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.
No, there is damning conclusive proof. Building 7 demolishment, caught live on tv. Testimony from firefighters and even reporters on the scene that there were secondary explosions that brought down the towers (these reports being dropped from subsequent coverage), actual recorded evidence of said explosions, the physical impossibility of what happened (it is still unprecedented, including the huge Madrid fire), building 7, building 7…
Ad hominem. I would recommend you check out Alex Jones. As he says in his latest documentary “The owner of the complex admitted on a PBS documentary that he took the decision to pull building 7 and yet I am called a crank for saying the official report is nonsense?”
Ok, 400 of the relatives of those killed are currently trying to bring a lawsuit against Bush and his administration with regard 9/11. Firefighters are trying to sue. Hardly the “conspiracy theory community” but I don’t blame you: mainstream media pays no attention to these facts.
A hugely respected firefighters publication printed an article that detailed how ridiculous the official story was and they actually fought to release taped communications between firemen on the day that disproved the official version.
Compare this to the so-called academic and mainstream media: for example, the Popular Mechanics Magazine rebuttal of the conspiracy theories. This ‘article’ was written by the cousin of the Secretary for Homeland Security.
Look at the kind of thing the mainstream news now features: Rush Limbaugh, Ann ■■■■■■■ Coultier… it is propoganda.
Ok:
There are on-record details of wargame drills practiced over the Twin Towers in the weeks (and the very morning of 9/11).
John Ashcroft warned not to fly on 9/11.
First attack on WTC years ago has been officially aknowledged as a guy trained and equipped by the CIA.
Alex Jones urged people to call the White House on his July 2001 show and tell them “if we are attacked, we know you did it”
Employees of Odigo, an Israel based text messaging company, did not show up for work on 9/11 because they were warned.
Building 7 fits the description of a demolition.
Just check out Alex Jones’s stuff.
REPEAT: Building 7 was not hit by an airliner, yet it still collapsed entirely. There is no sensible or logical explanation for this: even the official FEMA report stated that even their best theory had a low probabilility of occuring. Before further research could be carried away all the evidence was removed from the site.
Also, I’m not sure why you think it is a “ridiculous” idea that the government was involved in 9/11 when it has been stated on-record by the Project for a New American Century (inc. Wolfowitz and co) that:
“A new Pearl Harbour would greatly increase the speed of the process we have set in motion” (paraphrased)
Relic: That Popular Mechanics article was written by the cousin of the Secretary for Homeland Defense. It is a propaganda piece featuring several pieces of wrong information, most glaringly the complete falsification of the history of air intercepts in the USA. The article claims there has only ever been ONE case (Pain Stewarts plane going off course) when in reality there have been hundreds in the past few years. Anyway, if you consider who wrote it the motivation behind it becomes clear and the strawman arguments are easily identified.
Alex Jones considers it a “hit piece” and dealt with it on his show.
Wouldn’t be the first time US authorities had seriously contemplated behaving in such a way 1984 … during the 1950s-60s, US intelligence agencies were pushing hard for the implementation of “Operation Northwoods”, essentially a plan to instigate terrorist attacks against US cities, highjacking passanger airplanes, sinking cuban refugee ships, etc, in order to blame Cuba (or Cuban sympathisers) and thereby provide the justification for taking military action against Cuba. The only reason this didn’t actually HAPPEN was due to resistance from the then Democrat US administration.
To find out more, just do a Google search for “operation northwoods”, and see what comes up [or you can view the original Joint Chiefs of Staff document outlining the pretext/ outline plan for this Operation @ public-action.com/911/northwds.pdf ].
Thanks for that info foo fighter, but if you look just above the part of my previous post that you quoted you’ll see it says how I have no problem accepting that elements of the U.S. Government are capable of deciding to carry out such a horrific attack on their own people. So your info is very interesting but doesn’t change my view of the potential of the U.S. Government, and for that matter many other Governments.
To anyone: If you assume then that 9/11 was U.S. planned and executed, why are most of the public so willing to accept the official version of events? And i’m not making this point as a criticism against the conspiracy theorists, just interested in people’s views on public manipulation.
