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

Squaddy

WHat about the 3.2 trillion dollars that went missing from the Pentagon the day before 911??

DublinWriter

Squaddy wrote:

WHat about the 3.2 trillion dollars that went missing from the Pentagon the day before 911??

Are you mixing that story up with the gold bullion van found loaded up with gold bars in the interconnecting tunnels between the two main WTC towers?

There are so many loose ends surrounding 9/11, the shock is too recent and I think it will be years before we ever have a serious examination.

oscarBravo

Squaddy wrote:

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

A 757 was flown over people's heads at high speed in an unusual attitude at extremely low altitude - just to divert attention.

Uh huh.

Civdef, wait up - I'm outta here too. :rolleyes:

DublinWriter

We can go off into the realms of wild speculation here, but two things remain pretty concrete about the Pentagon attack:

1) Why are the FBI still witholding the video they seized from the security cameras of the nearby gas-stations?

2) The officially released videos don't show a 'plane, they show something slamming into the side of Pentagon that appears to be travelling at great speed and almost level with the ground, but I've squinted and squinted and I can't see any recognisable aircraft hit it.

You'd imagine the most secure military installation in the world to have *all* it's security cameras working. For the ones that were working, I've seen better quality videos come out of grocery shop robberies.

Squaddy

DublinWriter wrote:

Are you mixing that story up with the gold bullion van found loaded up with gold bars in the interconnecting tunnels between the two main WTC towers?

There are so many loose ends surrounding 9/11, the shock is too recent and I think it will be years before we ever have a serious examination.

I have no reliable source. I just heard about this last night when i was looking at 911 revisited update. So i dont know whether it could be true.

Apparently 3.2 trillion dollars went missing/ stolen from the Pentagon the day before the attacks but it didnt get mainstream because the next day was 911.

Squaddy

oscarBravo wrote:

A 757 was flown over people's heads at high speed in an unusual attitude at extremely low altitude - just to divert attention.

I wasnt saying that there was no plane, i was saying that the people may not of actually saw the plane "hitting" the pentagon. they may of saw a plane flying through the skies and later assumed that this was the plane that hit the pentagon.

ANd even if there was, there is no evidence to suggest that it was a 757.

Squaddy

The video (frames) they released the other day of a silver object hitting the pentagon looks more like this - a global hawk - a remote control plane

jjbrien

Please watch these and air your opionions after.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjcoPEGRXjo&search=hour%20of%20power

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjcoPEGRXjo&search=hour%20of%20power

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlygvqFLio8&search=hour%20of%20power

jjbrien

After watching these it appears that my suspisions were correct about the plane that hit the pentogon. I think that flight united 93 was supposed to be the plane that hit the pentagon but when the passangers on board decided that they would take down the aircraft then the white house told the us military to fire a scud misile at the pentagon and make it look like a 757 hit it. There was no recoage the fule should have bunt for days.

The hole is not big enough to be a 757.

flogen

moved.

jjbrien

hi flogen this is not a Conspiracy Theories this is a news story.

SpitfireIV

jjbrien wrote:

After watching these it appears that my suspisions were correct about the plane that hit the pentogon. I think that flight united 93 was supposed to be the plane that hit the pentagon but when the passangers on board decided that they would take down the aircraft

Thats an interesting theory, I had never heard that flight 93 was intended for the Pentagon. But then I dont believe that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon either, I think if anything flight 93 was supposed to go down, ie that aircraft and its 'passengers' provided the 'heroism' that the days tradegy needed and afterwards the great national pride with the 'lets roll' rally cry.

then the white house told the us military to fire a scud misile at the pentagon and make it look like a 757 hit it.

If it were the case that a missle was fired at the Pentagon, then I doubth it would have been as spontanious as that, firing a missle at such an important building and then convincing the world that it was in fact a 757 would take years of planning and preperation.

CroppyBoy1798

flogen

jjbrien wrote:

hi flogen this is not a Conspiracy Theories this is a news story.

