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

[Headspin]

53 witnesses and a film recording say the shot came from the grassey knoll. how many witnesses say the shot came from the book depository?

Deathbed confession of Howard Hunt on who killed JFK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKUalnht32I

Are you aware who was making money by backing hitler in WWII?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

 

[John99]

53 witnesses and a film recording say the shot came from the grassey knoll. how many witnesses say the shot came from the book depository?

Deathbed confession of Howard Hunt on who killed JFK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKUalnht32I

Are you aware who was making money by backing hitler in WWII?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Some old man with new allegations that LBJ wanted to be President.

53 witnesses and a film recording say the shot came from the grassey knoll.

and where are they? the sound of a rifle echos so i cant really say anything about some "grassy knoll" theories or the so called witnesses who's eyes would all have been on the motorcade.

Bottom line is that anything at this level and they wont hire Lee Harvey Oswald to carry out the job. And that is obvious. Like i said even the mafia would not have hired someone who would have gotten caught.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Tell me you're joking? From what I've heard, Obama is one of the men keenest in pursuing Osama Bin Laden. I believe that it's because of him that there's been a noticeable shift of attention from Iraq and towards Afghanistan. And while Osama Bin laden may have done some terroristic actions against the U.S., there is little if any evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11 (The FBI never charged him for it and he's not even accussed of masterminding it now). The U.S. government, on the other hand...

See bold part, now think again..

You misunderstand. I felt it unnecessary to repeat my beliefs concerning the U.S. government on 9/11, since I've said it so many times here. You haven't been in this thread long, however, so I'll spell it out:

The U.S. government, on the other hand, shows ample signs of having taken part in the 9/11 attacks. By this, I don't mean -everyone- in the U.S. government. I'm not sure how many people would have been required, but I believe it may number only in the hundreds. There are also different levels of complicity; it's one thing to look the other way when pressed with unpallatable possibilities, not wanting to get involved in difficult situations and quite another to actively take part in the 9/11 attakcs.

 

[John99]

100's of people? You are insane, not even plausible. Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are DEAD.

 

[Enmos]

You misunderstand. I felt it unnecessary to repeat my beliefs concerning the U.S. government on 9/11, since I've said it so many times here. You haven't been in this thread long, however, so I'll spell it out:

The U.S. government, on the other hand, shows ample signs of having taken part in the 9/11 attacks. By this, I don't mean -everyone- in the U.S. government. I'm not sure how many people would have been required, but I believe it may number only in the hundreds. There are also different levels of complicity; it's one thing to look the other way when pressed with unpallatable possibilities, not wanting to get involved in difficult situations and quite another to actively take part in the 9/11 attakcs.

Scot.. relax. I was just joking, and perhaps being a bit sarcastic

 

[scott3x]

Pearl Harbor? Dragging that old chestnut out of the cob webs. That does not help advance your fantasy though because there was no way that the U.S was going to sit by and watch the Nazi's kill millions of people in Europe. Especially since probably the majority of Americans were from Europe themselves.

From what I've heard, the majority of americans didn't want to enter World War II until after Pearl Harbor.

IOW's they did not need to be a Pearl Harbor and as soon as the U.S were to become part of the Allied forces they would have been an enemy of Germany and Japan so of course Pearl Harbor would have been a target.

I have never stated that the U.S. actively encouraged Japan to attack Pearl Harbor; only that they -knew- that Japan was headed that way; and yet did nothing to prevent what occurred.

Lee Harvey Oswald did kill JFK and he did it alone. I know, someone like yourself would want to think that the government itself was involved but if that were true then no one would have gotten caught and there would be no evidence left behind.

It's much easier to end an investigation when someone has been caught. Perpetrators usually don't want to get caught though; however, if the perpetrators are capable and cold enough, they should be able to lead the public to believe that a pasty (or 19) did it. Surely you realize this?

All the evidence points to LHO, a poor choice for a hitman, doing it all by himself.

I recommend you see Oliver Stone's movie "JFK". Perhaps its main source of information came from noted author Jim Marrs' book "crossfire", from whom I've read many books (haven't yet read that one, however).

So now you will have some people coming in who watched the movie saying he did not act alone but who cares?

Are you saying you don't care if LHO acted alone or not? Or are you saying that I don't care if people get into this other conspiracy theory? If people truly seem interested in talking about the JFK assassination, we could start another thread for it, ofcourse.

There is the slight chance he had some invoolvement with organized crime but even that is far fetched because there is no way they would have hired a drifter like him to do a crime like that.

