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

[KennyJC]

I haven't accused the firefighters of anything. However, I do think you should take a look at the following:

**********************************
Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse

Of the two principle theories of WTC 7's collapse -- one being global structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage, and the other being controlled demolition -- the second is favored by foreknowledge of the collapse. This is particularly true given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires. So unprecedented was the collapse of Building 7 that the government has yet to explain it, in 2007 [they've now finally come up with some lame reasoning].

That would probably be lost on most responders on the site, who would have the fresh memories of the Twin Towers' explosions to help them accept the notion that the total of collapse of smoking skyscrapers is a natural and even predictable occurrence.

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least as 23 minutes before the event.
Witness Accounts of Foreknowledge

This overview of witness accounts shows that the evacuation of the area surrounding WTC 7 started sometime around 4 PM, and was completed only a few minutes before the 5:20 collapse. The warnings of the collapse, which are recalled in dozens of accounts by emergency responders, show a striking consistency of conviction that the collapse would occur.
**********************************
http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html

Actually, if you are saying that because the area was evacuated around the WTC7 is suspicious, then who do you think arranged the evacuation?

The FDNY.

Dan Nigro to be exact. He only became the fire commander a few hours earlier because his superior died in the collapse and Dan Nigro came close to death himself.

"In on it" he certainly wasn't. Neither are any of the other fire fighters that day who are on record as saying that they thought the WTC7 was going to collapse based on its deteriorating condition throughout the day.

If you hear a building creaking, see debris falling from it, see a huge bulge over several floors, see 10 floors of the building scooped out a quarter of the way into the building, the worsening fires which have been burning all day, the plumes of smoke coming out of every single floor etc.. etc..

Why should we be surprised that an evacuation was ordered around a building that was in that shape?

 

[shaman_]

Some interesting videos regarding the foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Collapse_Expectations

The was of course due to how damaged it was.

 

[Headspin]

There was a little known television news report at 10:45am, this report was over 6 and a half hours before the collapse of wtc7.
This report was before any known fire in wtc7.
Wtc7 was 47 storeys high, the towers both 110 storeys.
only 3 buildings collapsed that day.

The report at 10:45am is an interview of a man in the street who says that a 50 storey skyscraper has just collapsed.

 

[Headspin]

Obviously some explosives "sweat" and there is the chance of destabilisation like you say, so that does narrow the time margin like you put. Of course it doesn't rule it out, the only thing that speaks against it is the loss of life. My use of Collateral Damage does of course mean the surround buildings and potential loss of life outside of the towers.

There is absolutely no way explosives would be placed in buildings as a precautionary measure. The legal and insurance implications would be enormous. A businessman would never take such risks, especially when the profit of such an operation would only be quantified in terms of safety and ethics. Safety and ethics are dealt with by insurance bean counters. It is possible if not probable that the building was designed with a view on how it would be future demolished, but not with the physical placement of explosives. This view seems to be being put forward by those that see the evidence for the probable demolition of the 3 towers, yet cannot accept that people would do this on purpose. In order to address that view, i would point those to the Tuskegee experiment which caused hundreds of men to die from syphalis in order (we are told) that the disease be studied http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

Ask yourself why people were given nerve agents by scientists in experiments? surely animals would have sufficed instead of people? nerve agents affect all mammals the same way.

Is it more likely that these experiments were conducted in order to find the scientists who would do such things without question, rather than to study the effects of nerve agent?

 

[scott3x]

Nothing new there same old claims.

I see that you haven't refuted any of them.

Thousands of photographs of ground zero were taken...

The question is, where they taken of the most relevant data? And why were individuals blocked from taking pictures, in some cases even having their photographs confiscated?

Silly claims that it was suspicious that the steel was recycled. It was one of the darkest days in American history and the New York streets looked like a battleground. Should they have left it there? Should they have given up on the possibility of survivors?

In the case of WTC 7, everyone was safely evacuated (minutes later, the building was brought down; how convenient), so no need for 'rescue efforts'. But even in the case of WTC 1 and 2, they could have simply kept the steel elsewhere; there was no need to recycle it in such haste.

