9/11

[chromium05]

Firstly, apologies for the long post...please take time to read.

I haven't read through the political discussions before (although I am now going to read through), so I know there will be many discussions regarding 9/11.

Being British, I wondered what you American readers make of articles like this one below. In my own opinion, there IS a lot of holes in the whole, terrible, thing. Now the US has introduced it's "US-VISIT" scheme to register and monitor ALL foreign visitors, and the UK is introducing biometric ID CARDS (for every British citizen), I think the days of individual freedoms are numbered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

" 9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which are:

The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system.

In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history.

None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.

Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated.

Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked.

The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures.

The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires.

Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.

FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS.

Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.

In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.

The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers?

Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?

Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy.

In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11.

In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.

The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.

The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.

The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.

The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.

Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground.

As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.

Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.

These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11.

They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder.

Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq.

Otherwise, we face a future of endless war abroad and merciless repression at home.

Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job.

Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination?

Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?

Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world.

What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest.

History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom.

Thus the needless wars continue.

Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq.

Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else.

All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11.

But the American people will not - and cannot - tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext - the war on terror - to go around killing anyone they like.

If the American people DO tolerate such an insane strategy, then they clearly do not deserve to survive as a nation or a people.


John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the coast of Florida and can't understand why the president hasn't been arrested for his obvious lies and crimes. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have watched a lot of video footage, looked at hundreds of photos and read over a hundred eye witness accounts, all of which contradict the "Facts" as given by the US Government. Michael Moores documentry highlights a lot of these points, but there is a lot more info available that completely discredits Bush. 2nd November you guys go to the poll. If you truly love your country, and if you have any real sense of patriotism, you will remove Bush from his position and demand FULL, OPEN PUBLIC ENQUIRIES into the events that led up to, and include, all the happenings on 9/11.

Chro'

[valvano]

you forgot to add Fidel Castro, the Trilateral Commission, Oliver Stone, the Free Masons, the mafia, the Mormons, and a reference of black helicopters to your conspiracy...

:rolleyes:

[chromium05]

Freemasons? I could, but my Uncle Henry wouldn't like me to.

[ASsman]

Yes, but this really changes nothing. We already know how corrupt our goverment is, our intelligence gathering abilities are lax, and ontop of that we have a president with a 3rd grade education. Lets leave it at that, many people were murdered, eye for eye and everyone is blind, blah blah blah.

[chromium05]

It's the whole "Let's leave it" attitude that lets shit like this propigate. The US government pulls some shit, the US population is like "ah fuck it...we can't do anything anyway", the rest of the world see's you as being on some "Fuck it" cos you don't do shit.

Now, please don't assume that I am stating that the US citizens really do not do anything. Just that maybe you don't do enough. Shit, it's the same here in the UK. Everybody is so fucked off. That's why we have crowds storming into parliament to protest at everything. Tony Blair and the Labour party have thier conference this week, yet they have banned anybody talking, or asking questions about Iraq????? what the fuck????

Ah fuck it.......

[ASsman]

I never said to not to anything about it, but it does not change what we ( or I rather ) am/are trying to do. Maybe you can start some underground revolution and put out a underground video, proving this once and for all.

[D_Raay]

Thank you for posting this Chromium, it HAS indeed been discussed here before, but I for one like to keep all the details fresh in my mind when debating with some of my stalwart conservative friends. The conservatives are funny, they are being mind fucked by the neocons and are welcoming it.

[chromium05]

To ASsman.
Mate, If you read my opening question, it was "What do you (as Americans) make of this type of article?"

I didn't write the piece, but find a lot of points brought up within it to correlate with a lot evidence that shows the gaping holes in the "official version".

I merely wondered if the average American sees the contradictions that, the more you look, are glaringly obvious.

[D_Raay]

Mate, If you read my opening question, it was "What do you (as Americans) make of this type of article?"

I didn't write the piece, but find a lot of points brought up within it to correlate with a lot evidence that shows the gaping holes in the "official version".

