Remember: Building 7 collapsed and was not hit by a plane at all, and in fact the owner Larry Silverstein (who made a VERY big amount of money from the whole of 9/11) actually said on an interview during a PBS special that they made a decision to “pull” it.
Al Qaeda and the FBI have worked together plenty in the past. prisonplanet.com/terrorist_w … h_fbi.html And check out info on the first world trade center bombing some years ago.
This stuff is so important because if it happens again they must not be allowed to get away with it and use it to justify further atrocities and removal of constitutional rights in the name of “national security”.
You don’t need to go looking for ridiculous conspiracy stories to hate Bush.
Personally I believe that the U.S. was caught out because they were complacent and arrogant, they ignored many specific warnings about a specific terrorist threat from various foreign security agencies, and the feeling in the security services was that the U.S. itself was too strong to be hit.
As for the Neo-Cons using the whole 9/11 thing to ‘justify’ their various wars and policies: no-one can deny that. Let’s just hope that things change before the U.S. state runs out of non-nuclear countries to destroy, because Iraq and Afghanistan were a walk in the park compared to what North Korea, Iran (and possibly even China in the future) would be.
Nero burnt down Rome and blamed it on his opponents. Likewise with Hitler and the Reistag. This strategy is actually very popular with leaders who lack ethical scruples.
None of that explains why Building 7 fell perfectly into its own footprint despite not being hit by a plane. Another building in the vicinity actually had bits of the south tower fall on it but still stayed up.
I think a lot of people focus on what may have happened at the pentagon, or how the air defence seemed to have been called off, but I think the no.1 issue should be the actual collapse of the towers. If you actually watch the footage you can see the charges going off just below the main area of collapse, and firefighters on the scene reporter secondary explosions and charges. The thing is it is not conspiracy nuts making the most noise about this: firefighters are trying to sue the government over it and the relatives of those who died are often on the side of the ‘conspiracy theorists’.
PNAC (Project for the New American Century) actually stated way before 9/11 that without a “new Pearl Harbour” their plans would take a very long time.
Post 9/11 Bush actually referred to the events as “our generations pearl harbour”.
[/quote]
I saw a flash movie that states that the pentagon was not hit by a plane but a missile. It had alot of info and pictures to back it up, it shows a picture of the “plane” as its coming in to hit the pentagon. It was video footage of the impact but the plane can only be seen in 1 frame because it went so fast. It looked like something completely different than a plane. It then shows a picture of the side that got hit and shows no wreckage at all, just the damage to the pentagon. Then it shows other plane wrecks where bits of the plane are scattered all over. The “plane” also put a perfect hole through a few layers of the pentagon, something that no plane can do. A nearby building that had survailance caught the crash on tape but it was confinscated by the fbi shortly after and was never seen again.
I’ve seen that too SpEEd0, and it is probably actually more credible than that FOX special of “Did we land on the moon?” Yeah, that show insulted my intelligence.
This has to be one of the funniest comments I have heard. That we are nieve to think that terrorists flew into the World Trade Center towers. That’s rich.
I too thought the buildings fell a little too perfect and my suspicions were aroused as to what really happened… but then I thought not too much more about it.
I also recently saw a doco discrediting the conspiracy theories around 9/11 - but I didn’t like there angle very much and I quickly realized that it was a doco with a specific agenda… that 9/11 happened as told to us by the media and the politicians…they were hitting hard against the Pentagon/missle theory.
Well, if the Pentagon was really hit by a plane… where is the wreckage? Just show me some footage of the plane coming into crash into that building and I will be OK… I was wrong. You would think for a big governmental building they would have had security cameras that would have recorded this? Every man and his dog caught a glimpse of a couple of planes crashing into the towers… but the pentagon?
No, I agree that terrorists destroyed the WTC towers. All I’m saying is that some of the terrorists involved may be a lot closer to home than you think.
Re: Pentagon
Yeah, the official story is crazy. According to that the plane would have had to skim the tops of the cars travelling on the nearby road during approach, then clipped the grass by the Pentagon and enter the building in a physically impossible manner and, of course, there’s no footage of the plane despite it hitting the freakin’ PENTAGON…
Anyway I think this is an important issue because I fear that a similar ‘terrorist’ atrocity may occur soon in order to boost fear in the people and justify further military expansion into Iran. Alex Jones actually predicted 9/11 2 months before and on his show begged people to call the White House and say “If we are attacked we know YOU did it” Of course people didnt listen (or probably even see it) but hopefully they will be brought to rights next time.
Random 9/11 Truth Movement fact no.697: the supposed ‘debunking’ article in Popular Mechanics magazine was written and researched by Benjamin Chertoff, who just happens to be… the cousin of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Defence Michael Chertoff. See ‘Nepotism’.
I think it’s pointless trying to work out if they used explosives for those of us whole aren’t engineers. How are we s’posed to know who’s telling the truth?
But you can work out if a conspiracy theory is just a bunch of lies or not. If we, as common lay people, can find one flaw in the conspirators theory then you can throw away their theory because the rest will also be lies.
Take the moon hoax thing for example. Anyone should be able to disprove some of the conspirators arguments and realise it’s just a bunch of lies. No stars in the background, everyone knows there can’t be. So why are the conspirators saying there should be? To fool unsuspecting people who don’t research the claims.
