9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[sly1]

"A New World Oder where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause"

What is the problem with that? We already have a new world order with the internet for information (much of it wrong) and cable\satellite t.v. and people traveling freely. This is not the middle ages and never will be again.

Because when the system becomes corrupt it will be a world corruption.

Who is going to rule the one world government? I think no man or woman of any race/ethnicity is fit for that job no matter who they are.

 

[sly1]

It's merely knee-jerk reflexive reaction to any "official government version of events".

I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" movies and literature in the pop culture that it was burned into the national consciousness, and so trust in government has been eroded.

If you watch the videos of the planes going into the buildings, and hear the interviews on YouTube of survivors and families of the victims, and you're still not convinced, then I think there is something wrong with you. And I mean that in the most disrespectful way with out resorting to swearing.

If your going to be disrespectful why half ass it?

 

[BlueMoose]

"A New World Oder where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause"

What is the problem with that? We already have a new world order with the internet for information (much of it wrong) and cable\satellite t.v. and people traveling freely. This is not the middle ages and never will be again.

-Have I say there is something wrong about it, I dont even know what the
"New World Order" would be ? Whats the common cause ?
-Your analysis that when connected to information highway where 90% of
information is pointless or disinformation or heavily biased creates "order",
hmmm, sounds like chaos-theory to me
-What about that CNN talk about "american union", just rambling for run ?
When is it that something is conspiracy and when not,
they were talking about formal signings were made. Are they bullshitting ?

 

[John99]

Because when the system becomes corrupt it will be a world corruption.

Who is going to rule the one world government? I think no man or woman of any race/ethnicity is fit for that job no matter who they are.

Come on...It is the only way. Forget about all the baggage you associate with this planet and picture another planet in space. Now carve that planet up into sections with different people and different interests, langauge, money etc.

Dont you find that strange? It can only get so far...but what do i care:shrug:

 

[John99]

You know what BlueMoose?

I hate to say this but if i had a child i would just let them go to a few web sites because to let them roam free on the internet is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

 

[BlueMoose]

You know what BlueMoose?

I hate to say this but if i had a child i would just let them go to a few web sites because to let them roam free on the internet is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

-Interesting, you wanna make your children to be imbeciles.
-Have you been roaming little too much yourself

 

[John99]

-Interesting, you wanna make your children to be imbeciles.

How did you decipher my post to mean that?

 

[BlueMoose]

You know what BlueMoose?

if i had a child
i would just let them go to a few web sites
because to let them roam free on the internet
is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

-Well, sorry, my bad, the few one missed in translation...
...but those few ones better be good

 

[BlueMoose]

And you are right, net isnt place for kids.

 

[Simon Anders]

Mike,

Firstly, it's probably pretty freaken easy after taking lessons to take a plane this is already flying and turn it in the air and into a building.

Actually the flight school instructors of the alleged hijacker of the one that went into the Pentagon disagree with you. 1) they thought the manouver was a tough one and 2) they were shocked when they were told that guy did it. They said he was a terrible pilot and would have had trouble doing that with a little Cesna.

 

[Simon Anders]

It's merely knee-jerk reflexive reaction to any "official government version of events".

I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" ......

the government version is a conspiracy theory. the question is: is it a good one. There is no version of the events of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy theory.

 

[Simon Anders]

So can I. Especially since there actually aren't any holes or contradictions whatsoever.

Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.
A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC. They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year. On the day the WTC is hit no plane is in the air in time to follow the next three planes.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition. The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it. No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

There are many many more problem with the official conspiracy theory.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.
A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC. They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year. On the day the WTC is hit no plane is in the air in time to follow the next three planes.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition. The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it. No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

There are many many more problem with the official conspiracy theory.

There is a difference between the building in Spain and the WTC, the Building in Spain hadn't received a through and through penetration of it's structure, and the severing of the load bearing structures.

The WTC 1&2 were structurally damaged with massive compromising of load bearing members, severed by the Aircraft slicing through the buildings.

So there is no comparison between the two events.

 

[GeoffP]

Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.

No. Four people with the same name are alive. Even the host countries have admitted to this.

A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

And the possibility was ignored. This is the same government too inept to pay for levees. This would hardly be the first time intelligence was completely ignored.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC.

There were literally thousands of blips in the air that day. They didn't have the infrastructure to track them.

They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year.

Where? The Northeast? Or the sparsely travelled southwest? Over the coasts? Post 9/11? Consider.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

What kind of molten metal? Aluminum or steel? From the building or the plane? Was it mixed with anything? Did the burning wreckage act like a kiln? Does the bridge gasoline truck accident illustrate that unprotected steel can indeed melt?

