# The 911 Conspiracy Theory thread



## MAJOR_Baker (1 Oct 2003)

Yesterday, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that stated 20% of Germans believe that the POTUS ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and the Airplane crash in Pennsylvania....also that jewish employees stayed away from the bldg that day.  The German author stated that he "believed" that there were no aircraft involved in the attacks and that the buildings collapsed because of charges set in the building to bring it down.  He also stated, he "believed the CIA"  had hatched the whole plot.

I was wondering if most Canadian military personnel (at least the ones on this site) believe that the CIA and the white house orchestrated the Sep 11 Attacks?

My next question is.  Do you believe the attacks on the US Embassies, USS Cole, first attack on the World Trade Center, etc were orchestrated by the Clinton White House and the CIA?  

Please, serious discussion only, if I wanted nasty personal attacks I would go to the CBC websites.  Remember, you are either with us or against us


----------



## Armymedic (1 Oct 2003)

While I totally disagree with the war on Iraq as staged...

I am with you 100% on the war on terrorism.

I can‘t believe that the POTUS could have ordered suck things... He isn‘t that bold, greedy or mad to intentionally cause the deaths of what 4000 US citizens.

And Isma Bin Laden was all made up to right...
I‘ve heard his name back to 97/98 and AL-Quida mentioned back earlier then that. So if its something a citizen of the US planned it was in the works long before Bush took office.

I believe though, for max effect, IBL could not have had a better administration to screw with. 

Whats your feel about the Anthrax attacks that happened in Sept/Oct 01........


----------



## Stakhanov (1 Oct 2003)

I am not really sure what to believe, honestly.  It seems pretty strange to me that the buildings fell straight down, so having planes crash into the sides of them, twice, and not have them fall on their sides....weird.  I have talked to people who demolish buildings, and seen TV shows on it, it is a very precise science, and friggen hard to make a building fall down that accurately.  Also Bush and Cheny released a doctrine (prior to 9/11) stating that they wanted all world governments to have a large US influence, and to do this they would have to launch a large military operation.  In order to launch this military op, they said, there would have to be an attack on the US comparable to Pearl Harbour.  Bush himslef has compared Sept.  11th to Pearl Harbour...I‘m not saying that I 100% think that he oredered them, but I do think it is a little fishey, especially since Osama has been funded over $3 Billion by the USA, why would he want to cut off his funding?  Also, sith new information coming out it has become pretty apparent, that the USA invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was the thing that really set off the vietnam war (just look around on the net, has been on the news too) Which really makes you wonder, if they could do it then, why not now? 

Just something to think about, not in it for any personal insults either, just stating some observations.


----------



## Danno (1 Oct 2003)

"Don‘t believe anything you hear and only believe half of what you see."

Buildings don‘t implode when they are struck by aircraft.  

First look at this video (a wmv file, playable in Windows Media Player) of a controlled demolition, and observe the "demolition squibs", clouds of debris ejected horizontally by explosions placed at several levels in the building to be demolished.
wmv file 

Now look at this video of the North Tower collapsing. Two demolition squibs can be seen clearly before the collapse descends beneath the viewframe. 
video of north tower 


What happened to building WTC#7?  
Look here 


Who gained form this incident?


----------



## nbk (1 Oct 2003)

I think the entire event worked out a little to well for the bush administration and a little too bad for the "terrorists" who were supposedly behind it.

It gave the Bush administration scapegoats for everything they were planning such as an enevitable recession (blame it on terrorists instead of bush‘s economic plans) the invasion and colonization of the middle east, the bringing together of the American people who were divided (remember the last federal election) and it gave untold amounts of revenue to the elites of the bush administration (Cheney and his rebuilding Iraq contracts, etc etc). 

It also allows the bush administration to institute more "big brother" policies without being questioned. 

Look at Osama bin Laden...a trained CIA associate, who turns against the USA? It is quite possible that he is the head of a terrorist organization, however he himself answers to the US government, like so many other terrorists and dictatiors have in the past.

I think I have brought it up on this board before but do a websearch on "Operation Northwoods". This was a government plan in the 1950s or 60s for the CIA to attack american cities, and blame them on Castro in order to start a war with Cuba...

Congress may have shot the idea down then, but what is stopping bush from penning an executive order, which supercedes congress?


----------



## gaffer (1 Oct 2003)

You have to remember two things before you espouse the latest conspiracy theory. First, the age of the building. It was an old building and built differently than modern highrises and houses. The frame was on the inside and the outside was simply windows. When the internal frame was destroyed there was a good chance that the facade only held the building together long enough to collapse straight down. Secondly, no one has ever collapsed such a tall structure before. Any idea as to how it would collapse is only theory until it has been tested on a computer or in the world. And a computer program is only as accurate as it‘s code. All this aside, I think Occam‘s theory would apply here: the simplest theory is probably right. I don‘t think the US could have destroyed the Twin Towers without major leaks. The president can‘t even get a little nookie on the side without everyone knowing about it.


----------



## Gunnar (1 Oct 2003)

> My next question is. Do you believe the attacks on the US Embassies, USS Cole, first attack on the World Trade Center, etc were orchestrated by the Clinton White House and the CIA?


Nope, it was Martians.

Seriously, when I hear these (usually) racist conspiracy theories, I just have to shake my head.  You can‘t argue with them, because any news story is "slanted", any fact is "biased".  It seems reasonable to these kinds of people that the President would kill millions just to get some sort of political prize.  Well guys, maybe in YOUR country...

And this message is far longer than the time I usually give to them.  :sniper:


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Oct 2003)

The only conspiracy theory that I ever found remotely interesting, besides the JFK assasination, is the one connected with Flight 800. There is some odd stuff going on there.

Flight 800


----------



## radop211tc (1 Oct 2003)

I‘m for the War on Terrorism.
But to say, you are with us or against us, is rather childish, given the fact, that no one has proven squat and in all likelihood was trumped up.

It is coming out in the news more and more, about the Defactors. Not to be racist‘s in anyway but some of the best Salesmen in the world come from around the MiddleEast, I have experienced their tactics, firsthand. Now if you want to defact from a waistland, are you not going to come up with the best story, known to mankind.

Let‘s look at it another way, I won‘t let you drink & drive, so I am no longer your friend because I interropted a good drinking and driving excursion?

Canada with its small military has been contributing to the War on Terrorism, to the point, that some whom over the years have gotten tired of being overworked and have taken releases. So in Experience, we have endured casualities of a differnt nature.

Our fighting capability is rather small, and I am sure, there are many that feel we can contribute more. My answer, you look at the numbers and tell us where, we can suck the blood out of more soldiers.

Tc...
VVV


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Oct 2003)

Call me gullible, but I believe that events played out on 9/11 exactly as we have been told. Sure, Bush et al got a lot of support to go after terrorism as a result, but it seems obvious that killing ~4,000 civilians was not required. (How much material justification was required for the recent Iraq incursion?)

Surely it would be cheaper and easier to knit up some nasty intelligence reports. And if no terrorist organization actually perpetrated 9/11, then why go after them? As a lead up to Iraq? Remember, Bush went in with the primary purpose of clearing out weapons of mass destruction, so if that was valid now, it should have been valid pre 9/11.

Logistically, dropping the WTC would be a nightmare, trying to get all the right people with the right gear in the right places at the right time. And security would have to be absolute, one loose end or hesitation and the US Gov‘t is finished. (Or what *that* the real aim here...?   )

Sorry, I just don‘t buy it. I also believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but then, I‘m a sucker.


----------



## Jason Jarvis (1 Oct 2003)

I‘m with Mike. I‘m convinced that the only truthful conspiracy theories such as these are those perpetrated by the guys who start them in the first place: "Oh yeah, I get laid *all* the time."

Pinning this one on Bush, the CIA or even the military is a total waste of time. You know what? Sometimes sh*t happens. And in this case, the bad guys scored first. The good guys have taken a few back, but the game‘s not over. Let‘s hope it doesn‘t go to overtime.

While I would agree that the shock factor of 9/11 can be compared to the attack on Pearl Harbour, saying Bush "did it" is like saying Roosevelt let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour just to get the US into the war. Or Wilson let the Lusitania get sunk because he knew it was carrying weapons. Or....


----------



## Armymedic (2 Oct 2003)

I read the article Danno provided...

Interesting....

I was in Bosnia until 22 Sept and missed most of the spin on the events....

One part I do find interesting in the article though is the impact at the Pentagon,
A Boeing 757 is huge, so where are the parts and wht is the hole so small?

Look at the Air India bombing on land and Swiss air crash into water, there were huge pieces all over the place for both, but none seen in the photos of the Pentagon, and I do not recall seeing plane parts in the pictures in the papers 2 yrs ago either.

It raises enough questions on one part of the story to make you think about the rest....

During the Cold War yrs both the CIA an the KGB raised modern day terrorists all over the world. Now its politically wrong to support these people finacially, so there is no doubt in my mind these organisations hate thier former backers....

Lets name a few from the US:
Saddam Hussien vs Iran,
Iran post the Sha,
Mujahedeen (read Taliban) in Afghanistan vs USSR,
and various movements in Central and South America.

Maybe when I am real old we will find out the truth.


----------



## nbk (3 Oct 2003)

> Call me gullible, but I believe that events played out on 9/11 exactly as we have been told. Sure, Bush et al got a lot of support to go after terrorism as a result, but it seems obvious that killing ~4,000 civilians was not required. (How much material justification was required for the recent Iraq incursion?)


Not nearly as much as would have been required if 9/11 did not happen. All george bush had to do is tell the american people that Iraq was full of Muslims and they were crying out for blood. Its sad but it is true. The beauty of 9/11 is that they can‘t associate the event with a perticular country, so in the american mindset all Arabs are enemies.



> Surely it would be cheaper and easier to knit up some nasty intelligence reports. And if no terrorist organization actually perpetrated 9/11, then why go after them? As a lead up to Iraq? Remember, Bush went in with the primary purpose of clearing out weapons of mass destruction, so if that was valid now, it should have been valid pre 9/11.


The "Shock and Awe" aspect of 9/11 is what worked to unite the americans behind george bush. And I do not use that term to be cute. Where did they get the idea for Iraq?

And the reason they went to Afghanistan is because it was a foothold in the mideast. They can use bases in Afghan to help with Iraq and now that they have Iraq look what country they have surrounded....

Iran was in the plan from the start (Axis of Evil anyone??). It is like chess, position peices, and execute. They surely did not plan for the current quicksand trap in Iraq. Afghanistan was probably the most unstable country in the mideast, so it was easy to topple. Not to mention it was possibly the most Islamic country of them all, and they would not have stood for the colonization of the mideast by foreign devils.

And anything to destroy Islam equals progress in the american mindset.



> Logistically, dropping the WTC would be a nightmare, trying to get all the right people with the right gear in the right places at the right time. And security would have to be absolute, one loose end or hesitation and the US Gov‘t is finished. (Or what *that* the real aim here...?  )


No doubt it would be an absolute nightmare for any group of terrorists to accomplish. That is why people with thorough knowledge of the buildings, the airplanes, and the promise of no immediate government action would have to be behind it.

And can I just say "Boxcutters"?? 4 Planes down due to boxcutters? the worst tragedy in american history due to 5 guys per plane armed to the teeth with boxcutters? It makes no sense. How many people on the plane? 100 maybe? And how do they know it was box cutters? A plane evaporates into thin air at the Pentagon, but $3 box cutters survive? One of the many things that does not add up.



> Sorry, I just don‘t buy it. I also believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but then, I‘m a sucker.


I believe Armstrong walked on the Moon too because there was NO REASON why he could not have in 1969. They had the technology and the resolve, so there would be no point to lie about it.

But the offical story just does not add up with 9/11. There are too many problems that alert and attentive people can notice. Most people are just too blinded by hate towards the first people they hear did it, they don‘t bother to think about it. It is easier to hate then to question. They whole plan relied on predictable human nature to be a success. And for most people it worked.


----------



## radop211tc (3 Oct 2003)

Its pretty obvious, that the POTUS didnt have a play in the 9/11 attacks, OBL has already claimed that one.
It wouldn‘t surprise me, that the C*I*A had a play on the Antrax though, what a better way to educate the masses on WMD‘s and then point the guns at Iraq.
Reminds me of the whole JFK/Oswald/Cuba deal.