I merely wondered if the average American sees the contradictions that, the more you look, are glaringly obvious.
I think the AVERAGE American doesn't care or doesn't even look up this information. If every American knew alot of this, we wouldn't be having an election we would be having an impeachment.

[Whois]

Americans are discouraged from thinking too much, it's part of the school system.

Sit down, shut up, stop worrying so much, you ask too many questions, whiner, if you don't like it here move somewhere else, trust our leaders - they know better than us.

That's why they're called sheeple...

[ASsman]

Land of hypocrisy.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Read.

I'm reading it now. It answers your questions.

EDIT: That list is bullshit. Sorry. Read the report commision and use some common sense.

[EN[i]GMA]

God damn that list is bullshit.

I'm going to destroy it. Wait about 10 minutes.

[EN[i]GMA]

9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which are:

It helps if facts are actual factual.

The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system.

Read the commision report. It happend.

In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history.

Prosecute them? Dereliction? No such thing. Bogus.

None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.

Wrong. Read the commision report.

Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated.

Incorrect. It is correct procedure but if you read the commision report you find out why this didn't happen.

Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked.

Allowed? They didn't allow anything. Mistakes were made.

The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures.

Bullshit. This is total fucking bullshit. Completely. I don't even need to rebute this as it's all utterly wrong.

The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires.

Of course they did. Stupid as fuck: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.

No. A plane hit it. Moron.

FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS.

Wrong. Read the report commision.

Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.

Wrong. Read the report commision.

In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.

Wrong. Read the report commision.

The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers?

Wrong. Read the report commision.

Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?

False. Incorrect. They were taken off the passenger lists so as to not infuriate the victims. Most of the passenger lists are "victim lists" from the flights.

Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy.

What? Bullshit.

In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act.

What the fuck is he smoking?

The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11.

Of course it was. They have laws like this on the shelf in case of an emergancy (And no I don't support it).

In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.

Really now? Bullshit.

The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Duh. The Pentagon has plans for invading every country on the globe on file. Especially ones that HARBOR FUCKING TERRORISTS.

Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.

So?

The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm WRONG

The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.

Wrong. He made a mistake. Pretty simple. Have you ever had a memory that wasn't real? Of course you have. Simple effect.

The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.

Of course it can. Espescially since this information isn't correct.

Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground.

Wrong. This is a ludicrious claim. Hilarious really.

As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.

HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA Translation: Dozens of calls were made by actors who auspiciously knew everything about these people, mimicked their voices, never came forward, none ever noticed, with evidence fabricated from some bullshit "doctor". Wrong.

Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.

No they don't. Didn't you see it burning? It looked like hell.

These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11.

No. These are false statements made by you.

They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder.

They provide no evidence of anything as they are all completely made up.

Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq.

You should be removed from a posititon of breathing.

Otherwise, we face a future of endless war abroad and merciless repression at home.

I see.

Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job.

Not again.

Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?

The rich. What?

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination?

Because forensic examination would be absurdly pointless. The building fell. Pretty simple.

Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

What else were they going to do with it? Examine THOUSANDS OF FUCKING TONS OF NON DESCRIPT STEEL? FUCKING MORON.

Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

THEY DON'T. Idiot.

Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

What the hell? Utterly absurd. The mayor of San Fran was in on it too?

Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?

Because they aren't.

Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world.

True enough. Moron.

What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest.

Close enough. Moron.

History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom.

Almost. Moron.

Thus the needless wars continue.

Yep. Moron.

Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq.

True. Moron.

Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else.

Very likely. Moron.

All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11.

Nope. Moron.

But the American people will not - and cannot - tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext - the war on terror - to go around killing anyone they like.

Close but no cigar.

If the American people DO tolerate such an insane strategy, then they clearly do not deserve to survive as a nation or a people.

What?

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the coast of Florida and can't understand why the president hasn't been arrested for his obvious lies and crimes. "

Moron.

