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

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

You are trying to claim that the only physical evidence available, can only be used in the way you and NIST want it to be used...

Its not a case of how one wants it to be used. Its a case of understanding the limitations of how it can be used.

They are forced to resort to speculation that the steel got any hotter than 250C, which is a tactic conspiracy theorists are always accused of...

Yes, and no. They are forced to resort to a number of techniques other than direct measuring, for a number of reasons that make direct measuring an inappropriate method for the scenario in question.

What they did not do, despite your insistences, is just speculate as to what the temperatures were.

That added sentence you are talking about basically resorts to pleading, which is exactly what you are doing now...

Not rising to yet another personal attack, no, its not pleading on their part. Its cautioning. Its making clear that the sample is not sufficiently representative to draw meaningful conclusions about the whole. If you disagree, then I would suggest the onus is on you to show why their claim is statistically false, rather than this insistence that it "clearly" is.

In effect they want people to ignore the extremely limited physical evidence available,

They don't want you to ignore it. They want you to use it for what it is worth, rather than using it for what you want to use it for.

So what evidence are they basing this conclusion on?

I thought you said you were familiar with the NIST report? How is it that you can tell me their estimations are invalid, wrong, or just wild specation, and then turn around and tell me that you don't actually know what it is you're attacking.

So as well as misrepresenting some of the information, you now seem to be saying that you don't know the rest of the details about how the conclusions were obtained.

This would suggest that what you've done is simply copy-and-paste someone else's misuse of this data. You don't know why their caution is valid. You don't know how they actually managed to obtain their figures.

But despite all of this, you claim to know that its all wrong.

No it's not.

All you've managed to do in this post is clarify that you don't even know why its misrepresentation - claiming that their caution is just a "please don't do what we don't want you to" plea, as opposed to a valid statistical observation about the usefulness of the direct physical data.

What NIST have done is not only misrepresent the evidence,

Gosh. A claim of misrepresentation. That's original. Tit-for-tat, eh? I accuse you of misrepresentation, and your reply is that you're not misrepresenting the stuff you don't know the details of...they are misrepresenting it in the first place.

What next? You'll respond to my request that you show the validity of your claims with a "no, you prove yours"??? What are you trying to accomplish here - use proimary-school-playground tactics to show you should be taken seriously? How does that work, exactly?

but they have completely ignored all the evidence which strongly suggests demolition...

You keep referring to all of this "strongly suggestive" evidence, but singularly fail to produce any of it. EWverything you've produced has been criticised for flaws, and your ultimate response seems just to be to attack myself, OB, and anyone else doing the criticising for disinformation-spreading rather than explaining why we're wrong. Hell, you won't even rise to challenges where I tell you how to show we're wrong, nor explain why what I ask you to do is unreasonable....other than just attack it in the vaguest terms possible.

Nothing to say about the claims made by the demolition expert, about building 7 definitely being a controlled demolition, in this video?

How many times do I have to repeat my stance on WTC 7? Let me try one last time...

It is impossible for me to defend the official explanation for WTC 7, given that it has yet to be published.

<edit>
I take it, incidentally, this means you are going to withdraw all of your complaints about "appealing to authority" being a deceitful, invalid method of reasoning, and will address all the points you dodged using said complaint?

Or could you instead explain why this demolition expert isn't an authority on what he's talking about?

I don't mind which you do, but to do neither would be to suggest a double-standard - that you can appeal to authority when it suits you to do so, but that its invalid for others to do so.
</edit>

They brought up many facts which were completely ignored by the other side...

The word is "claims", not "facts", until you establish otherwise. Calling them facts is simply loading the claim with false authority.

Besides, in a time-limited debate, its a trivial matter to bombard the other side with claims and then claim victory on the ground that they didn't answer all of them. Unfortunately, its not terribly indicative.

Imagine, for example, if we each had one post here, with the 10,000 character limit. Lets say I go first. I can guarantee that in 10,000 characters I can ask more questions than you can answer in the same amount of space. Does that make me the winner? If you went first, you could do likewise, would that make you the winner?

Or does it just mean that the number of points not responded to can only be taken in context with the number raised and the time available to answer them?

The PM lads were resorting to the usual avoidance tactics during the whole debate,

It doesn't get any weaker than that...

I guess we'll just have to disagree on how we viewed the interview.

I saw people refusing to get drawn into loaded questions....you saw people using avoidance tactics.

I saw one side asking more questions than could be answered in the timeframe. You saw the other side failing to answer questions.

I notice also that you have a problem with the Holocaust-denier point (which I agree had no place in the debate) but don't pass comment on the end-to-end accusations of lying and other abusive tactics that the LC boys engaged in prior to this point being made.....as if its ok to goad the PM guys, but unacceptable for them to rise to the bait and respond in kind.

Clearly we judge by differing standards.

So Glad

Hmm. I could read all the arguements and personal attacks that this thread has become but I will just talk about how I feel and hopefully bring the big picture back. Having not posted about this theory for quite some time, I have had thought and researched this more thoroughly. So here goes.

First of all, 19 "Terrorists" board a plane with intent to hijack and kill thousands of people because they hate their freedoms. 10-20 minutes or so after take-off the planes lose contact with ground radio, signalling the obvious. Normal procedures operated by NORAD require that as soon as radio contact is lost with an aircraft, NORAD have to send out jets to assist this craft, be it to a safe place to crash or to asses any terrorist threat. This happens regularly throughout America every year. Planes were never scrambled until it was too late and the planes had already done their job. NORAD Stood-Down.

What was the air-force doing? Why could they not do what they do regularly? The reason is that the air-force was conducting "war-games" that outlined such simulations as terrorists hijacking aircraft with intent to fly them into buildings. Sounds familiar. The reason there was no response was because they didn't know if it was real or not. One pilot even asks "Is this real-world or exsercise?". Such uncanny war-games repeat themselves on July 7th in London, causing much confusion again.

I am not going into how the buildings fell because that is of personal speculation and varies from person to person too much to bother with. Even before 9/11 there is evidence that the US government KNEW this was imminent and such evidence was ignored. In my opinion, this was allowed to happen to initiate the American wet-dream of human control by fear and their Orwellian agenda. In other words (or in an official government plan available on the internet) "The Project For A New American Century".

There is no speculation because they has said it themselves.

bonkey

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml

FBI release the CITGO security camera video tape to judicialwatch. Consistent with their claims prior to release, the tape does not capture the attack on the Pentagon.

There's a number of ways of looking at this:

1) its a fake
2) because it doesn't show what some believe it should, it supports the claim that there was no plane
3) its original, and the claim that it didn't capture the event are correct.

Its worth noting there are two dates visible on the tape.

