot see how it could have collapsed after suffering minimal damage from the main towers coming down.
Neil Young
11-09-06, 09:57 AM
Did anyone else hear Gore Vidal on the Today Programme this morning? To summarise, it goes something likke this: 'We have been sown with salt, our Republic...9/11 was the trigger..we have lost the American Republic...coup carried out by oil and gas interests...the Constitution has been eroded...Bush and Cheney are openly defending the use of torture...'
You can hear it on the Radio 4 radio player, it's 2hrs 40 min into the programme (you can fast forward to almost the exact point).
Do we think Bush might do a Nixon and try to change the constitution to go for a third term?
What does he need to do to get it?
Howard_lfc
11-09-06, 10:02 AM
Without writing a long post, one of the 'strangest' things about 9/11 is WTC7 collapsing. Very strange, and I just cannot see how it could have collapsed after suffering minimal damage from the main towers coming down.
Yeah VERY dodgy that.
so - do you think that the lives of those in 9/11 was the price to pay for something else?? I do.
Neil Young
11-09-06, 10:13 AM
Do we think Bush might do a Nixon and try to change the constitution to go for a third term?
What does he need to do to get it?
Hmm, interesting idea - a new Colossus to replace the New Colossus that he smashed.
I don't think he will - it would risk backfiring as too obvious and given his current approval ratings it's very unlikely he could win. Anyway it's unnecessary. They'll simply find another candidate - Jeb perhaps.
Oh boy, I don't know if I should start this one, but I have very good reason, having looked into it about as extensively I can, to believe that 9/11 was the greatest act of political mass deception and public manipulation since the Reichstag Fire.
I believe that too! :handshake:
There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, and docs like Loose Change are very good at highlighting these and planting seeds of doubts in your mind - but nothing about this is ever going to add up, there will never be logical ansers as to why anyone would want to put planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocents - I think we're asking too much if we're expecting all the loose ends to be tied up neatly.
Problem with Loose Change etc is that they provide more questions than answers - it's all very well questioning the misinformation fed to us by the US government but why not dig further and try to find out what is motivating the misinformation. I mean are they suggesting 9-11 was planned by the US government? I dont buy that and never will - I am sceptical about corrupt governemnts, I believe all politicians are dishonest and that is why I am reluctant to vote for anyone, but I dont believe any politician has so much to gain from killing thousands of innocent countrymen that they would plow two planes into two buildings. (Although I would be happy to be proved wrong)
Red_Polo
11-09-06, 12:11 PM
Might not seem like the thread for a Big Lebowski quote, but this one is apt...
It's like Lenin said you know, you look for the person (or group) who benefits
(VI Lenin: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov - not Lennon as in I am the Walrus :handshake:)
Who has benefitted from 9/11 and how? An awful lot of powerful people on all sides have as far as I can see.
Polo, I would certainly agree that the US government's "failure" to capture Bin Landen has given them an enemy to focus on and as such has given Bush a powerful mandate
I'd be interested to read any conspiracy theories because I think they're all nonsense.
I've a "ajar mind" rather than a completely open mind and I'm happy to be persuaded that it's not nonsense.
I'd be interested to read any conspiracy theories because I think they're all nonsense.
I've a "ajar mind" rather than a completely open mind and I'm happy to be persuaded that it's not nonsense.
First one then G_man, why/how did WTC7 collapse?
Something to do with the twin towers collapsing weakening it's structural integrity.
Red_Polo
11-09-06, 12:30 PM
Polo, I would certainly agree that the US government's "failure" to capture Bin Landen has given them an enemy to focus on and as such has given Bush a powerful mandate
Yep. The reaction of the US was also calculated very well by ObL, everything that has happened off the back of 9/11 has done his sick cause no end of good. A shame that some people caught up in vengeful anger fail to see that, but that's nothing new I suppose.
Well, I can't take the Loose Change documentaries seriously after they admitted to doctoring certain photographs of Osama Bin Laden to fit in with the video. That's the problem with these theories, their stories are not juicy enough so they have to sex them up and then you wonder why they bothered in the first place.
I'd be interested to read any conspiracy theories because I think they're all nonsense.
I've a "ajar mind" rather than a completely open mind and I'm happy to be persuaded that it's not nonsense.
I agree completely.
There are some extremely cynical, suspicious, paranoid people out there who believe that the Americans planned it and executed it themselves - and use things like the insurance policy being taken out on the twin towers days before 9-11 and the fact that no Jews showed up for work that day as proof to that end. My dad is one of them actually. He even thinks there's no way this Austrian girl was held captive for 8 years - thinks it's all a conspiracy :rolleyes: But what is there possibly to gain from this? An excuse to instigate wars against oil-rich nations in the middle-east? An attempt to consolidate one's own power base? That's an awful lot of innocent lives to sacrifice for that end.
I mean how do you get someone to fly a plane straight into a building and take all those innocent lives if he isn't a fanatic dedicated to some perverse ideology?
The only thing I am willing to believe is that the US Government has perhaps kept BIn Landen alive deliberately in order to put a face to the enemy and give them the mandate to pursue this foreign policy.
Well, I can't take the Loose Change documentaries seriously after they admitted to doctoring certain photographs of Osama Bin Laden to fit in with the video. That's the problem with these theories, their stories are not juicy enough so they have to sex them up and then you wonder why they bothered in the first place.
also they were low budget film direcors looking to make a break through. They were looking for a story and manipulated the evidence to fit the theory.
Something to do with the twin towers collapsing weakening it's structural integrity.
Highly doubtful, when you look at the site plan. Basically there was at least one building standing between the main towers and WTC7 - this remained standing I believe, yet WTC7 which received minimal damage crumbled.
Highly doubtful, when you look at the site plan. Basically there was at least one building standing between the main towers and WTC7 - this remained standing I believe, yet WTC7 which received minimal damage crumbled.
Doubtful, but possible, no? Maybe the other building was also weakened but was not the same structure as WTC7 and remained standing.
I'm no buildings expert but I think it's possible.
What's the conspiracy theory's explanation?
Red_hot
11-09-06, 12:43 PM
I'm with G Man on this one.
Highly doubtful, when you look at the site plan. Basically there was at least one building standing between the main towers and WTC7 - this remained standing I believe, yet WTC7 which received minimal damage crumbled.
Here is what the official report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology had to say about it:
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
* An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
* Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
* Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
Neil Young
11-09-06, 12:47 PM
I'm with G Man on this one.
So am I. Of course it's been exploited by a cabal of authoritarian, profiteering ideologues but that doesn't mean they planned it or even connived at it.
I think it's very strange that a building that suffered only very minor damage would come tumbling down, several hours after the main towers fell, and without any prior warning/anticipation.
And before I get taken as a conspiracy theory goon - I don't buy this whole Bush ordered the attacks blah, blah, blah.... but there are many unanswered questions!
Well can you pose a few of those questions please. Most of them have been answered but people won't accept the explanations as they don't want to accept the answers. I'm not labelling you but I haven' heard any "unanswered" questions.
Red_Polo
11-09-06, 01:24 PM
So am I. Of course it's been exploited by a cabal of authoritarian, profiteering ideologues but that doesn't mean they planned it or even connived at it.
:handshake:
just to throw another conspiracy into the mix with regards to 9/11 - What happened at the Pentagon seems very suspicious.
I can't remember the full details but have read and seen a few documentries commenting on the plane that crashed into the pentagon. Basically, some leading Aviation expert reckons there is no way a plane crashed into the pentagon as there is no evidence. Such as no debris/remains of a plane, the angle of the plane at impact/plus size of the plane would have left a huge skid mark on the grass infront of the building, but the grass was untouched. There was CCTV tapes from a nearby garage which would have shown an ideal picture of the incident, apparently these tapes were seized upon within half an hour or so and witness from the garage made to sign the secret act or something.