From what I have heard, there's a high chance that LHO was truthful when he said that he was a patsy and had absolutely nothing to do with JFK's death.

I'll even ask a (potentially) risky question: did he view his government's stance on gays in the military and gay marriage rights as bad?

Are you serious?

I am. Why do you ask?

If he would have answered yes to any of those questions, then I can think of him as someone who has the ability to question his own government on some very shady things. If he would say no to all of them, well... it's simply hard for some people to question certain authorities.

And who cares?

I would think anyone who is interested in how long some government officials can go.

The government is made up of people and the people at the times of those incidents would have been bad\dishonest people to carry out those criminal acts. And what do you think that he would cry if it were true? Big deal.

<snip personal attack>

9/11 was a big deal. It wasn't the only 'big deal' and there have been many since. But that particular big deal cost the lives of a fair amount of americans, both on 9/11 and (I would argue) after. And then there's all the people from Afghanistan and Iraq who have died as a consequence...

 

[John99]

From what I've heard, the majority of americans didn't want to enter World War II until after Pearl Harbor.

The U.S, the population, would have never stood by and watched Hitler invade Europe. Basically the Americans who fought in WW2 were European anyway. Once the intentions were known then the U.S was behind stopping it 100%. As far as Pearl Harbor, i dont think it mattered that much as to the will to stop the invasion but it was a mistake to attack it.

The whole war didn't make much sense though and i really dont know what they were thinking.

I dont have time to read the rest of your post but i will read it later.

 

[scott3x]

100's of people? You are insane, not even plausible. Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are DEAD.

An old saying doesn't absolve you of your need to prove your assertion. If one person can keep a secret, I don't see why it's impossible for hundreds to do so.

The insidious nature of a conspiracy wherein the people who are apparently involved have a lot of clout is that many don't actually have to have been originally involved in order to be part of it. All it takes is to look the other way when you detect something is fishy with the official story or even assist in the lie in order to not get any heat on oneself.

Kevin Ryan, former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) found out a bit concerning NIST's (at the time) upcoming report. He wrote to Frank Gayle, who was deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team at the time. Here's an excerpt of what he wrote:
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

He was fired a week after sending this email. So what would this tell other potential whistleblowers? It seems clear to me that the answer to that one is: if you don't want to lose your job, keep quiet.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

From what I've heard, the majority of americans didn't want to enter World War II until after Pearl Harbor.

The U.S, the population, would have never stood by and watched Hitler invade Europe. Basically the Americans who fought in WW2 were European anyway. Once the intentions were known then the U.S was behind stopping it 100%. As far as Pearl Harbor, i dont think it mattered that much as to the will to stop the invasion but it was a mistake to attack it.

I agree that it was a mistake on the part of Japan to attack it. What you seem averse to considering, however, is that the U.S. president knew full well that Japan was going to attack Pearl harbor and its effects on the american people. Here's an excerpt from a good article on the subject:
On 5 December 1941 at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know, …Well, you tell them what it is Frank,” said Roosevelt (Toland 294). Knox became extremely excited with the ok from Roosevelt, and he went to tell the group of where the Japanese were and where they were headed. Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt interrupted saying, “ We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination (Toland 294).” All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means War (Toland 318).”

Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320). Not until the morning of 7 December 1941 at 7:55 Hawaii Time did Japan deliberately and forcefully attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, finally ending disillusioned isolationist ideas of an only European War. United States countrymen immediately ran to recruiting offices after the news of the attack, to join the armed forces and fight against the Japanese and Hitler.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

 

[shaman_]

Similar to Steven Jones being put on paid leave, Kevin Ryan was fired for making public claims which were incorrect or just plain stupid and it brought embarrassment on the company he was working for. He was fired for “"expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." UL being Underwriters Laboratories.

Instead of recognizing that here was someone headstrong doing something innapropriate, the troothers take this as further proof that there is a super conspiracy.

 

[shaman_]

Your response below had nothing to do with the point being discussed. I don’t know if you don’t realise that or if you under still under the impression that constantly spamming the same debunked nonsense is a convincing ‘discussion’.

To find Steven Jones' in a peer reviewed journal, one need look no further then this:
****************************
Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.
****************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/


And ofcourse the article I had mentioned that began this little discussion:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm (search for "Jones")

Yes after all these years the only journals he could con into publishing his drivel was an environmental journal (?) and a little known engineering journal which apparently had no actual peer review and just required a payment. That’s pretty pathetic considering the confident claims the troothers make and considering how many papers have been published supporting the official story.