One is 01-01-93, which with some other information is in a large font - overwriting some of the text at the bottom of some camera feeds. It is possible that this is from whatever was used to post-process the tape to blur sections of the screen (the portion which showed customers in identifiable close-up according to what I've read).

The other is a full time-date stamp, down to minutes and seconds, in the top-centre of the picture, in a font consistent with what is under the cameras. This reads 09-11-01. Around 4:44 into the released section, there appears to be a flash in the upper right-hand corner, followed by people apparently going outside, with a timestamp of (I think) 09:40, which would be 3 minutes out with when the crash happened.

The resolution on Youtube is pretty crappy, but JudicialWatch's own conclusion is that the doesn't show anything.

<edit>
To be honest, without CSI-style "infinite resoution" on a security camera, where a single-pixel blur can be resolved into a face, from where we can read a number-plate reflected in the sunglasses being worn....this tape was never going to show anything.
</edit>

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15775



01/01/93? (time on teh tape) Wierd. I'd never bother to put in the proper time on my security cameras probably, (if i had one) but if any of the footage was to be used in the prosecution of a robber or such, it would probably be deemed unsuitable for evidence for the case!!

Apologies to Nick - missed this post before I posted my own.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Nothing to say about the claims made by the demolition expert, about building 7 definitely being a controlled demolition, in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&eurl=

Lest I be accused of dodging this...and because tunaman did provide some information seperate to the clip rather than just saying "its good"....

We don't know what the expert (and let's accept he is one - I'm sure you can dig out credentials, right?) was shown. We don't know what clips, and whether or not they included the penthouse collapse which occurred some seconds before the main collapse. We don't know what post-collapse pictures he was shown. We don't know what information he was given when, in the middle of the clip, they discussed "all the other possibilities" with him.

We can assume he was given information of the FEMA report, although it is an "overlay" clip. We don't know however, if he was given any information of the NIST working theory, nor of the fact that the building had a unique construction which appears to have had some "single point of failure" weaknesses in its unusual load-bearing design.

In short, what we can conclude from this video is that when given some unknown quantity of information about the event, an apparent expert can be led to support the conclusion of controlled demolition.

What we can also conclude is the following :

1) The eplosives expert talks about how one would bring down such a building - by cutting the base supports. He is not seen to express a need for squibs, nor is he seen to detect their allegedly obvious occurrence during the collapse.

2) Towards the end of the clip, as he discovers there were uncontrolled fires in the building, he starts to see problems with his hypothesis. This is consistent with the notion that he has formed his hypothesis on a limited sub-set of information, and is reviewing it as further information becomes available. It also shows that by the end of the clip, he has admitted to there being unanswered questions asked by his hypothesis.

He was contacted yesterday by a stunned official story promoter, who was posing as a journalist for the Washington post looking for a quote. :rolleyes:

He was then given this on the record quote by Mr. Jowenko...

"due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition".

Where does this come from, by the way? None of that is in the youtube video.

I ask because I'm curious as to how he knew about any intelligence operations given how little he knew about WTC 7 at the outset (which we can reasonably surmise by the fact that he didn't know it collapsed on 9/11 and that this is what he was seeing).

It seems somewhat suspicious that someone allegedly supporting the official version of events would be giving him this information, as it is entirely spurious to said version.

It is also curious that by the end of the video clip, Mr. Jowenko is admitting to being baffled by certain facts, but yet somehow goes on to make such an apparently definitive statement. One wonders how he has explained away his uncertainty.

In short, I don't see anything earth-shattering in this clip. If the guy had full information, unslanted by any agenda, and his expertise in explosives is directly relevant, then he bears listening to and I'd hope to see him defend his stance. Do we know any of these three things to be facts yet? No.

<edit>
Now that I've done my bit, do you have anything to say about this video clip?
</edit>

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

Apologies to Nick - missed this post before I posted my own.

No bothers, i didnt see the other time (9/11) when i was looking at the tape. As i was in a bit of a rush at the time to put it up.

Diogenes

Tunaman and squaddie et all would like to present the 911 "truth" movement, as valiant knights wielding the sword of truth against the dragon of "gubivment". A digital Woodward and Bernstein, with Youtube and Google video as their deep throat.

The motives and ideology of the people in the 911 truth movement are never questioned, the reasons they present their argument is rarely explained. Surely if we're going to spend hours laboriously examining the people they claim are behind the conspiracy, how turn of phrases, by the owner of WTC are analysed endlessly, then perhaps we should spend a short while examining the motives of those spreading the conspiracy theories?

Lyndon LaRouche. Millionaire. Founder of the LaRouchian Movement. Virulent Anti Semitic.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the LaRouchites built an international network for spying and propaganda, with links to the upper levels of government, business, and organized crime. The LaRouchites traded information with intelligence agencies in the United States, South Africa, East Germany, and elsewhere. Their dirty tricks record included harassment campaigns against the United Auto Workers and the United Steelworkers of America in the 1970s. In 1980, they branded George Bush an agent of the Trilateral Commission to help Ronald Reagan win the Republican presidential nomination, and in 1984, they helped Jesse Helms retain his U.S. Senate seat by gay-baiting his opponent. During the 1980s, the LaRouchites raised an estimated $200 million through legal and illegal fund-raising and fielded thousands of candidates for political office in every region of the country. Seeking the George Wallace vote, the LaRouche candidates usually ran in Democratic primaries.[2]

In the 1970s, the LaRouchites’ anti-Jewish propaganda was relatively explicit, as in LaRouche’s 1978 article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," which declared that "The B’Nai B’rith today resurrects the tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ , the Jews who pleaded with Nero to launch the ´holocaust´ against the Christians."[5] Gradually the LaRouchites developed increasingly sophisticated ways to invoke antisemitic themes while still maintaining deniability.

The LaRouchites borrowed conspiracist elements from various sources to produce their own Manichean picture of world history. For thousands of years, they argued, the good "humanists" had been locked in a power struggle with a vast conspiracy of evil "oligarchs." In ancient times, the oligarchic conspiracy was centered in Babylon; later it shifted to Venice; in modern times it was centered in Britain’s royal House of Windsor. This narrative evoked standard elements of antisemitic doctrine: that Jews had dominated ancient Babylon and that Jewish banking families controlled the British government. Sometimes the LaRouchites highlighted prominent Jews as members of the conspiracy, such as "[Henry] Kissinger ’s friends, the Rothschild family, and other representatives of Britain’s financial power." At other times, they portrayed Jews as unwitting tools of the oligarchs, as for example, "Zionism is that state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of international Jewry."[6]

Both quotes from here
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/synthesis.html

Here's an interesting book about LaRouche;

Lyndon Larouche and the new american fascism"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385238800/102-7186697-0338506?v=glance&n=283155

The LaRouchian Movement is often described as a cult
http://www.rickross.com/groups/larouche.html


And from yesterdays Observer.

n the days before his death, the gifted student from Golders Green, north-west London, had become involved with the Wiesbaden-based followers of Lyndon LaRouche, an American millionaire with virulent anti-Semitic views. An internal Scotland Yard report describes the German group as possessing 'sinister [and] dangerous connections'.