Tc...
VVV


----------



## sm0ke (3 Oct 2003)

Im gonna pipe up here for a minute, just cause I dont think it‘s been mentioned yet.  I have a book in which there‘s an article on this subject, very in depth.  In a passage, there are photos (still‘s of CNN video taken live from the event) showing a 3rd explosion in building 7  of the WTC complex, after the initial contact of the planes into the two towers.  This was not struck by any falling debris or cement or whatever.  The explosion can be clearly seen (it‘s an aerial photo) to take place seperately from the initial fires from the impact of the jets. There is another photo taken 2 days later, showing the outer shell of the building intact, but the entire inner core of the building has been blown outward.  The official record states this building was taken down when the two towers collapsed.  This simply isn‘t physically possible, as we‘re led to believe.  Now, there‘s no way anyone anywhere will debate 9/11 publically, (in terms of who‘s responsible) but there must be something to explain this...not to mention the thousands of discrepancies that seem to surround the debate between the official version, and documented media that exists of the actual event.

My question is, this was carried live, across many countries...millions of people saw this.  How come it didn‘t surface in the media in the form of questions or debate?  Surely enough people picked up on it, somewhere, to get together and ask a few questions.


----------



## sm0ke (3 Oct 2003)

[No message]


----------



## Bert (4 Oct 2003)

Major Baker:

"I was wondering if most Canadian military personnel (at least the ones on this site) believe that the CIA and the white house orchestrated the Sep 11 Attacks?

My next question is. Do you believe the attacks on the US Embassies, USS Cole, first attack on the World Trade Center, etc were orchestrated by the Clinton White House and the CIA?"

I was going to avoid this thread because it put to Canadian military personnel and not civilians, but geeze, some of the posts are hilarious.  Keep in mind that an opinion is what you have when you don‘t have all the facts.  If you had all the facts, you wouldn‘t need an opinion.

I don‘t believe the any of the attacks mentioned were orchestrated by the CIA or the White House. Given news and intelligence sources from various countries and oraganizations, its obvious the USA has enemies around the world.  Enemies that would if they could (and did in my opinion) strike at American targets.

Terrorists are not like countries.  You can‘t make direct war with them like you could with Japan, Germany, or influence them like Central
America.  Yet, they are able to stike with the force of a country given the use of tactical nukes
(and they are available), planes, trains and automobiles, and little bity microbes.  Personalize this a sec.  If someone was able to attack you, had the motivation, and proved they could by striking out at you, what would you do?  As Canadians, no one has done it to us yet.  To the Americans, someone did.  So what would you do?  Definitely, this is a direct and thorough national security issue.  If the worst case is possible, the use of tactical nukes, I‘d say the USA (or anyone) has the right to protect themselves.  What we all debate about is HOW the USA is going about it.  Being the biggest target in the world, the USA is going about it agressively and with a purpose and maybe only time will tell whether it will be successful.  I personally can see why the USA would consider this a war.

The terrorists have emplacments in various countries and have the largest support and protection in Yemen, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, and Pakistan.  The Americans have chosen to enter Afganistan and Iraq for the removal of governments that have aided, could, or likely would aid the terrorists.  They will influence governments in the area and gather intelligence.

The issue isn‘t why the USA is doing it but HOW.
People take to issue the agression towards other countries, overthrowing governments, influencing regions that the USA has been heavily criticized
before.  Yet, if this is a war, with the likelyhood of further attacks on American targets,
what could be considered "justified"? How far would you go to remove a terrorist threat if this happened in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver,
Edmonton, or Halifax?  The USA has the purpose, the means, and the capability to undertake a terrorist war.  No other country in the world can.

My opinion isn‘t this is a CIA or White House created event.  I think the USA is between a rock and a hard place politically, morally, and economically in its attempts to eliminate terrorists (who are primariy arabic, muslim, and a lesser extent anyone that has a beef with the USA).  Though history repeats itself, this is the first time that such an event takes place on a global field than a restricted regional setting and its unpresidented.


----------



## nbk (4 Oct 2003)

> Then again I‘ve heard that it was not the japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor  It could have been americans dressed up as japanese and using aircraft painted like Japanese aircraft, hey, the missing American Aircraft Carriers probably participated in the attack....rediculious!


You must understand that people make up their own theories due to problems with the initial story that is being expressed as fact.

It is well documented that the Japanese were behind the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. The Japanese government--an independent and soverign nation--planned and decided to attack the United States of America. They had a reason to (expansion of the empire around the pacific rim) and they thought it would cripple the american fleet so that they would be unimpeded in their conquest.

The Japanese ambassador had planned to tell the americans just prior to the attack (about half an hour or so) but because they had to wait, the timing was off and it ended up being afterwards.

Again, you have to realize that "conspiracy theories" are not just around for the sake of being around. They have a purpose to help bring attention to things that do not add up when the government lies to the public.


----------



## Smirek (4 Oct 2003)

I have researched this topic much and have gone to quite a few lectures.  I believe that Sept 11 was just an excuse to get the people behind the prez so that they could go into iraq and take over the oil fields.

Cannot recall the book but the military advisor to regan and a very good friend of kischenger wrote a book with a complete plan for the capture of the middle east‘s oil fields.  It said that there were 3 ways to get the oil and they would need a pipeline to get it to the ocean.  They could not go up into russia because the russians would never let them, they couldnt go through china because it was too far and again the chinese gov would never let that happen either.
So the only way was through afghanistan and the surrounding areas.

Its all very documented and the proof is so blatent that I really dont understand why people dont clue in.  The CIA paid the hijackers through the pakistani intelligence network. 

But then theres the drug trade and the billions upon billions of dollars the US government makes from it every year.

Look at enron....  They are a huge company and were found to have huge ties with the columbians and most of the money on wallstreet has been traced back to them as well.  A lot of the money the world bank has is through these ties as well.  Look it up.

Its very plain to see, the US planned and put in motion the events of sept 11th.  I mean how can you believe that so many countries knew about it before it happened and have documented communiques warning the US beforehand.  The US has the best intelligence agency in the world and the most money.  If france or germany knew something was up then the americans would have known far in advance.



> I think Occam‘s theory would apply here: the simplest theory is probably right. I don‘t think the US could have destroyed the Twin Towers without major leaks. The president can‘t even get a little nookie on the side without everyone knowing about it


isnt it obvious that the government controls the US media?  Take the beginning of the Iraqi invasion.  They showed people celebrating in the streets and praising US soldier for "freeing" them...  But on so many other news stations they showed many many scenes of people in altercations with US soldiers and the tons of grafitti that sprang up everywhere.  They werent happy they were pissed cause the US stepped into something that had nothing to do with them again.

anyway thats my rant


----------



## Duotone81 (4 Oct 2003)

Stakhanov,



> I am not really sure what to believe, honestly. It seems pretty strange to me that the buildings fell straight down, so having planes crash into the sides of them, twice, and not have them fall on their sides....weird


The force of the jets crashing into the WTC buildings was not great enough to knock them over. The lateral wind loads they experienced everyday was far greater then the point loads of the crashing jets. The reason they fell straight down was because of the intense heat from the combusting fuel from the jets. This heat compromised the structural steels integrity and it could no longer support the overlying loads. These loads then fell onto the underlying columns and superceeded their load bearing capacity. You have the same loads but less columns to support them. Gravity would then pull the entire mess towards the earths centre. That‘s why they fell straight down. I read that most of the structural columns were located at the outer edge of the building as to make for more room on each floor. This arangement might‘ve had something to do with it as well.

Sherwood,


> I was wondering if most Canadian military personnel (at least the ones on this site) believe that the CIA and the white house orchestrated the Sep 11 Attacks?


*Most*? What in your history here has lead you to believe that most members here are paranoid conspiracy theorists?


----------



## Korus (7 Oct 2003)

I went to a website once that talked about 9/11, so I‘m the untold expert on the topic, and I just can‘t get why none of you can really grasp the truth. It was the Martians who did it, in part of their retaliation for the US shooting down one of their sapceships in Roswell. They‘ve done other things to retaliate too. Remember that mars probe NASA lost contact with a little while back? Martians. Remember Sojourner? It didn‘t really break down, it came across the Martians, and NASA has been covering it up.

The fact is that you will have paranoid people and conspiracy theories. People will also interpret things differntly, and try to twist facts to support their viewpoints. I also love what I refer to as the "Expert Phenomenon".. People think they are experts on a topic because they once saw a TV show, or talked to a person about the topic.. Everybody loves to be an expert.

Further, This forum isn‘t only military pers, there are a lot of civilians. You can‘t take some of the things said here, and plaster it to the rest of the CF.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2003)

Mike,
This is getting too stupid, and outside the realm of our forum. Please lock it out, before I do. I don‘t want to be seen as the          :blotto:      :crybaby:         bad guy again!!!


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (8 Oct 2003)

No kidding.Pretty soon someone is going to bring up the theory that earth was invaded by aliens and they disguised themselves as women to control us.Hey,wait a minute...


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Oct 2003)

Who did burn the Reichstad on Feb 27,1933?

Just raising the question of how far some Government‘s will and have gone to create a false crisis to it‘s people so said Gov. get‘s free reign and start‘s to limit‘s it people‘s freedom‘s!

Patriot Act?

Just some thought‘s.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Oct 2003)

Hermann Goering burned the Reichstag; I believe he admitted as much at Nuremberg.


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Oct 2003)

Michael it‘s not who did the deed but the after effect‘s.

"Before the sun rose on the morning of the 28th, over 4,000 communists and a miscellany of intellectuals and professional men who had incurred the wrath of the Nazi Party were arrested. A shaken President Hindenburg, 86 years old, was easily convinced that the nation was on the verge of a communist revolution, was induced by Hitler to sign an emergency decree suspending the basic rights of the citizens for the duration of the emergency. This decree also authorized the Reich government to assume full powers in any federal state whose government proved unable to restore public order, ordered death or imprisonment for a number of crimes including some newly invented such as resistance to the decree itself. The decree did not include any provision guaranteeing an arrested person a quick hearing, access to legal counsel, or redress for false arrest. Those arrested often found their detention extended indefinitely without legal proceedings of any kind." 

Hmmm sound‘s similiar to somthing flying aroud to day in regard‘s to one‘s right‘s.History repeating it‘s self in some respect‘s?


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Oct 2003)

Here are watch this and this is from PBS in the  State‘s just click on each episode and you will see the whole program.
If you have high speed conection just click on high or 56k.

At the end of watching it all let me know what you think?

The Man Who Knew!!!!!!


  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/  

All remember!!
With a grain of salt!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Andrew_Power (23 Oct 2003)

how could no aircrafts be involved w/ all of that LIVE F**KING FooTAGE!?!


----------



## Alex252 (15 Oct 2004)

I know im a little late for this ttype of post but i saw an amazing show a while ago on the WTC attacks. I myself am very lucky because my father was supposed to be there that morning....Thank God he wasnt. Well anyways i was wondering if you have any stories about what have you done to fight terror(going to Cf members) and also if any of you have stories about the whole thing, I've done a search and couldnt find a topic similar (send me the link and lock this if im wrong)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

I'm sure if there were any stories they'd fall under operational security.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2004)

Alex I'm glad your father wasn't among those present.



> Well anyways i was wondering if you have any stories about what have you done to fight terror(going to Cf members)



I have an answer but it probably isn't the same kind you were looking for.

What have I done as a soldier to fight terror? 
When i chat online and i see people talking about how all muslims should die, how cool it would be to be a sniper and kill people or how we shouldn't even give these guys trials, we should just blow them all away I try to talk some sense into them.

It makes me sad to see educated people try and use the attacks on 9/11 to justify murder and tourture.   We get pretty pissed off when we see news footage of people from the middle east cheering when the plane hit the twin towers BUT we'll turn around and laugh over a video or picture of a bomb killing a bunch of people?
I try and fight terrorisim by grounding kids (and possible future CF members) against the notion that war is cool and awesome.
Not very exciting eh?


----------



## Alex252 (15 Oct 2004)

Im glad you posted that ghost because i think it makes most of us on this forum(hopefully) realize that we have helped in a fraction of a way. I agree with the whole "war is cool" issue, most of those kids only play video games or watch saving private ryan a few too many times. Thanks about my dad. He lost a friend there. Unfortuanate really because he had two kids. I hope thatmost of those disrespectful will recognize that this is what the new war is like., not trench warfare or rambo.


