Metro Jacksonville

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?

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.

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.

  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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg)   

 

Let's get out the tinfoil hats.

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.

(http://www.greatdreams.com/world_trade_center_after.gif)

Quote from: bobsim on September 11, 2012, 11:12:50 AM
  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 (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.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:18:41 AM
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.

(http://www.greatdreams.com/world_trade_center_after.gif)

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.

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.

Quote from: bobsim on September 11, 2012, 11:12:50 AM
  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 (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. 

Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 11:21:24 AM
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?

Quote from: Dog Walker on September 11, 2012, 11:23:49 AM
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?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 11:21:24 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: 77danj7 on September 11, 2012, 11:31:41 AM
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.

Here is some info about WTC 7.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278927

You also have to take into account the time that went by between when they knew it was a hijacking, to the first plane impact, and then the second plane hitting. It was quite a while (especially for the second impact). Something like 45 minutes?? Thats crazy.

I don't know if I buy that that would even be possible in the biggest country, with the biggest most advanced military, in one of the biggest cities in the world without some inside help.

Quote from: peestandingup on September 11, 2012, 11:37:36 AM
You also have to take into account the time that went by between when they knew it was a hijacking, to the first plane impact, and then the second plane hitting. It was quite a while (especially for the second impact). Something like 45 minutes?? Thats crazy.

I don't know if I buy that that would even be possible in the biggest country, with the biggest most advanced military, in one of the biggest cities in the world without some inside help.

It was only 17-18 minutes between the planes hitting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

Quote from: 77danj7 on September 11, 2012, 11:31:41 AM
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.

I'm sure we all empathize with the victims families or sympathize if you had you're own family or friends involved in the tragedy.  I really do, but this is our generation's version of the Kennedy assassination.  There are too many variables.  Today is a day of reflection, but we also need to be reminded of the possibility that all of these people were murdered by their own.

Sure, it can be neatly boxed and tied with a bow - Bin Laden planned a strike, executed, and then a decade later we invaded his country and killed the mass murderer.  I'm sure plenty find solace in the fact that this chapter is closed.

Or...

You can question the real motive behind it, ask questions and stay aware.  Personally, I didn't have any family or friends involved, so I'm able to have an unbiased, somewhat objective view.  I hate to think that our own government would do something such as this, but I'm also unable to wrap my head around the fact that, essentially, some religeous zealots from the desert were able to pull off such a feat.

 Adam W, I didn't mean to reply to your post, must have hit the wrong button.

  I just wanted to post some good data, not engage in an argument. I type slow and there's no way I can keep up with you folks.

 

Quote from: bobsim on September 11, 2012, 11:52:01 AM
Adam W, I didn't mean to reply to your post, must have hit the wrong button.

  I just wanted to post some good data, not engage in an argument. I type slow and there's no way I can keep up with you folks.

No problem! I think I might've just assumed you were addressing my post  ;)

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:49:32 AM

Quote from: 77danj7 on September 11, 2012, 11:31:41 AM
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.

I'm sure we all empathize with the victims families or sympathize if you had you're own family or friends involved in the tragedy.  I really do, but this is our generation's version of the Kennedy assassination.  There are too many variables.  Today is a day of reflection, but we also need to be reminded of the possibility that all of these people were murdered by their own.

Sure, it can be neatly boxed and tied with a bow - Bin Laden planned a strike, executed, and then a decade later we invaded his country and killed the mass murderer.  I'm sure plenty find solace in the fact that this chapter is closed.

Or...

You can question the real motive behind it, ask questions and stay aware.  Personally, I didn't have any family or friends involved, so I'm able to have an unbiased, somewhat objective view.  I hate to think that our own government would do something such as this, but I'm also unable to wrap my head around the fact that, essentially, some religeous zealots from the desert were able to pull off such a feat.

Jeez NRW... this stuff sounds kind of Bostech-ish.  Really??

QuoteThere 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.

What does "blown apart"mean?
Many of the witnesses IDed the planes as American or United...
The Pentagon is how many years old?  It is constantly being renovated...
At Altitude??  you mean like this??

Quotereports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low.” The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

Bin Laden said what?  You certainly can take that to the bank...

