The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

ReefBreak

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

ReefBreak ----> LOOSE CHANGE

I look forward to watching it. What BBC programme showed that 9 of the hijackers were still alive?

DOLEMAN

ReefBreak, although it does seem odd that a missile/etc was the thing that hit the Pentagon, being so absolutely closed to the idea is a bit extreme I think.

While I don't have the "it's defo a conspiracy" view of most of the people here, I'm open to it, and do believe the current US government is capable of doing horrible things to it's own people. Remember, God speaks directly to Bush!

SpitfireIV

NoelRock I'd appreciate it if you didnt refer to me as a "Fecking conspiracy nut". Last time I checked Ireland was a free country, where we have our own opinions, and if you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubth that what happened on September 11th was all above board and there was no room for a conspiracy theory of any sort then dont put such a title on me.

Cheers

SpitfireIV

Do check it out Reef, the BBC documentary is talked about in 'Loose Change' and credited.

I'm not saying a missile did without doubth hit it, but what I dont believe are the facts. I'm leaning more to the side that something sinister happened and as Doleman said, I believe that the American goverment were capable of it.

Jammer

Now i'm not a mad conspiricy thoerist myself, but if you look at the second video on the judicial website, and look at the car, and notice its scale.

Then when the 'plane' hits, it looks only about 3 or 4 times bigger then the car. A boeing plane should look 200/300 times bigger i think.

Just a thought.

ReefBreak wrote:

I'm sorry, but the levels of intelligence really appear to have dropped since I last posted here. There is NO massive conspiracy here. The US let it's guard down, a plane was hijacked by a bunch of terrorists and flown into the Pentagon building. That's it.

Next you'll be telling me that thousands of jewish New Yorkers managed somehow to keep the 9/11 plot all to themselves and called in sick on that day. Please.

Anyone that believes any conspiracy theory about the Pentagon has no right to ever call an American "stupid". In fact, I have a tasty pyramid scheme that I think you might be interested in. No really, send your cash to:
Morons Only,
5 Idiot Street,
Thicksville,
Ireland.

ReefBreak

the BBC documentary is talked about in 'Loose Change' and credited

And what documentary was it? Do you have a name? You know, I think you'll find that the BBC would have made a much bigger deal of a documentary that stated that it had uncovered the biggest scandal in US history..."In other news, the BBC have today found alive 9 of the 9/11 hijackers. Turns out the whole thing was just a massive con by the US government to wage war in the Middle East. Here's Jane with the weather."

I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of thing that Loose Change is referring to, then you should really check your viewing habits.

Manic Moran

It does not look like one. 2. It is soo small. Its the size of a missile or a small corporate jet.

Doesn't look like anything not an airplane either.

It looks small because of perspective and the effects on lenses. If you've never been to the Pentagon (I have), you don't get a sense of scale. It's the largest single office building in the world. It's massive. Each wall is the length of an aircraft carrier. It would make a 747 look small, let alone a twin-jet.

NTM

SpitfireIV

I give up mate, lol, I've tried my best to have a civil discussion but you have your own opinions on the matter and thats fair enough of course, but you should always view a story from all sides, take in both the positive and negative aspects before you can make a final summary.

Loose Change is pretty good, and raises many questions which would make you think, I can guarnetee you that. Check it out if you have an hour and twenty mins to spare

Good luck,

CroppyBoy1798

Dirk Gently

meh, doesn't prove anything one way or another.

This video wont stop any of the conspiracy theories. It is amazing that there is no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, considering what the building actually is. Would have thought there would be 100's of cameras covering the building and surronding area for security reasons. Just one video showing the plane would put all of this to rest. The lack of any plane wreckage around the building is also amazing.

dloob

You'd be surprised what even a field can do to an airplane never mind a military building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eagle_4184_crashsite.jpg

Unless it's the 5 jew bankers behind it all.

meepins

watched the videos .. no plane in sight suprise suprise.

dogbert_the_dog

Solid grounds for a conspiracy theory here... portions of a video released into the public domain by a privately funded self appointed bunch of moral guardians ('non-partisan', of course, what possible reason could there be to doubt their own PR), rebroadcast by television media.
No chance any of these organisations could be peddling horses**t, or have any agenda other than to keep us all honestly informed. Unlike the US government (or any government it would seem) who apparently exist solely for the purpose of lying to their populations.