----------



## The Gues-|- (24 Feb 2006)

World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny

February 23, 2006 – The number of Americans that do not believe the federal government’s official account of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 is rapidly increasing.  What is interesting about the persistence of the ongoing 9/11 debates is that unlike other instances in American history when public opinion was not in step with official government findings and eventually faded away into obscurity, public opinion regarding the 9/11 Commission Report has actually emerged from the realm of conspiracy theory, and elevated itself into the context of credentialed, scientific analysis.  Today, former, high-ranking government officials[1] and esteemed scholars[2] from key disciplines are lining up against the official government account of September 11, 2001 as described in the 9/11 Commission Report. 

If the objective of 9/11 skeptics and critics is to expose a federal level cover-up, or worse, a militarized coup d'état designed to significantly weaken or destroy the government so that those government officials and federal agents involved could establish a perpetual state of emergency while securing enough public support to declare martial law and make war, then the process of uncovering the truth and thrusting it into the mainstream media, which is currently content with the official government report, will require countermeasures that meet and exceed the effectiveness of the existing cover-up measures.  

Of all the cover-up techniques employed by those intending to perpetrate and perpetuate a fraud upon others, distraction is the weapon of choice and most effective tool when attempting to keep secrets, secret.  When considering 9/11 in its entirety, it is easy to become distracted by the overwhelming volume of inconsistencies in the official government findings, as well as the lack of evidence and handling of evidence by the government.  If FEMA, the CIA and FBI, along with the White House, did not intend to appear suspicious and even culpable in their handling of 9/11, they should have because they did such an outstanding job at creating the impression that the federal government had something to hide from the American people.  Secrecy is a distraction meant to get people to focus on that which they perceive rather than what they see.  

When reading 9/11 conspiracy theories, particularly those associated with the Pentagon, great emphasis is placed on what we do not see.  For many, the complete absence of a debris field or any notable and identifiable remains of an American Airlines Boeing 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon’s west wall, serves as evidence that something else occurred at 9:37am EST on September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon then what the government and the 9/11 Commission has reported.  Despite the fact that the federal government has sealed all public access to any debris and physical evidence collected at the Pentagon, when considered in the context of all the other inconsistencies and peculiar behavior of the federal government’s handling of 9/11, it is easy to see that if there is in fact a cover-up or coup d'état to uncover here, then the perpetrators of the fraud, which would amount to treason and mass murder, have resorted to lack-of-information overload to distract the public from uncovering the truth.  As long as the American people skeptical of the official government account keep staring at pictures and pointing at things that are not there, the guilty will escape justice.  

Let’s assume that there is at least a cover-up by the Bush Administration and agents within the intelligence, law enforcement, and military communities of the federal government.  What tactic should we take to break the chain of deception the government has wrapped around our necks?  When held captive by the chains of deception, the only way to break free is to find the weakest link and then, with all the might that can be mustered, shatter it.  When looking at all the evidence, and lack there of, pertaining to 9/11, the weakest link in the government’s account is World Trade Center Building 7.  If the American people really want to expose a felony fraud that would most definitely result in the public execution of government agents and officials for the crimes of treason and mass murder, then there needs to be a full force frontal offensive on WTC-7.  For if the federal government’s account of WTC-7 fails, all of the 9/11 Commission Report and virtually every element of the Bush Administration’s policies since 9/11 becomes highly vulnerable to failure also.  Therefore, what is needed right now, is a persistent, tenacious, singleness of purpose, public inquiry into how and why WTC-7 collapsed at 5:20pm EST on September 11, 2001.  

WTC-7 had 47 floors and was 570 feet in height.  Construction began on WTC-7 in 1984.  In March of 1987, WTC-7 opened for occupancy.  On September 11, 2001 WTC-7 leased office space to the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Of all the buildings that comprised the World Trade Center Complex, located on the sixteen-acre World Trade Center Plaza, WTC-7 was the furthest distance from both the North and South Twin Towers.  An aircraft did not hit WTC-7 on September 11th.  When the twin towers collapsed, because of its distance from them, WTC-7 sustained no remarkable damage from falling debris.  

WTC-7 did have visible office fires that burned throughout the afternoon of 9/11.  Pictures show the WTC-7 fires as isolated, primarily between the 6th and 12th floors on the south side of the building.  Specific information about the office fires is very limited because no firefighters were fighting the fires in WTC-7.  Because of the greater needs presented by the collapse of the Twin Towers, the New York Fire Department decided, based on its resources available, to let WTC-7 burn. 

WTC-7 is the only known steel structured building to have reportedly collapsed as the result of a fire.  When photographs of the WTC-7 fires are compared to pictures of other steel skyscraper fires that look like infernos in comparison to the fires of WTC-7, it is nearly impossible to believe that these other skyscrapers did not collapse due to fire, if the WTC-7 account is truthful.  WTC-7 collapsed straight downward, exactly as a building does during a controlled demolition.  For WTC-7 to have collapsed the way it did using the government’s account of fire as the cause requires that the fires between the 6th and 12th floors to have somehow and miraculously weakened all of the load-bearing walls of this 47-story structure, simultaneously, so that each of the load-bearing walls could and would fail at exactly the same moment, allowing the structure to collapse directly on top of its footprint.  

According to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing the truth behind 9/11, WTC-7 had fifty-eight perimeter columns and 25 core columns.  In order for WTC-7 to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.  

In less than seven seconds after WTC-7 began to implode, all that remained of this 47-story, modernly engineered and constructed steel structure was a pile of rubble.  The pile of rubble centered tightly around the vertical axis of the former building.  47 stories of concrete and steel were reduced to a rubble pile less than 2 stories high, and practically the entire rubble pile was found to be neatly within the footprint of the former building.  

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the World Trade Center Complex, stated plainly on a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC-7 in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.  Here is what Silverstein said.  

“I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve has such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’  And they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”  

It was Silverstein’s usage of the term ‘pull it’ that has spurred much of the speculation that WTC-7 was brought down via controlled explosive devises.  Silverstein has since attempted to cover his tracks by claiming that what he was referring to was ‘pulling’ the firefighters out of WTC-7, even though there were no firefighters fighting the office fires in WTC-7.  Silverstein knows the truth, and should be intensely interrogated, Guantanamo Bay style if necessary, in an effort to extract the admission from him that WTC-7 was pre-wired for demolition.  With such an admission and a confession of evidence whereabouts that would stand up in a criminal proceeding, the rest of the unanswered and unfathomable questions that persist regarding 9/11 will be heard once again, but this time, answered outside the control of the federal government and its agents.


 See the article and pictures here:  http://www.teamliberty.net/id226.html


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Feb 2006)

:boring:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html



> THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
> The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.





> WTC 7 Collapse
> CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
> 
> FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
> ...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (25 Feb 2006)

I particularly love this line:



			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Let’s assume that there is at least a cover-up by the Bush Administration and agents within the intelligence, law enforcement, and military communities of the federal government.



Because, of course, that's supposed to be a given to the reader. They quickly move on to the stuff that actually "needs" evidence to be believed...  ;D

It would seem to me if the black helecopters were going to do this, why waste so much time and energy on things like planes? Just say the terrorists planted explosives and blew up the towers if that's what you're really going to use. There will always be a segment of the population that wants more drama in their lives and/or wants to believe "the man" is out to get them.

I'm content to believe that Western governments are incapable of pulling something so complicated off without a hitch.


----------



## winchable (25 Feb 2006)

I was actually forced to sit through a video called "loose change" which breaks down the supposed conspiracy surounding the 9/11 events.

It went through pretty much everything in that article (and then some), I've been looking for a scientific source to refute it rather than the ones that simply say "oh well it's impossible because no government would do that."

I do enjoy reading conspiracy stuff, sometimes it's even thought provoking, just so long as you don't start to believe it as gospel.


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

Very interesting video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Very interesting video:
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change



Before we all go off the deep end with consiricy theories has anyone checked ALL THE FACTS that that video presents? Its just as easy for the other side to make false claims as it is for us to do so...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Very interesting video:
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change



Wow, the jiffy pop in that guy's hat must really have been smoking.......

I wonder how the people in the World Trade Centre didn't notice the demolition crew measuring and prepping the building, and didn't trip over the wiring required to trigger the hundreds or thousands of carefully placed charges that would have had to be emplaced on the building's frame (which in normal practice would require stripping away the walls, flooring and ceilings wherever the chage needed to be placed.) Even in New York, at least one or two people might have had something to say?


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Wow, the jiffy pop in that guy's hat must really have been smoking.......
> 
> I wonder how the people in the World Trade Centre didn't notice the demolition crew measuring and prepping the building, and didn't trip over the wiring required to trigger the hundreds or thousands of carefully placed charges that would have had to be emplaced on the building's frame (which in normal practice would require stripping away the walls, flooring and ceilings wherever the chage needed to be placed.) Even in New York, at least one or two people might have had something to say?



I posted the video, I didn't say where my beliefs lie within it.  I know for a fact it is a very good chance you commented on the video before you watched the entirety of the video.  If you want to believe a single plane was the cause of the collapsing of both towers and refuse to be open minded and hear other explanations of the cause of the collapse, so be it.  You have made a lot of intelligent posts, it's hard to believe you would let the Bush administration insult your intelligence as an individual.  Personally, I don't believe everything the Bush Administration says and I don't believe in everything anyone says.  Don't be afraid of other possibilities and close your eyes out of ignorance, I hope your questions will be answered with the truth someday.  Until then, open up... it helps expand knowledge.


----------



## Gayson (5 Mar 2006)

I love the inconsistencies about the tower collapsing in his arguements.

Like, how the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the metal.

BUT, he left out one HUGE and very basic engineering principle.

The Modulus of Elasticity.

Even if the fuel didn't melt the steel, it would probably have it made flexible and weak enough for the structure to fail, let alone the huge force of the collision itself.


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I love the inconsistencies about the tower collapsing in his arguements.
> 
> Like, how the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the metal.


So, you disagree?



			
				J. Gayson said:
			
		

> BUT, he left out one HUGE and very basic engineering principle.
> 
> The Modulus of Elasticity.
> 
> Even if the fuel didn't melt the steel, it would probably have it made flexible and weak enough for the structure to fail, let alone the huge force of the collision itself.



Did you watch the entire video?


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Mar 2006)

Gues - speaking of open-minded, when you posted this kind of stuff in radio chatter, I posted the article from Popular Mechanics that specifically and methodically refutes many of the 9/11 rumours.. I didn't notice a rebuttal to PM ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Mar 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Alex I'm glad your father wasn't among those present.
> 
> I have an answer but it probably isn't the same kind you were looking for.
> 
> ...



I have real issues with ghosts post. Murder and torture in the name of WTC ? You are badly informed. Enemies killed in wartime are not murdered. The victims in the WTC WERE murdered. Sorry you cant see the difference. I sure as hell hope you dont wear a military uniform because if you do you are in the wrong profession. The enemy are islmaofascists. That mean's they want to end your way of life and kill you or force you to convert to islam[wahabism] and their way of life. 

I have had the privilege to serve the US for 34 years. Keeping the American people safe from communism. Helping our friends out of tight spots - Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm. UN peacekeeping in Somalia. Helping to protect our German and Korean allies so that they can continue to enjoy peace and freedom. Our political leadership failed to respond adequately in the unprovoked attacks on Khobar Towers, embassy attacks in Africa and finally the Cole which led to WTC. In the response to WTC I am proud to have had a small part to play in both OEF and OIF. This is a different kind of war, one where the enemy wraps himself in the trappings of religion, but his goals are no different than Hitler or Stalin. If they have their way this will be an islamic world. We see revisionist history where the holocaust is concerned and now WTC. The facts are in the video link below.

http://attacked911.tripod.com/


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Gues - speaking of open-minded, when you posted this kind of stuff in radio chatter, I posted the article from Popular Mechanics that specifically and methodically refutes many of the 9/11 rumours.. I didn't notice a rebuttal to PM ...
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html



Point being?  Why would I re-but something I don't necessarily disagree with?  It's not like I wrote the article. 
BTW it's Gues-|-


----------



## armyvern (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> So, you disagree?


I do. What a bunch of crap.


			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Did you watch the entire video?


Yes I did.