C'mon man...

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:49:32 AM

Quote from: 77danj7 on September 11, 2012, 11:31:41 AM
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.

I'm sure we all empathize with the victims families or sympathize if you had you're own family or friends involved in the tragedy.  I really do, but this is our generation's version of the Kennedy assassination.  There are too many variables.  Today is a day of reflection, but we also need to be reminded of the possibility that all of these people were murdered by their own.

Sure, it can be neatly boxed and tied with a bow - Bin Laden planned a strike, executed, and then a decade later we invaded his country and killed the mass murderer.  I'm sure plenty find solace in the fact that this chapter is closed.

Or...

You can question the real motive behind it, ask questions and stay aware.  Personally, I didn't have any family or friends involved, so I'm able to have an unbiased, somewhat objective view.  I hate to think that our own government would do something such as this, but I'm also unable to wrap my head around the fact that, essentially, some religeous zealots from the desert were able to pull off such a feat.

I have no problem questioning or whatever you call it...but there is plenty of time for that.  Even the Presidential campaigns are suspending their ads today because it's the one day we should just remember the loss of Americans...but I may just be biased since I have friends and family affected by this.

This thread is great. It lets me know which posters I shouldn't take seriously in other threads.

It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

At the heart of all of these conspiracy claims is the idea that a few anomalous or unexplained details can somehow totally undermine a properly reasoned and evidenced explanation. Then, with all those inconvenient facts and measured conclusions out of the way, the conspiracist is free to concoct his own narrative, starting with the conclusion and then working backward to prove it, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit. Invariably, conspiracists begin with the assumption that such a large-scale tragedy must have an equally large-scale cause, cycling in one or more of the classic go-to villains, such as "the government", the Jews, or the reptoids at the center of the earth to play the role.

Not everyone has the tools or faculties to recognize frauds and fallacious arguments. But it's deeply depressing to hear otherwise bright people fall for them, let alone promote them on a day like today.

As with a lot of theories/conspirecies I tend to ask myself who has something to gain and use the old addage "follow the money". There were a few interesting things that happened just days before 9/11 that involve suspected insider traiding.

Pulled from the Wiki Page.
Suspected insider trading

Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Authorities believed, and some conspiracy theorists continue to maintain, that trading insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that:

    A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.[70] â€"Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business

On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options. On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks.[71] American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses.[72]

Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps.[73]

Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day.[citation needed]

The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
I hate to think that our own government would do something such as this

Considering one of the most incompetent administrations ev-vah was in charge then makes it all the more the stuff of fantasy.  Even though Bush and Condo-sleeza were warned the previous month by the CIA that Bin Ladin was determined to strike in UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US) they still couldn't get it together to do anything.

Quote from: finehoe on September 11, 2012, 02:45:38 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:49:32 AM
I hate to think that our own government would do something such as this

Considering one of the most incompetent administrations ev-vah was in charge then makes it all the more the stuff of fantasy.  Even though Bush and Condo-sleeza were warned the previous month by the CIA that Bin Ladin was determined to strike in UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US) they still couldn't get it together to do anything.

LOL... just had to do it.  Could not help yourself...  I was waiting for it... and surprise!

Quote from: TPC on September 11, 2012, 02:39:37 PM
Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Authorities believed, and some conspiracy theorists continue to maintain, that trading insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly.

False:  http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

^ $5 Million dollars doesn't justify the lengths someone would have to go to coordinate the attacks of 9/11.  Bin Laden's family is already extremely wealthy (hundreds of millions), they wouldn't go to these lengths to increase their wealth by 5 million.

I watched about half of the loose change video today, and what Tacachale said is spot on.  The narrator starts with his a hole in the official story that is nothing more than conjecture, and then weaves his own narrative to fill the space, even though his explanation is equally shaky.  For example: 'people disagree what type of plane it was and the hole in the pentagon is smaller than it should be.... So it was a tomahawk cruise missile'.  Another instance is that he justified the 'explosions' in the building by stringing together some quotes of people saying they heard something that sounded like an explosion.... What do you think a plane slamming into a building would sound like?  In any situation, especially one as big and tangled as 9/11, if you go into it looking for a specific outcome, you will find things to support that outcome.  That doesn't mean that your outcome is correct.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
LOL... just had to do it.  Could not help yourself...  I was waiting for it... and surprise!