There was a short/sharp documentry done using powerpoint that highlighted this points very well - I'll try and dig it out
Well done, PTP. My next question was regarding the Pentagon!!
Don't eye witnesses count as evidence?
If it hadn't been filmed by CNN there would be people telling us that there was no way a plane crashed into the twin towers. There was no plane debris there.
Don't eye witnesses count as evidence?
If it hadn't been filmed by CNN there would be people telling us that there was no way a plane crashed into the twin towers. There was no plane debris there.
If that is the only answer you have then there is no point.
The damage to the pentagon was significantly smaller in diameter than the plane that was alleged to have hit it!:source:
Yes but eye witnesses saw a plane hit the building. Why would they lie? Are they all in on the secret too? You'd think if someone had flown a cruise missile into the Pentagon :shake: someone would have seen it and they would probably be scared enough to tell someone 5 years later.
If they are in on the secret then I congratulate the American government. They have the means to keep something like that quiet for 5 years but they can't find any WMD in Iraq.
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, small fires leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.
The team who investigated the collapse were not allowed access to the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report, the evidence had been destroyed.
Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
From wt7.net
I'm interested, PTP, Cacodemon, what do you guys think happened at the Pentagon?
copied from some crazy site
From the same point of view, the way materials of a 100 tons plane should move and what destruction they should cause in a crash against a building like the pentagon reinforce this impossibility.
Taking as references images of crashes against buildings, (in Holland, the Concorde of Air France), it seems evident that the scene of the Pentagon and surroundings after the crash (the lawn intact, ...) is not the scene of a 757 crash.
The approach of a 757 towards this building leave a lot of questions unanswered (realism of the approach trajectory, position of the impact point, no track of the landing gear (which gets down automatically near the ground) on the grass, ...).
And if it was not a 757 ?
This would explain why these frames have been "lost" : they are those on which one can recognize that it this not this airliner which hit the pentagon. The first to claim for this thery was the french journalist Thierry Meyssan : according to him, something (a missile, a remotely piloted fighter) was directed on the pentagon, in order to increase the gravity of the attack of Bin Laden on 9/11, the pentagon being a military target. Four hypotheses can be formulated and argumented : the "cruise missile theory", the "foo fighter" theory, the "remotely piloted fighter" theory and the "suicide pilot" theory.
The cruise missile theory
What we could see in this hypotheses if the FBI and/or DOD released the complete video. What could it be ? Hypotheses : it is an AGM 86 cruise missile.
GO HERE FOR THE FULL STORY:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html
Seriously, you think it was a cruise missile?
What happened to the plane then?
Who fired the missile on the HQ of the most powerful military in the world with no-one watching?
What Was In Building 7?
Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.
Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.
Tenant Square Feet Floor Industry
Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND,1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institution
IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
C.I.A. N/A N/A Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institution
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institution
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institution
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21 [Insurance]
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institution
NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Government
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government
This list is based on a table published by CNN.com, which did not include CIA, whose tenancy was disclosed after the attack in the New York Times article. 1 Â
One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. 2 Â The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.
How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event
nobbylad
11-09-06, 01:45 PM
Next you'll be telling us that Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon and there are lots of 'unanswered' questions.....
...flags blowing in the wind on the lunar surface
...unexplained shadows in the direction of the sun
....etc...etc
How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event
Has this claim been verified? A lot of the claims are exaggerated for effect.
from what i read/have seen about the pentagon incident is very strange, basically the diameter of the hole in the building is a lot smaller than that of the plane, the angle of approach for a plane that size is supposed to impossible as per some genius.
some conspiracies claim that only a missle would cause that sort of damage.
I can't find this power point slide show of it all - i'll keep searching tho as it's very good
Dr Benway
11-09-06, 01:49 PM
Without looking into all the conspiracy theories and unanswered questions from 9/11, and the continued effects of that day on our world, it's utterly amazing to think it was 5 years ago. 1,826 days! Crazy.
I remember that day well, was at my old place of work in Manchester, usual day really, everyday normal Tuesday, apart from the fact it was possibly only the 7th or 8th time I was going to Anfield, to watch the Boavista game in the Champions League.
It was just after lunch time, that a rumour was going around work that some explosion had occured at the WTC - trying to get onto a news website was incredibly difficult. Having finally managed to access the bbc website, I was shocked to see the static images of the flaming tower, then it became more and more surreal, as the page kept updating to reveal more information. I remembering thinking at the time it was something out of a movie.
Anyway, seem to remember leaving work early and watching a couple of hours on BBCnews24, before reluctantly leaving for Anfield (the only time for me that that has happened)
The game shouldn't have taken place, the crowd had a unified sense of being stunned, and the only thing I remember about the game is Owen's goal, and the journey home, listening to the news.
Sad day. :shake:
First thing I heard about it was when I went to a printer at work and noticed a picture sitting there from a news page of a plane hitting the WTC. It just looked so odd, I picked it up and asked people in the office about it.
It seemed to be a picture that I had seen before, almost Hollywoodesque.
RIP and condoleances to all innocent the victim, all over the world.
There apprear to be some very inappropriate untruths conducted by some political movements, prior to and post this event. Google video shows some conspiricy theories that will scare the shit out of you (if you get scared by the thought that the most powerful figures have little disregard for life).
nobbylad
11-09-06, 01:49 PM
Have you read Guiliani's book?
I'm sure the reason for him not being in 'his bunker' is detailed extensively in there.
I think i've seen the power point presentation.
The way I see it is:
Some people want to believe that the US government planned the attacks as it sounds like an amazing story. They spend an enormous amount of time investigating and asking questions to try and back up their claims. They don't get the answers they want so they spend even more time trying to pick holes in the arguments.
If the same people spent the same time on investigating why the explanations were true, they'd soon realise they'd wasted a lot of time. It's not in their interests to investigate both sides of the argument.
Dr Benway
11-09-06, 01:53 PM
from what i read/have seen about the pentagon incident is very strange, basically the diameter of the hole in the building is a lot smaller than that of the plane, the angle of approach for a plane that size is supposed to impossible as per some genius.
some conspiracies claim that only a missle would cause that sort of damage.
I can't find this power point slide show of it all - i'll keep searching tho as it's very good
I one program they said that people witnessed three completely different flying objects as the cause. Something like a helicopter, a cesna, and an unmarked cargo plane.
Also, the grass did not have any scorch marks and neither did any of the local CCTV cameras (on the Marriot (?) hotel or the freeway cameras) pick up the flight path or the impact.
copied from some crazy site
Dragging Foo Fighters into this is a bit strange.
But the have been "learning to fly"
:haha: Dr B, you haven't seen the debunking of those claim have you. Yes there were witnesses for 3 different object. About 6 said it was a) about 4 said it was b) and several dozen said it was a plane.
They fail to mention the proportions of eye witness accounts in the conspiracy videos.
Here's a link to a flash video that poses some of the questions asked regarding the Pentagon incident.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
Howard_lfc
11-09-06, 01:56 PM
I'm interested, PTP, Cacodemon, what do you guys think happened at the Pentagon?
Hit by a missile.
Coincidentally - the part of the pentagon it hit - had been recently reinforced....:source:
If something is witnessed that is not altogether understood, you'd be surprised the amount of people who will agree that they saw what they've been told they saw.
This, of course, can work from both viewpoints.
I'm off to lunch, think i may have found the power point, just trying to download at mo, if it's the right one i'll post it when i'm back.
GMan -I actually agree with what your saying, that these people 'find' evidence to sex up their theories, although I don't believe them, I do believe that there is more to it then the american government have let on. Apparently these so called CCTV tapes taken from the garage forecourt would show everything as it happens and would either prove all the theories or actually prove that it was flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon. Becasue these image have never been released, it's caused the conspiraricies to grow
That person who said "buildings don't just eat planes" obviously never saw the planes hit the twin towers then :shake:
Hit by a missile.