On Aug 28th 2001 as I was paying off my bills in a certain very ancient City overseas, the vendors I had dealt with throughout that current deployment of mine were all asking myself and those I was with when we were leaving and seemed very anxious.
One such gentleman leaned over to my friend and myself when we answered Sept 4th and stated "good you pretty girls will be gone just before the war starts." A startling statement to say the least and one which we reported to CSZero upon return to our camp. Others reported similar remarks.
As I lay home relaxing on my 5 days disembarkation watching the news on Sept 11th, I flew off the couch immediately upon seeing the first plane fly into the Tower. My 9er asked what was up and I told him the war was on and that I was going to work. I knew immediately that this event was that which the vendor referred to. I could feel it in my bones. 9er thought I was a nut case. I drove through the gates (which were being picketed you'll recall) and into the Hangar, I turned on the TV in conference room, watched the second plane hit and went upstairs to the OR to put in my waiver.
Was this just instinct on my part? Don't think so. Did the Bush government inform this certain country of their intentions to wilfully blow up their own buildings with their own citizens in it (according to the conspiracy theorists in this video)? The answer is: Not a chance in Hell....Open mind not needed here..you only needed to be in my shoes on 28 Aug 01... then you'd feel it in your gut too.

May those who died on 9/11 Rest in Peace... and may the conspiracy freaks allow them to.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Mar 2006)

> BTW it's Gues-|-



BTW... I know


----------



## Korus (5 Mar 2006)

GREAT link, Muskrat.. I was looking for something like that..


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2006)

1. I watched the second plane strike Tower2 live in the commander's office (where we were all watching with horror). Watching people choosing to leap a thousand feet to their death rather than being burned alive was also something I don't think I will ever forget. My wife's aunt, who lives in Brooklyn, is also an eyewitness, and of course there are literally thousands of eyewitness reports, and lots of other documentary and other evidence collected in the aftermath which simply does not support the various conspiracy theories floating in cyberspace.

2. Lots of people associated with the AQ were quite eager to take credit in the minutes and hours following the attacks. 

3. The destruction of the towers, and damage to the Pentagon can easily be explained by engineering principles, you don't have to look too far to find credible information

4. After looking at the competing "evidence" for the collapse of the twin towers, I don't need George W Bush to tell me what is or is not real. 

5. The line about the US Administration brainwashing or insulting people's intelligence is a popular insult from the political left, which would seem to be an automatic debate ender; people with such a pathological hatred of the Administration are not interested in reasoned debate, to them we are just dupes of an all powerful (yet at the same time ineffectual) government.


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 1. I watched the second plane strike Tower2 live in the commander's office (where we were all watching with horror). Watching people choosing to leap a thousand feet to their death rather than being burned alive was also something I don't think I will ever forget. My wife's aunt, who lives in Brooklyn, is also an eyewitness, and of course there are literally thousands of eyewitness reports, and lots of other documentary and other evidence collected in the aftermath which simply does not support the various conspiracy theories floating in cyberspace.



Well don't I look like the asshole!  If I had known you were there I wouldn't of bothered with the "commented on the video before you watched the entirety of the video" comment.  Why didn't you say!? :-\



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> 5. The line about the US Administration brainwashing or insulting people's intelligence is a popular insult from the political left, which would seem to be an automatic debate ender; people with such a pathological hatred of the Administration are not interested in reasoned debate, to them we are just dupes of an all powerful (yet at the same time ineffectual) government.



note: I'm not one of those lefty's with a tin foil hat which a couple people have accused me of being.  In fact, I'm probably the farthest from it.  However, I don't mind reading into the other side and posting what I think will only cause a good debate and is in the interests of others. Debate is inevitable and I like hearing from other peoples perspectives.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> note: I'm not one of those lefty's with a tin foil hat which a couple people have accused me of being.  In fact, I'm probably the farthest from it.  However, I don't mind reading into the other side and posting what I think will only cause a good debate and is in the interests of others. Debate is inevitable and I like hearing from other peoples perspectives.



And yet, you have thus far failed to express any of your own views on this, while readily attacking others for their views and opinions.  Creating debate is encouraged, doing it without providing any useful input and only yanking other's chains is not.  I would suggest that if you want this "debate" to continue that you either engage in it, or it will be shut down as an unproductive thread merely existing to stroke your ego.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Mar 2006)

> note: I'm not one of those lefty's with a tin foil hat which a couple people have accused me of being.  In fact, I'm probably the farthest from it.  However, I don't mind reading into the other side and posting what I think will only cause a good debate and is in the interests of others. Debate is inevitable and I like hearing from other peoples perspectives.



That's not why you posted the link.  You just wanted to stir crap.  You knew what the predictable response on this forum would be to that same old load of conspiracy theory crap that violates in every way Occam's Razor (now you know my opinion).  If you want to debate- debate.  Don't post something this ridiculous and then retreat into the intellectually dishonest "hey, I don't agree with this... I'm just proving to you all how enlightened I am by giving equal weight to every opinion" crap.  

There are some things that should not require debate.  For example, had I been alive during WW2, I would not have felt any need to engage Adolph Hitler in a debate to sound out his motives.  I have no desire or need to debate with Osama Bin Laden today...

Have a nice evening.


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And yet, you have thus far failed to express any of your own views on this, while readily attacking others for their views and opinions.  Creating debate is encouraged, doing it without providing any useful input and only yanking other's chains is not.  I would suggest that if you want this "debate" to continue that you either engage in it, or it will be shut down as an unproductive thread merely existing to stroke your ego.



The only thing I failed to do was just that,  Readily attack peoples views.  I did not destructively ctricize anyones views or cause harm.  Stroking my ego is the least of my worries.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don't post something this ridiculous


As rediculous as this?





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That's not why you posted the link.  You just wanted to stir crap.  You knew what the predictable response on this forum would be to that same old load of conspiracy theory crap that violates in every way Occam's Razor (now you know my opinion).





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> "hey, I don't agree with this... I'm just proving to you all how enlightened I am by giving equal weight to every opinion" crap.


What's wrong with that? Some people are that intellectually honest.  

Surely my intent was not to "yank peoples chains".  I found a video and simply thought at least one individual here would like to see it and posted it.  I didn't think my opinion was necessary to attach to the video post at the time.  a_majoor wrote what was written and I countered from what I thought was ignorance, at the time.



			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> However, I don't mind reading into the other side and posting what I think will only cause a good debate and is in the interests of others. Debate is inevitable and I like hearing from other peoples perspectives.



This apply's to more than this thread.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> The only thing I failed to do was just that,  Readily attack peoples views.



How true, forgive me.  You not once attacked people _views_, your approach was consistently more personal:




			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> You have made a lot of intelligent posts, it's hard to believe you would let the Bush administration insult your intelligence as an individual.  ........  Until then, open up... it helps expand knowledge.





			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Did you watch the entire video?





			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Point being?





			
				The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Well don't I look like the *******!  If I had known you were there I wouldn't of bothered with the "commented on the video before you watched the entirety of the video" comment.  Why didn't you say!? :-\




Please review the Conduct Guidelines:



> You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.





> Users that ignore these rules or otherwise act inappropriately may be placed on warning or banned.



Now, are *YOU* going to discuss the topic *YOU* introduced into this thread, or are you only planning to continue to broadcast static?


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How true, forgive me.  You not once attacked people _views_, your approach was consistently more personal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems like a lost cause considering you evidently misinterpret my comments as destructive criticism that 'feeds the trolls' .


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Seems like a lost cause considering you evidently misinterpret my comments as destructive criticism that 'feeds the trolls' .



Keep it on track.

You were asked a question. The polite thing to do would be to answer.

Staff


----------



## The Gues-|- (5 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Keep it on track.
> 
> You were asked a question. The polite thing to do would be to answer.
> 
> Staff



Personally, I think it would be better to lock the thread.  Having said that, I'm open for debate.


----------



## Gunner (5 Mar 2006)

I think this has gone as far as it needs to go.  If you want it reopened, PM and make a persuasive argument.


----------



## triniman (16 Mar 2006)

Like most folks, I'm exhausted and bored about 9/11 and the stupid conspiracy theories that insult our inteligence.

However, I decided to watch this documentary since it's only and runs from Google video for free.  It's actually quite interesting and does point out errors that most people believe about 9/11.

It's 82 minutes long.  For sure, no major media outlet is going to challenge this film *point by *point, and that's too bad.  If it really is as full of inacuracies as the detractors will say, then they should be easy to point out.

See it and then unleash your comments.  It's called "Loose Change 2nd Edition."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change


----------



## meni0n (16 Mar 2006)

Sorry but I watched Loose Change and it's just a big pile of ....


----------



## brandon_g (16 Mar 2006)

That film boggles your mind.  I thought for sure that this was a terrorist act by Al Quida (spelling might be wrong), but after seeing this video makes me think twice.  I always knew that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, from watching other videos, but flight 93....voice fakes....I want to know where those passengers went.  Calling from 32 000 feet across country is impossible.  Also, for all we know, the explosions that detonated the towers to collapse them, could have been place by Iraqi's terrorists. 911 is a gigantic mystery, and I hope something is uncovered to unveil the truth behind this.  Great video, if your deciding whether to watch it and have the time, I recommend it.


----------



## meni0n (16 Mar 2006)

Did you notice he didn't offer one piece of solid evidence? He didn't even show an interview with an expert. I can make a documentary too where I can claim alot of things and take things out of context and interview janitors.


----------



## brandon_g (16 Mar 2006)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Did you notice he didn't offer one piece of solid evidence? He didn't even show an interview with an expert. I can make a documentary too where I can claim alot of things and take things out of context and interview janitors.



LOL, but the videos were pretty convincing.  I dont care who did it...there is still terrorists in Iraq/Afgan.


----------



## ROTP Applicant (16 Mar 2006)

Someone else had previously posted this link http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html in another thread which debunks most of the 9/11 myths. It's worth the read...


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Mar 2006)

Didn't we recently discuss this "documentary"?

Oh yes, here it is ....   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21449.0/all.html (link posted in Reply No. 4) - Actually, I've saved you the time and merged them, just scroll up.

And the result .... locked.

Just like this one.  Ask a Mod to reopen if you actually find evidence to post.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (5 Apr 2006)

Check that out: http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf  :
Did anyone ever hear someone saying that the 9/11 pentagon strike is a US invention (well, some say that the hole 9/11 thing is a US invention) ? Well, if it was, it is not anymore!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

Oh boy... where to even begin...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

Ok- found the video I was looking for.  

ATTENTION- ALL TIN FOIL HAT WEARING PEOPLE!!!

Please observe closely what happens to an aircraft when it hits a concrete structure at 500 MPH.  Effectively, it atomizes.  Which is why there was "no wreckage" left at the Pentagon.

Good enough for me...you may all now return to worrying about how the Illuminati faked Elvis' death (or whatever).

Any other urban legends need debunking?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

WOW!!!


----------



## Sheerin (6 Apr 2006)

The internet has done many things, it allows us (students) do research very quickly; it allows us to stay in touch with friends... it has also given a voice to those who normally didn't have one... i wonder was that really such a good idea?

 ;D


----------



## Synthos (6 Apr 2006)

think on this... The plane disintegrated on impact, yet somehow penetrated through two layers of the pentagon.. Contradiction anyone?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Apr 2006)

I suppose the moon landings are fake as well.


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Apr 2006)

I'll give them this,

the music for that conspiracy theory video is pretty tight.


----------



## winchable (6 Apr 2006)

I've seen all the conspiracy videos, and rebuffed them all using a mixture of popular mechanics (Excellent article on there somewhere which point for point disproves conspiracy after conspiracy) and official reports from private engineering firms and to a lesser extent some of the official comissions findings.
So in that sense i know it was what everyone thinks it was, planes, full of innocent passengers without the aid of explosives etc.
But I've always had to question why they don't just release the damn video tapes on the flight path of the plane into the building, they could very easily silence any skeptics!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

> think on this... The plane disintegrated on impact, yet somehow penetrated through two layers of the pentagon.. Contradiction anyone?



Not in my books.  The fuselage (made mostly of really thin aluminum- most people would be really shocked at how very "lightly built" the average jet liner is) basically atomizes on impact, but it does transfer a whole bunch off kinetic energy to the concrete walls, which become projectiles in their own right.  My guess is that the engines (being a bit denser)  keep travelling for a bit farther before they too basically disintegrate.  Not that I'm an engineer or anything, but it seems to make sense to me- Occam's razor writ large.

Cheers


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (6 Apr 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The fuselage basically atomizes on impact, but it does transfer a whole bunch off kinetic energy to the concrete walls, which become projectiles in their own right.  My guess is that the engines  keep travelling for a bit farther before they too basically disintegrate.  Not that I'm an engineer or anything, but it seems to make sense to me.


