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

[BlueMoose]

What is it with this Rumsfeld guy, there werent any plane shot down in that day, so how can he make statements like this, stupid ignorant dickhead !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s&feature=related

 

[Ganymede]

Is that so hard to believe? Surely you can't expect 85 cameras in the general area to catch such a low crash. You have different angles, different obsctructions, variable quality and so on...

You're a fool if you think out of 85 cameras none of them showed that GIGANTIC plane hitting the Pentagon.

There are 3 videos showing the crash on the following video. They are low quality, but they do nothing to contradict an airliner:

Thank you for posting those amateur styled, blurry unintelligible videos. These videos look nothing different then the alleged videos that depicts a UFO or Yeti. To blurry to confirm, to blurry to deny, try getting some real evidence pal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4

However there were 136 eyewitnesses to the crash, and many of them were very specific that it was an American Airlines jet.

Bullshit, where's the links, I want to know these peoples names. These witnesses are useless anyway. Anyone that can dispel the cover up has had a gag order placed on them. That's why the firefighters weren't allowed to testify before the 911 commission.

1) ATC confirm the plane taking off as normal, changing course and heading towards Washington D.C.

Ok

2) Phonecalls to loved ones describing 6 hijackers with boxcutters

Lets examine this further. If you go to the Governments Website, it proves that former Solicitor General Ted Olson lied when he said he received a call from his wife, Barbara Olson. Here's what Ted Olson said on Larry King Live.

Then one of the secretaries rushed in and said, "Barbara is on the phone." And I jumped for the phone, so glad to hear Barbara's voice. And then she told me, "Our plane has been hijacked." This was some time -- must have been 9:15 or 9:30. Someone would have to reconstruct the time for me.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html

According to the Governments own Website, Barbara did attempt to call the justice department, but the the phonecall failed to connect

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html

This is what happens when the outrageous claims made in the official story are actually investigated. The official story doesn't hold up to the facts. I'm sure this will be a sobering reminder for you.

) Confirmation of the hijackers in the airport and going through security and being seated on the aircraft

No security footage exists for the other 17 high jackers. Only 2 exist. So please stop it with your exaggerated claims.

4) DNA confirmation of all but one of the victims (a baby)
5) Videos and photos of debris

D.N.A evidence has only been found for 2 of the 10 alleged WTC Hijackers. When are you going to stop with the false statements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm

That's it? So the reporter got there, didn't have a great view and not being sure what happened didn't realize that if an airliner traveling at 550mph hits a building head on, that it will disappear into it. Big deal.

Never in Aviation History has a plane completely vaporized on impact. Here's what happens when a plane crashes.

I can show you videos of reporters not realizing the WTC had collapsed even though they were looking right at it.

Does that mean the towers did not fall? Of course not, it was just confusion on the part of journalists who really didn't have a clue what was going on.[/quote]

No you can't, more lies and exaggerated claims. Time to pull out the rubber boots.

Well in light of the evidence, that makes you pretty idiotic or dishonest. Which is it?

You haven't provided any evidence to back up anything you've said. Just worthless and mindless conjecture, you fail at debating.

All because you have no perfectly placed high def video of the attack... idiotic... dishonest....

I'm sorry, I don't operate on blind faith. Only a FOOL does.

Notice the word "victims". The hijackers are not classed as victims and therefor are not included in that list.

Like I said, you have no verifiable evidence. Why do you operate on blind faith? Only a fool operates on blind faith.

And you were doing so well

Your not even a worthy opponent. I'm only giving you due attention because I haven't had the pleasure of roasting you before. Many on this forum have tried, all have failed miserably, which resulted in them resorting to childish name calling, as you did in your first post, and you've up the ante in your rebuttal. After this, I will expect more immature name calling from you, but that doesn't refute any of the facts.

Please try to keep up with events and stop using newspaper articles from 10 days after the attack.

The best information is always gathered directly after the event. This is before the Government spin masters can feed their talking points to the reporters. The article you're referencing doesn't provide any facts to support the claim it's making.

Wait, now I'm confused... Now you agree it was Flight 77 that hit the pentagon? And saying there is no evidence of who was flying the plane is simply erroneous.

Nope, flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, the blur wasn't consistent with the size of a 757.

 

[KennyJC]

You're a fool if you think out of 85 cameras none of them showed that GIGANTIC plane hitting the Pentagon.

Well that really would depend on the angle of the cameras, what obstruction is in the way, what the quality is, etc etc...

Thank you for posting those amateur styled, blurry unintelligible videos. These videos look nothing different then the alleged videos that depicts a UFO or Yeti. To blurry to confirm, to blurry to deny, try getting some real evidence pal.

Well maybe you're going to have to get used to the fact that you're not going to get any high def video from security cameras which were up to a mile away from the crash site.

But what I really don't understand from you is wether or not you believe the Pentagon is any different to what happened at the WTC. Do you think airliners hit the WTC of which we have much more video availible for?

I just don't understand the fact that because there is no good quality video is supposed to mean that it wasn't a plane at all. For me, the fact that ATC confirms it was Flight 77, the airliner knew it was it's own plane that hit the Pentagon, the wreckage... People like you simply overblow any little thing even if the mountain of evidence is to the contrary.

Bullshit, where's the links, I want to know these peoples names. These witnesses are useless anyway. Anyone that can dispel the cover up has had a gag order placed on them. That's why the firefighters weren't allowed to testify before the 911 commission.

Well if you would have actually watched the video you would have saw names being given to quotes and stated it's source here.

You're right about one thing though, we don't need these eye witness testimonies to prove what hit the Pentagon, because we already know that. The eye witnesses just simply confirm what we already know. Perhaps that's not enough for people like you with tin foil hats though...

Lets examine this further. If you go to the Governments Website, it proves that former Solicitor General Ted Olson lied when he said he received a call from his wife, Barbara Olson. Here's what Ted Olson said on Larry King Live.

According to the Governments own Website, Barbara did attempt to call the justice department, but the the phonecall failed to connect

So because there are inconsistencies (for whatever reason) with one call, that means all 64 calls made from hijacked planes should be called fake?

I think I can see the way your mind works.

This is what happens when the outrageous claims made in the official story are actually investigated. The official story doesn't hold up to the facts. I'm sure this will be a sobering reminder for you.

No, I think the job of the conspiracy theorist is to place heavy emphasis on parts of 9/11 that can be scewed and interpreted in different ways, and ignore the other 99% of facts which contradict your fantasy. You just blatantly ignored all the facts that show Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and for some reason you think the feeble points you raise can override that mountain of evidence.

No security footage exists for the other 17 high jackers. Only 2 exist. So please stop it with your exaggerated claims.

Well just a quick scour of wiki shows that there are pictures of 5 hijackers going through airport security. Knowing the way you think, this means that 12 of the hijackers didn't exist, right?

D.N.A evidence has only been found for 2 of the 10 alleged WTC Hijackers. When are you going to stop with the false statements.

So this means that the other 8 hijackers didn't exist? Ignoring the bulk of evidence in favour of a small amount of missing evidence. Yep, that pretty much sums up a tin foil hatted fool like yourself.

It's also worth noting that of Flight 93, the remains of all 4 hijackers were positively identified.

Never in Aviation History has a plane completely vaporized on impact. Here's what happens when a plane crashes.

Well I don't have the time to google it right now, but I'm sure there has been other cases of airliners crashing HEAD ON at high speeds and thus rendering the aircraft into millions of small peices.

I can't believe you actually pasted pictures of planes with their fuselage intact and have the stupidity to think that this crash is equal to an airliner crashing HEAD ON at 550mph with a solid object.

I'm sorry, I don't operate on blind faith. Only a FOOL does.

Like I said, you have no verifiable evidence. Why do you operate on blind faith? Only a fool operates on blind faith.

The irony...

The best information is always gathered directly after the event. This is before the Government spin masters can feed their talking points to the reporters. The article you're referencing doesn't provide any facts to support the claim it's making.

The reason conspiracy theorists prefer reports in the immediate aftermath, is because they get to exploit confusion. Planes landing in Cleveland... etc...

Nope, flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, the blur wasn't consistent with the size of a 757.

I suppose after the missle hit (or whatever it is you think hit), all of the airliner debris was planted there in a manner consistent with Flight 77 crashing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

 

[BlueMoose]

Shanksville flight 93 & Building 7 is where, I ignorant fuckin dickhead, will need some help,
I just dont get it. Planes disappearing and buildings collapsing free fall speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUzrHHDu96U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P4x9u_JFMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBRipQAbC0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An_nXpr5K0A&feature=related

 

[KennyJC]

Shanksville flight 93 & Building 7 is where, I ignorant fuckin dickhead, will need some help,
I just dont get it. Planes disappearing and buildings collapsing free fall speed.

95% of Flight 93 was recovered, so it did not "disappear". The reason it was broken up into millions of peices is simply because that's what happens if you nose dive a plane into the ground at 550mph.

And the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. Free fall speed from the top of the towers is 9.22 seconds.

The south tower took 15 seconds to collapse. And the reason this collapse was quicker than the north tower was in large part due to the fact that the collapse initiated lower than it did compared to the north tower, and that the core was momentarily intact after the collapse also provided less resistance.

The north tower took 22 seconds to collapse as it initiated higher up than the south tower, and the core was involved in the collapse which provided more resistance than the south tower collapse.

We can also assume it was not free fall as the debris on top is not seen falling straight down. The collapsing tower was an impedement to falling debris which is why much of it was kicked off to the surrounding area causing massive damage over a wide area.

Thanks for calling yourself an ignorant fucking dickhead, because it means I don't have to.

 

[BlueMoose]

North tower, South Tower, did I ask something about those ? you can read I know that much, or do I, servant of bizarre libertanian agenda ? Did you watch the videos ?

 

[Ganymede]

Well maybe you're going to have to get used to the fact that you're not going to get any high def video from security cameras which were up to a mile away from the crash site.

The Pentagon has one of most advanced security forces protecting the premises, the U.S.P.P (United States Pentagon Police). They report directly to the Secretary of Defense. They're solely responsible for protection of the Pentagons 20+ thousand workforce. And they have a myriad of security cameras monitoring every inch of this sensitive facility. You've chosen to divorce yourself from reality if you believe that part of the Pentagon wasn't under any surveillance.

But what I really don't understand from you is wether or not you believe the Pentagon is any different to what happened at the WTC. Do you think airliners hit the WTC of which we have much more video availible for?

Airliners hit the WTC but bombs brought the buildings down. That would explain why the building feel at free fall speed in a perfect symmetrical fashion.

I just don't understand the fact that because there is no good quality video is supposed to mean that it wasn't a plane at all. For me, the fact that ATC confirms it was Flight 77, the airliner knew it was it's own plane that hit the Pentagon, the wreckage... People like you simply overblow any little thing even if the mountain of evidence is to the contrary.

What evidence does the ATC have that indicates the plane hit the Pentagon. These are the same ATC's who claimed to have lost track of the hijacked planes on 911.

Well if you would have actually watched the video you would have saw names being given to quotes and stated it's source here.

I'm not foraging through a video to search for evidence you should be able to easily hyperlink if the actual evidence existed.

You're right about one thing though, we don't need these eye witness testimonies to prove what hit the Pentagon

So let me get this straight. First you said we don't need clear visual evidence, not you're saying we don't need eyewitness testimony? I'm sorry, I don't operate on blind faith.

because we already know that. The eye witnesses just simply confirm what we already know. Perhaps that's not enough for people like you with tin foil hats though

Names, links, descriptions please.

So because there are inconsistencies (for whatever reason) with one call, that means all 64 calls made from hijacked planes should be called fake?

Actually there's more inconsistencies, the Ted Olson call was the most talked about one. That's why I chose to focus on that particular call.

