9/11: conspiracy theories Options

[ryfitaDF]

watch this:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85019
(it probably won't work too well if you have dial-up)

i know it's 80 minutes long but it is very VERY interesting.

[Simba]

Hm. Ok I'll watch it later when I have time.

Edit//I actually watched that whole thing. Extremely interesting.

[*CrackedRearView*]

There was a really heated discussion about it in the Japan bombings thread (I think). And I'm sure that there was a thread about this somewhere, too.

I just know that we've discussed the Loose Change video before.

EDIT//
I found it!

[ryfitaDF]

ight. thanks, yo.

[NoSex]

Posted by me at one time, in another place:

Alright. To put this simply: This is quite possibly the most misrepresentative, dubious, vile, fallacious, inaccurate, and misleading pieces of documentary or expository film making I have ever seen. I remember seeing the original so long ago, and later this revision. Both are very much a joke in my eyes.

These videos can only be rivaled, in my opinion, by the likes of great prevaricative cheats and trickster nut-jobs such as Kent Hovind, Alex Jones, and the infamous David Vaughan Icke.

Despite Loose Change being a bit provocative, and slightly interesting, it is nothing but fantasy and, almost more commonly, a flat out lie.

On top of it all, the idea of a conspiracy this large and the reality and nature of demolition held up against a microscope are both impossible to fit into the situation and facts surrounding 9-11. A controlled demolition is alot of work, and takes alot of planning. It doesn't go unseen, or unheard. It's a sensitive issue, in which even a small fire would cause a chain reaction and cause an early explosition. In this case, we would be expecting over 60,000 pounds of ammunition, an impossible amount to sneak in and wire up for controlled demolition. Not to mention the risk in asking a demolition expert if they wouldn't mind wiring and blowing up a building with thousands and thousands of people in it for a few million bucks. Among the hundreds of other people that would have had to have been involved. It's just silly.

[ghjgfkgfk]

that was boring

[*ECD & C0*]

ill watch it when i get time

[cashmere deer]

Posted by me at one time, in another place:
On top of it all, the idea of a conspiracy this large and the reality and nature of demolition held up against a microscope are both impossible to fit into the situation and facts surrounding 9-11. A controlled demolition is alot of work, and takes alot of planning. It doesn't go unseen, or unheard. It's a sensitive issue, in which even a small fire would cause a chain reaction and cause an early explosition. In this case, we would be expecting over 60,000 pounds of ammunition, an impossible amount to sneak in and wire up for controlled demolition. Not to mention the risk in asking a demolition expert if they wouldn't mind wiring and blowing up a building with thousands and thousands of people in it for a few million bucks. Among the hundreds of other people that would have had to have been involved. It's just silly.

And it didn't. Hence the video. ;)

[NoSex]

And it didn't. Hence the video. ;)

Nothing you see in the video suggests in anyway the presence of a controlled demolition.
However, my comment was meant to point out that people moving in and our of the building every single day would notice the presence of ammunition within the building.

[*mipadi*]

I don't believe a word of this conspiracy theory, but it might be worth pointing out that, if the building was demolished, ammunition would likely not be used, but rather high explosives. If, for example, Composition C-4 was used, it would not take nearly 60,000 pounds of it to bring down a building, even one as big as the World Trade Center--especially given the WTC's unique architecture and construction.

But I am not of the opinion that this was a controlled demolition at all.

[Miamivice2k6]