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
My father, for example, will not even take the idea seriously because he believes it is so far-fetched. The idea of the American government being just as ruthless and cold as the regime of Saddam Hussein is just not even compatible with his worldview. The news, the papers, none of these have featured open debate about the events of 9/11. All there has been has been constant repetition of the official version of events, with connections established in people’s minds: 9/11 = terrorists = arabs = Afghanistan = Iraq
Of course never mind that most of the supposed hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, it is all power structures. The people that run the media would never dream of running a special on operation northwoods because they are ‘in’ on the situation. Well, George Orwell probably explains how it is done a lot better than I ever could. I mean Doublespeak is now blatantly occuring: an act that tears up the US Constitution now goes under the name of “The Patriot Act”. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
Although I highly doubt that the United States carried out the events of September 11th, 2001. The reason why such a mainstream idea of it like that is gobbled up is because it is right there in front of us. Even when there is other evidence it might not even get published because of fear.
The day has come! A respected scholarly journal has finally decided to blow open the 9/11 Scandal. In the current issue of The Journal of Psychohistory you’ll discover facts like these that show who caused 9/11:
How Cheney set up his own Command Center the day before 9/11and was controlling hijacking drills that morning.
How these hijacking drills that drew Air Force jets away were called ‘just a coincidence’ by Bush.
How the Air Force was told to ‘stand down’ and not to intercept the terrorist planes though they had scrambled automaticlaly the previous 67 times.
How seismographs show it was a massive explosion in the basement of the WTC that brought the buildings down.
How cameras show the WTC towers were actually detonated,blowing outward, not just collapsing.
How photos show only a 13-foot hole in the Pentagon through which the 124-foot wide plane supposedly crashed.
How several Pentagon employees said they ‘saw No Evidence of any debris of a plane’ after the crash.
How the FBI collected all the surveillance photographs within minutes after the crash and won’t release them.
How some 9/11 families are suing Bush for $7 billion citing testimony from those who helped cause the crashes.
How Rumsfeld said the terrorist crashes were ‘a blessing in disguise.’
My friends, those of us in the 9/11 Truth Movement already know these things.
But that the Journal of Psychohistory would see fit to publish these facts is astounding and unprecedented.
Please, please get moving on this. Let the Journal Staff know that you are paying attention! Tell your friends! Gift them with subscriptions! (You’ll get the special issue on 9/11 free with a 1 year subscription at $29/year - half the regular rate. )
We are working to get separate copies of the 9/11 issue to make them generally available. Call the Journal to register your vote of confidence!
Write the editor, Lloyd deMause to commend him on his courage!
I think a lot of this conspiracy stuff is a lot of bullshit. The people who write books about these conspiracies make a lot of money for it and its very easy to disprove a lot of their ‘evidence’. Im no saying that I dont think that the american government is full of greedy, corrupt pricks that should be shot, all I’m saying is that hatred for one side shouldnt draw you to the opposite extreme. Example: thenewamerican.com/artman/pu … 1253.shtml
This website explains a few of the wierd stuff, but there are plenty of such websites out there, probably a lot better then this one as well.
DePerc: that article didnt deal with the most serious 9/11 claims. For example it says:
They completely omit the fact that Building 7 of the WTC complex collapsed, despite not being hit by a plane at all. This is a hugely important piece of the 9/11 puzzle yet the article doesnt mention it at all. It was also of a comparable size to the Murrah building, which invalidates the approach they took above.
So the first steel tower in history to collapse as a result of fire collapses… ok that is an incredibly strange event and probably worth extreme scrutiny.
Then a second tower collapses…
And finally, later in the evening, Building 7 just collapses in on itself spontaneously.
I’ve read this kind of ‘de-bunking’ article before (“Popular Mechanics” did one) but to me they all fail to explain Building 7. Look up Building 7. And I know you apply scepticism to the conspiracy theories but you have to do the same to CNN and NBC too.
He was the loud cab driver that spoke through a bull horn.