[chromium05]

ha ha...

but as I stated, I was asking what people made of articles like this. Not that I wrote it, or stand by anything in it.

I was trying to gauge if US citizens thought that anybody with "evidence" that will show the government to be full of shit, were considered trouble makers and un-patriotic.

Do Americans in general think there is any sort of cover up or are you content to accept official versions and let it be?

[D_Raay]

Well let me just pick one at random..
Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?

What the hell? Utterly absurd. The mayor of San Fran was in on it too?
Conaleeza Rice did, in fact, call Willie Brown and warned him not to fly.
Hate to tell you Enigma but you are out of the loop on this 1. You don't know what you are talking about and should leave this one alone.

[Ali]

ha ha...

but as I stated, I was asking what people made of articles like this. Not that I wrote it, or stand by anything in it. And now you know what some Americans think of it.

I think it was a poorly-substantiated, paranoid rant by a half-mad conspiracy theorist regurgitating every rumour he's ever read on the 'net.

I also think there's something very fishy about the 9/11 tragedy.

David Ratcliffe (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/) has collated an incredible amount of very interesting facts. Chromium and enigma should both have a look at 9-11 Timeline/Stand down (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cah911TL.html) and compare it with the 'official (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm)' version. There's loads of other interesting stuff on his site, have a look and let us know what you think.

I've not had enough time to read the Commission report thoroughly, but it seems to be saying All the Right Things and very forgiving of an administration which allowed 19 hijackers to commandeer 4 airliners and fly unmolested to their targets.

The language of the executive summary (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm) is too emotional to be an unbiased assessment of what really happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/) and I doubt any commission would implicate the government in such an act, as it would destabilise the entire nation if it became known that the government allowed over 3,000 people to die so that they'd have an excuse to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and god-knows who else. This is seriously what most of the rest of the world thinks, not just John Kaminski (http://www.johnkaminski.com/)

[Blighty]

GMA']God damn that list is bullshit.

I'm going to destroy it. Wait about 10 minutes.

Sadly all you did was disagree. Or throw out insults. Or tell people to read the 9/11 Commission report which could not possibly have been a cover up. Obviously. No way. Just because the chief suspects were behind the the creation of the commission doesn't mean the commission was in any way biased. Nope. :rolleyes:

Have you ever seen any off the footage of 9/11 family members storming out of the hearings whilst screaming their disgust at what bullshit and lies it all was? Or photos of them holding up cards that just say 'LIES'? Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy? Do you think the Warren Commission was used to cover up what really happened? Did you buy into the magic bullet theory?

I always find it interesting that people are quite happy with the idea that their government 'made mistakes' but they find the idea that there was an agenda, a *whispers* conspiracy, this idea is obviously ridiculous. I mean no one conspires apart from terrorists, organised criminals and anyone the government or the media point the finger of blame at. Certainly no one in any position of power would ever conspire to commit a crime. Especially not one that kills large numbers of Americans.

It's interesting that so many people who can't handle the suggestion the 9/11 was a 'inside job' but they're quite happy with the idea that the current invasion and occupation or Iraq was about oil rather than any threat that Saddam's regime posed. That of course is a conspiracy theory but it's never called one. Why? The invasion has killed 1000+ Americans, 15-20,000 Iraqi civillians (who we went to 'protect'), countless Iraqi military (who were largely conscripts in a dictorial regime the West installed and supported for decades), and so the list goes on. People are comfortable with the idea that these people died for oil and corporate handouts but they can't accept that the 3000 people that died on 9/11 died for much the same reason. Why?

The evidence is overwhelming that not only was 9/11 allowed to happen but it was an 'inside job'. The PNAC discussed the takeover of the Middle East as well as North Korea and China in their September 2000 report. They stated that 'the process of transformation is likely to be a long one. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor'. One year later they got their 'new Pearl Harbor'.