Coincidentally - the part of the pentagon it hit - had been recently reinforced....:source:
:haha: Who fired a missile at the Pentagon then?
right i'm still here but going now,
think this is the right link, haven't had a chance to check it
link (http://www.apfn.org/movies/911.ppt)
That person who said "buildings don't just eat planes" obviously never saw the planes hit the twin towers then :shake:
I think they were getting at the fact that there was no damage where the two 6 ton jet engines would have hit the pentagon. There was clear damage where the wings hit the twin towers. It was also claimed that the wreckage of the plane that hit the pentagon was vapourised and that would have to be pretty damn hot.
I'm just throwing these things out for you, I know propaganda works many different ways but I certainly would have thought that there would have been much more evidence of a plane, especially one that size.
Hollowman
11-09-06, 02:22 PM
The US government aren't hgelping themselves over the Pentagon hit. They have video footage of it, as they have released several frames from it. Why not just release all of the footage, rather than the mutilated excerpts? They're fuelling the conspiracies themselves.
MrMichael
11-09-06, 02:25 PM
There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, and docs like Loose Change are very good at highlighting these and planting seeds of doubts in your mind - but nothing about this is ever going to add up, there will never be logical ansers as to why anyone would want to put planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocents - I think we're asking too much if we're expecting all the loose ends to be tied up neatly.
Problem with Loose Change etc is that they provide more questions than answers - it's all very well questioning the misinformation fed to us by the US government but why not dig further and try to find out what is motivating the misinformation. I mean are they suggesting 9-11 was planned by the US government? I dont buy that and never will - I am sceptical about corrupt governemnts, I believe all politicians are dishonest and that is why I am reluctant to vote for anyone, but I dont believe any politician has so much to gain from killing thousands of innocent countrymen that they would plow two planes into two buildings. (Although I would be happy to be proved wrong)
I'd be careful with Loose Change, it is sloppy in parts and if anyone has seen both editions like I have they notice Dylan Avery's argumants are not the most constisent ever. It is listed as misinformation on probably the most repupatable 9/11 enquiry sites (ie comes to the correct conclusions but by using the worng evidence). Too flash and too much un-proven speculation, but a great intro to the subject for most peoplenonetheless, and certainly the most widely available. Check out http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html
The very best documentaries on the subject are those by Michael Rupert and Barry Zwicker, the worst in In Plane Site, much of which Avery borrowed from for Loose Change.
I recommend
Barry Zwicker -The Great Conspiracy
Michael Rupert - Denial Stops Here
9/11 Guilt - The Proof is in your Hands
Aftermath - Unanswered Questions of 9/11
Anything by Steven Jones
9/11 The Grest Illusion - Endgame of the Illuminati (better than the tag suggests)
While, "The Power of Nightmares", "The Oil Factor" and "The End of Suburbia" are fantastic documentaries on the wider implications which also touch on the specific subject.
Painful Deceptions, Loose Change, and In Plane Site all contain very mixed material and should be treated with extreme caution
Please see http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html for much info and links on these films, its a fantastic site generally with enormous repositories of useful info, and debunks the "no plane at the pentagon" theory for example while still promoting the genuine crucial questions about 9/11
If interested, explore these websites fully,
http://www.oilempire.us/
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
and please avoid Eric Hufschmid's material, and sites (OilEmpire has many links to why) he's a holocaust denier anmongst other things, and has done far more harm than good to the cause of 9/11 investigation
I can assist anyone to find and see any of the films I mention (positively or mixed), just ask :handshake:
Hollowman
11-09-06, 02:30 PM
Here is what the official report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology had to say about it:
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
* An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
* Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
* Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
My problem with this is that the building came down vertically. Now, whilst I can buy that the twin towers came down like that due to the intense heat of the explosions of the plane (leaving aside the fact that fuel doesn't burn that hot, but whatever), WTC7 wasn't hit by anything major. It was on a completely seperate block to WTC1 & 2, and there is no evidence that any major rubble hit it.
Now, no building in the history of steel structures has ever set fire and then come tumbling down like an accordian. Surely that would require the structural braces to all weaken and break in unison? Buildings that collapse with fire tend to sort of 'slope' off, as one side collapses before the other.
Also, the smoke plume from the building was very black and very large (it rose higher than the twin towers), which is odd for a 'minor' fire.
Basically, Elvis did it. Lambchopped shitehawk.
The US government aren't hgelping themselves over the Pentagon hit. They have video footage of it, as they have released several frames from it. Why not just release all of the footage, rather than the mutilated excerpts? They're fuelling the conspiracies themselves.
With good reason no doubt. Mis-information allows the government to publicly dismiss all "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, they want these contradictions as it helps destroy the arguments against the truth.
The truth is out there...
MrMichael
11-09-06, 02:44 PM
My problem with this is that the building came down vertically. Now, whilst I can buy that the twin towers came down like that due to the intense heat of the explosions of the plane (leaving aside the fact that fuel doesn't burn that hot, but whatever), WTC7 wasn't hit by anything major. It was on a completely seperate block to WTC1 & 2, and there is no evidence that any major rubble hit it.
Now, no building in the history of steel structures has ever set fire and then come tumbling down like an accordian. Surely that would require the structural braces to all weaken and break in unison? Buildings that collapse with fire tend to sort of 'slope' off, as one side collapses before the other.
Also, the smoke plume from the building was very black and very large (it rose higher than the twin towers), which is odd for a 'minor' fire.
Basically, Elvis did it. Lambchopped shitehawk.
the collpase of WTC7 is one of the most suspicious things about 9/11.
Guys (PTP, Caco), A plane did hit the Pentagon, that stuff is hoax. Really, it did, please see http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html and check all the links. Seriously, this theory has been used to discredit the reputable investigations into 9/11 and should be dropped, the evidence for it not being a plane is entirely misleading. ask yourself this.... why would it not have been one?
The real questions about the pentagon involve the 180 degree turn the plane took over Washington, an enormously skilled (and pointless) manoever. to then hit the side of the pentagon that had visibly been under repair for half a decade and contained absolutely nothing.
The complete lack of Norad response, violating every military avaition protocol in the US
Who scheduled an entirely unprecedented multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario?
ALL NO PLANE THEORIES (either at the Pentagon or WTC 1&2) ARE HOAX
MrMichael
11-09-06, 02:47 PM
With good reason no doubt. Mis-information allows the government to publicly dismiss all "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, they want these contradictions as it helps destroy the arguments against the truth.
The truth is out there...
The point exactly. This is a massive point of debate and consternation in the 9/11 enquiry community, and something everyone should be aware of at all times.
I never said that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon - just that the damage caused to the building didn't look like it had been hit by a 757...
Hollowman
11-09-06, 02:47 PM
So what you're saying is, Elvis could have flown the plane?
I knew it.
What about the fourth plane that went down in Pittsburgh or Pennsylvania or wherever? Shot down or taken over by the passengers?
MrMichael
11-09-06, 02:58 PM
G_Man... the best evidence surrounds 2 central issues
1)The collapse of the towers, and especially WTC7, were completely unprecedented events in the history of construction, and physics..... I have seen enough evidence to suggest there are serious flaws in the official explanations (which btw keep changing)
2)There is adequate and unrefutable evidence of foreknowledge, both in financial activity surrounding the WTC complex, and military activity. This does not necessarily indicate complicity, but it sure as hell looks that way, the only question for me is the precise amount of technical assistance provided to ensure that the attacks happened as desired.
I haven't the time now to go through all the stuff I have and detail every last point so I've cut this from somewhere, some unanswered questions for you....
- a flight school drop out managed to execute a high speed, high G fighter pilot maneuver into the nearly empty, under reconstruction part of the Pentagon despite the refusal to rent him a single engine plane the previous month (they said he had no flying skills),
- that the hijackers left behind an Arabic language flight manual in their rental car in Boston (similar to evidence planted to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin despite the physical impossibility of the claim that he was the "lone gunman")
- The BBC reported that several of the alleged hijackers were still alive, protesting their innocence and saying that their identities were stolen.