It makes sense to me two.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2006)

Especially when you reverse the objects (physics-wise, identical) and picture a plane sitting statically and having a building like the Pentagon come screaming along at 350mph and run over the plane...   SKT is right, an airliner is pretty much an aluminum Oscar Meyer weenie with some heavy bits attached to it as far as momentum and strength is concerned.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (6 Apr 2006)

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, someone will always choose to believe complete BS. Someone will still believe that the CIA/Mossad/Martians planned the 9/11 attacks, that there was no moon landing, that Elvis is alive, or that size doesn't matter. Dream on!


----------



## Jungle (6 Apr 2006)

Infantry_wannabe said:
			
		

> ... that size doesn't matter.



"It's not the size, it's the way you rock it" !!!
The Cave Rock Club, Cyprus, 1980s  8)


----------



## Quag (6 Apr 2006)

If you search around a little more, you will note that they have recovered much wreckage.  In fact in that video, you can see sections of wings etc...

People will believe anything that is put together well and looks pretty (Just as my girlfriend ;D).

Cheers


----------



## Jake (6 Apr 2006)

Bah! My mom has tried to brainwash me with this video 100 times.... :


----------



## sober_ruski (7 Apr 2006)

"it sounded nothing like an airplane"...
Yeah... since when do joe shmoes are qualified to talk about sonic signature of a low flying aircraft and a low flying cruise missile? Have they even SAW a cruise missle in person? Neither did I, but i do not give stupid comments to a stupid tin foil paper rag.


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 Apr 2006)

Like previously mentioned, no matter what the evidence, there is always someone who will believe in a conspiracy.

First, the tapes were seized initially for evidence; by this time the first two strikes had occurred and this aircraft was known to be 'off the map', so when it hit the FBI jumped right on it.  Then the tapes were not released so that certain malevolent oganizations could not use the films for anti-US propoganda purposes.  There are hundreds of US citizens trying to get access to these tapes through the freedom of information act, so it is only a matter of time until they are made public.  

Next this bozo ignores his own evidence; all the non-pentagon crash images show crashed aircraft disintegrated by fire flame and extreme heat.  When the aircraft crumpled into the pentagon, the heat from the resulting explosion reulsting in a higher than normal point temperature so that most of the frame of the aircraft was almost completely consumed.  

Any other questions about this or other aspects of 911 people dont understand?


----------



## GOJI (29 Apr 2006)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=9%2F11&pl=
true


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Apr 2006)

:

From Wikipedia



> Factual inaccuracies
> 
> The film states that New York's Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 in 1945. It was actually a B-25 Mitchell, an aircraft less than one-third the size of a B-52. The authors have since apologized and acknowledged this error.
> 
> ...



Also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html


----------



## Korus (29 Apr 2006)

Hasn't this already been posted and debunked... several times?


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Apr 2006)

> Hasn't this already been posted and debunked... several times?



Yup


----------



## _TheSaint_ (18 May 2006)

Why don't they have a PUBLIC inquiry into the whole 9-11 affair? It seems an event like this one would exhaust all resources to find out what happened. There just seems to be too many questions that should be easy to answer, yet no answers are forthcoming or being sought. This just adds credibility to even the most far fetched theories. While I watched the second plane hit on the news, I too thought instantly controlled demolition. In any case, some of the main points of contention are:

1) How did WTC tower 7 fall? And why did the guy that owned it say in an interview it was "pulled"? And why did he have the forsight to put billions in insurance on the towers just 6 weeks before the event?
2) Why do we not have any CLEAR pictures of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, when there were numerous cameras available. Why were the pictures confiscated from the various businesses that took them to begin with?
3) What's with that PNAC document talking about the US needing some galvanizing event to allow them to push forth the neo-con agenda
4) Why did George Bush even lend credence to the debunkers by saying "we MUST not tolerate conspiracy theories". 
5) What's with the put options on the various Airlines that occurred leading up to 9-11? Any investor will tell you that four times the normal volume is not random. Unless that was Osama and family.
6) What were the extra explosions in the towers that numerous people reported, as evidenced in news video from the time.
7) The problem with the temperature of the burning jet fuel versus the temp it actually takes to bend the steel involved.
8 ) Why were so few fighters available at the time of the attacks to react? Apparently most were away on various  convenient exercises.
9) Immediate confiscation of WTC steel rubble. Essentially hiding all evidence from the crime scene.
10) Flight 93.......a ton of questions there. For one...where are all the black boxes?  And the ones that were....Data unrecoverable?
11) No proof that the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda, or anything, really.

There are many other questions to go with those basic ones. But why are they not addressed?

Why I ask...WHY!?

This admittedly conspiracy oriented video has most of the main points.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

because the Illuminati and the Jesuits, with their army of Ninjas - trained by the Knights Templar and the Inquisition - are secretly in control of the US Government, and they want to eliminate Islam. It's all a big scam to continue the Crusades. 

Halliburton? Pawns to the Jesuits.

George W. Bush? Secretly a Grand Imperator of the Illuminati.

Condi? Imperatrix of the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants and Regina of the GetYerGrooveBack Matriarchy.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> because the Illuminati and the Jesuits, with their army of Ninjas - trained by the Knights Templar and the Inquisition - are secretly in control of the US Government Masonic Order, and they want to eliminate Islam. It's all a big scam to continue the Crusades.
> 
> Halliburton? Pawns to the Jesuits.
> 
> ...


Para me boyo, get your facts straight...

so mote it be,

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 May 2006)

I see you're back...  :



> Why don't they have a PUBLIC inquiry into the whole 9-11 affair?



Oh, like this one?
9/11 REPORT: JOINT CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY 

REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 –
BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE​
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/911rpt/911report72403.pdf

Listen, I was working the morning of the attacks and watched them unfold live and in technicolor, on huge screens, on multiple channels in the ops centre, all the while trying to coordinate the recall of the IRF(L) and the IRU and track where airliners were landing.  You tinfoil hat wearing clowns are suggesting a conspiracy of such epic proportions that it boggles the mind.

Personally, I think the airliners are buried in Area 51 - after the passengers were gassed of course - alongside the alien spacecraft and _The Saint's_ sense of reality.


----------



## TMM (18 May 2006)

Geesh, tess, luv you're right. How could we forget the Masons? I mean after all, crunch the numbers and it all adds up to *33!

*except of course for the ones that add up to 333, 666, 11, and 7.


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Para me boyo, get your facts straight...


laddie, since the Masons run the White House and Congress and the Senate, but are run by the Illuminati and the Jesuits, I just skipped them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 May 2006)

with that comment, throat punches won't protect you....NO one skips them..

Well except Opus Dei

Now there is another bag of clams..

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

I ain't skeert. I got pirates watching my house. Illuminati Ninjas got nuthin' on pirates.

Only those trained in Real Ultimate Power can defeat pirates.


----------



## TMM (18 May 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> with that comment, throat punches won't protect you....NO one skips them..



Stand down soldier! Aren't there rules about decking innocent civis?


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 May 2006)

Muhahahaha,

Fool...

http://jolly-roger-pirate-journal.info/JollyRoger.html

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

Oh. My. God.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2006)

It still just boggles my mind that the same people who state that the whole Bush regime is incompetent, stupid, etc..... somehow managed to pull off the greatest scam since the Sex Pistols "Great Rock and Roll Swindle".

*sneers ala Johnny Rotten*   "feel like you've been cheated?" >

Hey Saint,....do ya think your long tuned out??


----------



## winchable (18 May 2006)

Dammit Tess, you've all gone and ruined the secrets.
If everyone could just focus on this little red light and wait for the flash....





So how did everyone find the zoo?

Oh, it didn't work? Shit, this isn't my memory eraser it's just my click pen with the stripper on it.


----------



## Scott (18 May 2006)

You mean the one that if you tilt it her shirt slides off? 

COOL!

Bruce, I don't wear the tinfoil hat. Therefore I do not receive trollsmissions from the dark side.


----------



## TCBF (18 May 2006)

How did GOJI get banned after one post?

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2006)

One post you can see....


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2006)

Even Pirates won't be able to save you now: The Spanish Inquisition is coming

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (18 May 2006)

Those that will tell you otherwise and claim that all conspiracies are for the tin foil hat society, are de facto, part of the conspiracy. Go look at CNN- they might have just found Hoffas body.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/18/hoffa.search/index.html

How many masons in the Canadian Military? hmm? Ya that's what I thought.

Masons 

Bah.


----------



## Hunter (18 May 2006)

sm0ke said:
			
		

> Im gonna pipe up here for a minute, just cause I dont think it‘s been mentioned yet.  I have a book in which there‘s an article on this subject, very in depth.  In a passage, there are photos (still‘s of CNN video taken live from the event) showing a 3rd explosion in building 7  of the WTC complex, after the initial contact of the planes into the two towers.



Can you please provide the name/author/publisher of this book?


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 May 2006)

How many Hollow Saints on army.ca?

Bah,

paranoid  tinfoil hat wearing conspiracists.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 May 2006)

I've posted this before - ages ago, but thought _The Saint_ and Smoke could use this:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2006)

It'll never work Teddy, there is no grounding spike in that model....*WHOOPS*......forget I said that.......nothing to see here.......no Illuminati.....nothing to see........


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> Go look at CNN- they might have just found Hoffas body.


there it is Ladies, Gentlemen, and Undecided: he's discovered the Rosetta stone to the entire mystery. THIS is why Hoffa was killed. So he couldn't give away the secret of the Illuminati/Jesuit/Knights Templar/Mason/Ninja plot to destroy the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 May 2006)

I cant belief this thread is still running - I thought this topic got killed last month?   :

I'm suspecting you guys needed a 'troll' fix   ;D


----------



## fourninerzero (19 May 2006)

trolls...they aren't the only worry. MLB satellites spying on us, Elvis and Hoffa living in a motel outside Vegas, the mind control rays....not to mention I'm sure my dog is spying on me for the NIS....


That's why I opted for the FourNinerZero deluxe model tinfoil helmet. Not only does it block out the evil signals, it allows me to broadcast my own! get one today!


----------



## sgtdixon (19 May 2006)

FourNinerZero said:
			
		

> trolls...they aren't the only worry. MLB satellites spying on us, Elvis and Hoffa living in a motel outside Vegas, the mind control rays....not to mention I'm sure my dog is spying on me for the NIS....
> 
> 
> That's why I opted for the FourNinerZero deluxe model tinfoil helmet. Not only does it block out the evil signals, it allows me to broadcast my own! get one today!




Pte Johnston, you are all fucked up like a soop sandwich...


----------



## fourninerzero (19 May 2006)

Dixon said:
			
		

> Pte Johnston, you are all fucked up like a soop sandwich...



The best damn soup sandwich ever my friend.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (19 May 2006)

FourNinerZero said:
			
		

> The best damn soup sandwich ever my friend.



I thought it was a meat popsicle?


----------



## Enzo (19 May 2006)

Aww crap. :

I started another thread questioning the CBCs accuracy and professionalism the other day and I just found it referenced under this thread.

Doesn't look so good for me now eh. :-[

As I said on that post, I'm not a _"tin hat"_ and I don't care for conspiracies, I simply have high expectations from our news agencies (naive as that is, I'm an optimist) and I don't like it when I feel that there is lazy reporting.

So for all the tea in China, I'm stating unequivocally, that I'm not standing anywhere near _TheSaint_ ;D


----------



## Trinity (19 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> that I'm not standing anywhere near _TheSaint_ ;D



Nice to see he's making friends.


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

Why are we prancing around debating such a weak and easily exposed conspiracy like 9/11? After all, the fact there is no conspiracy is proof there IS a conspiracy:



> Those that will tell you otherwise and claim that all conspiracies are for the tin foil hat society, are de facto, part of the conspiracy.



Anyway, we are looking in the wrong place. We need to get talking about THIS:

http://barrystagg.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/_chinese_ruins_.html



> *Chinese ruins in Cape Breton*
> 
> Only determinedly Eurocentric skeptics doubt that the Ming Dynasty used Glace Bay as their base for launching the earliest space flights and the first moon landing in 1369. This story from Cape Breton is only confirmation of what has been well known locally for centuries:CBC News: Chinese ruins in Cape Breton, book claims. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/19/capebreton-chinese.html



The CBC says it is so, so it must be true, especially if you say it isn't true, which means you are covering it up, which means it IS true.......


----------



## Jungle (20 May 2006)

OK, in 1369 the Chinese couldn't find Cape Canaveral so they settled for Cape Breton... Like they couldn't fly to the moon from China !!!
They weren't so advanced, the Chinese go into space from China now... 
There are some major problems with that story; I think it warrants closer examination !!!


