[Closed] I remember when 911 was a type of Porsche...

Am I meant to believe that someone went to all the trouble of a conspiracy involving flying hijacked planes in to a number of different targets then blew up the building with a controlled explosion. Now if i was at the planning meeting the first thing I would have said is can we blow it up and make it look like we have not blown it up and make it look like it just fell over. I assume this is far easier than a controlled explosion. Cant beleive they managed to plan all this and overlook this point.

"This 911 stuff is really a surprise, as a chemist, and as someone who has heated many a steel thing in a fire, nothing that happened on that tragic day needed any extra "stuff"."
Steel thing in a fire, whoa spare me your technical mumbo jumbo, and give me it in laymans terms. I realise now how this argument hasn't been settled, they didn't consult a chemist.

People will be saying the moon landings were faked next.

j-cru...sorry for my NVQ4+ technobabble.....

ok here goes.

Big flying petrol can hits big metal and man-rock thing.
Petrol make metal bendy bendy hot hot....no no touchy.
Metal bend a bit.
man rock fall.

Bad bad things happen.

Now lets stop this crap and go to bed.

Quitter, I'm nightshift BTW

simonralli and other loons to the forum please....

😉

People will be saying the moon landings were faked next.

Don't get me started on the moon landings 😆 actually I couldn't care less about the moon landings, they were before my time but the're a few interesting theorys about.

Back on topic it amazes me the amount of people on here that blindly believe the official line on the 9/11 attacks, clearly the investigations were full of holes and hence the reason the conspiracy theorys started in the first place.

You don't have to believe them, just feel free to question everything that you see in the media. I tend to take everyhting with a big pinch of salt but I hear more plausable arguements from the conspiracy theorists than the official reports which are clearly aimed at non technical folk.

I've studied quite a few controlled explosions and what happened that day was not caused by a plane strike, just my opinion of course but quite a few of my fellow structural engineers agree.

clearly the investigations were full of holes and hence the reason the conspiracy theorys started in the first place.

Really? Such as?

What I have seen was quite plausible, well worked out by people who understand such things and no obvious holes

I've studied quite a few controlled explosions and what happened that day was not caused by a plane strike, just my opinion of course but quite a few of my fellow structural engineers agree.

And how many plane strikes on buildings of that type have you seen? 100 tonnes of high octane fuel involved

Lets see a quote from a reputable engineer who agrees with you.

It's been said many time on this thread it was the heat from the fire that caused the collapse, not the impact (but that didn't help). It seems you just want to believe what you want, not the most reasonable, logical explanation.

Weve already established that you are MIB TJ 8) 😆

I see your still trying to distract folks from the truth, have a watch of the Zeitgeist movie, there's quite a few credible sources in it.

I still can't find the really good article by one of the american engineering institutes, where have you hid it?

I'm off to bed before TJ comes round to try and erase my brain and I'm far too pished to be looking for credible sources at this time on a Saturday night.

Chill folks it's just a theory after all, you can choose to believe it or not.

"100 tonnes of high octane fuel involved"
28 tonnes max in a 757, which had taken off and flown for 40 minutes and wasn't full to the neck to start with and a lot combusted outside the building.

simonralli and other loons to the forum please.

Why are people that don't believe the official US Government line 'loons'?

By that token, are people that do 'mindless brainwashed sheep'?

It's been said many time on this thread it was the heat from the fire that caused the collapse, not the impact

No it hasn't. It's been said many times that people believe it was the heat that caused the collapse, but as there's no proof one way or another, then to suggest such a thing is surely as 'preposterous' as suggesting it was caused by controlled explosion.

So, you either believe the official enquiry (which had no real evidence to support it's claims), an enquiry commissioned by a corrupt and duplicitous government, using hand-picked 'experts' and 'witnesses', or you can choose to be sceptical. Isn't choice and freedom of thought a wonderful thing?

Baaaa!

[img] [/img]

it amazes me the amount of people on here that blindly believe the official line on the 9/11 attacks

clearly aimed at non technical folk.

You don't think the US administration at the time was capable and willing to commit such an act?

Christ no! Don't be ridiculous!

Back on topic it amazes me the amount of people on here that blindly believe the official line on the 9/11 attacks

As opposed to blindly believing the stuff put out by the conspirators?