There was a poll in New York recently in which 50% of the people asked stated that they believe that 9/11 was an inside job or at the very least allowed to happen. People aren't buying into the lies any more. They've seen too much. If you want to prove them or the writer of this article wrong then please do but you'll have to do better than: 'Wrong. Read the report commision.' or 'What the fuck is he smoking?' or 'Bullshit' or 'HAHAHAHAHA' or 'You should be removed from a posititon of breathing' and all the other pathetic childlike responses you gave to this article.

[Ali]

Respek.

Excellent post.

Got any juicy links???

[chromium05]

^^^ Excellent, coherent reply there Blighty.

I, myself, am really not sure what to make of these things. Being in the UK, I can observe and read from a slightly different viewpoint. My city and country wasn't attacked, my family and friends weren't directly affected.

There is a lot of substantiated info available that shows the Bush family have a lot of large financial dealings with a lot of people whose names have cropped up time and again. Sure, people could read more into these things than what they actually are. But at the end of the day, as anyone with a slight interest in looking for info themselves (rather than being fed a biased info diet by politically bound media organizations) will see, there are a lot of things that don't add up.

The thing with a lot of these conspiracy sites and publications, is that a lot of the info they publish IS based on evidence and fact. A lot of it is mere speculation, but the internet gives you a huge library to look for yourself for additional info that either backs up thier claims or dismisses them.

At the end of the day, there may only be a handfull of people that REALLY DO KNOW what happened and the real reasons...be them Osama Bin Laden and his allies or the US goverment.

It just seems that, with more reading of more new info, many things simply are not what the government and media would have you accept as truth.

Chro'

[EN[i]GMA]

But just because Rice didn't show up doesn't mean anything. If she was in on the plot wouldn't she show up so as to not raise suspicion?

The problem I have with all of this is I don't have any evidence.

Listen. Some of those suggestions were so utterly absurd it was embarrassing. It was full of errant LIES and bogus information. If it had any truth to it why would the author put in so many lies? Where is the evidence of this call center? There is none. Do you know why the concpet of such a thing even exists? Because it was created by "conspiricy theorists", free of ANY evidence, to lend credence to their theory.

If you want to prove something to me, do better than this list. It's very simple. If somone posted a list so full of errors, lies and speculation about how invading Iraq was the correct move, you wouldn't lend any credence to it. Why this list? Because it fits within your worldview?

And read these links:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ Why The Towers Fell

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm A plane hit the Pentagon.

I hate to sound "close minded", I really do. I'm not one who buys into anything unless I see actual facts.

And I'll check out some of those links.


EDIT: Found a perfect example of the problem I have. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

They say there was seismic activity before the towers fell. This activity was HUGE. Greater by far than activity of the tower hitting. How the could the bomb be substantially more powerful than the force of the towers hitting? That is totally ludicrious. Explain this one. The "bomb" is stronger than the towers hitting the ground in terms of seismic activity? Label me "close minded" if you will. But I refuse to believe this garbage. 9/11 very well may have been an inside job but I've yet to see the evidence.

[Ali]

GMA']
And read these links:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ Why The Towers Fell

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm A plane hit the Pentagon.

I hate to sound "close minded", I really do. I'm not one who buys into anything unless I see actual facts.

And I'll check out some of those links.


EDIT: Found a perfect example of the problem I have. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
Thanks for posting links other than the 9/11 commission. It lends a lot more weight to your argument ;)

Have you had a look at the Ratical site, yet?

I agree the whatreallyhappened site is a bit much, but there is some very good stuff on Ratical, especially

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html)

[EN[i]GMA]

No problem. I'm not a close minded person at all. I just need facts to support what I believe.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang

Their theoretical physicisists too. And not very good ones. I have no clue what their prerogative is on this one. Totally clueless.

[Ali]

GMA']http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang

Their theoretical physicisists too. And not very good ones. I have no clue what their prerogative is on this one. Totally clueless. OK, OK. Crap link. Sawree. Quit wasting time there and have a look at Ratical (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/), pleez?

