how much truth is there in any of this?
two of my mates are utterly brainwashed with it all,i mean there must be some truth int it here n there,american goverment wise.??

Who knows! I hate the way our government pander to the Americans, I think its disgusting what they are doing to that computer hacker by extraditing him to America just because he showed up how crap their security is. They should be giving him an award not trying to punish him.

exactly,

my mate was just pointing out how lax security at heathrow was by bringing that cocaine back from his holiday – they should give him an award.

muppet.

Didnt think you would of been interested in all that conspirecy theory stuff Marcus

No muppet,smuggling drugs is illegal, looking at "pictures of ufo's" isn't.
If some bloke who's not quite the full ticket, living a bed sit can walk in to pentagons systems then its there own fault for being slack.
What did he do? he didn't steel anything, he didn't damage or corrupt anything.

Theories are not allowed to circulate on the internet unless they have been rigorously verified by teams of "fact checkers". So essentialy, everything you read on the internet is absolutely true.

This is true even of things which at first blush seem highly implausible, like the fact that the world trade centre was in fact destroyed by Zionist missiles disguised as passenger planes using holographic cloaking while the actual passenger planes which went missing were hidden in a hollowed-out mountain in Nevada by the CIA on the orders of a lizard-being from another dimension so that America would start a war with Iraq leading to a marked increase in the price of tomato ketchup (which was what the lizards wanted all along). As I say, if it's on the internet, it must be true, even if it's unlikely.

No smoke without fire – also see Zeitgeist & Zeitgeist Addendum for an alternative view of the world. Branding something a conspiracy theory used to be a lazy blank dismissal of the non-mainstream view of the world … but these films actually make you look at the world in a whole new way – and it's quite liberating!

It's all across the road in Area 52

and it's quite liberating!

If you like reading more or less total rubbish dressed up with some slightly plausible information, a dash of bullshit, a smattering of carefully selected facts and some clever marketing.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're self propagating – anyone coming up with information that discredits the theory is immediately lablled as being part of the cover up.

For the same reason that people believe their horoscope butdont beleieve the Big Bang Theory.

Shuuussshh! They're listening in!!

Has anyone noticed the increase in pirates since 9/11?

What grieves me is that this guy is being punished for showing them up. If he has Asperger's the likelihood of his seeing any further than his interest in UFOs or whatever is highly remote. It is very common for people with Aspergers to have what are called "special interests", subjects they get to know intimately, dissect, analyse then move on to the next one. These obsessions may last years or months but there is rarely any malicious intent, they just don't operate on the same social level that we do. My son has Aspergers; when he was young we were becoming very concerned at his lack of friends or inability to function in a social setting but the team who were helping us went to great pains to explain that this was our problem, not his. There is often no need for a social circle outside their own minds and they are quite happy to live in their own little world. It is against this background, along with the lack of malicious intent that the US Gov't are being shown up for what they really are…. bullies.

(That the UK Gov't is playing Crabbe or Goyle to their Malfoy is just embarrassing.) – Sorry, we went through a Harry Potter phase a while ago and it has kind of stuck. 🙂

Spanishbarry who are you i wonder?
no i aint really,like i said two of mi mates are taken in by it all.

crazy-legs : cuts both ways, just because a theory or point of view does not conform to the governments-wouldn't-do-that-officially-sanctioned-newinternational norm by branding it a self propagating conspiracy theory doesn't make it untrue!

Honestly, have you not watched any of these and thought to yourself 'even if this is only 10% true then holy crap'? No? Jeez – no wonder that banks and governments are able to take the p!ss so much, coz nobody is home!!

I've found myself arguing on the side of both 9/11 conspiracy theories (the arab conspiracy and the govt conspiracy – conspiracy doesn't = shit) and there's plenty on both sides that you can class as:

more or less total rubbish dressed up with some slightly plausible information, a dash of bullshit, a smattering of carefully selected facts and some clever marketing.

I have my own opinion, but every argument has a counter argument, they've all been rehearsed and repeated ad finitum, and it's very difficult to get anywhere unless you're speaking to someone who has done an awful lot of reasearch and analytical thinking about the facts. (and the people who seem to me to fit this bill more often are those on the so-called "truth" side e.g. David Ray Griffin)

3 buildings all collapse as in a perfect demolition from an "attack"?

something don't add up

A lot of the conspiracy theories appear to require an exceptional degree of planning and control by governments (or other groups), combined with near perfect control of information and the people involved. That's what makes me suspicious of the alternative versions of real events. Good in films but outside of Hollywood?