 

[fedr808]

I agree that it was a mistake on the part of Japan to attack it. What you seem averse to considering, however, is that the U.S. president knew full well that Japan was going to attack Pearl harbor and its effects on the american people. Here's an excerpt from a good article on the subject:
On 5 December 1941 at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know, …Well, you tell them what it is Frank,” said Roosevelt (Toland 294). Knox became extremely excited with the ok from Roosevelt, and he went to tell the group of where the Japanese were and where they were headed. Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt interrupted saying, “ We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination (Toland 294).” All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means War (Toland 318).”

Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320). Not until the morning of 7 December 1941 at 7:55 Hawaii Time did Japan deliberately and forcefully attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, finally ending disillusioned isolationist ideas of an only European War. United States countrymen immediately ran to recruiting offices after the news of the attack, to join the armed forces and fight against the Japanese and Hitler.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

Wow Bs, ridiculous bs. I mean were do you find a bull that big to get so much BS? I mean honestly, how the hell do you think that the US detected the pacific fleet in the first place. And you guys might want to consider the other idea that maybe they stayed up because there was a squadron of B-16's setting off to land in pearl harbor. Have you never heard of the phrase "dumb luck"

 

[fedr808]

The U.S, the population, would have never stood by and watched Hitler invade Europe. Basically the Americans who fought in WW2 were European anyway. Once the intentions were known then the U.S was behind stopping it 100%. As far as Pearl Harbor, i dont think it mattered that much as to the will to stop the invasion but it was a mistake to attack it.

The whole war didn't make much sense though and i really dont know what they were thinking.

I dont have time to read the rest of your post but i will read it later.

Quite frankly the Americans really did not give a care in the world about the NAZI invasion of Europe. Anyways Hitler did not do anything against the US that was uncalled for. And the sinking of American transport vessels do not count, they were carrying ammunition and could thus be sunk without political ramnifications.

As long as the Nazi's didn't try a suicidal attack on American soil nobody cared. And quite frankly Hitler probably was yelling at the Japanese for their attack on America in the first place.

 

[shaman_]

Sigh. Yes, clearly. The point is that there's no evidence that jet fuel initiated office fires could have gotten it much higher then about 500C.

No that was not the point you seem to be trying to make. It seems that, at times, you are trying to demonstrate that the fires did not go over 500C. When I point out there is evidence that they did you switch your story to “Oh sure they did but they weren’t supposed to”

However the point you did make is once again wrong. Fire tests conducted by NIST, and those conducted by someone completely independent produced steel temperatures near 1000C. Steel structures have collapsed from fires. This has been pointed out to you many times.

Explosives, on the other hand, could, and apparently did, go way beyond 500C, to reach temperatures that vaporize steel.

Explosives explode. They do not just make a fire hotter. Do you understand?

From your description nanosupermegathermite cuts through steel. It also doesn’t explain high temperatures causing steel to become soft. Correct?

If you actually have a theory here could you please explain it without linking to the same Steven Jones document which was debunked years.

 

[fedr808]

Also for once in my life i have to agree with scotch that a new investigation is in order for the murder of Kennedy. There is no crystal clear evidence that he was a lone shooter other than his arrest. The rifle was handled so many times forensics would be impossible. The car was washed so thoroughly that it is impossible to see which way the blood spread from Kennedy's head, as gory as it sounds. So quite frankly if this were a modern day investigation there would be no concrete evidence against a lone shooter. Also lets remember that the rifle used was one of the more innaccurate rifles of it's time.

Also American radars were used to detect air threats. Not surface.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

He's categorized the witnesses into the following categories:
1- Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact.

2- Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one.

3- "Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT see a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened.

He lists several other categories, complete with many remarks about the individual witnesses, which can be seen here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632

There are accounts on these lists which he does not include. Why not?

Because the evidence is essentially non existent for all but one of the 'witnesses'. Apparently, perhaps the largest 'official story' list of supposed plane-clipping light pole sightings can be found on Arabesque's site here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

CIT's Craig Ranke made quick work of all but 1 of the claims in the following link posted a little over a year ago:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9680

In the one case where he finds that the witness does, in fact, truly state that she saw a light pole being clipped by a plane. That witness is Wanda Ramey. She had stated this:
“I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”

Craig Ranke had this to say about her statement:
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one."

 

[John99]

As long as the Nazi's didn't try a suicidal attack on American soil nobody cared. And quite frankly Hitler probably was yelling at the Japanese for their attack on America in the first place.

I doubt that Hitler was angry about the attack on Pearl Harbor because they were allies and would have obviously coordinated their efforts. The thinking was probably that the U.S was going to get involved sooner or later anyway so may as well pull off a preemptive strike.