No, it's not.
This has been a theory for a long time, well before the US Government released the footage recently.

It is a theory which says that there is a conspiracy in which the US Government orchestrated (or had a hand in) the 11th September attacks.

sprinkles

jjbrien wrote:

Please watch these and air your opionions after.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjcoPEGRXjo&search=hour%20of%20power

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjcoPEGRXjo&search=hour%20of%20power

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlygvqFLio8&search=hour%20of%20power

Second video links to the 1st again.

Interesting theory though, with alot to stand for it. But in fairness they could have full video showing the pilot pressing the launch button, an on board camera on the missile and slow motion replays of the impact and the American public would still believe their God fearing president.

SpitfireIV

Something of interest perhaps........


After watching Loose Change a few times and then watching the video's on the links provided by jjbrien, I noticed that the same guy, an 'eye witness' gives the news his account of what he seen. The only problem is.........the two accounts are radically different! See below:



The image on the left is from the first video link provided at 4mins 37secs, the guy says:

"I mean it was like a cruise missle, with wings, it went right there (pointing back to the Pentagon) and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion....great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out."


Then, on 'Loose Change, 2nd Addition', (@ 24mins) the same guy, as can be seen on the right, standing in the same spot says:

"I looked off, you know, I looked out my window....I saw this plane, a jet, an American airlines jet coming"


It is the same guy in both videos, just that the one on the right is better quality and more color, but check out the video's if you want to see for yourself.


Whats the deal with this guy? I wonder which of the statements he made first, if you can see in the pic, or check out the videos you can see that the Pentagon has already collapsed, the hit part, so hard to put a time on it. Why would he say two VERY different accounts in a relatively short time span? :rolleyes:

CroppyBoy1798

sprinkles

Well, keeping with the theme of this discussion i would say he was told what to say by angry looking people with guns....(or Elvis)

Good spot though.

I'm not saying I believe all these conspiracy theories but of all the theories I've hear this seems to have some concrete evidence. Absolutely no plane wreckage. Small amount of damage to an rc building hit by a fully fueled 757. No video footage bar 1 security camera, which seems to shoot 5 frames a minute. There are alot of questions unanswered and personally I don't think that a plane of that size hit that building, given the pictures from the immediate aftermath, the silence and lack of information coming from the US government officials only strengthens that belief.

tunaman

What about this stunning testimony from Norman Mineta?

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?"


Why then did the 9/11 commission completely ignore this testimony and claim Cheney never even reached the bunker till after 10am?

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

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

Those witnesses you provided all said they saw a plane, the only one who mentioned a 757 cannot be verified as there is no link to the original statement. There is no doubt there was a plane in the area, but if it crashed there where is the evidence AT the crash site?

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.

Where was that piece of wreckage found?

It is definitely not from the crash site, and just appeared as evidence in the farce of a trial a few weeks ago.

How can the plane smash into tiny pieces on impact, and at the same time bury itself 20ft into the ground, and at the same time there is large pieces of wreckage like you provided?

tunaman

Cheney instinctively knew what happened to flight 93

Cheney recalls taking charge from bunker

WASHINGTON (CNN) --As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets, Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker.

The actions included moving key members of Congress to a secure location and having the Secret Service bring his wife, Lynn, to the bunker.

Cheney was in his West Wing office when he received word that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. He watched TV and hoped that his instincts were wrong.

"It was a clear day, there were no weather problems, and then we saw the second airplane hit in real time," Cheney told CNN's John King in an interview in the vice president's office.

"At that moment, you knew this was a deliberate act. This was a terrorist act."

He called President Bush in Florida and spoke with top aides. Then his door burst open.

"My [Secret Service] agent all of a sudden materialized right beside me and said, 'Sir, we have to leave now.' He grabbed me and propelled me out of my office, down the hall, and into the underground shelter in the White House," Cheney said.