I suspect the truth, especially for the New York attacks, is more likely to involve governmental incompetence at a huge scale, followed up by bodged attempts to hide aspects of the truth leading to the impression of a conspiracy. Governments telling the whole truth, unlikely, but conspiracy on the scale required for a moon landing hoax or hiding passenger planes. I suspect not?

Honestly, have you not watched any of these and thought to yourself 'even if this is only 10% true then holy crap'? No? Jeez – no wonder that banks and governments are able to take the p!ss so much, coz nobody is home!!

By analogy if I made a film explaining why you were a paedo for example, would you wonder wow! what if only 10% of this is true? 🙂

I don't know of many "perfect demolitions" that kill 3,000 people and destroy neighbouring buildings.

Sothey planned the whole conspiracy that well but did not realise that allowing

3 buildings to all collapse as in a perfect demolition from an "attack"

would not give it away ….how short sighted of them….but for that oversight they may have gotten away with it?

Perfectly rational amd reasonable explanations of how this occured. Not like building were designed to withstand being hit by passenger planes full of fuel now is it?

Midgebait I think has hit the nail on the head.

Whenever you suspect a carefully planned and precisely executed conspiracy, try fitting the situation with incompetence instead.

Possibly a good example of this is the woe that is falling on the RC church in Ireland at the moment. It could look like a paedo conspiracy, but it's more likely to be as a result of panicked people of inadequate moral fibre trying to cover up to protect their positions.

the biggest problem with conspiracy theories of this ilk is that they rely on the notion that the government or authority in question is staffed by loyal, competent and motivated staff.

having worked in government this is patently not true.

3 buildings all collapse as in a perfect demolition from an "attack"?

something don't add up

I'm not one for 'conspiracy theories', but that one does intrigue me. How did the third World-Trade-Centre building collapse so neatly without the influence of a plane hitting it?

I'm not one for 'conspiracy theories', but that one does intrigue me. How did the third World-Trade-Centre building collapse so neatly without the influence of a plane hitting it?

There was a programme on it, it's been screened a couple of times actually. Panorama or Horizon, one of those sort of things. Explained it very well, had a mix of views from conspiracy theorists, government people, a demolitions expert, eyewitnesses etc.

It was to do with the way the structure was built, the way the debris hit it and the subsequent big fire. But the most telling bit was some senior Government bloke saying "do you *really* think the Government is competent enough to pull off a stunt like that, without anyone knowing about the plans, with no leaks and actually get it to work?"

The massive fire probably had something to do with it and I think fire fighters were a bit busy that day to deal with it.

Occam's razor innit 🙂

I dont believe in conspiracy theories about 911 or the Princess Di Bollo@ but one thing about 911 that concerns me if that is the right word is that my mate a Major in the Brit Army at the time had a friend who worked in one of the towers and he worked for the US Secret Service, he met him on a course in Washington and so was not waffling, apparently they had an office in one of the towers, on that day none of the Secret Service bods turned up for work at that office. !!!! Thay cannot all have been throwing a sickie.

I'm not one for 'conspiracy theories', but that one does intrigue me. How did the third World-Trade-Centre building collapse so neatly without the influence of a plane hitting it?

There was a programme on it, it's been screened a couple of times actually. Panorama or Horizon, one of those sort of things. Explained it very well, had a mix of views from conspiracy theorists, government people, a demolitions expert, eyewitnesses etc.

It was to do with the way the structure was built, the way the debris hit it and the subsequent big fire. But the most telling bit was some senior Government bloke saying "do you *really* think the Government is competent enough to pull off a stunt like that, without anyone knowing about the plans, with no leaks and actually get it to work?"

Also it would be a bit of a howler wouldn't it- demolishing a building without organizing a plane to fly into it first? You'd be setting yourself up for just the question Aristotle is asking, so why do it?

That's the thing with the conspiracies- they simultaneously require an unbelievable amount of complex organisation and some astonishing oversights.

Another vote for Occam's razor, although I agree with midgebait that it's unlikely that the official version of events is the whole story.

