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

dubtom

I would have no problem believing some of what he say's, except maybe that it's the dealings of traitors who made 911 happen. I'd be more inclined to think that the goverment itself made it happen.But I very much doubt if any investigation will reveal anything, look at the Warren commision on the JFK killing, evidence ignored, apparently witnesses killed etc. These people are too powerfull to stop.
Iran will be invaded next, not because they are building nuclear weapons, as the yanks would have us believe, but because they are on the verge of setting up their own oil commision, dealing in Euro's and cutting the americans out.

jimmycrackcorm

Where's Tunaman?

oscarBravo

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

An explosion is an explosion, can you say for definate that it was a 757 in that video clip? I dont think you could, nor no one can, physically you cannot see one in it.

It's about balance of probabilities. Four planes were hijacked. Two hit the WTC. One crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Something airborne hit the Pentagon and did a shedload of damage. The fourth plane, its passengers and crew have not turned up anywhere else.

Balance of probability: the fourth plane hit the Pentagon, until someone shows compelling evidence that it went somewhere else.

Lex_Diamonds

The amount of people who believe all this conspiracy bollox is kinda scary.

Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show

There goes any credibility right there as far as I'm concerned.

impr0v

sounds like a man who's missing the limelight and latching on an already formed tinfoil hat theory with a view to a book deal.

tunaman

homah_7ft wrote:

Maybe he didn't see the evidence of a couple of passenger planes loaded with jet kerosine crashing into the buildings.

Everybody saw it, we also saw how most the fuel was burnt off in the initial fireball, which exploded outside the building.

The buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a fully loaded airliner, with the official explanation that caused the collapse being fire. The official theory is so flimsy they rely on everybody to believe that the fireproofing being dislodged directly led to the complete collapse of the buildings.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

easy_as_easy

Yes you make very good points, he most be wrong so then. silly me for not believing the american goverment.

Sorry for sinking to sarcasm, but its all most of the people in this thread understand.

edit:

not talking about tunaman's post, he posted just before me

tunaman

DublinWriter wrote:

I've seen David Shayler speak a number of times and he always comes over as a weirdo and kook.

Get the insults in early, so you don't have to try and argue any of the numerous valid points he makes.

If that is the calabre of what MI6 have been recruiting, then God help the British Intelligence Services.

I have a theory about him still being in the pay of MI6 and and his whole 'speaking out' routine being an active misinformation campaign on the part of MI6.

He worked for MI5 NOT MI6 so your listening and reading skills are not up to much, and it's obvious who is really involved in a misinformation campaign.

Considering how hard the UK government went after Peter Wright (author of Spycatcher), and how they let Shalyer guest-speak his way around the chat-show circuit, maybe I'm not being so paranoid after all.

Yeah I mean they only put him in prison for four months without charge, basically treating him like a terrorist, for just speaking the truth.

tunaman

Lex_Diamonds wrote:

The amount of people who believe all this conspiracy bollox is kinda scary.

The conspiracy theory that 19 arabs managed to hijack four planes, armed with just boxcutters, and fly them into three buildings, without a fighter jet getting anywhere near them?

Yeah it still amazes me too just how many people continue to believe this wild theory despite the lack of real evidence, and all the inconsistencies, contradictions and outright lies in the official version of events.

There goes any credibility right there as far as I'm concerned.

Shayler has a record for speaking the truth, so he has much more credibility than the US government, especially considering their record of lies and cover-ups. Why did the 9/11 commission COMPLETELY ignore testimony under oath from Norman Minneta?

Here is a short video of footage of his testimony...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=mineta

Vice President Cheney as the plane approached the Pentagon:
“The orders still stand”

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided provocative testimony before the 9-11 Commission. He testified that he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House at about 9:20 on 9/11/01. Vice President Cheney was there and in charge as President Bush was not in Washington, DC. Secretary Mineta related:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President,
"The plane is 50 miles out."
"The plane is 30 miles out."
And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?"
And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"


The 9/11 commission claimed in their findings that Cheney didn't reach the bunker till 10am, so it's not hard to see why they had to leave this testimony out now is it?

nesf

Right. This is being moved to conspiracy theories. Tunaman, quit posting threads like these in here please. There is a specific forum for them. In future I will just lock them on sight and quite possibly ban you if you keep at it. Don't use AH as a soapbox please.