Here is your answer as to how they could plant explosives. There are so many conspiracy theories told by mainstream media and the goverment that are disproved this is really getting to be a joke. Anyone who still beleives the the WTC buildings were brought down by airplanes are probaly getting all there information from mainstream media. The physics, foresnic evidence. The advanced warning to goverment officials. The shipping of all WTC steel to asia within 1 month. The speed of the fall of the WTC being almost the speed of falling in a vacuum the powdered concrete,The molten lava shooting from the side of the building evidence of Thermite. Now anyone that truly listened in science class knows that steel starts to melt @ 2300 degrees now JET FUEL in a closed enviroment can only burn at around 1300F nowhere even close to what was needed to bring down those buildings but than people say the impact must have done it! wrong again WTC engineers designed WTC to withstand at the time the equivalent of 2 747 hits to each building! Now keep in mind that even if the buildings did fall because of the supposed airplanes fuel it still would not have fallen as if in a vacuum the only way a vacuum can created is through an explosions.. also the trajectory of steel beams shooting out proved to be explosions. Most 911 victims and families now know for certain that 911 was an inside job. Stop listening to mainstream media and investigate yourself talk to engineers, pilots and demolition workers 90% of people in these proffesions will tell you 911 was an inside job! ask a commercial airline pilot and he will tell you how difficult it is to navigate a 747 at near top speed on to a target such as WTC ask an engineer and he will tell you a steel building cannot fall on fire alone it is impossible! WTC was the first steel building to fall in history due to fire! check it out yourself. Ask a demolition expert and this one is my favorite every single demolition expert I have met have told me that 911 was one of the best jobs they have ever seen! If you dont beleive a single word I say then check out everything I am saying here instead of just eating all the bullshit the mainstream media feeds you. Stop being sheep and open your eyes a small and dangerous part of our goverment did do this. Do you think it is a coincidence that Fema was running terrorist exercises that same day? off coarse not. I can go on and on at all the criminial evidence but it would probaly take more than 2 pages. As to the question to how could explosives be planted there were so many people present click on bottom link an watch video. Of and mipadi you would need thermite to bring down a large steel building such as WTC. IF you do not use thermite then it would take a huge amount of TNT to bring them down not efficient and to time consumings to install activated thermite would rip through steel beams like a knife thru butter combined with plastic explosives this would be the only and proper way to do the job also the amount of noise generated would be much lower as only a small amount of explosives are used however people near the towers did hear explosions before the collaspe of both buildings As to answer the question as to how they could have planted the explosives and thermite without anyone ever noticing please click on bottom link. And please dont tell me that hijackers with box cutters could really take control of a plane lol

http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/23595/Un...C_Prior_To_9_11

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ paragraphs. please.

[Mr. Slowjamz]

i believe WTC 7 was on controlled demolition but not the two twins .

[magicfann]

of course, the government wants to blow up two humongous buildings and kill bunches of people and cause pain and suffering for....

gg the u.s. government didnt do it

[illriginal]

I honestly believe the towers did have explosives strapped onto it.
There's a video where it goes slow motion, and you can see 1-2 floors below the crashin floors blow out, thus makin it weaker for the crashing floors to go through.

On top of that, history repeated... the Nazis did the same exact thing and then came out with the Enabling Act... Look up the differences between Patriot Act and Enabling Act, it should give you goose bumps unless you're already brainwashed by our President and the media.

Plus I'd like to see video footages of the plane that hit the Pentagon... as in the ones that came from gas stations and hotel buildings... I wonder why the government agencies took those videos and never showed us? Maybe they're video editing to make it look like the plane they claim to hit the pentagon.

It sure wasn't a commercial airplane, it must have been a private plane... if not that, well you know what's the other claim.


Here's something that I wrote up in my literature class, was pretty interesting:

I am oft questioned about my loyalties to this country because of my views on 9/11 and the President. As one can imagine, I get numerous messages and whatnot regarding that very matter from people who believe everything the government tells them. Some polite and inquisitive, most rude and malicious. People tell me things like I am a disgrace to this country and if I don't like it here I should leave. I didn't know freedom of speech only applied to those who believe George Bush, I guess I missed that amendment to the Constitution. Nor did I know that dissent was un-American. It's funny though, no one calls the members of the American Revolution bad Englishmen. Am I comparing myself to the founding fathers of this country? Yes...and no. Yes in that I believe this country is on a path for a second revolution, and no because I haven't done anything yet. By this logic, I believe that I am more American than people who support our current administration. Don't take that the wrong way, I am not saying I am better than they are, I am saying I am more American. When I believed the official story (as we all did), I didn't run around mocking the people who didn't. I never told them "love it or leave it" or called them un-American. I pretty much ignored them. So I say I am a great American because I am trying to get our country back to what it once was and what it could've been had people like John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King jr. not been assassinated. As some of you have heard me say; our country has been stolen from us, and when something is stolen from you, you don't consider it gone and forget about it, you fight to get it back.

Back to the messages I get. I always ask the believers of the official story to answer a few questions for me, 90 percent of the time they mark the end of our correspondence. I use these 20 questions, some you've heard, some you haven't. Here is the list in no particular order:

1. Why has the government not released any videos that clearly show American 77 crashing into the Pentagon?

2. Why was all the steel from the Twin Towers and building 7 immediately sold to scrap metal vendors and shipped overseas and melted down to be reused without ever being tested?

3. Why isn't the collapse of building 7 mentioned anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report?

4. Why weren't the cameras atop the Twin Towers (used by local television stations) working on the morning of 9/11?

5. Why were the only 2 elevators in the Twin Towers that ran directly from the basement to the roof out of order the entirety of 9/11? Including prior to the first plane crash.

6. Why didn't former Mayor Giuliani use his emergency command center located in building 7 at any point on 9/11? This is strange because the center was built after the attacks in 1993 for the main purpose of being there in case the Towers were attacked again.