[Blighty]

Respek.

Excellent post.

Got any juicy links???

Thank you. What sort of links would you like?

Zogby New Yorkers poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)

The PNAC 'new Pear Harbor' quote (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html)

Excellent video and website on 9/11 (http://www.policestate21.com/)

Excellent book on 9/11 (http://www.bridgeoflove.com/uk/alice.html)

Generally fascinating and informative website from David Icke (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/headlines.shtml)

Jeff Rense.com - great news source (http://www.rense.com/)

Alex Jones' Info Wars website (http://www.infowars.com/)

Michael Ruppert's website (http://www.copvcia.com/)

Propaganda Matrix (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/)

Oh and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/) ;)

[Schmeltz]

What's really bizarre is how people will willingly accept the most ridiculous, outlandish notions as explanations for events when a perfectly rational explanation is either not immediately available or is simply not to their taste. Of course, people have been doing this for millenia, which is why we have religion.

My man Gwynne Dyer spoke at my university a couple of nights ago and broke it down pretty nicely. Of course the PNAC were ecstatic to see the towers fall; they knew they could manipulate the event to justify their preconceived agenda - they'd been waiting to do Iraq for years. Not for the cause of oil, but for the cause of Pax Americana - the maintenance of America in its position as global superpower in the face of increased competition from China, the EU, and the other contenders. 9/11 was simply the confluence of two projects, Islamic World Empire and Pax Americana, in a train wreck that threatens to derail a third, more vital project - the globalist experiment we've been trying to undertake for the last sixty years or so.

Locating what happened on 9/11 in a rational historical context is far more fruitful than sitting in a bunker with an aluminum hat and pretending Skull and Bones is the paramilitary arm of the Freemasons.

[Blighty]

^^^ Excellent, coherent reply there Blighty.

I, myself, am really not sure what to make of these things. Being in the UK, I can observe and read from a slightly different viewpoint. My city and country wasn't attacked, my family and friends weren't directly affected.


More thanks. I'm in the UK too. :)


GMA]EDIT: Found a perfect example of the problem I have. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

They say there was seismic activity before the towers fell. This activity was HUGE. Greater by far than activity of the tower hitting. How the could the bomb be substantially more powerful than the force of the towers hitting? That is totally ludicrious. Explain this one. The "bomb" is stronger than the towers hitting the ground in terms of seismic activity? Label me "close minded" if you will. But I refuse to believe this garbage. 9/11 very well may have been an inside job but I've yet to see the evidence.

Well what do you think it was? Assuming these seismic readouts are real (no one that I know of has ever has disputed that) then what caused them? I'm not expert on seismic readings, bombs or demolition so I wouldn't close my mind to the possiblity that it was a controlled demolition. Based on that and other evidence I suspect it was. Probably the thing that really convinced (this goes hand in hand with a lot of other information) me was the footage of Larry Silverstein stating that they decided to 'pull' Building 7. (link (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html)) It was pulled on the evening of 9/11. Now how long does it take to organise the controlled demolition of a skyscraper? Days? Weeks? Was Building 7 already wired? If yes then were the two main buildings of the WTC also wired with explosives?

EN[i]GMA, what does your PBS link prove? There's little more than one engineer's theory about why the towers collapsed. As for Snopes I'm always trouble by the way people treat it like some infallible source of information. The website is put together by a husband and wife team who do it as a 'hobby' in their spare time. Whilst it is a useful investigative tool where do you think they get their information from? Do they have inside sources? Do they just Google? Are they always right? Do you think their beliefs effect what they write?

At the start of their article they use a Le Nouvel Observateur stating: "This theory [that a Boeing did not hit the Pentagon] suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality." What a ridulous statement. Unless you're happy with the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. The the US government happily kill their own employees for political gain. What this theory is saying is maybe it wasn't one set of bad guys but another. The guys that are blaming Muslims for everything to advance their gagenda. There's nothing in that Snopes article that proves a Boeing hit the WTC.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm no expert on it either. Tell me though. This bomb, shook the ground more than the towers hitting? Not at all likely.