Unaware of the group's anti-Semitic leanings, the former pupil of Christ's Hospital school told followers that he was Jewish. At 4.20am on 27 March 2003 Duggan rang his mother and told her he was 'under too much pressure'. Minutes later he rang back, his voice hushed and nervous. 'Mum, I am in deep trouble,' he said.

Asked where he was, Duggan began spelling out Wiesbaden. Before he could reach 'b' the phone went dead. Three hours later police were called to investigate reports of a body on the B455 outside Wiesbaden. The authorities quickly pronounced Duggan's death as a 'clear case' of suicide. It is a verdict which Canning believes must now be questioned.

Concerns also surround claims by German investigators that a deep dent on the front right hand door of the Peugeot marked the spot where Duggan struck the vehicle. Canning believes such an indentation is unlikely to have been made by a human.

He said: 'In my opinion, this dent is more likely to have been caused by contact from a heavy instrument, or even another vehicle. I do not believe that the damage to either vehicle was caused by the impact of Jerry's body.' Inexplicably, both cars were moved before Berg photographed the scene.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1874252,00.html

Fun guy and a fun bunch of people.

Now I hear Tunaman and Squaddie getting all indignant. "What’s this guy and these guys got to do with teh conspiracy?". Webster Tarpley, is the answer. Did either of you go to Tarpley's talk in Doyles on Friday? Webster was speaking at the invite of the 911truth.ie group. Tarpley, for the uninformed, is a senior member of the the 9/11 truth movement and has written several books on the subject. Tarpley, also is/was an active leading member of Larouche's organisation / cult for at least 20 years, including standing (and being debarred) for Larouche in democratic party primaries, being leader of Larouche's "Schiller Institute" and hosting his radio show for 5 years.

Onto David Shayler, David leader of the UK 9/11 truth movement, has in an article I linked to on Friday; gone on the record saying

David Shayler wrote:

"There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11."

Now David offers no evidence for this fact, (any more than he offers any more evidence for holographic planes), but it's clear at least several senior members of the 9/11 truth movement has an ulterior motive and agenda. And keep this is mind, this from earlier;

Gradually the LaRouchites developed increasingly sophisticated ways to invoke antisemitic themes while still maintaining deniability.

Remember those early rumours about "No Jews" came to work in the twin towers on 9/11? The arguments about the theories have been revised and polished, and improved upon since that simple lie.

Hitler blamed the Jews for the burning of the Reichstag, and a late 19th conspiracy theory fueled his anti Semitism, "the protocols of the Elders of Zion". Considered the blueprint of modern conspiracy theories.

Now I'm certainly not claiming that anyone posting conspiracy theories on this thread is anti Semitic. However I suggest that before you watch or read any of these theories that you examine the underlying ideology, and politics of the person telling you the theory. Do they have an ulterior motive? A deeper political philosophy that they are ,underhandedly, trying to sell? Because once their motives are suspect, you must then question their portrayal of the "facts".

A Final thought. Something else I read at the weekend;

"A conspiracy theorist is someone who believes nothing he reads in the paper, and everything he reads* on the internet".


*Or watches, as would be the case with several posters on this thread

Diogenes

Schnews's major article this week is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement.
Before the conspiraloons start going "Oh yeah another assault from the mainstream media" Schnews is affectionaly described as the "anarchist guardian" Published out of a Brighton Squat

wikipedia wrote:

SchNEWS began life in 1994. It was originally created by two activists involved in the squatting of a courthouse which was part of a Brighton based campaign against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 called Justice?. The original working name for SchNEWS was 'The SchNEWSPAPER' which was the form of the dummy-run version that featured the first headline 'Man sits down in park'. The first true version of SchNEWS was the pilot issue cobbled together in Luther Street, Brighton, which was one-sided A4 and had a very small print run with the headline 'Big Brother CCTV installed in Brighton'. It was never intended to become the run-away success that it has, rather it was meant to act as a collective memory for the Brighton-based groups formed under the Justice? banner (a kind of meeting minutes for activists).

It went on to cover the protests against the building of the M11 motorway link road in London, the anti-Newbury Bypass protests in Berkshire and the actions of Reclaim the Streets. It has also reported on labour issues such as the Liverpool Dockers' Strike of 1995-1997, fights against the privatisation of public services, racism, climate change and genetic engineering. Some of those involved were also part of the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign which SchNEWS championed. Later the focus turned to more international issues such as neo-liberalism and more recently the anti-war movement. One of the activists who founded SchNEWS later went on to work as news editor for the Big Issue and is now an English-language correspondent for Al Jazeera.

Schnews is about as credible as non mainstream media comes, with a readership of around 60,000.

From it's piece

Schnews wrote:

The self-proclaimed 9-11 truth movement, in many ways a genuine grassroots movement (or cult?), is growing and its ideas are gradually filtering into the mainstream. No anti-war event is complete now without a new 9-11 conspiracy DVD and flyers to some new talk / book launch - and our inbox often overflows with new ‘revelations’. Every possible, and some quite impossible angles are covered - from the relatively mainstream question marks hanging over the US administration’s possible advance knowledge of the plot, to off-planet assertions about holograms, missiles and alien DNA. This kind of thing will always delight the ‘Elvis faked the moon landings with a black helicopter’ Internet crowd, but with polls showing that a third of Americans and nearly half of New Yorkers believing US officials either knew about the attacks or were actively involved, this represents a major uprising of disbelief. This has forced the US govt into producing a series of rebuttals, asserting their ‘truth’ and challenging the accusations.

The two main strands of theorising could be summed up as “they knew in advance” and “the whole thing was faked”. At the more plausible end we have the idea that the Neo-Cons had anticipated or were complicit in the events of 9-11. In any case, the event enabled them to put into practice an agenda for global domination hatched years before. It is all laid out in the year 2000 paper, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ published by the Project for a New American Century, a think-tank whose members included Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (See SchNEWS 387). It talked about the fact that a “catastrophic and catalyzing event - a new Pearl Harbor” would be needed to transform the public’s attitude to war. Certainly there were no flies on the Cheney-Bush axis when it came to taking advantage of 9-11’s propaganda value, and even now Bush routinely invokes it as an emblem of America’s need to be militarily aggressive.