Good grief.

Look, the idea that they would fly planes into buildings when they could just as easily bomb the damn things is just stupid. There are far too many things that simply wouldn't make a jot of sense for it to be a conspiracy.

If you really really want to hold onto some exciting plot line, why not imagine that US agents planted the idea in Al Qaeda, expedited visas so they could attend flight school, and suppressed intelligence of the impending attack. THAT is plausible, but completely without motive. Controlled explosion is not.

Come on - if you are going to use your imagination, at least try and come up with a reason why they'd have done it.

If you really want to look at odd facts about the twin towers, look how quickly they were built. Suspiciously fast.
Perhaps we should check out whether the original contractors were trying to cover something up?

Christ no! Don't be ridiculous!

Why not? The same administration steamed into Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost to ensure US Imperial interests. So why not take out a couple of buildings with a mere 3 or 4 thousand people in?

See, you make the mistake that believing such people are lovely and benign and humane and could not possibly perpetrate such an abominal act.

That, I find ridiculous. They're scum. The lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan are testament to this.

Yes they are right wing god fearing imperialist oil hungry war mongering pr1cks but even they have some morals /scruples
As mogrims said they may have "let" them to generate public will for the war but I would need to see some evidence of that.

Why not? The same administration steamed into Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost to ensure US Imperial interests

Uh, cos the lives lost were Iraqis not their own citizens so they don't couunt, and everyone likes a good scrap. And there was supposedly a reason for it ie WMD.

They are (or were) incompetent, blinkered, shallow, prejudiced, self-serving idiots in many ways, I agree. And the wars and so on are terrible and continue to be so.

Still doesn't make ANY sense though. You'd have to be utterly raving insane, and so would your entire administration, to plan something like that. I don't think anything that stupid has ever been done by ANY ruler in the entire history of humankind!

If there was a point or an advantage, or something to be gained, I might think it a little more likely.

but even they have some morals /scruples

No they don't. Not that Bush administration, anyway. O'barmy might be a little bit nicer, let's hope.

Do you know how the Bush family became so wealthy and powerful?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

And when you consider their links to Enron and all manner of dubious and dodgy organisations, imagining that they're capable of mass-murder isn't quite as incredible as it may first seem.

They're not interested in America, or Democracy, or Freedom; they're just words they use to gain the support of the gullible. And our lovely Tony was part of their duplicity, albeit a peripheral poodle.

Nah, bollocks. We live in a World today which is divided and paranoid, without real foundation. Because of scum like that lot. Suits them; they profit from it and gain even more power....

[img] [/img]

Uh, cos the lives lost were Iraqis not their own citizens so they don't couunt

Do you think the neo-cons really give two ****s for the majority of American citizens? They constantly oppose health care reform, and indeed anything that may benefit anyone but themselves. Remeber that documentary by Louis Theroux, in Philladelphia aka 'Crack City'? Just one of many examples where US citizens have ben neglected and forgotten by a regime that' simply didn't care about them. Unless you can make money, the Neo-Cons aren't interested. The lives few thousand people is nothing to people intent on nothing more thn ensuring their own wealth and power. Don't think they wouldn't do it to 'their own'? The people that were murdered aren't of any consequence to them.

Interesting how vehement the 'anti-conspiracy theorists' are on here. Almost as though they're trying to convince [i]themselves[/i]....

imagining that they're capable of mass-murder isn't quite as incredible as it may first seem.

Interesting how vehement the 'anti-conspiracy theorists' are on here. Almost as though they're trying to convince themselves....

I can not believe that the bush administation had enough competance or even luck to pull off such a feat bearing in mind the amount uncontrolled variables involved, not to mention the amount of witnesses that could have recorded some substantial evidence.

That said, I could except that following the TT attacks they shot down 93 and/or 77 & threw a rocket into the pentagon to try and cover up them shooting down their own civilian aircraft. That afterall would make some kind of twisted logic. Not saying thats what I think but out of all conspriracies thats the only one I could understand them trying to pull off

They have morals??? 😆

Google 'Bush Enron' to see just one example of what a bunch of ****s the Bush family are.

I sense doubt starting to creep into your minds. The more you delve into this evil regime, the more you can see that yes, they perhaps were capable of such an act.