Of course, always aim to please.  ;D

One of the things we should "never forget" is how an evil and corrupt administration will think nothing of using a tragedy to further their own goals and how easily the American people will submit to limitations on their freedom in the name of security.

Quote

One of the things we should "never forget" is how an evil and corrupt administration will think nothing of using a tragedy to further their own goals and how easily the American people will submit to limitations on their freedom in the name of security.

Ain't that the truth.

One thing that should be 100% beyond question is that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as pretext for an invasion of Iraq - knowing full well that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And there is no excuse for that - no one should defend that.

Here's something that actually happened that day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=youtu.be

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 01:05:39 PM
reports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low.” The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

C'mon man...

Bridge, I'm working through your claims one at a time.  Where did you get this little nugget above?  I'm reading it from the 9/11 Commission Report and it varies a little, but you did skip one of the first sentences that precluded the entire conversation, "About five minute after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Offices in Cary, North Carolina via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight."

Sweeny was relaying the information to Michael Woodard in Boston, not Dallas.  Check page 5 & 6 of the attached report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Quote from: acme54321 on September 11, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
Here's something that actually happened that day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=youtu.be

  Enjoyed that, thanks.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 07:29:43 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2012, 01:05:39 PM
reports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low.” The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

C'mon man...

Bridge, I'm working through your claims one at a time.  Where did you get this little nugget above?  I'm reading it from the 9/11 Commission Report and it varies a little, but you did skip one of the first sentences that precluded the entire conversation, "About five minute after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Offices in Cary, North Carolina via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight."

Sweeny was relaying the information to Michael Woodard in Boston, not Dallas.  Check page 5 & 6 of the attached report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

An "airphone" is different from a typical cellphone.  Those airphones were built into the seatbacks and communicated via the aircrafts avionics systems.  That said... cell phone calls at "altitude" are completely possible...

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 11, 2012, 11:25:09 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 11, 2012, 11:21:24 AM
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?

In addition to Bin Laden's numerous admissions, there was this video:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2006/09/07/al-qaeda-tape.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2006/09/07/al-qaeda-tape.html)

I think it's safe to say Al Qaeda was responsible.

Anyway, Osama Bin Laden had actually admitted responsibility for the attacks -  so you'd have to accept his word, if you were willing to accept his word when he initially denied the attacks, no?

Quote from: PeeJayEss on September 11, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
This thread is great. It lets me know which posters I shouldn't take seriously in other threads.

Its (very) hard to believe that 19 suicide terrorists hijacked 4 of the largest planes in the world and destroyed
2 of the largest buildings ever built by man.

But they did.

Quote from: Dog Walker on September 11, 2012, 11:23:49 AM
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.

The 9/11 thing has been completely beaten into the ground.

There's so much misinformation, suppressed information, and illogical conspiracy that we'll probably never know exactly what happened.

That said, I really disagree with the above reasoning.

It completely ignores the countless secrets that nobody knows about because nobody has ever talked.

Perfect example is from the news this week.

The Russian government revealed that they are sitting on a diamond mine worth approximately $1 QUADRILLION dollars. The mine contains trillions of carats of diamonds totaling over ten times the amount ever discovered in the world. Forbes noted that it could completely upend the global diamond market.

The Russian government has been successfully keeping this information secret for OVER FORTY YEARS before choosing to release the details this week. If they didn't volunteer the information, who knows how long it would have remained a thing of conspiracy.

I agree that it's a faulty leap of logic to ignore widespread eyewitness accounts (yes, I know eyewitnesses testimony isn't always accurate) and say that a missile hit the Pentagon simply because the hole doesn't seem to match an aircraft, but on the same account, it's also a faulty leap of logic to suggest that secrets -- especially with incredibly high stakes -- can never be kept.

That some other people kept some other, unrelated secret is irrelevant. It certainly doesn't undermine all the evidence and reasoned conclusions about the 9/11 attacks. Especially considering that very few people ever knew about the diamond mine until now, to the point that no one really knows how significant it really is, while 9/11 happened in broad daylight in front of thousands of people, and has been studied closely ever since.