- why the "black boxes" couldn't be found from the planes yet a paper passport of a hijacker somehow survived the fireballs and was found on the streets of lower manhattan
- why Bush thought that reading to second graders was more important for him than to respond to the alleged surprise attacks (at 9:05 am on 9/11/2001)
- why was the CIA was running a simulation of a plane hitting the National Reconnaissance Office HQ (near Dulles) on 9/11
- why numerous warnings from allied governments were supposedly ignored (at least a dozen countries, possibly more, warned the US that 9/11 was coming)
- the absolute failure to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion, despite decades of well-established military and FAA procedures. The fact that Bush stayed in a second grade classroom reading about a "Girl and her pet goat" instead of cancelling the event and pretending to be commander-in-chief is damning evidence of prior knowledge by Bush, his staff, the secret service and the military hierarchy (or at least a faction of it).
- why the General in charge of Air Defense received a PROMOTION to run the "domestic" use of the US military (the "Northern Command," established October 2002)
- why the planes that eventually were scrambled traveled much, much slower than they are capable of traveling, especially in an emergency (ie. after the second tower was hit but before the Pentagon)
- why the part of the Pentagon that was hit was the only part that had almost no one in it, and the part that had been recently strengthened against such an attack
- why the CEO of Fiduciary (in the towers) just happened to be at a breakfast "fundraiser" sponsored by Warren Buffett at Offutt AFB (strange place for a charity fundraiser) on 9/11, the same base that Bush went to in the afternoon
- On the morning of 9/11, Sen. Graham met with the head of Pakistan's ISI (their CIA), who is alleged to have sent $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the alleged terrorists ("alleged" because several of those names were identity thefts - the people named are still alive, according to the BBC and several other media sources).
- why Bush showed no reaction when told of the attacks, and kept reading to second graders (and why his aide, Andrew Card, didn't even wait to ask for a reply from the "President")
- why Bush had anti-aircraft missiles set up around Genoa, Italy during the July 2001 G-8 summit (due to concerns about a 9-11 type attack) but not around the Capitol despite numerous warnings that 9-11 was coming
- long standing ties between the CIA, Pakistan's ISI, the Saudis, al-Qaeda, and between the Bush and Bin Laden families
- the anthrax attacks traced back to Fort Detrick
- repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least)
- why the director of the "commission" to investigate 9/11 is a business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother in law (Gov Thomas Kean, formerly of New Jersey, is a director of Amerada Hess, which is invested in the Saudi consortium to build the fabled pipeline across Afghanistan ...) Even Fortune magazine has picked up on that.
- why the Bush regime interfered with the investigation of al-Qaeda before 9/11, something that FBI whistleblowers, journalist Greg Palast and FBI counterterrorism director John O'Neill charged.
MrMichael
11-09-06, 03:02 PM
I never said that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon - just that the damage caused to the building didn't look like it had been hit by a 757...
The photos that show that are misleading dude, check this out
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/damage_comp.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wedge1_rebuild.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/Pentagon_left_wing.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/debris1_wheel.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-fire-width.jpg
MrMichael
11-09-06, 03:07 PM
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/hole11.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/hole07.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/hole01.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/hole03.jpg
So am I. Of course it's been exploited by a cabal of authoritarian, profiteering ideologues but that doesn't mean they planned it or even connived at it.
Spot on :handshake:
I'd be careful with Loose Change, it is sloppy in parts and if anyone has seen both editions like I have they notice Dylan Avery's argumants are not the most constisent ever. It is listed as misinformation on probably the most repupatable 9/11 enquiry sites (ie comes to the correct conclusions but by using the worng evidence). Too flash and too much un-proven speculation, but a great intro to the subject for most peoplenonetheless, and certainly the most widely available. Check out http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html
The very best documentaries on the subject are those by Michael Rupert and Barry Zwicker, the worst in In Plane Site, much of which Avery borrowed from for Loose Change.
I recommend
Barry Zwicker -The Great Conspiracy
Michael Rupert - Denial Stops Here
9/11 Guilt - The Proof is in your Hands
Aftermath - Unanswered Questions of 9/11
Anything by Steven Jones
9/11 The Grest Illusion - Endgame of the Illuminati (better than the tag suggests)
While, "The Power of Nightmares", "The Oil Factor" and "The End of Suburbia" are fantastic documentaries on the wider implications which also touch on the specific subject.
Painful Deceptions, Loose Change, and In Plane Site all contain very mixed material and should be treated with extreme caution
Please see http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html for much info and links on these films, its a fantastic site generally with enormous repositories of useful info, and debunks the "no plane at the pentagon" theory for example while still promoting the genuine crucial questions about 9/11
If interested, explore these websites fully,
http://www.oilempire.us/
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
and please avoid Eric Hufschmid's material, and sites (OilEmpire has many links to why) he's a holocaust denier anmongst other things, and has done far more harm than good to the cause of 9/11 investigation
I can assist anyone to find and see any of the films I mention (positively or mixed), just ask :handshake:
Interesting site MrMicheal - I am now more convinced about the 757 crashing into the Pentagon, even if the aftermath damage looks so small.
Now, where did we get to with WTC7?
I agree. That posts some good evidence supporting the official line, it answers a lot of questions raised by the doubters (me included). I never bought the line about the damage to the lawn and the improbability of the plane flying 2 feet off the ground after all, all planes fly 2 feet off the ground at some point don't they?
Sir Bob
11-09-06, 07:05 PM
9/11 leaves a very sour taste in the mouth for so many reasons.
First up of course are those people that died that die. Next up are their friends and relatives whose pain & sorrow knows no end.
However, there are so many other sides to the debate. The endless conspiracy theories, are just that theories. Many though are very compelling. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to say The US Govt. planned the whole thing (although, this wouldn't completely surprise me) they have certainly used it to their advantage. The West & the USA in particular need an ememy to justify the huge amounts spent on arms. The arms industry is massive financially & are major contributors to the politically parties in America. Without an 'enemy' how can the billions spent on arms be justified. It can't. For many years the USSR filled the role nicely. But as the iron curtain fell, the west could no longer claim the USSR was a threat. Step forward OBL & Al Qaeda. 9/11 made sure that not only could the US' agressive Middle Eastern foreign policy be justified, it also ensured the continued spending of billions on arms.
Next up is the US' failure to capture OBL. I'm 100% convinced they don't want to capture him. Whilst still at large, their middle Eastern policy is justified to the US' people. Although in reality, the toppling of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with toppling Al Qaeda, that was the myth that was presented in the USA & UK. If AQ could demolish the Twin towers, just think what Saddam could do with WMD. So a war that was about oil supplies was justifued. When it suited the US, they found Saddam, in a hole in the middle of nowhere . Yet after 5 years, the US can't find OBL. Yeah...sure.
So on this 5th anniversary, spare a moments thoughts for those that lost their life. But spare a thought to for the thousands of innocent people killed in Gulf Wars 1 & 2, in Afghanistan & in Palastine. They too lost their lives, their pain is just as real, even if we don't see those images on our TV screens in news, docu dramas & on the big screen.
Howard_lfc
11-09-06, 07:25 PM
:haha: Who fired a missile at the Pentagon then?
If the fecking FBI don't know then how the feck am I supposed to!!!! :D
It certainly wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. Look at the pictures of the damage - the windows are still intact where the wings of the plane would have smashed through.:source:
It's a cover up I tell you. Gotta dash - I think they're watching me !!! Or am I being paranoid? :source:
Red_Al_77
11-09-06, 07:27 PM
It's real, it happened, there was no conspiracy.
Saddam was literally operating on his own when hiding, everyone disserted him wanting a slice of the reward money. UBL has many, many supporters, money, and is extremely security aware. It not that difficult to lose yourself in the caves of Afganistan and Pakistan.