Here’s my conspiracy theory, The US government creates conspiracy theories and sells them to Fox. Then conspirators are labeled as crackpots. When some people really do uncover something big no-one will believe them.
You can explore what professionals said about it at the time. I have read many reports of experts saying that the collapse appeared consistant with a demolition (excuse lack of citations, tired…)
I think really important truths are something accessible to all people, especially in this ‘Information Age’ that we find ourselves in. Research and an open mind can discover truth from falsity.
But yeah, I’m not really into the moon landings conspiracy theories. I currently believe that the landings did take place.
Oh of course this kind of thing happens. You get “shills” who are insiders acting like outsiders, there’s all kinds of double-double crossing going on in the world of power. I do think that once you get a handle on the situation it is possible to see through that kind of thing by basically asking “who stands to benefit?”
Ok, well how do you explain the few hundred people killed in the Pentagon plane crash (or however many it was). Were many random families paid to pretend their relatives died? Seems a bit far fetched to me that the truth would never come out, or have you also got evidence of one of them admitting that they actually never lost any family in that crash? And what about the plane company that owned the plane, the traffic controllers, the eye-witnesses etc?
As for the missile thing there was an interesting documentary in the UK about it. It basically made the case that the plane’s main body punched through the Pentagon, and the wings folded on impact, leaving a fairly small entry hole. Surely you can all grasp the fact that at 300mph (or whatever) metal wings are as good as tin foil when smahing into reinforced concrete? Plus, if it was a plane-sized missle why was most of the above-ground Pentagon building still standing? A multi-ton missile would have made a slightly bigger hole than the one made. And there was various security footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, I saw it on the documentary, i’m surprised all of you conspiracy enthusiasts haven’t seen it!
I think the lack of extra footage though is more likely to be due to the Government being unwilling to release their CCTV etc footage, because which Government would want to show the world reels and reels of footage that shows how incompetent they were?
Well, we could debate this back and forward. Without footage of the impact we have to talk indirectly about what happened and it is difficult to be precise.
This is why I believe the focus should stay on events at the WTC building complex because they collapsed in the cold light of day with cameras all over them. Holographic planes (a particularly wild theory), lack of a pentagon plane, these things are not neccesary to prove that the official report and media version of events are inadequate to explain what occured.
In fact I’d say the main focal point should be Building 7:
it was not hit by a plane
it collapsed at 5:20pm
owner Silverstein said in a PBS documentary that the decision was taken to “pull” the building, something which takes weeks to arrange and set up
the official report said the collapse was caused by fire
the collapse was textbook demolition (building crinkled towards the centre and fell into own footprint with no resistance)
charges can be seen going off in one particularly revealing shot (will find link later)
buildings much closer to the 2 main WTC buildings stayed upright, despite being hit by pieces
but to address your points with regard the Pentagon, there is a theory that the plane was ditched out at sea, and there were eye witness reports that seemed to be describing a missile. All they need to do is release a little authentic footage showing the approach/impact, but they don’t seem to want to do that.
Yeah, a couple of frames were released but as you say, there is nothing fitting the description of a plane on them. In fact the explosion itself is more in line with that caused by a missile: it is white-hot as opposed to the yellow/red billowing fireball we saw at the WTC. Check out the video “9/11: in Plane Sight” (it is available free online from www.informationclearinghouse.info )
If we are talking about building 7 then you are comparing it to a 47-story building.
Well, there wasnt such a fire. Photographs of Building 7 prior to its collapse show only small areas of fire.
It is still a mystery as to exactly how these small, isolated fires could break out in the first place, seeing as no plane hit, and no chunks of the twin towers hit the building.
And besides, the collapse itself was not consistant with such events:
"The precisely vertical collapse of WTC 7 around 5:20 on the afternoon of September 11th necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as fires or explosions, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
Moreover, it is a fact that fire has never caused any steel frame high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7’s destruction"
Check out this site on the Windsor building fire, and conduct a compare/contrast exercise on building 7: davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
Well, I don’t have much of a problem accepting that elements of the current U.S. Government (and previous Governments) could be capable of planning and carrying out an attack on their own citizens, but I do have a problem accepting that such an attack could ever be accomplished without it being clearly and comprehsively proven to be the work of said Government.
Are you really telling me that you believe that the U.S. Government killed about 3,000 of its citizens, destroyed two of its largest and most prestigious buildings, contaminated a massive civilian population with god knows what and all in front of the world’s media in one of America’s largest cities, and no-one has any damning conclusive proof? And i’m not talking about your crack-pot web sites with all their ‘facts’. Don’t you think that if this had really happened it wouldn’t just be the conspiracy theory community claiming various plots, but that it would the media, academics and mainstream public opinion proving such plots.
If you really want to have your theories taken seriously you’re going to have to explain how such an operation can be planned and executed without someone blowing the whistle or proving to the world beyone doubt what the Government was up to. Because it would take an awful lot of man power and resources and all of the people involved would have to be firm believers in killing many of their own civilians, or paid an awful lot to keep quiet.
The conspiracy theories seem utterly ridiculous to me, where as a terrorist attack using America’s stupidly unguarded airlines, to simply crash planes into large buildings, seems like a much more sensible and logical explanation. But then, conspiracy theories rarely side with the most likely explanation of an event.
.
.