At the other end of the reality spectrum, are those that are sure that all the buildings were pre-primed with explosives, that all the Jews who worked there were given advanced warning, that the planes never existed and were in fact holograms disguising missiles etc etc. The trouble with all these theories is that they require mind-boggling numbers of people to have been ‘in on it’. It seems unlikely that the clique responsible for the disaster in Iraq could have organised something so slickly. And why would they need to go to the trouble? Two planes striking the towers would have been more than enough to serve as the big catalytic terrorist event... And if you were orchestrating the whole thing, why bother faking it with missiles or holograms anyway? Just use real planes... much simpler.

Its really a fair criticism. How could an organisation (the NWO, US government, the Elders Of Zion etc.....) plan such an attack within such mininute details. The tonnes of explosives put in place, the voice experts to call the loved ones, the CCTV cameras who hid the evidence, the black boxes, that were tampered proof, these geniuses, how could they have pulled this all off and then go and get Iraq and Afganistian so wrong? As it is they're fighting a resurgent Taliban, ****e and Sunni insurrgents, they're understaffed poorly armed, and screwed. How could people who could plan a fake spectular attack, and intimidate anyone who could expoose it, so throughly, how could an organisation that could do all this, cock up Iraq and Afghanistian so badly???

Oh and Shayler gets a nice going over.

Poster-boy of the UK branch of the 9-11 Truth movement is former MI5 agent David Shayler. An acknowledged ‘insider’, he must have seemed a great asset to the fraternity. But at the Big Green Gathering this year, SchNEWS were confronted with the spectacle of a man who appeared to have swallowed and regurgitated the entire works of David “blame the lizards” Icke. No stone was left turned, no subject demystified as Dave told us how aliens have been negotiating with our government and 500 abductees are the only people who’ve got any real idea about all this 9-11 stuff. That includes 7/7 and 11/7 (date of Mumbai bombings by the way) - all evidence of an underground plot by a ‘shadow Zionist secret government’. Amongst other interesting points conjured forth were that the Royal family is descended from multi-dimensional Annunaki lizards (and ‘flaws’ in evolutionary theory prove it!) Riveting though this stuff is, it is, unfortunately, a load of bollocks.

The piece is balanced as well;

On the other hand, the documented existence of a shadow world of CIA mounted black-ops and coups makes the idea that 9-11 was a ‘false flag’ operation seem within the realms of possibility. American intelligence has a long and bloody history of covert operations, instigating coups and funding opposition against those that challenge their authority. Coups such as the one on the less well remembered September 11th - 1973, when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, and usher in a brutal military dictatorship. Doubts over 9-11, the cornerstone of the US’s ideological crusade, make it easier to appreciate that it’s just all in a days work for the US to fund and arm people like Saddam and the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, which gave rise to Al-Qaeda.

The fact that these theories are catching on so widely is partly due to the huge growth of scepticism about the role of governments in the entire War on Terror™. In this country we already know that our government plotted the war on Iraq well in advance, lied about Iraq’s WMDs and engaged in a systematic propaganda campaign to support the invasion. We know that our government, in alliance with the US, is engaged in secret renditions, torture and aggressive war. Public awareness of the true nature of power has probably never been higher - and the fact that so many are willing to believe that the US government may have slaughtered its own citizens shows how the ideological ground is shifting. It’s not, in the end, the truth of the allegations but the effect they’re having that’s important.

The 9-11 truth movement clearly sees the anti-war crowd as fertile recruiting ground (maybe we should return the compliment). They argue that proving 9-11 a hoax should be the main focus of any faction opposing the Neo-Con-men. But in reality, whether or not 9-11 was orchestrated, we should be concentrating on the broader US-led capitalist agendas, and their catastrophic consequences. 9-11 was a symptom rather than a cause of a ‘big picture’ which doesn’t need science fiction to explain it. World power is not a neat pyramid structure with aliens, Jews or a cabal of men with a secret handshake at the top. It makes more sense to see a range of competing power blocks, alliances and cartels in a shifting, perpetual power play – with governments, nationalist and business interests doing what they’ve always done, battling for control of land, resources, workforces and populations. There is one conspiracy that doesn’t lurk in smoky rooms behind closed doors – it’s called global capitalism.

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news559.htm

Ohhhh makes you think, but probably,it's easier for the conspiraloons to go; "gubivment bad, m'kay"

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

Its really a fair criticism. How could an organisation (the NWO, US government, the Elders Of Zion etc.....) plan such an attack within such mininute details. The tonnes of explosives put in place, the voice experts to call the loved ones, the CCTV cameras who hid the evidence, the black boxes, that were tampered proof, these geniuses, how could they have pulled this all off and then go and get Iraq and Afganistian so wrong? As it is they're fighting a resurgent Taliban, ****e and Sunni insurrgents, they're understaffed poorly armed, and screwed. How could people who could plan a fake spectular attack, and intimidate anyone who could expoose it, so throughly, how could an organisation that could do all this, cock up Iraq and Afghanistian so badly???

Whoever controls your perception controls you...

You only perceive the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to be going bad, based on the propaganda you see on the news...

You are right to be concerned about the so called truth movement, as they are campaigning for a new investigation, which is a dead end...

You claim there is no proof, but it is the evidence of your eyes, and no one has come CLOSE to explaining the fall of this building other than by demolition...

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

Here is the official myth being born on the streets within hours...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fp7w_0_BzM

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

Lest I be accused of dodging this...and because tunaman did provide some information seperate to the clip rather than just saying "its good"....

We don't know what the expert (and let's accept he is one - I'm sure you can dig out credentials, right?)

http://www.jowenko.nl/

We can assume he was given information of the FEMA report, although it is an "overlay" clip. We don't know however, if he was given any information of the NIST working theory

They have had 5 years to come up with a plausible theory...

In short, what we can conclude from this video is that when given some unknown quantity of information about the event, an apparent expert can be led to support the conclusion of controlled demolition.

After he was told this happened on 9/11, he still said...

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

What we can also conclude is the following :

1) The eplosives expert talks about how one would bring down such a building - by cutting the base supports. He is not seen to express a need for squibs, nor is he seen to detect their allegedly obvious occurrence during the collapse.

Who said there was obvious squibs on WTC 7?

2) Towards the end of the clip, as he discovers there were uncontrolled fires in the building, he starts to see problems with his hypothesis. This is consistent with the notion that he has formed his hypothesis on a limited sub-set of information, and is reviewing it as further information becomes available. It also shows that by the end of the clip, he has admitted to there being unanswered questions asked by his hypothesis.

He said it was strange, in response to being asked if it could have been carried out on 9/11...