CharlieMansonsSquint
11-09-06, 07:41 PM
So am I. Of course it's been exploited by a cabal of authoritarian, profiteering ideologues but that doesn't mean they planned it or even connived at it.
Agree. Whoever was responsible, and for whatever reasons, it did present the opportunity for conflict with very little public resistance. In a benign way of looking at it you could say that in the aftermath both Islamic extremists and those involved in US backed military and business interests got exactly what they wanted.
I've seen many of the conspiracy theory based documentaries on the net, and I've never been taken with any of them. Loose Change 1 and 2 in particular were far fetched at best. Too many unanswered questions on top of the unanswered questions of what happened that day. The evidence is nearly always circumstantial at best, and that just isn't enough.
Regardless of all that 2 instances from that day do bother me; The collapse on WTC7, or how it collapsed as HollowMan illustrated, and whatever hit the Pentagon. Of all the evidence I've seen, admittedly of what little there is, it seems highly unlikely that 747 moving at that speed and trajectory could do as little damage as that. None of the evidence I've seen stops me from being skeptical about this.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories as it takes attention away from the real political consequences of 9/11 as perpetrated by the neocons. Anyhow Bin Laden exists, he's for real and he has claimed responsibility. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Neil Young
11-09-06, 09:17 PM
I was catching up on the thread and was going to post much the same thing: we don't need conspiracy theories, there has effectively been a coup d'etat in the USA and its freedoms and those of other countries have been wilfully undermined by the political elites in control.
I don't believe them either.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories as it takes attention away from the real political consequences of 9/11 as perpetrated by the neocons. Anyhow Bin Laden exists, he's for real and he has claimed responsibility. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Playing devil's advocate - why do you believe Bin Laden's claims? He can lie as easily as the next man.
I've seen many 9/11 docus, watched the whole event unfold on the day via a wall of TV's (Working in Comet)
No other towers have even collapsed due to fire.
This is true, but these towers were never hit by massive aircraft, also, the design of WTC was different, whereby the exterior walls carried much of the buildings strength as did the "Core"
Firstly, it would be impossible to wire these building up to blow, you have to plant your explosive in the middle of the supporting columns, this means drilling, your columns then need wrapping and sealing so that the explosives work as designed and don't just shoot out of the column, this could NO way be done without anyone noticing.
Some claim that the towers fell too "cleanly" and that explosives had to be planted. I've seen an image of the first tower falling, taken from near the base, and it shows the top edge of the tower falling outwards, however, as the tower fell, due to the strength of the wall, it fell in on itself, (floors collapsing) this is why on the better quality collapse videos, you can see the derbis plume fall with the tower, yet, sections of wall still remain standing, until they can no longer bear the load and bend inwards, this also explains why the roof of WTC wasn't on the top of the rubble, as is the norm with controlled demolitions.
The "secondary explosions" etc that were heard, the tower was under enormous strain, especially the first tower that fell, as the core was damaged more than the first, and there were a higher number of floors above the impact zone, think of the towers as a boat, as a large boat sinks, and is put under forces that it wouldn't normally face, the whole structure will creak, knock and sound like its "blowing"
WTC 7 is a bit trickier, the biggest points that the conspiritors make, is that it had "minimal damage." and that it was "pulled" as said by Larry Silverstein.
There's a picture floating around on the net which shows WTC 7 with MASSIVE damage at its side facing the towers, I believe that a bank building which was further away sustained slightly less damage, and is now declared a write off and is been demolished. There was a video on a Docu of a single WTC beam been pushed off the back of a artic on Staten island, it had to be pushed as the machine could not lift, it fell maybe 4/5 feet off the articulated lorry, yet rumbled the camera which was a fair distance away, and the articulated lorry trailer "bounced" on its springs. That was a single column falling 5 feet. Imagine that colum falling 100+ storeys. A single column like this may only leave a small fracture on the outside of a building, especially a steel building where its more likely to bend/tear than disintigrate like a concrete structure, but would tear away like a bullet inside the building.
Also Silversteins "It was pulled" comments, even so, again, if it was a controlled demolition, why did no one notice? Was it wired up after the towers fell to bring it down? I'll consider that when you can find me someone who'll be willing to bring explosives into a burning building, what was meant by "pulled" was that they pulled out all emergency services from the building as it was showing signs of massive failure, and after the collapse of the two WTC towers the whole idea that burning skyscrapers don't collapse was wiped just a tad.
The WTC site was built into a "basin" which was to house the underground services etc, and to protect from water ingress from the Hudson etc, when WTC fell, it was enough to fracture this basin in a number of places, and WTC IIRC sits inside this basin, if the collapse was enough to dislodge meters on meters of thick reinforced concrete, it could easily weaken a tower within the basin. It was also the basin which protected the towers in 93, as the carpark was outside the basin, and it stopped the bomb from toppling the towers. This is also why buildings outside the basin sustained much less damage.
*phew* I'm off to bed in a bit, but ask/pick away as you please :) :handshake:
Thanks for that propaganda..... ;)
The current US Admin is a vehicle of greed, power and arrogance.
They steamroll into situations without concern for anything but their own requirements and have, without remorse, killed more civilians than any terrorist organisation.
And they claim to do it all in the name of Liberty.
Who's?
It's not those who are losing their homes and families under their tyranny.
People really need to wake up to what is happening.
There are companies with such wealth and power over political bodies, that they can decide what we can have and when we can have it.
They will decide what we see and when wee can see it.
They already own the majority of the worlds media, choosing what news you receive and the angle you receive it.
I'm not saying that everything the likes of the Loose Change guys says is 100% accurate, but people need to see the other angle because what you are given by the mainstream is carefully balanced. In one direction.
I still feel that 911 was an inside job.
They needed a war with BIG arms contracts flowing (look at the US defense budget since 911) just like thay did with Vietnam.
They did everything possible to ensure they could invade Iraq (because Saddam was a major threat!) even though the UN stated it was an illegal action. And to top it off - we (the UK) went with them!
I guess it may be too late, we are becoming the 51st state......
.....and all that fuss we made about not wanting to be in Europe!
warrenpeace
12-09-06, 03:39 PM
The conspiracy theories are quite compelling and very interesting. I don't have the knowledge to refute them point by point.
It seems to me, though, that any conspiracy would have to be huge - I mean how many people would it take to pull off just flying a cruise missile into the Pentagon, clearing it up whilst pretending it was an airliner then making the airliner it was supposed to be and all the people on it disappear? Leaving aside wiring the twin towers to blow, flying planes into them etc etc etc.
The conspirators would have to have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, and not one has come forward, sickened by what has happened? Nah, I don't think so.
The conspiracy theories are quite compelling and very interesting. I don't have the knowledge to refute them point by point.
It seems to me, though, that any conspiracy would have to be huge - I mean how many people would it take to pull off just flying a cruise missile into the Pentagon, clearing it up whilst pretending it was an airliner then making the airliner it was supposed to be and all the people on it disappear? Leaving aside wiring the twin towers to blow, flying planes into them etc etc etc.
The conspirators would have to have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, and not one has come forward, sickened by what has happened? Nah, I don't think so.
But your reply is what the the conspiritors want. All this misinformation and fake stories are used to defuse the real story behind it all.
I don't for one minute think that people manged to rig bombs in the Twin Towers in the space of an hour. The impact of the planes probably did cause the towers to fall....
Anyway, can't be arsed anymore - we're all doomed!:)
warrenpeace
12-09-06, 03:54 PM
But your reply is what the the conspiritors want. All this misinformation and fake stories are used to defuse the real story behind it all.
The fact remains that there have to be many, many of them and I just can't see them all keeping quiet, can you?
What is the real story behind it?
But the owner of WTC7 said he had it 'pulled' on the day.
I don't for one minute think that people manged to rig bombs in the Twin Towers in the space of an hour.
