9/11 - Conspiracies Abound.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

To be completely honest, I am a conspiracty theorist regarding 9/11. 

I haven't completely made up my mind either way, but there is plenty of evidence supporting both viewpoints. 

There were explosions going of that mimic those heard in demolition.
The lobby was blown apart well before many of the firefighters arrived - the planes struck between the 93rd-99th on tower 1 and 77th-83rd on tower 2.
The planes that were video taped did not have the markings (none), colors (gray) of the size of the planes AA11 & AA175 that left the runways.
The area of the Pentagon that was hit had just been recently renovated (fortified) and wasn't fully staffed.
The amount of cellphone calls and the fact that they were being made at altitude from Flight 93.
Bin Laden immediately refuted the claims that he or Al Queida were involved in the attacks.

These are just some, and there are 'expert' opinion that both support and refute these and most other theories regarding the tragedy. 

I have an open mind on this, but I lean to the nefarious - that our government carried out self-terrorism for it's own purpose. 

What do you think?

[Captain Zissou]

The way that the third building collapsed was very peculiar, but in general I do not believe the conspiracy.  I agree that there is some evidence supporting both sides, but I need a more credible source than a youtube video to confirm that the government plant such a horrible act.  All I have seen that really supports the conspiracy theory is the loose change vieo, and that is not enough.

[Adam W]

There is actually very little evidence to support any of the conspiracy "theories." What there is, is holes in the official story or questions. And then these conspiracy "theorists" use that as "evidence" of a conspiracy.

Just because you have questions about the size of the hole in the Pentagon, for example, doesn't mean the US Gov't flew a drone into the building. And just because it's weird that the third WTC building collapsed, even though it wasn't hit, doesn't mean the US Gov't imploded it.

I'm not saying the US Gov't wasn't involved. They may have been. I don't know that the official story is 100% correct or true. But you need actual evidence in order to support an alternate theory, not just conjecture based on things that seem hard to understand or unexplained and your own prejudices about the Gov't or other groups.

[bobsim]

  There is a group of architects and engineers who have come together to refute the NIST report of the three building collapses at ground zero. I have to say these folks bring up some good points. They agree that the building failures could not happen under the conditions of impact and fires and point out flaws in the investigation.

  I do subscribe to Brasscheck. I'm not an extremist but I feel the mainstream media is at the very least influenced by big business and government. I think when a group of professionals form to comment on a controversial topic relative to their trade it's worth watching.

  The problem I have is that it makes good sense to me. To believe it I would have to deal with the possibility that we have people in office and branches of government that could commit something this heinous. That's hard.

  This is a short version of the video, I believe it was on PBS recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg   

 

[fsquid]

Let's get out the tinfoil hats.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I just find it extremely ironic how all three towers fell in the style of a controlled demolition - after being hit close to 1,000 ft in the air.  Hell, Tower 7 wasn't even hit.  It was also the the outermost tower of the site, yet it held some of the most sensitive information of all of them.

[Adam W]

  There is a group of architects and engineers who have come together to refute the NIST report of the three building collapses at ground zero. I have to say these folks bring up some good points. They agree that the building failures could not happen under the conditions of impact and fires and point out flaws in the investigation.

  I do subscribe to Brasscheck. I'm not an extremist but I feel the mainstream media is at the very least influenced by big business and government. I think when a group of professionals form to comment on a controversial topic relative to their trade it's worth watching.

  The problem I have is that it makes good sense to me. To believe it I would have to deal with the possibility that we have people in office and branches of government that could commit something this heinous. That's hard.

  This is a short version of the video, I believe it was on PBS recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg   

Bob-

My point isn't that there aren't issues with the "official story" re that building. But there's a huge jump from saying the official story about how the building fell is flawed (or "it couldn't have happened that way") to saying "it was imploded by US Gov't agents.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the latter statement.

[Adam W]

I just find it extremely ironic how all three towers fell in the style of a controlled demolition - after being hit close to 1,000 ft in the air.  Hell, Tower 7 wasn't even hit.  It was also the the outermost tower of the site, yet it held some of the most sensitive information of all of them.

So maybe Al Qaeda blew them up. Who knows? Until someone offers actual evidence to show that someone actually imploded them (as opposed to speculation), I will have no choice but to accept the simplest explanation.

[Dog Walker]

Any group larger than three cannot keep a secret especially in a high profile case.  Any conspiracy theory that requires more than three people is bunk.

Recent Ben Ladin book is a perfect case.  Somebody's going to talk.

[carpnter]

  There is a group of architects and engineers who have come together to refute the NIST report of the three building collapses at ground zero. I have to say these folks bring up some good points. They agree that the building failures could not happen under the conditions of impact and fires and point out flaws in the investigation.

  I do subscribe to Brasscheck. I'm not an extremist but I feel the mainstream media is at the very least influenced by big business and government. I think when a group of professionals form to comment on a controversial topic relative to their trade it's worth watching.

  The problem I have is that it makes good sense to me. To believe it I would have to deal with the possibility that we have people in office and branches of government that could commit something this heinous. That's hard.

  This is a short version of the video, I believe it was on PBS recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg   

Those other architects and engineers are full of crap.
 
Simple version:  An out of control fire caused metal fatigue in the steel joists.  Eventually they deflected to a point where one or more floors failed.  Even the undamaged floors below the fires were not designed to handled the impact of one or more floors above it collapsing onto it so they failed as well. 

The sheer number of people that would need to be involved in a conspiracy to commit an act such as this would make it impossible to undertake.  You could not keep something like this secret, there are just too many people involved. 

WTC7 also had out of control fires burning in it for several hours caused by burning debris from the other towers.  Its structure eventually failed as well. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So maybe Al Qaeda blew them up. Who knows? Until someone offers actual evidence to show that someone actually imploded them (as opposed to speculation), I will have no choice but to accept the simplest explanation.

RE:  Simple Explanations and Evidence

What actual evidence is there that Al Queda did it?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Any group larger than three cannot keep a secret especially in a high profile case.  Any conspiracy theory that requires more than three people is bunk.

Recent Ben Ladin book is a perfect case.  Somebody's going to talk.

http://www.youtube.com/v/4EPEtOVI2X0?

http://www.youtube.com/v/mx8IJoRL6cE?

[Adam W]

So maybe Al Qaeda blew them up. Who knows? Until someone offers actual evidence to show that someone actually imploded them (as opposed to speculation), I will have no choice but to accept the simplest explanation.

RE:  Simple Explanations and Evidence

What actual evidence is there that Al Queda did it?

I believe the FBI or some other US law enforcement agency identified who hijackers were within a relatively short period of time (weeks, I think) and linked them to Al-Qaeda. I think you may know this. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'd hope maybe you'd accept Osama Bin Laden's word. He admitted responsibility for the attacks, eventually.

[77danj7]

We could just let today be about the victims and the brave people that risked it all to rescue so many and talk about conspiracies the other 364 days of the year.

[Adam W]

We could just let today be about the victims and the brave people that risked it all to rescue so many and talk about conspiracies the other 364 days of the year.

Or we could all just get over it and move on.