I think I can see the way your mind works.

It's called the Scientific Method!

You just blatantly ignored all the facts that show Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and for some reason you think the feeble points you raise can override that mountain of evidence.

What facts? You haven't provided shit that proves anything besides a youtube video. You fail at debating.

Well just a quick scour of wiki shows that there are pictures of 5 hijackers going through airport security. Knowing the way you think, this means that 12 of the hijackers didn't exist, right?

I don't operate on blind faith. Apparently you do. And here's another astonishing fact that's beyond bewildering. From the 911 commission report.

Checkpoint security Screening. Because the airport's security checkpoints and gate area were not monitored by video surveillance equipment at that time, no conclusive evidence exists regarding when and how the Flight 11 Hijackers passed through the checkpoint screening. To reach their departure gate after checking in, all five hijackers would have been required to pass through one of the two checkpoints, both of which were operated by Globe Aviation Services under a contract with American Airlines. At the checkpoint, each individuals carry-on belongings WOULD OF SCREENED BY AN X-RAY MACHINE. The purpose of this screening was to identify and confiscate weapons and other items prohibited from being carried onto a commercial flight. And the passenger would pass though a walk though metal detector calibrated at that time to detect items with at least the metal content of a small caliber handgun. If any one of the hijackers triggered the walk-through magnetometer, he would of been screened with a handheld metal detector.[/quote]

This could of been the smoking gun, but of course there's no footage that shows how the hijackers got metal objects through X ray machines without being detected.

So this means that the other 8 hijackers didn't exist? Ignoring the bulk of evidence in favour of a small amount of missing evidence. Yep, that pretty much sums up a tin foil hatted fool like yourself.

Here comes the insults.

It's also worth noting that of Flight 93, the remains of all 4 hijackers were positively identified.

United Airlines Flight 93's crash into rural Somerset County decimated all human remains so badly that investigators can't say if any of the 44 people aboard were killed before the aircraft went down, the FBI has told the county coroner.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp

Well I don't have the time to google it right now, but I'm sure there has been other cases of airliners crashing HEAD ON at high speeds and thus rendering the aircraft into millions of small peices.

By all means, you need some evidence, your personal opinion isn't enough.

I can't believe you actually pasted pictures of planes with their fuselage intact and have the stupidity to think that this crash is equal to an airliner crashing HEAD ON at 550mph with a solid object.

A 757 never hit the Pentagon, nor did the pilots have the skill to navigate the 757 at those speeds, with Top Gun pilot precision.

The irony...

The lack of evidence.

The reason conspiracy theorists prefer reports in the immediate aftermath, is because they get to exploit confusion. Planes landing in Cleveland... etc...

The reason apologists like to hear information long after the fact is because it gives their masters time enough to concoct a story that makes them sleep better at night.

I suppose after the missle hit (or whatever it is you think hit), all of the airliner debris was planted there in a manner consistent with Flight 77 crashing?

The Debris found on the scene weren't consistent with a 757.

 

[KennyJC]

Airliners hit the WTC but bombs brought the buildings down. That would explain why the building feel at free fall speed in a perfect symmetrical fashion.

Perhaps you are not familiar with bombs, but they make really loud sounds. Heard from miles in fact. Video footage from within a stones throw of the WTC reveals no sounds in the seconds immediately before the collapse.

Go watch a video of a controlled demolition and just listen to what happens before the buildings start to fall. Yes, that's right, you hear ear peircing explosions.

In the cleanup operation in the WTC, there were people with backgrounds in controlled demolition cleanups. Explosives required to take down two skyscrapers would have left remnants, and absolutely none were found, let alone heard.

As for the free fall speed thing, read my post previous to this one directed at Bluemoose. Free fall speed is a lie. Pure and simple.

What evidence does the ATC have that indicates the plane hit the Pentagon. These are the same ATC's who claimed to have lost track of the hijacked planes on 911.

No, the latter just indicates that out of all the planes in the air, they were unsure which ones were hijacked. That doesn't mean to say they didn't know where the planes were.