Watch it again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q

I ask because I'm curious as to how he knew about any intelligence operations given how little he knew about WTC 7 at the outset (which we can reasonably surmise by the fact that he didn't know it collapsed on 9/11 and that this is what he was seeing).

Reasonably surmise?

He would not make the statement about operations in the building, if he hadn't done some research...

It is also curious that by the end of the video clip, Mr. Jowenko is admitting to being baffled by certain facts, but yet somehow goes on to make such an apparently definitive statement. One wonders how he has explained away his uncertainty.

His uncertainty was because he couldn't explain how the building could have been rigged on the day of 9/11...

In short, I don't see anything earth-shattering in this clip. If the guy had full information, unslanted by any agenda, and his expertise in explosives is directly relevant, then he bears listening to and I'd hope to see him defend his stance. Do we know any of these three things to be facts yet? No.

His immediate reaction, as was yours if you are honest, was that the building was definitely a controlled demolition...

No mickey mouse evidence has changed his mind since...

Everybody who watches the footage of WTC 7 instinctively knows it was demolished...

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

http://www.jowenko.nl/

Thanks.

I notice, though, that you didn't bother with links to the rest of the stuff I asked about, like where you got all your claims from that aren't in the video.

Strange that...one of the few things I say I'm willing to accept as correct, you supply linkage for on request, but the stuff I say I'm skeptical of and ask for linkage for....

After he was told this happened on 9/11, he still said...

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

This isn't a response of any kind to what it was quoted after. I never questioned that he said that, nor that he was told it happened on 911.

I did point out however, that we don't know what clips he was shown, whehter they were edited, etc. what post-collapse pictures he was shown, etc.

I notice you ignored all those points - do you perthaps think that being told it happened on 911 is a sufficient replacement for all that evidence?

Who said there was obvious squibs on WTC 7?

Maybe I was mistaken - I thought you had, amongst others.

Could you actually clarify how you believe WTC7 was brought down, if I'm wrong in believing you have at some point referred to the squibs you can allegedly see in still shots of the collapse?

He said it was strange, in response to being asked if it could have been carried out on 9/11...

Watch it again...

No, you're wrong.

Here's a copy of the entire transcript from that clip:

Interviewer: On September 11, 2001 there were fires within [the building], but a plane never crashed into it.
Int.: Nevertheless, this building collapsed on September 11th.
Int.: This event didn't receive much attention; and, moreover, Denni Jowenko had never heard of it.
Int.: His reaction to the film we are showing him is unprejudiced.

Denni Jowenko: Did it seem to go [i.e., come down] from above? No, it starts from below.
D.J.: They simply blew away columns. Then the upper part follows [lit., comes after].

Int.: Did this fall in a different way than the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2]?

D.J.: Don't you think so?

Int.: Yes, you [can] see the first floors going first.

D.J.: The rest simply falls into it.
D.J.: This is controlled demolition.

Int.: Without any doubt?

D.J.: Without any doubt.
D.J.: Certainly it came down from the top; this was a [deliberate] job.
D.J.: A team of experts did this.

Int.: But this also happened on September 11th.

D.J.: The same day?

Int.: The same day.

D.J.: The same day?!
D.J.: Are you sure?

Int.: Yes.

D.J.: Are you sure it was on the 11th?
D.J.: That can't be true.

Int.: Seven hours after the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2] came down.

D.J.: Then they worked very hard.

Int.: In the official FEMA report, it couldn't be explained why Building 7 collapsed.

Int.: We discuss all the possibilities extensively with Denni Jowenko.
Int.: But his conclusion doesn't change: it was blown up.

D.J.: This was professional work, without any doubt.
D.J.: Those boys knew very well what they were doing.

Int.: The question is then whether it was prepared beforehand.
Int.: Or could it have been decided on on September 11th itself and been carried out?
Int.: How many men and how much time would you need to do it?

D.J.: I don't know exactly, but ...

Int.: Could you give an estimate?

D.J.: You would need experienced people. But, if you had 30-40 people, then ...
D.J.: A few with a plasma [?] cutter.
D.J.: And others assembling.
D.J.: And others to connect the dead cables with the boosters.
D.J.: It must all go at the same moment.
D.J.: And a third [team] setting off the electronic system.
D.J.: And then it goes.

Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it


The bit you are referring to is not where he says its strange. Its where he asks if the interviewer is sure it happened on 911, close to the top of that piece.

The bit I am referring to is at the end, where he offers his theory of how 30-40 people could have done it and was then told the building was on fire, and concludes only then that somethign is strange that he has no answer for.

Please note as well - this apparently occurs after he's supposedly discussed "all the possibilities" with the interviewer. Stop and think about that for a second. He's discussed all the possibilities but doesn't know the building had fires in it. How, exactly, is that possible? How could he rule out debris-damage to key supports, coupled with raging fire damage if he didn't know the building had fires burning inside the building.

He would not make the statement about operations in the building, if he hadn't done some research...

So far, I only have your claim that he made the statement. I asked for a link to your source, but you didn't provide me with one.

Now I have your statement, and your assumption that he wouldn't make a statement without doing research. Doesn't help much in terms of verification, I'm afraid.

His uncertainty was because he couldn't explain how the building could have been rigged on the day of 9/11...

....and he's an explosives expert. This suggests there is good reason to believe the building could not have been rigged on the day, right?

His immediate reaction, as was yours if you are honest, was that the building was definitely a controlled demolition...

Initial reactions don't matter a damn. Informed opinions are what count. The video clip you present goes to great lengths to suggest that this guy was given all the information he needed, but makes sure we never get to verify that for ourselves. That raises questions. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that at least some information was notpresented to Mr. Jowenko. That raises more questions.

You'll notice I haven't said once that he didn't have the right information nor once have I suggested his opinion would necessarily be different if he had other information. All I've said is that we're not told a lot of stuff, and that those omissions are not inconsequential because they are important in determining how useful his opinion really is.

As I said, I've no problem admitting an expert can be brought to believe something, based on a selective presentation of evidence. That is the best one can determine about this video clip.

No mickey mouse evidence has changed his mind since...

...which is another claim not backed up in the video. It also doesn't offer much clarity in terms of what additional evidence he has been shown. What it does do, however, is further suggest that his initial opinion was based on less than complete information, meaning that the producers of this segment did selectively edit what was to be presented to him.

Any chance of the source of this claim, incidentally, or does it get lumped with every other claim you've made about this guy thats not in the video, in that we just have to believe you that its true?

Everybody who watches the footage of WTC 7 instinctively knows it was demolished...

Even were it true, rather than being hyperbole on your part, instinct is still fallible.

What happened isn't determined by what some unquantifiable portion of viewers instinctively think on initial viewing. I'm pretty sure you know this, though, which makes me wonder what point you're trying to make, who you're trying to convince, and of what?

civdef

Can I take a moment of your time to run another conspiracy past ye?