7. Why wont the government release the blueprints for the Twin Towers?

8. Why did President Bush sit in a Florida classroom for 20 minutes after hearing about the second plane hitting the South Tower?

9. Why aren't the alleged terrorists on any of the flight manifests?

10. Why did President Bush grant safe passage to 20 members of the bin Laden family (who lived in the US on 9/11) back to Saudi Arabia in the days following the attacks? This is strange because 2 of those members were Osama's brothers, and they were suspected of being terrorists by the FBI prior to 9/11.

11. How did the FBI locate Mohammed Atta's girlfriend the day after the attacks when they said they had no knowledge of Atta prior to 9/11?

12. If the FBI was correct in their assumption of Atta's girlfriend, how am I supposed to believe that Atta was a radical Islamic fundamentalist if he dated a stripper when Islam strictly forbids such behavior?

13. Why wont the government release the tapes of the supposed cell phone calls made by the passengers?

14. Why was FEMA appointed to investigate the collapse of building 7 when FEMA is not an investigatory agency?

15. Why was the 9/11 Commission only given a mediocre 3 million dollars to investigate 9/11 when the investigation of the Challenger explosion was given 50 million dollars 15 years earlier?

16. How come every top tier member of the 9/11 Commission has worked for either United Airlines, American Airlines, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Ratheon? Is that not a major conflict of interest?

17. Why did we invade Afghanistan when all the alleged hijackers were either Saudi or Egyptian? Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

18. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that we were 100 percent positive existed in Iraq?

19. Why was the Pentagon monitoring the FAA without their knowledge on 9/11? Moreover, why didn't the Pentagon assist the FAA on 9/11?

20. Ever heard of ABLE DANGER? Google it.

Good luck getting answers!

[*kryogenix*]

The stupidity in this thread is appalling.

[illriginal]

^Hey I thought it was wrong in the Christian belief to judge :D

But it would be nice if you can intrigue us with your knowledge of 9/11... actually can you start by answering those questions I posted?

[NoSex]

1. Why has the government not released any videos that clearly show American 77 crashing into the Pentagon?

Please give citations to evidence that they exist in the first place.
Ontop of that, how is this unusual? Is it not natural for videos of crime scenes and private investigations to be confiscated and generally not realeased to the public.

Argumentum a silentio isn't going to prove a conspiracy here.

If not an American 77, what do you propose crashed into the Pentagon?

2. Why was all the steel from the Twin Towers and building 7 immediately sold to scrap metal vendors and shipped overseas and melted down to be reused without ever being tested?

Immediately? Let's be more specific. And, how about some sources and citations? Should I just take your word for it? In fact, I don't believe you at all. Funny thing, a large part of many of the conspiracy theories I have heard surrounding the debris itself actually rely on the debris from the site not being immediately salvaged and sold away. Further, some of them require that at least some testing and press coverage was done.

So, are we going to have our cake and eat it too? Or?

Most of the debris from the WTC, insofar as I know, reside in Statan Island landfills (Not over seas) and dedicated testing fields nearby. The New York Department of Sanatation took care of a large majority of the clean-up. They were watched closely by over 50 (Often 100) police officers assigned to scout for clues. Hell, to date, over 7,000 pieces of evidence have been collected due to the NYDS and NYPD's joint effort.

Although private contractors were hired to help the effort, NYDS was the first on site cleaning up. After the NYPD and NYFD gave them the go ahead, they were in. The FBI, Secret Service, NYPD, The National Guard, and many others searched through the debris for evidence and clues. [1]

NASA has done some studies on site. [2] Other independent and government bodies have investigated and studied remains of the WTC.

Why don't you ever cite your sources?

Hmmm. Alright. So, what?

3. Why isn't the collapse of building 7 mentioned anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Why should it have to be?
What exactly do you suggest its omission implies?

The 9/11 Commission Report was largely a counter-terrorism manual. It was more an investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 rather than the day itself and the subsequent short-comings. WTC 7 isn't exactly the most relevant. Granted also that the official explanation of its collapse is due to an indirect damaging. Many more buildings were destoryed than just the WTC 7 Sure, it would have been nice to include it, but WTC 7 isn't the only building that fell to the ground and didn't get mentioned in the Commission Report.

In fact, several other buildings (including those of the WTC) were destroyed. Should they be mentioned in the Commission Report as well?

Your question is loaded. It assumes that the collapse of building 7 was of immediate concern to the intentions of the Commission Report. Well, it really wasn't, and that's largely why it was not included. It has little to no relavency to the picture the report was trying to paint. An expository and cautionary work focusing on preparedness and immediate counter-terrorism response needn't mention building 7.