GospelGroupie

You remind me of that Fr. Ted sketch where they are in the caravan and Ted is trying to explain perspectives to Dougal. You know the scene with the cows?
Anyway, perspectives.... yes. The car was near the camera, the plane was far away. Actually how far? Very. Again, as ReefBreak said, each face of the Pentagon is the size of a hanger, larger even. Talking BIG here. Anyway, the shot of the big Boeing crashing into the Pentagon that you see... well that plane is far away. Hence it looks small.

Understand yet?

billy the squid

For personal abuse towards other users, you have earned a week off reefbreak

tunaman

dogbert_the_dog wrote:

Solid grounds for a conspiracy theory here... portions of a video released into the public domain by a privately funded self appointed bunch of moral guardians ('non-partisan', of course, what possible reason could there be to doubt their own PR), rebroadcast by television media.
No chance any of these organisations could be peddling horses**t, or have any agenda other than to keep us all honestly informed. Unlike the US government (or any government it would seem) who apparently exist solely for the purpose of lying to their populations.

Exactly, it's all just part of the cover-up, which without the media doing their part wouldn't be possible.

Just saw the bloke from judicialwatch on that o reilly lads show claiming his reason for wanting to tapes released was to shut up the conspiracy theorists, and this is now the definitive proof flight 77 hit the pentagon. Then o reilly jumped in with the usual line, well we all know they're nutjobs anyway.

Name calling really is their only defence, which shows just how weak and pathetic their stance is. If they had any credibility they would have been asking some real questions a long time ago.

Everybody should check out this video, at 7:35 there is footage of Senator Mark Dayton asking just a few of these uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6323427897709690102&q=painful+deception

Is he just another nutjob o reilly?

Some people just can't face the facts.

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

Everybody should check out this video, at 7:35 there is footage of Senator Mark Dayton asking just a few of these uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6323427897709690102&q=painful+deception

Is he just another nutjob o reilly?

Some people just can't face the facts.

Good Lord, that's a 90 minute video. I didn't think it was possible to listen to so much tripe. I'm amazed it was even made. (Have you noticed how it's usually the same narrator on all these informational videos?)

You will note that Senator Dayton is not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to commit 9/11, or of knowledge ahead of time. He is accusing people of perhaps screwing up by the numbers, and then definitely lying about it afterwards, presumably to cover their asses.

Ergo, no, I don't think that O'Reilly's nutjob epithet applies to him, as I don't believe him to be a conspiracy theorist.

NTM

ReefBreak

To all those who think there was no plane involved in the 9/11 explosion: where are all the people that were on that plane? On a desert island somewhere? NO, because they were killed on Sep 11 when their plane went into the Pentagon.

You should all read this: The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

"Meyssan never does explain fully what happened to the 64 passengers who died aboard Flight 77, despite the positive forensic identification at the crash site. Media commentator Barbara Olsen was just one of several passengers who made cell phone calls to loved ones reporting that the plane had been hijacked. No doubt the families of the victims would be thrilled to hear that their relatives didn't really perish that day, but are being hidden in a CIA safe house somewhere."

RedPlanet

I think this latest video is more bunk.

1) i don't believe for one minute that those are the only pictures they have of whatever struck the pentagon. Try and get near any US Embassy, you'll be monitored from mulitple angles yet we are to believe the the nerve centre of the US armed forces can only produce sh*tty grainy picutures of one side of the Pentagon? C'mon for christsakes.

2) It took a Freedom of Information order and how many years? To get them to release a blurry photo of a "nose cone"? WTF

3) My guess is that this latest stunt is more to test the mainstream media, not to challenge the general public. I reckon they're releasing this to see who in the media is on side and who isn't.
Just listen to the media, we have the Washington Post with an article titled "Videotapes Dispel Conspiracy", my arse.

Untense

Manic Moran wrote:

You will note that Senator Dayton is not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to commit 9/11, or of knowledge ahead of time. He is accusing people of perhaps screwing up by the numbers, and then definitely lying about it afterwards, presumably to cover their asses.

Of course he is not accusing anyone of conspiracy, he's a Senator. Most Americans get violent if you even suppose their government could have a hand in the incident.

Ergo, no, I don't think that O'Reilly's nutjob epithet applies to him, as I don't believe him to be a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracy theorists are nutjobs?
ERGO the United States Government are nutjobs, because they started a war based on a Conspiracy Theory.

Or do you still think there are Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq ? :rolleyes:
Which still begs the question, how and why did they jump from Afghanistan to Iraq ?