In White House terminology, it is the PEOC, short for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

"I didn't know that it existed until I was actually down there, and I'm sure I could find my way back there to this day," said Mary Matalin, a counselor to the vice president.

A relic of the Cold War, the deep underground bunker became the vice president's base of operations on the first day of a new war.

After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.

"The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"

It was a rare flash of anger from a man who knew he was setting the tone at a White House in crisis.

"I think there was an undertone of anger there. But it's more a matter of determination. You don't want to let your anger overwhelm your judgment in a moment like this," Cheney said.

Word came that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Aides frantically called the White House to find out whether a military jet had shot it down.

"The vice president was a little bit ahead of us," said Eric Edelman, Cheney's national security advisor. "He said sort of softly and to nobody in particular, 'I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.'"

Cheney and staffers watched in horror as the first tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. Matalin remembered the moment.

"Oddly everything just stopped. Not for long, but it did stop totally at that moment," she said. "[Cheney] emoted in a way that he emotes, which was to stop."

After the brief lull, Cheney and the White House staffers got back to business, which included checking the tail numbers of the last airplanes unaccounted for when national air traffic was ordered to halt.

"It was about 12:15 or 12:20 [p.m. ET] when I said to the vice president, 'Mr. Vice President, all the planes are down, and he said, 'Great, thank you very much,'" Edelman said.

Some aides suggested that Cheney was a possible target and should not stay at the White House. He said no.

"I had communications with the president, communications with the Pentagon, Secret Service and so forth. And we could continue to operate there, and if I left, I'd lose all that," Cheney said.

Lynn Cheney was a constant presence. She leaned in at one point to tell the vice president that their daughters were fine.

"It's something you think about, but again, it's not so much a personal consideration at that point. It may have been for people who didn't have anything to do," Cheney said.

It was the bunker's first test in an actual emergency, a day of crisis with some hitches.

Cheney wanted to track TV reports of the devastation and listen in on communications with the Pentagon.

"You can have sound on one or the other and he found that technically imperfect," Matalin recalled.

The vice president had a few words with the president just before the latter's address to the nation. CIA Director George Tenet watched from the bunker, waiting for Bush to convene a late-night meeting of the National Security Council.

"I guess the thing I was struck by was the extent to which he had begun to grapple with these problems and to make decisions, that we were in a war on terror," Cheney said.

Cheney spoke once more to the president, and then took a nighttime ride past the Pentagon, heavily damaged in the attacks.

"I recall watching the vice president, who was staring out the window at the Pentagon, and wondering what he may be thinking about, the responsibilities he would have in the future. A pretty sobering moment," said Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

It is a memory that Cheney said has shaped every day since then.

"As we lifted off and headed up the Potomac [River], you could look out and see the Pentagon, see that black hole where it'd been hit. A lot of lights on the building, smoke rising from the Pentagon," he said.

"And you know, it really helped to bring home the impact of hat had happened, that we had in fact been attacked."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/index.html

tunaman

Proof of WTC Controlled Demolition?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4837634583766795751

Pongo

Alright, I swore I wouldn't get involved in one of these discussions again, we'll never see eye to eye on some matters tunaman, and I really don't think either of us will convince the other of much here, but this post below is a bit much if you don't mind me saying so. I think you're the one getting the insults in, and you have done in other threads as well. If you stopped coming across as being so condescending more people might listen to you.

tunaman wrote:

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



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.

Also, I've said this in another thread about allegations made regarding a Secret Service agent who died at Ground Zero on 9/11, and I'll say this again, the link to the video you posted there names and shows a photo of a 9/11 victim, Edna Cintron. The video says she was identified standing at the open hole left in one of the towers, but the video shot is far too blurry to actually identify her. Can you post a link with evidence that it actually is her, Edna Cintron in that video footage of the hole in the side of the tower? I really think the dead should be left in peace, I'm very, very dubious about the Secret Service agent named in another thread, he's made out to be a shady figure who may have had something to do with the collapse of WTC7, but there are eye witness accounts of him on the street, wearing a Secret Service bib, helping with crowd control just before WTC7 collapsed. Unless you can PROVE, and I mean prove properly, otherwise, I really think it's a bit twisted to be using the names and images of people who died that day to back up your points. Could you please post a clear photo of Edna Cintron at the hole in the building?