If they had even the slightest reason to think the U.S was going to sit back and watch the events in Europe and do nothing then why even bring them into it? I would say they did it to destroy a good part of the air support the U.S had to offer.

I think that the notion the attack was known is just wishful thinking. As far as people going to recruiting stations after the attack that probably is false also because there was a draft.

Lee Harvey Oswald

Just look at his bio and it is impossible to fathom anyone seriously using him to pull off a job like that. Certainly not the U.S government, which is almost comical to believe that anyway and the Mafia would not have done it to begin with. It would almost be a guarantee that when he was caught he would have been giving people up left and right. Communist help is far fetched also because killing JFK would not have helped or mattered much to them either.

Same for 911, you want to play detective and write books then go ahead because there will always be a segment of the population that just cannot accept the truth. It's like replacing a whole engine for a bad distributor cap.

 

[scott3x]

Similar to Steven Jones being put on paid leave, Kevin Ryan was fired for making public claims which were incorrect or just plain stupid...

The evidence is in the other direction as I have pointed out many times. But feel free to try to prove that Kevin Ryan did either of the above.

and it brought embarrassment on the company he was working for.

Perhaps they were embarassed; but my guess is that they were embarassed that one of their employees would dare to actually disagree with the findings of the not yet published NIST report. Kevin Ryan made it very clear how dangerous it was to challenge the official line on this:
"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told [NIST]'s Gayle."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

He was fired for “"expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." UL being Underwriters Laboratories.

He did no such thing:
An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Sigh. Yes, clearly. The point is that there's no evidence that jet fuel initiated office fires could have gotten it much higher then about 500C.

No that was not the point you seem to be trying to make. It seems that, at times, you are trying to demonstrate that the fires did not go over 500C. When I point out there is evidence that they did you switch your story to “Oh sure they did but they weren’t supposed to”

Sigh. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the office fires were capable of going beyond 500C. -However-, it would be quite easy for thermate to reach temperatures well above 500C.

However the point you did make is once again wrong. Fire tests conducted by NIST, and those conducted by someone completely independent produced steel temperatures near 1000C.

We talking about WTC 7? In any case, you may want to look at this long report of all the mistakes NIST made in its most recent WTC 7 report:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080916203015883

Steel structures have collapsed from fires. This has been pointed out to you many times.

I have also pointed out that steel structures is not the same thing as steel framed buildings. No steel framed building has even completely collapsed before or after 9/11. May respond to the rest later, a bit tired now...

 

[shaman_]

Because the evidence is essentially non existent for all but one of the 'witnesses'. Apparently, perhaps the largest 'official story' list of supposed plane-clipping light pole sightings can be found on Arabesque's site here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
CIT's Craig Ranke made quick work of all but 1 of the claims in the following link posted a little over a year ago:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9680

In the one case where he finds that the witness does, in fact, truly state that she saw a light pole being clipped by a plane. That witness is Wanda Ramey. She had stated this:
“I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”

Craig Ranke had this to say about her statement:
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one."

I spent a few minutes going through their list and I want those minutes back. Having seen the brilliant analysis I can see how they managed to say that 100+ accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon are actually only 30. It’s amazing just how much testimony they ignore because it doesn’t fit their beliefs.

They discard many people who they claim weren’t in a position to see the plane hitting poles even though they describe seeing a plane hitting poles. Perhaps they were clearer on the massive plane flying low and hitting poles than they were on their position at the time.

They assume that accounts that don’t say the words “I saw the plane hitting the pole” as meaning that they didn’t see it. If you read what they were quoted they were describing what they saw at the time. For example -

“It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

'Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit.'

and

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

'Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles.'

..this is a gem

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

'I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told.'

lol what?


This is a good example of their bias, hilariously they point out the Mike Walter didn’t see it hitting a pole so they think they have a case... but ignore his very clear testimony about the plane hitting the pentagon. They do this with many, many accounts in fact.

They take accounts such as “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, ” then assure us that they have spoken to them since and the person didn’t really see it hit a pole. Yes thanks I will take their ironclad guarantee on it. Witness testimony taken at the time of the incident is much more reliable. These guys are not capable of taking an unbiased account.

I noticed that these names are not even mentioned on their list - Elaine McCusker , D. S. Khavkin

They discard the accounts that don’t have the persons name and then triumphantly at the end he declares that there is only person who saw the plane hit any poles! So they conclude a plane didn’t hit the pentagon …..Meanwhile ignoring the accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon! These guys don’t have both oars in the water and you are a fool if you follow them.