Thanks.

tunaman

nesf wrote:

Right. This is being moved to conspiracy theories. Tunaman, quit posting threads like these in here please. There is a specific forum for them. In future I will just lock them on sight and quite possibly ban you if you keep at it. Don't use AH as a soapbox please.

Thanks.

Threads exposing the 9/11 myth are not some conspiracy theory, no matter how much some people like to think they know everything.

The real conspiracy theory is the official version of events.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

It's about balance of probabilities. Four planes were hijacked.

This has never been proved. The original flight lists didn't even have any arab hijackers on them, and the only CCTV video was from a different airport at 5:45am that morning. Another thing, why would Atta put the whole mission at risk by getting a last minute connecting flight?

It just doesn't make sense.

One crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Whereabouts?

According to all the eyewitnesses there was no plane, just a hole in the ground...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/flight9301.html

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/94_163.jpg

Something airborne hit the Pentagon and did a shedload of damage.

Nobody disputes that.

The fourth plane, its passengers and crew have not turned up anywhere else.

Neither has flight 93, it must have gone somewhere else though, because it didn't crash where we were told.

Balance of probability: the fourth plane hit the Pentagon, until someone shows compelling evidence that it went somewhere else.

Where is the compelling evidence flight 77 hit the pentagon?

We are forced to take their word for it, like so much of the story...

nesf

tunaman wrote:

Threads exposing the 9/11 myth are not some conspiracy theory, no matter how much some people like to think they know everything.

The real conspiracy theory is the official version of events.

Conspiracy theories (almost by definition) are theories that run again what is commonly accepted. Their validity and/or truth are not relevant really.


Now. The key points are:

a) You are posting in the wrong forum when you post this kind of stuff in AH.

and

b) You are doing this so you can abuse AH and use it as a soapbox to reach a larger audience.

Both of these things are against the charter and I'm sick of seeing you repeat this. I will enforce this one as there is a perfectly good forum here to discuss this. Use it.

Tunaman!Are you the dude that believes that the people on flight 71 ttc. are hiding out etc for the good of the american economy?

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

The original flight lists didn't even have any arab hijackers on them...

Post a link to the "original flight lists", and we'll discuss them. Although I doubt you'll see "arab hijacker" written anywhere on them.

tunaman wrote:

Whereabouts?

According to all the eyewitnesses there was no plane, just a hole in the ground...

All the eyewitnesses? All the eyewitnesses?? So, if I happened to come across even one eyewitness account that described seeing a plane, you'd have to admit you're wrong - wouldn't you?

tunaman wrote:

Neither has flight 93, it must have gone somewhere else though, because it didn't crash where we were told.

Riight, so it's parked beside flight 77 in Area 52. Gotcha.

tunaman wrote:

Where is the compelling evidence flight 77 hit the pentagon?

Plane is hijacked. Plane disappears from ATC radar. People see plane fly into Pentagon. Pentagon badly damaged by impact from airborne object.

That's pretty compelling.

Omnipresence

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

An explosion is an explosion, can you say for definate that it was a 757 in that video clip? I dont think you could, nor no one can, physically you cannot see one in it.

You've explained the explosion, care to explain the rest? I'm not being smart here, but by just giving an explanation as to the explosion doesnt mean that you have solved the rest of the puzzle that so many people, for so long have been disputing

Well I think I have... the frames on that camera are very intermittent... watch the cop car pass... it was probably crawling across the frame... the fact that you can even see some part of the plane in the shot is amazing but you can.....

Its just a **** external security camera... if it were better we would see the plane properly...

Man looked up at the stars with his eyes and thought they all revolved around him, then man used telescope and saw we existed in the solar system... then as equipment got better we went from our galaxy to the universe to possibly multiverses etc...

We are only able to look at the plane crashing into the building with the crudest of equipment....

-A

Squaddy

oscarBravo wrote:

Post a link to the "original flight lists", and we'll discuss them. Although I doubt you'll see "arab hijacker" written anywhere on them.