A lot of what you're posting is, well, let's just say entertaining, but I really think you need to lay off the copying and pasting and blindly posting links to any video you can find.

Don't mean to offend, apologies if I do, I realise we're not in After Hours anymore and I'll hold my hand up and say I may not have actually read the Conspiracy Theories charter so I hope I'm not breaking any rules by saying any of this, I'm a regular lurker here and as I've preiously posted I think there are SERIOUS questions to be answered about 9/11, but I can't agree with your logic or methods tunaman.

Dirk Gently

Pongo wrote:

Alright, I swore I wouldn't get involved in one of these discussions again, we'll never see eye to eye on some matters tunaman, and I really don't think either of us will convince the other of much here, but this post below is a bit much if you don't mind me saying so. I think you're the one getting the insults in, and you have done in other threads as well. If you stopped coming across as being so condescending more people might listen to you.



Also, I've said this in another thread about allegations made regarding a Secret Service agent who died at Ground Zero on 9/11, and I'll say this again, the link to the video you posted there names and shows a photo of a 9/11 victim, Edna Cintron. The video says she was identified standing at the open hole left in one of the towers, but the video shot is far too blurry to actually identify her. Can you post a link with evidence that it actually is her, Edna Cintron in that video footage of the hole in the side of the tower? I really think the dead should be left in peace, I'm very, very dubious about the Secret Service agent named in another thread, he's made out to be a shady figure who may have had something to do with the collapse of WTC7, but there are eye witness accounts of him on the street, wearing a Secret Service bib, helping with crowd control just before WTC7 collapsed. Unless you can PROVE, and I mean prove properly, otherwise, I really think it's a bit twisted to be using the names and images of people who died that day to back up your points. Could you please post a clear photo of Edna Cintron at the hole in the building?

A lot of what you're posting is, well, let's just say entertaining, but I really think you need to lay off the copying and pasting and blindly posting links to any video you can find.

Don't mean to offend, apologies if I do, I realise we're not in After Hours anymore and I'll hold my hand up and say I may not have actually read the Conspiracy Theories charter so I hope I'm not breaking any rules by saying any of this, I'm a regular lurker here and as I've preiously posted I think there are SERIOUS questions to be answered about 9/11, but I can't agree with your logic or methods tunaman.

Greetings young tunaman,

I'd like to back the above user up in a lot of what he is saying in this post. While I appreciate that you are trying to convince people of what happened on 9/11 I think you do kind of shoot yourself in the foot a little with your love affair with the copy and paste buttons and some condescending remarks.

As someone who only a few months ago never questioned 9/11 , thanks to your amazing persistence I now conclude that the official story is bull and full of holes. I don't know what really happened and view the alternative conspiracies with as much skepticism as the official story but I do believe something is being covered up. This is down to the fact that I have looked past your manic posting and investigated myself on the internet, after initially being put on the scent by you.

I realise your trying to get across to as many people as possible but copy and paste is not the answer, and talking down to people isn't either. I imagine your probably one of the users most people have on ignore at this stage. (Not me by the way, I always have a cupa tea and biscuits ready for the next Tuna man video, but that’s more despite of your efforts and me looking beyond the copy and paste rhetoric. You're not going to convince many people by being obsessive posting threads all over the place. That’s just going to piss people off.

It’s about quality posting, not copy and pasting. Hope you take these points on board and don't just dismiss them. Have a little think about tactics, because even though I've looked into this subject after reading one of your posts a few months back, I am naturally curious and the exception to the rule. Most people don't take kindly to having stuff forced down their throat.
Look on this as friendly constructive advice and not a personal attack.

Manic Moran

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

"I mean it was like a cruise missle, with wings, it went right there (pointing back to the Pentagon) and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion....great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out."