----------



## Hot Lips (20 May 2006)

LMAO ROTFL

HL


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2006)

Jungle said:
			
		

> OK, in 1369 the Chinese couldn't find Cape Canaveral so they settled for Cape Breton... Like they couldn't fly to the moon from China !!!
> They weren't so advanced, the Chinese go into space from China now...
> There are some major problems with that story; I think it warrants closer examination !!!


But they HAD to launch from Cape Breton.  You see, the whole _lunar_ calendar and all that: they *knew* the moon would be directly overhead of CB when the launch window opened.  Geesh: can't you guys think of anything?!?!


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> there it is Ladies, Gentlemen, and Undecided: he's discovered the Rosetta stone to the entire mystery. THIS is why Hoffa was killed. So he couldn't give away the secret of the Illuminati/Jesuit/Knights Templar/Mason/Ninja plot to destroy the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


You've got it all wrong.  You see, Hoffa discovered the truth to the Caramilk secret, and then, under direction of the reverse vampires, the Stone Cutters, in co-operation with the Saucer people, put hoffa under center field in Yankee Stadium.  On election day, September 11, 2001 (in New York City), the outgoing mayor, RUDY, RUDY (not Guiliani, but that guy from the movie), was gonna expose the whole thing at around 9:30 AM eastern.  So, that's when, on about 4 November, 2000, GW Bush, with little Bush Jeb's help, "arranged" a victory in Florida.  GW was so tanked at the time that he actually didn't really remember the whole night, but that just helped out "those in charge".  So, with everything in place (a drunk, dimwitted president presiding over a kids reading festival in a school in, you guessed it: Florida!), four airliners took off from the eastern USA, docked with a "mother ship" on "Cloud One" over London, UK, and the passengers were removed a la "Millenium", and replaced with über explosive charges.  Thus refuelled and rearmed, the "missiles" went back to work.  
The WTC 1, 2 and 5 were wired with explosives as well, and just awaited "the right time", which was when 98% if the awake population of the Earth was watching "the Event" (as it was now called), RUDY! unearthed Hoffa, but nobody cared.  Hoffa was then returned to the horse farm in Michigan, totally unnoticed by everyone except some guy name "Joe", but he's now dead, so forget about him.  The first two planes had hit WTC 1 and 2, plane three had hit the Pentagon.  Why?  No reason, they just didn't like the PENTA in pentagon: too evil for them.  They wanted it renamed the QUADRANGLE, because outside of Quebec, there is no really cool place that begins with a "Q" (No, Qatar doesn't count).  Plane four was to hit WTC 5, "just in case" RUDY! was discovered.  When the whole RUDY event went off un noticed, the missile/plane plowed into a field that nobody had ever heard of.  
The cell phone calls?  They were actually made from "Cloud One" over London, UK prior to being loaded onto the deathstar for the group probings.
This whole plan almost fell apart when a junior member of the "corporation" suggested that as a distraction, Canada could simply legalise "Same Sex Marriage".  Since parliament had, less than two years previous vowed overwhelmingly to entrench the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the "corporation" figured that ANYONE with half a shmick would have seen that conspiracy from a mile off, so they stuck to "the Event".  
Why did Canada go ahead with the "Same Sex Marriage" option?  Well, the conspiracy theorists had actually figured out that "the Event" was a sham, so plan B was enacted.  Plan C?  Just wait for it.....wait for it.....


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2006)

It all makes sense, except we missed the part where Flight 93 was guided into the field where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. That explains everything.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It all makes sense, except we missed the part where Flight 93 was guided into the field where Jimmy Hoffa was buried. That explains everything.


*OF COURSE!  HOW DID I EVER MISS THAT?????*Oh, wait a minute, my decoder ring was on yesterday's setting!!  Silly me!


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2006)

You're just trying too hard. Relax and use this site to create youn OWN conspiracy.

Fun for the entire family and of course, the fact that this is fictional is proof, PROOF I tell you, that whatever you create is, in fact, real.

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html


----------



## TCBF (21 May 2006)

"OF COURSE!  HOW DID I EVER MISS THAT??Oh, wait a minute, my decoder ring was on yesterday's setting!!  Silly me!'

- Ya gotta watch Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove more:

Colonel 'King' Kong: "...are ya sure ya got today's codes?"

Tom


----------



## NavComm (21 May 2006)

I'm just happy that someone has finally uncovered the real truth about the Minnow,  her creepy skipper and his "little buddy" http://www.apeculture.com/mediamorph/minnowfiles.htm

*Whew*


----------



## fourninerzero (22 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You're just trying too hard. Relax and use this site to create youn OWN conspiracy.
> 
> Fun for the entire family and of course, the fact that this is fictional is proof, PROOF I tell you, that whatever you create is, in fact, real.
> 
> http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html



here goes

In order to understand mind control you need to realize that everything is controlled by a army made up of dogs with help from chinese.
The conspiracy first started during world war two in hamburg. They have been responsible for many events throughout history, including signing of the magna carta.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified by biting your nails.

They want to kick in the nuts fred phelps and imprison resisters in iraq using trains.

In order to prepare for this, we all must fight. Since the media is controlled by john kerry we should get our information from george bush.


----------



## TCBF (29 May 2006)

"made up of dogs with help from chinese."

- This all came out of those signs the Brits put up in Shanghai that said "No Dogs or Chinese Allowed."

What goes around, comes around...


----------



## Lost_Warrior (29 May 2006)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0&search=Donald%20Rumsfeld%20flight93%20plane%20shot%20down

It's either a slip of the toung, or an admission of guilt...you decide


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2006)

The real conspiracy is putting out crazy stuff like this to waste all of our time and effort. 

For the adults in the crowd, just walk slowly away when you see the Jiffy Pop hat. Sudden moves might startle them into buttonholing you against a wall or corner so they can "explain" how the Knights Templar managed to pull this off from their underground lair on Oak Island (using the Holy Grail and the remnants of the Chinese space expedition launched from Cape Bretton in 1367).

Leave them to their fun, we will ensure the universe unfolds as it should.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 May 2006)

Google Im ages - Results 1 - 20 of about 743 for tin foil hat.
http://tinyurl.com/o3wo3


----------



## Hot Lips (30 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Google Im ages - Results 1 - 20 of about 743 for tin foil hat.
> http://tinyurl.com/o3wo3


LMAO ROTFL...they are priceless

HL


----------



## Hot Lips (30 May 2006)

This is Homer's 911 Conspiracy Theory  ;D

HL


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2006)

From Day by Day: How much tin foil do you really need?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (30 May 2006)

You know, you don't have to be a "tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" to want a few answers to some important questions.   Stop being so arrogant.

If they're so easy to answer, and so easy to dismiss, then why is no one answering them?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 May 2006)

I think every question asked by both sides has been answered - often in a number of different ways. The problem is (in part) that people only "hear" what they want and dismiss out of hand answers that don't mesh with their beliefs. (Again, on both sides.) The other obstacle is information - and not a lack of it. There is too much of it in conflict, which means people can be "choosy" about which facts they use to support their theories.

In fact, there's no other way around it. If you accept all the information out there, you end up with an incoherent picture of conflicting reports, which means that each individual must accept some and discount others. Being human, we all pretty much accept and reject different "facts" which results in a wide range of beliefs.

In short, there are facts, stories and first hand accounts to support whatever theory you want to espouse, and any time that happens, a lot of people are going to cling the "wrong" variant of the truth.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (30 May 2006)

> I think every question asked by both sides has been answered



That's not entirely true.  Have a look at this video when you have time.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801

Now I am the last person one would consider a "tin foil hat conspiracy theorist", but this video left quite a number of questions in my head that have NOT been answered.  They aren't irrelevant questions either.  They are very important questions, that the US government could quell with the simple release of a few video tapes and audio tapes.  Their refusal to do so, with absolutely no threat to national security, would lead anyone with half a mind to think they are not being totally honest.

You're not going to see me at a rally calling for the ousting of the Bush administration for their "take in the atrocities of 9/11", but I do have a few simple questions, as do many people, that they refuse to even try to answer.

Something people on this board have to remember, its OK to question your government sometimes.  It lets the people know that we're still a democracy.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2006)

OK,dude, get your tin hat on.  Those "questions" raised in that film are bunk.  Sound bytes (bites?) taken out of context, strung together in a convenient fashion.  Some notable omissions by your "theorists":
What of the structural damage to the towers caused by the mere impact of the planes contributing to the collapses?
What of the weakening of the twisted metal under TONS and TONS of weight that finally failed?  (PS: wood retains structural strength LONGER in a fire than metal does)
Finally: Why the big charade of planes across the skies with EVERYONE in on the theory, except you, of course?  Why not just plant some bombs under the towers (like the Rand corporation apparently tried in 1993), but this time do it right?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (30 May 2006)

> OK,dude, get your tin hat on.



Sigh..  :

Nice of you to address the easy questions.    Also, how conveniant of you to leave out the harder ones...


----------



## paracowboy (30 May 2006)

I told you: Masons!


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I told you: Masons!



http://tinyurl.com/qgruj
http://tinyurl.com/lfegk


----------



## probum non poenitet (30 May 2006)

> Why don't they have a PUBLIC inquiry into the whole 9-11 affair? It seems an event like this one would exhaust all resources to find out what happened. There just seems to be too many questions that should be easy to answer, yet no answers are forthcoming or being sought. This just adds credibility to even the most far fetched theories. While I watched the second plane hit on the news, I too thought instantly controlled demolition.



I’m jumping in here, regardless of fear and good judgement.
I have watched Loose Change.
I must say, with its hep soundtrack, and rapid assault of ‘facts’ and compelling film clips, it’s easy to be taken in.
It’s a good bit of hucksterism, the guy has a huge career ahead of him in advertising, or Three Card Monte. 

I am not going to ridicule those who question the government, or get taken in by this – we all make mistakes, and it’s the great Canadian tradition to ‘call bullshit’ on almost everything we see and hear.

So, I’ll give you my ‘opinions’ on your answers one by one.
But first can I ask what the film dares not:

1.	Why is it so hard to believe that you can find a group of young Islamic men who hate the United States and are willing to die in a suicide attack? They are as common as gophers in Saskatchewan.

2.	The ‘James Bond’ precision wasn’t exactly James Bond. Flight 93 got delayed and failed to meet its objective.

3.	The ‘Osama couldn’t have planned this from a cave with a kidney machine’ is really underestimating the enemy. Actually, it’s kind of a racist statement when you think about it “Arabs are too dumb to take over four planes AT ONCE! Come on! And hit the Twin Towers – those things were TINY!”

4.	Actually, the plan was relatively simple. Coordinate four hijackings and fly them into landmarks before the Americans realize your intent and react. I’ve programmed VCRs more complicated than that. (Simple does not mean ineffective, sadly). Personally, that’s what I think freaks everyone out – the incredible fragility of what we hold dear. A few determined maniacs can screw it all up - or try to.

But on to your points:



> How did WTC tower 7 fall?



Loose Change hammers away at two contradictory points:
a.	NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF FIRE
b.	STEEL BUILDINGS THAT COLLAPSE DON’T LOOK LIKE THIS (roll dramatic video)
Shall I spell out the irony – if it’s never happened, how is it supposed to look? Of course Loose Change doesn’t drop that little nugget, because it might break the flow of their argument. Apparently it knows exactly how a steel building should collapse – you know, the ones that never have.
Anyhow, why did it fall? Because two of the largest structures ever built by human hands fell down right next to it, and the thing had been burning for hours. Because FDNY didn’t’ feel like losing any more people that day – it got unsafe and they let it burn.
I’m surprised more buildings didn’t fall, actually.



> And why did the guy that owned it say in an interview it was "pulled"?


Why did he ‘pull it’ – he was referring to pulling out the fire crews. Check the web, it’s easy to find.
Again, if this guy possessed Lex Luthor-like criminal brilliance in planting a zillion explosives in the WTC with nobody noticing, is he really going to slip out his Dr. Evil plan in an interview? “Oh, drat!”
A statement easily taken two ways – one a simple explanation, or one unveiling a fantastically complex crime of the century – my god, are you my ex-girlfriend?



> And why did he have the foresight to put billions in insurance on the towers just 6 weeks before the event?