I suppose you quietly dismissed it like everyone else. Simple fact is nobody wants to believe something as inconvenient as the fact that the United States government is corrupt and evil.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

NoelRock I'd appreciate it if you didnt refer to me as a "Fecking conspiracy nut". Last time I checked Ireland was a free country, where we have our own opinions,

Should that not then mean he's freely entitled to be of the opinion that you're a fecking conspiracy nut?

It seems that you're saying he's not allowed to have or express his opinion on this matter....whilst saying the reason he's not allowed to do so is because people should be freely allowed to have and express their opinions on whatever matters they choose.

Seems suspiciously like a double-standard.

and if you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubth that what happened on September 11th was all above board and there was no room for a conspiracy theory of any sort then dont put such a title on me.

What would it take?

No, seriously.

I'm curious - how do you set the bar of "prove beyond a shadow of doubt" in this case?

The reason I'm asking is twofold:

1) If you can't set the bar, then what you're basically saying is that you cannot be convinced that the official story is true. Once thats the case, then what you've basically declared is that there is no such thing for you as a standard of proof. You'll believe what you want to believe, and evidence be damned. This, of course, then leads on to questioning the basis on which you reject the official theory and on which you accept any alternates that you may accept.

and

2) If you can set the bar, then I'd ask you subsequently if you apply the same standard of proof to all alternate theories, as well as all allegations that there is a cover-up, or that someone is lying (as opposed to merely being wrong).

Basically, I'm willing to bet that just like your "You can't express an opinion because we should be free to express oru opinions" argument, your response to this second point will also contain a self-contradiction or inconsistency

Inconsistency, of course, is why the US administration is "clearly" lieing in this case, attempting a cover-up, and so forth. So what would your use of the same flaw indicate, of not the same?

jc

bonkey

Untense wrote:

Most Americans get violent if you even suppose their government could have a hand in the incident.

Sure they do.

Simple fact is nobody wants to believe something as inconvenient as the fact that the United States government is corrupt and evil.

Thats neither simple nor a fact.

jc

HelterSkelter

ReefBreak wrote:

I agree he is "proper thick", but I'd say his spelling and grammer is a lot better than yours.

If you have to resort to slagging someone's spelling then you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

Louisiana

ive posted this on the other thread too, its a summery of the 90 min video........interesting.
suspecting a cover up doesnt make anyone a "conspiracy nut". if no one asks questions no one gets answers.


http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Untense

Yea, I don't understand why some people on this forum are so closed minded to ideas.

Here's a video they won't release.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

So Glad

ReefBreak wrote:

To all those who think there was no plane involved in the 9/11 explosion: where are all the people that were on that plane? On a desert island somewhere? NO, because they were killed on Sep 11 when their plane went into the Pentagon.

You should all read this: The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

That is tripe. A collection of sarcastic brush-offs and no attempt to correct what we are trying to prove. For christ sake it says that "of course planes flew into the WTC, not to mention the phone calls made on the planes" (phone calls that simply COULD NOT have been made. FACT) for christ sake who writes this ****?

civdef

It's the same few people that keep coming back with their "proof" that there's a big conspiracy at work. It doesn't matter when anyone debunks whole chunks of their theories (like the melting steel nonsense), they just change tack for a while, then switch back to the previous theory when they think everyone has forgotten about the inconvenient facts that mnake it look as stupid as it is.

On previous occasions on other threads I've tried my best to provide some facts and science to illustrate how these conspiracies are based on a sound core of ignorance and misunderstanding, but since that seems to have little effect on the die-hard conspiracy nuts, I've decided instead to just point and laugh, and perhaps suggest that mental health professionals might be worth talking to.

growler

Untense wrote:

Yea, I don't understand why some people on this forum are so closed minded to ideas.

Here's a video they won't release.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

who isn't releasing this particular video (the one you link to above on the public interweb) ?

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

I'm going to need more tinfoil.

RedPlanet

civdef wrote:

It's the same few people that keep coming back with their "proof" that there's a big conspiracy at work. It doesn't matter when anyone debunks whole chunks of their theories (like the melting steel nonsense), they just change tack for a while, then switch back to the previous theory when they think everyone has forgotten about the inconvenient facts that mnake it look as stupid as it is.

On previous occasions on other threads I've tried my best to provide some facts and science to illustrate how these conspiracies are based on a sound core of ignorance and misunderstanding, but since that seems to have little effect on the die-hard conspiracy nuts, I've decided instead to just point and laugh, and perhaps suggest that mental health professionals might be worth talking to.

well, on the other hand some people just are lackeys for government and ms media propaganda. Going around always defending anything the government says or does, never the one to question authority. Pathetic cowardly types says i.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

(phone calls that simply COULD NOT have been made. FACT) for christ sake who writes this ****?

is right.