These questions will wasted on you if you think taking six months to remove all the steel is speedy and suspicious…..

If -I- were the only person making such claims, you could rest easy. However, I'm only reporting what many before me already know.

The steel was investigated by experts and those experts put forward their conclusions.

Many of those experts, such as Abstaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett, said that they were not given enough time to examine the evidence.

You don’t like their conclusions so you just ignore them.

I've never ignored their tentative conclusions. Not only have I not ignored them but I've pointed out their flaws and questioned why the claims of evaporated steel weren't mentioned in the reports. As a matter of fact, yesterday I even emailed Abstaneh-Asl regarding this; I don't have high hopes that he'll respond, but he might.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking over the body of someone who was shot thirty times, declared by a doctor to be dead as a result of the shooting, and complaining that he may have been poisoned and a major investigation must be launched.

I think a better analogy is that a guy got a superficial shot to the arm, the guy disintegrated and the official story is that it was the bullet's fault .

 

[Stryder]

There is absolutely no way explosives would be placed in buildings as a precautionary measure. The legal and insurance implications would be enormous. A businessman would never take such risks, especially when the profit of such an operation would only be quantified in terms of safety and ethics. Safety and ethics are dealt with by insurance bean counters. It is possible if not probable that the building was designed with a view on how it would be future demolished, but not with the physical placement of explosives. This view seems to be being put forward by those that see the evidence for the probable demolition of the 3 towers, yet cannot accept that people would do this on purpose. In order to address that view, i would point those to the Tuskegee experiment which caused hundreds of men to die from syphalis in order (we are told) that the disease be studied http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

Ask yourself why people were given nerve agents by scientists in experiments? surely animals would have sufficed instead of people? nerve agents affect all mammals the same way.

Is it more likely that these experiments were conducted in order to find the scientists who would do such things without question, rather than to study the effects of nerve agent?

You can hardly weigh a "Study" to the same light as the destruction of the World Trade Center. These are the sorts of skips and jumps that aren't true science.

My point was that I could rationalize a reason as to why Explosives could of been used to bring down a tower in the event of an Emergency, however I also rationalised that it doesn't make sense unless you were looking at collateral damage. (e.g. The Lives Outside the building outweighing those inside the building) that is not a call I'd want to make and not necessarily one that was ever made.

Incidentally you might want to bring that study up as a Separate thread in Ethics, Morality and Justice. I'm sure you could find where it might of not followed the Nuremberg Code.

 

[shaman_]

I see that you haven't refuted any of them.

Ha it would not matter now many times I had addressed those claims you would pretend on the next page that I never had.

The question is, where they taken of the most relevant data?

Thousands of pictures were taken. Let me guess, you just know the “relevant data” was missed in all of those pictures. … Whatever the relevant data is…

And why were individuals blocked from taking pictures, in some cases even having their photographs confiscated?

Please show me some evidence that this occurred. As I said, thousands of pictures were taken.

In the case of WTC 7, everyone was safely evacuated (minutes later, the building was brought down; how convenient), so no need for 'rescue efforts'. .

They thought the building would collapse because it was damaged and leaning and they were right. They thought it would collapse a long time before it actually did. Did you watch the videos I linked to?

But even in the case of WTC 1 and 2, they could have simply kept the steel elsewhere; there was no need to recycle it in such haste.

They did keep it elsewhere. It was kept at scrap yards and inspected it. No not every single piece was inspected but they came to a conclusion without having to do so. You just don’t like the conclusion because it is a bit mundane so you ignore it …

If -I- were the only person making such claims, you could rest easy. However, I'm only reporting what many before me already know.

Do you actually think that is an point worth making. Hey if it’s on the internet it must be true!!

Many of those experts, such as Abstaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett, said that they were not given enough time to examine the evidence.

Please point to where Barnett said this.

Abstaneh-Asl made it very clear that he doesn’t believe in any of the conspiracy theories and that he thinks the fires brought the buildings down. His wanted more investigation because he was concerned about the construction methods of WTC, and what that may mean for other high rise buildings. He was not entertaining ideas of bombs and nuclear devices.