It was a conspiracy, by a bunch of engineers. They blew up WTC (carefully prepositioned demolition cutting charges that were installed as the building was being built). They had a good reason to do this.

It's not widely known, but all us engineers are members of a special kind of faith. We are awaiting the return of our messiah, who will make himself known to us by a feat of spectacular brilliance. Our leaders have come up with this WTC plot to try and locate him. We're hoping someone (not formally trained as an engineer) can step forth and disprove our plausible but false proposition that jets hit the tower, set them on fire and they fell down. Whoever is able to reveal the truth will take up the platinum slife-rule, and assume the mantle of Engineer's Messiah.

Looking at this thread, I see a couple of likely candidates, and I hope they deliver us into a new age of engineering greatness.

Think this is crap? Just try and prove me wrong. I'll produce youtube videos, so can't be contradicted.

bonkey

Given the day that's in it, civdef, I'm disappointed that pirates and pastafarianism didn't feature in your conspiracy. It would have added so much more, ummm, credibility.

Yarr...and all that.

Hmmm...pirates...might have had something to do with the Titanic too. Maybe I need to post further on that....

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

Whoever controls your perception controls you...

Whoa, like deep, I'm like totally getting that on, like a t-shirt...

You only perceive the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to be going bad, based on the propaganda you see on the news...

I'm sorry I'm confused is today one of the days mainstream is controlled by the gubivment, or today one of the days where mainstream media is waking up to gubivment lies?

Are you trying to suggest either conflict is going well? Oil production is down, Heroin Production up. Both the Taliban and Sunni and Shíte rebellions growing, within parts of Afganistan and Iraq essentially out of control.

You are right to be concerned about the so called truth movement, as they are campaigning for a new investigation,

And you missed my point intentially or unintentially. Do you agree with my assertion that parts of the 9/11 truth movement have ulterior motives for spreading these theories?

which is a dead end...

Actually thats a fair point what do you hope to accomplish by spouting this nonsense? Yes yes expose people to gubivment lies, but then what?

You claim there is no proof, but it is the evidence of your eyes, and no one has come CLOSE to explaining the fall of this building other than by demolition...

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

Here is the official myth being born on the streets within hours...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fp7w_0_BzM

Okay, right, no wait, Oh I couldn't be arsed.......

Jocksereire

Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez, 9/11 Whistle Blower Speaks Out in Cincinnati Post.

Thought I'd share this rant with all you Veterans - It kills me when
idiots don't do their homework...

Greetings Mr. White,

I felt it necessary to follow up to a recent story that
was published in Cincinnati Post. It was the 1 in 3 believe 9-11
conspiracy theory. I must admit that at first I was overwhelmed with
joy that our local paper was actually starting to have real journalism
and talk about real issues. Then I read the story and it was a total
debunk to make the actual people around the world who feel there was
something not right about 9-11, to look like over reacting
conspiracy theorists.

Im utterly outraged. My 9 year old daughter could have done more
research in this, as opposed to just trying to throw the publics ideas
and feelings out. Is this not what journalism is supposed to represent
- real issues? There have been many, many polls done in major cities
that actually ask people how they felt about the 9-11 tragedy. One
such poll is called the Zogby poll; which was offered in New York City.

Honestly I could care less what is done with this letter, but I feel
that I should speak my mind and Ill tell you some things that I have
not told many people at all. From 1995 till 2002 I was a Sergeant in
the United States Army. Not only this, but I was stationed at United
States Central Command, which is located at MacDill AFB in Tampa
Florida. I was on active duty when 9-11 happened. In the days prior to
the tragedies, we were involved in many exercises. Some of these
exercises included the scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into, our
building the world trade center, the White House, Sears Tower, and the
Pentagon. These drills or exercises as we called them, where
classified Top Secret. Having a Top Secret rated clearance I was
dumbfounded that they would ever push a training exercise above the
level of Secret. Over my 8 years in the Army, I had participated in
many exercises around the world, none of which were ever classified
over the Secret level.

Ill start by saying a few months prior it was announced by President
Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading up operations over NORAD our
North American Aerospace Defense Command. Along with many of my peers,
we were shocked. Over the years, if you research NORAD, it has always
been under the command of a Military officer. It was done this way
because the defense of this country has always been in the hands of
such. Prior to the months before 9-11 this was all of the sudden
changed. Like I said, if you research NORAD and the command structure
you will find that it was imposed long ago that the military should be
in control of the order to scramble planes in the defense of American
air space. For some strange reason, Bush changed this and gave that
power to a civilian person on his Staff team yes I know, very
interesting.

Back to the morning of 9-11; the command was busy with this training
exercise. We were instructed to bring all our gear in to prep for a
mock (staged) deployment to the Middle East. On the morning of 9-11 I
had been on base prepped and ready to go since about 0400am. During my
time at the base that morning, they were setting up barriers around
the command and placing gun posts on the roofs. When I questioned one
of the security officers about the machine gun and shoulder fired
rockets on the roof I was given the answer its a precaution for a
plane attempting to crash into this building.

So, I was standing in the SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information
Facility), which is basically this underground bunker command post for
USCENTCOM, when the first plane hit. We were watching the fly patterns
of all the planes on the aerospace grid. This contained not only all
commercial flights at the time, but all military flights, and fake
enemy planes that were supposedly put on there for the exercise. Many
of the planes sent to intercept the fake blips were scrambled from
Andrews which is an air defense AFB for the East Coast. They were sent
across the US and left very few planes to defend the capital. After
the first plane hit the tower we were all in disbelief. After the
initial shock was over, our questions were what are the odds this
could happen for real, during a training exercise thats covering the
same scenario? We were all at wits end. Then to top all of this off,
Cheney gave NORAD the order to stand down scrambling jets to
intercept. A few moments later tower 2 was hit. Only after the
Pentagon was hit, did he give the orders to scramble the jets to
intercept the plane bound for the White House.

All of this is very interesting to me it sickened me so that I left
the Army after coming back from an 8 month deployment to Afghanistan.
There were just too many questions that no one could answer, too many
things that did not make sense. How is it possible to have a training
exercise about planes hitting the WTC and then actually have planes
hit the WTC? This kind of thing just does not happen unless its
pre-planned. What reason would there be to have this type of exercise
on that morning, Ill tell you if you are placing fake planes all
over the north American aerospace grid then you have no way of
knowing which planes are real and which are fake. Then to thicken the
plot you put a civilian in charge of NORAD so that the military does
not have the power to initiate the order for jets to be scrambled to
intercept. If the military would have still commanded power over NORAD
they would have scrambled jets because they would have simply
followed the procedures that had been in place for this type of
situation for years and years and scrambled jets.