The manifests for the flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

oscarBravo

Squaddy wrote:

The manifests for the flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

Those are not authorative passenger manifests; they're CNN's lists of victims broken down by location (whether on a plane or at one of the crash sites): "...authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists."

DublinWriter

Speaking at someone who doesn't believe all the JFK conspiracy crap, there's a lorry-load of unanswered questions regarding 9/11.

Buildling 7 pancaking hours after the impacts, Bush's (other!) brother being the CEO of the security company in charge of the twin towers, the lack of evidance at the Pentagon site, the FBI finding intact passports of the hijackers in the WTC carnage days after, the unusually high number of 'put' options placed on United Airlines in the weeks preceeding 911, Larry Silverstein leasing the WTC a few months before 911 and discovering the whole place was build with asbestos...etc etc etc.

I think in 20 years time we'll see another JFK movie about all this being produced which will confuse matters even further.

Meanwhile there are serious questions that need answering. The 'Loose Change' movie still remains the first and best reference point for amateur researchers.

SpitfireIV

DublinWriter,

WTC 7 was purposely demolished as later admitted by Larry Silverstein, as he put it, he gave the order to 'pull it'. Therefore the building was professionally demolished in a couple of hours when it would take a professional demolition teams weeks to set up and carry out......go figure :rolleyes:


As for the rest of your questions, well, thats the thing, they are questions that NEED to be answered, Loose Change is a great video that raises many issues but you shouldnt believe any of it, its ALL lies made up by insane students with nothing better to spend there time and money on, dont bother with it ('they' made me say that!! You dont know how deep this thing goes!!:eek: ..........:D )

miju

civdef wrote:

See, there it is is again, this melting steel nonsense just won't go away. Buildings don't fall because the steel melts - they fall because the steel loses the strength needed to support the weight of the building and this happens around 550deg C. I'm not making this up, feel free to check.

aye this much is true and indeed may be the case for the WTC collapses

how and ever http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006LSE8/qid=1148160891/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-3645181-9822831

this is a DVD that (is a brilliant documentary by the guys who filmed the first plane hit) they actually enter the WTC 2 and in the lobby the heavy marble has been torn off the walls / windows blown out. now i'm thinking bomb had to have been in the lobby (who planted it **** knows) simply because the fire couldn't have travelled down hermetically sealed lift shafts coupled with the fact that the shafts where divided up throughout the building coupled ESPECIALLY with the fact that half way through the DVD you see a large group of people exit 2 other lifts into the lobby who didnt even know what was going on as they where stuck in the lifts unharmed

Squaddy wrote:

Is it jus me but did anyone notice the building flaming up before that object hit it?

i though the exact same thing when i first saw it BUT i think it's just to do with the time lapsed footage

ReefBreak wrote:

Anyone who believes any of the conspiracy theories behind the Pentagon attack is a complete and utter idiot. End of story.

consider yourself on permanent vacation from here


back on topic just an observation here, the footage release is the exact same footage as the original released except with 2 extra frames or so which means editing was done at some stage, now whatever way you look at it those 2 extra frames released DON
'T show anything mind blowingly convincing (from either side of the argument) so why keep them under wraps all this time????? (not suggesting a conspiract here just hoping someone can suggest a reason has i personally cant think of one)

growler wrote:

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that a B25 weighs about 12% of a 767 , carries about 9500 less gallons of fuel, and would be travelling at less than a 1/3 of the speed ?

1: would most of the fuel in the planes hitting WTC 1+2 not have burned up in the ensuing MASSIVE fireball when the planes hit

2: how do you figure it was going 1/3 of the speed?

Kersh wrote:

If a video appeared tomorrow of a 757 flying into the pentagon, would the conspiracy theories be put to bed??? Would any doubter on this thread just put there hand up and say 'well d'ya know what, I believe it was a terrorist attack' ??

personally i dont think so as there's alot of inconsitincies and questions still to be answered, but it would go a LONG way to clearing everything up not to mention shred holes in most theorists arguments (including mine)

cant remember but whoever posted http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html, nice one, it explains physics ina bit more a laymen term i can understand

tunaman

nesf wrote:

Conspiracy theories (almost by definition) are theories that run again what is commonly accepted.