Ahhhh – the classic conspiracy-theory misdirect – he had the “foresight to insure his building!”
Dude, my shed is insured. Everything is insured.
His insurance was being renewed, not bought for the first time.
“Oh my God, Martha, I just realized I forgot to insure the WTC!”
“That’s ok dear, just do it tomorrow on your way to the florist.”
The question that Loose Change doesn’t put forth is “What is a normal amount of insurance to be carried on a property of that value?”
I don’t know exactly, because I am not an insurance adjustor. But if Loose Change knows, they’re not saying.
It’s the classic ‘shocking fact’ held up without comparison.
He had the foresight to buy SIX APPLES AT ONCE!
(Is that normal? What is a normal amount of apples?) If the viewer doesn’t know much about buying apples, a purchase of six apples can be made to sound sinister.
So, ball back in your court, what would the acceptable, non-suspicious amount of insurance have been to carry on the WTC?
I’m guessing “A lot.” Billions, perhaps? You know, sufficient coverage to replace the property if lost or damaged? Ye olde insurance yardstick?



> Why do we not have any CLEAR pictures of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, when there were numerous cameras available. Why were the pictures confiscated from the various businesses that took them to begin with?



Slightly strange, but consider this – maybe (and I’m showing a bit of tinfoil here) – but maybe there are certain air defence assets near the Pentagon that are better left classified. Same goes as to how the building holds up to explosion. That would explain away why they are being coy about the tapes. PURE CONJECTURE on my part, but it would make sense to me.



> What's with that PNAC document talking about the US needing some galvanizing event to allow them to push forth the neo-con agenda


It was mentioned in passing. If the title of the report had been “Pearl Harbor II: Swindling Americans to Kick off the Final Crusade”, I might have been more suspicious.
It’s no secret that a galvanizing event, a ‘Pearl Harbor’ can give you strong public backing. It’s not a shockingly new idea.
Again, picking one passage out of one report, and making it sound like the Thesis is manipulative.
Re-read the entire report and get back to me.  



> Why did George Bush even lend credence to the debunkers by saying "we MUST not tolerate conspiracy theories".



Because they are a growing force in public opinion that sow fear and undermine the war effort. He could have said it better, if that is indeed his quote. But the point is that misinformation in wartime can breed defeat. Question, yes, but don’t fall for lies – very well-polished lies, to boot.



> What's with the put options on the various Airlines that occurred leading up to 9-11? Any investor will tell you that four times the normal volume is not random. Unless that was Osama and family.


I’ve seen it explained on web – couldn’t be bothered to refute it here, as it’s complex, but I will say this, not connected directly to this topic: people had advance knowledge of the incident – people who planned it and carried it out. Just because ‘someone knew’ proves nothing, unless you actually name who that ‘someone is.’
Loose Change doesn’t name names because – well – you know – it doesn’t fit their theory, so to the cutting room floor it goes.
Again, misdirect, not facts.

Sometimes coincidences happen in the market. “Any investor will tell you…” Are you a professional stockbroker, or are you repeating what you heard in the movie? Check what you are repeating as gospel. "Any investory will tell you ... " is classic conspiracy theory fear-mongering. If you don't have expert knowledge, you'll believe it.
I’m not a stockbroker either, so whatever. This one doesn’t shock me particularly, because there are no credible experts backing the theory.
Get me 10 traceable quotes from Blue Chip stockbrokers that this is an impossibility, and I'll be interested. Some dude that sounds baked on a voiceover doesn't hold as much cred for me.



> What were the extra explosions in the towers that numerous people reported, as evidenced in news video from the time.



As mentioned before, bodies hitting the sidewalk, debris falling, things burning. I can tell you that explosions in real life don’t sound like the movies – they can be confused with all sorts of loud noises – like say a floor burning away and tons of debris falling 20 feet to the next floor.
Also, the fire was massive – the heat was no doubt causing any form of compressed gas containers, computer monitors, etc. to explode.
And finally – trapped in those buildings – hell on Earth – your perceptions are going to be somewhat distorted. People see and hear many things.
What nobody reported was “Hey, this is Ladder 27, I’ve just found a row of demolitions emplaced on this floor. The building is wired to explode!”
Instead it was “I’ve just heard a huge explosion.” Not unusual in a blazing building minutes away from collapsing, I should guess.



> The problem with the temperature of the burning jet fuel versus the temp it actually takes to bend the steel involved



This one is easy, and should tell you what a load of toad-spew Loose Change is. You don’t have to MELT steel to cause a collapse, you just have to WEAKEN it. Burning jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel, but it will sure as hell weaken it.
The superkalafragelistic investigators at Loose Change missed that little engineering gem. Deliberately, you think? Nothing spoils a gripping yarn like the facts.
Next …….



> Why were so few fighters available at the time of the attacks to react? Apparently most were away on various convenient exercises.



Oh, you mean how the 50 F-16s that normally flew CAP over New York 24/7 – where were THEY? Sorry, man, more crap. They were not ‘called away’ September 11.
Looking at Loose Change’s lousy track record so far, I would like to see an op order presented as evidence, that “All of NORAD’s assets were confused by the exercise.”
Look man, NORAD trains for hypothetical scenarios all the time, like missiles, or hijacks, or whatever. They also work in protocols so that if something actually happens during an exercise, they can tell the difference.
In fact, United 93 wouldn’t have reached its target – that is confirmed fact – F-16s were ready to shoot it down if it hadn’t crashed. It’s just that the first three attacks happened too quickly to be stopped. 
The Air Force isn’t magic.



> Immediate confiscation of WTC steel rubble. Essentially hiding all evidence from the crime scene.


“People of New York, this is your mayor, Rudy. We are going to leave a huge smouldering, toxic, pile of twisted rubble in the middle of Manhattan for the next several months. It is important that we do this, because there is an infintessimal chance that actually the planes that flew into the building were actually holograms projected from Woolworths, and what really destroyed the WTC were explosives planted there by Dick Cheney disguised as a Purolator delivery boy. I know seeing this destruction every day for years will be a painful reminder to you, will disrupt commerce, and be a symbol to the world of America’s inability to recover, but it is important that we leave this smoking pile of shit here because I just saw this awesome student film on the Internet. Here’s the URL, and be sure to vote for me if I run again.” 



> Flight 93.......a ton of questions there. For one...where are all the black boxes? And the ones that were.Data unrecoverable?



Well, according to Loose Change, Flight 93 landed at Cincinnati, its passengers were herded into a NASA research facility, their voices were morphed by some CIA secret device, and Black Ops people phoned everyone impersonating their children, like that tall bald dude in that episode of Star Trek.
Simple plan, nothing could go wrong there?

Then I guess the passengers became Soylent Green, or something.

Yep, that’s way more plausible than flight delay messing with the timing allowing the passengers to realize they were a flying bomb, leading to a fistfight in the cockpit followed by a crash. 
A delayed flight? Preposterous!
I’m buying the Soylent Green theory.



> No proof that the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda, or anything, really.



Yeah, where are you going to find men in the Middle East willing to carry out suicide attacks on Amercians?
Oh, by the way, when Loose Change claims that half of them are alive, don’t you think it might have been a bit of a PR coup for the filmmakers and/or Osama to produce them walking and talking?
Nah, I’ll just take Loose Change's word for it, as they zoom in on the photos and say, without a shred of proof, that they are alive.

Would it be cruel to point out that conspiracy theorists are lecturing US about being skeptical?  :rofl:

BTW, Osama takes credit for the attack, and calls all the hijackers martyrs. Unless, of course, Osama is part of the conspiracy!

All sarcasm aside, don’t fall for this misinformation. Don’t feel bad for being taken in, Loose Change is as slick as goose-poo, but doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.

But you are right to challenge ideas – truth will stand up to scrutiny. Governments have been known to lie :cough: Adscam :cough:

Loose Change may impress at first glance, but it only stands up to scrutiny if you have taken about 17 hits from the octopus bong and have a pre-disposed anti-Bush mentality.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (31 May 2006)

> But you are right to challenge ideas – truth will stand up to scrutiny. Governments have been known to lie :cough: Adscam :cough:
> 
> Loose Change may impress at first glance, but it only stands up to scrutiny if you have taken about 17 hits from the octopus bong and have a pre-disposed anti-Bush mentality.



That was a pretty good debunking of "Loose Change". The problem is, Loose Change is not the real discussion. There are numerous other websites, and in fact an entire symposium being held in Los Angeles this summer on the subject. These individuals have done extensive research into the problems with the official explanation. I'm not an expert on building construction, NORAD activity at the time, nor do I posses any of the necessary credentials to speak to the points being raised by skeptics. I would imagine the same is true of you. One can "speculate" till they're blue in the face about why this or that occured, but without the right cred, it's all just "radio chatter". 

Ultimately you're probably right. There is a bigger impossibility than a handful of Arabs hijacking four planes and crashing them into two large stationary objects. The impossibility of a giant bureaucracy carrying out these attacks with zero leakage. 

I don't think "the US government did it". Are they accountable for mistakes that were made leading up to the attacks? MABYE. I simply believe that there needs to be a PUBLIC inquiry, done by a NON-GOVERNMENTAL panel investigating all of the points that have been raised since the original "investigation". This would put an end to the entire debate and the American and worldwide audience could get back to the main subject of the day, the US led WOT and its utility- or lack thereof.  I do, however, thank you for your ability to address the issue without the usual "tin foil hat society" rhetoric that preceded your argument. 

I think that skepticism is the foundation of a healthy democracy. In fact isn't that what they teach in school? To question the given facts and develop a unique perspective? If there were no conspiracy theorists IMO that would be the time to start worrying.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (31 May 2006)

> Sometimes coincidences happen in the market. “Any investor will tell you…” Are you a professional stockbroker, or are you repeating what you heard in the movie? Check what you are repeating as gospel. "Any investor will tell you ... " is classic conspiracy theory fear-mongering. If you don't have expert knowledge, you'll believe it.
> I’m not a stockbroker either, so whatever. This one doesn’t shock me particularly, because there are no credible experts backing the theory.
> Get me 10 traceable quotes from Blue Chip stockbrokers that this is an impossibility, and I'll be interested. Some dude that sounds baked on a voiceover doesn't hold as much cred for me.



I'll give you a link to a story on this particular point, which to me, seems to say unequivocally that "someone" knew what was going to happen and had the forsight to trade accordingly. 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/insideDeal.html



> Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options -- where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would have netted a profit of $5m (3.3m) once the carrier's share price dived after 11 September. On 10 September, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day.



That's a public record.

Am I a professional? I have my CFP designation and work for a brokerage in Van as an associate. To answer your question,  NO this was not normal options trading for these particular issues- not even close. 

Pay attention to this fact 





> Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines saw such trading in their put options.



This is just one of the areas in need of further investigation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 May 2006)

I noticed he didn't mention the "normal" averages from before......again easy to find, however noticably absent.


----------



## _TheSaint_ (31 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I noticed he didn't mention the "normal" averages from before......again easy to find, however noticably absent.





> In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts was bought each day in its shares. The total for the three days before the attacks was 2,157. Merrill Lynch, anotherWTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four days before the attacks, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day.



He does produce the averages from the preceding days for the banks involved. Once again, while this MAY have been just some unusual trading unrelated to the attacks, there needs to be some kind of public inquiry bringing all the issues together. If you do a search you can find numerous articles written at the time discussing this issue with further details...here are some....

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4367.htm

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2006)

And you don't think that this may have been Osama financing his future operations?  Why is everything an American or CIA conspiracy?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (31 May 2006)

What a coup it would have been for al Queda to not only pull off this attack, but make millions from the NYSE as a result of it.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

> And you don't think that this may have been Osama financing his future operations?  Why is everything an American or CIA conspiracy?



Why would you assume we think its some "CIA conspiracy"?   Maybe you're right.  Maybe it was AQ financing their next big hit.  All the more reason NOT to turn a blind eye and question things like this.   Let go of the "tin foil hat" argument.   It's funny for awhile, then it's just annoying...


----------



## probum non poenitet (31 May 2006)

> Am I a professional? I have my CFP designation and work for a brokerage in Van as an associate. To answer your question, NO this was not normal options trading for these particular issues- not even close.





> Share speculators have failed to collect $2.5m (£1.7m) in profits made from the fall in the share price of United Airlines after the 11 September World Trade Centre attacks.
> The fact that the money is unclaimed more than a month later has re-awakened investigators' interest in a story dismissed as coincidence.



OK, interesting ... this one shows potential for credibility.
After all 9-11 was a conspiracy - according to Oxford: "a secret plan to commit a crime or do harm, often for political ends."
An Al Qaeda conspiracy, I maintain, but a conspiracy nonetheless.