So let me get this straight. First you said we don't need clear visual evidence, not you're saying we don't need eyewitness testimony? I'm sorry, I don't operate on blind faith.

Tracked on ATC, wreckage, victims remains. All that are needed. Any further evidence is surplus.

Names, links, descriptions please.

For the third time:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Actually there's more inconsistencies, the Ted Olson call was the most talked about one. That's why I chose to focus on that particular call.

You will have a difficult job proving all 64 calls, many of them indepth, were faked.

What facts? You haven't provided shit that proves anything besides a youtube video. You fail at debating.

Checkpoint security Screening. Because the airport's security checkpoints and gate area were not monitored by video surveillance equipment at that time, no conclusive evidence exists regarding when and how the Flight 11 Hijackers passed through the checkpoint screening. To reach their departure gate after checking in, all five hijackers would have been required to pass through one of the two checkpoints, both of which were operated by Globe Aviation Services under a contract with American Airlines. At the checkpoint, each individuals carry-on belongings WOULD OF SCREENED BY AN X-RAY MACHINE. The purpose of this screening was to identify and confiscate weapons and other items prohibited from being carried onto a commercial flight. And the passenger would pass though a walk though metal detector calibrated at that time to detect items with at least the metal content of a small caliber handgun. If any one of the hijackers triggered the walk-through magnetometer, he would of been screened with a handheld metal detector.

So what? I can't tell you how many times I've gone through security forgetting to take off my watch, emptying coins from my pocket, taking my belt off, and the beeper not going off.

United Airlines Flight 93's crash into rural Somerset County decimated all human remains so badly that investigators can't say if any of the 44 people aboard were killed before the aircraft went down, the FBI has told the county coroner.

Of course, but we know many people were alive when it hit the ground thanks to the blackbox. Was the blackbox faked in a hollywood studio and planted there by some mysterious man in a trench coat before investigators arrived?

A 757 never hit the Pentagon, nor did the pilots have the skill to navigate the 757 at those speeds, with Top Gun pilot precision.

Again, wreckage, victims remains, ATC, American Airlines contradict this paranoia.

The Debris found on the scene weren't consistent with a 757.

Just a blatant lie...

Ok, you've worn me down. I can't be arsed anymore :shrug:

May your tin foil hat not fall off. They will get you otherwise.

 

[shaman_]

The Pentagon has one of most advanced security forces protecting the premises, the U.S.P.P (United States Pentagon Police). They report directly to the Secretary of Defense. They're solely responsible for protection of the Pentagons 20+ thousand workforce. And they have a myriad of security cameras monitoring every inch of this sensitive facility. You've chosen to divorce yourself from reality if you believe that part of the Pentagon wasn't under any surveillance.

These cameras were not set up for the purpose of recording planes smashing into the side of the building at full speed.

Airliners hit the WTC but bombs brought the buildings down. That would explain why the building feel at free fall speed in a perfect symmetrical fashion.

They did not quite fall at free fall speeds. They did not fall in a perfect symmetrical fashion either. One of the towers was clearly leaning over as it went down. This is why buildings like WTC7 were damaged. The collapse started at floors where the planes hit. It certainly did not collapse like a controlled demolition would.

So are we to believe that the (invisible) bombs were only on those floors? That is stretching it as you would need to hit close to the floor (out of 110) for the plan to work. Why bring bombs into the equation at all? Would the plan have failed if you had all but destroyed the towers without them collapsing? It’s one thing to try and pick at the inconsistencies but you need some theories that actually sound plausible.

But hey when the towers theories start to sound silly the conspiracy theorist can always move to WTC7 and when struggling there we go onto the pentagon and after that retreat to a discussion about flight 93. Undaunted by the lack of credible evidence (quantity is not a substitute for quality) and implausible theories that CT can just keep jumping from one to the next completely sure that there must be a conspiracy in there somewhere.

 

[John99]

I ignorant fuckin dickhead, will need some help,
I just dont get it.

Well said.