To delve even further, as Im standing there watching the towers
collapse, next to me is one of my good friends and a former commander
of the Army Corps of Engineers. He is a demolitions expert. He was
even more surprised than me. When the towers collapsed he kept saying
this isnt right, this isnt right. When I asked him what he was
talking about he told me that steel buildings dont fall down that
way. Even if they are struck by objects; he went on to say that in
theory if the top 10 floors were hit, then possibly just that part of
the building would fall over and off, but the rest would remain
standing. When I asked him, not understanding the implications of
demolitions, he told me that it looked as if they were brought down by
controlled demolitions. I was utterly amazed, but after he said that
it did sort of appear that way.

Ill tell you what gave this whole thing away was building 7. If
they would not have brought this building down, then they probably
could have gotten away with it all. It was the most amazing site I
have ever seen. Not only was it amazing, it bore reality to the truth
of the situation something was not right here. Now, Im going to
tell you all I have learned, but I urge anyone to just spend 1hr
reading about this incident on the internet and learning the facts.
There have been numerous scholars, numerous physicists that have
analyzed this over and over and over again. And they all come to the
same conclusion, something does not add up. Building 7 was never
directly hit by a plane. Now it was stated that a piece of one of the
towers fell onto the side of building 7 and caught one of the floors
on fire. A few moments later we all witnessed the most perfect example
of controlled demolitions to ever be caught on camera. It could not be
proved that building 7 fell due to fire. My friend and I standing
there in the SCIF watching in uninterruptible awe with all those other
military members; watching building 7 fall perfectly onto its
footprint; my friend stating that it was beautifully done.

We all knew then we all realized that this was not some group of
unorganized cave dwellers from Afghanistan orchestrating a perfect hit
on American soil. It was impossible. Shortly after the Pentagon was
struck I called my close friend that I went to Basic Training with.
All civilian lines were down and I had to contact him via STU which is
a black line classified phone system. He did not answer, but one of
his soldiers did. I asked if SGT Worthington was ok and he said yes. I
asked if the plane did severe damage and he told me I didnt see any
plane. Then when I finally got to speak to my friend, he started
acting strange saying he could not talk about the incident over this
line. He was shipped off overseas a few weeks later and I never to
this day have had the chance to speak with him.

The Pentagon crash tape was released a few months back after 5 years.
You need to watch that tape no where can you see a plane strike the
Pentagon. This is because it was not a plane. I cannot tell you
exactly what hit the Pentagon, but its unanimous; it was definitely
not a plane. I can assure you that there is more than one CCTV camera
around the Pentagon. On September 25, 4 days before my 25th birthday,
I deployed to Afghanistan. Over the 8months I was there I had never
seen one intelligent Afghani soldier. They were all tattered and
scrawny and could barely shoot their weapons straight. This does not
mean that there were not men that could fly a plane, but after what I
saw it was extremely hard to believe they could be taught to fly a
sophisticated piece of aeronautical equipment.

My point Mr. Editor is that I spent 8 months in combat watching my
brothers die in the name of Freedom. I killed, in the name of Freedom
and to this day my brothers are still being killed for this
illusionary war we call the War on Terror. Where the enemy has no face
where there is no clear objective. In this War, anyone with ill
thoughts toward this country can be defined as a terrorist. Well, I
guess that includes me in this group as well as everyone else who
questions the events of 911, because we all hold ill thoughts toward
the leadership of this country and I say the real terrorists in this
world sit right in the heart of its capital.

I have bled for this country and would do so again in a heart beat
but only to protect its people, the true Americans that live here. I
would never again offer my life under the leadership whose real goal
is oil and money. The same ones who staged the most perfect
illusionary tactic in our history that was a pretext to a war on
terror that would never again go away. Their goal was to scare the
American public into submission making it easier for the world powers
to do their evil and get away with it.

Now that may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist I guess, but how
many do you actually talk to? Im not here saying that Aliens came
down and used laser beams to bring the towers down or control the
planes that were flown; Im telling you as a sane, logical and
intelligent individual, something does not add up about this. Earlier
this year I was watching the Discovery channel. They have a PBS
program called Rebuilding America. This particular episode was about
the WTC building 7. They interviewed Larry Silverstein (the owner)
about building 7. He stated on national TV the following which is the
direct quote and can be found here: http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

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.

I actually have the program recorded and you are more than welcome to
come by my house and watch it. He actually stated this on national TV.
I was so amazed that I almost shat myself. I could not believe he
actually stated this on a nationally broadcasted TV program. You can
ask any person who has done controlled demolitions please interview
someone they will tell you it takes weeks of planning to do this. We
are expected to believe that this was facilitated and planned in a
matter of hours for building 7, while the damn thing was on fire you
have got to be kidding me. If that is not enough to make you believe
something was fishy well then nothing will ever do.

Since that time there have been numerous scholars, some of which have
actually been publicly broadcasted on CSPAN. The latest program was
called: Theories about 9-11. American Perspectives and you can watch
this (which I advise you do) per this link: Theories about 9-11
(American Perspectives) or you can go to www.c-span.org and look under
their video/audio section to find this title. Its an outstanding
video and encompasses the thoughts of not only the American public,
but also Dr Steven Jones from Brigham Young University a physics
professor that actually received a piece of the rubble from the WTC.
Not only does he profoundly agree that building 7 was a controlled
demolition he can prove it. After he analyzed the piece of debris
they found; there were large traces of sulfur and Thermite found. If
you did not know, Thermite is a chemical compound found in many
explosives including C4 which I have used many times in the Army. It
leaves a distinct smell and identifiable residue upon explosion. Dr
Jones found large traces of this from the rubble.

Sir, there are many things that I never wanted to know for one that
the government that is supposed to be caring for the American people
could be corrupt. This was the last thing that I ever wanted to be
true but its time we wake up and smell the bull**** because its
permeating throughout the American public and we are all starting to
realize whats really going on. If your news station actually did a
similar Zogby type poll here in Cincinnati, I think you would find
that a lot more than 1/3 of the people believe this. I know tons just
in this area.

I could literally write you 100 pages of truths that could prove that
9-11 was an inside job, but Id probably just be passed off as some
crazy conspiracy theorist. Instead I want to give you the tools to
look for yourself because the quest for wisdom is a journey we must
all take alone. So, to you I add the following links and if you just
spend a small portion of your day reading and watching some of this
footage, who knows you may wake up and stand along side the rest of us
in utter amazement.


Respectfully,

SGT Lauro Chavez
United States Central Command

http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

...he told me that it looked as if they were brought down by controlled demolitions. I was utterly amazed, but after he said that
it did sort of appear that way.