I've never ignored their tentative conclusions. Not only have I not ignored them but I've pointed out their flaws

Do you think you have the experience to point out the flaws of people like Abstaneh-Asl and Barnett? Could you, in a few words, summarize their flaws?

and questioned why the claims of evaporated steel weren't mentioned in the reports. As a matter of fact, yesterday I even emailed Abstaneh-Asl regarding this; I don't have high hopes that he'll respond, but he might.

Nice work. I’m interested to hear if he replies.

I think a better analogy is that a guy got a superficial shot to the arm, the guy disintegrated and the official story is that it was the bullet's fault .

Considering the steel framed buildings which have collapsed from fire I don’t think your analogy is apt.

 

[scott3x]

You can hardly weigh a "Study" to the same light as the destruction of the World Trade Center.

The point is that some within the government have little care for the lives of ordinary citizens, seeing them as appropriate cannon fodder for sacrifice.

My point was that I could rationalize a reason as to why Explosives could of been used to bring down a tower in the event of an Emergency, however I also rationalised that it doesn't make sense unless you were looking at collateral damage. (e.g. The Lives Outside the building outweighing those inside the building) that is not a call I'd want to make and not necessarily one that was ever made.

As I have mentioned in the past, the architects of the 9/11 attacks may have rationalized the loss of life as something that was necessary to 'innoculate' the U.S. from even greater acts of terror, perhaps by making them more alert. A greater act could be a terrorist organization getting a nuclear device and setting it off in a U.S. city as has been portrayed in a recent hollywood film titled "The Sum of All Fears", which came out in 2002.

Regardless of the reasoning, however, I believe that it was ethically wrong. I also believe that we should get to the bottom off the whole thing so that the people who truly did it can be held responsible for it.

 

[Stryder]

The point is that some within the government have little care for the lives of ordinary citizens, seeing them as appropriate cannon fodder for sacrifice.

As I have mentioned in the past, the architects of the 9/11 attacks may have rationalized the loss of life as something that was necessary to 'innoculate' the U.S. from even greater acts of terror, perhaps by making them more alert. A greater act could be a terrorist organization getting a nuclear device and setting it off in a U.S. city as has been portrayed in a recent hollywood film titled "The Sum of All Fears", which came out in 2002.

Regardless of the reasoning, however, I believe that it was ethically wrong. I also believe that we should get to the bottom off the whole thing so that the people who truly did it can be held responsible for it.

This is where we lose rationality and of course the chain of evidence. It's one thing to look at the evidence to see how it should fit or find out if it does fit, but to jump to conclusions isn't Science.

Hollywood is renowned for "Fiction", do not allow yourself to succumb to the a script writers "Fictional" interpretation of how reality could be, if you are to do that then you might as well yourself write "Fiction". I'm currently sifting through a bit of the online evidence but there are a lot of holes in the Truthers arguement's.

For instance the dead passengers existed, some bodies and remains were recovered. Some of those passengers had a bit of fame to them so their absence is obvious.

There is then of course the Terrorist list, some are said to still be alive in Saudi Arabia and other places. It's possible that the list was composed of the "likely suspects" or based upon passports that had been forged from them. This doesn't mean there wasn't Hijackers, just there were people assuming other peoples identities.

On top of that Osama Bin Laden's "Wanted" posting on the FBI list isn't for 9/11 but other bombings.

 

[Headspin]

There is then of course the Terrorist list, some are said to still be alive in Saudi Arabia and other places. It's possible that the list was composed of the "likely suspects" or based upon passports that had been forged from them. This doesn't mean there wasn't Hijackers, just there were people assuming other peoples identities.

People assuming identities? so you don't know the identities of the terrorists? if you don't know their identities then why can't they be israelis, british or americans ? The identitiy of the attackers is one of the singular most important questions, but it doesn't appear to matter to you. Don't you think this matter ought to be investigated ???