 

[Ganymede]

These cameras were not set up for the purpose of recording planes smashing into the side of the building at full speed.

Oh really, what evidence lead you to that conclusion, I would like to see it.

They did not quite fall at free fall speeds.
They did not fall in a perfect symmetrical fashion either.

Yes they did.

One of the towers was clearly leaning over as it went down.

Only the very top of the building above the impact crater.

This is why buildings like WTC7 were damaged. The collapse started at floors where the planes hit. It certainly did not collapse like a controlled demolition would.

Yes, some debris did hit building 7, not enough to make it collapse. We have 2 public officials who've public stated WTC was a controlled demolition.

So are we to believe that the (invisible) bombs were only on those floors?

Who said they were invisible. There was a myriad of reports of bombs going off in those buildings by the firefighters who were on the front lines.

That is stretching it as you would need to hit close to the floor (out of 110) for the plan to work. Why bring bombs into the equation at all?

Shock Value, that's why the Networks played the WTC collapse every day for weeks after the event, to create fear, hatred, and a taste for revenge. That way the people wouldn't question any invasion of a foreign land.

Would the plan have failed if you had all but destroyed the towers without them collapsing? It’s one thing to try and pick at the inconsistencies but you need some theories that actually sound plausible.

It doesn't matter, the objective here was fear, reaction & solution.

But hey when the towers theories start to sound silly the conspiracy theorist can always move to WTC7 and when struggling there we go onto the pentagon and after that retreat to a discussion about flight 93. Undaunted by the lack of credible evidence (quantity is not a substitute for quality) and implausible theories that CT can just keep jumping from one to the next completely sure that there must be a conspiracy in there somewhere.

The official story has to many inconsistencies. The 911 commission said they were mislead by the Pentagon and Norad.

 

[Ganymede]

Perhaps you are not familiar with bombs, but they make really loud sounds. Heard from miles in fact. Video footage from within a stones throw of the WTC reveals no sounds in the seconds immediately before the collapse.

The firefighters said they heard bombs going off inside the building.

In the cleanup operation in the WTC, there were people with backgrounds in controlled demolition cleanups. Explosives required to take down two skyscrapers would have left remnants, and absolutely none were found, let alone heard.

The only official investigation done was carried out by the NIST. If you have link to agency that made the claim please provide it.

No, the latter just indicates that out of all the planes in the air, they were unsure which ones were hijacked. That doesn't mean to say they didn't know where the planes were.

Now you're just making shit up, the pilots have silent distress signals they can send to the FAA.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/FlyingHigh/story?id=816534&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

For the third time:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

That's an un official source. You don't see my linking Alex Jones to support my theory do you?

You will have a difficult job proving all 64 calls, many of them indepth, were faked.

All I know is that Ted Olson lied, he was the highest ranking official to lose a loved one. And lied about the circumstances of her Death. The FBI's has proven her call was never connected.

Of course, but we know many people were alive when it hit the ground thanks to the blackbox. Was the blackbox faked in a hollywood studio and planted there by some mysterious man in a trench coat before investigators arrived?

The Blackbox information was declassified, have you even read it? Nothing in the official transcript supports the official story.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf

Again, wreckage, victims remains, ATC, American Airlines contradict this paranoia.

Evidence?

Just a blatant lie...

Ok, you've worn me down. I can't be arsed anymore :shrug:

May your tin foil hat not fall off. They will get you otherwise.

Your evidence is severely lacking. And the witnesses statements you provided from your link was an editable excel spread sheet.

 

[shaman_]

Oh really, what evidence lead you to that conclusion, I would like to see it.

Generally when security cameras are set up they are done so to be able to film people entering/leaving or attempting to do so. You don’t usually set security cameras up for the specific task of filming high speed objects so that you can identify them better later. Being able produce a nice photo of a plane before impact and therefore shutting down conspiracy theories probably wasn’t a high priority when it was installed.

Yes they did.

No they did not fall at free fall speeds. Debris can be seen falling faster than the building.

Only the very top of the building above the impact crater.