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

So apparently what you refer to as "FACT" is perhaps more correctly described as the **** that you're wondering about the authorship of.

jc

Untense

growler wrote:

who isn't releasing this particular video (the one you link to above on the public interweb) ?

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

I'm going to need more tinfoil.

Well maybe you can account as to how Building number 7 (the third, 47 story building that conviently is never shown on the TV) also managed to completely collapse in exactly the same was at the other two buildings. This building did not get struck by a plane.

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

well, on the other hand some people just are lackeys for government and ms media propaganda. Going around always defending anything the government says or does, never the one to question authority. Pathetic cowardly types says i.

Indeed.

One need only look back over the Politics forum to see the incessant armies of lackeys blindly supporting the Administration and not once questioning anything they say or do.

Indeed, its a struggle to find anyone on this entire boards system who isn't like that, with the exception of those who lend their support to the 911-is-all-a-cover-up-no-matter-what-you-say "open-minded" types.

My research on this is backed, naturally, by trained professionals who say its IMPOSSIBLE that it could be otherwise, and if you don't believe me you can see for yourself. I can even supply carefully-edited excerpts to back up the TRUTH of my FACTS.

jc

civdef

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

bonkey

civdef wrote:

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

Well clearly you're only listening to the established corrupt mainstream experts and not the established credible ones.

It should be a giveaway from the oblique "civil" reference in your username. Clearly you are a three-letter-government-agency shill, and these experts you claim to have listened to are either an official cover story or on the same payroll as yourself.

Hey...I could get the hang of this...its pretty easy.

jc

Untense

civdef wrote:

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

Happily, can you provide me with any quick links ?

bonkey

Untense wrote:

This building did not get struck by a plane.

Indeed. It got hit by bits of two larger buildings which in turn had gotten hit by a plane each.

Untense

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. It got hit by bits of two larger buildings which in turn had gotten hit by a plane each.

Really?

here's a picture of building number 7 collapsing.

Can you point to where the other two buildings are imposing on it ?
http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

SpitfireIV

bonkey wrote:

Should that not then mean he's freely entitled to be of the opinion that you're a fecking conspiracy nut?

Sure he is, I said I'd 'prefer' if he didnt call me that, you know....a bit of common courtesy.....respecting my opinion too.....not reverting to name calling etc etc....its called manners.

As for the rest of your questions, I feel there is no need to explain myself and be critasied by you, as I seen from previous posts here that you arent willing to listen to the other side of the story but are sticking to your own rigid facts. I have my beliefs, you have yours.

Cheers,

CroppyBoy1798

growler

Untense wrote:

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

I do quite often find myself laughing at "proven" and "established" "experts" when they are clearly nutjobs. One can find an "expert" to back up any theory you want, ID, Moon Bases, Zionist Conspiracy, God, Lizard Nazis in Antartic ......whatever particular brand of delusion you wish to pursue. I chose to disbelieve them when making an informed judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes, I saw planes hit the towers (albeit on a lizard controlled TV station with a possibly Jewish cameraman) and came to the conclusion that, that impact most probably caused them to fall down. Further reading revealed that I was not alone in making this leap of faith and that it seems the majority of experts also had come to the same conclusion.

civdef

Is it really that hard to believe the following sequence of events?

Big plane hits tall building -> Building burns-> building falls down.

bonkey

Untense wrote:

Really?

Yes. Really.

here's a picture of building number 7 collapsing.

So it is.

Can you point to where the other two buildings are imposing on it ?
http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

Can you point out the south face of the building in that building? The one that was actually facing the two towers? The one thats on the other side of what that photo shows? The one that was obscured by the fires etc. of WTC 1 and 2 after they collapsed? The one that would have been hit by falling debris?

No, I didn't think so.

So lets just look at this. I suggest that falling debris would/could/did hit the building. You show me what is analagous to a shot of someone's back and ask me to show where I can show that they have a sucking chest wound.

Its alright though, you're in good company. Almost everyone who contends the WTC7 was a demolition-job seems to offer the "you can clearly tell from his back that his chest wasn't caved in" line of reasoning in one form or another.