Quote from: KenFSU on September 18, 2012, 11:31:16 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on September 11, 2012, 11:23:49 AM
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.

The 9/11 thing has been completely beaten into the ground.

There's so much misinformation, suppressed information, and illogical conspiracy that we'll probably never know exactly what happened.

That said, I really disagree with the above reasoning.

It completely ignores the countless secrets that nobody knows about because nobody has ever talked.

Perfect example is from the news this week.

The Russian government revealed that they are sitting on a diamond mine worth approximately $1 QUADRILLION dollars. The mine contains trillions of carats of diamonds totaling over ten times the amount ever discovered in the world. Forbes noted that it could completely upend the global diamond market.

The Russian government has been successfully keeping this information secret for OVER FORTY YEARS before choosing to release the details this week. If they didn't volunteer the information, who knows how long it would have remained a thing of conspiracy.

I agree that it's a faulty leap of logic to ignore widespread eyewitness accounts (yes, I know eyewitnesses testimony isn't always accurate) and say that a missile hit the Pentagon simply because the hole doesn't seem to match an aircraft, but on the same account, it's also a faulty leap of logic to suggest that secrets -- especially with incredibly high stakes -- can never be kept.

The Russian diamond mine isn't a conspiracy, and the fact that the mine held diamonds does not require the complicity of hundreds of people. A couple scientists working for the Kremlin discovered it, and the Kremlin decided to keep their findings classified. There's no complexity at all.

Top it off with fantastically bad reporting. The quadrillion dollars thing is ludicrous as is the assertion that it will upend the global diamond market. They state that the diamonds are industrial quality. We can produce these in a lab for less than it takes to mine for them, so no matter how many you find, you can't get them cheaper than you already can. What they have is value in the ground, but the cost to get those diamonds out of the ground would be larger than the value.

Anyway, doesn't help prove that anything happened on 9/11 other than what has been reported.

Nowhere did I, or am I, suggesting that 9/11 didn't take place exactly as stated.

Was just pointing out the flawed nature of the "secrets can't be kept by more than 3 people" argument, because it's an illogical argument that cannot be tested due to the very nature of secrecy itself.

I'm a sucker for the facts.

An NIST report detailing the weakening of the steel structure of the World Trade Center due to fire before ultimately buckling and collapsing is a fact. You can use that to build a logical argument.

"It's impossible for people to keep secrets" is not.

Diamonds are not especially rare.  For more than a century, the powerful DeBeers Consolidated Mines, a South African corporation, has managed to organize a cartel restricting the supply of diamonds on the market and raising the price far above what would have been market levels.

It is not simply that DeBeers mines much of the world's diamonds; DeBeers has persuaded the world's diamond miners to market virtually all their diamonds through DeBeer's Central Selling Organization (CSO), which then grades, distributes, and sells all the rough diamonds to cutters and dealers further down on the road toward the consumer.

There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

When the government is controling the investigation into what happened, you are likely to get an outcome that the government wants. Sort of like the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which prompted the Invasion of Iraq. By golly we were shown hi =def pictures of the weapons on neat power point demonstrations. 
Problem is, once the troops got over there we never even found 1. 

Don't you folks remember the charter document of the 'New American Century' neo-con crack pots, in which they hope for a new "Pearl Harbor " type event that will allow them to reshape American  Foreign Policy? Isn't that real evidence? And then, two short years later, it actually happens?

Finally, don't you remember, W and Dick Cheney would only testify before the 9-11 commission if the did not have to take an oath, and only if they appered together. Can someone please explain to me why those two did that?

Quote from: MusicMan on September 19, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
When the government is controling the investigation into what happened, you are likely to get an outcome that the government wants. Sort of like the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which prompted the Invasion of Iraq. By golly we were shown hi =def pictures of the weapons on neat power point demonstrations. 
Problem is, once the troops got over there we never even found 1. 

Don't you folks remember the charter document of the 'New American Century' neo-con crack pots, in which they hope for a new "Pearl Harbor " type event that will allow them to reshape American  Foreign Policy? Isn't that real evidence? And then, two short years later, it actually happens?

Finally, don't you remember, W and Dick Cheney would only testify before the 9-11 commission if the did not have to take an oath, and only if they appered together. Can someone please explain to me why those two did that?

Was the 9/11 Commission Investigation thorough and effective? Absolutely not. The Commission Chair and Vice-Chair said as much in their book, basically admitting that they were stonewalled by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon every step of the way and apologizing to the American public for their failure with the investigation. Then again, you can't really expect much of an investigation when you're given $1 million to work with, less than a year to complete the most important investigation in modern US history, and denied access to much of the information you need to accurately do your job with the investigation.

Did the Bush Administration act, from day one, like they had something to hide? Sure. Even if they were being completely honest about everything, who can blame anyone for doubting them or thinking they were acting suspicious, especially after the WMD fiasco. They blocked the investigation for over a year. Cheney personally called members of Congress supporting an investigation, threatened them, and labeled them unpatriotic. Bush used his first words in front of the United Nations to say "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks." Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, or seperately.

Did the attacks provide Bush and his political/military/intelligence cronies a convenient green light to push forward with military plans that dated back to his father's time in office, possibly back to Iran-Contra? Of course they did.

To me, if I was suspicous of the official story, the much more logical conspiracy theory would then point toward the administration having foreknowledge that the attacks were coming (which they did), and intentionally turning a blind eye. There is some pretty intriguing evidence that the FBI was called off from its pursuit of Mohammed Atta, and that the training exercises taking place the morning of 9/11 that confused air traffic controllers and made it difficult for military fighter jets to respond in time to the hijackings were ordered from high within the Bush admin. Secrety of Transportation Norman Minetta had some interesting testimony as well that Cheney knew that a plane was headed for the Pentagon and ordered a stand down.

This could explain their unwillingness to cooperate with an investigation, but then again, so could the fact that they wanted to cover up their gross imcompetence.

It's just so hard to make heads or tails of anything with so much conflicting information out there.

What I don't understand though, is this. If we all know that there was ample warning from both our own domestic intelligence, and foreign intelligence as well, that an attack was imminent, which conspiracy theory would make more sense for people to jump on? A conscious stand down executed by 5-10 people, or a massive conspiracy involving missiles, shot down airplanes, controlled demolitions, remote controlled planes, fake cell phone calls, phony engineering reports, etc orchestrated by thousands of people?

Rather then the typical theories, IE:Pearl Harbor attacked the Japanese Fleet, Kennedy murder was a Mafia Hit, and Elvis, JFK, Marilyn Monroe and Adolph were seen on a Nazi U-Boat off the coast of Ponte Vedra singing, 'Love Me Tender...' Check out the stellar quality of the contractors and the materials that slapped these spindly buildings together. You won't have to be an expert to realize the quality of the product was something far short of 'Made in China.'

QuoteA section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Something to keep in mind:  Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Team: 17 of 24 Advisors Are Bush Neocons

Veterans of the Bush/Cheney administration “pepper” Romney’s foreign policy team and the so-called “Cheney-ites” are winning the GOP presidential nominee’s ear.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/romneys-team-starts-to-look-like-bushs/?page=all

Quote from: MusicMan on September 19, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)
Please stop.

Quote from: KenFSU on September 19, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Nowhere did I, or am I, suggesting that 9/11 didn't take place exactly as stated.

Was just pointing out the flawed nature of the "secrets can't be kept by more than 3 people" argument, because it's an illogical argument that cannot be tested due to the very nature of secrecy itself.

I'm a sucker for the facts.

An NIST report detailing the weakening of the steel structure of the World Trade Center due to fire before ultimately buckling and collapsing is a fact. You can use that to build a logical argument.

"It's impossible for people to keep secrets" is not.

It's a totally different context and caliber of supposed "secrets". The Russian mine was never widely known and it's still not clear how significant it really is. On the other hand, 9/11 was witnessed by thousands, and millions more on TV, and has been exhaustively studied for 11 years.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on September 19, 2012, 11:53:53 AM

Quote from: MusicMan on September 19, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)
Please stop.