But the ownerof WTC7 said he had the tower 'pulled' on the day.
warrenpeace
12-09-06, 04:14 PM
(see above)
non the wiser but thanks :handshake:
WTC7 is the strangest one for me. Paul.S has a decent stab at explaining why/how it fell, but I remain unconvinced.
An inside job?
What's the motive for that then?
An inside job?
What's the motive for that then?
public control?
But they already control us don't they? (see above) ;)
But they already control us don't they? (see above) ;)
Maybe. But they managed to bring in a raft of new laws that haven't fully been tested yet - maybe that was a reason too?
Neil Young
12-09-06, 04:22 PM
But they already control us don't they? (see above) ;)
Exactly. We really don't need these conspiracy theories. If 9/11 hadn't happened they'd have found another excuse for pursuing their agenda.
i cant read the fullposts but listened and watched many a conspiracy theory on the said subjects.
Flight 93 is the one that doesnt add up the most. Apparently many eye witnesses saw fighterplanes in the air previously and also report load bangs. This also explains why the carnage was spread over circa 8miles.
As regards why some of the 19 hijackers have been found alive al-qudea were known to swap passports and nick identities etc.
As regards the twin towers as well as the bombing in 93 there is believed to be charges in the buildings and this is why they tumbled as the the steel used meant they would not have collapsed like this......imagine if the twin towers didnt tumble straight.....the carnage would have been huge.
There was also the insurance scam angle. The guy who insured the buildings which were due to be condemned in 2025(or require major work) took a policy out 2 months prior and it included terrorists liabilty he took a cool 7billion and tried to claim that for each tower.....cant remember if he was succesful
Also it has been mentioned that itwould require skilled pilots to fly the planes into the side of the buildings hence the conspiracists believe that the planes were controlled by remote!!
There is also the small matter of the patriot act, an act that contrevened all America's rights. This was written before 9.11 and was brought in immediately afterwards and contrevened every
americans civil liberties.
Would they get away with it though? I mean seriously. Would they get away with orchestrating this whole thing? The twin towers, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq.
Do you think they would get away with fabricating the whole thing without someone getting wind of it or someone snitching on them because their conscience couldn't take it.
If the people who watched what happened to the Pentagon on the hotel security tapes saw a cruise missile hit the pentagon, do you really think the government could silence all of thm all this time?
I don't
Would they get away with it though? I mean seriously. Would they get away with orchestrating this whole thing? The twin towers, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq.
Do you think they would get away with fabricating the whole thing without someone getting wind of it or someone snitching on them because their conscience couldn't take it.
If the people who watched what happened to the Pentagon on the hotel security tapes saw a cruise missile hit the pentagon, do you really think the government could silence all of thm all this time?
I don't
your one of them arent ya ? :D :handshake:
your one of them arent ya ? :D :handshake:
:source: :source:
Adds red g to List
:source: :source:
Adds red g to List
red g draws curtains and rocks mildly in a corner
The aliens will be visiting you tonight :source: :source:
Would they get away with it though? I mean seriously. Would they get away with orchestrating this whole thing? The twin towers, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq.
Do you think they would get away with fabricating the whole thing without someone getting wind of it or someone snitching on them because their conscience couldn't take it.
If the people who watched what happened to the Pentagon on the hotel security tapes saw a cruise missile hit the pentagon, do you really think the government could silence all of thm all this time?
I don't
I've read up some more about the Pentagon attack, and I do believe that it must have been a plane that slammed into the side of it - too many eye witnesses. Although the damage caused still looks too minimal, but having read about it, I do think it did happen that way.
I'm not sure hundreds of people would need to be 'in on it' for it to work.
I agree the damage looks strange but I don't think any of the people asking the questions are experts on that particular building. The Pentagon isn't your everyday bricks and mortar, I'm sure it was built to withstand the most serious impacts due to the nature of the contents.
Try looking into the 'put options' that were dealt on Sep 10th 2001.
How did they know?
Although the damage caused still looks too minimal, but having read about it, I do think it did happen that way.
Sure does...
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/pelouse.jpg
Mattshark
12-09-06, 05:12 PM
I blame thatcher.
She looked well yesterday :p
Mattshark
12-09-06, 05:14 PM
you don't know how much HCN i have planted around her house set to release when we gop 1-0 up tonight.
Mattshark
12-09-06, 05:16 PM
she is so asking for it :)
Red_Polo
12-09-06, 05:18 PM
you don't know how much HCN i have planted around her house set to release when we gop 1-0 up tonight.
It's a cyano better things to come for sure
It's a cyano better things to come for sure
:shake: Polo,Polo,Polo.
Noel would be proud
:haha:
Sure does...
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/pelouse.jpg
Like G_Man mentioned though, it isn't an ordinary building, and my main problem had been the lack of apparent caused from the wings. However, I've seen other photos that do show damage caused by the wings. :source:
If there are CCTV images that haven't been released to prove this one way or the other - it only confirms to me that there is something to hide, even if the Pentagon strike isn't where the disception is being played.
I was catching up on the thread and was going to post much the same thing: we don't need conspiracy theories, there has effectively been a coup d'etat in the USA and its freedoms and those of other countries have been wilfully undermined by the political elites in control.
I don't believe them either.
Neil, you're better than that.
I know you understand the technicalities and machinations of politics better than to say there has been a coup d'etat in the US.
A coup d'etat is an unconstitutional overthrowing of the top figures of a government (the administration), usually by another section of government.
For example, a group of members of Congress unconstitutionally over-throwing the Bush administration would be a coup d'etat.
The expansion of executive power, constitutional or otherwise is not a coup d'etat.
Now, after that little aside, you can all get back to your "we hate Bush" love-in.
Saw some program last night on National Geographic "Inside 9/11"
Interestingly they showed some far higher zoomed images of the towers than I've ever seen. They show the outside load bearing columns of the tower buckle first, then the glass shatters, then the towers come down. The towers didn't really come down that tidyly though, when you watch the collapse, the towers throw columns/panels everything outwards, all that dust on 9/11, thats not just office dust, thats the concrete on the columns been slammed so hard that they're literally smashed to dust.
But the owner of WTC7 said he had it 'pulled' on the day.
Its a line that has been misquoted by the conspirators, yes, Larry Silverstein said they pulled the tower, what he meant was that they pulled out the emergency services and left the tower to its own accord. I state again, if someone can find me someone willing to rig up a building for explosives when its on fire, or even find me someone who can hide explosives in a building and then not have them go off when it catches fire - I'd be amazed.
It was a huge 47 storey building though! A few poxy fires shouldn't have made a difference!
There had also been a floor dedicated for the Secret Service...... :source:
I smell a rat!
Yeah, but WTC 1 and WTC 2 spat out massive columns as they came down, and concentrated their shockwave within the "Basin"
Sprouty
13-09-06, 11:25 AM
Is this the one that was referenced earlier?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sb7kZBEHL8
Hm, I'm wrong acctually... WTC7 was outside the basin, however, if you do a search on Google.co.uk for "WTC7 Damage" theres some pretty evidential pictures on there that the conspirators don't show. Showing massive damage on the side, a corner, and the penthouse buckling, it also shows better shots of the "Small fires" that show many floors "Glowing" it also shows the other side of the building showing smoke billowing out of most of the tower.
The collapse of WTC7 is attributed to one main strut, which caused the visual "buckle" in the roofline of the building, when this strut went, it takes the building down along that strutline hence why it too went straight down, and didn't "keel over" like people for some reason expect towers to do.
MrMichael
13-09-06, 12:27 PM
Say the buildings did collapse the way the official line says Paul, and none of us are really construction/demolision experts.... that still does not explain, account for or counter the massive evidence of foreknowledge in terms of the put-options, insurance, no-fly orders, warnings from other governments, and the completely unprecedented military exercises ie. "Northern Guardian" "Northern Vigilance" etc taking place on the day, which led to air-traffic control having fake hijack blips all over their radars.
Complicity is one thing, foreknowledge is another, and anyone who believes that 9/11 was an entirely suprise attack needs to look into the history of Pearl Harbour for a start.
I'm in no doubts that America knew something was on the way.
In the end, it was "financail" reasons that lead to the flaws in intelligence...
Hypothetical question:
If senior members of the government/security forces were aware of the plot - and if they knew the target(s) how did they 'know' that the towers would drop?
What would have happened if the pilot(s) had missed? A few people would have potentially lost a heck of a lot of money, some gamble...
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 12:51 PM
Neil, you're better than that.
I know you understand the technicalities and machinations of politics better than to say there has been a coup d'etat in the US.
A coup d'etat is an unconstitutional overthrowing of the top figures of a government (the administration), usually by another section of government.
For example, a group of members of Congress unconstitutionally over-throwing the Bush administration would be a coup d'etat.
The expansion of executive power, constitutional or otherwise is not a coup d'etat.
Now, after that little aside, you can all get back to your "we hate Bush" love-in.
Bush taking power was a coup d'etat though
how did they 'know' that the towers would drop?
Because they rigged a 110 building with explosives over the course of one weekend..... SHEESH! :p
One thing I did find interesting from the "Path to 9/11" drama that was on TV, that when they realised a jet was on the way to Washington, it would take 15-20 minutes to scramble jets. I'd have thought for the capitol it would be much quicker.
Another thing I don't get... Transponders on aircrafts... why exactly can you turn them off? Doesn't that defy the point of having one? I'd have thought that all aircraft by now would be fitted with *some* sort of emergency tracking system! Also, I think that the aviation world should take note from some of the arabian airlines, how to stop an aircraft been hijacked? Keep the cockpit totally seperate from the rest of the aircraft!
Also, as a bit of an OT, did you know that you can change your transponder frequency to a certain number which tells the authorities you're been hijacked :D
Bush taking power was a coup d'etat though
No it wasn't. They weren't overthrowing an existing government. They were trying to win an election.
I'm not getting in to the ins and outs of whether they were right or wrong in their means, but it was not a coup d'etat.
Because they rigged a 110 building with explosives over the course of one weekend..... SHEESH! :p
One thing I did find interesting from the "Path to 9/11" drama that was on TV, that when they realised a jet was on the way to Washington, it would take 15-20 minutes to scramble jets. I'd have thought for the capitol it would be much quicker.
Another thing I don't get... Transponders on aircrafts... why exactly can you turn them off? Doesn't that defy the point of having one? I'd have thought that all aircraft by now would be fitted with *some* sort of emergency tracking system! Also, I think that the aviation world should take note from some of the arabian airlines, how to stop an aircraft been hijacked? Keep the cockpit totally seperate from the rest of the aircraft!
Also, as a bit of an OT, did you know that you can change your transponder frequency to a certain number which tells the authorities you're been hijacked :D
I'll have to remember that next time I'm captain of a hijacked jumbo....:rolleyes:
Any aircraft smartarse :p
so next time that big kid comes along and steals your kite! :p
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:01 PM
The thing that bugs me was was no USAF aircraft with the flights straight away after they went off course, co thats is what they are supposed to do.
Any aircraft smartarse :p
so next time that big kid comes along and steals your kite! :p
:haha: I was the big kid!!
Now give me your website! :crackoff:
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 01:05 PM
No it wasn't. They weren't overthrowing an existing government. They were trying to win an election.
I'm not getting in to the ins and outs of whether they were right or wrong in their means, but it was not a coup d'etat.
There was an existing government that was set to be replaced by constitutional means. Bush replaced this government through unconstitutional means. In other words he took power from one administration to his own, breaking the constitution in the process. There is no way that can not be considered a coup. You can't argue that they were not replacing any government, America was not in a state of anarchy before Bush.
Some people refer to this as a velvet coup d'etat.
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:09 PM
They were trying to win an election.
Why didn't they just cheat like last time. (2000 election)
There was an existing government that was set to be replaced by constitutional means. Bush replaced this government through unconstitutional means. In other words he took power from one administration to his own, breaking the constitution in the process. There is no way that can not be considered a coup. You can't argue that they were not replacing any government, America was not in a state of anarchy before Bush.
Some people refer to this as a velvet coup d'etat.
It wasn't unconstitutional. A neutral court ruled in favour of Bush.
Why didn't they just cheat like last time. (2000 election)
That's the one we are referring to.
The win in 2004 isn't in question. That was a clear spanking for Kerry.
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:12 PM
It wasn't unconstitutional. A neutral court ruled in favour of Bush.
Erm the supreme court is not nuetral, it was mainly appointed by George Bush Sr, using people with his political ideology.
The election of 2000 was as rigged as you get! And even then they needed a huge amount of help to get their noses in front!
Erm the supreme court is not nuetral, it was mainly appointed by George Bush Sr, using people with his political ideology.
Whether you believe it to be neutral or not it is, in effect, theoretically neutral. A separate and constitutionally recognized power body to the administration.
There was a legal ruling. Bush won.
No coup d'etat. No breaking the constitution.
Hollowman
13-09-06, 01:16 PM
Erm the supreme court is not nuetral, it was mainly appointed by George Bush Sr, using people with his political ideology.
Bush didn't nominate his first SC candidate until 2005.
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:17 PM
Whether you believe it to be neutral or not it is, in effect, theoretically neutral. A separate and constitutionally recognized power body to the administration.
There was a legal ruling. Bush won.
No coup d'etat. No breaking the constitution.I never said it was a coup, I'm saying it stinks of shit.
Hollowman
13-09-06, 01:19 PM
The election of 2000 was as rigged as you get! And even then they needed a huge amount of help to get their noses in front!
I'm no fan of Bush, but what happened in 2000 was less suspect that what Daley did in Chicago in 1960, and nobody bitches about JFK being president.
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:19 PM
Bush didn't nominate his first SC candidate until 2005.
The other bush.
Bush didn't nominate his first SC candidate until 2005.
And Bush SR only nominated 2 candidates. The same number as Clinton had confirmed.
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 01:21 PM
It wasn't unconstitutional. A neutral court ruled in favour of Bush.
Lol must be all well and fair then
From Wiki:
"About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court [including some of his daddy's friends] handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 5–4 vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."
Hollowman
13-09-06, 01:22 PM
To be fair, he made two, including the firstblack nominee. The SC was well pretty balanced
Mattshark
13-09-06, 01:23 PM
I have to say the only way they should have done it would be to re-hold the vote in Florida, and stop using such silly machines, and giving the poor dodgy ones.
Lol must be all well and fair then
From Wiki:
"About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court [including some of his daddy's friends] handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 5–4 vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."
Yeah, and then they ruled on it and ruled in Bush's favour.
Over-ruling what they believed to be a breach in the constitution.
As a body, they decided that he was NOT in breach.
Hey, if Bush was pronounced to have broken the constitution. I'll readily accept that I'm wrong.
I have to say the only way they should have done it would be to re-hold the vote in Florida, and stop using such silly machines, and giving the poor dodgy ones.
Not forgetting the genuine voters that had been struck off the list, due to fuzzy logic...
Neil Young
13-09-06, 01:34 PM
Hoey, I think your legalistic interpretation is questionable. However, really to argue about that is to miss the point. It's clear that the American political system is bought and sold and that the major players are much the same as ever. However, there is one difference - a group of ideologues with close links to oil and gas have taken control of key institutions (including the presidency) - the fact they may have used legal as well as illegal means does not mean that they have not entirely subverted the Constitution. They are not governing in the interests of the People, or even the majority of the People.
(I personally think much the same has happened in the UK: new Labour's ties to BP are so close that there is a revolving door between Number 10 and the BP boardroom.)
At the same time, the electoral system has rotted from the roots up. Here's an article for your delectation:
CLICK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1866801,00.html)
Hollowman
13-09-06, 01:37 PM
I don't imagine the reaction to any attempts at federalising the election process would be too pretty.