I guess i just can't approach things with an open mind, apparently, which is presumably why I can't "obviously" conclude what I want to from the lack of evidence.

layke

ReefBreak wrote:

I'm sorry, but the levels of intelligence really appear to have dropped since I last posted here. There is NO massive conspiracy here. The US let it's guard down, a plane was hijacked by a bunch of terrorists and flown into the Pentagon building. That's it.

Next you'll be telling me that thousands of jewish New Yorkers managed somehow to keep the 9/11 plot all to themselves and called in sick on that day. Please.

Anyone that believes any conspiracy theory about the Pentagon has no right to ever call an American "stupid". In fact, I have a tasty pyramid scheme that I think you might be interested in. No really, send your cash to:
Morons Only,
5 Idiot Street,
Thicksville,
Ireland.

I'm am really sorry I have been sucked into this one but hey.

There is no clear evidence to support what Bush and his gov say, in fact every story I have heard has more holes then swiss cheese.

So I can also say that anyone who believes what bush says is a total idiot.

Look the fact is we don't know what went on and I have a little trouble believeing what Bush and his cronies are trying to feed me. Hell if I believed everything our gov told me i'd be waiting on the next gen e-voting machines.

silverharp

Bonkey - thanks for the 911 myth site , I was curious about WTC7 as it rarely gets mentioned in the press.

Stand back and look at the big picture though I still find it nigh on impossible to believe that a conspiracy that would run to hundreds of people could be kept under raps for long, creating remote controlled jets, wiring the twin towers to blow up after being hit by planes (if I saw that in a movie I would walk out straight away)

The lack of clarity from the US gov comes down to ass covering, nobody wants to take the blame for this but even this is a fallacy as no organisation can deal with this level of random events, there is a hindsight bias at work here on behalf of the media etc looking for scapegoats.

Untense

growler wrote:

I do quite often find myself laughing at "proven" and "established" "experts" when they are clearly nutjobs. One can find an "expert" to back up any theory you want, ID, Moon Bases, Zionist Conspiracy, God, Lizard Nazis in Antartic ......whatever particular brand of delusion you wish to pursue. I chose to disbelieve them when making an informed judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes, I saw planes hit the towers (albeit on a lizard controlled TV station with a possibly Jewish cameraman) and came to the conclusion that, that impact most probably caused them to fall down. Further reading revealed that I was not alone in making this leap of faith and that it seems the majority of experts also had come to the same conclusion.

Clearly this man is a nutjob? Because he has a different opinion of what happened?
Simple facts are stated in the video, did you watch it or were you too busy laughing?

Here are some more simple facts.

burning temperature of jet fuel
http://worldaerodata.com/mb/msg/606.html

Jet fuel versus melting point of steel
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/14715/jet_fuel_versus_steel_and_concrete

Some more stuff on jet fuel.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm


Maybe the fires didn't destroy the towers and it was the collission that caused the collapse?


here are some more facts to laugh at.

The tower was designed to withstand the equivalent forces of tornadoes or jet planes...
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyerp.pdf

Untense

bonkey wrote:

Can you point out the south face of the building in that building? The one that was actually facing the two towers? The one thats on the other side of what that photo shows? The one that was obscured by the fires etc. of WTC 1 and 2 after they collapsed? The one that would have been hit by falling debris?

No, I didn't think so.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=255

al Jazeera also mentions the cover up of evidence that took place after the collapse of the trade towers.



There you go. You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Bonkey - thanks for the 911 myth site

You're welcome. What I like about the site is that the author/authors takes/take a similar stance to me. Its not about proving the official story. Its about showing that the alternate theories are nowhere near as credible as you'd be led to believe.

Indeed, in general when you see someone telling you to do the research and keep an open mind, what they're really saying is "don't do the research. I've already done it and you can trust me". These guys are generally only ever offering what the alternate-theorists choose not to tell you - the other half of the quote, the other analysis, or the limitations/flaws in their expert testimony.

The lack of clarity from the US gov comes down to ass covering,

Definitely in part. Its also, in part, how they work. they have a habit of suppressing from public release as much as possible, to make it more difficult to figure out which bits are the ones you shoudl go after. The tape released yesterday is a prime example (although its interesting to note the FoI request - although possibly not the subsequent court case - did include a request for the other tapes which haven't been released).

I wouldn't also entirely rule out that some pressure has been brought to suppress / diminish in importance / alter some facts, despite the apparent scorn I heap (at times) on some allegations of what those facts are.