Then, have a look at the Bush family connection with the Bin Laden family....

Penny starting to drop yet?

no
They have poor morals but they do stop short of acts of war on their own country...the one that they run.

no
They have poor morals but they do stop short of acts of war on their own country...the one that they run.

awwww... so cute and trusting..

they leaped to the help of the guys in [s]atlantis[/s] new orleans.. after about 10 days.. and they had little to gain financially by letting those people suffer.. they just couldn't be bothered to clear up a few dead.. err.. poor people of ethnic origin..

If they can be that contemptuous regarding the value of a human life in peacetime.. imagine the lengths they would go to for billions and billions of barrels of oil and an excuse with [i]full public support[/i] to go back and teach someone a lesson who 'didn't listen good enough when paw taught him..'

if you think that they are not insane or indeed capable of creating and executing such a dastardly and elaborate plan then I suggest that you weren't paying enough attention when watching X-files.. (or Michael Moores bit for that matter..)

seriously though.. I'm a bit baffled as to why any intelligent adult would believe one version of these tragic events any more strongly than another in the 21st century..

Not trusting but I tend to make my own decision based on the facts available to me. Highlighting a fictional tv series primarily based around aliens doesn't really strengthen your argument. I don't for one minute totally believe any sort of official statement but I'm also not going to believe any other theories that don't have evidence to back them up

Edit: lol you were joking about the files I see...

For the record I don,t think either side of the argument gives a definitive explanation

So ... what ... there is a third explanation that you will believe in? Or you just aren't capable of assessing the evidence in the nutter vs. non-nutter argument? In the absence of proof do you think it's reasonable to accept an argument that says that the US establishment went to a lot of trouble to concoct an extremely risky plot which killed umpteen people, and gained ... err ... nothing whatsoever except a shaky pretext to invade a dusty mountainous country and get a lot more people killed for no benefit?

No it hasn't. It's been said many times that people believe it was the heat that caused the collapse, but as there's no proof one way or another, then to suggest such a thing is surely as 'preposterous' as suggesting it was caused by controlled explosion.

apart from the proof that a massive airplane was filmed flying into the buildings and they were both quite clearly on fire.

regarding the point that people heard explosions, I can imagine there were plenty of items in a building like the WTC that could produce quite big explosions if they were heated up.
If the external structure was integral to the buildings engineering wouldn't these explosions have been on the outside of the building? therefore we would have seen them?

That said I am very open to the theory that 93 was shot down. and there is compelling evidence to suggest that the pentagon impact was caused by something over than a plane.

and gained ... err ... nothing whatsoever except a shaky pretext to invade a dusty mountainous country and get a lot more people killed for no benefit?

pay attention at the back please.. come along

I seem to have opened a can of worms here.

I still can't believe some of the supposedly intelligent people on here who ridicule several people myself included for even daring to suggest there might be some truth in the conspiracy theorys.

I'm flabbergasted at the blind faith they put in the official reports coming from the country with a very poor record in human rights, have they forgotten about Guantanamo bay and the countless amount of suspects they sent to Eastern Europe for torture, this is the same country that let thousands die in New Orleans even though they spend millions invading whichever country they fancy.

I wise man once said to me "Never trust a country which uses an Eagle for it's emblem" so thats the Romans, Germany and the good old USA to name a few.

Has everyone forgotten about the atrocities they committed in Vietnam, sending loads of thier own troops to die for no good reason. Hiroshima Nagasaki... attacking retreating troops as they left Kuwait... oh yes a really nice bunch of people the Americans.

Do I need to mention Cuba? Ecquador? The murder of Che Guevara?

The truth is out there people, don't believe what your governments tell you, watch a few different theories and make your own minds up, don't be a sheep or an osterich. It could be you in the next 9/11 style "shock and awe" excercise.

[url=

links [/url]haven't watched this one all the way through yet but it looks interesting, someone sent me it this morning.

I'm flabbergasted at the blind faith they put in the official reports

I notice that some of the most vehement supporters of the sanctioned press releases are also some of the most angry..

Maybe also the sort of people that went purple with apoplectic rage when John McEnroe first questioned the Wimbledon line judge..

ridicule several people myself included for even daring to suggest there might be some truth in the conspiracy theorys.

