9/11 conspiracy theories

[venger]

The problem is Venger, do any of us actually know the facts?

 

Some of them certainly, yes but all of the actual events are shrouded by mystery and obstructions.

 

The official story just does not add up the more time you spend reserching it.

 

For the record, I am not your 'typical conspiracy nut', I do however feel compelled to look at what evidence I can find on this subject with an open and objective viewpoint.

 

As I say, the official story just looks to me like unrealistic nonsense.

 

You do really do not have to look very far to see that.

[Bartfarst]

i watched it today at work (it was a quiet day lol) and i was gripped from start to finish. i realise that any person arguing a specific viewpoint will draw from the particulars available, choosing those which best suit.

 

i also realise that a portion of the 'evidence' was from sources i probably cannot cross-check to ascertain their validity, such as 'eye-witness' accounts, newspaper articles based on 'experts' , etc.

 

yet the sheer number of incongruities speaks volumes to me, and makes me think that to see all of that, yet still maintain a belief in the official story, would be blinkered beyond reason...there is SOMETHING wrong with this picture, and i urge everyone to watch this docco before opining further.

 

I watched a good chunk of it, but didn't have the time to watch it all. There are indeed many examples of 'worrying coincidences'; but coincidences are just that - coincidences.

 

Have you read articles about the Bible Code? After the event, it's possible to look back - armed with anecdotes and hindsight, to find worryingly coincidental collections of linked words on the subject clustered in various parts of the bible. The trouble is, it’s possible to do that with just about any subject or outcome because of the nature of the data contained within the book.

 

Similarly, look at any major historical or political event, and you can soon come up with lots of ‘coincidences’ that point to a conspiracy. I expect that we could, should we so desire, identify a whole list of government figures who have sold shares from companies who have gone bust soon after. However, if we’re willing to do the research, there will be a similar list of such people who bought shares before companies went bust. The same logic applies to the ‘evidence and facts’ that the conspiracy theorists harp on about.

 

That’s why we have so many conspiracy theories, because the ‘facts’ are so easy to find, believed by a large number of the naive masses, and not even worth countering by the authorities who – quite understandably – don’t take a few thousand nutters seriously.

[Tony]

Venger, even on this little forum you've had a bunch of people providing you with facts (not opinions) that they have gained through real life working experience (explosives, demolition, structures, construction) but you still choose to ignore it because a bunch of amateur cranks with agendas have a Sony Handycam and some video editing software.

 

For the record, I am not your 'typical conspiracy nut', I do however feel compelled to look at what evidence I can find on this subject with an open and objective viewpoint.

The plain truth is that it's you who is confusing evidence with conjecture. You should also appreciate that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

 

As I say, the official story just looks to me like unrealistic nonsense.

Not to those who actually understand what they are looking at.

 

 

Edit: It was a little late when I posted that and I was tired and irascible. Apologies if it appears a little terse.

[venger]

Venger, even on this little forum you've had a bunch of people providing you with facts (not opinions) that they have gained through real life working experience (explosives, demolition, structures, construction) but you still choose to ignore it because a bunch of amateur cranks with agendas have a Sony Handycam and some video editing software.

 

That really is not the case, that is one of many films that I have watched and own some of.

 

My latest book reports that:

 

1. The failure of standard operating procwdures (SOP) to intercept Flight 11.

 

2. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 175.

 

3. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 77.

 

4. The fact that the official story as to these dailures changed a few days after 9/11.

 

5. The fact that according to the second version of the official story, the order to scramble jet fighters to intercept Flights 11 and 175 went to Otis Air Force base instead of the nearer base, McGuire.

 

6. The fact that according to this second version, the order to scramble jet fighters to protect Washington went to Langley Air Force base instead of the nearer base, Andrews.

 

7. The fact that, even given NORAD'S timeline and the greater distances the pilots had to cover from Otis and Langley, their fighter jets, flying at full speed, should have reached New York and Washington in time to prevent the attacks on the South Tower and the Pentagon.

 

8. The fact that according to this second version, the fighter jets that were too late to intercept Flights 11 and 175 were not ordered to continue on to Washington, even though it was then known that Flight 77 had been hijacked and, according to the official story, was headed back toward Washington.

 

9. Secretary of Transport Mineta's report of a conversation that may have reflected a stand-down order by Vice President Cheney.

 

10. The fact that in New York 0n 9/11, three steel-framed high-rise buildings, for the first time in history, collapsed because of fires - quite localised fires at that, especially in the South Tower and Building 7.

[venger]

11. The fact that the South Tower fell first even though, according to the hypothesis that the buildings collapsed because of fire, this tower, having been hit second and having the smaller fire, should not have collapsed first.

 

12. The multiple types of physical evidence that the Twin Towers and building 7 collapsed because of means of controlled demolition. (Because there are many types of such evidence - such as the fact the steel beams and columns were broken into pieces the right size to be loaded onto trucks.