The PBS link clearly demonstrates what happen. There is a huge amount of speculation about what happend from so called "experts". This is as good as info as your going to find.

Don't try to poison the well with snopes. That link CLEARLY proves that it was a plane. Their "information" is nothing more than logical explanations as to what happend. They make perfect sense. What makes my links any more or less accurate than yours? Are your links free from this bias? I think snopes and PBS are about as impartial as you can get on this subject. The people on the other side clearly want to villify the US government so surely they are the worst sources in terms of bias. Correct?

There is nothing in the Snopes article that proves a plane hit the WTC? Than what did? A bird? Come on Blighty. Don't be absurd.

[Schmeltz]

That "controlled demolition" point is a perfect example of the illogical fantasy and contradictory thinking that constitutes conspiracy theories. Let's accept that it takes a long time - days or weeks - to wire a building for demolition. When would this have been done, then? At what point were the towers shut down while the buildings were wired? Or was it simply done with nobody noticing? You've created one unbelievable point in order to justify another.

Maybe Jackie O did it with the invisible troops paid for by the Jews who harvested the riches of Atlantis.

[DroppinScience]

Exactly, Schmeltz and En[i]gma, in the conspiracy theory world, everything contradicts each other BUT THEY'RE ALL TRUE. Pick one already, guys! :rolleyes:

I'll trust PBS over any crap Alex Jones tries to present (now there's an aluminum hat wearing nutjob!).

[EN[i]GMA]

And while were on the subject: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[D_Raay]

OK, OK. Crap link. Sawree. Quit wasting time there and have a look at Ratical, pleez?

You know I happen to know Mike Rivero personally and a more dedicated and informed person you'd be hard pressed to find. Bashing whatreallyhappened.com is not only stupid but it's just your own opinion and doesn't make it so. I would tend to think Mike, who knows and confers regurally with MANY people in Washington on a regular basis and appears on radio every week, knows just a bit more about this whole thing than you fellows on this particular board.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm not judging him but any site with an article so stupid as this one: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang Needs a reality check.

Can you say, Non Sequiter? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur

If the universe had no beggining there would be no hydrogen left. Pretty shitty cosmologist here.

[D_Raay]

Er you did read the last 7 paragraphs right?

[EN[i]GMA]

UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.

From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

This works out to an event horizon light years across!

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevent, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.




That garbage? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380168/qid=1096653886/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2184287-0064813?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

To my understanding of cosmology, that is just simply untrue.

[D_Raay]

There you go with "that garbage". It cheapens the whole discussion. It's all theory and opinion not fact. And just maybe Mike's understanding of the cosmos is more profound than your's? Or vice -versa I don't know you personally, but I DO know Mike. Get the point?

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm just saying that the site has little credibility at least in my mind.

[D_Raay]

Sorry I just don't care for people brushing off his website, nothing personal. :D

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't mean anything personal by it. Just found it suspect.

[ms.peachy]

Good god almighty, what a load of dodgy science there is in this thread.

[Blighty]

GMA']I'm no expert on it either. Tell me though. This bomb, shook the ground more than the towers hitting? Not at all likely.

The PBS link clearly demonstrates what happen. There is a huge amount of speculation about what happend from so called "experts". This is as good as info as your going to find.

Don't try to poison the well with snopes. That link CLEARLY proves that it was a plane. Their "information" is nothing more than logical explanations as to what happend. They make perfect sense. What makes my links any more or less accurate than yours? Are your links free from this bias? I think snopes and PBS are about as impartial as you can get on this subject. The people on the other side clearly want to villify the US government so surely they are the worst sources in terms of bias. Correct?