A theory is something that has no evidence to support it. Bin Laden could have been behind 9/11, but there really is no evidence, so by definition it is just a theory.

People need to think logically, instead of trying to come up with ridiculous excuses and far fetched explanations for all the incriminating evidence.

Their validity and/or truth are not relevant really.

The truth is therefore not just some theory is it?

Finding the truth is extremely relevant, as the story we were told has been exposed as a lie.

tunaman

DublinWriter wrote:

Speaking at someone who doesn't believe all the JFK conspiracy crap, there's a lorry-load of unanswered questions regarding 9/11.

I suggest having a look at this short video which is made up of footage from that day. The official version of events on JFK relies on the magic bullet theory, which is absolute BS.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=jfk

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

So, if I happened to come across even one eyewitness account that described seeing a plane, you'd have to admit you're wrong - wouldn't you?

I never said there was no plane seen in the area. At the crash site however none of the eyewitnesses said they saw a plane, or any wreckage.

Here is a short italian video on the mystery of flight 93, which includes interviews from people who were quickly on the scene.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tg77n3ckHGI&search=italian%2011

I find it very hard to believe a massive airliner could have crashed where they said, and literally just disappeared without a trace.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

I never said there was no plane seen in the area. At the crash site however none of the eyewitnesses said they saw a plane, or any wreckage.

Right, so several people saw a 757 fly over their heads, practically upside-down, at a low altitude.

What do you suppose happened next?

tunaman wrote:

I find it very hard to believe a massive airliner could have crashed where they said, and literally just disappeared without a trace.

Me too. The difference is, you choose to believe there was no airliner - despite the eyewitness accounts of one crashing - whereas I choose to believe it didn't disappear without a trace. There was wreckage; plenty of it. Much of it was buried as deeply as 20ft below the crash site, because - uncharacteristically for an airliner crash - the plane hit the ground with a strong vertical component.

nesf

tunaman wrote:

A theory is something that has no evidence to support it. Bin Laden could have been behind 9/11, but there really is no evidence, so by definition it is just a theory.

Dude, you have no understanding about what a theory is. A good theory both provides an explanation and matches a lot of the present data. This doesn't mean that it's automatically truth. It just makes it likely. Nothing definite there though and you have to remember that.

DublinWriter

tunaman wrote:

I suggest having a look at this short video which is made up of footage from that day. The official version of events on JFK relies on the magic bullet theory, which is absolute BS.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=jfk

I agree. The magic bullet theory is complete BS, but it's a theory cooked up by JFK conspiracy nuts.

Read this...http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

Dale Meyer's computer animation recreation (mentioned in the above site) of the whole incident proves without much of a doubt that it was LHO who fired the three shots.

And if you're still not convinced, go get yourself a copy of 'JFK Reloaded' and see for yourself how easy it was for LHO to knock off three effective shots in the time and location he was in.

andy1249

Good lord !!:eek: You are not seriously suggesting that lee harvey oswold shot kennedy , I didn't think there was anyone left on the planet that believed that tosh anymore

Squaddy

oscarBravo wrote:

Right, so several people saw a 757 fly over their heads, practically upside-down, at a low altitude.

People saw dozens of planes that day. This was just to divert their attention.

oscarBravo wrote:

What do you suppose happened next? Me too. The difference is, you choose to believe there was no airliner - despite the eyewitness accounts of one crashing - whereas I choose to believe it didn't disappear without a trace. There was wreckage; plenty of it. Much of it was buried as deeply as 20ft below the crash site, because - uncharacteristically for an airliner crash - the plane hit the ground with a strong vertical component.

What about the witnesses that reported the wreckage being put there after the attack. The reporter on CNN said that there where trucks there dropping debris all over the lawn.


Recommended Link -
Pentagon Timeline

and this may come in handy - Pentagon Building Performance Report - http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

DublinWriter

andy1249 wrote:

Good lord !!:eek: You are not seriously suggesting that lee harvey oswold shot kennedy , I didn't think there was anyone left on the planet that believed that tosh anymore

You're one of those people that must believe everything they see in the movies is true, especially regarding films like JFK and Michael Collins.

Dale Meyer's work proves that LHO shot Kennedy, and that he fired three rounds.