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition.

Is he a demolitionist? Has he later clarified his comments (taken out of context, if you watch the entire clip) that he meant pull the firefighters out?

The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it.

Small fires spanning half a dozen floors after an airplane struck each tower, stripping away the fire protection on the steel girders, each with a temperature in excess of 800C, well past the point at which steel loses 50% of its support capacity. By "no engineer or architect", do you mean Jones from Bring Em Young U in Utah? Or the masses and masses of engineers and architects who have explained precisely how such a collapse could occur? If the building is in free fall, why do the pieces of rubble falling off the buildings - which are inarguably in free fall - fall faster than the building itself? Why is this true in both demolitions?

No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

Was that building struck by an airplane traveling 650 kph? Was it a billion stories high?

Speaking of demolition...your argument, sir.

Geoff

 

[Simon Anders]

And the possibility was ignored. This is the same government too inept to pay for levees. This would hardly be the first time intelligence was completely ignored.

The incompetency theory ends up having to cover a wide range of 'mistakes' made by NORAD, the Bush Administration, customs, the FBI
and yet to date no one has been punished for incompetence.

There were literally thousands of blips in the air that day. They didn't have the infrastructure to track them.

that's ridiculous. They were tracking them. There are always thousands of blips.

Where? The Northeast? Or the sparsely travelled southwest? Over the coasts? Post 9/11? Consider.

All over the US. Pre- 9/11.

What kind of molten metal? Aluminum or steel? From the building or the plane? Was it mixed with anything? Did the burning wreckage act like a kiln? Does the bridge gasoline truck accident illustrate that unprotected steel can indeed melt?

Aluminum would not stay molten for weeks. Nothing should have stayed molten from a carbon based fire. The plane that hit the second building exploded a large % of the fuel in the air because it hit near the corner of the building. It had less time to burn and people were standing in the burn holes when the building went down. Thick black smoke that does not fit with steel melting flames were pouring out of the holes in which humans - who were not melting or burning - were standing. Nothing indicates that a fire was present hot enough to melt steel or why that building went down so fast. In fact it looked like the fires were going out in assessment made by fire personell both inside and outside the building.

Is he a demolitionist? Has he later clarified his comments (taken out of context, if you watch the entire clip) that he meant pull the firefighters out?

Of course he had to explain his slip. He clearly says 'pull it'. Also weird to pull the firefighters out when there were just two small fires in the building. Odd that it collapsed inward, first showing a center crack precisely like those in demolished buildings. Odd, further that Guilani said the building was going to come down.

Was that building struck by an airplane traveling 650 kph? Was it a billion stories high?

It was burned to a skelaton, for a much longer time then either WTC tower. No one even the masses adn masses of engineers you think have good explanation for the towers falling has made a case that either plane impact had significant effect on building.

Speaking of demolition...your argument, sir.

Geoff

Oh, good you can take on a layperson working from memory.
You did not respond to some of my points
and your 'there were thousands of blips' is infantile.

There are problems with many more portions of the official theory nor do I consider your rebutalls having demolished anything.

There are a number of books extremely critical of the official conspiracy theory that are written by rational professionals not known before this incident to ascribe to any other 'conspiracy' theories. I reccomend that people read these books rather than simply going by an interchange between myself and Geoff. They present a better defence of the official version than he does and they show why it does not hold.

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

is one example, but there are others.

Judge for yourselves.

 

[Simon Anders]

There is a difference between the building in Spain and the WTC, the Building in Spain hadn't received a through and through penetration of it's structure, and the severing of the load bearing structures.

The WTC 1&2 were structurally damaged with massive compromising of load bearing members, severed by the Aircraft slicing through the buildings.

So there is no comparison between the two events.

The secong plane did not do any such damage. I doubt the first did either but it is much easier to see with the second plane, surprisingly this was the building that came down faster as the fires were going out.

 

[moementum7]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

Your not the only one.

 

[GeoffP]

The incompetency theory ends up having to cover a wide range of 'mistakes' made by NORAD, the Bush Administration, customs, the FBI
and yet to date no one has been punished for incompetence.

Does anyone ever?

that's ridiculous. They were tracking them. There are always thousands of blips.

Actually, it seems someone was tracking them...because Norad didn't stand down.