There is nothing in the Snopes article that proves a plane hit the WTC? Than what did? A bird? Come on Blighty. Don't be absurd.

Okay so you ignored my question. What do you thin caused that 'seismic spikes' before each of the towers fell? Something did. What?

The PBS link doesn't 'demonstrate what happened'. It's gives a version of events. It's a side. A viewpoint. It is not 'the truth'. It's several (mostly one) people saying 'we think this happened'.

The Snopes link proves it was a plane? Where? More accurate or less accuarate than what links? Have I ever said I didn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon? Have a ever said my links are the truth and yours aren't? How do you know Snopes and PBS are 'about as impartial as you can get'? What research have you done to come to this conclusion? 'The people on the other side clearly want to villify the US government' Why? Are they terrorists? Communists? Evil leprehcauns? What aganda do they have? And why? Why are 'your' sources so trustworthy and 'mine' so untrustworthy?

For the record I personally believe a plane hit the Pentagon. I'm not at all convinced it was the plane we're told hit it but it seems more likely than a missile.

[Blighty]

What's really bizarre is how people will willingly accept the most ridiculous, outlandish notions as explanations for events when a perfectly rational explanation is either not immediately available or is simply not to their taste. Of course, people have been doing this for millenia, which is why we have religion.


I agree. Like the way people blindly accept the idea that men who could barely fly Cessnas (http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/cessna.jpg) could pilot 757s (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Ba.b757-200.g-cpen.750pix.jpg) and 767s (http://www.ansettinwa.org/images/Page%20Images/Fleet%20News/B747_767/BOEING%20767-324ER%20N767NA%20(Ex%20VH-BZF)%20-%20NORTH%20AMERICAN%20AIRLINES%20%20(C.%20Borda,%2 0via%20www,Justplanes.net).jpg) across large distances and successfully hit the WTC twice and the Pentagon. What a ridiculous idea but people blindly accept it.

[Schmeltz]

Far more rational to believe the event was a product of the nefarious scheme by the Skull and Bones society to destroy America and turn the world into a fascist police state. That's much more readily acceptable than Mohammed Atta having a good day at the controls.

[ASsman]

This could be much much clearer. I think this is why people find it so easy to question it. How hard can it be to find sufficient evidence, when a PLANE flew into the PENTAGON. Good grief, if you can solve a mystery crash from a disentegrated NASA shuttle........

[EN[i]GMA]

Okay so you ignored my question. What do you thin caused that 'seismic spikes' before each of the towers fell? Something did. What?

The PBS link doesn't 'demonstrate what happened'. It's gives a version of events. It's a side. A viewpoint. It is not 'the truth'. It's several (mostly one) people saying 'we think this happened'.

The Snopes link proves it was a plane? Where? More accurate or less accuarate than what links? Have I ever said I didn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon? Have a ever said my links are the truth and yours aren't? How do you know Snopes and PBS are 'about as impartial as you can get'? What research have you done to come to this conclusion? 'The people on the other side clearly want to villify the US government' Why? Are they terrorists? Communists? Evil leprehcauns? What aganda do they have? And why? Why are 'your' sources so trustworthy and 'mine' so untrustworthy?

For the record I personally believe a plane hit the Pentagon. I'm not at all convinced it was the plane we're told hit it but it seems more likely than a missile.

I assume it was actually the towers hitting the ground. Perhaps it was some sort of anamoly with the seismograph. Or perhaps it was faked. I don't know. I'll tell you it wasn't a bomb though.

A version of the story? Like what your links do?

Snopes and PBS are not funded by the government. They are impartial, at least to my knowledge. Prove differently.

They want to villify the U.S. government because it fits within their worldview. No thinking is required. Illogic us applied and BAM the U.S. is responsible for the ills of the world (Which may be) and they don't have to question their own beliefs. Their intellectually dishonest.

Because they aren't held accountable to anyone. They can say whatever they want, free of consequences. In fact, that's what they do.