Neil Young
13-09-06, 01:39 PM
No, fair point. I don't think there's an easy solution but that doesn't mean we should ignore the inadequacies of the current system, I'm sure you'd agree.
Hoey, I think your legalistic interpretation is questionable. However, really to argue about that is to miss the point. It's clear that the American political system is bought and sold and that the major players are much the same as ever. However, there is one difference - a group of ideologues with close links to oil and gas have taken control of key institutions (including the presidency) - the fact they may have used legal as well as illegal means does not mean that they have not entirely subverted the Constitution. They are not governing in the interests of the People, or even the majority of the People.
(I personally think much the same has happened in the UK: new Labour's ties to BP are so close that there is a revolving door between Number 10 and the BP boardroom.)
At the same time, the electoral system has rotted from the roots up. Here's an article for your delectation:
CLICK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1866801,00.html)
I'm not arguing on the over-all good or bad points of US politics and the current administration. You know where I stand on that.
I'm just putting forward that there was not a coup d'etat in the US.
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 01:43 PM
Yeah, and then they ruled on it and ruled in Bush's favour.
Over-ruling what they believed to be a breach in the constitution.
As a body, they decided that he was NOT in breach.
Hey, if Bush was pronounced to have broken the constitution. I'll readily accept that I'm wrong.
7 out of 9 said the constitution had been violated. This ruling was not overturned. They decided to stop all recounts in a separate decision made on the basis of the limited time there was to play with. Bush took power via a process where the constitution had been breached, that's the bottom line, putting aside all the accusations of a sinister and more deliberate coup.
It all depends on what you would consider a coup. In my mind, the 2000 election in the US was not just seriously flawed but was unconstitutional, and Bush should never have taken office through that sham. The way I see it he had leverage that Gore didn't and he won. I'd call it a coup, maybe you wouldn't. But the truth of it is that Bush took power when he was not elected in the right and proper way.
Hollowman
13-09-06, 01:43 PM
Completely with you. But the American dream is built on fair faith in the dollar, and you can't rebuild the country from the top down.
And let's face it, Rumsfeld is worth his weight in comedy gold, in a slightly terrifying I'm-chasing-Emmanuel-Goldstein sort of way.
bazza76
13-09-06, 01:59 PM
What do you guys think of this clip, it's bush being questioned about the conspiracies. Not sure if it was posted already, just wondered what you guys thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQheEOXScE
7 out of 9 said the constitution had been violated. This ruling was not overturned. They decided to stop all recounts in a separate decision made on the basis of the limited time there was to play with. Bush took power via a process where the constitution had been breached, that's the bottom line, putting aside all the accusations of a sinister and more deliberate coup.
It all depends on what you would consider a coup. In my mind, the 2000 election in the US was not just seriously flawed but was unconstitutional, and Bush should never have taken office through that sham. The way I see it he had leverage that Gore didn't and he won. I'd call it a coup, maybe you wouldn't. But the truth of it is that Bush took power when he was not elected in the right and proper way.
A majority said the constitution had been breached in the election process.
A majority then said that Bush should still be declared the winner of the election.
If the Supreme Court had decided that Bush had breached the constitution and should not be declared winner, that would also be a legit legal ruling. But that's not what the outcome was.
But the legit legal ruling that took place declared Bush to be the winner. Due process took place and the correct people ruled on the situation. So the machinations of US politics that are in place to handle such a situation, handled it. People may not have liked the outcome, but it wasn't a coup.
Also, I'm curious (genuinely) the ruling on the constitution breach... did that rule that it was specifically Bush and his guys that breached it, or that the systems were just faulty?
Hollowman
13-09-06, 02:08 PM
What do you guys think of this clip, it's bush being questioned about the conspiracies. Not sure if it was posted already, just wondered what you guys thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQheEOXScE
I'm not happy with anyone wanting me to analize anything.
bazza76
13-09-06, 02:17 PM
I'm not happy with anyone wanting me to analize anything.
ok, you could just give it a good going over instead.
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 02:26 PM
A majority said the constitution had been breached in the election process.
A majority then said that Bush should still be declared the winner of the election.
If the Supreme Court had decided that Bush had breached the constitution and should not be declared winner, that would also be a legit legal ruling. But that's not what the outcome was.
But the legit legal ruling that took place declared Bush to be the winner. Due process took place and the correct people ruled on the situation. So the machinations of US politics that are in place to handle such a situation, handled it. People may not have liked the outcome, but it wasn't a coup.
Also, I'm curious (genuinely) the ruling on the constitution breach... did that rule that it was specifically Bush and his guys that breached it, or that the systems were just faulty?
As far as I'm aware they ruled only on what had occurred not who was responsible for it. You'd think if it they had ruled Bush himself was responsible for the breaches he'd be taking it up the ass in jail somewhere instead of cracking one off in the oval office :D
I understand what you're saying about due process having taken place, but whether the Supreme Court ruled one way or another is not the determining factor in whether a coup took place. In fact one might argue it was merely the determinant as to whether the coup was successful or not.
You'd think if it they had ruled Bush himself was responsible for the breaches he'd be taking it up the ass in jail somewhere instead of cracking one off in the oval office :D
And therein lies the rub (no pun intended).
See I think we differ on what defines a coup d'etat.
The way I see it, the people who execute the coup are also the ones who breach the constitution.
Now, if the Supreme Court ruling was what decided any coup was unsuccessful, then power would not have been wrangled away. But Bush still got in to power. So surely he didn't perform a coup?
Anyway, I'm tired and I have a butt-load of work to do.
Peace out brothas.
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 02:50 PM
And therein lies the rub (no pun intended).
See I think we differ on what defines a coup d'etat.
The way I see it, the people who execute the coup are also the ones who breach the constitution.
Now, if the Supreme Court ruling was what decided any coup was unsuccessful, then power would not have been wrangled away. But Bush still got in to power. So surely he didn't perform a coup?
Anyway, I'm tired and I have a butt-load of work to do.
Peace out brothas.
Therein lies the rub you say :chunks:
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The Supreme Court haven't ruled that I shat myself as a baby but I can assure you, I did. They are not the omniscient benevolent recorders of truth many think them to be - just because the Supreme Court haven't ruled Bush and his buddies broke the constitution doesn't mean they didn't. But that's opening a whole other can of worms.
Christ, this thread was once about 9/11! :D
Don't work too hard bud, I thought you were giving it up to do more of this -> :rock: anyway?
Therein lies the rub you say :chunks:
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The Supreme Court haven't ruled that I shat myself as a baby but I can assure you, I did. They are not the omniscient benevolent recorders of truth many think them to be - just because the Supreme Court haven't ruled Bush and his buddies broke the constitution doesn't mean they didn't. But that's opening a whole other can of worms.
Christ, this thread was once about 9/11! :D
Don't work too hard bud, I thought you were giving it up to do more of this -> :rock: anyway?
Yeah, that's the plan. But I gotta have an income of some sort! So it'll be a little while before I bail to :rock:
<plays glam rock over-emotional solo on a mountain top a la Richie Sambora>
Red_Polo
13-09-06, 03:06 PM
Yeah, that's the plan. But I gotta have an income of some sort! So it'll be a little while before I bail to :rock:
<plays glam rock over-emotional solo on a mountain top a la Richie Sambora>
Hopefully you'll get there, you're stuff sounds pretty damn good to me at least. Don't forget to put your myspace link in your siggy! Keep on chooglin' dude :rock:
Hopefully you'll get there, you're stuff sounds pretty damn good to me at least. Don't forget to put your myspace link in your siggy! Keep on chooglin' dude :rock:
Thanks for the encouragement my man.
I genuinely appreciate that. :handshake:
Mattshark
13-09-06, 04:53 PM
I blame the bush family
and thatcher
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.