I'm flabbergasted at the blind faith they put in the official reports

don't believe what your governments tell you, watch a few different theories and make your own minds up, don't be a sheep or an osterich.

For the record I don,t think either side of the argument gives a definitive explanation

I am certain that any/all governments have lied to its citizens at some point , probably many points. Blair and the dossier , Major and talking to the IRA for example, maipulated situations to acheve their own goals and to set the agenda. However , even for the neo cons , it is some way from this to bombing your own country and there were far easier ways of achieving this like say a dossier and ignoring your population.

`

Filthy - Member

I seem to have opened a can of worms here.

I still can't believe some of the supposedly intelligent people on here who ridicule several people myself included for even daring to suggest there might be some truth in the conspiracy theorys.

You certainly have opened a can of worms.

And I still can't believe some of the supposedly intelligent people on here are prepared to spend time and effort arguing over this bollox.

And I also can't believe there's another 3 page thread asking "what were you doing on 9/11 ?"

[i]ffs[/i]

None of the examples you cite involve the government bombing their own country ...any examples of that in the free world?

The US offensive in Vietnam war was started via a device known as a "False Flag' incident. Read the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag ]Wiki link[/url] to familiarise yourself.

Although not exactly bombing themselves - that would be political, not mention legal, suicide - getting/allowing somebody else to do it is seemingly fair game and generally accepted (and ignored). Try a YouTube search for the USS Liberty for details of one of the most horrific.

One particularly famous 'False Flag' incident was the burning down of the German Reichstag. This "act of terrorism" was the device used to make the introduction of far-reaching and strict limits on personal freedom. In the words of Hermann Goering:

"[b]...it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.[/b]"

The attack on the WTC (and Pentagon) in 2001 is possibly the greatest known criminal act of this century. Do you know what the verdict of the criminal investigation was?

If you really wanted to fake a terrorist attact on the wtc, you could fly a plane into it OR blow it up, blaming terrorists each time. Why would you bother doing both?

Shirley the conspiracy theorists should put aside controlled demolition (even if the buildings had not fallen down it would still have been a collossal tragedy of huge international importance etc) and wonder:

-Was someone else behind or in support of the hijacking of the planes?
-If so, why did Bin Laden say it was all down to Al Quaeda?

Any wondering about how else the buildings fell down doesn't really get anywhere as the outcome of the tragedy was the same regardless of the means of demolition.

I know what a false flag is but you need to prove this was one rather than tell me about Nazi views and actions.

prove that it wasn't a false flag surely though before climbing upon a high horse and ridiculing those that are reserving judgement on the issue..

I know what a false flag is but you need to prove this was one rather than tell me about Nazi views and actions.

Nothing is proven. Almost a decade after the event, nothing has been proven; and, since the vast majority of forensic evidence has been turned into landfill, I suspect that nothing ever will.

yunki - its for the conspiracy theorists to show a shred of evidence that is credible that it was not as the official reports say.

Until they do its just laughable. I have yet to see a credible shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with the official report.

I have yet to see a credible shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with the official report.

And what about the criminal investigation? Do you see anything wrong with the criminal investigation?

Three fish. there is no credible evidence offered that he offical explanation is wrong. can you provide any evidence to refute the official explanation?

You didn't answer my question:

Do you see anything wrong with the criminal investigation?

three fish - nope

However that is not the issue. Even if I saw flaws in the criminal investigation there still remains the problem for the conspiracy theorists.

There is not a shred of evidence that the official line is not true. No credible evidence at all. Without that the conspiracy theories remain merely hot air.

hmm.. you are probably right TJ.. I will go as far as to fly in the face of popularity and say that you often are 🙂 But to dismiss the claims as laughable is a bit beyond my reckoning..

I'm not really too bothered about or genned up on the official enquiries or reports.. nor am I very interested in the details of the conspiracy theorists claims..

But with the high stakes of world politics.. oil.. and arms.. and everything we KNOW about our race since the dawn of time regarding how power corrupts.. I cannot let propoganda patriotism and piety cloud my judgement.. I certainly can't start relying on truth and justice to prevail..