"composed of the likely suspects" - what does that mean?
The FBI had the passenger manifests even before the attacks had finished according to Richard Clarke. How can they release names, then change the names some days later, yet the original acussed identities were not even on the manifests? there were NO OTHER arab/muslim names on the manifest, but for one that was never named.
They had the manifests! if they got the hijackers wrong then those incorrect names would have been on the manifests - they were not! do not tell me this is FBI incompetence. I believe that this was the reason the manifests were never released from an official source.

I recommend this book that includes Jay Kolar's detailed research of the alleged hijackers, he examines evry aspect of the alleged hijackers, and finds it is ALL wanting and devastating to the official story:
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Histor...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226501207&sr=8-1

or you could read vertern Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker's book which places Atta as a patsy involved in cia drug smuggling operations:
http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terro...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226501701&sr=1-1

 

[GeoffP]

Headspin, the identities of the hijackers has been established. The journal that first broke the erroneous story has retracted. Done. Over.

 

[Headspin]

Hollywood is renowned for "Fiction", do not allow yourself to succumb to the a script writers "Fictional" interpretation of how reality could be, if you are to do that then you might as well yourself write "Fiction".

scott is illustrating a mindset with reference to a film plot, he is not "succumbing to a script". go find out about the mindset of the neonazicon straussisan mindset indoctrination at rockefeller's chicago university. trace it back, you'll find it leads right back to the nazis.

I'm currently sifting through a bit of the online evidence but there are a lot of holes in the Truthers arguement's.

such as? ignore the obvious disinfo.

For instance the dead passengers existed, some bodies and remains were recovered. Some of those passengers had a bit of fame to them so their absence is obvious.

so you genuinely believe that the truth movement are saying the identities of all the passengers were fake? where did you find this?? it is no wonder you hold the alternative theories in contempt, you have been led astray by deliberate disinformation.

On top of that Osama Bin Laden's "Wanted" posting on the FBI list isn't for 9/11 but other bombings.

that is correct, they say there is not enough evidence to convict him.
If you went to afghanistan and found in a cave an outline of a plan for the 911 attacks, the reasons for doing it, and the way to get past the US security appartatus, if this had bin laden's signature on it, would you consider that evidence of complicity?

 

[Headspin]

Headspin, the identities of the hijackers has been established. The journal that first broke the erroneous story has retracted. Done. Over.

clearly you do not even understand the issue. there was no "journal" or news organisation that originally reported the hijackers (identities) alive. all you are doing is taking a soundbite from JREF without ANY attempt to even understand the issue!

 

[MacGyver1968]

Welcome back Geoff! We missed your furry bear butt.

 

[John99]

Headspin, the identities of the hijackers has been established. The journal that first broke the erroneous story has retracted. Done. Over.

Doesnt matter. Headcase has been brainwashed.

 

[GeoffP]

Why should we be surprised that an evacuation was ordered around a building that was in that shape?

THANKYOU. Why are people surprised by this?

 

[GeoffP]

clearly you do not even understand the issue. there was no "journal" or news organisation that originally reported the hijackers (identities) alive. all you are doing is taking a soundbite from JREF without ANY attempt to even understand the issue!

YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.

Or possibly insane. You are perhaps not familiar with the Telegraph? The BBC? They write the vast majority of their articles in your mother tongue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

 

[GeoffP]

You have evidence of that?

Scott, if you set off a nuke there is EMP. Done. FFS.

 

[Headspin]

YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.
Or possibly insane.

Do you beat your wife?

You are perhaps not familiar with the Telegraph? The BBC? They write the vast majority of their articles in your mother tongue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Two news articles reporting that the named hijackers are actually alive and that their identities were stolen, therefore the real identities of the alleged hijackers are not known.
So what is your point?

 

[GeoffP]

Do you beat your wife?

I beat your wife.

Two news articles reporting that the named hijackers are actually alive and that their identities were stolen, therefore the real identities of the alleged hijackers are not known.
So what is your point?

My point, you absurd little fellow, is that the BBC recanted their story. As in: they were wrong. As in: oops! As in: we fucked up.

As in: it was a load of shit from the beginning.

Best regards,

Geoff