So the collapse was not symmetrical. Do not say that it was.

Yes, some debris did hit building 7, not enough to make it collapse.

Your assertion is contradicted by the firemen on the scene. They thought it was going to collapse so they pulled everyone out long before it did.

We have 2 public officials who've public stated WTC was a controlled demolition.

Who? (I hope you’re not going to say Silverstien)

Who said they were invisible. There was a myriad of reports of bombs going off in those buildings by the firefighters who were on the front lines.

Not one person saw any explosives beforehand.

Two planes loaded with jet fuel smash into two buildings which are among the tallest in the world. Then the floors collapse at the point of impact and the buildings completely collapse destroying other buildings in the process. Yes I’m sure people did hear some explosions and bangs at some point. Explosions don’t mean bombs though. CTs cherry pick through testimony and twist it to substantiate their claims.

Shock Value, that's why the Networks played the WTC collapse every day for weeks after the event, to create fear, hatred, and a taste for revenge. That way the people wouldn't question any invasion of a foreign land.

Okay so why fly planes into them? If all you needed was footage of the towers collapsing why hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings? Why not just use the (invisible) bombs? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't matter, the objective here was fear, reaction & solution.


The official story has to many inconsistencies. The 911 commission said they were mislead by the Pentagon and Norad.

If there are inconsistencies in the official story, and there certainly may be, they are miniscule when compared to the inconsistencies in all the conspiracy theories I have heard so far.

 

[BlueMoose]

Well said.

-I forgot something...Ignorant fuckin dickhead servant of bizarre libartanian
agenda with tin foil hat
-Can you help me Johnny, KennyJC couldnt.

 

[KennyJC]

The firefighters said they heard bombs going off inside the building.

This is probably the dumbest thing you have said so far. Even more so than your plane pictures, or the hijackers not being on the victims list...

So according to you, the New York Fire Department has explicit knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job. They lost hundreds of their colleagues as a result of these "bombs" and yet they are saying absolutely nothing about it today?

The truth of the matter is that people like you in this "truth movement" have taken their quotes out of context and twisted them to suit your propaganda.

Graham MacQueens paper "118 witnesses" were first responders describe explosions, all 118 quotes have been taken out of context. 31 first responders used the word "bomb", 30 of which were referring to the collapse of the building, and the other mentioned nothing of bombs or explosions at all.

81 who used the word "explosion" over half are referring to the building collapse using the word "explosion" as a simile. Others said there was a bomb in a highschool which of course turned out to be hearsay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

If it was indeed a controlled demolition, large explosions would be picked up by every camera in the area in the seconds prior to the collapse. But do you hear any? No. Did the recovery team spot evidence of explosives in the rubble? No. Do any of the firefighters believe to this day (or even on that day), that there were bombs planted in the WTC? No. If so, prove it. Any of the 118 witnesses will do. It's little wonder that many of them had to go on record to clarify their quotes as simile's or confusion in defense of their quotes being used on many propaganda videos.

The only official investigation done was carried out by the NIST. If you have link to agency that made the claim please provide it.

There is no "official" story... merely the reality of events which anybody can investigate.

I would recommend the book by Popular Mechanics which thoroughly debunks 9/11 myths. I would also recommend watching a blow for blow debunking of Loose Change by Mark Roberts which is 3 hours long and reduces Loose Change to a pile of shit. I would post a link as I watched it on Google Video, but I can no longer find it.

If you are unsatisfied with my points, then investigate my recommendations as they know infinitely more than I do about 9/11 and they are better at citing their sources.

 

[KennyJC]

Here is what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related

Notice the huge explosions before the tower falls.

Notice also how the building falls from it's base, and not as the WTC did from floor to floor starting from near the top of the building.

 

[BlueMoose]

And here is when building collapses because of structural failure, uncontrolled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gElTyejWs4

 

[Ganymede]

Here is what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related

Notice the huge explosions before the tower falls.

Notice also how the building falls from it's base, and not as the WTC did from floor to floor starting from near the top of the building.