And I'm just very surprised that others can be so easily convinced.. in fact I find it extraordinary..

three fish - nope

You don't see anything wrong with the criminal investigation?

yunki - its for the conspiracy theorists to show a shred of evidence that is credible that it was not as the official reports say.

TJ, what 'evidence' did the official investigation use? Samples that had been released by the US authorities. virtually all the debris was carted away at the earliest opportunity. No investigators actually visited the site until after this had happened. So, what evidence does the official report have to support it's findings? Eh?

If you have a crime scene, surely the first priority is to preserve the evidence in place, no? And utmost care taken to ensure that the evidence is not compromised. Well, that din't happen. I wonder why?

Then there's testimony from several architects, engineers, scientists etc that it is perfectly feasible that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions. Seismic data supports this.

Actually, if you want to learn how and why, there's plenty of info out there. I think the reals stumbling block for many people is the unwillingness to accept that a western government could do such a terrible thing; I mean, isn't that the kind of thing the evil foreigners do?

And what about the criminal investigation?

Answer that question...

This is just too stupid for words. I can't believe there's 4 pages of it.

If they wanted to have a controlled demolition, they could have just done that and claimed it was a car bomb. No need to bother crashing several planes as well.

As for the Pentagon - plane crashes into a building full of secret files. Is it any wonder they didn't want any Tom Dick and Harry wading through the wreckage?

The evidence the official investigation used is what was available. What evidence is there that it is wrong? come on - there must be some compelling evidence for you to believe it was a conspiracy - lets hear what it is.

The evidence the official investigation used is what was [b]made[/b] available.

IE, 'here you go you can use this bit'. Carefully selected samples. Yet there wasn't actually any conclusive proof that supported the claims of the official investigation.

And what about the [b]criminal investigation[/b]?

Come on. We're waiting....

The evidence the official investigation used is what was available.

I'll put you out of your misery, TJ: there was no criminal investigation. The most enormous crime of the century was not subject to a criminal investigation. That is the main reason why I do not believe the Commission's version of events; not to mention the fact that there are considerable scientific data and research that [u]casts doubt[/u] upon it. When science casts doubt upon science, the obvious response is to retest - not to say "you must be mad".

Three fish - what is this

considerable scientific data and research that casts doubt upon it.

No one has been able to present any. You appear to be privvy to it. Provide this please.

I'll put you out of your misery, TJ:

Ah come on, it was just getting fun! 😀

So, if there was no criminal investigation, then therefore it cannot be established that any crime took place. A criminal investigation would require far more time spent sifting through evidence, looking at facts, examining possible causes etc.

So basically, the official investigation was pretty pointless, just a token effort to attempt to appease the American people wanting answers. Doesn't seem to have worked, as much as the authorities had hoped. You now have millions of people demanding the truth, including scientists, engineers, eye witnesses, emergency crews etc.

So you lot that believe the official line, you place your unwavering faith in a report that has hardly any basis in fact? Little more than supposition and theories based on one perspective of events?

And you say the rest of us are barmy? 😯

Yes Elf. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary the official explanation is clearly correct. Anyone with any real knowledge or credibility supports the official line.

None of the conspiracy theorists have given a shred of credible evidence that the official explanation is wrong. Until you do so you remain unbelievable

The most enormous crime of the century was not subject to a criminal investigation.

At the peak of the case, more than half our agents worked to identify the hijackers and their sponsors and, with other agencies, to head off any possible future attacks. We followed more than half-a-million investigative leads, including several hundred thousand tips from the public. The attack and crash sites also represented the largest crime scenes in FBI history.

you place your unwavering faith in a report that has hardly any basis in fact?

All this being spouted on here reminds me of one of my favourite quotes

' The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light you shine on it the more it contacts.'

I am not suggesting any of you are bigots, but the point is nobody will change their view based on the arguments being offered.

Drop it, go outside, ride your bike, walk the dog that is far more important.

tron - Member

"If they wanted to have a controlled demolition, they could have just done that and claimed it was a car bomb. No need to bother crashing several planes as well."

This one for the win... Conspiracy theorists are quick to say building 7 was demolished but nobody ever comes up with a reason. They say the main towers were demolished but then why the planes? It's the conspiracy boy's elephant in the room, obviously for them it's enough to think "Oh, conspiracys are what governments do". It makes no sense so it's sensible to discard it. IMO of course 😉 Even if you believe the motivation, the method is ludicrous.