I've decided that I'm just going to take your questions three at a time. If you care to respond, I'll continue. Otherwise, no luck. Your questions are just busy work. Mostly baseless assumptions, fallacies, irrelevancies, and flat out lies. But, if you respond interestingly enough, and do some homework, I may play your game.

[BonneVache]

16. How come every top tier member of the 9/11 Commission has worked for either United Airlines, American Airlines, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Ratheon? Is that not a major conflict of interest?

Airliners hit the buildings, people with knowledge of said machines would be helpful.

10. Why did President Bush grant safe passage to 20 members of the bin Laden family (who lived in the US on 9/11) back to Saudi Arabia in the days following the attacks? This is strange because 2 of those members were Osama's brothers, and they were suspected of being terrorists by the FBI prior to 9/11.

Most likely for their own well being. The members of the Bin Laden family had for quite some time had no contact with Bin Laden himself.

18. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that we were 100 percent positive existed in Iraq?

What does that have to do with 9/11?

6. Why didn't former Mayor Giuliani use his emergency command center located in building 7 at any point on 9/11? This is strange because the center was built after the attacks in 1993 for the main purpose of being there in case the Towers were attacked again.

If a plane just rammed into a building about a block away would you bring the mayor closer to said incident?

[*kryogenix*]

Tama, read this:

9/11 myths debunked

[sadolakced acid]

if the attacks on 9/11 were not done by planes, then why are 4 planes missing?

that's the main thing. i mean, sure, everything else is all well and good, but you've still got to deal with a missing plane.

[illriginal]

I'm just gonna take this to be the most informed 9/11 documentation:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

[NoSex]

9/11 myths debunked

I'm just gonna take this to be the most informed 9/11 documentation:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Please do not reduce debate to linking to all of your rebuttles and arguments. This is highly inappropriate. If you want to link to something, detail the specific argument you wish to point to and then cite your source afterwards . You have to do some brainwork yourself. Thanks.

Specifically to Tamacracker: Please respond to my post. I took the time to take seriously your questions, now I would appreciate a thoughtful rebuttle. Do you understand why I was only dedicated to answering three of your questions at a time now?

[illriginal]

Because the answers you guys are givin me are the same ones that neo cons, republicans, and the right wing spew out with... when in fact those questions have already been answered with a little more intellegence and plenty of sources to back them up. Some of those claims about debunking are merely just theories against theories... And I can link anything I'd like that's appropiate especially when it's filled with facts that most Americans can't handle, so the first thing that spews out of their mouths is "Conspiracy theory!!!" LOL

If you don't believe those questions were already answered, I could just copy and paste a few different forum boards onto here to show that it has already been taken care of.

[NoSex]

Because the answers you guys are givin me are the same ones that neo cons, republicans, and the right wing spew out with... when in fact those questions have already been answered with a little more intellegence and plenty of sources to back them up.

Neo cons? Republicans? Right wing?

I'm none of those. And, in fact, I have heard the same responses I gave you, in real life, more so from liberals, and independents. But, that's wildly beyond the point. This just seems like an odd form of ad hominem. At the same time, this, in no way, refutes my claims. This doesn't prove you right or I wrong. Its a fallacy, in and out. Relate to my arguments, pay attention to them. Do not resort to meaningless rhetoric.

But, even further, why should I just believe you? This is a debate thread. You are supposed to justify and intelligently attempt to enforce your ideas. Your ad nauseam arguments are not convincing. You can say that they have been answered all you want. You can say that they have sources to back them up. But, until you actually present these answeres and sources to us in a formation of your own argument, It's very hard to take you seriously.

I answered your questions. Directly.
Now, take some time to answere mine or kindly remove yourself.

Some of those claims about debunking are merely just theories against theories... And I can link anything I'd like that's appropiate especially when it's filled with facts that most Americans can't handle, so the first thing that spews out of their mouths is "Conspiracy theory!!!" LOL

If you don't believe those questions were already answered, I could just copy and paste a few different forum boards onto here to show that it has already been taken care of.

I honestly don't think you get the point of these threads. You aren't here to copy and paste other persons' arguments. You are not here to have an argument in forms of URL pitching. That would be utterly rediculous, impersonal, unimpressive, boring, retrogressive, and regressive. We are here to form our own opinions and support them personally. I should not just believe you, and I can not debate an article.

If you are going to form a rebuttle, write it out yourself. Talk to us. We'll answere your questions, and you can answere ours. Otherwise, you have no place here in the debate thread. Thank you.