MrSalmon – Got to agree, the Governments of the World cannot even run day to day mundane stuff without it appearing in the paper and someone whistleblowing, i think in the case of 911 they definately had a good idea what was planned most likely they knew the targets but you cannot head off every eventuallity. Case in point in the Princess Di case and the characters that say she was taken out, look how many complexities would have to be in place to pull that stunt off, what would have happened if she had put her seat belt on for a start … the week before she was in the sea swimming, far more plausible excuses for someone drowning that getting taken out in an RTA in the centre of the capital of France..

I didn't say that it was 'the government wot done it' and it would have taken a very effective bunch of civil servants to do so.

An airliner full of fuel hitting a tower is very significant and could cause a lot of damage. A fire in a building is somewhat less out-of-the-ordinary.

Granted,a fire on multiple floors is probably unusual, but it is still intriguing/of concern that a series of fires (fuelled by office paper?) could bring down such an enormous building.

Maybe such buildings didn't have enough of a safety factor built into them? Surprising and intriguing, but that doesn't automatically mean that it was done by world-ruling lizards.

the amount of people you would need logistically to be involved in an event of that size (bringing down two of the most recognised buildings in the world in the busiest city in the world) would run into the thousands – you can't tell me in todays world where almost everyone wants to get famous/noticed/money there wouldn't be one person who would come out with "the truth"

Everyone has an opinion on 9/11, from what i've seen Loose Change and all those films make for a compelling arguement, but then sadly the people behind them are interviewed and just come across as argumentative nuts who beleive so firmly in a dark spectre behind it all that any sensible argument is denounced by them even when its backed up with scientific evidence.

Were the US government complacent due to their ego and did they take measures just in case something did happen on that day that they more than likely had notification that something might happen – probably

Did they get caught with their pants down – most definately

Did they use it as an excuse to depose Saddam Hussein, a man that the bush administration have a score to settle with – hell yeah

Were the US government behind the 9/11 attacks and make it look like the work of islamic terrorists – no

The WTC was designed with an aircraft strike in mind – being so close to several airports it had to be. The aircraft however was a 707 and they did not factor in it being full of fuel.

The aircraft that hit the WTC might look like 707's but they were in fact bigger and also carried plenty of fuel. The heat of the fires probably had little to do with office paper and more to do with burning jet fuel!

The WTC was also built without asbestos and used poorer quality fire proofing. Lots of burning jet fuel at high temperatures plus inadequate fireproofing plus lots more floors above equals building collapse.

I think this has been covered by enough TV programs now that even I can remember the basics!

No plane hit the Pentagon though did it? I mean, really?!.. the early pictures show basically no damage – no plane, no hole. Where did it go?

You don't have to believe the whole conspiracy to notice that it doesn't quite add up. And then you have to think 'if there's some fibs, what else?'

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg

The Pentagon cannot have been hit by a plane, because if it had been there'd have been an enormous hole shaped like a plane in the wall.

The world cannot be round, because if it was people would fall over.

🙂

Elvis, on the grassy knoll, using a high intensity stobe light?

The world IS round because all the evidence makes it a fact.

A plane hit the pentagon because you were told it did despite the distinct lack of evidence to support it.

🙂

BiggDummy y' say?

the early pictures show basically no damage – no plane, no hole.

The early pictures show a plane-fuselage-shaped hole, with bits of plane debris scattered over the lawn. The wings folded back on inpact – not surprising for light aluminium structures hitting a reinforced concrete building.

See this video for a demonstration of what happens when an (admittedly smaller) aircraft hits an (admittedly even more solid) concrete wall. Keep a close eye on the wingtips 🙂

Indeed. A large number of things "don't add up" if your preconceptions about how addition works are wrong.

🙂

No plane hit the Pentagon though did it? I mean, really?!.. the early pictures show basically no damage – no plane, no hole. Where did it go?

You don't have to believe the whole conspiracy to notice that it doesn't quite add up. And then you have to think 'if there's some fibs, what else?'

What doesn't add up is why, as a conspirator, you'd arrange for planes to fly into the towers but then for the Pentagon think "let's just use a missile and say it was a plane- who'll notice?"

I think it's more likely that the effect of a plane being flown into a building at ground level is not what you might think.