This is falling back on the fallacy that one error, or a point perceived to be an error, can completely undermine all other evidence and reasoning. Not only is that line of thinking faulty, this isn't even an error to begin with. The general consensus in the engineering and structural mechanics communities (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf) is that the towers, including Tower 7, fell due to the impact and fires from the plane crashes. This has been studied extensively in the linked paper and other peer-reviewed articles, as well as by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/) and Popular Mechanics (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/debunking-9-11-myths-david-dunbar/1102179282?ean=9781588165473&r=1&ugrp=2&if=N&cm_mmc=Skimlinks-_-k186085-_-j12871747k186085-_-Primary&), as I discovered in the first few minutes of googling.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on September 19, 2012, 11:53:53 AM

Quote from: MusicMan on September 19, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
There is more than enough "evidence" disputing the 9-11 Commission findings to support a serious, independant, re-examination of what happened. The single largest piece of evidence is the demolition of building WTC 7. When
1000 demolition experts review the actual film ("real evidence") of the actual building free falling (more "real evidence")  onto the streets of New York and UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT THE BUILDING WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS, YOU HAVE ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE ANY SANE RATIONAL HUMAN NEEDS.

The important question is who put the explosives in place, and why? When the owner of the building looks right into a camera and states "We've decided to "pull" the building," what the hell do you think he's talking about?

That thing about 1000 demo experts is just plain untrue. And "pull" is not used in demolition to signify "blow up," though it makes sense that it might have something to do with pulling firefighters out of a building because it is on fire and broken to bits.

All your idiotic WTC 7 bs is explicitly debunked right here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)
Please stop.

I pulled a muscle in my shoulder a couple of weeks back. My Doctor told me it wasn't a big deal, but maybe it's actually a big conspiracy.

QuoteAE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

Can 9/11 truth history be made in a simple building like the Horsham Magistrates’ Court?
On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit
Professor Niels Harrit, Ph.D, led the team of scientists that discovered thermitic material in the WTC dust
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell
Former UK intelligence official Tony Farrell has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story, and has been granted 3 hours to present the 9/11 evidence in a UK court of law.
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects

Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing â€" the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.
The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET
For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk

That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

Quote from: Adam W on February 17, 2013, 03:49:33 AM
That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

Thank you for that summation, your Hono(u)r.

I think we can just forward your statement above to the high courts and just be done with this little complaint.  Nothing more to see here, move along.

More of this crap? Nothing will come of this conspiracist ranting, just as nothing has come of it before.

Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

QuoteIt's crystal clear to the untrained eye

Key words... "untrained eye"... :o ::)

Quoteand all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree.

In fact... the exact opposite is true... ::) :o

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 17, 2013, 10:40:51 AM

Quote from: Adam W on February 17, 2013, 03:49:33 AM
That article is ridiculous. It is written to make it sound as if the BBC is being put on trial. It isn't.

A guy didn't pay his TV licence and he got caught. And he is being taken to Magistrates' court. Apparently he has chosen to base his defence on a theory that he is not required to pay his licence fee because the BBC is not fulfilling its obligations. I doubt it will fly. In fact, I know it won't. The judge will probably not even give him three hours. But even if he does, it will be simply a matter of: Do you have a television?

Thank you for that summation, your Hono(u)r.

I think we can just forward your statement above to the high courts and just be done with this little complaint.  Nothing more to see here, move along.

High court? Not even.

All the Magistrate is going to do is listen to whether or not he has a valid reason for not having to pay a TV licence. The issue of whether or not the BBC is upholding its end of the bargain is something that is far outside the remit of that court.

The licence is required by law. If this guy has a problem with the quality of BBC's programming, the proper route is to file a complaint with OFCOM, not refuse to pay his TV licence.

Even if the court were to listen to all these "experts" and conclude that the documentaries in question were factually deficient, they would still have to show that the BBC intentionally misled the public. And even if they did that (which they wouldn't be able to do, because there is no way they would have any evidence of that), they still wouldn't be able to show that he didn't have to pay his TV licence. Because maybe the BBC violated its charter. So what? Complain to OFCOM.