Then, on 'Loose Change, 2nd Addition', (@ 24mins) the same guy, as can be seen on the right, standing in the same spot says:

"I looked off, you know, I looked out my window....I saw this plane, a jet, an American airlines jet coming"

Both can be accurate. He said 'Like a cruise missile', not 'It was a cruise missile'. It could have been a reference to the flight path of an aircraft flying relatively low and level into a building.

NTM

jjbrien

Its all bery interesting I downloaded the images from the 2 CCTV cameras I did freeze one of the images If you look closly there is an object but it is two small to be a 757. I used to work at Dublin airport I know the size of these aircraft the object is not even the size of a 737. It could be a RJ which is a small reginal jet used by airlines for low capasity trips.

growler

miju wrote:

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?

1. OMG, could it be that it was the fuel from the Planes that ignited and not a load of explosives / missiles / bombs already in the building ? So yes, I imagine most of the fuel on the planes would have been burning pretty quickly, as already pointed out this would have caused a fire.


2. Reported speed of B25 at the time : max 200mph , Max speed of a Boeing 767 just under 600mph.

Anyway this is no place for sense. i'll leave ye to it.

Kersh

Ok guys, I have watched Loose Change second edition, and I have some questions, but first, heres my stance at the moment.

----Im fairly sure a 757 didnt hit the Pentagon, im open to the fact that something other than a 757 did hit it.

----Im sure 2 flights hit the WTC, but who was flying them , im not sure yet. .......The only conclusion I can come to is that they were either A)remote controlled, or B)flown by hijackers, which leads to to the fact that A)if 2 hijacked planes hit the WTC, then that must be what hit the Pentagon or If they were remote controlled, I would assume that no plane hit The Pentagon, and no plane crashed in Shanksville......

----Im sure that no Airplane wreckage is in Shanksville.

Now, to my questions -
1) How did a B52 hit the ESB in the late 40s when B52s didnt come into service til the very late 50s, early 60s??
2) How come only one engine wreckage is seen at the Pentagon, when the alleged A3 that did hit it has 2 engines?
3) Why did the cellphone tests go up to 32000', when the calls were made by hijacked passengers from a much lower altitude (for example callers identifying buildings/water, so they must have been low enough), so it was pointless using 32000' as 'marker' altitude to prove that cellphones didnt work, cos calls were made from lower altitudes??
4) The archive footage of buildings being demolished shows lots of loud explosions/flashes to bring much smaller buildings down. How come only a few flashes are seen and explosions reported, yet they brought down huge towers??

Anyone??

growler

Kersh wrote:

Now, to my questions -
1) How did a B52 hit the ESB in the late 40s when B52s didnt come into service til the very late 50s, early 60s??

Anyone??

it didn't it was a B25.

Kersh

Said on Loose change it was a B52.

miju

growler wrote:

1. OMG, could it be that it was the fuel from the Planes that ignited and not a load of explosives / missiles / bombs already in the building ? So yes, I imagine most of the fuel on the planes would have been burning pretty quickly, as already pointed out this would have caused a fire.



Anyway this is no place for sense. i'll leave ye to it.

pay attention to what someone is posting before you come up with smart arsed remarks please

what i said was would most of the fuel not have burned off in the initial ensuing fireball????? (thus negating the ful fire / collapse theory???? )

growler

miju wrote:

pay attention to what someone is posting before you come up with smart arsed remarks please

what i said was would most of the fuel not have burned off in the initial ensuing fireball????? (thus negating the ful fire / collapse theory???? )

A lot of it would have burnt in the initial fireball, but since the plane and its fuel was largely inside the building (in a split second) it would have been more concentrated (as opposed to a crash on a open space) and it would still have given sufficient time to set fire to whatever other flammable material happened to be around. If Civdef was lurking I'm sure he could elaborate. The fuel burning would not have been instantaneous, it would have had plenty of time to start the resultant blaze.