They weren't using military grade explosives. There's hundreds of first responders who said they heard bombs.

 

[Ganymede]

This is probably the dumbest thing you have said so far. Even more so than your plane pictures, or the hijackers not being on the victims list...

So according to you, the New York Fire Department has explicit knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job. They lost hundreds of their colleagues as a result of these "bombs" and yet they are saying absolutely nothing about it today?

The truth of the matter is that people like you in this "truth movement" have taken their quotes out of context and twisted them to suit your propaganda.

Graham MacQueens paper "118 witnesses" were first responders describe explosions, all 118 quotes have been taken out of context. 31 first responders used the word "bomb", 30 of which were referring to the collapse of the building, and the other mentioned nothing of bombs or explosions at all.

81 who used the word "explosion" over half are referring to the building collapse using the word "explosion" as a simile. Others said there was a bomb in a highschool which of course turned out to be hearsay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

If it was indeed a controlled demolition, large explosions would be picked up by every camera in the area in the seconds prior to the collapse. But do you hear any? No. Did the recovery team spot evidence of explosives in the rubble? No. Do any of the firefighters believe to this day (or even on that day), that there were bombs planted in the WTC? No. If so, prove it. Any of the 118 witnesses will do. It's little wonder that many of them had to go on record to clarify their quotes as simile's or confusion in defense of their quotes being used on many propaganda videos.



There is no "official" story... merely the reality of events which anybody can investigate.

I would recommend the book by Popular Mechanics which thoroughly debunks 9/11 myths. I would also recommend watching a blow for blow debunking of Loose Change by Mark Roberts which is 3 hours long and reduces Loose Change to a pile of shit. I would post a link as I watched it on Google Video, but I can no longer find it.

If you are unsatisfied with my points, then investigate my recommendations as they know infinitely more than I do about 9/11 and they are better at citing their sources.

There wasn't one piece of scientific evidence presented in that video. Just random quotes. Can't you see how weak your position is? All you can provide is youtube video's with nameless pundits pontificating emotional arguments, not scientific ones.

 

[Ganymede]

These cameras were not set up for the purpose of recording planes smashing into the side of the building at full speed.

You invalidate your own argument with our own words. The arabs didn't have the skills to pull of that maneuver at 550 MPH. Renowned Pilot John Lear had this to say.

John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2879177663747998295

They did not quite fall at free fall speeds.

It took nine seconds for WTC one to fall, the Government apologists say that it fell in 15 seconds. That's bullshit even the NIST said WTC 1 fell in 9 seconds.

They did not fall in a perfect symmetrical fashion either.

Yes they did, they imploded perfectly and settled in their own footprints.

One of the towers was clearly leaning over as it went down.

This is why buildings like WTC7 were damaged. The collapse started at floors where the planes hit. It certainly did not collapse like a controlled demolition would.

How in the fuck do you know since no building has ever collapsed due to fire. What historical references are you basing your hypothesis on?

So are we to believe that the (invisible) bombs were only on those floors?

Here's a video of a NY firefighter instructing people to clear out the area because there's a bomb in the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZdulv66n8&feature=related

NBC News Coverage regarding the bombs in WTC

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1172623113

That is stretching it as you would need to hit close to the floor (out of 110) for the plan to work. Why bring bombs into the equation at all?

Simple, to destroy the towers and any evidence that could incriminate those who're actually responsible.

But hey when the towers theories start to sound silly the conspiracy theorist can always move to WTC7 and when struggling there we go onto the pentagon and after that retreat to a discussion about flight 93.

The 911 commission didn't investigate building 7. So please stop making such deceptive claims. There's a multitude of inconsistencies, to many for us to pick. So it's prudent for us to examine all the evidence, because allot of the evidence contradicts the official story.

Undaunted by the lack of credible evidence (quantity is not a substitute for quality) and implausible theories that CT can just keep jumping from one to the next completely sure that there must be a conspiracy in there somewhere.

Name one Scientist not employed by the Government that was able to do an independent anlalysis on the WTC Steele.