And besides, paying the licence fee is not funding terrorism - that link is ludicrous. The BBC is not a recognised terrorist organisation (at least not in the eyes of the UK government or any other government), so again, the guy hasn't got a prayer.

He's an idiot.

Quote from: MusicMan on February 17, 2013, 11:18:28 AM
Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

We're not talking about the Kennedy assassination. My issues with 9/11 conspiracy "theorists" has nothing to do with whether or not the US government endorses a particular version of events. It has to do with people finding small bits they don't understand or pieces of the puzzle that may be missing and then forming entire stories or *ahem* "theories" to explain the missing bits. But these stories are never supported by facts - it's always conjecture.

I'd believe that WTC7 was brought down by explosives if there was actually any evidence that the building was actually brought down by explosives.

Everyone's an armchair expert nowadays apparently. Not saying whether it was or wasn't a coverup, how would I know? How would any of us really know?? You don't. All we can do is ask questions & try to make sense of the information that we've been given/allowed to see.

Here's a breakdown of the official story & the inconsistencies. This was from 2007, so maybe some of the info is old now or been proven true/false? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=40m8s

Quote from: Adam W on February 17, 2013, 11:38:38 AM

Quote from: MusicMan on February 17, 2013, 11:18:28 AM
Adam and Tacachale,

Where do you guys stand on the Warren Commission report on the asassinantion of JFK? I assume you believe every word of it, since it is the official report of the US government. 

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives? It's crystal clear to the untrained eye, and all the demolition professionals who have seen the footage agree. I mean, it's right there for anyone to see: the building was brought down, it did not fall perfectly into it's own footprint because of a small fire burning on a few floors.

Why not post the video footage so any one interested enough can see for themselves? Or at least post a link to Youtube showing the building falling.

We're not talking about the Kennedy assassination. My issues with 9/11 conspiracy "theorists" has nothing to do with whether or not the US government endorses a particular version of events. It has to do with people finding small bits they don't understand or pieces of the puzzle that may be missing and then forming entire stories or *ahem* "theories" to explain the missing bits. But these stories are never supported by facts - it's always conjecture.

I'd believe that WTC7 was brought down by explosives if there was actually any evidence that the building was actually brought down by explosives.

What he said.

Quote from: peestandingup on February 17, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
Everyone's an armchair expert nowadays apparently. Not saying whether it was or wasn't a coverup, how would I know? How would any of us really know?? You don't. All we can do is ask questions & try to make sense of the information that we've been given/allowed to see.

Here's a breakdown of the official story & the inconsistencies. This was from 2007, so maybe some of the info is old now or been proven true/false? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk&t=40m8s

I suppose that qualifies as "a" breakdown of sorts, unfortunately it's a pretty absurd one even compared to typical truther nonsense. For one thing, there's no "official story", or at least not one particular official story. For another, singular "inconsistencies" in the widely accepted account of events don't derail the entire thing even if there's something to them (for the most part there isn't). And they certainly don't prove the various conspiracy theories to be somehow correct or plausible.

Looks like our 9/11 conspiracy theorist was found guilty of not paying his TV licence. What's more, the judge stated he had no authority to make a ruling under the Terrorism Act. Hmm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html)

Gotta love these ongoing Pandora's Box type threads...

Quote from: I-10east on February 28, 2013, 04:45:14 PM
Gotta love these ongoing Pandora's Box type threads...

Well, I only think it's fair to post the follow up to the article that was posted a few weeks ago. I knew this would happen - it's akin to trying to introduce 9/11 "evidence" at a hearing to contest a traffic ticket.

Since no one else bothered to follow up on the story, I thought I would. I guess the truth hurts a bit too much for the more paranoid types.

Us paranoid types like to wrap the warm assurance of our conspiracy theories around our minds so that we can feel superior to all of those of you who don't know the "real" truth.

I think there is definitely an element of that, DW.

When I find myself thinking they're out to get me, I remind myself that they just wanted to destroy evidence contained in WT7 and then I sleep a little more easily. When coupled with opiates, counting sheep can also keep the black helicopters at bay.

I do find it comical when people claim to understand "what's really going on". Much like I giggle when people demonstrate a willingness to accept a spoon fed narrative.