The truth behind 9/11?

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)

Just ask “who stands to benefit?”

Alex Jones was on Waking Life. :smile: He was the loud cab driver that spoke through a bull horn.

popularmechanics.com/science … page=1&c=y

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!

ncte.org/about/awards/counci … 106868.htm

This site has got a good list of modern doublespeak language.

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.

You are correct but fortunately there are exceptions. This from: thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3108

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:

  1. How Cheney set up his own Command Center the day before 9/11and was controlling hijacking drills that morning.
  2. How these hijacking drills that drew Air Force jets away were called ‘just a coincidence’ by Bush.
  3. 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.
  4. How seismographs show it was a massive explosion in the basement of the WTC that brought the buildings down.
  5. How cameras show the WTC towers were actually detonated,blowing outward, not just collapsing.
  6. How photos show only a 13-foot hole in the Pentagon through which the 124-foot wide plane supposedly crashed.
  7. How several Pentagon employees said they ‘saw No Evidence of any debris of a plane’ after the crash.
  8. How the FBI collected all the surveillance photographs within minutes after the crash and won’t release them.
  9. How some 9/11 families are suing Bush for $7 billion citing testimony from those who helped cause the crashes.
  10. 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!

Please, Please Do Not Let This Slide.

The Journal of Psychohistory
140 Riverside Drive New York, NY 10024
telephone: 212-799-2294
email: psychhst@tiac.net
website: www.psychohistory.com

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.

Well Bush is certainly a good actor if the consipracy stuff is true. Watching his actions and demeanor after he gets told the news is sccccary. He just looks like a frightened little kid who realises he’s in over his head and wants some help.

Well yeah, he’s a politician! His role is to play the idiot president and he’s great at it. Doesnt hurt that he is actually an idiot. But I think he clearly knows a lot more about the situation than he lets on. He’s looking more and more sheepish these days…

This conpiracy stuff is all pretty interesting, but lets not forget that America has the worst ways of broadcasting news in the entire world. It’s biased, censored, twisted non information…maybe a ‘conspiracy theory’ is inevitable with their ways of spreading information.

Well, Im didnt really do a proper search or anything, its just that ive been fooled by stupid conspiracy theories before so im far more skeptical about them now. But i do agree that its a possibility that the president was involved and such, i just like to be skeptical in this kind of thing towards BOTH sides. Trust me, I am anything but a george bush fanboy.

rense.com/general65/911m.htm (go to the site for more in-depth coverage of this story, including pictures)

Three days after 9/11, The Albuquerque Journal interviewed Demolition Scientist Van Romero.

Explosives Planted In Towers New Mexico Tech Expert Says

By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears “too methodical” to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that.”

Latest high-profile advocate of the so-called ‘conspiracy theory’:

By Greg Szymanski – Artic Beacon June 12, 2005

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is ‘bogus,’ saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling,” said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s ‘next to impossible’ that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

“It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7,” said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

“More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right.”

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today’s security state’ remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

– Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning…

–When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

–The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

–FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

–Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”

– Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

– The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

– WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

– WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

– In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. “may be the smartest thing to do is pull it,” slang for demolish it.

– It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it “lost 80 percent of its strength,” or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II.”

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

“First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not,” said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

“On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that ‘beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.’ Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.”

After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

“In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground,” said Reynolds. “Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.”

My b/f downloaded some homemade video showing conspiracy.

Even though the events were truly tragic and I sympathize with all those families that felt losses regardless of how it happened. Some things just don’t jive with everything the government is saying.

One of my favorites is the plane crashing into the Pentagon. First of all, where the heck were the F16’s. That’s restricted air space. I don’t even think you could fly a kite within a mile of the place. Anyhow this video, and when I get home tonight I’ll try and get it’s title, showed footage from a parking lot across from the Pentagon. You never saw any part of a plane.