Lets consider that WTC was the unsuccessful target of a bomb attack some years ago. What if the post-bombing assessments showed more damage than was officially released at the time, whatever the reason? Couldn't be admitting that after the towers fell, even if said damage was a contributing factor, right?

Or what if the building methodology wasn't quite as superlative as we're led to believe? Or if some corners were cut on material quality during construction? Or if any of the "normal" forms of corruption that we hear about incessantly had taken place? Would that make a difference?

We hear the building was designed to withstand an impact from a plane of this size....but said modelling was done well before we had computers actually capable of carrying out such modelling in such detail...so just how certain are we that the design was that good? And how well was it modelled?

In the aftermath of the WTC collapse, the Bush administration apparently focussed more on reopening the likes of Wall Street for business than they did for taking care of the first responders. Official Disaster response policy is now, I believe, that such care is paramount except when the national economy is at stake.

My belief ultimately is that if there is a contributing factor to why any of the WTC collapses occurred other than the events of the day it is most likely a case that they were either known about and suppressed/ignored beforehand, or should have been known beforehand but weren't....and that there is a degree of culpability that someone doesn't want attributed.

However, in the absence of anything supporting such a concept, I acknowledge that it is nothing but idle speculation. I'm still not convinced that there had to be additional factors in the first place.

And if you want a "proper" conspiracy theory....this whole set of theories could just as equally be a bait-and-switch to keep the government-skeptics looking at the wrong events and missing the real conspiracies.

SpitfireIV

With regard to WTC7, after 9/11 in an interview Larry Silverstein told the interviewer that he gave the order to 'pull it', ie knock the building, therefore it took the fire department, or demolition experts a couple of hours to pull off a perfect controlled demolition when it would take a profession demolition team weeks to carry it out.


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein

What fires? The ones on floors 9 and 14? :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Anyway back on topic

Let's pretend for a moment that the new images released by the Pentagon really does show the nose cone of a commercial jet.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

HelterSkelter

RedPlanet wrote:

Anyway back on topic

Let's pretend for a moment that the new images released by the Pentagon really does show the nose cone of a commercial jet.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

There is supposed to be footage of the plane hitting the Peantgon from a nearby service station but the footage was confiscated on the same day.

growler

Untense wrote:

There you go. You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

does that work both ways ?

bonkey

Untense wrote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=255


There you go.

There I go....where?

There are three images on that page.

One shows WTC7 with a collapsing tower behind it. So again, you're showing me the face of the building that was away from the towers.

The second pic shows the same north face as usual.

So its still pics of the back and asking to show the sucking chest wound.

The third pic was taken mid-collapse when the first tower went, so at best its a shot of the chest before the wound woul dhave occurred and asking to see it.

Its a well-established fact that there is no footage of the south face showing whether or not there was damage. There are a handful of shots which show the very corner of the building (West/South I think) which do show damage, but even they are not conclusive, as the damage (according to the eye-witness testimony that NIST wants pictorial evidence to back up or refute) was allegedly to teh center fo the building.

And see, there's another important difference right there. NIST has eyewitness testimony, but desperately wants it confirmed or denied by something more solid. Look at how eyewitness is treated on your side of the fence, and you'll find instead a broad range of techniques such as quoting out of context, using partial quotes, insisting that peopel don't just make things up, that these are experts who know what they're talking about etc.

NIST - the people still investigating WTC7 - have a model which explains the collapse, backed up by eyewitness testimony and they still made a public request for people to come forward with pictures/video if they had it because they were not happy with the level of proof they had obtained and wanted visual evidence to support or contradict it.

They're right not to be happy, because they know (as I do) that the lack of said pictures is exactly what will be used to rubbish their findings by those who are predisposed to believe something else. Indeed, thats one of the main criticisms the alternatists have already levelled at NISTs theories - that the lack of pictorial evidence means there's no way they could know this.

Strange how some alternate-theorists base arguments on this lack of evidence, whilst others (like yourself) seem to think it exists. Its almost as if there's dissention in the ranks - as though you haven't all studied your facts well enough to have a consistent story. Couldn't be, could it?

You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

Every time someone presents me with evidence on this issue, I evaluate it and see whether or not its addressing the point I've made. Just as I've done with your link above.

You, on the other hand, are running around telling em that I can't be right while failing to show me any evidence to explain why I'm wrong.

You may be confusing which one of us has an open mind here and which one of us could do with one.

You may also be confusing either which one of us has researched this more thoroughly (given that you don't seem to know there is a lack of pictures/video of the south face) or you do know it and are being deliberately disingenuous.