Ladies and gentlemen: in the red corner, we have several hundred pages of carefully documented scientific study, based on years of study and analysis by scientists and qualified professionals. In the blue corner, "it did sort of appear that way".

'Nuff said, methinks.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen: in the red corner, we have several hundred pages of carefully documented scientific study

What did you do with the rest?

There should have been thousands of pages.

<switch_sides>
Its a conspiracy, I tells ya. First they say its thousands of pages. Then hundreds. They can't even get that straight. How weak is that!
</switch_sides>

In the blue corner, "it did sort of appear that way".

Not to mention his 'trainer' who believes in
theory if the top 10 floors were hit, then possibly just that part of
the building would fall over and off, but the rest would remain
standing.

Thats just class that is.

AbusesToilets

Just a quick note about the whistle blowers letter in which he says he deployed to Afghanistan and saw combat. There are no combat units stationed at the base mentioned; something you can check for yourself here http://public.macdill.amc.af.mil/units/

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen: in the red corner, we have several hundred pages of carefully documented scientific study, based on years of study and analysis by scientists and qualified professionals.

These so called experts you put your faith in are highly paid by the US government...

The sudden and total collapse of two 110 storey steel-framed buildings in less than 15 seconds, which would still officially mean floors pancaking at an impossible rate of nearly 8 floors per second...

So where are all the pancaked floors?

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_North_Tower.jpg

What happened to the massive 47 central columns?

Years of study and analysis and they still haven't been able to explain what happened to building 7...

In the blue corner, "it did sort of appear that way".

'Nuff said, methinks.

When the victims families come out and say most of their questions were never asked, let alone answered, and say the commission was a massive cover-up, why do you ignore them?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=press+for+truth

When the same people in the US government were caught telling lies about prior knowledge, the anthrax attacks, WMDs in Iraq, and when the military changes their story numerous times about what they did on the day, why do you continue to believe what they tell you happened on 9/11?

Why do you believe these so called experts, when they have absolutely no evidence to support their conclusion that the buildings came down as a result of the fires reaching a temperature hot enough to weaken the steel?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

If you can watch these two videos and still believe the official conspiracy theory, then you are probably better off staying on board that sinking ship...

tunaman

Anybody watch those vids and still believe the official conspiracy theory?

StunnedSurvivor

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.


Irish documentary about peak oil, 9/11 and the war on terror.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7946373613537938266&hl=en

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

Anybody watch those vids and still believe the official conspiracy theory?

Bueller? Bueller? Feris Bueller? Bueller...

So Glad

I'm divided. Too much detail involved to bother argueing. Just show me proof Bin Laden did it and I'd be happy. I dare yeh.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I'm divided. Too much detail involved to bother argueing. Just show me proof Bin Laden did it and I'd be happy. I dare yeh.

I'm sorry are you asking for proof

A) The Bin Laden flied a plane?

That Bin Laden organised the attack?

I mean the conspiraloons argue this on two fronts that the the US black ops did this and the buildings couldn't have come down, and the Musharif couldn't have flown into the pentagon.

Also can you explain what you'd be satisfied with as "proof" I mean what, exactly will satisfy your thirst for proof. What is irrafutely proof to you.

So Glad

I'm am losing the will to live......

Show me a document, video or audio clip (that isn't fabricated) that show that Osama Bin Laden had engineered 9/11. It's very easy, no complex discussion involed whatsoever. Just show me.

Good luck.

So Glad

Also, that video is excellent StunnedSurvivor. Much better than Loose Change. Everyone should give it a look.

When the 9/11 anniversary came along this year and all the tv shows came out is droves I decided out of morbid curiosity to watch a program called "9/11: Why the towers fell". It was apparently "A scientific account" of why the towers failed. It was by far the most rediculous thing I have ever seen. First of all, it failed to mention the multitude of seperate explosions heard by people and firechiefs throughout both buildings. Secondly, it actually stated that 47 solid steel beams all melted at 500 degrees, which is rediculous by any standards. If it couldn't get any worse, they actually said the each building fell in 30 seconds. No joke. Who writes this ****?

StunnedSurvivor

I'm am losing the will to live......

Now, now So Glad. Let's have none of that talk.


Chin up mate, you are in the right, as the old saying goes "even the Gods struggle in vain with stupidity".

Peace.

banaman

I watched this yesterday. I was given a copy by a friend. Don't know how accurate any of it is but it seems plausible.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

What d'you think guys?

Zombrex

banaman wrote:

What d'you think guys?

Its nonsense.

For a start, just like most conspiricy theories, the entire set of "evidence" is simply the film-makers opinions on what should have happened, and when it doesn't match this they cry foul.

For example the Pentegon theory is all based around what they think a plane crashing into the Pentagon should look like. And because the actual crash doesn't look like that they claim that it didn't happen the way everyone thinks it does.

I would be wary of any conspiricy theory where the only real "evidence" they have is the fact that their assessment of the evidence doesn't match the offical assessment.

If you think about it the resources and coverup needed to mount something like this would just be mind boggling huge. The number of people, from the white house, pentagon, air lines etc that would have to be in on the whole thing is just ridiculous. I know people who work for American Airlines who would have to be in on it, which I suppose means I would have to be in on it. As well as pretty much anyone who worked AA flights out of New York or Washington or any air traffic controller on the east coast of America that day. This is before you get into all the passangers families who talked to their loved ones on the planes themselves, or all the accident investigators.

Because of shows like the X-Files people like to believe the US government has these elite super secret military units that can pretty much carry out any task. But looking at everything from Watergate to the miss-management of the Italian interment campaign (where CIA agents used their real names and made phone calls home on cell phones), it is ridiculous to believe that a super secret elite intelligence group is avaliable to the government, let alone carried out the 9-11 attacks.

The final sign that this is ridiculous is the question of why? The idea that the Bush administration would stage something like this just to stay in power is completely ridiculous. They can't even leak the name of CIA agent to discourage her husband without a legal case. Large numbers of people who would have to be involved would not even be Republican voters, or if they were they would not necessarily be supporters of Bush and Chaney. The idea that they would willingly go along with this knowing their own government killed 3,000 of its own citizens is ridiculous. The idea that they could all be threatened into silence is equally ridicuous. Threated by whom? we are talking about tens of thousands of people need to be involved. To police that many people you would need thousands more and you run into exactly the same problem, who polices them?

bonkey

What do I think? I think this thread should be closed or moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. It has nothing to do with Politics.

In said forum you'll find there's already a thread on exactly this topic.

Short version - loose change is a load of toss. Opinions may differ as to how tossy it is, and how much toss other videos are, but loose change is toss.