There are better and more entertaining, not to mention less grim, conspiracy theories to get tied up in. Some of them are great. This one's just a bit sad and hopeless.

Drop it, go outside, ride your bike, walk the dog that is far more important.

but...b..b..bu..but.. that is not the STW way..!!

what is this 'bike' that you speak of..?

There are better and more entertaining, not to mention less grim, conspiracy theories to get tied up in

Any other favourites?

FWIW, on the '9/11' one, it is my view that the most likely truth is that the planes were flown by terrorrerrorists and the towers fell down because they were hit by planes.

Anyone with any real knowledge or credibility supports the official line.

Who? There are plenty of credible and knowledgeable people who dispute the claims of the official report.

None of the conspiracy theorists have given a shred of credible evidence that the official explanation is wrong

Erm, they've offered their expert views and opinions based on the same evidence as those who produced the official report.

Where's the 'evidence' the towers were brought down purely as a result of two 'planes hitting them?

Eh? Eh?

The official report was produced using carefully selected 'experts'. D'you think they were ever going to produce anything that contradicted what the US regime wanted them to say?

Come on.

They say the main towers were demolished but then why the planes?

Well it makes some of you lot believe it...

elf - where is this evidence of a conspiracy then? I repeatedly asked the proponents to provide some and they have not.

No, where's the evidence that fully and unequivocally supports the official report first. Then we can deal with the 'conspiracy' theory.

Elf - wrong way round.

!) - the official report is the accepted truth with a lot of good evidence behind it. Most of the data is in the public domain.

2) Teh conspiracy theory needs to show it is more credible than the official reports. To do this it needs to have compelling evidence. lets hear some compelling evidence the official report is wrong.

The thing is that I can understand people's reluctance to accept the "official report", due to the chequered history over their validity i.e. the Kennedy assassination, the report into the invasion of Iraq, the recent BP findings into their own Gulf of Mexico disaster etc etc.

I actually am quite convinced that the Bush administration knew that the attacks were going to take place. Now I don't have any hard evidence for this, just a deep distrust of the man and his cronies. It kinda reminds me of the theory that Churchill knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbour beforehand, and did nothing, because he knew it would bring the USA into the war. However, I very much doubt that Bush would go the lengths of flying planes into the buildings, and undertaking a controlled demolition at the same time. But did they do anything to stop it? Not so sure...

What would be the point of conspiring to demolish the towers? I'm not sure what this could possibly achieve beyond the shock of having 2 jumbo jets flown into them. Even if the towers had withstood that, there would still have been many hundreds of innocent deaths and more than ample outrage in the general populace. Whether the towers stood or fell was pretty irrelevant, it was seeing the planes fly into them that is the enduring image.

lets hear some compelling evidence the official report is wrong

If the overwhelming evidence hadn't been buried or hidden then it wouldn't be a theory anymore and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The best argument against the conspiracy is the easiest one:

Do you honestly think that something this big could be covered/hidden by the Government never mind actually organised by them?!

Clinton couldn't even get a quiet blow job in his private office without the world finding out, how the hell can you think that hundreds of Government officials conspired to hijack 4 planes, to plant explosives in occupied buildings with no-one noticing anything? That not one of the hundreds of people who must have been in on it has actually blown the whistle. The Bush Administration couldn't have organised a piss-up in a brewery. Bush Jr ran an oil company for a while which went bust (bailed out by Daddy with no criminal charges ever brought). Yes they were corrupt, unbelievably stupid and not fit to run a bath never mind the worlds biggest superpower but that's all the more reason why the Administration couldn't have been in on it.

Look at the footage as events unfold, none of the officials have a clue what is happening or about to happen; Bush is in Air Force 1 circling hopelessly over Florida, White House staff are in the bunker - is that ALL acted? A very clever rehearsed play where they're all pretending not to understand or are they actually as dumbstruck as the rest of the world was. I'll go with answer 2 thanks.

It's probable that the whole truth hasn't been heard and probably never will be but believing the Administration organised it/let it happen to further it's own ends is preposterous.

It's very easy to label an administration as being "stupid", because it buries the the actual issues that underlie the problem and resolves us of any responsibility of doing anything about them. It's a bit like how people love to proclaim that all serial killers are "insane": It is easier than accepting that someone would actually want to commit those crimes, and ultimately relinquishes us of any collective responsibility.

I think the Bush admin. was perfectly capable of "letting it happen" to further their aims. I certainly don't think they planned it, I don't believe they carried out a controlled demolition, but I would not put it past them to have known about it in advance and did nothing to prevent it.

"If they wanted to have a controlled demolition, they could have just done that and claimed it was a car bomb. No need to bother crashing several planes as well."

This one for the win... Conspiracy theorists are quick to say building 7 was demolished but nobody ever comes up with a reason. They say the main towers were demolished but then why the planes? It's the conspiracy boy's elephant in the room, obviously for them it's enough to think "Oh, conspiracys are what governments do". It makes no sense so it's sensible to discard it. IMO of course Even if you believe the motivation, the method is ludicrous.

+1 to this.

Whenever something like this comes up, the pro-conspiracy types like to imagine that people who don't agree with them are mindless idiots ("sheeple" might get used here) who just believe whatever they've been told and don't apply any critical thinking or scepticism to it at all. Whereas for the most part I think people do think about it but they apply exactly the same critical thinking and scepticism to the conspiracy theories, and they are typically full of holes. They require the Govt (or whoever) to have simultaneously shown more competence than you might reasonably expect on past evidence, and at the same time left glaring bits of 'evidence'.

I doubt anyone on here thinks the official version is the last word on the subject, but that doesn't mean any ill-thought out gubbins has any credibility.

Exactly, the only facts here are:
Planes hit buildings and were brought down
Buldings caught fire
Buildings collapsed
Lots of people died.

The rest is just castle building in the sky without evidence.

[url= http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/ ]Structural engineers write about what happened[/url]
and
[url= http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov ]they also made a movie showing how the first plane damaged the building[/url]

Oh look more supposition and theory but no evidence.

[url= http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html ]However...[/url]

Thats the link I was looking for last night after a few bevvy's Elfin.

It seems we have about a 50/50 split sheeples and sceptics (cheers MrSalmon hadn't heard that one before) It has certainly caused a fair bit of debate anyway.

Elf and others - what's the motive?

Why do it?

It's possible that Bush would've faked a terrorist attack and murdered thousands for some nefarious gain, but what would that be?

Having no morals when it comes to lining your own pockets is one thing. I just can't work out what the point of any of it would be.

Elf and others - what's the motive?

To gain massive international support for the invasion of Iraq (to finish off what Bush snr din't), to impose US imperialism globally, to gain control of and undermine foreign oil markets, to create and then demonise the perceived 'enemy', to demonstrate US weapons products, to use the concept of Fear of Terrorism to impose stricter and stricter controls on public liberty, thus ensuring little effective opposition.

Oh look, it worked...

Worked in London too with Blair and the Bus bombings...

//opens another can of worms and runs for cover.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Effin......George Bush was the sort of guy who needed a proper reason for going to war.

Just one question though, why Afghanistan which had no oil, and not Saudi Arabia where the terrorists came
from ?

why Afghanistan which had no oil

control of the opium fields production has gone through the roof since they have been there

EDIT poppy fields or whatever it is they make smack out of

So George Bush was after increasing opium production then ?

Cunning.

To gain massive international support for the invasion of Iraq

Everyone knew that Iraq was nothing to do with Sept 11th except the idiot underclass (tounge in cheek alert).

I simply do not believe that anyone defined as other than clinically insane or delusional would hatch such a stupid plot. It just does not make any sense at all. Even for an amoral evil politician. People just don't work that way. For start, the risks involved would have been utterly astronomical. If found out you'd basically go down in history only one step down from Pol Pot and Hitler. Canny politicians just DO NOT do stuff like that!

One the one had you've got a totally plausible situation with terrorists using easily hijackable planes as weapons - so plausible in fact that it's been in at least two novels. On the other, you've got one of the most stratospherically ludicrous and tenuous plots ever to have existed - if you wrote it into a film critics would have slammed it as just stupid.. so why on earth do you choose the latter?

It's a perverse kind of romanticism I think.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10311752 ]Why Afghanistan which has no oil?[/url]