Although the military first learned of the hijacking of Flight 11 from Boston Center at 8:40, just 6 minutes before its impact, it was able to scramble two F-15 fighter jets from the 102nd Fighter Wing from Otis Air National Guard Base just 12 minutes later at 8:52, six minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. However, the 33 minute flight time didn't allow them to reach Manhattan until 9:25, 22 minutes after the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower.[43] One of the pilots later commented, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there quickly."[44]

So...not enough coverage. No Combat Air Patrol.

Aluminum would not stay molten for weeks. Nothing should have stayed molten from a carbon based fire.

Proof? Why should anything have stayed molten from any fire? You know, if a large amount of stuff falls on a fire that size, no one should be surprised that

The plane that hit the second building exploded a large % of the fuel in the air because it hit near the corner of the building. It had less time to burn and people were standing in the burn holes when the building went down.

I'll have some proof for that claim, please. And it's relevance. Yes, massive fires were burning. And?

Thick black smoke that does not fit with steel melting flames were pouring out of the holes in which humans - who were not melting or burning - were standing.

And yet, I am not saying that the melting occurred at or shortly after impact. My implication is that it occurred - if it even occurred, for which you provide no proof - after the collapse, in the heap. Moreover, your posit is very, very simplified. The fire was occurring right on the people, who were at the edge of the building, eh? This is my proposition? Yet, the steel columns at in the centre of the building, not the edge. So this clearly is not my proposition. The fire is in the centre. The people - assuming your statement is true - are at the edge.

Just so this is clear: let's assume for a moment that I somehow believe the steel melted in the immediate post-attack; within a few hours of impact. Wouldn't it be more effective to your point if the people were standing and waving at the centre of the building, where all the melting is purportedly going on?

Nothing indicates that a fire was present hot enough to melt steel

Quite likely correct. But at what temperature does steel lose 50% of its supportive strength?

or why that building went down so fast.

Actually, not correct. It fell pretty normally.

In fact it looked like the fires were going out in assessment made by fire personell both inside and outside the building.

Proof?

Of course he had to explain his slip. He clearly says 'pull it'.

Which he explained afterwards. You are trying to imply that I'm saying he didn't say that. He did. Troofers just like to take it out of context.

Also weird to pull the firefighters out when there were just two small fires in the building.

Oh?

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[32] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[33] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[34][32] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

"Two small fires", indeed.

Odd that it collapsed inward, first showing a center crack precisely like those in demolished buildings. Odd, further that Guilani said the building was going to come down.

These are entirely new claims. Provide proof, or desist. And: Guiliani is in on the conspiracy then, eh? The Mayor of New York. Who just had 3000 of his citizens killed. Giuliani. Indeed.

It was burned to a skelaton, for a much longer time then either WTC tower.

Was it hit by a plane?

No one even the masses adn masses of engineers you think have good explanation for the towers falling has made a case that either plane impact had significant effect on building.

That is the most absurd, disingenuous bit of tripe I have ever read. There is abundant support for the rationalist version of 9/11 and you know it full well. You should be ashamed, but I will hazard a guess that you aren't.

Oh, good you can take on a layperson working from memory.

Same here. Am I an engineer?

You did not respond to some of my points

Which ones? Illustrate. I got them all.

and your 'there were thousands of blips' is infantile.

Hardly.

There are problems with many more portions of the official theory nor do I consider your rebutalls having demolished anything.

Then you're wrong. I'm sorry, but it's not my fault.

There are a number of books extremely critical of the official conspiracy theory that are written by rational professionals not known before this incident to ascribe to any other 'conspiracy' theories. I reccomend that people read these books rather than simply going by an interchange between myself and Geoff. They present a better defence of the official version than he does and they show why it does not hold.

No - this sort of silly passing the buck to other sources when the Troofer nonsense is comprehensively stopped is unacceptable. If you're tapped into the prophetic reality of 9/11, then scootch over and breathily ask Dylan Avery for the keys to the kingdom. Otherwise, refrain from the propaganda, for there are far more articles and as much commentary from qualified engineers (not disgraced profs from Bring 'Em Young U) and architects. This propagandrist dismissal is absurd.

Geoff

 

[BlueMoose]

its okeii if your piieces in tha puzzle dosnt seem to fit to each other and missing,
u can just squuuuuuuuuuuuueze them and few missing aint thatt baaaaaad,
wanna reason me why dick was in the charge that day fisrt time in teh hiistory
of aaaaaaaaaaaaaamerica, just one odd piece to adddd.

 

[BlueMoose]

motha of all conspiracieeeeeees is that there is no conspiracieeeeeeeeeeeeeeees,
george lay it when he stated that let there be no such accusationsssssssssssss,
that one was beaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaty