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!

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

yes it amazes me when people dont agree with me 😯

clearly aimed at non technical folk.

Yes I also think people who disagree with me know less than me 😉
Scepticism is a great thing but doubting all we hear from our media would be wise if we lived in China or North Korea.
You dont need holes for people to see a conspiracy, the starting point is too automatically doubt everything "authority" says and then look for the holes afterwards.

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….

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 **** 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 themselves….

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

Thought they did this to the Arabs [said that American way] and us via friendly fire but not by bombing their own citizens- see they have morals. If caught they would have lost everything, weakth power, status etc and there are far safer ways of achieving this goal – see Blair and dossier for example.

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

You read your own posts?
We agree they are scum but that does not mean they did this.

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 **** 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 atlantis 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 full public support 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.

Missing links 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

Hold on a minute I thought we were ridiculing you 🙄
None of the examples you cite involve the government bombing their own country …any examples of that in the free world?

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.

Yes I will stay open minded like you thanks for the lesson. Have I moved to China or North Korea overnight? Perhaps you should take them to court with all the evidence you have and help me open my eyes to the truth that is out there?

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

These look mutually exclusive to me. Either they DID or they DID NOT do it. So one account is actually correct.

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 ?"

ffs

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 Wiki link 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:

"…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."

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?