Maybe someone on the inside of the planning decided to 'help out Aunt Gertie' by giving her a tip a few days before it went down.
I'm guessing the planners would be mightily upset for such an OPSEC violation, but stupid things happen on all military ops (I can hear everyone out there in the CF nodding vigourously) - and it would explain why nobody claimed the cash.
"Achmed, you did WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?????????" SMACK!
(I have no proof of this, I'm just having fun playing Sherlock Holmes)

If there is something to this, I bet the FBI has run down that rabbit hole looking for clues. Maybe they found a few, but we'll never know until we're in the retirement home.

I'll file this theory as 'perhaps not insane.' 
I defer to those with greater knowledge of finances on this one, you included.

But again, suspicious trading only suggests that 'someone' had advance knowledge of the attack - and there is no argument that 'someone' did know - Osama for one.
The zillion dollar question is who was that someone?


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Why would you assume we think its some "CIA conspiracy"?   Maybe you're right.  Maybe it was AQ financing their next big hit.  All the more reason NOT to turn a blind eye and question things like this.   Let go of the "tin foil hat" argument.   It's funny for awhile, then it's just annoying...



Why you really summed my opinion up precisely...and I was not talking about tin foil hats ....

dileas

tess


----------



## TMM (31 May 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> The zillion dollar question is who was that someone?



I work in finance but have no designation. Nonetheless in number crunching school we were taught one of the rules of forensic accounting is "Who stands to benefit from the fraud?"

That's where I put my money on Al-Qaeda. I can just see Osama smiling in glee at having not only ripped a hole in Manhattan's heart but also laughing all the way to the bank with it.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

> Slightly strange, but consider this – maybe (and I’m showing a bit of tinfoil here) – but maybe there are certain air defence assets near the Pentagon that are better left classified.



Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI.  Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path.  They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no?  Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide!  get the man a tin foil hat!)



> That would explain away why they are being coy about the tapes. PURE CONJECTURE on my part, but it would make sense to me.



That doesn't make sense to me.  If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in.   Not left until the day something happened.



> “People of New York, this is your mayor, Rudy. We are going to leave a huge smouldering, toxic, pile of twisted rubble in the middle of Manhattan for the next several months. It is important that we do this, because there is an infintessimal chance that actually the planes that flew into the building were actually holograms projected from Woolworths, and what really destroyed the WTC were explosives planted there by Dick Cheney disguised as a Purolator delivery boy. I know seeing this destruction every day for years will be a painful reminder to you, will disrupt commerce, and be a symbol to the world of America’s inability to recover, but it is important that we leave this smoking pile of crap here because I just saw this awesome student film on the Internet. Here’s the URL, and be sure to vote for me if I run again.”



It has nothing to do with that.   Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.   Instead it was taken and destroyed.  You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.  But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.



> 1.   Why is it so hard to believe that you can find a group of young Islamic men who hate the United States and are willing to die in a suicide attack? They are as common as gophers in Saskatchewan.



It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.



> Well, according to Loose Change, Flight 93 landed at Cincinnati, its passengers were herded into a NASA research facility, their voices were morphed by some CIA secret device, and Black Ops people phoned everyone impersonating their children, like that tall bald dude in that episode of Star Trek.
> Simple plan, nothing could go wrong there?



I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched, but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I’m not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows.  

Ok, now maybe you can answer these questions:

1) With regards to the debris that was left at the Pentagon attack.   Where are the wing marks on the Pentagon?   How is it, that a plane that size simply "disappeared"

It did not disintegrate.  The wings would have broken off on impact.  Also, Where are the two large engines of the plane?   They were made of Steel Titanium, and could not have disintegrated in the heat (since that was the story given). 

Also the engine piece that was found at the scene, according to those responsible for their construction, say it did not belong to that aircraft.   They had their theories on what kinds of aircraft it would have belonged to, but I am not going to get into that.  It would only encourage more "tinfoil hat" comments.  

Another thing that has yet to be explained was how cellular phones worked so well that day in a plane of that size and composition, and that altitude.  

I am in no way saying the US is behind 9/11 as many conveniantly assume, but to deny the fact that there are some rather pressing questions that would be irresponsible to ignore is just wrong.


----------



## TMM (31 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.



In that case can you please explain all that debris over in Fresh Kills?


----------



## muskrat89 (31 May 2006)

Are you making stuff up as you go along??

You said:


> Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.   Instead it was taken and destroyed.


  Source?

Now, Google "WTC Debris"...

Hit No. 1 From NPR, no less..   http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/freshkills/index.html

From that article:



> [/NPR’s Chris Arnold went to the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, where police officers and FBI agents continue searching the last of the rubble as it’s brought over from the World Trade Center site.
> 
> *The search has been methodical and exhaustive. The rubble is spread out and inspected twice at Ground Zero. Then it’s brought to Fresh Kills by barge and truck, where the clumps of tangled metal and concrete are broken down using heavy machinery and vibrating belts. *
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI.  Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path.  They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no?  Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide!  get the man a tin foil hat!)
> 
> That doesn't make sense to me.  If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in.   Not left until the day something happened.



As mentioned before, (I am sure you have read it too  : ) the camera record at a slow rate of frames per minute.  Just like watching the Traffic cameras on the news.  If you can't watch the traffic moving at 30 mph in real time on some of these cameras, how are you going to watch an aircraft flying at over 600 mph.




			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with that.   Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.   Instead it was taken and destroyed.  You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.  But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.



Obviously you don't watch TV news much.  There were whole series of pieces done on the recovery of items from the debris.  People sifting through all the ruble with 'fine toothed combs' didn't look much like they were distroying everything to me.  



			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.


  Really!   :  Can you name a few?  You say that there are names and proof. 



			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched, but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I’m not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows.
> 
> Ok, now maybe you can answer these questions:
> 
> ...



You obviously don't do all the research necessary to state your case.  There is video of a jet full of fuel hitting a wall of concrete, done in a test, and posted on this site, that clearly shows that the aircraft completely disintergrates.  But that doesn't support your idiotic views that an aircraft, with its' wings full of fuel (That is where its' fuel tanks are located) wouldn't disappear in a head on collision with a solid mass.  Where are the engines and wings of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers - they are constructed the same?

Cell Phones are radios.  Radio waves travel very well with line of sight.  There would be no hills, buildings, trees or any other obstructions at those altitudes.  I suppose you have never flown and seen or used a cell phone......you know the type that the airline has on the back of most chairs?

You shouldn't take off you tin foil suit, it makes you say silly things.   ;D


----------



## probum non poenitet (31 May 2006)

> Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI. Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path. They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no? Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide! get the man a tin foil hat!)


The Pentagon is arguably the most vital military target on Earth. If there are any super-secret Roswell-sharks-with-laser-beams protecting anything on this planet, I'm guessing the Penatgon is one.
Of course, *if there aren't*, you don't want the enemy to know that either. You want to keep them guessing.
I am sure there are many, many people and governments out there that would love to see in living colour what happens when you attack the Pentagon.
No threat to national security, what's the harm? We must agree to disagree.
(OK, now it's getting fun);D



> That doesn't make sense to me. If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in. Not left until the day something happened.



Disagree. Maybe they have FLYING sharks with laser beams. :-*
You can't create a 10 km exclusion zone around the Pentagon day to day, but in the case of a serious incident, I understand why the secret squirrels want a total info lockdown.
This is not a regular plane crash, this is a military attack. Wait 50 years, you'll probably know the real story one day.



> Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.



I don't know if there is a 'standard procedure' on this one. The scale of the destruction was huge - far outweighing any previous peacetime incident.
As mentioned in other replies, a lot of the stuff is still around, if anyone really wants to look.



> You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.



Investigators went through the rubble for ages, identifying tiny bits of human remains for burial. That it 'was never investigated' is flat out lie. I am not directing that at you, rather at Loose Change.
The fact that they didn't find the black boxes isn't that shocking to me - the WTC collapse made a regular plane crash look appallingly minor in comparison.



> It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.



Holy urban legend, Batman. If they were found alive, it would be the biggest news scoop of the year. It would be a HUGE propaganda victory against the U.S.A. They would get more air time than Brangelina.
Find some proof, and say hi to Elvis if you see him.  ;D
(Someone saying it's true on the web isn't proof. I want walking, talking Mohammed Atta interviewed by Barbara Walters)
But, believe me, if they were alive, you wouldn't be the only one looking for them.
(And again, if these conspirators are uber-brilliant and all-powerful, why use guys who are still alive as your patsies? Doh!)



> I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched.



Little far-fetched - completely insane - you say tomahto, I say tomato 



> , but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I'm not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows.




It was Rumsfeld, but whatever. I don't think it's that significant, agree to disagree.The Americans have never denied that they were prepared to shoot the plane down. They said that had the passengers not done it, F-16s were minutes away from an intercept.

Is the U.S. (and Canada) capable of spinning crap for propaganda purposes? Yes, the Jessica Lynch rescue was a PR disaster.
But the passenger takeover is a totally logical, plausible chain of events. If you had been on 93, what would you have done? I like to think I would have had the courage to do the same.

As for all that Pentagon disappearing plane stuff, I'm not an expert on airplane crashes. But Loose Change has zeeeeero credibility with me, because when they put forth things that I do know about, they twist the facts into crud.
Remember, they didn't actually have spokespeople on camera - they follow the "I know a guy who knows a guy who works at Boeing" method.
I did read on the web that the engines were titanium alloy, not titanium, and could melt.

Referring back up this post, even if there are things that don't seem right with the Pentagon crash, and the governments says nothing, I'm not very surprised.
Flying sharks with laser beams, man - don't' mess with them. :dontpanic:

(Mods, can we get a shark-with-laser-beam smiley?)


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

> Really!   Roll Eyes  Can you name a few?  You say that there are names and proof.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm



> Cell Phones are radios.



No, they're not.  GSM, GPRS, etc frequencies do not work the same way radios do.  They do not work "Ad-Hoc".  Every time I have flown at those altitudes, my phone's reception was nil.  I recently had a flight on an Air Canada jet, and still nothing.   It has nothing to do with "line of sight"....it has to do with distance.  If you are too far from a tower, you will have no signal.   



> But that doesn't support your idiotic views that an aircraft, with its' wings full of fuel (That is where its' fuel tanks are located) wouldn't disappear in a head on collision with a solid mass.  Where are the engines and wings of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers - they are constructed the same?



Last I heard, they found the engines of the planes that slammed into the twin towers...and that fire burned longer...



> You shouldn't take off you tin foil suit, it makes you say silly things.



Sigh...



> As mentioned before, (I am sure you have read it too  Roll Eyes ) the camera record at a slow rate of frames per minute.  Just like watching the Traffic cameras on the news.  If you can't watch the traffic moving at 30 mph in real time on some of these cameras, how are you going to watch an aircraft flying at over 600 mph.



You are talking like that was the only camera recording that general area...

CIA cameras aside.  There was the security camera from the gas stations that were siezed by the FBI.  Why not release those?   They are gas station cameras.  They have nothing to do with national security...


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No, they're not.  GSM, GPRS, etc frequencies do not work the same way radios do.  They do not work "Ad-Hoc".  Every time I have flown at those altitudes, my phone's reception was nil.  I recently had a flight on an Air Canada jet, and still nothing.   It has nothing to do with "line of sight"....it has to do with distance.  If you are too far from a tower, you will have no signal.


Really.  They don't use radio waves?  What do they use?  Strings?  Little fairies?  Where do you get your Happy Pills?  I could use some.   :


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

Also, you have yet to address the issue of the piece of engine that WAS found on site....you know...the one that the designers of said engine said did not belong to it?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

> Really.  They don't use radio waves?  What do they use?  Strings?  Little fairies?  Where do you get your Happy Pills?  I could use some.



A little from column A, a little from column B I guess...

But in reality, you can have a perfect line of site with a cell phone tower, but if you are out of it's range, it won't matter.   30,000 feet over rural Penselvania was "out of range"...


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

But anyway, I have been in these debates before, and the 12th page is the tip of the ice burg if this continues...

No one will change the others mind, so before anything is said that one might regret, I respectfully bow out.


----------



## paracowboy (31 May 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> But anyway, I have been in these debates before, and the 12th page is the tip of the ice burg if this continues...
> 
> No one will change the others mind, so before anything is said that one might regret, I respectfully bow out.


about friggin' time this thread ended. Holy rollin' crap on Jesus' donkey, but what a load of dung. I'm lockin' this mess down. Someone else can open it later if there's a desperate need for fertilizer.


----------