 

13. Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department decided to "pull" WTC-7, combined with that fire department had prior knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence indicating imminent collapse.

 

14. MayorGuiliani's statement that he knew in advance that the Twin Towers were going to collapse.

 

15. The quick removal of the steel from the three buildings - especially building 7, where there would have been no victims - before it could be examined.

 

16. The fact that photographic evidence shows that the hole created in the Pentagon was much smaller than a hole created by a Boeing 757 would be.

 

17. The fact that photographs show that there were no remains of a large airliner in front of the crash site, even though, given the small entrance hole, not all of a Boeing 757 could have gone inside.

 

18. The fact that witnesses also reported seeing no remains of a large airliner inside the Pentagon.

 

19. The fact that the West wing, far from being the most likely part of the Pentagon for terrorists to target, was the least likely. as well as technically difficult to hit.

 

20. The fact that a non-military plane, not having a transponder sending out a friendly signal, would have been automatically shot down by the Pentagon's battery of missiles.

[Twiglet]

I've already talked about the hole in the Pentagon. This is one of the most widely quoted pieces of 'evidence' in the conspiracy theory when there is nothing sinister about it at all - the hole was created by the landing gear not by the entire plane.

 

This thing about the WTC being the first three buildings in history to collapse due to fire is also rubbish. No other skyscraper in history has had a commercial airliner flown into it at high speed. The collapse wasn't just down to the fire - there was also heavy structural damage. The chances are the building would have survived the structural damage OR the fire, but not both.

[venger]

21. The extreme unlikelihood that a hijacked 757 could have flown undetectedthrough American airspace, especially toward the Pentagon, for some 40 minutes.

 

22. The evidence that the Bush administration lied about not having shot down Flight 93.

 

23. The fact that President Bush gave the impression upon his arrival at the Sarasota school, even after a telephone call with Condoleezza Rice, that he was unaware that two more airliners, beyond the one that had crashed into the North Tower of the WTC, had bee hijacked.

 

24. The fact that Bush, after being told about the attack on the South Tower, did not act like a commander in chief who was surprised to learn that United Staes was suffering the greatest attack in its history.

 

25. The fact that Bush and his entourage, including his Secret Service detail, showed no sign of fear that they would be attacked while in Florida, even though at that time they - assuming the truth of the official account - would have known neither how many planes had been hijacked nor what the terrorists targets were.

 

26. The multiple denial by the Bush administration officials that they had any idea that planes might be used as a weapon in a terrorist attack against the United States, even though such knowledge was widespread - partly because of the warnings the Bush administration itself had received that terrorists were planning such attacks.

 

27. The fact that the FBI must have had specific advance knowledge of the attacks, given (a) its confiscation of a film of the attack on the Pentagon within five minutes (b) its confiscation of student files from Florida flight schools within 18 hours, and © the reported testimony of FBI agents (to David Schippers and the New American) that they knew the dates and the targets of the New York attacks months in advance.

 

28. The repeateddenial by Bush administration officials that they had received any specific advance knowledge about the attacks of 9/11, contradicting strong evidence to the contraty, including that provided by the purchases of enormous put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

 

29. The evidence that Osama bin Laden was officially America's "most wanted" criminal, he was treated by an American surgeon and visited by a CIA agent in Dubai two months prior to 9/11.

 

30. The evidence that local FBI agents in Minnesota, New York, and Chicago were prevente by FBI headquartes from carrying out investigations that could have uncovered the plot.

[venger]

I've already talked about the hole in the Pentagon. This is one of the most widely quoted pieces of 'evidence' in the conspiracy theory when there is nothing sinister about it at all - the hole was created by the landing gear not by the entire plane.

 

So waht about the rest of the plane, being aproximately 100 tonnes ?

 

Two 5 ton jet engines made from steel and titanium, the list goes on...

[Macca]

I've already talked about the hole in the Pentagon. This is one of the most widely quoted pieces of 'evidence' in the conspiracy theory when there is nothing sinister about it at all - the hole was created by the landing gear not by the entire plane.

 

This thing about the WTC being the first three buildings in history to collapse due to fire is also rubbish. No other skyscraper in history has had a commercial airliner flown into it at high speed. The collapse wasn't just down to the fire - there was also heavy structural damage. The chances are the building would have survived the structural damage OR the fire, but not both.

 

Just wondering if you can explain to me why a suicide hijacker would bother to put the landing gear down?? Seems highly illogical to me...?

[Twiglet]

Just wonderinig if you can explain to me why a suicide hijacker would bother to put the landing gear down?? Seems highly illogical to me...?

 

I don't think they did but the plane fragmented on impact so it didn't really matter if it was down or not....

 

EDIT: Ok, so I'm wrong, it was an engine not the landing gear. Either way, that was not the point at which the main body of the aircraft hit the building.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm